Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023/01/18 - Regular Meeting Agenda PacketMayor L. Dennis Michael Mayor Pro Tem Lynne B. Kennedy Members of the City Council: Ryan A. Hutchison Kristine D. Scott Ashley Stickler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETING AGENDA January 18, 2023 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730  FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCIL HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY CLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETINGS        COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to conclude the meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the City Council.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be found at https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas or by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 909­774­2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3). Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City Clerk Services Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be posted on the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas. CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.   TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM  ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                         Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy                         Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS JENIFER PHILLIPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES; ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; AND NOAH DANIELS, FINANCE DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 AND FIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP. (CITY/FIRE) D2.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHN GILLISON AND ELISA COX, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC ; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. (CITY) D3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229­​131­​27; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR CO., OWNER; REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. (CITY) D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF 8TH STREET LYING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 8TH STREET, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JASON WELDAY, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND VICTOR LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT AND RAIL REPRESENTING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) D5.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0227­121­55 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ADDRESS 7092 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RICHARD HAMM, REPRESENTING PELICAN COMMUNITIES, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS B1.Presentation on How Hands­Only CPR and AEDS can Save Lives. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,857,973.41 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,835,548.04 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023, and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of December in the Total Amount of $1,851,863.17. (CITY/FIRE) D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $11,969.55 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023. (CITY/FIRE)​ D3.Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of December 31, 2022 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2022. (CITY) D5.Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Funds to Purchase Equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY) D6.Consideration of an Agreement with Providence II Arte Apartments, LLC for Partial Funding for the Widening of Hermosa Avenue and Revised Parking Management Plan for the Arte Apartment Complex, and Finding the Agreement and Revised Parking Management Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY) D7.Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, Located on the East Side of Carnelian Avenue, North of Hillside Avenue, Submitted by New Weaver Lane, LLC. (CITY) D8.Consideration to Order the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 Related to Case No. DRC2021­00026, Located at 6724 Pasito Avenue. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­001) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­002) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­003) (CITY) D9.Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for the Development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook to be Reimbursed from State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues. (CITY) D10.Consideration of the Purchase of Network Virtualization and Security Software in the Amount of $169,760 and Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with VMware in the Amount of $144,800 for Implementation Services. (CITY/FIRE) D11.Consideration of an Increase to Public Works Contract No. 2021­049 for Southern California Sound Image in the amount of $476,750 for the Audio­Visual Upgrades in City Facilities, and to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $310,710. (CITY) D12.Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contribution to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association Bargaining Unit. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­004) (CITY) D13.Consideration of a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions to CALPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2023 ­001) (FIRE) D14.Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting the Part­Time City Positions Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022­23. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­006) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION E1.Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Public Hearing for Consideration of Appeals Identified as DRC2022­00445 And DRC2022­00449 of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review DRC2019­00850 – Island View Ventures, LLC, Applicant ­ A Request for a Site Plan and Design Review to Construct a Mixed­Use Development Comprising 311 Residential Units and 16,000 Square Feet of Commercial Lease Area on 7.94 Acres of Land at the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed­ Use Urban Corridor (MU­UCT) Zone: APN: 0208­353­02. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­007 AND 2023­008) (CITY) G2.Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amending the Current Zoning Map with Various Technical Amendments; and the Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. 2023­005, Amending the General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments. The City has Prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261) for the Project. (ORDINANCE NO. 1015) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­005) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.Consideration and Discussion of Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. (Verbal) I2.Review of Appointments to Standing Committees, Boards and Other Governmental Agencies. (CITY) I3.Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) I4.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I5.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC , City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least 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 LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477­2700. 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.  CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.” Page 1 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottAshley Stickler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDAJanuary 18, 202310500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M.REGULAR MEETINGS        COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to concludethe meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the CityCouncil.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be foundat https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas or by contacting the CityClerk's Office at 909­774­2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on thisagenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City ClerkServices Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 CivicCenter Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be postedon the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas.CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy                        Council Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION D1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS JENIFER PHILLIPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES; ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; AND NOAH DANIELS, FINANCE DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 AND FIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP. (CITY/FIRE) D2.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHN GILLISON AND ELISA COX, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC ; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. (CITY) D3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229­​131­​27; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR CO., OWNER; REGARDING INSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAY NEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. (CITY) D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF 8TH STREET LYING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 8TH STREET, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JASON WELDAY, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND VICTOR LOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT AND RAIL REPRESENTING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) D5.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0227­121­55 COMMONLY KNOWN AS ADDRESS 7092 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RICHARD HAMM, REPRESENTING PELICAN COMMUNITIES, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY) E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS B1.Presentation on How Hands­Only CPR and AEDS can Save Lives. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,857,973.41 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,835,548.04 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023, and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of December in the Total Amount of $1,851,863.17. (CITY/FIRE) D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $11,969.55 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023. (CITY/FIRE)​ D3.Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of December 31, 2022 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2022. (CITY) D5.Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Funds to Purchase Equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY) D6.Consideration of an Agreement with Providence II Arte Apartments, LLC for Partial Funding for the Widening of Hermosa Avenue and Revised Parking Management Plan for the Arte Apartment Complex, and Finding the Agreement and Revised Parking Management Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY) D7.Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, Located on the East Side of Carnelian Avenue, North of Hillside Avenue, Submitted by New Weaver Lane, LLC. (CITY) D8.Consideration to Order the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 Related to Case No. DRC2021­00026, Located at 6724 Pasito Avenue. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­001) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­002) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­003) (CITY) D9.Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for the Development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook to be Reimbursed from State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues. (CITY) D10.Consideration of the Purchase of Network Virtualization and Security Software in the Amount of $169,760 and Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with VMware in the Amount of $144,800 for Implementation Services. (CITY/FIRE) D11.Consideration of an Increase to Public Works Contract No. 2021­049 for Southern California Sound Image in the amount of $476,750 for the Audio­Visual Upgrades in City Facilities, and to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $310,710. (CITY) D12.Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contribution to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association Bargaining Unit. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­004) (CITY) D13.Consideration of a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions to CALPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2023 ­001) (FIRE) D14.Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting the Part­Time City Positions Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022­23. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­006) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION E1.Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Public Hearing for Consideration of Appeals Identified as DRC2022­00445 And DRC2022­00449 of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review DRC2019­00850 – Island View Ventures, LLC, Applicant ­ A Request for a Site Plan and Design Review to Construct a Mixed­Use Development Comprising 311 Residential Units and 16,000 Square Feet of Commercial Lease Area on 7.94 Acres of Land at the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed­ Use Urban Corridor (MU­UCT) Zone: APN: 0208­353­02. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­007 AND 2023­008) (CITY) G2.Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amending the Current Zoning Map with Various Technical Amendments; and the Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. 2023­005, Amending the General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments. The City has Prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261) for the Project. (ORDINANCE NO. 1015) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­005) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.Consideration and Discussion of Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. (Verbal) I2.Review of Appointments to Standing Committees, Boards and Other Governmental Agencies. (CITY) I3.Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) I4.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I5.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC , City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least 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 LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477­2700. 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.  CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.” Page 2 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottAshley Stickler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDAJanuary 18, 202310500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M.REGULAR MEETINGS        COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to concludethe meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the CityCouncil.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be foundat https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas or by contacting the CityClerk's Office at 909­774­2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on thisagenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City ClerkServices Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 CivicCenter Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be postedon the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas.CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy                        Council Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS JENIFER PHILLIPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFHUMAN RESOURCES; ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; AND NOAHDANIELS, FINANCE DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDINGLABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP. (CITY/FIRE)D2.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91730 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHNGILLISON AND ELISA COX, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA;NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC ; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OFPAYMENT. (CITY)D3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHERIDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229­​131­​27;NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR CO., OWNER; REGARDINGINSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAYNEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF 8TH STREET LYING ON THENORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 8TH STREET,RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JASON WELDAY, DIRECTOR OFENGINEERING SERVICES REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND VICTORLOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT AND RAIL REPRESENTING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYTRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0227­121­55 COMMONLY KNOWNAS ADDRESS 7092 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATINGPARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RICHARD HAMM,REPRESENTING PELICAN COMMUNITIES, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Stickler A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA B. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS B1.Presentation on How Hands­Only CPR and AEDS can Save Lives. C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion with the City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,857,973.41 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,835,548.04 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023, and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of December in the Total Amount of $1,851,863.17. (CITY/FIRE) D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $11,969.55 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023. (CITY/FIRE)​ D3.Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of December 31, 2022 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2022. (CITY) D5.Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Funds to Purchase Equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY) D6.Consideration of an Agreement with Providence II Arte Apartments, LLC for Partial Funding for the Widening of Hermosa Avenue and Revised Parking Management Plan for the Arte Apartment Complex, and Finding the Agreement and Revised Parking Management Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY) D7.Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, Located on the East Side of Carnelian Avenue, North of Hillside Avenue, Submitted by New Weaver Lane, LLC. (CITY) D8.Consideration to Order the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 Related to Case No. DRC2021­00026, Located at 6724 Pasito Avenue. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­001) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­002) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­003) (CITY) D9.Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for the Development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook to be Reimbursed from State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues. (CITY) D10.Consideration of the Purchase of Network Virtualization and Security Software in the Amount of $169,760 and Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with VMware in the Amount of $144,800 for Implementation Services. (CITY/FIRE) D11.Consideration of an Increase to Public Works Contract No. 2021­049 for Southern California Sound Image in the amount of $476,750 for the Audio­Visual Upgrades in City Facilities, and to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $310,710. (CITY) D12.Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contribution to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association Bargaining Unit. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­004) (CITY) D13.Consideration of a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions to CALPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2023 ­001) (FIRE) D14.Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting the Part­Time City Positions Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022­23. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­006) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION E1.Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Public Hearing for Consideration of Appeals Identified as DRC2022­00445 And DRC2022­00449 of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review DRC2019­00850 – Island View Ventures, LLC, Applicant ­ A Request for a Site Plan and Design Review to Construct a Mixed­Use Development Comprising 311 Residential Units and 16,000 Square Feet of Commercial Lease Area on 7.94 Acres of Land at the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed­ Use Urban Corridor (MU­UCT) Zone: APN: 0208­353­02. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­007 AND 2023­008) (CITY) G2.Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amending the Current Zoning Map with Various Technical Amendments; and the Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. 2023­005, Amending the General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments. The City has Prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261) for the Project. (ORDINANCE NO. 1015) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­005) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.Consideration and Discussion of Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. (Verbal) I2.Review of Appointments to Standing Committees, Boards and Other Governmental Agencies. (CITY) I3.Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) I4.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I5.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC , City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least 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 LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477­2700. 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.  CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.” Page 3 --- MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottAshley Stickler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDAJanuary 18, 202310500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M.REGULAR MEETINGS        COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to concludethe meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the CityCouncil.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be foundat https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas or by contacting the CityClerk's Office at 909­774­2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on thisagenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City ClerkServices Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 CivicCenter Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be postedon the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas.CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy                        Council Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS JENIFER PHILLIPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFHUMAN RESOURCES; ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; AND NOAHDANIELS, FINANCE DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDINGLABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP. (CITY/FIRE)D2.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91730 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHNGILLISON AND ELISA COX, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA;NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC ; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OFPAYMENT. (CITY)D3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHERIDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229­​131­​27;NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR CO., OWNER; REGARDINGINSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAYNEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF 8TH STREET LYING ON THENORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 8TH STREET,RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JASON WELDAY, DIRECTOR OFENGINEERING SERVICES REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND VICTORLOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT AND RAIL REPRESENTING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYTRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0227­121­55 COMMONLY KNOWNAS ADDRESS 7092 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATINGPARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RICHARD HAMM,REPRESENTING PELICAN COMMUNITIES, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the CouncilChambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.COUNCIL CHAMBERSPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL:Mayor MichaelMayor Pro Tem KennedyCouncil Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDAB. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONSB1.Presentation on How Hands­Only CPR and AEDS can Save Lives.C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, SuccessorAgency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to addressthe Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinancingAuthority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits theFire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board,and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire ProtectionDistrict, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Councilmay receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by theMayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to beaddressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to themembers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected.Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in anyactivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of thebusiness portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topiccontained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for thesebusiness items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of theagenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour periodmay resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed.CONSENT CALENDARS:The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be actedupon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, andPublic Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion withthe City Council consent calendar. D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,857,973.41 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,835,548.04 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023, and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of December in the Total Amount of $1,851,863.17. (CITY/FIRE) D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $11,969.55 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023. (CITY/FIRE)​ D3.Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of December 31, 2022 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) D4.Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2022. (CITY) D5.Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Funds to Purchase Equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY) D6.Consideration of an Agreement with Providence II Arte Apartments, LLC for Partial Funding for the Widening of Hermosa Avenue and Revised Parking Management Plan for the Arte Apartment Complex, and Finding the Agreement and Revised Parking Management Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY) D7.Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, Located on the East Side of Carnelian Avenue, North of Hillside Avenue, Submitted by New Weaver Lane, LLC. (CITY) D8.Consideration to Order the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 Related to Case No. DRC2021­00026, Located at 6724 Pasito Avenue. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­001) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­002) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­003) (CITY) D9.Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for the Development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook to be Reimbursed from State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues. (CITY) D10.Consideration of the Purchase of Network Virtualization and Security Software in the Amount of $169,760 and Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with VMware in the Amount of $144,800 for Implementation Services. (CITY/FIRE) D11.Consideration of an Increase to Public Works Contract No. 2021­049 for Southern California Sound Image in the amount of $476,750 for the Audio­Visual Upgrades in City Facilities, and to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $310,710. (CITY) D12.Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contribution to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association Bargaining Unit. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­004) (CITY) D13.Consideration of a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions to CALPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2023 ­001) (FIRE) D14.Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting the Part­Time City Positions Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022­23. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­006) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION E1.Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Public Hearing for Consideration of Appeals Identified as DRC2022­00445 And DRC2022­00449 of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review DRC2019­00850 – Island View Ventures, LLC, Applicant ­ A Request for a Site Plan and Design Review to Construct a Mixed­Use Development Comprising 311 Residential Units and 16,000 Square Feet of Commercial Lease Area on 7.94 Acres of Land at the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed­ Use Urban Corridor (MU­UCT) Zone: APN: 0208­353­02. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­007 AND 2023­008) (CITY) G2.Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amending the Current Zoning Map with Various Technical Amendments; and the Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. 2023­005, Amending the General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments. The City has Prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261) for the Project. (ORDINANCE NO. 1015) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­005) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.Consideration and Discussion of Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. (Verbal) I2.Review of Appointments to Standing Committees, Boards and Other Governmental Agencies. (CITY) I3.Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) I4.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I5.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC , City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least 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 LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477­2700. 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.  CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.” Page 4 7 18 20 83 86 87 99 102 120 122 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottAshley Stickler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDAJanuary 18, 202310500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M.REGULAR MEETINGS        COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to concludethe meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the CityCouncil.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be foundat https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas or by contacting the CityClerk's Office at 909­774­2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on thisagenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City ClerkServices Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 CivicCenter Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be postedon the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas.CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy                        Council Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS JENIFER PHILLIPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFHUMAN RESOURCES; ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; AND NOAHDANIELS, FINANCE DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDINGLABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP. (CITY/FIRE)D2.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91730 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHNGILLISON AND ELISA COX, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA;NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC ; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OFPAYMENT. (CITY)D3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHERIDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229­​131­​27;NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR CO., OWNER; REGARDINGINSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAYNEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF 8TH STREET LYING ON THENORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 8TH STREET,RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JASON WELDAY, DIRECTOR OFENGINEERING SERVICES REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND VICTORLOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT AND RAIL REPRESENTING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYTRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0227­121­55 COMMONLY KNOWNAS ADDRESS 7092 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATINGPARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RICHARD HAMM,REPRESENTING PELICAN COMMUNITIES, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the CouncilChambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.COUNCIL CHAMBERSPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL:Mayor MichaelMayor Pro Tem KennedyCouncil Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDAB. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONSB1.Presentation on How Hands­Only CPR and AEDS can Save Lives.C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, SuccessorAgency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to addressthe Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinancingAuthority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits theFire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board,and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire ProtectionDistrict, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Councilmay receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by theMayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to beaddressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to themembers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected.Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in anyactivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of thebusiness portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topiccontained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for thesebusiness items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of theagenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour periodmay resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed.CONSENT CALENDARS:The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be actedupon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, andPublic Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion withthe City Council consent calendar.D. CONSENT CALENDARD1.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$1,857,973.41 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued toSouthern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,835,548.04 Dated December 19,2022, Through January 08, 2023, and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for theMonth of December in the Total Amount of $1,851,863.17. (CITY/FIRE)D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued toSouthern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $11,969.55 Dated December 19,2022, Through January 08, 2023. (CITY/FIRE)​D3.Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of December 31, 2022 forthe City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.(CITY/FIRE)D4.Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Reportfor 2022. (CITY)D5.Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice AssistanceGrant Funds to Purchase Equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY)D6.Consideration of an Agreement with Providence II Arte Apartments, LLC for Partial Funding forthe Widening of Hermosa Avenue and Revised Parking Management Plan for the ArteApartment Complex, and Finding the Agreement and Revised Parking Management PlanExempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY)D7.Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, Locatedon the East Side of Carnelian Avenue, North of Hillside Avenue, Submitted by New WeaverLane, LLC. (CITY)D8.Consideration to Order the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and StreetLight Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 Related to Case No. DRC2021­00026, Located at6724 Pasito Avenue. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction orConversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­001) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­002)(RESOLUTION NO. 2023­003) (CITY)D9.Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for theDevelopment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook to be Reimbursedfrom State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues. (CITY)D10.Consideration of the Purchase of Network Virtualization and Security Software in the Amount of $169,760 and Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with VMware in the Amount of $144,800 for Implementation Services. (CITY/FIRE) D11.Consideration of an Increase to Public Works Contract No. 2021­049 for Southern California Sound Image in the amount of $476,750 for the Audio­Visual Upgrades in City Facilities, and to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $310,710. (CITY) D12.Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contribution to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association Bargaining Unit. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­004) (CITY) D13.Consideration of a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions to CALPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2023 ­001) (FIRE) D14.Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting the Part­Time City Positions Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022­23. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­006) (CITY) E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTION E1.Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S) G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICT G1.Public Hearing for Consideration of Appeals Identified as DRC2022­00445 And DRC2022­00449 of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review DRC2019­00850 – Island View Ventures, LLC, Applicant ­ A Request for a Site Plan and Design Review to Construct a Mixed­Use Development Comprising 311 Residential Units and 16,000 Square Feet of Commercial Lease Area on 7.94 Acres of Land at the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed­ Use Urban Corridor (MU­UCT) Zone: APN: 0208­353­02. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­007 AND 2023­008) (CITY) G2.Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amending the Current Zoning Map with Various Technical Amendments; and the Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. 2023­005, Amending the General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments. The City has Prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261) for the Project. (ORDINANCE NO. 1015) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­005) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.Consideration and Discussion of Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. (Verbal) I2.Review of Appointments to Standing Committees, Boards and Other Governmental Agencies. (CITY) I3.Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) I4.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I5.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC , City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least 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 LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477­2700. 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.  CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.” Page 5 124 139 142 146 151 156 254 MayorL. Dennis MichaelMayor Pro TemLynne B. KennedyMembers of the CityCouncil:Ryan A. HutchisonKristine D. ScottAshley Stickler CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAREGULAR MEETING AGENDAJanuary 18, 202310500 Civic Center DriveRancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD – CITY COUNCILHOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY­ SUCCESSOR AGENCY – PUBLICFINANCE AUTHORITYCLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M.REGULAR MEETINGS        COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M.The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.  It Is the Intent to concludethe meeting by 10:00 p.m. unless extended by the concurrence of the CityCouncil.  Agendas, minutes, and recordings of meetings can be foundat https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas or by contacting the CityClerk's Office at 909­774­2023. Live Broadcast available on Channel 3 (RCTV­3).Any documents distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on thisagenda after distribution of the agenda packet will be made available in the City ClerkServices Department during normal business hours at City Hall located at 10500 CivicCenter Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. In addition, such documents will be postedon the City’s website at https://www.cityofrc.us/your­government/city­council­agendas.CLOSED SESSION – 4:30 P.M.  TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM ROLL CALL: Mayor Michael                        Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy                        Council Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTSD. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSIOND1.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS JENIFER PHILLIPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OFHUMAN RESOURCES; ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR; AND NOAHDANIELS, FINANCE DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDINGLABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 ANDFIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP. (CITY/FIRE)D2.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 91730 (RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHNGILLISON AND ELISA COX, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA;NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC ; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OFPAYMENT. (CITY)D3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHERIDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229­​131­​27;NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND ATCHISON TOPEKA & SANTA FE RR CO., OWNER; REGARDINGINSTRUCTIONS TO NEGOTIATORS CONCERNING PRICE. NEGOTIATING PARTIES MAYNEGOTIATE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SET FORTH ABOVE. (CITY)D4.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF 8TH STREET LYING ON THENORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND 8TH STREET,RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JASON WELDAY, DIRECTOR OFENGINEERING SERVICES REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND VICTORLOPEZ, DIRECTOR OF TRANSIT AND RAIL REPRESENTING SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYTRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)D5.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION54956.8 FOR PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0227­121­55 COMMONLY KNOWNAS ADDRESS 7092 ETIWANDA AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; NEGOTIATINGPARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RICHARD HAMM,REPRESENTING PELICAN COMMUNITIES, REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. (CITY)E. RECESS – Closed Session to Recess to the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:00 P.M. in the CouncilChambers at City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M.COUNCIL CHAMBERSPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEROLL CALL:Mayor MichaelMayor Pro Tem KennedyCouncil Members Hutchison, Scott and SticklerA. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDAB. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONSB1.Presentation on How Hands­Only CPR and AEDS can Save Lives.C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSMembers of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, SuccessorAgency, and Public Finance Authority. This is the time and place for the general public to addressthe Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinancingAuthority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits theFire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board,and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire ProtectionDistrict, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Councilmay receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by theMayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to beaddressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to themembers of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected.Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in anyactivity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of thebusiness portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topiccontained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for thesebusiness items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of theagenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour periodmay resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed.CONSENT CALENDARS:The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be actedupon without discussion unless an item is removed by Council Member for discussion.Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, andPublic Finance Authority and may act on the consent calendar for those bodies as part of a single motion withthe City Council consent calendar.D. CONSENT CALENDARD1.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi­Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of$1,857,973.41 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued toSouthern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,835,548.04 Dated December 19,2022, Through January 08, 2023, and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for theMonth of December in the Total Amount of $1,851,863.17. (CITY/FIRE)D2.Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued toSouthern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $11,969.55 Dated December 19,2022, Through January 08, 2023. (CITY/FIRE)​D3.Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of December 31, 2022 forthe City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.(CITY/FIRE)D4.Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Reportfor 2022. (CITY)D5.Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice AssistanceGrant Funds to Purchase Equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY)D6.Consideration of an Agreement with Providence II Arte Apartments, LLC for Partial Funding forthe Widening of Hermosa Avenue and Revised Parking Management Plan for the ArteApartment Complex, and Finding the Agreement and Revised Parking Management PlanExempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY)D7.Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, Locatedon the East Side of Carnelian Avenue, North of Hillside Avenue, Submitted by New WeaverLane, LLC. (CITY)D8.Consideration to Order the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and StreetLight Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 Related to Case No. DRC2021­00026, Located at6724 Pasito Avenue. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction orConversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­001) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­002)(RESOLUTION NO. 2023­003) (CITY)D9.Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for theDevelopment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook to be Reimbursedfrom State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues. (CITY)D10.Consideration of the Purchase of Network Virtualization and Security Software in the Amount of$169,760 and Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with VMware in theAmount of $144,800 for Implementation Services. (CITY/FIRE)D11.Consideration of an Increase to Public Works Contract No. 2021­049 for Southern CaliforniaSound Image in the amount of $476,750 for the Audio­Visual Upgrades in City Facilities, and toAuthorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $310,710. (CITY)D12.Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of EmployerPaid Member Contribution to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management AssociationBargaining Unit. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­004) (CITY)D13.Consideration of a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer PaidMember Contributions to CALPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire ManagementEmployees Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2023 ­001) (FIRE)D14.Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting the Part­Time City Positions Salary Schedulefor Fiscal Year 2022­23. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­006) (CITY)E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE(S) ­ SECOND READING/ADOPTIONE1.Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:ORDINANCE NO. 1014AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDINGSECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPALCODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ANDMAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIAENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACTF. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM(S)G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM(S) ­ CITY/FIRE DISTRICTG1.Public Hearing for Consideration of Appeals Identified as DRC2022­00445 And DRC2022­00449 ofthe Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review DRC2019­00850 – Island ViewVentures, LLC, Applicant ­ A Request for a Site Plan and Design Review to Construct a Mixed­UseDevelopment Comprising 311 Residential Units and 16,000 Square Feet of Commercial Lease Areaon 7.94 Acres of Land at the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed­Use Urban Corridor (MU­UCT) Zone: APN: 0208­353­02. A CEQA Section 15183 ComplianceMemorandum has been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023­007 AND 2023­008)(CITY)G2.Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 to be Read by TitleOnly and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho CucamongaMunicipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amending the Current Zoning Map withVarious Technical Amendments; and the Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. 2023­005, Amendingthe General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments. The City has Prepared anAddendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261) for the Project. (ORDINANCE NO. 1015)(RESOLUTION NO. 2023­005) (CITY) H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT(S) I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1.Consideration and Discussion of Selection of Mayor Pro Tem. (Verbal) I2.Review of Appointments to Standing Committees, Boards and Other Governmental Agencies. (CITY) I3.Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) I4.COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) I5.INTER​AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING L. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC , City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least 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 LINDA A. TROYAN, MMC CITY CLERK SERVICES DIRECTOR If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477­2700. 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.  CITY COUNCIL VISION STATEMENT “Our Vision is to build on our success as a world class community, to create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive.” Page 6 --- 298 303 --- --- HANDS -ONLY CPR & AEDS CAN SAVE LIVES 2022 City of Rancho Cucamonga Citize n CPR & ROSC •164 Total CPR Patients •104 Citizen CPR (includes trauma, overdoses, & cardiac arrest) •40 ROSC (pulses present upon arrival to the hospital. Hands -Only CPR American Heart Association found that people would engage in CPR if they didn’t have to do mouth-to -mouth. RCFD's Hands -Only CPR Program Began in 2013 All seven fire stations are equipped with gear to teach the public. •AEDs are located in all City owned facilities including all seven fire stations, and the police station. •There are approximately 110 city owned AEDs. •The Accountability Officers check the AEDs to ensure equipment is working properly. AED Program Download the Pulse Point app to your phone! Pulse Point AED -Business Locations QUESTIONS? DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of $1,857,973.41 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of $3,835,548.04 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023, and City and Fire District Electronic Debit Registers for the Month of December in the Total Amount of $1,851,863.17. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Bi-weekly payroll is $1,163,670.16 and $694,303.25 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Weekly check register amounts are $2,732,228.49 and $1,103,319.55 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. Electronic Debit Register amounts are $1,129,112.87 and $722,750.30 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Attachment 2 - Electronic Debit Register Page 7 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00015222 12/19/2022 AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015223 12/19/2022 ALMAND, LLOYD 0.00 269.02 269.02 AP 00015224 12/19/2022 BANTAU, VICTORIA 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015225 12/19/2022 BAZAL, SUSAN 0.00 269.02 269.02 AP 00015226 12/19/2022 BELL, MICHAEL L 0.00 1,834.18 1,834.18 AP 00015227 12/19/2022 BERRY, DAVID 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015228 12/19/2022 BROCK, ROBIN 0.00 1,261.61 1,261.61 AP 00015229 12/19/2022 CAMPBELL, GERALD 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015230 12/19/2022 CAMPBELL, STEVEN 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015231 12/19/2022 CARNES, KENNETH 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015232 12/19/2022 CLABBY, RICHARD 0.00 1,358.28 1,358.28 AP 00015233 12/19/2022 CLOUGHESY, DONALD R 0.00 2,429.73 2,429.73 AP 00015234 12/19/2022 CORCORAN, ROBERT ANTHONY 0.00 841.59 841.59 AP 00015235 12/19/2022 COSTELLO, DENNIS M 0.00 2,459.14 2,459.14 AP 00015236 12/19/2022 COX, KARL 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015237 12/19/2022 CRANE, RALPH 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015238 12/19/2022 CROSSLAND, WILBUR 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015239 12/19/2022 CURATALO, JAMES 0.00 1,261.61 1,261.61 AP 00015240 12/19/2022 DAGUE, JAMES 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015241 12/19/2022 DAVENPORT, JAY 0.00 2,459.14 2,459.14 AP 00015242 12/19/2022 DE ANTONIO, SUSAN 0.00 841.59 841.59 AP 00015243 12/19/2022 DEANS, JACKIE 0.00 269.02 269.02 AP 00015244 12/19/2022 DOMINICK, SAMUEL A 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015245 12/19/2022 EAGLESON, MICHAEL 0.00 1,834.18 1,834.18 AP 00015246 12/19/2022 EGGERS, ROBERT 0.00 1,272.92 1,272.92 AP 00015247 12/19/2022 FEJERAN, TIM 0.00 1,811.06 1,811.06 AP 00015248 12/19/2022 FRITCHEY, JOHN D 0.00 521.58 521.58 AP 00015249 12/19/2022 HEYDE, DONALD 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015250 12/19/2022 HOLT, DANNY G 0.00 1,361.42 1,361.42 AP 00015251 12/19/2022 INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN 0.00 269.02 269.02 AP 00015252 12/19/2022 JERKINS, PATRICK 0.00 1,358.28 1,358.28 AP 00015253 12/19/2022 KILMER, STEPHEN 0.00 1,358.28 1,358.28 AP 00015254 12/19/2022 KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM M 0.00 791.73 791.73 AP 00015255 12/19/2022 LANE, WILLIAM 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015256 12/19/2022 LARKIN, DAVID W 0.00 1,358.28 1,358.28 AP 00015257 12/19/2022 LEE, ALLAN J 0.00 269.02 269.02 AP 00015258 12/19/2022 LENZE, PAUL E 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015259 12/19/2022 LONCAR, PHILIP 0.00 1,856.80 1,856.80 AP 00015260 12/19/2022 LONGO, JOE 0.00 132.25 132.25 AP 00015261 12/19/2022 LUTTRULL, DARRELL 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015262 12/19/2022 MACKALL, BEVERLY 0.00 132.25 132.25 AP 00015263 12/19/2022 MAYFIELD, RON 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015264 12/19/2022 MCKEE, JOHN 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015265 12/19/2022 MCNEIL, KENNETH 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015266 12/19/2022 MICHAEL, L. DENNIS 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015267 12/19/2022 MORGAN, BYRON 0.00 1,971.72 1,971.72 AP 00015268 12/19/2022 MYSKOW, DENNIS 0.00 1,358.28 1,358.28 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:1 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 8 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00015269 12/19/2022 NAUMAN, MICHAEL 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015270 12/19/2022 NELSON, MARY JANE 0.00 132.25 132.25 AP 00015271 12/19/2022 NOREEN, ERIC 0.00 2,429.73 2,429.73 AP 00015272 12/19/2022 O'BRIEN, TOM 0.00 1,834.18 1,834.18 AP 00015273 12/19/2022 PLOUNG, MICHAEL J 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015274 12/19/2022 POST, MICHAEL R 0.00 1,856.80 1,856.80 AP 00015275 12/19/2022 PROULX, PATRICK 0.00 1,261.61 1,261.61 AP 00015276 12/19/2022 REDMOND, MICHAEL 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015277 12/19/2022 ROBERTS, BRENT 0.00 841.59 841.59 AP 00015278 12/19/2022 ROBERTS, CHERYL L 0.00 2,429.73 2,429.73 AP 00015279 12/19/2022 ROEDER, JEFFREY 0.00 1,261.61 1,261.61 AP 00015280 12/19/2022 ROJER, IVAN M 0.00 1,811.06 1,811.06 AP 00015281 12/19/2022 SALISBURY, THOMAS 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015282 12/19/2022 SMITH, RONALD 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015283 12/19/2022 SORENSEN, SCOTT D 0.00 1,272.92 1,272.92 AP 00015284 12/19/2022 SPAIN, WILLIAM 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015285 12/19/2022 SULLIVAN, JAMES 0.00 415.50 415.50 AP 00015286 12/19/2022 TAYLOR, STEVEN 0.00 2,429.73 2,429.73 AP 00015287 12/19/2022 TOLL, RICHARD 0.00 2,429.73 2,429.73 AP 00015288 12/19/2022 TULEY, TERRY 0.00 1,834.18 1,834.18 AP 00015289 12/19/2022 VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015290 12/19/2022 VARNEY, ANTHONY 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015291 12/19/2022 WALTON, KEVIN 0.00 1,811.06 1,811.06 AP 00015292 12/19/2022 YOWELL, TIMOTHY A 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00015293 12/19/2022 BALANCE 4 LIFE FITNESS 4 WELLNESS INC 14.00 0.00 14.00 AP 00015294 12/19/2022 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA / RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2,835.00 0.00 2,835.00 ***AP 00015295 12/19/2022 GOLDEN STATE RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 108,148.00 1,272.00 109,420.00 AP 00015296 12/19/2022 HAMPTON YOGA 126.00 0.00 126.00 AP 00015297 12/19/2022 MIDWEST TAPE 3,502.99 0.00 3,502.99 AP 00015298 12/19/2022 RCCEA 1,468.25 0.00 1,468.25 ***AP 00015299 12/19/2022 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 111,108.47 1,239.00 112,347.47 AP 00015300 12/19/2022 SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA 439,933.77 0.00 439,933.77 AP 00015303 12/20/2022 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA / RANCHO CUCAMONGA 21,884.19 0.00 21,884.19 AP 00015304 12/20/2022 RCPFA 13,261.59 0.00 13,261.59 AP 00015309 01/04/2023 AIR EXCHANGE INC 0.00 1,233.03 1,233.03 ***AP 00015310 01/04/2023 AMG & ASSOCIATES INC 27,710.17 758,876.41 786,586.58 AP 00015311 01/04/2023 ASSI SECURITY 225.00 0.00 225.00 AP 00015312 01/04/2023 CRAFCO INC 956.33 0.00 956.33 AP 00015313 01/04/2023 DATA TICKET INC 4,853.90 0.00 4,853.90 AP 00015314 01/04/2023 DELTA DENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1,116.02 0.00 1,116.02 AP 00015315 01/04/2023 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 29,174.22 0.00 29,174.22 ***AP 00015316 01/04/2023 EMCOR SERVICES 32,498.60 1,572.83 34,071.43 ***AP 00015317 01/04/2023 GOLDEN STATE RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 119,472.00 1,393.00 120,865.00 ***AP 00015318 01/04/2023 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 21,267.47 3,363.07 24,630.54 AP 00015319 01/04/2023 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL INC 13,680.00 0.00 13,680.00 AP 00015320 01/04/2023 RE ASTORIA 2 LLC 65,462.59 0.00 65,462.59 AP 00429127 12/19/2022 MAGNUSON, PETER 0.00 1,878.60 1,878.60 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:2 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 9 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00429128 12/19/2022 RODRIGUEZ, VICTOR 0.00 689.04 689.04 AP 00429129 12/19/2022 SPAGNOLO, VIOLA 0.00 132.25 132.25 AP 00429130 12/19/2022 WALKER, KENNETH 0.00 269.02 269.02 AP 00429131 12/19/2022 ACOSTA, GEORGE R 0.00 1,335.00 1,335.00 AP 00429132 12/19/2022 ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 100.00 0.00 100.00 AP 00429133 12/19/2022 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 24.58 0.00 24.58 AP 00429134 12/19/2022 AIR & HOSE SOURCE INC 169.17 0.00 169.17 ***AP 00429135 12/19/2022 AIRGAS USA LLC 1,488.02 359.35 1,847.37 AP 00429136 12/19/2022 ANIMAL HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC CENTER 149.00 0.00 149.00 AP 00429137 12/19/2022 ARCHIBALD PET HOSPITAL 500.00 0.00 500.00 ***AP 00429138 12/19/2022 AUFBAU CORPORATION 34,880.00 29,280.00 64,160.00 AP 00429139 12/19/2022 BARBARA'S ANSWERING SERVICE 552.00 0.00 552.00 AP 00429140 12/19/2022 BIBLIOTHECA LLC 7,435.84 0.00 7,435.84 AP 00429141 12/19/2022 BRODART CO 4,612.54 0.00 4,612.54 AP 00429142 12/19/2022 C V W D 7,717.70 0.00 7,717.70 ***AP 00429143 12/19/2022 CALIF DEPT OF TAX & FEE ADMINISTRATION 365.65 410.31 775.96 AP 00429144 12/19/2022 CAMBRIDGE SEVEN ASSOCIATES INC 16,892.55 0.00 16,892.55 AP 00429145 12/19/2022 CAMERON WELDING 141.64 0.00 141.64 AP 00429146 12/19/2022 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 245.02 0.00 245.02 AP 00429147 12/19/2022 CCI SYSTEMS INC 24,259.83 0.00 24,259.83 AP 00429148 12/19/2022 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 370.58 0.00 370.58 AP 00429149 12/19/2022 CHAMPION AWARDS & SPECIALTIES 43.10 0.00 43.10 AP 00429150 12/19/2022 CHEN, SHUPING 9.99 0.00 9.99 AP 00429151 12/19/2022 CIVICWELL 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 AP 00429152 12/19/2022 CLARK, FLOYD 367.00 0.00 367.00 AP 00429153 12/19/2022 COAST RECREATION INC 1,334.65 0.00 1,334.65 AP 00429154 12/19/2022 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00429155 12/19/2022 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 64.54 0.00 64.54 AP 00429156 12/19/2022 COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION INC 1,875.00 0.00 1,875.00 AP 00429157 12/19/2022 COVETRUS NORTH AMERICA 125.80 0.00 125.80 ***AP 00429158 12/19/2022 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 8,849.28 1,161.31 10,010.59 AP 00429159 12/19/2022 D & K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,461.09 0.00 1,461.09 AP 00429160 12/19/2022 DATA ARC LLC 44.93 0.00 44.93 AP 00429161 12/19/2022 DE JESUS, EDWARD 400.00 0.00 400.00 AP 00429162 12/19/2022 DELL MARKETING LP 26,888.81 0.00 26,888.81 AP 00429163 12/19/2022 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 0.00 829.00 829.00 AP 00429164 12/19/2022 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 529.00 0.00 529.00 AP 00429165 12/19/2022 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 0.00 80.00 80.00 AP 00429166 12/19/2022 DEPENDABLE COMPANY INC 37.50 0.00 37.50 AP 00429167 12/19/2022 DING, AIQUN 3,200.00 0.00 3,200.00 AP 00429168 12/19/2022 EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY INC 360.52 0.00 360.52 AP 00429169 12/19/2022 FENWICK, CONNOR 0.00 820.00 820.00 AP 00429170 12/19/2022 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC #1350 1,260.11 0.00 1,260.11 AP 00429171 12/19/2022 FIALLOS, WILSON 1,344.00 0.00 1,344.00 AP 00429172 12/19/2022 FORTIN LAW GROUP 5,279.57 0.00 5,279.57 ***AP 00429173 12/19/2022 FRONTIER COMM 183.44 428.03 611.47 AP 00429174 12/19/2022 GENTRY BROTHERS INC 186,827.95 0.00 186,827.95 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:3 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 10 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00429175 12/19/2022 GENTRY GENERAL ENGINEERING INC 8,922.33 0.00 8,922.33 AP 00429176 12/19/2022 GILKEY, JOHN A 1,260.00 0.00 1,260.00 AP 00429177 12/19/2022 GOLDEN GATE CONSTRUCTION 43,014.37 0.00 43,014.37 ***AP 00429178 12/19/2022 GRAINGER 141.91 577.57 719.48 AP 00429179 12/19/2022 HANNAH, MARY 367.00 0.00 367.00 AP 00429180 12/19/2022 HENDERSON, LAWRENCE 367.00 0.00 367.00 AP 00429181 12/19/2022 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 1,149.16 0.00 1,149.16 AP 00429182 12/19/2022 HR GREEN PACIFIC INC 1,334.00 0.00 1,334.00 AP 00429183 12/19/2022 IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC 3,308.28 0.00 3,308.28 AP 00429184 12/19/2022 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY 75.00 0.00 75.00 AP 00429185 12/19/2022 INLAND PACIFIC BALLET 206,723.70 0.00 206,723.70 AP 00429186 12/19/2022 INLAND VALLEY REPERTORY THEATRE 36,000.00 0.00 36,000.00 AP 00429187 12/19/2022 INTERVET INC 5,705.36 0.00 5,705.36 AP 00429188 12/19/2022 ISIMULATE 0.00 10,585.00 10,585.00 AP 00429189 12/19/2022 JIMENEZ, ERICK 367.00 0.00 367.00 AP 00429190 12/19/2022 KING, NANCY 84.00 0.00 84.00 AP 00429191 12/19/2022 KME FIRE APPARATUS 0.00 238.12 238.12 AP 00429192 12/19/2022 L A DESIGN GROUP - WLA 291,935.00 0.00 291,935.00 AP 00429193 12/19/2022 LEE, CALVIN 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00429194 12/19/2022 LI, GUIXIAN 23.99 0.00 23.99 AP 00429195 12/19/2022 LOPEZ, VIRGINIA 60.00 0.00 60.00 ***AP 00429196 12/19/2022 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 60,022.74 2,698.14 62,720.88 AP 00429197 12/19/2022 MARK CHRISTOPHER INC 253.84 0.00 253.84 AP 00429198 12/19/2022 MARLINK INC 0.00 162.00 162.00 AP 00429199 12/19/2022 MERRIMAC PETROLEUM INC 1,507.61 0.00 1,507.61 AP 00429200 12/19/2022 MOE, JOHN 252.00 0.00 252.00 AP 00429201 12/19/2022 MOLINA, GINA 0.00 73.18 73.18 AP 00429202 12/19/2022 MWI ANIMAL HEALTH 320.25 0.00 320.25 AP 00429203 12/19/2022 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY 126.41 0.00 126.41 ***AP 00429204 12/19/2022 NAPA AUTO PARTS 94.50 -79.88 14.62 AP 00429205 12/19/2022 NATIONAL UTILITY LOCATORS LLC 3,150.00 0.00 3,150.00 ***AP 00429206 12/19/2022 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CA 2,025.27 1,336.00 3,361.27 ***AP 00429207 12/19/2022 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 2,252.96 178.15 2,431.11 AP 00429208 12/19/2022 OLMSTED, ROSE STEPHENS 367.00 0.00 367.00 AP 00429209 12/19/2022 ONWARD ENGINEERING 3,410.00 0.00 3,410.00 AP 00429210 12/19/2022 PARS 3,500.00 0.00 3,500.00 AP 00429211 12/19/2022 PIP PRINTING 1,109.83 0.00 1,109.83 AP 00429212 12/19/2022 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 53.36 0.00 53.36 ***AP 00429213 12/19/2022 PSA PRINT GROUP 129.30 129.30 258.60 AP 00429214 12/19/2022 RANCHO WEST ANIMAL HOSPITAL 400.00 0.00 400.00 AP 00429215 12/19/2022 REHABWEST INC 1,102.00 0.00 1,102.00 AP 00429216 12/19/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 15,498.30 0.00 15,498.30 AP 00429217 12/19/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION 20,678.00 0.00 20,678.00 AP 00429218 12/19/2022 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 14,722.00 0.00 14,722.00 AP 00429219 12/19/2022 SBPEA 2,518.08 0.00 2,518.08 AP 00429220 12/19/2022 SCOTT, KRISTINE 258.00 0.00 258.00 ***AP 00429221 12/19/2022 SHRED PROS 1,264.00 63.00 1,327.00 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:4 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 11 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00429222 12/19/2022 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 5,266.11 0.00 5,266.11 AP 00429223 12/19/2022 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 3,382.50 0.00 3,382.50 AP 00429224 12/19/2022 SOUTHERN CALIF FLEET SERVICES INC 0.00 8,146.64 8,146.64 ***AP 00429227 12/19/2022 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16,809.73 1,650.96 18,460.69 AP 00429228 12/19/2022 SSI TECHNOLOGIES 1,232.44 0.00 1,232.44 AP 00429229 12/19/2022 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 13,211.07 0.00 13,211.07 AP 00429230 12/19/2022 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 13,300.44 0.00 13,300.44 AP 00429231 12/19/2022 STICKLER, ASHLEY 367.00 0.00 367.00 AP 00429232 12/19/2022 STRYKER SALES LLC 0.00 20,282.87 20,282.87 AP 00429233 12/19/2022 SWRCB 53,352.00 0.00 53,352.00 AP 00429234 12/19/2022 TIREHUB LLC 4,754.69 0.00 4,754.69 AP 00429235 12/19/2022 TRUSTAR ENERGY 857.84 0.00 857.84 AP 00429236 12/19/2022 U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #6746022500 17,560.50 0.00 17,560.50 AP 00429237 12/19/2022 U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #6746022500 1,021.10 0.00 1,021.10 AP 00429238 12/19/2022 UNITED WAY 35.00 0.00 35.00 AP 00429239 12/19/2022 UNITY COURIER SERVICE INC 1,412.32 0.00 1,412.32 AP 00429240 12/19/2022 VANGORDEN, DAVID 258.00 0.00 258.00 AP 00429241 12/19/2022 VERA, CARA 223.81 0.00 223.81 AP 00429242 12/19/2022 VERIZON BUSINESS 40.58 0.00 40.58 AP 00429243 12/19/2022 VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY 297.60 0.00 297.60 AP 00429244 12/19/2022 VIRGIN PULSE INC 1,101.60 0.00 1,101.60 AP 00429245 12/19/2022 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 11,008.34 0.00 11,008.34 AP 00429246 12/19/2022 VISTA PAINT 974.06 0.00 974.06 AP 00429247 12/19/2022 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 52.62 0.00 52.62 AP 00429248 12/19/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 22,398.35 0.00 22,398.35 AP 00429249 12/19/2022 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 18,110.15 0.00 18,110.15 AP 00429250 12/19/2022 WILSON & BELL AUTO SERVICE 1,023.58 0.00 1,023.58 AP 00429251 12/19/2022 WT.COX INFORMATION SERVICES 148.64 0.00 148.64 AP 00429252 12/19/2022 WU, KEQIN 5,373.74 0.00 5,373.74 AP 00429253 12/19/2022 YAMADA ENTERPRISES 5,843.00 0.00 5,843.00 AP 00429274 12/20/2022 ACE ELECTRIC INC 107,350.00 0.00 107,350.00 AP 00429275 12/20/2022 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 342.73 0.00 342.73 AP 00429276 12/20/2022 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 32.26 0.00 32.26 AP 00429277 12/21/2022 SECRETARY OF STATE 6.00 0.00 6.00 AP 00429278 01/04/2023 49ER COMMUNICATIONS INC 0.00 92.07 92.07 AP 00429279 01/04/2023 ALLEN, CATHERINE 448.14 0.00 448.14 AP 00429280 01/04/2023 ALLIANCE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS INC 2,162.50 0.00 2,162.50 AP 00429281 01/04/2023 ALTA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK 292.58 0.00 292.58 AP 00429282 01/04/2023 ANIMAL HEALTH DIAGNOSTIC CENTER 189.00 0.00 189.00 AP 00429283 01/04/2023 ASTA-USA TRANSLATION SERVICES 455.00 0.00 455.00 AP 00429284 01/04/2023 AUFBAU CORPORATION 20,850.00 0.00 20,850.00 AP 00429285 01/04/2023 AYANTRA INC 4,224.00 0.00 4,224.00 AP 00429286 01/04/2023 BEACON ATHLETICS LLC 1,018.25 0.00 1,018.25 AP 00429287 01/04/2023 BERLITZ LANGUAGES INC 65.00 0.00 65.00 AP 00429288 01/04/2023 BISHOP COMPANY 541.25 0.00 541.25 ***AP 00429289 01/04/2023 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC 3,469.56 20,925.76 24,395.32 AP 00429290 01/04/2023 BRINKS INCORPORATED 2,493.88 0.00 2,493.88 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:5 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 12 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount ***AP 00429293 01/04/2023 C V W D 15,317.64 950.53 16,268.17 AP 00429294 01/04/2023 CA LLC - ALTA LAGUNA MHP 400.00 0.00 400.00 ***AP 00429295 01/04/2023 CALAMP WIRELESS NETWORKS CORP 53,362.12 9,950.00 63,312.12 AP 00429296 01/04/2023 CalPERS LONG-TERM CARE PROGRAM 221.35 0.00 221.35 AP 00429297 01/04/2023 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 656.54 0.00 656.54 AP 00429298 01/04/2023 CASA VOLANTE MOBILE HOME PARK 600.00 0.00 600.00 AP 00429299 01/04/2023 CERTIFIED TOWING INC 175.00 0.00 175.00 AP 00429300 01/04/2023 CHAPARRAL HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK 300.00 0.00 300.00 ***AP 00429301 01/04/2023 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS 4,606.56 6,460.22 11,066.78 AP 00429302 01/04/2023 CHIEF ELECTRIC INC 0.00 3,028.00 3,028.00 ***AP 00429303 01/04/2023 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 3,176.79 573.16 3,749.95 ***AP 00429304 01/04/2023 CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK 1,458.43 39,940.86 41,399.29 AP 00429305 01/04/2023 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC 360.00 0.00 360.00 AP 00429306 01/04/2023 CLIMATEC LLC 2,781.00 0.00 2,781.00 AP 00429307 01/04/2023 COAST FITNESS REPAIR SHOP 149.00 0.00 149.00 AP 00429308 01/04/2023 CONOR CONSULTING LLC 3,600.00 0.00 3,600.00 AP 00429309 01/04/2023 CUEVA CONSTRUCTION 13,500.00 0.00 13,500.00 AP 00429310 01/04/2023 D & K CONCRETE COMPANY 2,545.72 0.00 2,545.72 AP 00429311 01/04/2023 DADEN, CHRISTOPHER 65.22 0.00 65.22 AP 00429312 01/04/2023 DAVIS, RILEY 0.00 43.20 43.20 AP 00429313 01/04/2023 DGO AUTO DETAILING 325.00 0.00 325.00 AP 00429314 01/04/2023 EAGLE ROAD SERVICE & TIRE 275.48 0.00 275.48 AP 00429315 01/04/2023 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 689.54 0.00 689.54 AP 00429316 01/04/2023 EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY INC 85.97 0.00 85.97 AP 00429317 01/04/2023 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 0.00 1,361.52 1,361.52 AP 00429318 01/04/2023 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 31.04 0.00 31.04 AP 00429319 01/04/2023 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES LLC #1350 1,024.45 0.00 1,024.45 AP 00429320 01/04/2023 FOOTHILL VACUUM & JANITORIAL 0.00 214.42 214.42 AP 00429321 01/04/2023 FRANKLIN TRUCK PARTS INC 0.00 2,494.00 2,494.00 ***AP 00429323 01/04/2023 FRONTIER COMM 2,565.20 798.77 3,363.97 AP 00429324 01/04/2023 G/M BUSINESS INTERIORS 75.93 0.00 75.93 AP 00429325 01/04/2023 GATEWAY PET CEMETERY & CREMATORY 300.00 0.00 300.00 ***AP 00429326 01/04/2023 GRAINGER 86.78 213.15 299.93 AP 00429327 01/04/2023 GROVES ON FOOTHILL, THE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00429328 01/04/2023 HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY 370.81 0.00 370.81 AP 00429329 01/04/2023 HAULAWAY STORAGE CONTAINERS INC 119.84 0.00 119.84 AP 00429330 01/04/2023 HCI ENVIRONMENTAL & ENGINEERING SVC 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 AP 00429331 01/04/2023 HI-WAY SAFETY INC 1,085.00 0.00 1,085.00 AP 00429332 01/04/2023 HOMETOWN AMERICA RAMONA VILLA 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00429333 01/04/2023 ICCCS 750.00 0.00 750.00 AP 00429334 01/04/2023 INDUSTRIAL HARDWARE & SERVICE CO 1,724.00 0.00 1,724.00 AP 00429335 01/04/2023 INLAND EMPIRE PROPERTY SERVICE INC 0.00 4,120.00 4,120.00 AP 00429336 01/04/2023 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC 425.00 0.00 425.00 ***AP 00429337 01/04/2023 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 722.00 114.00 836.00 AP 00429338 01/04/2023 LIFE-ASSIST INC 0.00 1,255.50 1,255.50 AP 00429339 01/04/2023 LN CURTIS & SONS 0.00 501.07 501.07 AP 00429340 01/04/2023 LOZANO SMITH LLP 366.50 0.00 366.50 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:6 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 13 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00429341 01/04/2023 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 36,345.97 0.00 36,345.97 AP 00429342 01/04/2023 MARK CHRISTOPHER INC 204.62 0.00 204.62 AP 00429343 01/04/2023 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 0.00 819.63 819.63 ***AP 00429344 01/04/2023 MERRIMAC PETROLEUM INC 3,420.28 21,832.38 25,252.66 ***AP 00429345 01/04/2023 NAPA AUTO PARTS 210.24 383.22 593.46 AP 00429346 01/04/2023 NEWCO DISTRIBUTORS INC 1,386.53 0.00 1,386.53 AP 00429347 01/04/2023 NINYO & MOORE 0.00 45,033.50 45,033.50 AP 00429348 01/04/2023 NOVELTY PRINTING INC 110.00 0.00 110.00 AP 00429349 01/04/2023 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC 9,313.57 0.00 9,313.57 ***AP 00429350 01/04/2023 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 1,679.47 457.97 2,137.44 AP 00429351 01/04/2023 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 4,256.11 0.00 4,256.11 AP 00429352 01/04/2023 ONLY CREMATIONS FOR PETS INC 1,045.00 0.00 1,045.00 AP 00429353 01/04/2023 ONTARIO SPAY & NEUTER INC 1,600.00 0.00 1,600.00 AP 00429354 01/04/2023 ONYX ARCHITECTS INC 2,450.00 0.00 2,450.00 AP 00429355 01/04/2023 PAPE MATERIAL HANDLING 1,732.39 0.00 1,732.39 AP 00429356 01/04/2023 PATCHPLAQUES & MORE 0.00 406.80 406.80 AP 00429357 01/04/2023 PAYMENTUS CORPORATION 801.90 0.00 801.90 AP 00429358 01/04/2023 PERFECT HOME PRODUCT 258.66 0.00 258.66 AP 00429359 01/04/2023 PSA PRINT GROUP 0.00 129.30 129.30 AP 00429360 01/04/2023 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TOWN SQUARE 15,181.18 0.00 15,181.18 AP 00429361 01/04/2023 RANCHO MALL LLC 980.04 0.00 980.04 AP 00429362 01/04/2023 RANCHO SMOG CENTER 89.90 0.00 89.90 AP 00429363 01/04/2023 RENNE PUBLIC LAW GROUP 12,143.20 0.00 12,143.20 AP 00429364 01/04/2023 RIALTO ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2,570.00 0.00 2,570.00 AP 00429365 01/04/2023 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 403.54 0.00 403.54 AP 00429366 01/04/2023 SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT 7,558.60 0.00 7,558.60 AP 00429367 01/04/2023 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS 350.00 0.00 350.00 AP 00429368 01/04/2023 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 349.70 0.00 349.70 AP 00429369 01/04/2023 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 0.00 178.15 178.15 AP 00429370 01/04/2023 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 1,184.72 0.00 1,184.72 AP 00429371 01/04/2023 SO CAL SANDBAGS 2,718.76 0.00 2,718.76 ***AP 00429372 01/04/2023 SOCAL GAS 10,407.48 1,562.07 11,969.55 ***AP 00429376 01/04/2023 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22,254.29 1,163.10 23,417.39 AP 00429377 01/04/2023 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,462.49 0.00 2,462.49 AP 00429378 01/04/2023 SOWARD, TANIKA 10.85 0.00 10.85 AP 00429379 01/04/2023 STOVER SEED COMPANY 1,274.23 0.00 1,274.23 AP 00429380 01/04/2023 SUNRISE FORD 190.83 0.00 190.83 AP 00429381 01/04/2023 SYCAMORE VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00429382 01/04/2023 TECH 24 COMMERCIAL FOODSERVICE REPAIR INC 525.00 0.00 525.00 AP 00429383 01/04/2023 TIREHUB LLC 1,231.04 0.00 1,231.04 AP 00429384 01/04/2023 TOWILL INC 11,471.25 0.00 11,471.25 AP 00429385 01/04/2023 UNIVERSAL FLEET SUPPLY 0.00 81.87 81.87 AP 00429386 01/04/2023 UPS 123.41 0.00 123.41 AP 00429387 01/04/2023 UPSCO POWERSAFE SYSTEMS INC 1,068.09 0.00 1,068.09 AP 00429388 01/04/2023 VALASQUEZ, GILBERT 5.00 0.00 5.00 AP 00429389 01/04/2023 VALLEY POWER SYSTEMS INC 0.00 10.43 10.43 AP 00429390 01/04/2023 VORTEX INDUSTRIES LLC 11,530.50 0.00 11,530.50 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:7 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 14 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount AP 00429391 01/04/2023 VULCAN MATERIALS COMPANY 213.46 0.00 213.46 AP 00429392 01/04/2023 WADDELL, BISI 47.10 0.00 47.10 ***AP 00429393 01/04/2023 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 712.59 680.22 1,392.81 ***AP 00429394 01/04/2023 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 3,821.65 233.40 4,055.05 AP 00429395 01/04/2023 WE INC 150.00 0.00 150.00 AP 00429396 01/04/2023 WESTLAND GROUP INC 0.00 7,781.50 7,781.50 AP 00429397 01/04/2023 WESTRUX INTERNATIONAL INC 40.34 0.00 40.34 AP 00429398 01/04/2023 WHITTIER FERTILIZER 822.13 0.00 822.13 AP 00429399 01/04/2023 YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP INC 465.00 0.00 465.00 AP 00429400 01/04/2023 YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP INC 360.00 0.00 360.00 $2,732,228.49 $3,835,548.04 $1,103,319.55 Note: Grand Total: Total Fire: Total City: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures 07:14:05 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:8 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 15 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 12/1 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,788.66 2,788.66 12/1 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,053.72 3,053.72 12/1 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 5,354.41 5,354.41 12/1 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 10,806.21 10,806.21 12/1 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 42,243.07 42,243.07 12/1 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 95,929.88 95,929.88 12/1 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 3,534.45 3,534.45 12/1 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 1,160.50 1,160.50 12/1 U.S. BANK - Purchasing Card, Corporate Card and Costco Card Payment 98,596.61 22,806.21 121,402.82 12/2 Bank Fee 93.95 93.95 12/2 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 72,351.52 72,351.52 12/2 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 100,176.70 100,176.70 12/2 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,443.18 1,443.18 12/2 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 869.00 869.00 12/5 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 38,481.40 38,481.40 12/5 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 859.95 859.95 12/7 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 231.14 231.14 12/7 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 827.77 827.77 12/8 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 279.82 279.82 12/9 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 305.19 305.19 12/12 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 51,499.71 51,499.71 12/12 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 135.00 135.00 12/12 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,628.55 1,628.55 12/13 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 191.59 191.59 12/14 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 71,729.09 71,729.09 12/14 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 99,356.24 99,356.24 12/14 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 302.16 302.16 12/15 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,788.66 2,788.66 12/15 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,053.72 3,053.72 12/15 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 5,354.41 5,354.41 12/15 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 10,806.25 10,806.25 12/15 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 42,243.09 42,243.09 12/15 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 96,218.17 96,218.17 12/15 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 3,534.45 3,534.45 12/15 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 1,160.50 1,160.50 12/15 WIRE PAYMENT: DEPOSIT FOR ESCROW JE532260 1,000.00 1,000.00 12/15 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,588.48 1,588.48 12/15 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 6,047.86 6,047.86 12/16 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 23.10 23.10 12/16 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 714.79 714.79 12/19 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 230,374.41 230,374.41 12/19 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 750.00 750.00 12/19 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,393.20 1,393.20 12/21 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 191,910.24 191,910.24 12/22 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 711.12 711.12 12/23 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 580.00 580.00 12/27 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 182,910.84 182,910.84 12/27 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,641.85 1,641.85 12/28 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 2,978.93 2,978.93 12/29 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 3,534.45 3,534.45 12/30 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 72,441.10 72,441.10 12/30 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 99,814.50 99,814.50 12/30 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,788.67 2,788.67 12/30 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,053.71 3,053.71 12/30 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 5,354.47 5,354.47 12/30 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 10,986.26 10,986.26 12/30 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 42,353.13 42,353.13 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register DECEMBER 1, 2022 TO DECEMBER 31, 2022 1 Page 16 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGAAND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register DECEMBER 1, 2022 TO DECEMBER 31, 2022 12/30 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 95,899.17 95,899.17 12/30 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 817.96 817.96 TOTAL CITY 1,129,112.87 TOTAL FIRE 722,750.30 GRAND TOTAL 1,851,863.17 2 Page 17 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Veronica Lopez, Accounts Payable Supervisor SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $11,969.55 Dated December 19, 2022, Through January 08, 2023. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District approve payment of demands as presented. Weekly check register amounts are $10,407.48 and $1,562.07 for the City and the Fire District, respectively. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Weekly Check Register Page 18 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT So Calif Gas Company Only. AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 12/19/2022 through 1/8/2023 Check No.Check Date Vendor Name City Fire Amount ***AP 00429372 01/04/2023 SOCAL GAS 10,407.48 1,562.07 11,969.55 $10,407.48 $11,969.55 $1,562.07 Note: Grand Total: Total Fire: Total City: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures 07:23:28 01/09/2023Current Date:VLOPEZ - Veronica Lopez Page:1 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 19 DATE:January 18, 2022 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager/Administrative Services Director Tamara L. Oatman, Finance Director Jason A. Shields, Management Analyst II SUBJECT:Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of December 31, 2022 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District receive and file the attached current investment schedules for the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District) as of December 31, 2022. BACKGROUND: The attached investment schedules as of December 31, 2022 reflect cash and investments managed by the Finance Department/Revenue Management Division and are in conformity with the requirements of California Government Code Section 53601 and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District’s adopted Investment Policies as approved on June 16, 2022. ANALYSIS: The City’s and District’s Treasurers are each required to submit a quarterly investment report to the City Council and the Fire Board, respectively, in accordance with California Government Code Section 53646. The quarterly investment report is required to be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. However, the City and District Treasurers have each elected to provide this report on a monthly basis. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The monthly investment schedule supports the City Council’s core value of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all by demonstrating the active, prudent fiscal management of the City’s investment portfolio to ensure that financial resources are available to support the various services the city provides to all Rancho Cucamonga stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Investment Schedule (City) Attachment 2 - Investment Schedule (Fire) Page 20 &nbsp;&nbsp;Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue/Description Paying Agent Account Name Trust Account #Fund Investment Date Date*Yield Value CFD 2003-01 Improvement Area 1 (2013) Wells Fargo Reserve Fund 46571801 865 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 1,428,066.79$ Agency Project 46571807 614 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 78,554.79$ Cultural Center Fund 46571808 615 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 193,676.13$ Bond Fund 46571800 864 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 686.17$ Developer Project 46571806 614 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 99,029.27$ Special Tax 46571805 864 Money Market Fund 9/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 2,549.99$ 1,802,563.14$ CFD 2003-01 Improvement Area 2 (2013) Wells Fargo Bond Fund 46659800 866 Money Market Fund 12/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 129.12$ Reserve Fund 46659801 867 Money Market Fund 12/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 133,508.33$ Special Tax Fund 46659805 866 Money Market Fund 12/1/2013 N/A 0.01% 253.41$ 133,890.86$ CFD No 2004-01 Rancho Etiwanda Series Wells Fargo Admin Expense Fund 48436802 Money Market Fund N/A 0.01% -$ Bond Fund 48436800 820 Money Market Fund N/A 0.01% 1,463.77 Reserve Fund 48436801 821 Money Market Fund N/A 0.01% 1,196,639.34 Special Tax Fund 48436807 820 Money Market Fund N/A 2,342.01 Project Fund 48436809 617 Money Market Fund N/A 45,410.48 1,245,855.60$ 2014 Rancho Summit Wells Fargo Cost of Issuance Fund 48709906 Money Market Fund N/A -$ Bond Fund 48709900 858 Money Market Fund N/A 328.76 Reserve Fund 48709901 859 Money Market Fund N/A 261,503.51 Sepcial Tax Fund 48709907 858 Money Market Fund N/A 514.64 Rebate Fund 48709908 Money Market Fund N/A - Redemption Fund 48709903 Money Market Fund N/A - Prepayment Fund 48709904 Money Market Fund N/A - 262,346.91$ 2019 Lease Revenue Bonds Wells Fargo Bond Fund 82631600 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A -$ Interest 82631601 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A - Principal 82631602 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A - Acquisition and Construciton - Series A 82631605 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A 3,248.77 Acquisition and Construciton - Series B 82631606 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A 1,049.53 Cost of Issuance 82631607 711 Money Market Fund 2/28/2019 N/A - 4,298.30$ CFD No. 2000-01 South Etiwanda Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2000-1 AGY 6712140200 7/30/2015 N/A -$ Special Tax Fund 6712140201 852 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 66.24 Bond Fund 6712140202 852 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 34.90 Prepayment Fund 6712140203 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 6712140204 853 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 22,934.21 23,035.35$ CFD No. 2000-02 Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2000-2 AGY 6712140300 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A -$ Special Tax Fund 6712140301 856 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 809.89$ City of Rancho Cucamonga Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended 12/31/2022 I:\FINANCE\SALINA\Fiscal Agent Stmts\FY 2022-23\12-2022\December 2022_Fiscal Agent Statements Workbook Summary Report Page 1 Page 55 Trustee and/or Purchase Maturity Cost Bond Issue/Description Paying Agent Account Name Trust Account #Fund Investment Date Date*Yield Value City of Rancho Cucamonga Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents For the Month Ended 12/31/2022 Bond Fund 6712140302 856 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 325.32$ Prepayment Fund 6712140303 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A -$ Reserve Fund 6712140304 857 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 210,591.50 211,726.71$ CFD No. 2001-01 IA 1&2, Series A Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2001-1 AGY 6712140400 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A -$ Special Tax Fund 6712140401 860 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 620.21 Bond Fund 6712140402 860 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 351.75 Prepayment Fund 6712140403 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 6712140404 861 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 305,996.05 306,968.01$ CFD No. 2001-01 IA3, Series B Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2001-1 AGY 6712140500 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A -$ Special Tax Fund 6712140501 862 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 79.44 Bond Fund 6712140502 862 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 33.95 Prepayment Fund 6712140503 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 6712140504 863 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 29,708.88 29,822.27$ CFD No. 2006-01 Vintner's Grove Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2006-1 AGY 6712140600 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A -$ Special Tax Fund 6712140601 869 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 1,496.92 Bond Fund 6712140602 869 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 138.57 Prepayment Fund 6712140603 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 6712140604 870 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 130,371.29 132,006.78$ CFD No. 2006-02 Amador on Rt. 66 Union Bank Rancho Cucamonga 2015 CFD2006-2 AGY 6712140700 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A -$ Special Tax Fund 6712140701 871 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 206.71 Bond Fund 6712140702 871 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 82.62 Prepayment Fund 6712140703 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A - Reserve Fund 6712140704 872 Money Market Fund 7/30/2015 N/A 0.00% 78,915.46 79,204.79$ 4,231,718.72 TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WITH FISCAL AGENTS 4,231,718.72$ * Note: These investments are money market accounts which have no stated maturity date as they may be liquidated upon demand. I:\FINANCE\SALINA\Fiscal Agent Stmts\FY 2022-23\12-2022\December 2022_Fiscal Agent Statements Workbook Summary Report Page 2 Page 56 &nbsp;&nbsp;Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Civic and Cultural Services Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy City Clerk Services Director SUBJECT:Consideration to Receive and File Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2022. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the Annual Commission/Committee/Board Attendance Report for 2022. BACKGROUND: At the December 15, 2017 City Council Meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 17-120 establishing a meeting attendance policy for City Council appointed Boards, Commissions, and Committees. ANALYSIS: In accordance with Resolution No. 17-120, a yearly attendance report is to be provided to the City Council each year. The yearly attendance report for 2022 is attached. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item promotes active attendance at meetings from Commission/Committee members to work together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Attendance Report Page 83 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD ANNUAL ATTENDANCE REPORT (Appointed by R.C. City Council) January 2022 – December 2022 LEGEND %Color 75-100 Green 50-74 Yellow 0-49 Red Updated 12/2022 3 2 2 3 David DeMauro 3/2016 - 7/2022 1 0 1 0 Term Ended 7/2022 Jaime Garcia 1/2015 - 1/2023 Term Ended 4/2022; no meetings during term. Denise Garzaro 7/2018 - 8/2026 1 1 0 100 Velma Gilbert 3/2016 - 4/2024 1 1 0 100 Otis Greer 2/2018 - 2/2022 Term Ended 2/2022; no meetings during term. April McAllaster 8/2019 - 8/2023 1 1 0 100 Lisa Morgan-Perales 8/2019 - 8/2023 1 1 0 100 Pascal Pangestu 4/2022-4/2026 1 1 0 100 Matthew Parmental 4/2022 – 4/2026 1 1 0 100 Dave Terry 8/2019 - 8/2023 1 0 1 0 Absence: Planned Travel LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Meeting Attendance - 01/2022 - 12/31/22 The Library Board of Trustees is an administrative board with oversight of the Archibald Library and Paul A. Biane Library as defined in the California State Education Code. Name Term # Mtgs Attend Absent %Comment Christine DeVries 08/2014 - 06/2023 8 7 1 88 Absence: Personal Matter Janet Temkin 10/2010 - 6/2023 8 7 1 88 Absence: Personal Matter Eva Miller 8/2021- 6/2024 8 4 4 50 Absence: Personal Matter/Travel Kristen Murrieta- Morales 12/2018 - 6/2024 8 6 2 75 Absence: Personal Matter Riley Wells 8/2021 to 6/2024 8 8 0 100 COMMUNITY PARKS AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Meeting Attendance - 01/2022 - 12/31/22 The purpose of the Committee is to provide oversight of the revenues received from properties located within certain districts through the review of annual financial audits for any district that is mandated to have oversight from the Committee, and to communicate with property owners regarding how their community parks and landscaping are maintained and funded. The Committee shall have oversight of LMDs 1, 2, 4-R, 6-R, and 7, SLD 2, and PD-85. The committee does not have set meetings throughout the year and meets on an as needed basis. Name Term # Mtgs Attend Absent %Comment ATTACHMENT - 1 Page 84 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COMMISSION/COMMITTEE/BOARD ANNUAL ATTENDANCE REPORT (Appointed by R.C. City Council) January 2022 – December 2022 LEGEND %Color 75-100 Green 50-74 Yellow 0-49 Red Updated 12/2022 3 2 2 3 Al Boling 12/2021-12/2025 18 17 1 94 James Daniels 12/2021-12/2025 18 17 1 94 Bryan Dopp 11/2019-12/2023 18 18 0 100 Tony Morales 11/2019-12/2025 18 18 0 100 Diane Williams 11/2019-12/2023 18 14 4 78 Bryan Dopp 02/2021-02/2023 3 3 0 100 Jayme Leslie 12/2019-12/2023 3 3 0 100 John L. Machado 12/2017-12/2023 3 3 0 100 Leslie Matamoros 12/2017-12/2023 3 3 0 100 Paula Pachon 07/2020-02/2023 3 1 2 33 Absence - Personal Reason/School PLANNING/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Attendance – 01/2022 - 12/31/22 The Planning Commission's role is to review and make decisions on various land use applications such as, but not limited to, Conditional Use Permits, Development/Design Reviews, Entertainment Permits, Subdivisions (tentative tract and tentative parcel maps), and Variances. The Commission also makes recommendations to the City Council regarding amendments to the General Plan, Development District/Zoning, and the Development Code. They will also review and make recommendations on new ordinances, land use determinations, and other matters of public interest. Name Term # Mtgs Attend Absent % Comment PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE Meeting Attendance – 01/2022 - 12/31/22 The duties of the Public Art Committee are to advise the City Council regarding the selection, purchase, placement, and maintenance of art installed by the City or on City property, and expenditures from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Art Trust Fund. Name Term # Mtgs Attend Absent % Comment Page 85 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Ernie Perez, Chief of Police Jerry Davenport, Administrative Lieutenant Karen Hunt, Sheriff's Service Specialist SUBJECT:Consideration to Accept Grant Revenue from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Funds to Purchase Equipment for the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council accept the grant revenue in the amount of $32,563.00 from the United States Department of Justice Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) for 2022 fiscal year award. BACKGROUND: Byrne Justice Assistance (BJA) recently announced the availability of grant funds to state and local units of government through the Byrne JAG Grant. This program allows state and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system. ANALYSIS: The funding from the BJA is intended to help grow the Public Safety Video Network (PSVN) system. These cameras are a great tool for both deterring criminal activity and capturing information that assists law enforcement in solving crimes. These cameras also help protect the City’s critical infrastructures. Subrecipient Award Agreement and Interlocal Agreement is on file with City Clerk’s Office. FISCAL IMPACT: Staff is requesting the City Council accept the $32,563 JAG Grant funds into account number 1361000-4750 (Grant Income). COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This aligns with the Council Core Values of promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and intentionally embracing and anticipating the future. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 86 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Matt Marquez, Director of Planning & Economic Development Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Deputy Director of Planning SUBJECT:Consideration of an Agreement with Providence II Arte Apartments, LLC for Partial Funding for the Widening of Hermosa Avenue and Revised Parking Management Plan for the Arte Apartment Complex, and Finding the Agreement and Revised Parking Management Plan Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached agreement with Providence II Arte Apartment, LLC for partial funding for the widening of Hermosa Avenue and the revised parking management plan for the Arte Apartment complex attached as Exhibit A to the agreement and find the agreement and parking management plan exempt from CEQA. BACKGROUND: Arte is a mixed-use development that was approved by the Planning Commission on October 26, 2016 for construction of 182 units including 5 live-work units. The Planning Commission’s approval included a Minor Exception that reduced the required parking supply by 24.48%, as permitted by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, based on a parking study prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan and peer-reviewed on behalf of the City by Nelson-Nygaard. In May 2021, residents in adjoining neighborhoods contacted the City with concerns related to the use of off-site parking by the complex’s residents in their neighborhoods. The concerns centered around issues of parking supply in the neighborhoods as well as nuisance activities related to the off-site parking. In order to resolve the neighborhood concerns, a meeting was held with the two affected neighborhoods and staff contacted Arte’s management to begin discussions on possible solutions. In September and October 2021, administrative hearings were held by the City Council to consider establishment of a residential permit parking district in the neighborhood to the west of Arte. The permit parking district was approved for an initial 6-month period on October 20, 2021 and then was extended and expanded to include one street north of Arte on June 15, 2022. Additional details on the history of this item may be found in the City Council staff reports for the Estacia Street, et al. Residential Parking Permit District dated September 15, 2021, October, 20, 2021, and June 15, 2022. With the approval of the permit parking district, staff was also directed to seek resolution with Arte Page 87 Page 2 1 6 3 2 to the observed parking deficit, revise Arte’s parking management plan to improve its efficacy, and, if necessary, abate any violations of the parking management plan or other nuisances arising from parking issues at the complex. Following each of the hearings, staff continued to meet with Arte, review updated parking studies (discussed in more detail in the June 15, 2022 staff report), and work toward an update to the revised Parking Management Plan that was issued on February 24, 2022 by the Planning Director with a goal of addressing both on-site parking management and provide for additional off-site parking supply outside of the affected neighborhoods. ANALYSIS: The attached agreement is the result of these ongoing discussions with Arte management and is submitted for consideration by the City Council. The agreement contains two key components that seek to address the management and supply of parking related to the Arte complex: revisions to the revised Parking Management Plan and the widening of Hermosa Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard to add to the on-street parking supply outside of the nearby neighborhoods. The update to the Revised Parking Management Plan would require more parking strategies than were initially required by the 2016 parking management plan first adopted when the project was approved. At the same time, the Revised Parking Management Plan would remove a number of parking supply strategies adopted as part of the 2022 revision that are no longer required with the increase in off-site parking supply by the widening of Hermosa Avenue. The revised plan will require the establishment and enforcement of an on-site parking management program, the creation of a pool of unassigned parking spaces to be leased to tenants as additional assigned spaces to better utilize the on-site parking supply, and notification to new tenants of the requirements of the parking management program. For example, if a two-bedroom unit only elects to take one parking space, the second space could be included as part of an unassigned parking pool or leased to one-bedroom unit tenants or tenants who have two cars. This strategy was recommended by a recent parking study prepared by Arte at the request of City staff. The second component of the agreement includes Arte’s participation in the widening of Hermosa Avenue to develop additional off-site/on-street parking spaces along the east side of the street. The widening project is anticipated to generate at least 25 additional parking spaces between Arte’s north property line and Norwick Street. Arte would contribute up to $400,000 toward the cost of the widening and parking development. Construction would need to be completed by the City within 18 months. The plans for the widening are currently in final design and anticipated to be out to bid later this fiscal year. Finally, the contribution by Arte would satisfy requirements for current or future parking supply based on the currently approved and developed complex. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed agreement and revised parking management plan are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(4). The agreement is only intended to provide a funding source for the proposed widening of Hermosa Avenue and does not commit the City to the widening project. In addition, the revised parking management plan is intended to improve the efficiency of parking usage at the Arte Apartment complex, but does not result in any new development or the creation of additional on-site parking spaces. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for the design and construction of the widening of Hermosa Avenue north of Arte is been to be approximately $550,000 based on 90% complete plans. Adequate funds have been included in the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget to cover the balance of the estimated design and construction costs accounting for Arte’s contribution. Upon completion of the plans, staff will solicit bids and return to the City Council with a recommendation on a construction contract, final estimated Page 88 Page 3 1 6 3 2 construction cost, and appropriation request should additional funds be required. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The approval of this agreement promotes the City Council’s vision for the City by maintaining a high quality of life in local neighborhoods through the management and provision of adequate parking supply within the City. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Agreement Page 89 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND PROVIDENCE II ARTE APARTMENTS, LLC FOR PARTIAL FUNDING FOR THE WIDENING OF HERMOSA AVENUE This AGREEMENT is dated for identification this 18th day of January, 2023, by and between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California general law city (hereinafter, the “CITY”), and PROVIDENCE II ARTE APARTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company (hereinafter, “ARTE”). The CITY and ARTE are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party”. RECITALS A.WHEREAS, the apartment building currently owned by ARTE (the “Arte Project”) is located at 10130 Foothill Boulevard in the CITY (the “Property”). B.WHEREAS, the CITY approved a reduction in parking for the Arte Project pursuant to Minor Exception DRC2016-00455, which permitted a twenty five (25) percent reduction in the required number of parking spaces for the Arte Project (the “City Approval”). C.WHEREAS, certain residents in the neighborhood surrounding the Arte Project have expressed concerns about the adequacy of parking at the Arte Project and as a result, the CITY required ARTE to comply with a revised Parking Management Plan prepared by the CITY for the Arte Project dated February 24, 2022, which became effective on March 30, 2022 (the “Prior PMP”). D.WHEREAS, the Prior PMP required ARTE to contract with a qualified parking consultant or traffic engineer to prepare an updated parking demand analysis and submit it to the CITY for review. Accordingly, the May 5, 2022 parking demand analysis prepared by Walker Consultants (the “Walker Report”) was submitted to the CITY on May 5, 2022, which satisfied that requirement. E.WHEREAS, the Walker Report concluded that there is no parking deficiency at the Arte Project, although the existing parking spaces could be maximized using certain parking strategies. The City does not agree with all of the findings of the Walker Report. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the provision of additional parking spaces for use by residents of the Arte Project and to resolve any dispute about the number of parking spaces that should be provided to the residents . F.WHEREAS, based on the findings in the Walker Report and in light of this Agreement, a revised Parking Management Plan has been prepared by the CITY as City of Rancho Cucamonga CONTRACT NUMBER 2023-001 Page 1 of 9 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 90 shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the “Revised PMP”). The Revised PMP will supersede the Prior PMP in its entirety upon its execution. G. WHEREAS, ARTE desires to coordinate with the CITY on the project proposed by the CITY to widen a segment of the east side of Hermosa Avenue that is located to the north of the Arte Project to provide additional parking spaces for use by residents of the Arte Project (the “Widening Project”). AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual promises contained herein, City and Arte agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the framework for ARTE to partially fund the Widening Project and enumerate related City obligations. The Parties acknowledge that the CITY shall be responsible for designing and constructing the Widening Project and that ARTE will partially reimburse CITY for the Widening Project through payment of the Arte Contribution (defined below) as provided herein. 2. No Gift. The Parties acknowledge that the Arte Contribution is not a gift to any specific individual and that it constitutes consideration for CITY’s commitments herein. The CITY is aware that ARTE may be a lobbyist employer, and ARTE employees may be registered lobbyists and the Parties acknowledge that they may accept and provide the partial funding as set forth in this Agreement. 3. Contract for Widening Project. The CITY will follow all applicable requirements with respect to the Widening Project, and in connection therewith will publicly solicit bids from qualified contractors and award the contract in accordance with applicable law. The CITY will provide ARTE with (a) the Widening Project bid materials, including the project specifications (collectively the “Bid Package”) on the date when the Bid Package is publicly made available and (b) once the bids are unsealed and the contract is awarded, copies of all the bids received by CITY from qualified contractors who bid on the Widening Project, including but not limited to a copy of the lowest responsible bid. 4. Construction and Design. The CITY shall be responsible for designing and constructing the Widening Project, including obtaining all necessary permits and approvals. The Widening Project shall be designed to provide at least 25 additional parking spaces (the “Additional Parking Spaces”). 5. Use of Additional Parking Spaces. All of the Additional Parking Spaces shall be available for perpetual non-exclusive use by residents of the Arte Project on a twenty four (24) hours a day basis, for day and overnight parking, at no charge to residents of the Arte Project or authorized guests of the residents of the Arte Project. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may implement (a) parking restrictions to limit parking to a maximum continuous duration of twenty four (24) hours and (b) a parking Page 2 of 9 Page 91 permit program, so long as the City (1) notifies Arte Project residents and management of the availability of parking permits at least thirty (30) calendar days in advance of others and gives Arte Project residents the opportunity to apply for and obtain such parking permits within such thirty (30) day period; and (2) any permit fee charged to Arte Project residents shall be in accordance with generally applicable City fees, which shall not exceed the City’s proportional cost of operating the parking permit program. 6. Arte Contribution. a. To partially fund the Widening Project, ARTE shall deposit with the CITY funds for use in connection with CITY’s completion of the Widening Project in the amount of four hundred thousand dollars ($400,000) (the “Arte Contribution”). ARTE shall pay the Arte Contribution to the CITY within thirty (30) calendar days of the Effective Date (defined below) of this Agreement. The Parties agree that ARTE makes no representations and shall assume no obligations whatsoever related to the actual completion of the Widening Project, other than payment of the Arte Contribution. b. The Parties agree that once the Arte Contribution has been paid by ARTE to the CITY (i) no further on-Property or off-Property parking improvements shall be required to be provided by ARTE, (ii) the Prior PMP shall no longer be applicable to the Arte Project, and (iii) the Revised PMP shall take effect. ARTE shall not be required to provide any additional on-site parking on the Property once the Arte Contribution has been paid by ARTE to the CITY. This Section 6(b) shall survive the termination of this Agreement. c. No interest shall accrue and be payable to ARTE on the amount in the Arte Contribution. d. The CITY may draw funds from the Arte Contribution as needed to pay invoices in connection with the Widening Project before such invoices become past due. e. Upon completion of the Widening Project, the CITY will provide ARTE with written notice of the final actual cost of the Widening Project (“Final Cost”) and reasonable supporting information for the Final Cost. If the Final Cost is an amount less than the Arte Contribution, the CITY shall reimburse ARTE for any balance within sixty (60) calendar days of mailing of written notice of the Final Cost. 7. Widening Project Completion. The CITY shall use commercially reasonable efforts to complete the Widening Project within eighteen (18) months of the Effective Date (defined below) of this Agreement, subject to force majeure. 8. Force Majeure. If any Party shall be delayed or hindered in or prevented from the performance of any construction, maintenance, or other obligation required to be performed by such Party under this Agreement by reason of acts of God, natural Page 3 of 9 Page 92 disaster (including earthquake, hurricane, flood or severe prolonged adverse weather conditions), the outbreak of a pandemic virus or other pandemic disease, strikes, lockouts, unavailability of materials, failure of power, governmental laws or regulations, a declaration of a national, state or local emergency, directives or orders by a Governmental Authority (including orders by the federal Centers for Disease Control or its successor, or any state, county, or local public health department), riots, insurrections, adverse weather conditions preventing the performance of work as certified to by the licensed architect, engineer, or other individual overseeing the performance of the relevant work, war or other reason beyond such Party’s control, then the time for performance of such act shall be extended for a period equal to the period of such delay. Lack of adequate funds or financial inability to perform shall not be deemed to be a cause beyond the control of such Party. 9. Effective Date, Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon execution of this Agreement by both Parties (“Effective Date”). Upon completion of the Widening Project and the payment of any CITY reimbursement to ARTE pursuant to Section 6.e. above, this Agreement shall automatically terminate, except with respect to Section 5 (Use of Additional Parking Spaces) and Section 6(b) (Arte Contribution) above, which shall survive in perpetuity. 10. Successors and Assigns. ARTE may assign this Agreement at any time without the prior written consent of the CITY. Upon assignment of this Agreement, ARTE and the successor assignee will execute the necessary document to memorialize the assignment and provide a copy of such document to the CITY. 11. Applicable Laws. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the Parties with respect to the subject matter herein. With the exception of the Revised PMP, there are no representations, agreements, or understandings (whether oral or written) between or among the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are not fully expressed herein. 13. Amendment. No change, amendment, alteration, or revision of this Agreement shall be valid unless evidenced by a written agreement approved and executed by both Parties. 14. Authority to Execute. The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Parties warrant that they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement. 15. Binding on Successors and Assigns. The agreements and covenants included herein shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of any assigns and successors- in-interest of the Parties hereto. Page 4 of 9 Page 93 16. Waiver. The failure of a Party to insist upon a strict performance of any of the terms, conditions, and covenants contained herein shall not be deemed a waiver of any rights or remedies that such Party may have and shall not be deemed a waiver of any subsequent breach or default in the terms, conditions, and covenants contained herein. 17. Headings. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience purposes only and shall not affect the terms of this Agreement. 18. Public Records. The Parties recognize and acknowledge that the CITY is subject to the California Public Records Act, California Government Code Section 6250 and following. Public records are subject to disclosure. 19. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be void, invalid, or unenforceable, the same will either be reformed to comply with applicable law or stricken if not so conformable, so as not to affect the validity or enforceability of this Agreement. 20. Notices. Any notice given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be given by delivering the same to such Party in person, by delivering the same to such Party by reputable overnight courier or express service, or by sending the same to such Party by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, with postage prepaid. The address(es) of each Party for the giving of notices hereunder are, until changed as hereinafter provided, the following: To CITY: With a copy to: City Manager, City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA Richards, Watson & Gershon, Attn: Nicholas Ghirelli, 1 Civic Center Circle, P.O. Box 1059, Brea, CA 92822-1059 To ARTE: Providence Capital Group, Inc., Attn: Paul A. Laubach, 183 Calle Magdalena, Suite 10, Encinitas, CA 92024 With a copy to: Allen Matkins, Attn: Caroline Chase, Three Embarcadero Center, 13th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 21. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which in the aggregate shall constitute Page 5 of 9 Page 94 one and the same instrument, and the Parties agree that signature on this Agreement shall be sufficient to bind the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement. “CITY”: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California general law city By: Print Name: L. Dennis Michael Title: Mayor Date: __________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Nicholas R. Ghirelli City Attorney Date: __________________ “ARTE”: PROVIDENCE II ARTE APARTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Providence Speed Manager II, LLC, a California limited liability company, Its Manager By: Providence Capital Group, Inc., a California corporation, Its Manager By: Print Name: Paul A. Laubach Title: Its President Date: __________________ Page 6 of 9 Page 95 EXHIBIT A REVISED PMP Page 7 of 9 Page 96 Parking Management Plan – Arte at 10130 Foothill Boulevard (revised on 1/18/2023, effective on __/__/2023) This revised Parking Management Plan (“Plan”) applies to the Arte apartment building located at 10130 Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga, California (“Arte”) and supersedes, in its entirety, all prior agreements, plans, and understandings concerning parking requirements and parking obligations for Arte, between the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City) and the owner of Arte, including its successors and assigns, including but not limited to the prior Parking Management Plan dated February 24, 2022 (“Prior PMP”). This Plan has been approved by the City Planning Director in accordance with condition #3 of Minor Exception DRC2016-00455; and this Plan shall be effective as of _____________, 2023 (the “Effective Date”). Parking Management Strategies and Verification Measures 1. Arte shall establish and enforce an on-property parking permit program that is paid for, operated, and managed by Arte. The parking permit program shall require that each residential tenant vehicle authorized to park in an on-property parking space is identified by a parking permit. In satisfaction of this requirement, Arte has established an on-property parking permit decal program, which is used to prohibit individuals who are not Arte residents from parking in on-property residential spaces and to prevent Arte residents who do not have a parking permit decal from parking in on-property residential spaces. All Arte residents with a parking permit decal are assigned a specific on-property residential space, which is to be enforced by towing any unauthorized vehicles at the election of individual residents, Arte on-property management and/or on- property security personnel. Arte may switch the decal program to an electronic decal program at its sole discretion. 2. In order to improve the efficiency of the existing parking supply, Arte shall lease unused, assigned parking spaces to other tenants that request additional on-site parking so that they may lease an additional space. Each such parking space shall be placed in a pool of unassigned, first-come, first-served parking spaces. For example, if a two-bedroom unit only elects to take one parking space, the second space could be included as part of an unassigned parking pool or leased to one-bedroom unit tenants or tenants who have two cars. 3. As part of the execution of each new residential lease for each new Arte residential tenant, on and after the date which is 30 days after the Effective Date of this Plan, Arte agrees to require each residential tenant to sign a residential lease addendum acknowledging that he/she/they (i) have received a copy of this Plan, (ii) are aware Page 8 of 9 Page 97 of this Plan’s existence, and (iii) agree to comply with this Plan’s requirements, as applicable to residential tenants. Arte further agrees to use reasonable efforts to cause each existing residential tenant to execute such residential lease addendum following the Effective Date of this Plan. Arte shall implement this requirement by the use of a form of a residential lease addendum, a copy of which shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Plan. Arte may modify the form and contents of the residential lease addendum with City’s prior written consent. 4. Within 30 days of the Effective Date of this Plan, Arte shall provide to the City a map inventory of all parking spaces on-property at Arte that identifies assigned residential spaces, non-assigned residential spaces, assigned commercial spaces, and non- assigned commercial spaces. Arte may modify the parking configuration in accordance with any applicable City permitting requirements, so long as the City Planning Director approves such reconfiguration after finding that it would not reduce the overall number of parking spaces on-property at Arte or reduce the effectiveness of parking availability and utilization, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 5. Residential garage spaces shall be required to be used only for parking vehicles only and not, for example, storage or as a workspace. Arte shall develop a schedule for this enforcement, which shall include, at a minimum, visual inspection of parking garages and enclosed spaces to ensure they are used solely for vehicle parking and visual inspection of all unenclosed spaces to ensure that they are used only tenants and their guests. 6. The City will notify Arte in writing of any purported non-compliance with this Plan. Any such notice shall be delivered to Providence Capital Group, Inc., Attn: Paul A. Laubach, 183 Calle Magdalena, Suite 10, Encinitas, CA 92024. The City and Arte shall attempt in good faith to resolve any purported non-compliance or dispute arising out of or relating to this Plan promptly by negotiations between an Arte representative(s) and the City Planning Director. Page 9 of 9 Page 98 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Annette Cano-Soza, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of an Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, Located on the East Side of Carnelian Avenue, North of Hillside Avenue, Submitted by New Weaver Lane, LLC. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Improvement Agreement Extension for Case No. SUBTT20042, located on the east side of Carnelian Avenue, north of Hillside Avenue. BACKGROUND: On June 14, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Case No. SUBTT20042 to subdivide 18.2 acres of land into 26 single-family residential lots. On April 15, 2020, City Council approved an Improvement Agreement and associated securities to guarantee the construction of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond No. 4419127 $341,700 Labor and Material Bond No. 4419127 $341,700 On May 5, 2021, City Council approved an extension to the Improvement Agreement making the new expiration date May 5, 2022. ANALYSIS: The developer, New Weaver Lane, LLC has submitted a request for an additional 12-month extension to the project Improvement Agreement; the agreement on file expired May 5, 2022. The developer is requesting this additional extension as the project has continued to experience delays due to the prolonged pandemic and the supply chain issues it has caused. If approved, this would be the second extension to the Improvement Agreement approved on April 15, 2020, and the agreement would be extended until May 5, 2023. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Department staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in the Initial Study, staff determined there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect Page 99 Page 2 1 6 1 9 on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and conditioned for the project. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the construction of high- quality public improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Page 100 ATTACHMENT 1 Vicinity Map SUBTT20042 NOT TO SCALE Project Site Page 101 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Annette Cano-Soza, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration to Order the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 Related to Case No. DRC2021-00026, Located at 6724 Pasito Avenue. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023-001) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023-002) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023-003) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution ordering the annexation into Landscape Maintenance District No.1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2 for Case No. DRC2021-00026. BACKGROUND: Case No. DRC2021-00026 was approved by the Planning Department on April 15, 2021 for the construction of a 1,113 square foot first and second story addition to an existing single-family residence located at 6724 Pasito Avenue. The project was approved subject to a condition that the property be annexed into Landscape Maintenance District 1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2. ANALYSIS: The owner, Came Family Trust submitted the Consent and Waiver to Annexation Form for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 2. Copies of the forms are on file with the City Clerk’s Office. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: On April 15, 2021, the Planning Department staff 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 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, as the project involves the alterations of existing residential structures. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed annexation would supply additional annual revenue into the landscape and street light maintenance districts in the following amounts: Page 102 Page 2 1 6 2 2 Landscape Maintenance District No. 1: $92.21 Street Light Maintenance District No. 1: $17.77 Street Light Maintenance District No. 2: $39.97 Further, the development will construct no street trees or street lights that will need to be maintained by the City. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s vision for the City by ensuring the maintenance of high- quality public improvements that promote a world class community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Resolution Ordering Annexation LMD1 Attachment 3 - Resolution Ordering Annexation SLD1 Attachment 4 - Resolution Ordering Annexation SLD2 Page 103 ATTACHMENT 1 Vicinity Map DRC2021-00026 NOT TO SCALE Project Site Page 104 Resolution No. 202X-XXX Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXXXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY) FOR PROJECT CASE NO. DRC2021-00026 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) (the “District”); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”) establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the “Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the “Improvements”); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and Waiver”); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Page 105 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2023. Page 106 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: CAME FAMILY TRUST 11/6/97 The legal description of the Property is: TRACT 9025 LOT 75 Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property: 1076-041-34 Page 107 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2022/23 Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City): Landscape Maintenance District No. 1(General City) (the “Maintenance District”) represents various landscaped areas, parks and community trails located at various sites throughout the City. These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City. As such, the parcels within this District do not represent a distinct district area as do the other LMD’s within the City. Typically, new parcels within this District have been annexed upon development. The various sites maintained by the District consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, community trails and parks. The parks consist of Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park, Hermosa Park, and the undeveloped Don Tiburcio Tapia Park. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. DRC2021-00026: NONE Page 108 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 5 of 5 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2022/23 Landscape Maintenance District No.1 (General City): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2022/23. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) for Case No. DRC2021-00026: Land Use Basis EBU* Factor Rate per EBU* Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $92.21 Multi-Family Residential Unit 0.50 92.21 Non-Residential Acre 2.00 92.21 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 1 Parcel x 1.00 EBU Factor x $92.21 Rate per EBU = $92.21 Annual Assessment Page 109 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 20XX - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR CASE NO. DRC2021-00026 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the “District”); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”) establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the “Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the “Improvements”); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and Waiver”); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Page 110 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2023. Page 111 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: CAME FAMILY TRUST 11/6/97 The legal description of the Property is: TRACT 9025 LOT 75 Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property: 1076-041-34 Page 112 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the “Maintenance District”) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. DRC2021-00026: NONE Page 113 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 5 of 5 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2021/22 Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2021/22. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets) for Case No. DRC2021-00026: Land Use Basis EBU Factor* Rate per EBU* Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $17.77 Multi-Family Residential Parcel 1.00 17.77 Non-Residential Acre 2.00 17.77 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 1 Parcel x 1.00 EBU Factor x $17.77 Rate per EBU = $17.77 Annual Assessment Page 114 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 20XX - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS) FOR CASE NO. DRC2021-00026 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) (the “District”); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”) establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the “Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the “Improvements”); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and Waiver”); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared Page 115 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 2 of 5 support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2023. Page 116 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: CAME FAMILY TRUST 11/6/97 The legal description of the Property is: TRACT 9025 LOT 75 Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property: 1076-041-34 Page 117 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 4 of 5 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2021/22 Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets): Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) (the “Maintenance District”) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in another local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. The sites maintained by the District consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. DRC2021-00026: NONE Page 118 Resolution No. 20XX-XXX – Page 5 of 5 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2021/22 Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2021/22. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) for Case No. DRC2021-00026: Land Use Basis EBU Factor* Rate per EBU* Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $39.97 Multi-Family Residential Unit 1.00 39.97 Non-Residential Acre 2.00 39.97 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 1 Parcel x 1.00 EBU Factor x $39.97 Rate per EBU = $39.97 Annual Assessment Page 119 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Deputy Director of Planning Fabian Villenas, Interim Management Analyst II SUBJECT:Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for the Development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook to be Reimbursed from State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council appropriate funds in the amount of $33,000 from Fund 016 for the development of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Homeowners Handbook and be reimbursed from State SB 2 Planning Grant Revenues once project is completed. BACKGROUND: In 2017, Governor Brown signed a package of legislation aimed at addressing the State’s housing shortage and high housing costs. As part of the package, SB 2 established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents in order to fund efforts that increase the supply of affordable homes in California. For the first round of funding, the City was eligible to receive $310,000. At its November 20, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved Resolution No. 19-096 authorizing the application for, and receipt of, SB 2 Planning Grants Program funds. The majority of the funding was utilized to help fund the completion of the General Plan Update, which was adopted by the City Council in December 2021, with the remaining $33,000 identified for the development of an ADU Homeowners Handbook. ANALYSIS: Encouraging the development of accessory dwelling units, aka “granny suites”, is a key strategy in the State’s efforts to increase affordable housing opportunities. To support state goals, the City’s updated Housing Element, part of the General Plan Update, also identifies policies and strategies to encourage the construction of accessory dwelling units. One such strategy is for the City to develop an ADU Homeowners Handbook that would help guide Rancho Cucamonga homeowners through the process of building an ADU. The ADU Homeowners Handbook will include narrative definitions and descriptions that will explain what the different types of ADUs are, factors to consider when developing an ADU, and the steps needed to develop an ADU. The Handbook will be richly illustrated and user friendly. Page 120 Page 2 1 6 4 0 FISCAL IMPACT: The SB 2 Planning Grant Program provides funding on a reimbursement basis. Once the City has incurred expenses for activities identified in the grant application request, a request for reimbursement is submitted to the State. As such, project funds must first be appropriated in order to start the project and expend the funds, which will then be reimbursed thru the SB 2 Planning Grant Program. As a result, the following appropriations are necessary: 1016301-5300/2117-4215 (Contract Services/SB2 Planning Grant): $33,000 1016000-8274 (Transfer In-State Grants Fund): $33,000 1274000-4760/2117-0 (Grant Income-State/SB2 Planning Grant): $33,000 1274208-9016 (Transfer Out- Transfer Out-CD Tech Svcs Fund): $33,000 The following appropriations are necessary to account for the pending reimbursement of SB2 funds that helped fund the completion of the General Plan Update, which was adopted by the City Council in December 2021: 1016000-8274 (Transfer In-State Grants Fund): $277,000 1274000-4760/2117-0 (Grant Income-State/SB2 Planning Grant): $277,000 1274208-9016 (Transfer Out- Transfer Out-CD Tech Svcs Fund): $277,000 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Providing affordable housing options supports the City Council’s Vision Statement of being a world class community by creating an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 121 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Boards of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Shelly Munson, Director of Innovation and Technology Lilyan Villarreal, Deputy Director of Innovation and Technology SUBJECT:Consideration of the Purchase of Network Virtualization and Security Software in the Amount of $169,760 and Consideration of a Professional Services Agreement with VMware in the Amount of $144,800 for Implementation Services. (CITY/FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council/Board of Directors of the Fire Protection District: 1. Award the purchase of network virtualization and security software, utilizing the NASPO Value Point Master Agreement No. AR2472 in the amount of $169,760 2. Award a Professional Services Agreement with VMware for the implementation of the network virtualization and security software in the amount of $144,800 3. Authorize the expenditure of a $10,440 contingency for the Professional Services Agreement with VMware BACKGROUND: As the technology industry continues to move to cloud infrastructure along with growing cybersecurity threats, it is important for the City to have the appropriate tools, knowledge, and policies in place to protect its systems, networks, and more importantly, data. With the growing complexities of managing the City’s diverse systems, which are hosted both in the cloud and on premise, the network virtualization and security software would allow for oversight in one central location using additional networking tools for the virtual server environment while providing additional security. ANALYSIS: The network virtualization and security software will increase operational effectiveness and efficiency by providing tools to virtually segment network traffic flow using micro segmentation. Additionally, the software improves the level of security for the virtual server environment by preventing unauthorized lateral movement within the network and containing potential cyber intrusions based on known threats. The software enhances security services provided by the Department of Innovation and Technology through automation of threat detection and containment process. Furthermore, the system ensures consistent security policies are followed Page 122 Page 2 1 6 5 2 throughout the City’s virtual network environment and facilitates the oversight of the City’s virtual networks through one central location to reduce staff time and streamline network administration functions. Ultimately, the proposed network virtualization and security software would increase manageability of the City’s systems and networks, allowing for more effective and efficient security policies consistent with the City’s cybersecurity strategic plan. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds were approved in the FY 22/23 adopted budget for the total cost of the software and implementation services; the project cost will be $314,560 with an additional $10,440 contingency. The project will be funded by both the City (714) Computer Equipment/Tech Replacement Fund and Fire District (288) Fire Protection Capital Fund. Budget transfers are requested to expense part of the project referenced below: Budget Transfer Request:Increase Decrease 1714001-5152 Computer Software ($89,500) 1714001-5300 Contract Services $89,500 3288501-5152 Computer Software ($89,500) 3288501-5300 Contract Services $89,500 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This project supports the City Council’s core values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future, and the relentless pursuit of improvement. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 123 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Shelly Munson, Director of Innovation and Technology Lilyan Villarreal, Deputy Director of Innovation & Technology SUBJECT:Consideration of an Increase to Public Works Contract No. 2021-049 for Southern California Sound Image in the amount of $476,750 for the Audio-Visual Upgrades in City Facilities, and to Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $310,710. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Approve an increase to Southern California Sound Image Contract No. 2021-049 for $476,750; and 2. Authorize the appropriation of $310,710 for audio-visual upgrades. BACKGROUND: Audio and visual equipment within City facilities is used for a variety of purposes including public meetings and room rentals, to create multimedia experiences for events, and to increase safety and communications to the public. Maintenance and upgrades to these systems are required to keep the equipment in working order and ensure it is compatible with security and network standards. In May 2021, City Council awarded Contract No. 2021-049 to Southern California Sound Image (Sound Image) for the Central Park audio/visual (A/V) update project to complete a comprehensive A/V refresh of the community rooms at the David Drier Senior Center and Goldy S. Lewis Community Center. Council also approved staff to move forward with a change order (No. 001) to complete a similar update to the technology equipment required to manage and broadcast City Council meetings over the City’s local television provider’s government access channel. Southern California Sound Image has intimate knowledge of our existing interfaces to connect the City’s equipment. They are uniquely qualified to perform the requested upgrades as they were originally contracted during the construction phase of the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center and have been involved in ongoing repairs and upgrades within the center (including Celebration Hall). Sound Image’s familiarity with the system they designed will save associated project costs – including project design and implementation training – and ensure seamless integration and compatibility with existing systems. Page 124 Page 2 1 6 5 3 ANALYSIS: Staff is recommending a second amendment to Southern California Sound Image’s contract, adding A/V upgrades to the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Celebration Hall and Courtyard, Paul A. Biane Library and the Second Story and Beyond discovery space, and the Public Safety Real Time Information Center. This proposed upgrade will replace equipment components that have reached the end of their projected service life and have begun to fail, causing intermittent service disruptions during meetings and special events. In addition to the upgrade of aging equipment, additional equipment is needed for the Paul A. Biane Library’s Second Story and Beyond discovery space and the Lewis Family Playhouse Courtyard projects currently under construction. The following projects will be included with the requested amendment: •Victoria Gardens Celebration Hall audio display and control equipment, design, and installation. ($38,710) •Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Courtyard A/V infrastructure and theatrical lighting fixtures. ($166,040) •Paul A. Biane Library and Second Story and Beyond speaker system, design and installation. ($30,000) •Real Time Information Center video wall equipment, design and installation. ($242,000) FISCAL IMPACT: The total estimated cost for all projects shall not exceed $476,750. •An appropriation of $35,190 with a 10% contingency in the 1001407-5603 account is needed for the Celebration Hall project. •The Cultural Center Courtyard project cost is $150,950 with a 10% contingency which was approved in the FY22/23 budget in account number 1025001-5650. •The Paul A. Biane Library and Second Story and Beyond project costs are $30,000 and the following appropriation is needed: o Receive and deposit $30,000 from Library Foundation into Library Fund: 1290000-4909 $30,000 o Transfer money from Library Fund (290) 1290601-9329 $30,000 to Library Capital Fund (329) 1329000-8290 $30,000 o Increase Library Capital Fund budget for Second Story and Beyond project: 1329601-5650/1867329-0 $30,000 •The Real Time Information Center had a previously approved budget of $120,000 in FY 21/22, which was not spent; the full project cost now needs to be appropriated at $220,000 with a 10% contingency to account 1017701-5603. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: The audio-visual upgrades address the core value of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future as improvements to our systems exponentially increase the capabilities of staff to serve our internal and external customers. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – AV ProjectsROMs 2022 Page 125 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) TABLE OF CONTENTS: CULTURAL CENTER COURTYARD AV INFRASTRUCTURE (EXCLUDES CONDUIT & POWER BY EC)PG. 2 CULTURAL CENTER COURTYARD THEATRICAL LIGHTING FIXTURES PG. 4 LIBRARY 2ND FLOOR MUSEUM AUDIO SYSTEM PG. 5 LIBRARY ENTRANCE LED DISPLAY PG. 7 CELEBRATION HALL AUDIO DSP UPGRADES PG. 9 REAL TIME CRIME CENTER VIDEO WALL PG. 11 PG. 18 - PROJECT TOTALS EQUIPMENT COLOR KEY VE OPTION ADD/ALT REDUCED FOR VE REMOVED FOR VE CLEAR CELLS ARE ITEMS IN PLAY REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 1 13 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 126 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) CULTURAL CENTER COURTYARD AV INFRASTRUCTURE (EXCLUDES CONDUIT & POWER BY EC) Category/Device ID Equipment Description Manufacturer Model Number QTY Unit Cost Extended Cost ER 1-1 Wall Mount Equipment Rack Middle Atlantic DWR-24-26 1 $1,050 $1,050 Vented Door for Above Middle Atlantic VFD-24 1 $271 $271 Power Strips for Rack Middle Atlantic PD-815SC 1 $106 $106 WP 1-1 thru 1-6 Outdoor AV I/O Box FSR Inc OWB-X3-SM-XLR 6 $1,632 $9,792 NPB 1-1 thru 1-2 48 Port Network Patch Bay Leviton 4S255-S48 Fully Loaded w/ 61SJK-RG6 2 $900 $1,800 VPB1-1 SDI Video Patch Bay Bittree TBD 1 $1,636 $1,636 APB1-1 Audio Patch Bay Bittree 1 $1,955 $1,955 FPB1-1 Fiber Patch Bay Corning/TBD 1 $2,100 $2,100 SPK1-1 Speaker Patch Bay CUSTOM 1 $1,275 $1,275 Plates and Panels Budget CUSTOM 1 $3,600 $3,600 Wire and Cable Budget 1 $14,000 $14,000 Miscellaneous Budget 1 $4,200 $4,200 1/4 Ton Chain Motor Budget CM TBD 4 $2,750 $11,000 Motor Control & Cables Budget Applied 1 $3,900 $3,900 12” Box Truss (10’) Applied TBD 6 $800 $4,800 $0 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $61,485 REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 2 13 Page 127 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 3 13 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $61,485 SALES TAX 7.75%$4,765.0875 SHIPPING AND FREIGHT 3%$1,844.55 EQUPMENT TOTAL $68,094.6375 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Management 200 $125 $25,000 ENGINEERING/ SUBMITTALS Design, Engineering, Submittals, As- Builts 140 $105 $14,700 FEILD INSTALLATION Field Installation Labor 200 $95 $19,000 PROGRAMMING Control System Programminhg 0 $125 $0 COMISSIONING AND TRAINING System Startup, Verification, and Operational Training 16 $125 $2,000 EQUIPMENT RENTALS Lift Rentals, Etc.1 $3,400 $3,400 STRUCTURAL Structural Engineering Services 1 $3,500 $3,500 LABOR SUBTOTAL $67,600 COURTYARD AV INFRASTRUCTURE GRAND TOTAL $135,695 Page 128 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) CULTURAL CENTER COURTYARD THEATRICAL LIGHTING FIXTURES Category/Device ID Equipment Description Manufacturer Model Number QTY Unit Cost Extended Cost SPT 1-1 Ellipsoidal Spot Light ETC CSSPOT DEEP BLUE 6 $1,920 $11,520 19 Degree Lens Tube ETC 6 $375 $2,250 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $13,770 REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 4 13 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $13,770 SALES TAX 7.75%$1,067.175 SHIPPING AND FREIGHT 3%$413.1 EQUPMENT TOTAL $15,250.275 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Management 0 $125 $0 LABOR SUBTOTAL $0 CULTURAL CENTER COURTYARD THEATRICAL LIGHTING FIXTURES GRAND TOTAL $15,250 Page 129 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) LIBRARY 2ND FLOOR MUSEUM AUDIO SYSTEM Category/Device ID Equipment Description Manufacturer Model Number QTY Unit Cost Extended Cost ER 1-1 Wall Mount Equipment Rack Middle Atlantic DWR-24-26 1 $1,050 $1,050 Vented Door for Above Middle Atlantic VFD-24 1 $271 $271 Power Strips for Rack Middle Atlantic PD-815SC 2 $106 $212 DSP1-1 Audio IO, DSP, and Control Processor QSC Core110f 1 $4,000 $4,000 NSW1-1 Network Switch/ Control AP Budget Netgear or Equiv. TBD 1 $2,750 $2,750 TSP1-1 7” Touchscreen QSC TSC-710T-G3 1 $1,700 $1,700 AMP1-1 8 Channel Amplifier QSC CX-Q 48K 1 $4,200 $4,200 AMP1-2 4 Channel Amplifier QSC CX-Q 24K 1 $2,150 $2,150 SPK1-1 Pendant Speaker Sonance PS-P83T Black 58 $415 $24,070 Plates and Panels Budget CUSTOM 1 $2,000 $2,000 Wire and Cable Budget 1 $8,000 $8,000 Miscellaneous Budget 1 $2,400 $2,400 $0 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $52,803 REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 5 13 Page 130 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 6 13 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $52,803 SALES TAX 7.75%$4,092.2325 SHIPPING AND FREIGHT 3%$1,584.09 EQUPMENT TOTAL $58,479.3225 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Management 120 $125 $15,000 ENGINEERING/ SUBMITTALS Design, Engineering, Submittals, As- Builts 80 $105 $8,400 FEILD INSTALLATION Field Installation Labor 280 $95 $26,600 PROGRAMMING Control System Programminhg 80 $125 $10,000 COMISSIONING AND TRAINING System Startup, Verification, and Operational Training 24 $125 $3,000 EQUIPMENT RENTALS Lift Rentals, Etc.1 $3,500 $3,500 STRUCTURAL Structural Engineering Services 1 $2,500 $2,500 LABOR SUBTOTAL $69,000 LIBRARY 2ND FLOOR MUSEUM AUDIO SYSTEM GRAND TOTAL $127,479 Page 131 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) LIBRARY ENTRY VIDEO WALL Category/Device ID Equipment Description Manufacturer Model Number QTY Unit Cost Extended Cost ER 1-1 Wall Mount Equipment Rack Middle Atlantic DWR-10-22 1 $500 $500 Vented Door for Above Middle Atlantic VFD-10 1 $215 $215 Power Strips for Rack Middle Atlantic PD-815SC 1 $106 $106 Plates and Panels Budget CUSTOM 1 $250 $250 VW1-1 16’ W x 9’ H 2.6 MM Video Wall Package Digital Projection Radiance RCS-C 2.6mm 1 $91,000 $91,000 VW1-1 (VE Option)16’ W x 9’ H 3.9 MM Video Wall Package Digital Projection Radiance RCS-C 3.9mm $72,000 Wire and Cable Budget 1 $3,000 $3,000 Miscellaneous Budget 1 $1,200 $1,200 $0 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $96,271 REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 7 13 Page 132 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 8 13 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $96,271 SALES TAX 7.75%$7,461.0025 SHIPPING AND FREIGHT 3%$2,888.13 EQUPMENT TOTAL $106,620.1325 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Management 80 $125 $10,000 ENGINEERING/ SUBMITTALS Design, Engineering, Submittals, As- Builts 60 $105 $6,300 FACTORY INSTALLATION AND COMMISSIONING Factory Installation and Commissioning 1 $9,000 $9,000 PROGRAMMING Control System Programminhg 0 $125 $0 COMISSIONING AND TRAINING System Startup, Verification, and Operational Training 16 $125 $2,000 EQUIPMENT RENTALS Lift Rentals, Etc.2 $2,750 $5,500 STRUCTURAL Structural Engineering Services 1 $3,250 $3,250 LABOR SUBTOTAL $36,050 LIBRARY ENTRY VIDEO WALL GRAND TOTAL $142,670 Page 133 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) CELEBRATION HALL AUDIO DSP AND CONTROL Category/Device ID Equipment Description Manufacturer Model Number QTY Unit Cost Extended Cost DSP1-1 Audio IO, DSP, and Control Processor QSC Core110f 1 $4,000 $4,000 NSW1-1 Network Switch/ Control AP Budget Netgear or Equiv. TBD 1 $2,750 $2,750 TSP1-1 7” Touchscreen QSC TSC-710T-G3 4 $1,700 $6,800 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $4,000 REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 9 13 Page 134 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 10 13 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $4,000 SALES TAX 7.75%$310 SHIPPING AND FREIGHT 3%$120 EQUPMENT TOTAL $4,430 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Management 80 $125 $10,000 ENGINEERING/ SUBMITTALS Design, Engineering, Submittals, As- Builts 40 $105 $4,200 FEILD INSTALLATION Field Installation Labor 48 $95 $4,560 PROGRAMMING Control System Programminhg 80 $125 $10,000 COMISSIONING AND TRAINING System Startup, Verification, and Operational Training 16 $125 $2,000 EQUIPMENT RENTALS Lift Rentals, Etc.0 $2,750 $0 STRUCTURAL Structural Engineering Services 0 $3,250 $0 LABOR SUBTOTAL $30,760 CELEBRATION HALL AUDIO DSP AND CONTROL GRAND TOTAL $35,190 Page 135 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) REAL TIME CRIME CENTER VIDEO WALL Category/Device ID Equipment Description Manufacturer Model Number QTY Unit Cost Extended Cost VW1-1 LCD Matrix Video Wall Package Christie CUSTOM 1 $155,000 $155,000 NSW1-1 Network Switch/ Control AP Budget Netgear or Equiv. TBD 1 $2,750 $2,750 TSP1-1 7” Touchscreen QSC TSC-710T-G3 4 $1,700 $6,800 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $155,000 REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 11 13 Page 136 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 12 13 EQUIPMENT SUBTOTAL $155,000 SALES TAX 7.75%$12,012.5 SHIPPING AND FREIGHT 3%$4,650 EQUPMENT TOTAL $171,662.5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Project Management 40 $125 $5,000 ENGINEERING/ SUBMITTALS Design, Engineering, Submittals, As- Builts 40 $105 $4,200 FEILD INSTALLATION Field Installation Labor 120 $95 $11,400 PROGRAMMING Control System Programminhg 16 $125 $2,000 COMISSIONING AND TRAINING System Startup, Verification, and Operational Training 32 $125 $4,000 EQUIPMENT RENTALS Lift Rentals, Etc.0 $2,750 $0 STRUCTURAL Structural Engineering Services 1 $1,050 $1,050 LABOR SUBTOTAL $27,650 REAL TIME CRIME CENTER VIDEO WALL GRAND TOTAL $199,313 Page 137 Rancho Cucamonga AV Systems ROM Breakout (Rough Order of Magnitude) Project Totals COURTYARD AV INFRASTRUCTURE $135,695 COURTYARD THEATRICAL LIGHTING FIXTURES $15,250 LIBRARY 2ND FLOOR MUSEUM AUDIO SYSTEM $127,479 LIBRARY ENTRY VIDEO WALL $142,670 CELEBRATION HALL AUDIO DSP AND CONTROL $35,190 REAL TIME CRIME CENTER VIDEO WALL $199,313 ALL PROJECTS GRAND TOTAL $655,597 REV 1.0 9/7/2022 of 13 13 Page 138 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director Lucy Alvarez-Nunez, Management Analyst SUBJECT:Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contribution to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association Bargaining Unit. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023-004) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution modifying how the City will pay and report the value of employer-paid member contribution (EPMC) to CalPERS for the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association (RCMA) bargaining unit. BACKGROUND: The City has an existing written labor agreement that specifically provides for the normal CalPERS member pension contributions to be paid by the employer (the City) and, in accordance with PELRA, reported as additional compensation. This benefit has applied to all City bargaining groups. The City Council previously approved a two-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association (RCMA), effective July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024. This MOU specifically modifies how the City will pay and report the value of EMPC. Although this modification has been incorporated into the MOU, it must also be adopted by Resolution in accordance with CalPERS regulations. ANALYSIS: The existing MOU includes a provision modifying how the City will pay and report the value of EPMC. This modification is part of the City’s effort, working with employees, to effectively manage pension costs over time by having employees increase their contribution toward pension costs and reducing the City’s payment and reporting of EMPC in phases. Effective February 13, 2023, this benefit will consist of paying the following percent of normal member contributions as EPMC, and reporting the same value of compensation earnable as additional compensation as set forth below: Page 139 Page 2 1 6 3 4 •The City will pay 1% of the CalPERS member contribution for all Tier 1 and Tier 2 employees. •The City will pay 0% of the CalPERS member contribution for all Tier 3 employees, thereby eliminating EPMC for this group. Staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of EPMC to CalPERS for the RCMA bargaining unit. FISCAL IMPACT: This change will result in long-term cost savings for the City by ultimately reducing both PERS contributions and PERS rates. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This action supports the City Council’s Core Values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future and working cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2023-004 Page 140 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING MODIFYING PAYING AND REPORTING THE VALUE OF EMPLOYER-PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTION TO CALPERS FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (RCMA) BARGAINING UNIT. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has the authority to implement Government Code Section 20636(c)(4) pursuant to Section 20691; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has a written labor agreement that specifically provides for the normal member contributions to be paid by the employer, and reported as additional compensation; and WHEREAS one of the steps in the procedures to implement Section 20691 is the adoption by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga of a Resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of said Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC) for employees who meet the conditions set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has identified the following conditions for the purpose of its election to pay EPMC: •This benefit shall apply to all miscellaneous employees within the Rancho Cucamonga Management Association bargaining unit. •This benefit shall consist of paying 1% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636 (c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired before September 1, 2010, and for employees hired between September 1, 2010, and before July 3, 2011. •This benefit shall consist of paying 0% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636 (c)(4)) as additional compensation for employees hired on or after July 4, 2011. This will eliminate EMPC for this tier. •The effective date of this Resolution shall be February 13, 2023. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California to pay and report the value of EPMC, as set forth above. * Note: Payment of EPMC and reporting the value of EPMC on compensation earnable is on pay rate and special compensation except special compensation delineated in Government Code Section 20636(c)(4) which is the monetary value of EPMC on compensation earnable. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023. Page 141 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director Lucy Alvarez-Nunez, Management Analyst SUBJECT:Consideration of a Resolution Modifying Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions to CALPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. (RESOLUTION NO. FD2023 -001) (FIRE) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Fire Board of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District adopt the attached resolution modifying how the District pays and reports the value of employer-paid member contributions (EPMC) to CalPERS for Firefighters Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. BACKGROUND: The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (the District) has existing written labor agreements that specifically provide for the normal CalPERS member pension contributions to be paid by the employer (the District) and, in accordance with PELRA, reported as additional compensation. This benefit has applied to all District bargaining groups. The Fire Board previously approved Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) between the District and Firefighters Local 2274 (Fire Union), and the Fire Management Employees Group (Fire MEG), effective July 2019 through June 2023. These existing MOUs specifically modify how the District will pay and report the value of EMPC. Although these modifications have been incorporated into the respective MOUs, they must also be adopted by Resolution in accordance with CalPERS regulations. ANALYSIS: The existing MOUs include a provision modifying how the District will pay and report the value of EPMC to CalPERS. These modifications are part of the District’s effort, working with employees, to effectively manage pension costs over time by having employees increase their contribution toward pension costs and reducing the District’s payment and reporting of EMPC in phases. Effective February 4, 2023, this benefit will consist of paying the following percent of normal member contributions as EPMC and reporting the same value of compensation earnable as additional compensation as set forth below: Page 142 Page 2 1 6 3 3 For the Fire Union Bargaining Group, the District will pay: •2% of the CalPERS member contribution for all Tier 1 and Tier 2, Classic Safety Employees, as well as Classic PERS members hired on or after January 1, 2013. For the Fire Management Employee Group, the District will pay: •2% of the CalPERS Member contribution for all Tier 1 and Tier 2, Classic Safety Employees, including the Fire Chief; and •2% of the CalPERS member contribution for all Tier 1 and Tier 2, Classic Miscellaneous Employees. Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of EPMC to CalPERS for Firefighter’s Local 2274 and Fire Management Employees Group. FISCAL IMPACT: This change will result in long-term cost savings for the District by ultimately reducing both PERS contributions and PERS rates. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This action supports the City Council’s Core Values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future and working cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Resolution No. FD2023-001 Page 143 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. FD 2023-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING PAYING AND REPORTING THE VALUE OF EMPLOYER-PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS TO CALPERS FOR FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 2274 AND FIRE MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES GROUP. WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District has the authority to implement Government Code Section 20691; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District a written labor agreement that specifically provides for the normal member contributions to be paid by the employer; and reported as additional compensation; and WHEREAS one of the steps in the procedure to modify Section 20691 is the adoption by the Fire District of a resolution modifying paying and reporting the value of modified Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC) for employees who meet the conditions set forth; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District has identified the following conditions for the purpose of its election to pay EPMC: •This benefit shall apply to all Classic Safety and Miscellaneous employees within the Fire District bargaining units as set forth. •This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for all Classic Safety Employees within the Fire Management Employee Group, hired prior to July 9, 2011. •This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for all Classic Safety Employees within the Fire Management Employee Group, hired on or after July 9, 2011, and through December 31, 2012, and Classic PERS members who were hired on or after January 1, 2013. •This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for Fire Chief hired prior to July 9, 2011. •This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for all Classic Miscellaneous Employees within the Fire Management Employee Group, hired prior to July 9, 2011. •This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Page 144 ATTACHMENT 1 Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for all Classic Miscellaneous Employees within the Fire Management Employee Group, hired on or after July 9, 2011, and through December 31, 2012, and Classic PERS members who were hired on or after January 1, 2013. •This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for all Classic Safety Employees within the Firefighters Local 2274 Group, hired prior to July 1, 2011. •This benefit shall consist of paying 2% of the normal contributions as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable* (excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)) as additional compensation for all Classic Safety Employees within the Firefighters Local 2274 Group, hired on or after July 1, 2011, and through December 31, 2012, and Classic PERS members who were hired on or after January 1, 2013. •The effective date of this resolution shall be February 4, 2023. * Note: Payment of EPMC and reporting the value of EPMC on compensation earnable is on pay rate and special compensation except special compensation delineated in Government Code Section 20636(c)(4) which is the monetary value of EPMC on compensation earnable. Page 145 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Robert Neiuber, Human Resources Director Lucy Alvarez-Nunez, Management Analyst SUBJECT:Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting the Part-Time City Positions Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023-006) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt the attached resolution updating the Part-Time City Positions salary schedule for the Fiscal Year 2022-23. BACKGROUND: The City Council traditionally adopts salary resolutions biannually for classifications employed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. These resolutions are updated to reflect changes in salaries, additions and deletions of classifications, changes in job titles, and other terms of employment. ANALYSIS: The updated Part-Time City Positions salary schedule includes the addition of Senior IT Analyst title set at the same range as its full-time equivalent position. The addition of this title will provide for the hiring of part-time staff to assist with City-wide projects requiring skill sets at the level of this classification. All other salary schedules, classifications, job titles, and other terms of employment remain the same. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the resolution updating the Part-Time City Positions salary schedule for the fiscal year 2022-23. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact will result from updating the salary schedule. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City’s vision to build on our success as a world-class community, and create an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Resolution Attachment 2 - Part-Time City Positions Salary Schedule Page 146 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PART- TIME CITY POSITIONS SALARY SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that it is necessary for the efficient operation and management of the City that policies be established prescribing salary ranges, benefits and holidays, and other policies for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has previously adopted salary resolutions establishing salary ranges, benefits, and other terms of employment for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that it is necessary from time to time to amend the salary resolution to accommodate changes in position titles, classifications salary ranges, benefits, and other terms of employment; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California to approve the attached Part-Time City Positions salary schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-23 (Attachment 2) effective January 18, 2023. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023. Page 147 Hourly Pay Ranges Effective January 18, 2023 Part Time Positions Step Amount Step Amount Step Amount Account Clerk 6368 $15.87 6408 $19.37 6449 $23.77 Account Technician 6423 $20.88 6463 $25.49 6497 $30.20 Accountant 6465 $25.74 6505 $31.43 6539 $37.23 Administrative Assistant 6364 $15.55 6372 $16.19 6443 $23.07 Administrative Intern 6364 $15.55 6370 $16.02 Animal Behavior Specialist 6388 $17.54 6428 $21.41 6462 $25.36 Animal Care Attendant 6364 $15.55 6389 $17.62 6422 $20.77 Animal Caretaker 6378 $16.69 6418 $20.36 6452 $24.12 Animal Rescue Specialist 6388 $17.54 6428 $21.41 6462 $25.36 Animal Services Dispatcher 6369 $15.95 6409 $19.47 6443 $23.07 Animal Services Officer 6441 $22.84 6481 $27.88 6495 $29.90 Assistant Engineer 6488 $28.88 6528 $35.25 6562 $41.76 Assistant Planner 6468 $26.13 6508 $31.90 6541 $37.61 Associate Engineer 6518 $33.53 6558 $40.94 6592 $48.50 Associate Planner 6487 $28.73 6527 $35.07 6561 $41.55 Box Office Assistant*6364 $15.55 Box Office Specialist*6364 $15.55 Budget Analyst 6498 $30.35 6538 $37.05 6588 $47.54 Building Inspector 6464 $25.61 6504 $31.27 6523 $34.38 Business License Clerk 6378 $16.69 6418 $20.36 6452 $24.12 Business License Technician 6408 $19.37 6448 $23.65 6482 $28.02 Community Improvement Officer I 6421 $20.67 6461 $25.23 6495 $29.90 Community Improvement Officer II 6441 $22.84 6481 $27.88 6515 $33.03 Community Programs Coordinator 6450 $23.89 6490 $29.16 6524 $34.55 Community Programs Specialist 6437 $22.39 6477 $27.33 6511 $32.38 Community Services Coordinator 6450 $23.89 6490 $29.16 6529 $35.42 Community Services Specialist 6364 $15.55 6390 $17.71 6424 $20.98 Community Services Supervisor 6480 $27.75 6520 $33.87 6554 $40.13 Community Services Technician 6437 $22.39 6477 $27.33 6511 $32.38 Customer Care Assistant 6364 $15.55 6372 $16.19 6443 $23.07 Customer Service Specialist I - Utilities 6436 $22.27 6476 $27.19 6496 $30.05 Customer Service Specialist II - Utilities 6446 $23.41 6486 $28.58 6506 $31.58 Customer Service Specialist III - Utilities 6466 $25.87 6506 $31.58 6526 $34.90 Day Custodian 6391 $17.79 Department Director 6562 $41.76 6604 $51.50 6707 $86.07 Department Manager 6525 $34.73 6566 $42.60 6634 $59.81 Deputy City Clerk 6430 $21.62 6470 $26.40 6504 $31.27 Division Supervisor 6416 $20.16 6457 $24.74 6554 $40.13 Resolution No. 2023-XXX Minimum Control Point Maximum PART-TIME CITY POSITIONS ASSIGNMENTS OF CLASSIFICATIONS TO PAY RANGES ATTACHMENT 2 Part Time City Positions Salary Schedule January 18, 2023 Page 148 Hourly Pay Ranges Effective January 18, 2023 Part Time Positions Step Amount Step Amount Step Amount Resolution No. 2023-XXX Minimum Control Point Maximum PART-TIME CITY POSITIONS ASSIGNMENTS OF CLASSIFICATIONS TO PAY RANGES Electrician 6457 $24.74 6497 $30.20 6535 $36.50 Energy Efficiency Coordinator 6372 $16.19 6412 $19.77 6422 $20.78 Engineering Aide 6421 $20.67 6461 $25.24 6495 $29.90 Engineering Intern 6364 $15.55 6370 $16.03 Engineering Technician 6441 $22.84 6481 $27.88 6515 $33.03 Environmental Resources Intern*6364 $15.55 Equipment Operator 6425 $21.09 6465 $25.75 6503 $31.11 Executive Assistant 6394 $18.07 6434 $22.06 6497 $30.20 Executive Assistant II 6467 $26.00 6507 $31.74 6527 $35.07 Fund Development Coordinator 6514 $32.87 6554 $40.13 6574 $44.34 GIS Intern 6364 $15.55 6370 $16.03 GIS Programmer/Analyst 6456 $24.61 6496 $30.05 6506 $31.58 GIS Technician 6436 $22.28 6476 $27.20 6510 $32.22 Healthy Cities Coordinator 6372 $16.19 6412 $19.77 6422 $20.78 Human Resources Clerk 6389 $17.62 6429 $21.51 6462 $25.36 Human Resources Technician 6399 $18.52 6439 $22.61 6465 $25.74 Lead Mechanic 6440 $22.73 6480 $27.75 6518 $33.53 Librarian I 6449 $23.77 6489 $29.01 6509 $32.06 Library Assistant I 6387 $17.44 6427 $21.30 6447 $23.53 Library Assistant II 6428 $21.40 6468 $26.13 6488 $28.87 Library Clerk 6370 $16.02 6410 $19.56 6429 $21.51 Library Director/SIF Trainer 6600 $50.48 6640 $61.63 6650 $64.78 Library Page*6364 $15.55 Library Technician 6407 $19.27 6447 $23.53 6467 $26.00 Maintenance Technician*6364 $15.55 Management Aide 6440 $22.73 6480 $27.75 6514 $32.87 Management Analyst I 6470 $26.40 6510 $32.22 6544 $38.17 Management Analyst II 6498 $30.35 6538 $37.05 6571 $43.68 Management Analyst III 6529 $35.42 6569 $43.24 6588 $47.54 Mechanic 6430 $21.62 6470 $26.40 6508 $31.90 Meter Technician 6487 $28.73 6527 $35.07 6537 $36.86 Office Services Clerk 6369 $15.95 6409 $19.47 6443 $23.07 Office Specialist I 6364 $15.55 6372 $16.19 6382 $17.02 Office Specialist II 6364 $15.55 6392 $17.89 6402 $18.80 Outreach Technician*6364 $15.55 Park Ranger*6389 $17.62 Planning Aide 6364 $15.55 6370 $16.03 Planning Manager 6583 $46.37 6623 $56.62 6656 $66.74 ATTACHMENT 2 Part Time City Positions Salary Schedule January 18, 2023 Page 149 Hourly Pay Ranges Effective January 18, 2023 Part Time Positions Step Amount Step Amount Step Amount Resolution No. 2023-XXX Minimum Control Point Maximum PART-TIME CITY POSITIONS ASSIGNMENTS OF CLASSIFICATIONS TO PAY RANGES Plans Examiner I 6474 $26.92 6514 $32.87 6548 $38.94 Playschool Instructor*6373 $16.27 Principal Management Analyst 6557 $40.73 6597 $49.73 6617 $54.94 Principal Engineer 6567 $42.82 6607 $52.27 6640 $61.62 Program Specialist 6364 $15.55 Public Services Technician I 6413 $19.86 6453 $24.25 6487 $28.73 Public Services Technician II 6423 $20.88 6463 $25.49 6497 $30.20 Public Services Technician III 6443 $23.07 6483 $28.16 6517 $33.36 Public Works Inspector I 6444 $23.19 6484 $28.31 6518 $33.53 Public Works Inspector II 6464 $25.62 6504 $31.27 6538 $37.05 Purchasing Clerk 6368 $15.87 6408 $19.37 6418 $20.37 Receptionist 6364 $15.55 6382 $17.02 6392 $17.89 Records Clerk 6364 $15.55 6384 $17.19 6432 $21.83 Records Coordinator 6372 $16.19 6412 $19.77 6459 $24.98 Recreation Leader II*6364 $15.55 Secretary 6394 $18.07 6434 $22.06 6444 $23.18 Senior Accountant 6498 $30.35 6538 $37.05 6571 $43.68 Senior Civil Engineer 6543 $37.99 6583 $46.37 6620 $55.77 Senior Information Technology Analyst 6558 $40.94 6598 $49.97 6618 $55.22 Signal and Lighting Technician 6452 $24.12 6492 $29.46 6530 $35.60 Theatre Technician I*6364 $15.55 Theatre Technician II*6407 $19.27 Veterinarian 6579 $45.46 6619 $55.50 6652 $65.42 Veterinary Assistant 6407 $19.27 6447 $23.52 6481 $27.88 Veterinary Technician 6437 $22.40 6477 $27.33 6511 $32.38 * Single Step ATTACHMENT 2 Part Time City Positions Salary Schedule January 18, 2023 Page 150 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Chris Ellis, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following: ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1014. BACKGROUND: The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of January 11, 2023. Votes at first reading: AYES: Scott, Stickler, Hutchison, Kennedy. ABSENT: Michael. ANALYSIS: Please refer to the January 11, 2023 City Council Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the January 11, 2023 City Council Staff Report. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Please refer to the January 11, 2023 City Council Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 1014 Page 151 ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance No. 1014 – Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 10.56.010, 10.56.020, AND 10.56.30 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALTER TRUCK ROUTES, MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT I. Recitals. A. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is authorized by Article XI, Section 7 of the State Constitution to exercise the police power of the State by adopting regulations to promote public health, safety, and welfare. B. The City has authority pursuant to Sections 21101 and 35700 of the California Vehicle Code to prohibit the use of particular highways by certain vehicles, including by weight, subject to certain exceptions. C. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the above referenced authorities in order to modify the existing truck routes within the City. II. Findings. A. This City Council hereby finds and concludes that this Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan’s goals, policies, and implementation programs. The City’s General Plan identifies the allowable truck routes throughout the City in Figure M-9 of Chapter 4 “Mobility and Access” of Volume 2 of the General Plan. These identified truck routes and truck routes with a 38-foot kingpin limit are reflected in the updates to the identified truck routes and 38-foot kingpin limit truck routes of Municipal Code Sections 10.56.010, 10.56.020, and 10.56.030 of this Ordinance. The updates to the Municipal Code that Sections 10.56.010, and 10.56.020, and 10.56.30 contained herein reflect changes to street names and freeways that have occurred in the City since 2000 and mirror the truck routes identified in the General Plan. B. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is covered by general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds that there is no possible significant effect directly related to adoption of this Ordinance, therefore no further action is required under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15061(b)(3)). This is because the number of trips by heavy vehicles on City streets by heavy vehicles on City streets will not be affected and neither will levels of traffic, noise and air pollution. Furthermore, the truck routes included within this Ordinance were environmentally reviewed in the EIR for the General Plan. III. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 10.56.010 (Unrestricted Truck Routes) of Chapter 10.56 (Truck Routes and Restrictions) is amended as follows: Page 152 Ordinance No. 1014 – Page 2 of 4 3 1 7 2 “10.56.010 Unrestricted truck routes. A. Except as hereinafter provided, or as otherwise provided by law, commercial vehicles and vehicle combinations described in Vehicle Code §§ 35400 and 35401, or their successor provisions, and vehicles which exceed a maximum gross weight of three tons, may be operated only on streets designated as “unrestricted truck routes.” Unrestricted truck routes in the city include: 1. Base Line Road from the west city limits to the east city limits; 2. Foothill Boulevard from the west city limits to the east city limits; 3. Arrow Route from Vineyard Avenue to the east city limits; 4. Eighth Street from the west city limits to Vineyard Avenue; 5. Sixth Street from Archibald Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue; 6. Fourth Street from the west city limits to the east city limits; 7. Grove Avenue from 8th Street to Foothill Boulevard; 8. Vineyard Avenue from 8th Street to Foothill Boulevard; 9. Archibald Avenue from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard; 10. Haven Avenue from 4th Street to State Route 210; 11. Milliken Avenue from 4th Street to State Route 210; 12. Rochester Avenue from 6th Street to Foothill Boulevard; 13. Day Creek Boulevard from Foothill Boulevard to State Route 210; 14. Etiwanda Avenue from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard; B. The provisions of this section may be enforced when and where the city traffic engineer has provided signing designating unrestricted truck routes. C. Extra large trucks, as defined in section 10.56.030, may operate only on the routes designated in said section. D. Exceptions. 1. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the ingress and egress from a designated unrestricted truck route by vehicles and vehicle combinations described herein onto a city street when necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and merchandise from or to any building or structure located on a city street, or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling Page 153 Ordinance No. 1014 – Page 3 of 4 3 1 7 2 or construction of any building or structure upon a city street for which a building permit has previously been obtained. 2. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a passenger bus under the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission or any public entity, or which is owned by a bus company licensed by the city, or to any vehicle owned by a public utility while necessarily in use in the construction, installation or repair of any public utility, or to any vehicle owned by the city, or a city contractor, while necessarily in use in the construction, installation or repair of or on city property. 3. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any city licensed refuse hauling vehicles while picking up refuse, waste or garbage pursuant to such license.” SECTION 2. Section 10.56.020 (Restricted Truck Routes) of Chapter 10.56 (Truck Routes and Restrictions) is amended as follows: “10.56.020 Restricted truck routes. A. Vehicle Code § 35401(d) allows any city, upon finding that certain streets cannot safely sustain the operation of trailers or semitrailers having the maximum kingpin to rearmost axle distance permitted under Vehicle Code § 35400, to restrict the use of such streets by trailers or semitrailers having a maximum kingpin distance as determined. Certain city streets have been determined to be able to safely accommodate a maximum such distance of 38 feet. Except as otherwise provided by law, trailers and semitrailers having a kingpin to rearmost axle distance in excess of 38 feet are prohibited from using the aforedescribed streets. The streets described in this section shall be known as “restricted truck routes.” Restricted truck routes in the city include: 1. Vineyard Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Carnelian Street; 2. Carnelian Street from Vineyard Avenue to State Route 210; 3. Archibald Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to State Route 210. B. The provisions of this section may be enforced when and where the city traffic engineer has provided signing designating restricted truck routes.” SECTION 3. Section 10.56.030 (Terminal Access routes for extra large trucks) of Chapter 10.56 (Truck routes and Restrictions) is amended as follows: “10.56.030 Terminal access routes for extra large trucks. A. Except as otherwise provided by law, truck-tractors and semitrailers, and truck-tractors, semitrailers and trailers, which exceed any of the size limitations set forth in Vehicle Code §§ 35400 and 35401, or their successor provisions, and which are exempted from such limitations pursuant to Vehicle Code § 35401.5(a), may be operated only on streets designated as “terminal access routes.” Such tractor-trailer combinations may be operated on terminal access routes only for the purpose of accessing facilities where freight is consolidated to be shipped or where full load consignments may be off-loaded or at which the vehicle combinations are regularly maintained, stored or manufactured. Page 154 Ordinance No. 1014 – Page 4 of 4 3 1 7 2 B. City streets designated as terminal access routes are: 1. Foothill Boulevard from the west city limits to the east city limits; 2. Fourth Street from the west city limits to the east city limits; 3. Archibald Avenue from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard; 4. Milliken Avenue from 4th Street to Foothill Boulevard. C. The provisions of this section may be enforced where the city traffic engineer has provided signing designating terminal access routes. (Code 1980, § 10.56.030; Ord. No. 373, § 1, 1988; Ord. No. 870 (Recodification), 2014) SECTION 4. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason be held invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ______________, 2023. Page 155 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Marquez, Planning and Economic Development Director Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT:Public Hearing for Consideration of Appeals Identified as DRC2022- 00445 And DRC2022-00449 of the Planning Commission's Decision to Approve Design Review DRC2019-00850 – Island View Ventures, LLC, Applicant - A Request for a Site Plan and Design Review to Construct a Mixed-Use Development Comprising 311 Residential Units and 16,000 Square Feet of Commercial Lease Area on 7.94 Acres of Land at the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed- Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) Zone: APN: 0208-353-02. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been Prepared for this Project. (RESOLUTION NO. 2023-007 AND 2023-008) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals DRC2022-00445 and DRC2022-00449 and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850. BACKGROUND: On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed Design Review DRC2019-00850 for the site plan and design review of a mixed-use development comprising 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area. On the date of the meeting, correspondence was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) raising concerns related to the adequacy of the CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum prepared for the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the correspondence from Lozeau Drury, LLP, determined that the CEQA 15183 Compliance Memorandum prepared for the project was adequate, and approved Design Review DRC2019- 00850. On November 17, 2022, an appeal of the Planning Commission approval was received from Poole-Shaffery Attorneys at Law on behalf of Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Plaza (DRC2022- 00445) raising issues related to onsite parking. On November 20, 2022, a formal appeal was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER (DRC2022-00449) raising similar issues as the letter dated November 9, 2022, related to formaldehyde in wood products. Both appeals were received within the 10-day appeal period. The project site is located on a vacant 7.94-acre site on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The project is comprised of four 4-story buildings and 16,000 square feet of retail lease area. The project will have a density of 40 dwelling units per acre, which is within the Page 156 Page 2 1 6 1 0 residential density range permitted within the City Center General Plan Land Use Designation of 40 to 100 units per acre. ANALYSIS: Appeal DRC2022-00445 The appellant’s (Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Plaza) appeal letter (Attachment 3) raises concerns related to the proposed number of on-site parking spaces provided for the project site and the two adjacent existing office buildings. Parking for the project was designed in compliance with State and local density bonus provisions which reduce the required parking for qualified projects that provide affordable units as outlined in Development Code Chapter 17.46 and California Government Code 65915. In this case, the project proposes providing 5 percent of the proposed 311 units to be affordable to Very Low-Income Households. This translates into the project providing 16 affordable units. Based on State density bonus law and the Density Bonus chapter of the Development Code (Chapter 17.46), the project is required to provide 431 parking spaces, including the 64 parking spaces dedicated to the commercial units. As proposed, the project provides 456 parking spaces, for a total surplus of 25 parking spaces. The City is not a party to the private CC&Rs regulating parking and access between the project site and the adjacent parcels. When reviewing required parking for a project site, the City is responsible for verifying that projects comply with applicable local land use regulations and state law but may not enforce private CC&Rs. The City may also not require that a project provide parking for adjacent land uses on separate parcels. The applicant’s response letter (Attachment 4) prepared by Cox Castle Nicholson concurs with the Planning Commission staff report that the project provides parking in excess of State and local density bonus requirements. This letter also states that the applicant has reached out to the neighboring property owners to address their questions and provide any requested information. As part of the project review, the applicant submitted a Parking Management Plan (PMP)(LSA, October 25, 2022) (Attachment 5) which provides measures to ensure adequate and convenient parking for each of the uses with the project site and the two adjacent office buildings (Parcels 1, 2, and 3). These measures include implementing a parking permit program, monitoring the availability of parking in enclosed private garages, and providing and monitoring short-term parking spaces. The implementation of PMP strategies is intended to alleviate any potential parking issues that arise between the residential, commercial, and office tenants. The Conditions of Approval for the project (Planning Department COA #4) require that the project remains in compliance with the PMP. In the event of any observed parking violations to the parking management plan, the City reserves the right to require additional parking restrictions to reduce any parking conflicts. Appeal DRC2022-00449 The appellant’s (Lozeau Drury, LLP) appeal letter (Attachment 6) contends that CEQA Guidelines section 15183 does not relieve the City of reviewing environmental effects that “[w]ere not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent.” This letter asserts that the project would have a particular impact that was not analyzed in the GPU EIR on indoor air quality due to the use of “composite wood products typically used in residential building construction [that] contain formaldehyde- based glues,” including “plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board.” The applicant’s response letter (Attachment 7) prepared by Cox Castle Nicholson addresses the comments discussed in the appeal. In the response, they contend that the asserted impact on air quality related to formaldehyde in common construction materials is neither a new impact that Page 157 Page 3 1 6 1 0 could not have been known when the GPU EIR was prepared nor is it an impact particular to the Project. Rather, it is an impact faced by the majority of construction projects using these materials. Furthermore, there are uniformly applied standards for manufacturing construction materials imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) that these agencies have deemed protective of public health. The applicant has also provided a letter from Rambol US Consulting, their environmental consultant (Attachment 8) refuting the appellant’s assertions related to formaldehyde in wood products. Staff believes the CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum prepared for the project (Michael Baker International, October 11, 2022) adequately addresses potential environmental impacts and has incorporated the necessary mitigations to minimize such impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15183 requires an analysis of impacts that are peculiar to the project or project site. However, the composition of wood materials used in the building industry is not a site or project-specific issue. Rather, it is a general issue associated with all construction. So, it does not merit additional analysis under section 15183 because this project is consistent with the General Plan’s density standards. Additionally, the project will be required to comply with the codes and regulations in California applicable to the project's uses, which are designed, in part, to address potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. FISCAL IMPACT: The applicant has submitted a Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, dated May 24, 2021. The Fiscal Impact Analysis concluded that the project would produce an annual recurring surplus to the General Fund. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed mixed-use development will help achieve the City Council Core Values of providing and nurturing a high-quality life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and continuous pursuit of improvement. It is the City Council’s vision to make Foothill Boulevard the City’s mixed-use corridor, featuring a variety of urban developments that will enable a vibrant, walkable neighborhood that residents, workers, and visitors can enjoy. The proposed mixed-use project fits this vision. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution 22-29 Attachment 3 – Poole-Shaffery Appeal Letter dated November 16, 2022 Attachment 4 – Cox Castle Nicholson Response Letter dated (Poole-Shaffery) January 4, 2023 Attachment 5 – Parking Management Plan dated October 25, 2022 Attachment 6 – Lozeau Drury, LLP Appeal Letter dated November 20, 2022 Attachment 7 – Cox Castle Nicholson Response Letter (Lozeau Drury) dated January 3, 2023 Attachment 8 – Rambol Response Letter dated January 5, 2023 Attachment 9 – Shared Parking Memorandum dated July 21, 2022 Attachment 10 – City Council Resolution 2023-007 Attachment 11 – City Council Resolution 2023-008 Page 158 ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits is available for Public Viewing at City Hall, City Clerk Services Department, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 and is available Online. Click Link Below to Access: https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/SGMWjcUwHA Page 159 DATE: November 9, 2022 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC – A request for a site plan and design review to construct a mixed-use development comprising 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area on 7.94 acres of land at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) Zone: APN: 0208-353-02. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Design Review DRC2019-00850. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 22-29 approving the proposed mixed- used development on the vacant parcel of land at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A request to construct a new mixed-use development that includes 5 percent affordable units comprised of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial office, retail, and restaurant space at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The project also includes a request for a density bonus related to the affordable units to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces. BACKGROUND: The 7.94-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and is part of a larger 14-acre project area that was previously developed with two 80,000-square-foot 4-story office buildings. The dimensions of the pyramid-shaped project site are approximately 450 feet north to south at the widest point along Foothill Boulevard and 52 feet at the drive entrances off of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Street and 405 feet east to west along Foothill Boulevard and 1,270 feet along the south property line. The site gently slopes from north to south and is partially developed with vehicle parking. The overall project area was originally master planned for 4 office buildings of which two were completed. Prior to formal project submittal to the City, a pre-application review was submitted (June 19, 2018) for the project that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2018, March 13, 2019, and June 26, 2019. The project proponent made significant changes to the project design and layout through the pre-applicant review process. The current design and layout are significantly the same as the most recent plan reviewed by the Planning Commission. The major changes being the addition of (1) a signalized intersection on Foothill Boulevard at the main north-south entrance to the project site, (2) a new one-way frontage road separating through traffic on Foothill Boulevard from the project site, (3) the inclusion of two new vehicle entrances from Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the existing office buildings on the project site and (4) two vehicle/pedestrian connections to the San Bernardino County Courthouse to the south. The project land use mix was also modified from the original 302 residential units, 8 live-work units, and 5,000 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 8 square feet of commercial space to 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows based on the General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation at the time that the project was deemed complete (April 27, 2022): PROJECT ANALYSIS: A. Density Bonus Agreement: Development Code Chapter 17.46 (Density Bonuses, Incentives, and Concessions) provides incentives for the production of affordable housing, including the opportunity to provide reductions in the related development standards. The project proposes providing 5 percent of the proposed 311 units to be affordable to Very Low-Income Households (fifty percent of the area median income for San Bernardino County, adjusted for household size, as defined in California Health and Safety Code 50079.5). This translates into providing 16 affordable units. Qualified projects that provide affordable units are eligible for a reduction in the required parking per Development Code Section 17.46.030-D and California Government Code 65915. Per Development Code Section 17.46.050, the target units shall be dispersed throughout the housing development and, on average, provide the same number of bedrooms as that of the overall project unit mix. This translates into approximately 10 one-bedroom, 5 two-bedroom, and 1 three-bedroom units. The affordability of the target units shall be maintained for a minimum of 55 years. A condition of approval for the project requires that a housing covenant be approved by the City Council prior to the approval of building permits. The housing covenant shall outline the number of required affordable units, the type of units (number of bedrooms), the affordability factor, the number of years that the units are required to remain affordable and a verification regime to substantiate that the project is complying with the terms of the agreement. Below is a summary of the income categories and the estimated affordable rent by unit size, exclusive of a utility allowance. As a comparison, current market rents in Rancho Cucamonga, per CoStar, average $2,102 for a one-bedroom unit, $2,265 for a two-bedroom unit, and $3,190 for a three-bedroom unit. INCOME CATEGORIES Acutely Low Income 0-15% of AMI Extremely Low Income 15-30% of AMI Very Low Income 30-50% of AMI Lower Income 50-80% of AMI Moderate Income 80-120% of AMI Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) District* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) District South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update Page 3 of 8 Rent Limits Number of Bedrooms 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 50% of AMI $ 874 $ 983 $ 1,093 B. Site Design and Layout: The project layout was partially dictated by the roughly pyramid shape of the existing property lines which are narrowest along the Foothill Boulevard frontage and by the existing infrastructure for the two adjacent office buildings, which share the overall project area. The existing property lines are not symmetrical to the main north-south drive aisle creating different building widths for the portions facing Foothill Boulevard. The applicant pursued but was unsuccessful in working with the adjacent property owners to adjust the lot lines. The project is comprised of four 4-story buildings with Buildings A and B fronting Foothill Boulevard to the north and separated by a north-south drive access. Buildings C1 and C2 will front an east- west drive aisle. The north-south and east-west drive aisles will be designed to appear as public streets with angled parking on the north-south drive aisle and 90-degree parking on the east-west drive aisle. Buildings A and B will include 16,000 square feet of retail lease area on the ground floor facing Foothill Boulevard and the new north-south drive aisle. The sidewalks to the north of buildings A and B and along the north-south drive access are designed to accommodate outdoor dining and include decorative seat walls. C. Access and Circulation: The vehicle access to the site will be from a new signalized intersection off Foothill Boulevard and by two existing driveways off of Haven Avenue and Aspen Street. The site will also be accessed by two new driveways off of a new one-way frontage road, and two new access driveways to the San Bernardino County Courthouse to the south. The improvements to Foothill Boulevard, particularly the frontage road and on-street parking, will provide slower vehicle speeds along the project frontage, encourage safe and comfortable pedestrian interaction with the storefront, and help support the overall urban environment the project seeks to create. The frontage road improvements along Foothill Boulevard also support the goals of the General Plan to provide active frontages to encourage walking, biking, and public transportation. The onsite drive aisles are designed to look and perform like public streets with sidewalks on both sides of the drive aisles, Sidewalks are provided throughout the project site, creating efficient access and connectivity between the residential uses, the amenities, and non-residential uses. The sidewalks are improved with landscape elements such as trees, planters, and sitting areas, or flanked by buildings and gathering spaces to help create a strong urban environment throughout the interior of the site. State Income Limits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Acutely Low Income 9,150 10,500 11,800 13,100 14,150 15,200 16,250 17,300 SB County Extremely Low Income 18500 21150 23800 27750 32470 37190 41910 46630 Area Median Income:Very Low Income 30800 35200 39600 44000 47550 51050 54600 58100 $87,400 Lower Income 49,300 56,350 63,400 70,400 76,050 81,700 87,300 92,950 Median Income 61,200 69,900 78,650 87,400 94,400 101,400 108,400 115,350 Moderate Income 73,450 83,900 94,400 104,900 113,300 121,700 130,100 138,450 Source: CA HCD 2022 Number of Persons in Households Page 4 of 8 D. Architecture: The project is designed in a modern architectural style. Design elements include a flat roof, tower elements with vertical siding, recessed windows and balconies, roof decks, and glass commercial storefronts. Building materials include the use of stucco, fiber cement siding, masonry tile, metal panels, and metal awnings which are carried to all elevations. Horizontal articulation along the building plane as well as vertical articulation along the building’s roofline breaks down the building massing and creates architectural interest. The corner commercial units and leasing office are emphasized through the use of metal siding and tall storefront windows. The remaining commercial units include the use of masonry tile, storefront glazing, and metal awnings with signage. The project includes a bus shelter along the foothill boulevard frontage designed to carry over themes from the main buildings. E. Residential Unit Composition and Floor Plans: The project is comprised of 311 elevator-served residential units (200 one-bedroom units, 105 two-bedroom units, and 6 three-bedroom units). The residential units are all single-level and range in size from 660 to 1,285 net square feet. Commercial lease areas are located on the project’s first-story frontage along Foothill Boulevard and along the main drive aisle off of Foothill Boulevard of Buildings A and B and total 16,000 square feet in area. The table below summarizes the residential unit composition for each building: UNIT SUMMARY Residential Unit Type Unit Size (SF - Net) Number of Units 1 Bedroom 660 to 887 SF 200 2 Bedroom 1,041 to 1,079 SF 105 3 Bedroom 1,285 SF 6 Total Number of Units 311 Commercial Total Area Commercial (SF) N/A 16,000 F. Recreational Amenities: Resident amenities include a clubhouse with kitchen and game room, a media lounge, a business center, a gym, a yoga room, a pool/spa with lounge seating areas and a fire pit, a pocket park with children’s play elements, and two rooftop decks (one each on Buildings A and B) that include seating areas and fire pits. G. Commercial Amenities: Common seating/dining areas along with seat walls are proposed along the commercial frontages. H. Fencing and Access: All roadways and pedestrian pathways will be ungated. Gates are proposed to the vehicle parking areas at the center of Buildings A and B and on the south side of Buildings C1 and C2 and to the resident amenities, A 6-foot-high view fence is located along the south property line which is shared with the San Bernardino County Courthouse. Due to the grade change between the project site and the SB County Courthouse to the south, an up to 7 foot-9-inch landscaped retaining wall will be located along the project’s south property line. I. Compliance with Technical Development Standards: The project was designed in compliance with the Development Code that was in effect when the project was deemed complete (April 27, 2022). As demonstrated in the table below, the project complies with each of the Development Code requirements for the Mixed-Use (MU-UCT) District. Projects within mixed-use districts are permitted up to 75 percent reduction in the streetscape setbacks with no minimum building separation requirements (beyond that required by the Building Code). Page 5 of 8 COMPLIANCE TABLE Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Density 40 DU/AC 40 DU/AC YES Building Setback – Foothill (Major) 0-5’ 5’ YES 1 Parking Setback – Foothill (Major) 30’ 105’ YES Building Setback – West Property Boundary 5’ 170’ YES 1 Parking Setback – Haven 30’ 60’ YES Building Setback – East Interior Boundary 5’ 175’ YES 1 Parking Setback – Aspen 30’ 55’ YES Interior Rear Setback 0’ 10” YES Building Height 12 stories 65’ YES Landscape Area 10% 14.5% YES Open Space 150 sf/unit* (46,560 sf) 50,359 sf YES 1 – Complies with reductions applied for Mixed Use Developments outlined in RCMC Sec. 17.36.020 J. Parking: Parking throughout the project will be provided in private garages, freestanding carports, and uncovered parking spaces. The applicant has proposed making 5 percent of the units affordable to very low-income households which reduces the required parking ratio for the overall project based on the State density bonus law and the Density Bonus chapter of the Development Code (Chapter 17.46). This translates into a parking requirement of 431 parking spaces, including the 64 parking spaces dedicated to the commercial units. Pursuant to the Development Code’s density bonus provisions, the project provides 456 parking spaces, for a total surplus of 25 parking spaces. The overall project area (Parcels 1 (103 spaces), 2 (456 spaces) and 3 (109 spaces)) will provide 668 parking spaces along with 29 parking spaces on the frontage road. Page 6 of 8 To substantiate the adequacy of the proposed number of parking spaces, a parking analysis was submitted for the project (LSA, May 20, 2022) that was peer-reviewed by a consultant hired by the City (Fehr & Peers, June 9, 2022). The parking analysis included parking counts on separate days for the existing office buildings in 2018 and again in 2022 and shared parking analyses to determine the parking demand for both the existing office buildings and the proposed project. The parking analysis concluded that peak hourly demand using the existing parking utilization surveys for the existing office uses, the Municipal Code parking requirements for the retail uses, and the number of parking spaces permitted by State density bonus law for the proposed residential uses, there will be a surplus of 276 spaces for the overall project area (Parcels 1, 2 and 3). There is an existing shared parking and access agreement between the three parcels which will remain in effect. The applicant has submitted a Parking Management Plan (PMP)(LSA, October 25, 2022) which provides measures to ensure adequate and convenient parking for each of the uses in the overall project area (Parcels 1, 2, and 3). These measures include implementing a parking permit program, monitoring the availability of parking in enclosed private garages, and providing and monitoring short-term parking spaces. The implementation of PMP strategies should alleviate any potential parking issues that arise between the residential, commercial, and office tenants. The parking analysis table below provides a breakdown of the required and provided parking spaces on-site: PARKING ANALYSIS* Number of Units Square Footage Parking Ratio Required Parking Multi-family unit (one bedroom) 200 N/A 1 per unit 200 Multi-family unit (two bedrooms) 105 N/A 1.5 per unit 158 Multi-family unit (Three bedrooms) 6 N/A 1.5 per unit 9 Commercial N/A 16,000 1 per 250 SF 64 Visitor parking 311 N/A 1 per 3 units N/A Total Parking Spaces Required 431 Total Parking Spaces Provided (Project Site - Parcel 2) 456 Total Covered Parking Spaces 317 Total Parking Frontage Drive (Not Counted Towards Required Parking) 29 Parking Surplus 25 *Based on Density Bonus chapter of the Development Code (Chapter 17.46) Page 7 of 8 K. Public Art: This project is required to provide public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the number of residential units and commercial square footage for this project, the total art value required per Section 17.124.020.C. is $249,250. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be fulfilled prior to occupancy. L. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC – Williams, and Morales) on August 2, 2022. The Committee approved the project as presented. CEQA DETERMINATION: The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Center” land use, 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. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “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…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 7.94-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Center” land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Center” and would be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated October 11, 2022, was prepared by Michael Baker International (Exhibit G – CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum). Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR adopted and certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660- foot radius of the project site. To date, Staff has received one written comment via email, which has been provided to the Commission for review. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed mixed-use project will meet the City Council core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and relentless pursuit of improvement. The proposed project provides residential and commercial/retail uses in a cohesive development, forming a walkable community with a variety of activities and uses for all to enjoy. Page 8 of 8 EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Project Aerial Exhibit B – Project Plans Exhibit C – DRC Comments and Action Agenda Dated August 2, 2022 Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum Exhibit E – Draft Resolution of Approval 22-29 for Design Review DRC2019-00850 Exhibit F – Conditions of Approval Exhibit A Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA #2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA0.0SHEET INDEXPROJECT TEAMPROPERTY OWNERRC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS LLC120 E. DE LA GUERRA STREET, SUITE DSANTA BARBARA, CA 93101CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTHARCHITECTUREKTGY GROUP, INC.17911 VON KARMAN AVE, SUITE 200IRVINE, CA 92614CONTACT: KEITH LABUSCIVILMADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.9302 PITTSBURGH AVE, STE. 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730CONTACT: MARK BERTONELANDSCAPESUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS34197 PACIFIC COAST HWY, STE. 200DANA POINT, CA 92629CONTACT: TRENT NOLLELECTRICALCANDELA ENGINEERING27201 CALLE JUANITADANA POINT, CA 92624CONTACT: BRIAN OVERLEYARCHITECTUREA0.0 SHEET INDEXA0.1 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA0.2 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA0.3 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEWA1.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANA2.0 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSA2.1 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSA2.2 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSA2.3 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSA2.4 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSA2.5 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSA2.6 BUILDING C ELEVATIONSA2.7 BUILDING C ELEVATIONSA2.8 CARPORT / POOL BUILDING ELEVATIONSCIVILCF-01 CUT - FILL MAPCG-01 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-02 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-03 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-04 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-05 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-06 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANSU-01 SITE UTILIZATION MAPDSP-01 DETAILED SITE PLANDSP-02 DETAILED SITE PLANDSP-03 DETAILED SITE PLANDSP-04 DETAILED SITE PLANPWQMP-01 WQMPLANDSCAPEL-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANL-2 PROJECT ENTRY ENLARGEMENT PLANL-3 INTERNAL STREET ENLARGEMENT PLANL-4 COMMUNITY POOL ENLARGEMENTL-5 PROJECT ENTRY ENLARGEMENT PLAN - WESTL-6 PROJECT ENTRY ENLARGEMENT PLAN - EASTL-7 ROOF PATIO ENLARGEMENT PLANL-8 WALL AND FENCE PLANL-9 WALL AND FENCE DETAILSL-10 WATER USE CALCULATIONSELECTRICALEP-1 PARTIAL PHOTOMETRIC PLANEP-2 PARTIAL PHOTOMETRIC PLANA3.0 BUILDING PLANSA3.1 BUILDING PLANSA3.2 BUILDING PLANSA3.3 BUILDING PLANSA3.4 BUILDING PLANSA4.0 BUILDING SECTIONSA5.0 UNIT PLANSA5.1 UNIT PLANSA5.2 UNIT PLANSA5.3 UNIT PLANSA5.4 ENLARGED PLANS - RETAILA5.5 ENLARGED PLANS - RETAILA5.6 ENLARGED PLANS - AMENITIESA5.7 ENLARGED PLANS - AMENITIESA6.0 CONCEPTUAL FIRE EXHIBITA7.0 RESIDENTIAL DETAILSA8.0 BUS SHELTERExhibit B Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALNTSA0.1CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES1. VIEW OF PROJECT ENTRY Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALNTSA0.2CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES2. VIEW OF PROJECT ENTRYF O O T H I L L B L V DKey PlanN.T.S. Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALNTSA0.3CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES3. VIEW OF POOL AMENITYKey PlanN.T.S. EVEV EV EV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EV EVEVEV CleanAirEVEV EVEV CleanAirClean Air Clean Air CleanAirCleanAirClean Air Clean AirArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL06012030A1.1CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANRetail at First Floor withResidential Units AboveResident Amenity at First Floorwith Residential Units Above4 Story Residential Buildingwith Tuck-Under Parking4 Story Mixed-Use Buildingwith Tuck-Under ParkingResident Amenity at First Floorwith Residential Units AboveSecondaryProject EntrySecondaryProject EntryTrashStagingTrashStagingSingle StoryPool BuildingLobbyCovered CarportsLobbyClubroomFitnessTrashPoolCourtyardVehicular Connectionto CourthousePedestrian Connectionto CourthouseTrashStagingTrashStagingProject Main EntryFOOTHILL BLVDHAVEN AVENUE ASPEN STREETTrash Retail at First Floor withResidential Units AbovePARCEL 1PARCEL 3PARCEL 2BUILDING A112 UnitsLeasing/AmenityBUILDING C I51 UnitsBUILDING C II51 UnitsBUILDING B97 UnitsMail Center/AmenityTrashTrash Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±65'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EVEV EVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.0ELEVATIONSBUILDING A08162448910338521061015Key PlanN.T.S.21Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure624Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East Elevation191111778 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EVEV EVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.1ELEVATIONSBUILDING A0816244196832592Elevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.43Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure1811768 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 152'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EVEV EVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.2ELEVATIONSBUILDING A - INTERIOR081624682898264284Elevation 1 - North ElevationElevation 2 - East ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.1342Elevation 3 - South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationMaterial Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure2968677944 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.3ELEVATIONSBUILDING B0816248623131921Key PlanN.T.S.21Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure1058Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East Elevation4311116 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±65'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.4ELEVATIONSBUILDING B08162462498321041068511Key PlanN.T.S.43Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade StructureElevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West Elevation59311178 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±52'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±52'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.5ELEVATIONSBUILDING B - INTERIOR08162486268429849Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.1342Elevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationMaterial Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure464982779 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±58'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±48'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.6ELEVATIONSBUILDING C08162449263894185106Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.21Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure57618 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±50'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±50'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.7ELEVATIONSBUILDING C08162486226243Elevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.43Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure9374 ±14'-0"T.O.P.29±14'-0"T.O.P.1111Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA2.8ELEVATIONSCARPORTS / POOL BUILDING04816Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade StructurePool Building - North ElevationCarport - Side ElevationSouth ElevationWest ElevationFront Elevation*Refer to "Wall and Fence Plan" on sheetL-8 for wall height and locations. Refer to"Conceptual Landscape Plan" on sheetL-1 for proposed tree and shrub palette.Carport Architectural Screening at Building B* EVEV EV RetailLeasingP1-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1LobbyBreezeway TrashElecRoomMechAmenity20'-2"typ.10'-1"typ.12'-1"typ.5'-0"20'-2" typ.Level 127739 SQ. FT.LobbyDNDNRetailLiving Room 12'-1" x 25'-9" Master Bed 11'-0" x 12'-0" W/D Bath Kitchen Deck 10'-10" x 6'-0" 65 SQ. FT. L Plan 1-1 1 Bed, 1 Bath ±669 SQ. FT.Net ±764 SQ. FT.Gross WIC L Storage Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck11'-9" x 6'-0"71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLPlan 2-1.12 Bed, 2 Bath±1047 SQ. FT.Net±1149 SQ. FT.NetLWICStorageLevel 235786 SQ. FT.P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1.1P2-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1P1-2altP1-2.1 altP1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-3P1-3P1-1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P2-2Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA3.0BUILDING PLANBUILDING A0204010 Level 3-435792 SQ. FT.P2-1P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1P1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-1P1-1P2-2P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-2altP1-2.1 altP1-3P1-3Flat RoofRoofDeckRoofROOF ACCESS FROMSTAIR SHAFT BELOW.CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT,TYP.19'-4"20'-6"18'-6"21'-5"18'-6"21'-4"+2'-6"+5'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA3.1BUILDING PLANBUILDING A0204010 EV EVEV RetailMail CenterP1-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1LobbyBreezeway TrashElec.RoomMechAmenity20'-2"typ.10'-1"typ.12'-1"typ.5'-0"20'-2"typ.Level 125307 SQ. FT.LobbyDNDNRetailLevel 232130 SQ. FT.P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P1-1P1-2 altP2-4P1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P2-2Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA3.2BUILDING PLANBUILDING B0204010 Level 3-432137 SQ. FT.P1-1.1P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P1-1P2-4P1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-1P2-2P1-1.1P1-2 altFlat RoofRoofDeckRoofROOF ACCESS FROMSTAIR SHAFT BELOW.CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT,TYP.18'-6"22'-4"21'-5"18'-6"19'-4"20'-6"+2'-6"+5'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA3.3BUILDING PLANBUILDING B0204010 P1-1P1-1P1-1ClubroomP1-1P2-1P2-1Breezeway Fitness12'-1"typ.5'-0"20'-2" typ.10'-1"typ.TrashLevel 113568 SQ. FT.P2-1Mech/ElecP1-4BreezewayMech/ElecP1-4(open to below)(open to below)P2-3Seating AreaYoga StudioLevel 216596 SQ. FT.P1-5P2-3Mech/ElecP1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P2-1.1P3-1TP1-4P1-4Mech/ElecP1-5P1-5Level 3-418495 SQ. FT.P2-3P2-3P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P2-1.1P3-1TP1-4Mech/ElecP2-1P2-2P1-5P1-5P1-5Flat RoofRoofROOF ACCESS FROMSTAIR SHAFT BELOW.CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT,TYP.20'-9"19'-1"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA3.4BUILDING PLANBUILDING C0204010Building C.2Building C.1Building C.2Building C.1 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1GarageUnitUnitUnitRetail±48'E FOOTHILL BLVDEXISTINGRANCHO CUCAMONGASUPERIOR COURTUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnit±55' ±55'CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, TYP.Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'Existing Office BuildingExisting Office Building<<ASPEN AVEPROJECTENTRY DRIVEUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageHAVEN AVE >>RetailUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageRetailUnit±55' ±55'CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, TYP.Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA4.0BUILDING SECTIONS0163264Section AASection BBKey PlanN.T.S.AAAABBBB Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck10'-10" x 6'-0"65 SQ. FT.LPlan 1-11 Bed, 1 Bath±669 SQ. FT.Net±731 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft3WICL24'-0"32'-0"Plan 1-21 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±740 SQ. FT.Net±810 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed12'-11" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage144 ft324'-0"37'-0"Deck10'-10" x 7'-0"3'-0"Plan 1-1.1±697 SQ. FT.Net±761 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed10'-6" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-2"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage183 ft3Plan 1-2 alt1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±770 SQ. FT.Net24'-0"36'-10 1/2"Living Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed11'-11" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage144 ft3Plan 1-2 alt1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±689 SQ. FT.Net±756 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft324'-0"33'-0 1/2"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.0UNIT PLANSONE BEDROOM0248 Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck10'-10" x 6'-0"65 SQ. FT.LPlan 1-41 Bed + Den, 1 Bath±812 SQ. FT.Net±881 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft3WICLDen7'-8" x 11'-10"32'-2"32'-0"Plan 1-2.11 Bed + Den / 1 Bathroom±887 SQ. FT.Net±966 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed11'-0" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage144 ft3Den8'-0" x 11'-0"24'-0"43'-6 1/2"Plan 1-31 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±660 SQ. FT. Net±729 SQ. FT.GrossKitchen/DiningDeck7'-0" x 8'-2"56 SQ. FT.W/DBathWICM.Bedroom11'-0" x 12'-10"LStorage126 ft3Living Room14'-0" x 11-0"33'-10"23'-0" 24'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.1UNIT PLANSONE BEDROOM0248 Plan 2-22 Bed, 2 Bath±1078 SQ. FT.Net±1155 SQ. FT.GrossDeck9'-0" x 11'-0"99 SQ. FT.KitchenBathWICW/DM. BathMaster Bed13'-6" x 11'-6"Living Room19'-4" x 11'-0"Bedroom 211'7" x 11'-0"Storage160 ft333'-6"37'-10"Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck11'-9" x 6'-0"71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLPlan 2-12 Bed, 2 Bath±1041 SQ. FT.Net±1117 SQ. FT.GrossLStorage144 ft3WIC36'-0"32'-0"BathDeck12'-8" x 6'-0"77 SQ. FT.BathWICKitchenW/DPlan 2-32 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom±1049 SQ. FT.Net±1153 SQ. FT.GrossWICLDining10'-0" x 12'-6"Living13'-0" x 13'-0"M. Bedroom12'-9" x 12'-2"Bedroom 211'-6" x 10'-3"Storage Storage126 ft352'-2"23'-0" 24'-0"Plan 2-1.1±1,071 SQ. FT.Net±1,149 SQ. FT.Gross3'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.2UNIT PLANSTWO BEDROOMS0248 50'-2"Plan 3-13 Bed, 2 Bath±1285 SQ. FT.Net±1377 SQ. FT.GrossDeck12'-0" x 6'-0"69 SQ. FT.KitchenBathW/DM. BathLiving Room12'-4" x 15'-8"WICBedroom 311'-0" x 11'-0"Bedroom 211'-0" x 11'-0"Master Bed14'-1" x 11'-8"Dining10'-0" x 12'-6"Storage160 ft3Plan 2-42 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom±1079 SQ. FT.Net±1158 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed11'-10" x 13'-4"Kitchen/DiningDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLM. BathLMaster Bed11'-0" x 11'-4"WICStorageStorage130 ft324'-0"48'-3 1/2"32'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.3UNIT PLANSTWO BEDROOM & THREE BEDROOM0248 Retail TBD16' Floor to Floor15' to Bottom of Slab5,843 SQ. FT.37'-8" 32'-0"139'-7"33'-10"173'-5"Retail TBD16' Floor to Floor15' to Bottom of Slab4,061 SQ. FT.35'-6" 37'-8"78'-6"33'-10"112'-4"15'-0" 16'-0" Floor to Floor 18" Plumbing Drop13'-6"RETAILArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.4ENLARGED PLANSRETAIL ALONG FOOTHILL BLVD04812Building A - Level 1Building B - Level 1Typical Section Retail TBD14' Floor to Floor13' to Bottom of Slab2,588 SQ. FT.31'-0"83'-6"Retail TBD14' Floor to Floor13' to Bottom of Slab2,588 SQ. FT.31'-0"83'-6" 13'-0" 14'-0" Floor to Floor 18" Plumbing Drop11'-6"RETAILArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.5ENLARGED PLANSRETAIL ALONG ENTRY DRIVE04812Building A - Level 1Building B - Level 1Typical Section LeasingLobbyOfficeWorkRoomOfficeMail CenterResidentialMedia LoungeBusiness Center /CoWorkTrashBreezeway TrashBreezeway10'-6" Floor to Floor9' to Bottom of Slab1,000 SQ. FT.10'-6" Floor to Floor9' to Bottom of Slab1,222 SQ. FT.9'-0" 10'-6" Floor to Floor AMENITIESWomen'sMen'sArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.6ENLARGED PLANSBUILDING A & B AMENITY / POOL BUILDING04812Building A - Level 1Building B - Level 1Residential Amenities:1.Media Lounge2.Business/CoWork CenterPool Building KitchenGameRoomClubroomWomen'sMen'sMen'sWomen'sCyclingWeightsFitnessBreezeway BreezewaySeating AreaYoga Studio502 SQ. FT.502 SQ. FT.1,801 SQ. FT.1,824 SQ. FT.Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA5.7ENLARGED PLANSBUILDING C AMENITY04812Building C.1 - Level 1Building C.2 - Level 1Building C.1 - Level 2Building C.2 - Level 2Residential Amenities: 3. Clubroom 4. Fitness Room 120'-0"150' Max26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0" 26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0"150'-0"26'-0"26'-0"150' Max Hose Pull 150'-0"35'-0" 36'-0" 30' to level above 30' to level above 26'-0"150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull 150' Max Hose Pull24'-0"26'-0"24'-0"24'-0"120'-0"30' to level above 30' to level above 30'to level above26'-0"26'-0"24'-0"30'to level above150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull 150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull24'-0"Hose Pull150'-0"150'-0"30'to level above30'to level aboveEVEV EV EV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EV EVEVEV CleanAirEVEV EVEV CleanAirClean Air Clean Air CleanAirCleanAirClean Air Clean AirArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL06012030A6.0CONCEPTUAL FIRE EXHIBITFire Access Hose PullGateProject Main EntryFOOTHILL BLVDHAVEN AVENUE ASPEN STREETFire Access HammerheadLEGEND26'Fire Turn RadiusFire Hose150' Max Hose Pull Fire AccessHammerhead26'40'26'GateAERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANEAERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANERescue Window Ladder PadsFire Turn RadiusAERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANE AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANE R 4 6 'R 2 0 '4 Story Residential Buildingwith Tuck-Under Parking4 Story Mixed-Use Buildingwith Tuck-Under ParkingFire Access HammerheadFire Access HammerheadResident Amenity at First Floorwith Residential Units AboveRetail at First Floor withResidential Units AboveRetail at First Floor withResidential Units Above Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALNTSA7.0RESIDENTIAL DETAILSBALCONY RAILINGS & GARAGE DOORSRailing Type 1: Vertical Slat Front Mount(Exact Product TBD)Railing Type 2: Metal Panel Front Mount(Exact Product TBD)Paint to Match Fiber Cement SidingWindows recessed3" from face ofbuilding claddingwith additional trimWindows recessed3" from face ofbuilding cladding 11'-6"6'-0"12'-8"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEWNOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-0381RC Foothill Holdings LLC120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite DSanta Barbara, CA 93101PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALA8.0BUS SHELTER25Key PlanN.T.S.43Elevation 1 - Front210248Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Vertical Screening3.Glazing4.Bench5.Metal Canopy163Overhead Canopy:72 SF Minimum Area30" x 48"Clear FloorSpaceBenchElevation 2 - LeftElevation 3 - RearElevation 4 - Right ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S.EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVFOOTHILL BOULEVARD HAVEN AVENUEASPEN STREETPOOLCOURTYARDBUILDING "A"BUILDING "B"BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II" DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUT - FILL MAP APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 NOVEMBER 9, 20227.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 1 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 1 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CUT - FILL MAP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.48 AC. NET NOVEMBER 9, 2022 DRC2019 - 00850 DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL CF - 01 OWNER/DEVELOPER RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH (650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com CIVIL ENGINEER MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 CONTACT: MARK BERTONE (909) 481-6322 ext. 120 Email: mbertone@madoleinc.com ARCHITECT KTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA. 92614 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS 34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DANA POINT, CA. 92629 CONTACT: TRENT NOLL (949) 443-1446 x 279 Email: tnoll@smpinc.net CONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK (949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.com SUITE 200 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: 5,959 C.Y. CUT (RAW) 19,847 C.Y. FILL (RAW) NET: 13,888 C.Y. IMPORT NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDE EARTHWORK FOR REMEDIAL PURPOSES, OVER-EXCAVATION, OR ORGANIC REMOVAL. QUANTITIES FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM ALL QUANTITIES WITH ENGINEER. 0.6 FILL CONDITION - 0.6 CUT CONDITION DAYLIGHT LINE LEGEND: C / F J:\1022-2904\tentative\Cut-Fill\CF-01.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:10:49 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S.EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV60' 47' / VAR. 13' (VAR.)(VAR.) EXIST. S'LY R/W N'LY R/W CL CONST. 40' / VAR.33'8 EXIST. PAVEMENT EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE PROP. CURB & GUTTER 14' / VAR. 7' / (VAR.) 7' / (VAR.) (VAR.)(VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN PROP. S'LY R/W 16'-10" PROP. PARKING 1% MIN. 12' / VAR.40' / VAR. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROADPROP. PROP. CURB PROP. PAVEMENT PROP. CURB & GUTTER 16' & 19.5' BUILDING PROP. SIDEWALK 2% 120' 60'25' 7' & 10.5'EXIST. PAVEMENT 88' 44'44' 12' (2%)(2%) R/W R/W CL 32'32'12' EXIST. PAVEMENT EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER EXIST. SIDEWALK TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE EXIST. CURB & GUTTER TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 134' 47'47' 20' (VAR.)(VAR.) E'LY R/W W'LY R/W CL CONST. 40' / VAR.40' / VAR.20' EXIST. PAVEMENT EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER 14' / VAR. 7' / (VAR.) 7' / (VAR.) (VAR.)(VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN 6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 NOVEMBER 9, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL CG - 01 INDEX MAP SCALE: 1"=100'SHT. 2SHT. 3SHT. 4SHT. 5OWNER/DEVELOPER RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH (650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com CIVIL ENGINEER MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 CONTACT: MARK BERTONE (909) 481-6322 ext. 120 Email: mbertone@madoleinc.com ARCHITECT KTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA. 92614 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS 34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DANA POINT, CA. 92629 CONTACT: TRENT NOLL (949) 443-1446 x 279 Email: tnoll@smpinc.net APN: 0208-353-02 THE BEARING OF N89°53'38"E FOR THE CENTERLINE OF FOOTHILL BLVD., AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP No. 9612, P.M.B. 105 /14, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING BENCHMARK: BENCHMARK NO. 10039 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 2" BRASS DISK IN THE CONCRETE CURB STAMPED "CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BM 10039 1987" AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. AND HAVEN AVE., 1 FOOT NORTH OF BEGINNING OF CURB RETURN AT SOUTHERLY END OF CATCH BASIN. ELEVATION: 1208.173' DATUM: NGVD29 BENCHMARK: UTILITY COMPANIES WATER/SEWER: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 10440 ASHFORD STREET P.O. BOX 638 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91729 PHONE: (909) 987-2591 ELECTRIC: RCMU 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 PHONE: (909) 919-2612 EMAIL: rcmu.customer@cityforc.us TELEPHONE: FRONTIER 1400 E. PHILLIPS BLVD. POMONA, CA 91766 ATTN: JERRY PAUBEL PHONE: (909) 469-6354 GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 13525 12th STREET CHINO, CA 91719 PHONE: (909) 613-1531 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 811 CONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK (949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.com CL CENTERLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE R/W RIGHT OF WAY TC TOP OF CURB - - - - GB GRADE BREAK- AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE- FL FLOWLINE- SD STORM DRAIN- TRW TOP OF RETAINING WALL- FG FINISHED GRADE- THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, OF SAID COUNTY AND STATE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERAL RIGHTS NOT HERETOFORE OTHERWISE CONVEYED OR RESERVED BY GRANTOR, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL OIL, GAS, HYDROCARBON AND SIMILAR RIGHTS, AND ALL WATER, WATER RIGHTS, GEOTHERMAL STEAM POWER, WITHIN OR UNDERLYING THE REAL PROPERTY HEREIN CONVEYED TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT THEREOF; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RIGHTS HEREIN RESERVED AND EXCEPTED DO NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE AND TOP 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE REAL PROPERTY HEREIN CONVEYED, AS RESERVED IN THE CONVEYANCE FROM DAON CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, BY THE DEED RECORDED APRIL 28, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-08283 , OFFICIAL RECORDS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION : SUITE 200 FF FINISHED FLOOR- AREA: GROSS ACRES .............................................. 7.94 AC REVISED GROSS ACRES.............................. 7.71 AC NET ACRES .................................................... 7.48 AC TOTAL DISTURBED AREA.............................. 8.91 AC REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA................ 3.97 AC REPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA....... 0.02 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA................... 7.70 AC TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA............................ 7.72 AC EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: 5,959 C.Y. CUT (RAW) 19,847 C.Y. FILL (RAW) NET: 13,888 C.Y. IMPORT NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDE EARTHWORK FOR REMEDIAL PURPOSES, OVER-EXCAVATION, OR ORGANIC REMOVAL. QUANTITIES FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM ALL QUANTITIES WITH ENGINEER. J:\1022-2904\tentative\CG\CG-01.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:06:07 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVHAVEN AVENUEEXIST. CURB POOL COURTYARDTRASHEXIST. CURBEXIST. CURB (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 125.51 N00° 06' 22"W117.00N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINECENTERLINE EXISTING R/WEXISTING R/W PARCEL 1 BARTON PLAZA (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)PROPERTY LINE(TYP . ) (TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)BUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-I"PROPERTY LINEA A EE8"CF(07.76 TC)(07.41 FL)(08.08 TC)(0.32%)8"CF(08.28 TC)(08.05 FL)GB 8 " C F ( 0 9 . 2 8 T C ) (0.32%)(0.20%) 8 " C F ( 0 9 . 4 3 T C )8"CF;HP(09.62 TC)(0.20%)(08.26 FS)(08.76 TC)(08.48 FS)(08.98 TC)(08.86 FS)(09.36 TC)(09.19 FS)(09.69 TC)(09.37 FS)(09.87 TC)(09.61 FS)(10.11 TC)(09.67 FS)(10.17 TC)(09.10 FS)(09.60 TC)(0.22%)(0.38%)(0.48%)(0.177%)(0.177%)(0.28%)(09.63 FS)(10.13 TC)(0.04%)(0.05%)(09.74 FS)(10.24 TC)(0.06%)(0.17%)10'10'10'EXIST. MEANDERING SIDEWALK PROP. R/WPROP. R/W NO FIRE ACCESS LANESBX BUS SHELTER 3.3'16'-10"20'11'9' ( T Y P . ) 26' APPROX. 130.00' PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS 0.40% FF = 1208.8 03.51 FL04.01 TC03.75 FS0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFF = 1205.5 FS06.171.7%1.38%1%2.5%04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%04.46 FL04.96 TC1.7%1.7% 1.7%1.7%1.2%1.2%0.47%1.7%FS09.00FS08.00FS07.00FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1207.6 FF = 1208.5 FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1208.5 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%1.7%0 5 . 3 1 F S 0 5 . 8 1 T C 0.381%0.44% FF = 1206.8 0 8 . 2 0 F S 0 8 . 7 0 T C 08.20 FS08.70 TC08.50 FS09.00 TC0 7 . 5 0 F S 0 8 . 0 0 T C 0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C 06.20 FS06.70 TC1%05.70 FS0 6 . 0 0 F S07.86 FS07.90 FS0 6 . 9 0 F S05.04 TG1.1%(03.4 FS)(03.9 TC)1.7%1.7%0 7 . 8 6 F S 07.27 FS07.77TC07.04 FS07.54 TC2.9%0 6 . 1 5 T C (05.40 FS)05.90 TC(05.30 FS)05.90 TC(06.10 FS)06.60 TC06.45 FS0"CF(04.40 FS)04.90 TC0 4 . 3 0 T C (03.40 FS)03.90 TC(03.00 FS)03.50 TC(03.40 FS)03.90 TC03.00 FS03.50 TC(03.30 FS)03.50 TC(02.90 FS)03.40 TC03.00 TC(02.30 FS)02.80 TC(0 2 . 8 0 F S ) 0 3 . 3 0 T C 1.2%0.98%05.58 FS3% 0 5 . 0 4 F S 0 5 . 5 4 T C0.635%FF = 1206.4 0 3 . 9 6 F S 0 4 . 4 6 T C 03.38 TC04.15 TC0.50%03.71 FS04.21 TC01.70 FS02.20 TC1% 0 3 . 7 1 F S 0 4 . 2 1 T C2.9%(01.10 FS)01.60 TC0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 00.90FS01.40 TC(01.90 FS)02.40 TC1.2%02.60 FS03.10 TC00.60 FS01.10 TC06.20 FS06.70 TC08.70 FS09.20 TC0 8 . 7 0 F S 0 9 . 2 0 T C 1.2%0 8 . 5 0 F S 0 9 . 0 0 T C 07.50 FS08.00 TC0 5 . 8 0 F S 0 6 . 3 0 T C 0 5 . 8 0 F S 0 6 . 3 0 T C 0 5 . 4 5 F L 0.5% 1%LP05.80 FL06.25 FL0 8 . 0 8 T C 0 7 . 5 7 T C 0.93% 0 8 . 2 6 F S 1.2% 0 8 . 4 6 F S1.38%1.7%1.7%05.31 FL2.5%1.2%08.00 FS0 5 . 8 4 F L3.95%0.50%3%06.81 FS07.31 TC2.86%06.52 FS07.02 TC0.50% 0 6 . 1 4 F L2.11%2.58%06.90 FS3% 0 8 . 1 3 F L G B 2.38% 0 7 . 5 6 F S 0 8 . 1 6 T C 0 3 . 1 6 F S 0 3 . 6 6 T C04.27 TC0 3 . 4 7 F S 0 3 . 9 7 T C 06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C FF = 1205.5 FF = 1205.5 PROP. V-GUTTER PROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. V-GUTTERPROP. V-GUTTERPROP. C & G PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SEWERPROP. WATEREXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER3.66%0 4 . 7 9 F S 0 5 . 0 2 F S 0 3 . 1 3 F L 0 3 . 6 3 T C 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%PROP. C & GPROP. C & GPUEPUEPUEPUE8"CF09.45 TC8"CF09.56 TC8"CF09.64 TC0.18% 8 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 7 2 T C 8"CF08.56 TC8"CF08.74 TC8"CF08.89 TC8"CF09.12 TC8"CF09.31 TC8"CF09.38 TC0 7 . 7 8 F L 0 8 . 4 5 T C 8. 6 7 F S 0 9 . 1 7 T C 1.7%2%0.16%1.7%MAX0 8 . 4 5 F S 0 8 . 9 5 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 4 T C 1.7%1.7%6 " C F 0 8 . 9 8 T C 0 7 . 7 2 F L 0 8 . 2 2 T C 0.40% 0 8 . 2 9 F S 0 8 . 7 9 T C 07.62 FS08.12 TC0 7 . 6 5 F S 0 8 . 1 5 T C 8 " C F 6 " C F 06.70 FL08.20 TC06.75 FL07.25 TCLP1. 3 % 0 7 . 9 2 F L 0 8 . 4 2 T C H P L P 0 8 . 5 6 F S 0 9 . 0 6 T C 8"CF09.22 TC1.8%0 7 . 9 2 F L 0 8 . 4 2 T C 0.40%0.40% FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.8 08.80 FL08.85 FL6 " C F 0 9 . 2 8 T C 0 8 . 6 4 F L 0 9 . 1 4 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 2 T C 6 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 3 3 T C 0 8 . 1 6 F L 0 8 . 6 6 T C 08.57 FL09.07 TC1%3%0.40%HPFF = 1209.3FF = 1209.0 0 8 . 0 8 F L 0 8 . 5 8 T C 09.64 FS10.14 TC1.7%1.7%FS; HP10.00PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN06.08 TC0 6 . 3 4 F S (0 5 . 6 5 F S )03.77 FS(0 3 . 8 0 F S )03.65 FL(02.50 FS)10'0 7 . 5 8 F L 0 7 . 0 7 F L PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN 26'(06.60 FS)07.10 TC0 7 . 4 0 T C ( 0 6 . 9 0 F S )2%07.29 FL07.79 TC3.9%(0 7 . 1 8 F S ) 0 7 . 6 8 T C (07.61 FS)08.11 TC(06.30 FS)06.80 TC0 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C (0 6 . 9 2 F S ) 0 7 . 4 2 T C (0 7 . 0 2 F S ) 0 7 . 5 2 T C (0 5 . 9 2 F S ) 0 6 . 4 2 T C (05. 7 7 F S ) 06.2 7 T C (06. 4 0 F S ) 06. 9 0 T C (0 6 . 2 4 F S ) 0 6 . 7 4 T C (0 6 . 6 5 F S ) 0 7 . 1 5 T C 8%FS06.666.6%FS04.428%0 4 . 8 4 F S 0" C F 0 5 . 1 7 F S 0 5 . 6 7 T CFS05.5707.34 FS07.84 TC07.06 FS07.56 TC8% 0 6 . 0 2 F S 0" C F 0 6 . 2 8 F S 0 " C F 2.5%0"CF07.10 FS8%FS07.740.5%24' 13'21'13'17' 13' 11'26'17'15'20'3'22'9' 9'20'3'20'3'9'26'18' 16'14'17'9' 9'9'9' 9' 17'26'17'9'18'18'12'26'26' 8' 9' 9'26'26'26'4'26'7'26'10'10'3' 20'18'9' 7'17'17'17'25'45'32'18' 26'14'14' 9' 5'9'20' 68' 58'10'60'13'47'26' 10'26'26'26'24'9'5'9'18'29' 9' 13'21'15'15'35'8.33' 10' 12'12' 26'14'14' 68' 17'17'17'9'45'24' 20'10'10'35'24'9' 35'35'17'9' 7'5'8'11'31' 3' 5' 6'6'8' 5'9'9'6'8' 13'14'26'18'9' 12'5'18' 13' 14'5'8'8'6'5'5' 24'9'9' 24'9' 24' FOOTHILL BLVD. EXIST. CURB F F 5'10.5'(TYP.) 9' (TYP.) 9'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 NOVEMBER 9, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL CG - 02SEE SHEET CG-03SEE SHEET CG-04 J:\1022-2904\tentative\CG\CG-02.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:06:24 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVTRASHTRASHN89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N00° 06' 22"W 117.00N89° 53' 38"E 184.14 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 PARCEL 3 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA BUILDING "C-II"ASPEN STREETBUILDING "B" BB 8 " C F ( 0 9 . 2 8 T C ) 8 " C F ( 0 9 . 4 3 T C )8"CF(09.21 TC)8"CF;HP(09.62 TC)(0.20%)(0.20%)8"CF(08.66 TC)8"CF(09.03 TC)(09.67 FS)(10.17 TC)(09.63 FS)(10.13 TC)(0.04%)(0.05%)(09.74 FS)(10.24 TC)(0.06%)(09.67 FS)(10.17 TC)(09.69 FS)(10.19 TC)(09.66 FS)(10.16 TC)(0.04%)(0.17%)(0.06%)(09.59 FS)(10.09 TC)(0.14%)(09.87 FS)(10.37 TC)(0.28%)( 0 9 . 7 3 F S ) ( 1 0 . 2 3 T C )(09.86 FS)(10.36 TC)(09.83 FS)(10.33 TC)(09.82 FS)(10.32 TC)(0.02%)(0.06%)(0.02%)(09.93 FS)(10.43 TC)(0.26%) (0.20%)10'10'10'EXIST. MEANDERING SIDEWALK PROP. R/W PROP. R/W SBX BUS SHELTER 16'-10"26' APPROX. 130.00' PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS 0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFS06.171.7%1.38%1%2.5%0 3 . 8 7 F S04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%0.50%04.46 FL04.96 TC0 3 . 3 8 F L 0 3 . 8 8 T C 1.7%1.7% 1.7%1.7%1.2%1.7%FS09.00FS08.00FS07.00FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1207.6 FF = 1208.5 FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1208.5 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%08.50 FS09.00 TC0 7 . 5 0 F S 0 8 . 0 0 T C07.90 FS0 6 . 9 0 F S FF = 1206.806.20 FS06.70 TC0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C08.70 FS09.20 TC0 8 . 7 0 F S 0 9 . 2 0 T C 1.2%0 8 . 5 0 F S 0 9 . 0 0 T C FF = 1206.807.50 FS08.00 TC(05.00 FL)06.97 FL07.47 TC05.87 FL06.37 TC0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C06.20 FS06.70 TC0.77%0.77%05.25 FLLP05.80 FL06.25 FL0 8 . 0 8 T C 0 7 . 5 7 T C 1.2%0 5 . 6 0 F L 06.29 FL0.93% 0 8 . 2 6 F S 1.2% 0 8 . 4 6 F S1.38%1.7%1.7%03.65 FS04.15 TC(0 3 . 0 0 F S ) 0 3 . 5 0 T C (02.95 FS)03.45 TC1.2%08.00 FS3% 0 6 . 1 4 F L 05.75 FL0.50% 0 7 . 2 1 F S 0 7 . 7 1 T C 06.90 FS3% 0 8 . 1 3 F L G B 2.38% 0 7 . 5 6 F S 0 8 . 1 6 T C 06.64 FL07.14 TC06.80 FS07.30 TC3% (0 4 . 0 0 F S ) (0 4 . 5 0 T C )04.92 FS05.42 TC2.45%06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C (03.00 FS)03.50 TC02.10 TC0 2 . 1 0 T C05.37 FS05.87 TC1.2%05.72 FL06.22 TC05.49 FL05.99 TC04.34 FS04.84 TC04.92 FS05.42 TC(0 8 . 0 0 F S ) 0 8 . 5 0 T C 0 7 . 3 6 F S 0 7 . 8 6 T C 1.2% 0 3 . 5 0 F S 0 4 . 0 0 T C 03.50 TC03.26 FS03.76 TC1% MIN1% MIN0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 0 3 . 5 5 F L 0 4 . 0 5 T C (02.20 FS)02.70 TC(0 2 . 3 5 F S ) 0 2 . 8 5 T C (02.45 FS)02.95 TC0 3 . 0 0 T C (00.90 FS)01.40 TC(02.40 FS)02.90 TC(02.50 FS)03.00 TCPROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB CB CB PROP. V-GUTTERPROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. C & G PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SEWERPROP. WATEREXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%G BPROP. C & GPROP. C & G(03.00 FS)03.50 TC(0 3 . 4 0 F S ) 0 3 . 9 0 T C PUEPUEPUE8"CF09.45 TC8"CF09.56 TC8"CF09.64 TC8"CF09.63 TC0.18% 8 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 7 2 T C8"CF09.31 TC8"CF09.38 TC0.16%1.7%MAX0 8 . 4 5 F S 0 8 . 9 5 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 4 T C 1.7%1.7%0 7 . 9 2 F L 0 8 . 4 2 T C 0.40% FF = 1208.8 08.80 FL08.85 FL6 " C F 0 9 . 6 1 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 8 T C 0 8 . 6 4 F L 0 9 . 1 4 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 2 T C 6 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 3 3 T C 0 8 . 1 6 F L 0 8 . 6 6 T C 08.57 FL09.07 TC1%3%0.40%HP08.35 FL08.85 TC2.3%0.40% FF = 1209.3FF = 1209.0 0 8 . 0 8 F L 0 8 . 5 8 T C 8"CF09.36 TC8"CF09.27 TC8"CF08.87 TC8"CF09.07 TC8 " C F 0 9 . 0 7 T C8"CF09.45 TC09.64 FS10.14 TC1.7%1.7%FS; HP10.00PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 7 . 5 8 F L 0 7 . 0 7 F L (0 2 . 5 0 F S ) 1.67%7.50 FL08.00 TCLPPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN 9' 5' 9' 26'(06.70 FS)07.40 TC0 7 . 4 0 T C (0 6 . 7 0 F S )7.9%0 7 . 7 9 F L 0 8 . 2 9 T C 0.40% 6 " C F 0 8 . 4 0 T C G B 1.5%0" CF 0" CF (0 7 . 7 1 F S ) 0 8 . 2 1 T C (06.65 FS)07.15 TC(06.84 F S)07.34 T C (05.85 FS)06.35 TC0 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C (07.04 FS)07.54 TC(06.63 F S)07.13 T C (06.84 FS)07.34 TC(06.22 F S)06.72 T C (06.16 F S)06.66 T C(07.07 FS)07.77 TC(07.27 FS)07.97 TC(07 .26 FS )07.76 TC(06.45 FS)06.95 TC(06.67 FS)07.37 TC5%FS04.228%0 4 . 5 1 F S FS05.350 5 . 4 1 F S 0 5 . 9 1 T C 7.75%FS06.8606.24 FS0 6 . 5 3 F S 1.1% 7.75%FS07.267.5% 0 7 . 1 5 F S 0 7 . 6 5 T C6.5%FS07.718% EXIST. CURB (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/W(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP . ) (TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)13'21' 18'14'26'17'16'9' 9' 9'20'3'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'15'16'9'9' 9' 9' 9'24'7' 14'24'18'17'26'6'9'18'18'26'26'20' 9'18'7'26'4'10'13'32'26'17'17'10'25'25'27'45'32'14' 26'14'9'13'47'13'21'15'15' 12'12' 26' 68' 11'45'24' 20'10'13'9'17'16'10' 24'9' 35' 35'15'9' 8'9'9'6'8' 16'14'18'9' 16' 14' 15'8'12'8'5'5'6'6'5'5' 24'9'9' 24'9'24'26'26' 27'24'24' FOOTHILL BLVD. A A 32'5'16'(TYP.) G G5'(TYP.) 9' (TYP.) 9'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 NOVEMBER 9, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL CG - 03SEE SHEET CG-02SEE SHEET CG-05 J:\1022-2904\tentative\CG\CG-03.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:06:38 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 X XEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVHAVEN AVENUEPOOL COURTYARDTRASH N00° 10' 24"W52.50N89° 53' 38"E 157.50 N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 1275.39 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBUILDING "C-I" WQMP 10'10'10'36'03.51 FL04.01 TC03.75 FS0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFF = 1205.5 FS06.171.7%04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%04.46 FL04.96 TC1.7%1.7%1.2%1.2%0.47%1.7%FS07.00FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%1.7%0 5 . 3 1 F S 0 5 . 8 1 T C 0.381%0.44% FF = 1206.8 0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C 06.20 FS06.70 TC1%0 6 . 0 0 F S 0 6 . 9 0 F S05.04 TG(03.4 FS)(03.9 TC)0 4 . 9 0 F S 0 5 . 4 0 T C 04.90 FS05.40 TC(04.40 FS)04.90 TC0 4 . 3 0 T C (00.95 FS)01.45 TC(01.70 FS)02.20 TC(03.40 FS)03.90 TC(03.00 FS)03.50 TC(03.40 FS)03.90 TC03.00 FS03.50 TC(98.8 FS)(99.7 FS)(03.30 FS)03.50 TC(02.90 FS)03.40 TC03.00 TC(02.30 FS)02.80 TC(0 2 . 8 0 F S ) 0 3 . 3 0 T C 0.98%3% 0 5 . 0 4 F S 0 5 . 5 4 T C0.635%FF = 1206.4 0 4 . 2 7 F S3%1.2%04.66 FS04.94 TC0 4 . 0 5 F L 0 4 . 5 5 T C03.40 FS0.58%3%1.2%02.46 FL02.96 TC04.44 TC02.91 FL03.41 TC03.71 FS04.21 TC0 4 . 6 8 T C 3%03.17 FL03.67 TC03.57 FL04.07 TC0 0 . 4 9 F S 0 3 . 9 6 F S 0 4 . 4 6 T C 02.88 FL03.38 TC04.15 TC0.50%03.71 FS04.21 TC01.70 FS02.20 TC0 2 . 7 5 F L 0 3 . 2 8 T C 1% 0 3 . 7 1 F S 0 4 . 2 1 T C2.9%1.7%3%1.75%(00.39) FS00.89 TC(00.74) FS01.24 TC00.83 FS01.33 TC(01.10 FS)01.60 TC99.23 FL99.73 TC99.48 FL99.98 TC99.58 FL00.08 TC1.48% 0.50% 0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 00.90FS01.40 TC(00.90 FS)01.40 TC(00.60 FS)01.10 TC(01.90 FS)02.40 TC1.2%02.60 FS03.10 TC00.60 FS01.10 TC0 4 . 9 0 F S 0 5 . 4 0 T C 06.20 FS06.70 TC0 5 . 8 0 F S 0 6 . 3 0 T C 99.43 FL99.73 TCLP00.28 FS00.78 TC2%HP00.35 FS3.5%04.44 FS04.94 TC1.2%2.5%1.5%0 5 . 8 4 F L 0 6 . 1 4 F L 06.90 FS04.05 FL04.55 TC99.00 FL99.50 TC01.20 FS01.70 TC0 2 . 6 4 F S 0 3 . 1 4 T C 0 2 . 8 2 F S 0 3 . 3 2 T C 0 3 . 0 0 F S 0 3 . 5 0 T C 01.79 FS02.29 TC0 3 . 1 6 F S 0 3 . 6 6 T C04.27 TC0 3 . 4 7 F S 0 3 . 9 7 T C 04.22 FS1.36%GB(96.3 FS)0"CF(96.7 FS)0"CF1.7%0 0 . 9 0 F S 0 1 . 7 7 F S 00.80FS3.1%4.5% 9 9 . 5 0 F S 9 9 . 4 0 F S 9 7 . 0 0 F S 7.5%97.239-6"R06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C 03.87 FL04.37 TC0.50%GBFF = 1205.5 FF = 1205.5 PROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB CB CB PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. V-GUTTERPROP. V-GUTTERPOOL R / R EXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER3.66%0 4 . 7 9 F S 0 5 . 0 2 F S 0 3 . 1 3 F L 0 3 . 6 3 T C 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%CB CB PROP. C & G PROP. C & G 03.29 FS02.77 FS3%3%0.6%GB02.85 FL03.35 TC3%0.58%3%3%0.58%GBGB01.80FS01.73FSPROP. C & GPROP. C & G99.59 FL00.09 TC9 9 . 7 4 F S 0 0 . 2 4 T C 2%2%2%(98.2 FG)04.7 FG(97.5 FG)05.50 FS(98.0 FG)04.7 FG( 9 8 . 1 F G ) 0 3 . 9 F G (98.0 FG)99.7 FG(97.5 FG)00.4 FG 2.9' RET1.7' RET5. 8 ' R E T (97.5 FG)0.80 FS3.3' RET6.7' RET8.0' RET6.5' RETPUEPUEPUEPUEPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN 0 6 . 3 4 F S 03.77 FS(0 3 . 8 0 F S )03.65 FL(02.50 FS)10'0 4 . 1 8 F S 04.44 FS03.94 FL(96.30 FS)96.80 TC(96.73 FS)97.23 TC01.96 FS02.46 TC26'96.39 FS9 6 . 6 7 F S(96.60 FS)97.10 TC00.75 FS01.71 TCGB0 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C (9 8 . 1 4 F S ) J O I N E X I S T .HP0 0 . 2 6 F S PROP. WALKWAY 3.75%1.9%LP00.34 FSFS3.039%0"CF5%9.67%FS01.7701.21 FL9%0"CF10%FS01.808%FS02.736.6%2%6%FS04.086.6%FS04.428%0 4 . 8 4 F S 0" C F 0 5 . 1 7 F S 0 5 . 6 7 T CFS05.57D D EE C C (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)EXISTING R/W(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) 17' 13'17'11'11'26'17'15'9' 7' 9'9' 9' 9' 9'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'17'9' 9'9' 9' 9' 9' 17'26'17'10'14'9' 17' 17'17'26'3'20'12'7'26'9'18'18'18'18'12' 12' 23'36'26'26' 8' 9' 9'4'26'26'26'17'17'26' 9'26' 10'26'9' 5'18'9'5'9'18'9' 12'12' 26' 14'26'26' 17'17'17'9'10' 10' 10' 24' 35' 35'15'6'6'8' 5'6'18'9' 18' 14'6'5'5' 24' 9'9'N00° 06' 22"W381.506 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 NOVEMBER 9, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL CG - 04SEE SHEET CG-05SEE SHEET CG-02 J:\1022-2904\tentative\CG\CG-04.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:06:53 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 X XEVEVEVEV EVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVPOOL COURTYARD TRASHN00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 N00° 06' 22"W126.00N89° 53' 38"E 139.00 N00° 06' 22"W39.00BUILDING "C-II" WQMP10'10'10'10'35'26' 0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFS06.171.7% 0 3 . 8 7 F S04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%0.50% FF = 1205.504.46 FL04.96 TC0 3 . 3 8 F L 0 3 . 8 8 T C 1.7%1.7%1.2%1.7%FS07.00FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C1%0 6 . 0 0 F S 0 6 . 9 0 F S 04.90 FS05.40 TC1.2%04.66 FS04.94 TC0 4 . 0 5 F L 0 4 . 5 5 T C1.2%04.44 TC0 4 . 9 0 F S 0 5 . 4 0 T C 04.90 FS05.40 TCFF = 1206.806.20 FS06.70 TC0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C FF = 1206.8 (05.00 FL)05.25 FL05.80 FL06.25 FL1.2%04.44 FS04.94 TC1.2%0 3 . 3 1 F S 0 3 . 8 1 T C 1.03%03.97 FS03.64 FS04.14 TC1.5%VAR3%03.65 FS04.15 TC(0 3 . 0 0 F S ) 0 3 . 5 0 T C (02.95 FS)03.45 TC0 5 . 8 4 F L 0 6 . 1 4 F L 06.90 FS04.05 FL04.55 TC0 2 . 7 1 F L 0 3 . 2 1 T C (0 4 . 0 0 F S ) (0 4 . 5 0 T C ) (9 7 . 5 7 F S ) J O I N E X I S T .04.18 FS3%3%04.22 FS1.36%GB0 2 . 7 8 F L 0 3 . 2 8 T C 04.92 FS05.42 TC2.45%06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C (03.00 FS)03.50 TC(01.60 FS)02.10 TC(0 1 . 6 0 F S ) 0 2 . 1 0 T C (00.70 FS)01.20 TC(0 0 . 9 0 F S ) 0 1 . 4 0 T C 99.70 FS00.20 TC04.68 TC(00.2 FG)03.5 FG03.87 FL04.37 TC0.50%GB0.50%03.37 FL03.87 TCGB0 3 . 4 0 F S 0.50%04.47 TC03.02 FL03.52 TC(98.70 FS)0"CF(98.40 FS)98.90 TC(99.27 FS)99.77 TC(00.00 FS)99.20 FL00.50 TC99.00 FL99.50 TC98.00 FL98.50 TC9 8 . 6 4 F L 9 9 . 1 4 T C05.37 FS05.87 TC1.2%04.34 FS04.84 TC04.92 FS05.42 TC0.88%99.11 FS99.61 TC03.16 FL9 9 . 9 4 F S 2.1%99.39 FLGB0.88%2.3%00.77 FS01.27 TC98.73 FS9 8 . 4 8 F S5.4%1.2% 0 3 . 5 0 F S 0 4 . 0 0 T C 02.80 FS03.30 TC03.00 FS03.50 TC03.26 FS03.76 TC03.50 FS04.00 TC02.55 FS03.05 TC02.35 FS02.85 TC03.24 FS1% MIN1% MIN0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 02.70 FL03.20 TC0 3 . 5 5 F L 0 4 . 0 5 T C (02.20 FS)02.70 TC(0 2 . 3 5 F S ) 0 2 . 8 5 T C FF = 1205.5 FF = 1205.5 (02.45 FS)02.95 TC0 3 . 0 0 T C (00.90 FS)01.40 TC(0 0 . 3 0 F S ) 0 0 . 8 0 T C (0 0 . 5 5 F S ) 0 1 . 0 5 T C (02.40 FS)02.90 TC(02.50 FS)03.00 TC(00.00 FS)00.50 TCPROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB PROP. C & GPROP. C & G PROP. V-GUTTERPROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALK POOL R / R EXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER0 4 . 7 9 F S 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%02.09 FSG B 0 3 . 8 0 F S GB PROP. C & GPROP. C & G2%2%2%(98.2 FG)04.7 FG(97.5 FG)05.50 FS(98.0 FG)04.7 FG6.7' RET8.0' RET6.5' RET3.3' RET(0 0 . 3 F G ) 0 2 . 5 F G 2. 2 ' R E T (99.5 FG)99.4 FG(03.00 FS)03.50 TC(0 3 . 4 0 F S ) 0 3 . 9 0 T C (9 9 . 8 0 F S ) 0 0 . 3 0 T C (00.00 FS)00.50 TC(00.30 FS)00.80 TCPUEPUEPUEPUE(00.1 FG)0.70 FG0.6' RETPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN 0 6 . 3 4 F S (0 2 . 5 0 F S )04.44 FS03.94 FL02.14 FL02.64 TC01.80 FL02.30TC00.00 FL7.9%99.966-6"R01.73FSFS98.78FS99.78FS3.030 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C (97.00 FS)JOIN EXIST.(9 6 . 7 7 F S ) J O I N E X I S T . 4.3% PROP. WALKWAY G B G B00.01 FS01.54 FS0"CF8.3%8%5.67%9%0"CF8%FS2.960" C F5.75%FS04.265%FS04.228%0 4 . 5 1 F S FS05.35ASPEN STREETBB C C D D (TYP.)EXISTING R/W(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)26'17'16'9' 9' 9' 9' 9'9' 9'9'20'3'9'26'14' 16'14'15'16'9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9'10'14'9' 17' 26'24'7' 14'24'5'4'17'26'3'20'17'12'7'26'18'18'18'18'17'26'6' 26'9'18'18'26'26'26'17'17'17'26' 9' 5'18'12'12' 26'9'17'16'10' 10' 24' 35' 35'15'6'18'9' 14'6'6'5'5'5'24'24' 9'9' N89° 53' 38"E 1275.39 N00° 06' 22"W381.006 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 NOVEMBER 9, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL CG - 05SEE SHEET CG-04SEE SHEET CG-03 J:\1022-2904\tentative\CG\CG-05.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:07:09 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 (VAR.) PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER 16' & 19.5' ℄ PROP. SIDEWALK BUILDING 2% SECTION A-A SCALE: 1"=5' FOOTHILL BLVD. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROAD 1% MIN. 16'-10" PROP. PARKING PROP. 6" CURB ONLY 8' EXIST. PAVEMENT EXISTR/W PROP.R/W 33' 7' (VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN (VAR.) PROP. 1% MIN. PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTERPROP. PAVEMENT 60' 12' (VAR.) 25' LANES 7' & 10.5' 17' PARKING (TYP.) PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER 1% MIN AISLE 1% MIN. ℄ 44' EXIST CURB & GUTTER 11' 12'EXIST. LANDSCAPE 4' SIDEWALK E'LYPL 32' VARIES (2%) SECTION B-B SCALE: 1"=5' ASPEN STREET 26' EXIST. GROUNDPROP. AC PAVEMENT VARIES 26'17' PARKING 1.2% EXIST. 6" CURB 1% MIN PROP. X-GUTTER SECTION E-E SCALE: 1"=5' ℄ 64.5' EXIST CURB & GUTTER 11.8' 9'EXIST. LANDSCAPE 5' SIDEWALK E'LYPL 55.5' VARIES HAVEN AVENUE EXIST. GROUND AISLE 1% MIN.(2%) 17' PARKING (TYP.) AISLE 36' 1% MIN. PARKING PROP. AC PAVEMENT 36' SECTION D-D SCALE: 1"=5' 11'-12.25' S'LYP/L 2'-3.5'8.75'-9' PROP. 6' HIGH FENCE PROP. RET. WALL 2% PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER 1% MIN.1% MIN. PROP. AC PAVEMENT (0' MIN. - 4.4' MAX. RET) 11.4'-12.4' S'LYP/L 8.9'-9.9' 17' PARKING (TYP.) PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER PROP. RET. WALL (3.3' MIN.- 8' MAX. RET) AISLE 1% MIN.1% MIN. PROP. AC PAVEMENT 26' SECTION C-C SCALE: 1"=5' 2% 6" CURB ONLY BUILDING PARKING W/ HANGER 6.5'23.6' 2% EXIST. GROUND PROP. 6' HIGH FENCE 2.5'-3.5' (VAR.) PROP. 8" CURB & GUTTER 6' ℄ PROP. SIDEWALK 2% SECTION F-F SCALE: 1"=5' FOOTHILL BLVD. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROAD 20' LANDSCAPE PROP. 6" CURB ONLY EXIST. PAVEMENT EXISTR/W PROP.R/W 33' 1% MIN. PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER PROP. PAVEMENT 60' LANES EXIST. GROUND (VAR.) EXIST. LANDSCAPE 11.5' 2% MIN. 4.7' 3' EXIST. MEDIAN 9' (VAR.) EXIST. PAVEMENT 21.7' (VAR.) PROP. 8" CURB & GUTTER 6' ℄ PROP. SIDEWALK 2% SECTION G-G SCALE: 1"=5' FOOTHILL BLVD. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROAD 4' VARIES EXIST. PAVEMENT EXISTR/W PROP.R/W 33' 60' LANES EXIST. GROUND(VAR.) 5' 2% MIN. 4.7' 21.7' EXIST. LANDSCAPE 1% MIN. 16'-10" PROP. PARKING PROP. 6" CURB ONLY 1% MIN. PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTERPROP. PAVEMENT 11' (VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN LANDSCAPE 6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 NOVEMBER 9, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL CG - 06 J:\1022-2904\tentative\CG\CG-06.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:07:17 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV660'660'660'660'FOOTHILL BOULEVARD HAVEN AVENUEASPEN STREETAPN: 1077-661-02 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-661-01 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-25 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-15 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-16 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-17 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-22 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-29 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-24 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-30 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-28 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGHAPN: 1077-423-27 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-44 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-43 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-216-82 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-47 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-48 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-353-05 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-04 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-03 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-01 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-03 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-23 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-353-19 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-353-20 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-353-21 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-222-15 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-232-14 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-11 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-10 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-15 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER PARCEL 2, P.M. No. 9612 ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA SITE UTILIZATION MAP APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 1 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR SITE UTILIZATION MAP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET NOVEMBER 9, 2022 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 DRC2019 - 00850 DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL SU - 01 1 J:\1022-2904\tentative\SU\Site Utilization Map.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:20:45 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVHAVEN AVEEXIST. CURB POOLEXIST. CURBEXIST. CURB (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 125.51 N00° 06' 22"W117.00N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINECENTERLINE EXISTING R/WPARCEL 1 BARTON PLAZA (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)PROPERTY LINE( TYP . ) ( TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)BUILDING "B"BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II"PROPERTY LINER=10' EXIST. R/W PROP. R/WPROP. R/W DESIGN SPEED OF 15 M.P.H. AT ENTRY PROP. R/W NO FIRE ACCESS R=30' R=30'LANELANELANER=15' R=20'LANESBX BUS SHELTER 445' 24' 13'21'13'17'13' 11'26'17'15'20'3'22'9' 9'20'3'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'17'9' 9'9'9' 9' 17'26'17'9'18'18'12'26'26'8' 9' 9'26'26'26'4'26'7'26'10'10'3'20'18'9' 7'17'17'25'45'32'14' 26'8'14' 9' 5'9'20' 68' 58'10' 26'10'26'26'26'9'5'9'18'29' 9'27'44' 9'9' 9'9' 9'(17')(60')45'40'(7')(12')(11')40'26' 60'30'11'11'11'16'14'5'5'3.3'6.0' S.W.11'16'-10"20'6' S.W.11'11'25'25'9'11'4.3'APPROX. 130'24'18'18'18'9' R=15' FOOTHILL BLVD. 13'21'15'15' 8' 10' 12'12' 26'14'14' 68' 17'17'17'9'24' 20'10'10'24' 24'9' 35'35'15'9' 10' 8'11'31' 3' 5' 6'6'8' 5'9'9'6'8' 16'26'18'9' 12'5'18' 16' 12'7'6'5'5' 24'9'9' 24'9'9'9'9'9'35'8'9'( T Y P . )9'( T Y P . )9'( T Y P . )10.5'(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S.EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVPOOL COURTYARD TRASHDRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 1 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET NOVEMBER 9, 2022 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 DRC2019 - 00850 DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL DSP - 01SEE SHEET DSP-02SEE SHEET DSP-03 INDEX MAP SCALE: 1"=100'SHT. 1SHT. 2SHT. 3SHT. 4OWNER/DEVELOPER RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH (650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com CIVIL ENGINEER MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 CONTACT: MARK BERTONE (909) 481-6322 ext. 120 Email: mbertone@madoleinc.com ARCHITECT KTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA. 92614 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS 34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DANA POINT, CA. 92629 CONTACT: TRENT NOLL (949) 443-1446 x 279 Email: tnoll@smpinc.net CONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK (949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.com SUITE 200 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. J:\1022-2904\tentative\Detailed SIte Plan\DSP-01.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:17:22 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV24' 13'13'21'21'15'15' 12'12' 26'ASPEN ST.68'11' 24' 20'10'13'18'14'9'17'26'17'16'16'20'3'22'POOL COURTYARD 9' 9' 9'20'3'10'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'15'16'9' 9'9' 9'9' 9' 9'26'17'TRASH26'24'7'14'24'18'17'26'6' 26'9'18'18'26'26'10'3'20'7' 9'18'7'26'4'10'13'32'26'17'17'17'10'25'25'27'45'32'35'14' 26' 24' 24'9' 35'35'15'9' 10'9'9'6'8' 16'18'9'9' 12'5' (TYP.)(TYP.)16' 14'8'12'8'5'5'6'6'5'5'5' (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.) N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N00° 06' 22"W117.00N89° 53' 38"E 184.14 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 N00° 06' 22"W126.00BUILDING "A"EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/WPARCEL 3 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) 24'9'9' 24'9' ( TYP . ) ( TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)26'26' 27'24'BUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-II"EXIST. CURBEXIST. CURB 62'30' CENTERLINE CENTERLINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE9'9'18'32'9'9'9'9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9'9' 9' 45' 45'27'24'EXIST. R/W R=10' PROP. R/WPROP. R/W LANER=15' R=20'LANELANELANEPROP. R/W R=50' R=50' R=50' SBX BUS SHELTER PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS 45'32'(17')(60')40'(7')(12')(11')40'26' 33'30'11'11'11'11'11'11'16'14'7'414'11'25'25'16'-10"2'11'11'11'6' S.W.6' S.W.6'18'23.5'APPROX. 130'5'24'18'9' R=15' FOOTHILL BLVD.27'7'8'9'( T Y P . )9'( T Y P . )9'( T Y P . ) 9'18'5' 26'5'5'10.5'18'9'18'9' (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 1 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET NOVEMBER 9, 2022 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 DRC2019 - 00850 DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL DSP - 02SEE SHEET DSP-01SEE SHEET DSP-04 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. J:\1022-2904\tentative\Detailed SIte Plan\DSP-02.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:17:35 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVHAVEN AVE12' 12' 26' 14'17'13'26'17'11'26' 17'11'17'26'17'15'17'9'POOL COURTYARD 9'7'9'9' 9' 9' 9' 10' 10'20'3'10' 9'26'14' 14'14'17'9' 9'9'9' 9' 9' 17'26'17'TRASH10'14'9' 17' 17'17'26'3'20'12'10' 7'26'9'18'18'18'18'12' 12' 23'36'26'26'8' 9' 9'4'26'26'26'17'17'17'24' 24' 35'35'15'EXIST. CURB6'6'8' 6'6'18'9'9'5'18' (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)12'6'5'5'5' (TYP.) (TYP.)N00° 10' 24"W52.50N89° 53' 38"E 157.50 N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 1275.39 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINEEXISTING R/W68' 58'10' PARCEL 1 BARTON PLAZA 26'10'(TYP.)(TYP.)26'(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)9' (TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)9'5'9'18'9'5'9'18'PROPERTY LINEBUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II" 9' PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING CENTERLINEPROPERTY LINE 8' 169' 7'55'86'7'14'9'9'86'9' 26'N00° 06' 22"W381.50DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 1 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET NOVEMBER 9, 2022 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 DRC2019 - 00850 DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL DSP - 03SEE SHEET DSP-04SEE SHEET DSP-01 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. J:\1022-2904\tentative\Detailed SIte Plan\DSP-03.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:17:45 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 EV12' 26'ASPEN ST.13'18'14'9'17'26'17'16'16'POOL COURTYARD 9' 9' 9' 9'9'9' 10'20'3'10'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'15'16'17'9' 9'9' 9'9' 9' 9' 9' 9'26'17'10'14'9' 17' 26'24'7'14'24'26'4'17'26'3'20'17'12'7'26'17'18'18'17'26'6'35'26'9'18'18'10' 9'26'26'10'9'18'26'17'17'17'10'25'25'26' 24' 24'9' 35'35'15'9'6'18'9'9'(TYP.)(TYP.)14' 5'6'6'5'5'5' (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVN00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 N00° 06' 22"W126.00N89° 53' 38"E 139.00 N00° 06' 22"W39.00S89° 53' 38"W1275.39 BUILDING "A"EXISTING R/WPARCEL 3 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)9'5'9'18'( TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)26'24'BUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II"EXIST. CURBCENTERLINEPROPERTY LINE9'9'18'PROPERTY LINE26'(TYP.)5'9'18'6'3'6'3' 6'5'(TYP.) (TYP.)9'(TYP.)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 9' 9' 9'9' 9' 45'86'14'86'7' 7' 170' 6'9' (TYP.) 6' 6'N00° 06' 22"W381.00DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 1 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET NOVEMBER 9, 2022 NOVEMBER 9, 2022 DRC2019 - 00850 DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTAL DSP - 04SEE SHEET DSP-03SEE SHEET DSP-02 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. J:\1022-2904\tentative\Detailed SIte Plan\DSP-04.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:17:57 PM, _DWG To PDF.pc3 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EVEVEVEVEV EVEV EV EV EVEVDA1AREA=210,191 SQ. FT. (4.8 AC.)DCV=13,881 CU. FT.QBMP=0.7 CFSSYSTEM RETENTION VOLUME=14,109 (102%)PRETREATMENT CAPACITY = 0.84 CFSDA2AREA=200,235 SQ. FT. (4.6 AC.)DCV=13,224 CU. FT.QBMP=0.6 CFSSYSTEM RETENTION VOLUME=13,487 (102%)PRETREATMENT CAPACITY = 0.84 CFSBMP-3FOOTHILL BOULEVARDHAVEN AVENUE ASPEN AVENUEBMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-1BMP-2BMP-1BMP-2EXIST.BUILDINGEXIST.BUILDINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGBMP-4N14BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4EXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKING114'23'103'23' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10'PROP. R/WPROP. R/WNO FIREACCESSLANE PROP. R/WSBX BUSSHELTER3.3'16'-10"20'11' 16'-10"9'(TYP.)APPROX. 130.00'PLATFORM PLUSENTRY RAMPS10'9'5'9'EXIST. PLEXIST. PARKWAY CULVERTEXIST. PARKWAY CULVERTDRAINAGE AREABOUNDARYPROP. STORM DRAINLOW FLOW DIVERSION TOINFILTRATION SYSTEM383' L.F. 60-INCH PERFORATEDRETENTION PIPE323' L.F. 60-INCH PERFORATEDRETENTION PIPEPROP. STORM DRAINEXIST. 8" WATEREXIST. 8" SEWEREXIST. 8" WATEREXIST. 8" SEWER101'℄60'13'13'PROP. WATERPROP. SEWER8.5'EXIST. PLPOOL COURTYARD 60' 13'13' 8.5'℄60' ℄48'LOW FLOW DIVERSION TOINFILTRATION SYSTEMARROW ROUTECIVIC CENTER DRRED OAK STHAVEN AVENUE FOOTHILL BLVDMILLIKEN AVENUE ELM AVENUE SPRUCE AVENUE CENTER AVENUE DEER C R E E K C H A N N E L U T I C A A V E N U E CHURCH STREETTOWN CENTER DRIVECHURCH STREETPROJECTSITEVICINITY MAPN.T.S.10' 4'5'1'23'2'2'7'19'36-INCH Ø ACCESS RISER FORMAINTENANCE PURPOSESGEOTEXTILE/ FILTER FABRIC1"-2" CLEAN WASHED ROCK(n=0.40).60-INCH Ø PERFORATED H.D.P.E.RETENTION/ INFILTRATION SYSTEMFINISHED SURFACE1DRAWING NO.OF DRAWINGSIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINOSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAPN: 0208-353-02-0-0001 NUMBERED LOTBEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OFPARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY.(313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES)FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSESPARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENT PLANFOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVD.RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 913559302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730PHONE: 909.481.6322FAX: 909.481.6320PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612FORPRELIMINARY WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENT PLANRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-03817.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS7.48 AC. NETNOVEMBER 9, 2022NOVEMBER 9, 2022DRC2019 - 00850DESIGN REVIEW - PLANNING COMMISSION SUBMITTALWATER QUALITY MITIGATION SUMMARYSITE AREA (TRACT BOUNDARY) = 345,599 SQ. FT. (7.9 AC.)DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY (DISTURBED AREA)= 384,262 SQ. FT. (8.8 AC.)LAND USE = CONDOMINIUMS; FIGURE C-4; IMPERVIOUS COVER = 65%REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA = 3.97 ACREPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.02 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 7.70 ACTOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 7.72 ACP2YR-1HR = 0.607 INCbmp = 0.45P6 =0.89948 HOUR DRAWDOWN , a = 1.963SITE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME (DA1) = 13,881 CU. FT.SITE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FLOW RATE (DA1) = 0.7 C.F.SSITE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME (DA2) = 13,224 CU. FT.SITE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FLOW RATE (DA2) = 0.6 C.F.SHYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FD-3HC TREATMENT RATE = 0.84 C.F.S.NOTES:1.ALL SOILS GROUP A2.SITE IS HCOC EXEMPT; ALL DOWNSTREAM CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS EHM.3.DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEM AND RETENTION VOLUME BASED ONESTIMATED 5IN/HR. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATIONS OF SYSTEM DESIGN ARE SUBJECTTO CHANGE UPON FINAL ENGINEERING.MITIGATION SUMMARY:STORMWATER RUNOFF AND NUISANCE FLOWS FROM THE PROJECT SITE WILL SHEETFLOWAND GUTTERFLOW TO VARIOUS DROP INLET CATCH BASINS THROUGHOUT THE SITE ANDENTER AN UNDERGROUND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. BEFORE THE STORMWATER LEAVESTHE SITE THROUGH EXISTING PARKWAY DRAINS, A LOW FLOW DIVERSION PIPE WILLINTERCEPT THE WATER QUALITY VOLUME AND ROUTE IT TO AN UNDERGROUNDRETENTION/INFILTRATION SYSTEMS. STORMFLOWS EXCEEDING THE WATER QUALITYVOLUME AND THE SYSTEM RETENTION CAPABILITIES WILL EXIT THE SITE VIA THE EXISTINGPARKWAY DRAINS LOCATED WITHIN EACH DRAINAGE AREA.STORMFLOWS ENTERING THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEMS WILLFIRST BE TREATED BY A HYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FD-3HC CLARIFIERS. THECLARIFIERS WILL REMOVE TRASH, DEBRIS, OILS, AND POLLUTANTS FROM THE RUNOFFBEFORE ROUTING IT INTO THE PROPOSED 60" PERFORATED HDPE RETENTION SYSTEM. ASTHE PIPE FILLS, WATER WILL INFILTRATE THROUGH THE PERFORATIONS AND THEUNDERLYING GRAVEL BED.SOURCE CONTROL BMPsINSTALL STORMWATER PLACARDS/STENCILED MESSAGES WITH "NO DUMPING" MESSAGE TO DISCOURAGE ILLEGAL DUMPING AND PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND THE PROTECTION OF STORMWATER QUALITY.DESIGN AN EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO MINIMIZE WATER LOSS, RUNOFF, AND EVAPORATION. (NOTE: S4 NOT SHOWN ON PLAN;APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE).LITTER DEBRIS AND TRASH CONTROL PROGRAM. MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AND REMOVING LITTER AND DEBRIS FROM PUBLICAREAS BEFORE IT CAN ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM (NOTE: N11 NOT SHOWN; APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE)INSPECT CATCH BASINS AND DROP INLETS ON A REGULAR BASIS OR TRASH AND DEBRIS THAT COULD CLOG THE DOWNSTREAMRETENTION/INFILTRATION SYSTEMMINIMIZE TRASH AND DEBRIS IN STORM RUNOFF THROUGH A REGULAR PARKING LOT AND ROADWAY SWEEPING PROGRAM. (NOTE: N15NOT SHOWN ON PLAN; APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE).BMP-4S4N14STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPsHYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FC-3HC (OR APPROVED EQUAL): WATER QUALITY RUNOFFWILL FIRST ENTER THE PRETREATMENT CLARIFIER TO REMOVE OIL, DEBRIS, TRASH, AND POLLUTANTS BEFORE RELEASING IT TO THE UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM.60" DIAMETER PERFORATED RETENTION AND INFILTRATION SYSTEM. WATER QUALITY RUNOFF WILLBE STORED WITHIN THE 60" PIPE WHILE IT INFILTRATES INTO THE SOILS BELOW.CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERTS TO BE INSTALLED IN CATCH BASINS 12-INCHE AND BIGGER TO REMOVE FIRST FLUSH DEBRIS, TRASH, AND POLLUTANTS FROM RUNOFF PRIOR TO ENTERING THEONSITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.BMP-1BMP-2N15N11RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 VALENCIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 404SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355BMPMAINTENANCEFREQUENCYCONTECH CDS 2020-5PRETREATMENT CLARIFIER (ORAPPROVED EQUAL)CLEARING AND VACUUMING OFSEDIMENT AND DEBRIS WITHINSTORAGE AREA PERMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTS60" PERFORATEDRETENTION/INFILTRATIONPIPESCLEARING AND VACUUMING OFSEDIMENT AND DEBRIS WITHINPIPE PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTSSTORM DRAINSTENCILINGREPLACEMENT OF STORM DRAINSTENCIL TO MAINTAIN VISIBILITY.AS NEEDEDALL FUTURE APPLICABLESTRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROLAND NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCECONTROL BMPSMAINTENANCE, INSPECTION,REPAIR, ETC. AS APPLICABLEFOR ALL BMPs THAT APPLYDURING FINAL DESIGN OFPROJECT.TO BE DETERMINEDRESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAINTENANCE & INSPECTIONS:CATCH BASINFILTER INSERTSCLEARING OF SEDIMENT ANDDEBRIS WITHIN BASKET PERMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTSHOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO MAINTAINAFTER COMPLETION AND TURNOVERBMP-3LEGEND:DCVDESIGN CAPTURE VOLUMESFSQUARE FEET (FT2)CFCUBIC FEET (FT3)CYCUBIC YARDSVRETRETENTION VOLUMEDMADRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAPROP. PROPOSEDEXIST. EXISTINGDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARYEXISTING 1.0' CONTOURFLOW DIRECTIONINFILTRATION SYSTEM - TYPICAL SECTIONSCALE: 1"=10'I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE NECESSARY STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANSTRUCTURAL STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND AREFUNCTIONAL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AS OF THE DATE BELOW. ______________ SIGNATURE DATEWQMP BMP AS-BUILT CERTIFICATEPWQMP-01OWNER/DEVELOPERRC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH(650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.comCIVIL ENGINEERMADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730CONTACT: MARK BERTONE(909) 481-6322 ext. 120Email: mbertone@madoleinc.comARCHITECTKTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200IRVINE, CA. 92614LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYDANA POINT, CA. 92629CONTACT: TRENT NOLL(949) 443-1446 x 279Email: tnoll@smpinc.netCONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK(949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.comSUITE 200AREA:GROSS ACRES .............................................. 7.94 ACREVISED GROSS ACRES.............................. 7.71 ACNET ACRES .................................................... 7.48 ACTOTAL DISTURBED AREA.............................. 8.91 ACREMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA................ 3.97 ACREPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA....... 0.02 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA................... 7.70 ACTOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA............................ 7.72 ACJ:\1022-2904\tentative\PWQMP\PWQMP01.dwg, 10/13/2022 3:21:42 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS August 2, 2022 7:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC – A request for a site plan and design review to construct a mixed-use development comprising 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area on 7.94 acres of land at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) zoning area. APN: 0208-353-02 (DRC2019-00850). Site Characteristics and Background: The 7.94-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and is part of a larger 14-acre project area that was previously developed with two 80,000 square foot 4-story office buildings. The dimensions of the pyramid-shaped project site are approximately 450 feet north to south at the widest point along Foothill Boulevard and 52 feet at the drive entrances off of Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Street a nd 405 feet east to west along Foothill Boulevard and 1,270 feet along the south property line. The site gently slopes from north to south and is partially developed with vehicle parking. The overall project area was originally master planned for 4 office buildings of which two were completed . Prior to formal project submittal to the City, a pre-application review was submitted (June 19, 2018) for the project that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2018, March 13, 2019, and June 26, 2019. The project proponent made significant changes to the project design and layout th rough the pre-applicant review process. The current design and layout are significantly the same as the most recent plan reviewed by the Planning Commission. The major changes being the addition of a signalized intersection on Foothill Boulevar d at the main north- south entrance to the project site, a new one-way frontage road separating through traffic on Foothill Boulevard from the project site, the inclusion of two new vehicle entrances from Foothill Boulevard adjacent to the existing office buildings on the project site and two vehicle/pedestrian connections to the San Bernardino County Courthouse to the south. The project land use mix was also modified from the original 302 residential units, 8 live -work units, and 5,000 square feet of commercial space to 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows based on the Gene ral Plan Land Use and Zoning designation at the time that the project was deemed complete (April 27, 2022): Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) District* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) District South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP) District East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone With Development Code Update Exhibit C DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2019-00850 – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC August 2, 2022 Page 2 Project Design and Layout: The project layout was partially dictated by the roughly pyramid shape of the existing property lines which are narrowest along the Foothill Boulevard frontage and by the existing infrastructure for the two adjacent office buildings, which share the overall project area . The existing property lines are not symmetrical to the main north -south drive aisle creating different building widths for the portions facing Foothill Boulevard. The applicant considered a lot line adjustment in order to create a more symmetrical parcel, but was unsuccessful in working with the adjacent property owners to adjust the lot lines. The project is comprised of four 4-story buildings (Buildings A, B, C1 and C2). Buildings A and B front Foothill Boulevard to the north and are separated by a north-south drive access. Buildings C1 and C2 will front an east-west drive aisle. The north-south and east-west drive-aisles will will be 26 feet wide free and clear with angled parking on the north -south drive aisle and 90 degree parking on the east-west drive aisle. Buildings A and B will include 16,000 square feet of retail lease area on the ground floor facing Foothill Boulevard and the new north -south drive aisle. The sidewalks to the north of buildings A and B and along the north -south drive access are14-16 feet wide and designed to accommodate outdoor dinin g and include decorative seat walls. Access: The vehicle access to the site will be from a new signalized intersection off of Foothill Boulevard and by two existing driveways off of Haven Avenue and Aspen Street. The site will also be accessed by two new driveways off of a new one-wayfrontage, and two new access driveways to the San Bernardino County Courthouse to the south . The new one-way access road parallel to Foothill Boulevard will provide a buffer between the resid ential units and Foothill Boulevard and will include angled parking along the north side of the frontage road. Parking throughout the project will be provided in private garages, freestanding carports, and uncovered parking spaces. Architecture: The project is designed in a modern architectural style. Design elements include a flat roof, tower elements with vertical siding, recessed windows and balconies, roof decks, and glass commercial storefronts. Building materials include the use of stucco, fiber cement siding, masonry tile, metal panels, and metal awnings which are carried to all elevations. Horizontal articulation along the building plane as well as vertical articulation along the building’s roofline breaks down the building massing and creates architectural interest. The corner commercial units and leasing office are emphasized through the use of metal siding and tall storefront windows. The remaining commercial units include the use of masonry tile, storefront glazing, and metal awnings with signage. The project includes a bus shelter along the foothill boulevard frontage designed to carry over themes from the main buildings. Unit Composition and Floor Plan: The project is comprised of 311 elevator-served residential units (200 one-bedroom units, 105 two-bedroom units, and 6 three-bedroom units). The residential units are all single-level and range in size from 660 to 1,285 net square feet. Commercial lease areas are located on the project’s first-story frontage along Foothill Boulevard and along the main drive aisle off of Foothill Boulevard of Buildings A and B and total 16,000 square feet in area. The table below summarizes the number of residential units and square feet of commercial lease area: DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2019-00850 – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC August 2, 2022 Page 3 UNIT SUMMARY Residential Unit Type Unit Size (SF - Net) Number of Units 1 Bedroom 660 to 887 SF 200 2 Bedroom 1,041 to 1,079 SF 105 3 Bedroom 1,285 SF 6 Total Number of Units 311 Commercial Total Area Commercial (SF) N/A 16,000 Recreational Amenities: Resident amenities include a clubhouse with kitchen and game room, a media lounge, a business center, a gym, a yoga room, a pool/spa with lounge seating areas and fire pit, a pocket park with children’s play elements, and two rooftop decks (one each on Buildings A and B) that include seating areas and fire pits. Commercial Amenities: Common seating/dining areas along with seat walls are proposed along the commercial frontages. Fencing and Access: All roadways and pedestrian pathways will be ungated. Gates are proposed to the vehicle parking areas at the center of Buildings A and B and on the south side of Buildings C1 and C2 and to the resident amenities, A 6-foot-high view fence is located along the south property line which is shared with the San Bernardino County Courthouse. Due to the grade change between the project site and the SB County Courthouse to the south, an up to 7 foot-9-inch landscaped retaining wall along the project’s south property line. Compliance with Development Standards : The project was designed in compliance with the Development Code that was in effect when the project was deemed complete (April 27, 2022). As demonstrated in the table below, the project complies with each of the Development Code requirements for the Mixed -Use (MU-UCT) District. Projects within mixed-use districts are permitted up to 75 percent reduction in the streetscape setbacks with no minimum building separation requirements (beyond that required by the Building Code). COMPLIANCE TABLE Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Density 40 DU/AC 40 DU/AC YES Building Setback – Foothill (Major) 0-5’ 5’ YES 1 Parking Setback – Foothill (Major) 30’ 105’ YES DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2019-00850 – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC August 2, 2022 Page 4 Building Setback – West Property Boundary 5’ 170’ YES 1 Parking Setback – Haven 30’ 60’ YES Building Setback – East Interior Boundary 5’ 175’ YES 1 Parking Setback – Aspen 30’ 55’ YES Interior Rear Setback 0’ 10” YES Building Height 12 stories 65’ YES Landscape Area 10% 14.5% YES Open Space 150 sf/unit* (46,560 sf) 50,359 sf YES 1 – Complies with reductions applied for Mixed Use Developments outlined in RCMC Sec. 17.36.020 Parking: The applicant has proposed making 5 percent of the units affordable to very low-income households which reduces the required parking ratio for the overall project based on State Density Bonus Law. A full parking analysis in context of Density Bonus Law will be provided to the Planning Commission as part of the public hear ing. Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the design (building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend the selected action below to the Planning Commission: ☒Recommend Approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. ☐Recommend Approval with Modifications to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee . Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend Conditional Approval of the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2019-00850 – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC August 2, 2022 Page 5 ☐Recommend Denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Members Present: Staff Coordinator: Michael Smith, Principal Planner Design Review Committee Meeting Rains Conference Room Meeting AGENDA August 2, 2022 FINAL MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Special Meeting Design Review Committee held on August 2, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Mike Smith, Staff Coordinator, at 7:00 p.m. Design Review Committee members present: Diane Williams, Tony Morales Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner B. Public Communications Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and, after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Special Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2022. Motion carried 2-0 vote to adopt the minutes as presented. D.Project Review Items D1. DESIGN REVIEW – ISLAND VIEW VENTURES, LLC – A request for a site plan and design review to construct a mixed-use development comprising 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area on 7.94 acres of land at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) zoning area. APN: 0208-353-02 (DRC2019-0850). The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC/PD. 2-0 Vote E. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: October 4, 2022 DRC Meeting 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500 | Santa Ana, CA 92707 Office: 949.472.3505 | Fax: 949.472.8373 MEMORANDUM Date: October 26, 2022 To: Tabe van der Zwaag, City of Rancho Cucamonga From: Alan Ashimine Jessica Ditto Michael Baker International Subject: CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum for the Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION RC Foothill Holdings, LLC is proposing the development of the Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project (herein, “project”). Specifically, the project would entail the development of an approximately 7.94-acre mixed- use development consisting of 311 dwelling units divided into four buildings, with approximately 16,000 square feet of ground floor retail use, along with associated parking lots, landscaping, and other ancillary improvements at 10575 Foothill Boulevard. The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan titled PlanRC, The City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021 General Plan Update (herein, “2021 General Plan Update”) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (herein, “GPU EIR”; State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the 2021 General Plan Update, the project site was designated for “City Center” land uses, which allows for retail uses and multifamily housing 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 GPU EIR was prepared as a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conformance 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.). According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program- wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. CEQA COMPLIANCE Article 12 (Special Situations) of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies situations for which certain CEQA- compliance procedures may apply. Specifically, Section 15183(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that: Exhibit D CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 1-2 Introduction “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.” Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “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…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” Accordingly, the purpose of the analysis contained herein is to evaluate whether the project would result in impacts that are peculiar to the project or project site, and to determine whether such impacts (if any) can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards. If any impacts cannot be substantially mitigated with uniformly applied development policies or standards, or if the project results in off-site or cumulative impacts that were not previously evaluated in the GPU EIR, then additional environmental review is required for the project. Alternatively, if the project does not result in any impacts beyond what was evaluated and disclosed as part of the GPU EIR, then no additional environmental review would be required. RELATIONSHOP TO THE 2021 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE As shown on GPU EIR Figure 1-3, Existing Land Uses, and Figure 1-4, Land Use Plan, the land use designation for the project site was updated from its previous designation of “Mixed-Use” to its current designation of (C) “City Center.” The new (C) “City Center” land use designation has a density range of 40 to 100 du/ace and an intensity range of 1.0 to 2.0 FAR. The GPU EIR analyzed the impacts of future development in the City consistent with the new “City Center” designation. Buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would result in a potential net change of 57,566 residents, 25,685 dwelling units, 6,802 square feet of retail/commercial space, 9,733 square feet of office space, and 5,122 square feet of industrial and flex space. The proposed project would construct four, four-story mixed-use buildings comprised of 311 residential units (for a net population of 654 residents) and approximately 16,000 square feet of ground floor retail/office space, (totaling 387,118 square feet of new development, including dwelling units), on the approximately 7.49 net-acre development site. This would result in a density of 41.5 du/ac and FAR of 1.19, consistent with the 2021 General Plan Update. As shown on GPU EIR Figure 3-2, Land Use Plan – City of Rancho Cucamonga, the 2021 General Plan Update designates parcels within Community Planning Areas; the project site would implement the Central South Community Planning Area of the Land Use Plan. To better reflect the context, goals, and policies of the Community Planning Areas and the mix of land use designations, the 2021 General Plan Update directs future development to Focus Areas along major transportation corridors rather than to existing neighborhoods. This is an update from the previous framework of allowing moderate, incremental growth at anticipated major intersections, following development patterns from the City’s rural past. As shown on GPU EIR Figure 3-3, Focus Area Map, and Figure 3-5, Focus Area 2: Civic Center, the project site is within Focus Area 2: Civic Center, within the Central South Community Planning Area. Focus Area 2 envisions the area around the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue as having the potential to become the active, mixed-use civic heart of the City. Focus Area 2 also envisions a high quality walkable public realm framework that can support more intense, active, mixed-use, transit- oriented infill development at the center of the City. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the intention of Focus Area 2 as implemented by the 2021 General Plan Update. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 2-1 Project Description 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION Regionally, the project site is located within the central portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City), San Bernardino County, California; refer to Exhibit 2-1, Regional Vicinity. Locally, the project site is located approximately 1.75 miles west of Interstate 15 (I-15) and 2 miles south of State Route 210 (SR-210), at 10575 Foothill Boulevard (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 208-353-02, 208-353-01 and 208-353-03); refer to Exhibit 2-2, Site Vicinity. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING As shown on Exhibit 2-2, the project would encompass an approximately 7.94-acre development site (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 208-353-02), an approximately 5.3-acre site-adjacent (off-site) improvement area (APNs 208-353-01 and 208-353-03), and improvements along the public roadway right-of-way property; the development site and off-site improvement area make up the project site. The project site and the existing office buildings (Barton Plaza to the west and City Center to the east) are within the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park. The project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, and Aspen Avenue to the east. The project site is fully developed with paved parking lots, parking medians, parking lot security lighting, ornamental landscaping (mature trees, shrubs, groundcover, and manicured lawns), and a vacant field subject to ongoing disking and weed abatement. Vehicular access to the project site is provided by an existing right-in/right-out driveway along Foothill Boulevard, right-in/right-out driveway along Haven Avenue, and full access driveway along Aspen Avenue. The project site shares access with the existing four-story office buildings to the east and west. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue, and Aspen Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. An existing bus stop (OmniTrans 66) is provided along eastbound Foothill Boulevard. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING According to the 2021 General Plan Update Land Plan Map, the project site has a land use designation of (C) “City Center.” The purpose and intent of the (C) “City Center” designation is to provide for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready environment. Uses comprise medium-high to high density residential and a wide range of commercial uses, including general retail, personal services, banks, restaurants, cafes, and office. Uses may be in freestanding or mixed-use buildings and projects. Infill and redevelopment with a mix of uses is encouraged. Permitted density ranges from 40 to 100 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and non- residential floor area ratio (FAR), i.e., intensity, ranges from 1.0 to 2.0. Centers are urban in character. Buildings are set near or at the sidewalk and oriented toward the primary street(s) to provide spatial definition of the public realm and ground floor activity along the corridor. Buildings are up to 12 stories in height and designed for soft transitions to surrounding neighborhoods of lower densities. Building size, scale, and character are further calibrated to respect the scale and character of the adjacent context. Streetscapes provide safe and comfortable environments for bicyclists and pedestrians with continuous, wide sidewalks, large shade trees and native landscaping. Street parking is provided along the primary street, or side access lanes, to curb speeding and buffer pedestrians from vehicular traffic. PA C I F I C O CE A N USMC Camp Pendleton SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOS ANGELES COUNTY ORANGE COUNTY 101 395 405 405 605 105 210 210 710 110 215 215 5 5 5 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 73 55 57 9191 90 60 71 91 60 38 18 18 22 1 2 14 18 18 138 138 173 74 74 1 133 261 241 330 241 Victorville Adelanto Hesperia Apple Valley SanBernardino LakeArrowhead RunningSprings Riverside Fontana OntarioPomona RanchoCucamonga Chino Rialto Corona Norco LakeElsinore Hemet Redlands Temecula Fallbrook Murrieta Palmdale Lancaster SanFernando Pasadena WestCovina Whittier Burbank Glendora LosAngeles Torrance Long Beach Newport Beach Huntington Beach San Clemente DanaPoint LagunaBeach San Juan Capistrano SantaAna Costa Mesa Garden Grove Fullerton Yorba Linda Irvine MorenoValley SunCity PerrisOrange Subject Site CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Exhibit 2-1 Regional Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 Exhibit 2-2 Site Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE Project Site Development Site Off-Site Improvement Area 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Foothill Boulevard Aspen AvenueHaven AvenueSource: Google Earth Pro CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 2-4 Project Description Major streets are improved to accommodate a range of vehicular modes, including bus rapid transit (BRT) and potentially streetcar light rail. Infill and redevelopment of large sites create walkable blocks with a new network of pathways and pedestrian-friendly streets that connect uses and amenities in the center to major streets and to adjacent neighborhoods and districts. These new streets may be privately owned but will be publicly accessible and look, feel, and function like public streets. Parking is located behind or between buildings in surface lots that are well shaded, well lighted, and secure with clear and convenient access to buildings. Open spaces are in the form of plaza, squares, greens, parks, and other publicly accessible open spaces in varying sizes. These spaces are surrounded by active frontages and designed to accommodate a wide range of community activities and events. On-site neighborhood amenities are required for large multifamily and mixed-use projects. The project was deemed complete on March 31, 2022, prior to the adoption of the updated development code on April 27, 2022. The project is being reviewed under the requirements based on the Mixed-Use (MU) zoning designation in the development code in effect at that date. The MU zone allows for both residential and non-residential uses. SURROUNDING LAND USES Surrounding land uses adjacent to the project site include retail, commercial, transportation, and public uses. The surrounding land uses include the following: • North: Foothill Boulevard is located north of the project site. North of Foothill Boulevard is a restaurant and ancillary courtyard (i.e., Panera Bread), an office facility (i.e., AAA Rancho Cucamonga and Member Services), a bank (i.e., Wells Fargo Bank), two restaurants (i.e., Chili’s Bar and Grill and Stonefire Grill), a beauty supply store (i.e., Bobos Beauty Supply), and associated surface parking. • East: Aspen Avenue is located east of the project site. East of Aspen Avenue are two restaurants (i.e., Applebee’s Bar and Grill and Sushi Martini), an employment agency (i.e., Global Premier Staffing), and associated parking. • South: The Rancho Cucamonga City Hall and San Bernardino Superior Courthouse and associated parking are located south of the project site. • West: Haven Avenue is located west of the project site. West of Haven Avenue are three restaurants (i.e., Omokase Sushi, Robeks Fresh Juices & Smoothies, and The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf), a gym (i.e., 9Round Fitness), and associated parking. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 2-5 Project Description 2.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The project proposes a new mixed-use development consisting of 311 for-rent residential units and 16,000 square feet of retail space on a developed 7.94-acre site; refer to Exhibit 2-3, Conceptual Site Plan. The project would construct four, four-story buildings with associated parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing, access improvements, and utilities. The residential units would include 200 1-bedroom units (averaging 721 square feet each), 105 2-bedroom units (averaging 1,059 square feet each), and six 3- bedroom units (averaging 1,285 square feet each), for a total of 311 units. The proposed project would encompass approximately 387,118 gross square feet of building area. This would result in a density of 41.5 du/ac and FAR of 1.19 and is anticipated to result in a net population increase of 654 residents and create 40 new permanent jobs.1 The proposed project is described in further detail below. 2.3.1 MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT The project proposes the construction of four, four-story buildings, encompassing approximately 387,118 gross square feet of building area (Building A: 132,870 square feet; Building B: 119,940 square feet; and Buildings CI and CII: 134,308 square feet); refer to Exhibit 2-3. Buildings A and B would be four-level mixed-use buildings, and Buildings C-1 and C-2 would be four-level residential buildings. Each building would have tuck-under carports. Buildings A and B would be located on the northern portion of the project site. Along the main access driveway from Foothill Boulevard, Buildings A and B would provide retail (9,000 square feet of retail space for Building A and 7,000 square feet of retail space for Building B at the Foothill Boulevard corner) and amenity space (lobbies, leasing office, mail center, business center and co-workspace, and media lounge) at the ground level with three levels of residential units above, and a patio on the rooftop. The remainder of each building would consist of four levels of residential units (Building A would provide a total of 112 residential units and Building B would provide a total of 97 residential units). Buildings C-1 and C-2 would be located in the southern portion of the project site and would include ground level amenity space (clubroom with a kitchen, restrooms, game room, and seating area, a fitness room, and a yoga studio) adjacent to the proposed recreation/pool lounge area. There would be three levels of residential units above the amenity space and the remainder of the buildings would consist of four levels of residential units (Buildings CI and CII would provide 51 residential units in each building). A retail plaza and pedestrian promenade would be located in the center of the project site, connecting Buildings A and B with Buildings CI and CII. In addition to the plaza and previously mentioned recreation/pool lounge area, the project would provide other recreational outdoor amenities included but not limited to: a pool/spa, pool house restroom and shower, children’s play elements, family barbeque and picnic tables, chaise lounge seating with shade umbrellas, retail patios, rooftop patios, art sculptures, a synthetic lawn area, and fire pits and seating. 1 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis, Rancho Cucamonga (Fiscal Impact Assessment), May 24, 2022; refer to Appendix J, Fiscal Impact Assessment. Exhibit 2-3 Conceptual Site Plan NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: Summers/Murphy & Partners, Inc. Building A Building CI Building CII Building B CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 2-7 Project Description 2.3.2 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS As shown in Exhibits 2-4a through 2-4f, Building Elevations, the new buildings would be approximately 60 feet tall. All buildings would have similar exterior architectural details, with an overall grey/white/beige hue. Finishing materials would include metal panels and masonry along the first floor with storefront glazing and signage, fiber cement and stucco siding, recessed bronze vinyl windows, fiber cement trim, metal balcony railings, awnings above top floor balconies, and permanent solid shade structures atop roof decks. Carport and other covered parking structures would have a similar design and finish. 2.3.3 CIRCULATION AND PARKING VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATON The primary vehicular access point would be along Foothill Boulevard, between Buildings A and B. This access point would maintain a right-in/right-out movement. Two new access points would be constructed along Foothill Boulevard: a right-in only access point approximately 125 feet east of the Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue intersection; and a right-out only access point along Foothill Boulevard approximately 200 feet west of the Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue intersection. The existing right- in/right-out access point along Haven Avenue and full access point along Aspen Avenue would be maintained. Internal circulation would include two-lane drive aisles providing vehicular access to on-site parking areas and site ingress/egress. Along the southern boundary of the project site two vehicular drive aisles would be extended to provide vehicular connection to the adjacent San Bernardino Courthouse. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND CIRUCLATION Existing sidewalk along Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue would be maintained. The sidewalk along eastbound Foothill Boulevard would be realigned to accommodate the proposed angled parking at the northern boundary of the site. Additionally, pedestrian pathways are proposed throughout the site to provide connectivity between the proposed buildings, retail plaza, and on-site parking areas, and to provide pedestrian access the existing sidewalks and transit routes along the adjacent roadways. First floor retail uses along Foothill Boulevard would also include pedestrian access from the street frontage. Along with pedestrian facilities, the project would encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. Bicycle parking would be provided adjacent to the retail plaza, in accordance with City Development Code Section 17.64.110, Bicycle Parking Requirements, which mandates that new multi- family residential developments provide secured bicycle parking for five percent of required motorized vehicle spaces. EMERGENCY ACCESS AND CIRCULATION As shown on Exhibit 2-5, Conceptual Emergency Access, adequate emergency vehicle access and circulation would be provided on-site. Emergency vehicles access is provided along Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue. Aerial apparatus access lanes are proposed along the north-south drive aisles west of Buildings A and C-1, east of Buildings B and C-2, and along the east-west drive aisle between the four buildings. Exhibit 2-4a Building Elevations NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning Exhibit 2-4b Building Elevations NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning Exhibit 2-4c Building Elevations NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning Exhibit 2-4d Building Elevations NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning Exhibit 2-4e Building Elevations NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning Exhibit 2-4f Building Elevations NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning Exhibit 2-5 Conceptual Emergency Access NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 2-15 Project Description PARKING The project would include 718 parking spaces for residents, guests, retail uses, and the adjacent office uses. Public surface parking would be located in the southeast and southwest portions of the project site, as well as the northeast and northwest portions of the project site fronting Foothill Boulevard. Additional angled surface parking would be provided along Foothill Boulevard and along the main driveway between Buildings A and B. Covered parking reserved for residents would be located south and west of Building C- 1 and between Building C-1 and Building A, as well as east and south of Building C-2 and between Building C-2 and Building B. Gated residential tuck-under parking would be provided within the interior courtyards of Buildings A and B. The project would provide 37 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant parking spaces, 38 spaces for electric vehicle (EV) charging, and 8 spaces for clean air vehicles to meet City requirements. 2.3.4 LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION As shown on Exhibit 2-3, landscaping would include a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Street trees are proposed along the site’s frontages on Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue, and Aspen Avenue, as well as along the southern site boundary adjacent to the City Hall and Courthouse. Trees are proposed throughout the project site along pedestrian walkways, in surface parking areas, in outdoor amenity space, including the pool courtyard and retail plaza, and among existing landscaped courtyards and street frontages. Proposed tree varieties include Olive, Brisbane Box, London Plane, Medijool Date Palm, Holly Oak, and Carolina Laurel Columnar. A total of 65,165 square feet of the project site, or 19 percent, is proposed as landscaped area, which accommodates the City minimum requirement of 10 percent landscaped area for mixed-use projects. Water-conserving plants and plants native to hot, dry summers would be utilized in 95 percent of the total proposed landscape area. Irrigation practices on-site would include the most efficient products available to minimize runoff and water waste. Overall, the landscape design would be designed in accordance with Chapter 17.82, Water Efficient Landscaping, of the City’s Development Code, which requires measures be implemented to reduce water use associated with landscaping. The project’s frontage along Foothill Boulevard would be improved and some trees may be removed and replaced. Similarly, the landscaping in the off-site improvement areas would be replaced/enhanced as part of the parking improvements. 2.3.5 LIGHTING Proposed exterior site lighting would be installed as necessary for safety, security, and ambiance, including lighting for parking areas, pedestrian walkways, architectural elements, and landscape features. The lighting design would consist of both building wall-mounted light fixtures as well as pole-mounted lights providing adequate security lighting pursuant to the City’s Development Code without encroaching beyond the site boundary. Site-wide outdoor lighting would include 15-foot-tall decorative LED post lights fronting retail uses along Foothill Boulevard, the main driveway between Buildings A and B, and the surface parking between the four Buildings; 15-foot-tall LED streetlights throughout the site perimeter; LED carport lights; palm tree LED accent lights that would illuminate the proposed palm trees and pool deck; and decorative LED wall lights along the buildings’ perimeters, including tuck-under parking. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 2-16 Project Description 2.3.6 WALLS AND FENCING As shown on Exhibit 2-6, Walls and Fences, the project would include a variety of wall and fence sizes and materials at various locations on-site for privacy, security, and noise attenuation purposes, among others. Proposed walls and fencing would include five-foot, six-inch high tubular steel fencing atop a retaining wall along the southern boundary of the project site; three-foot, six-inch to five-foot, six-inch high masonry patio and accent walls along the patios for each ground-floor residential unit; 30-inch-high masonry monument walls front Foothill Boulevard at the main site entrance; 18-inch-high seat walls along the main driveway between Buildings A and B; 42-inch masonry play area enclosure walls; and vehicular and pedestrian gates at restricted residential parking areas and ground floor entrance to residential amenities and private patios. 2.3.7 UTILITIES Municipal and private utility services necessary to serve the project (residential and retail components) are currently available within or adjacent to the project site. On-site utility infrastructure necessary to serve the project, including water, sanitary sewer, drainage, storm water runoff treatment facilities, and dry utilities, would be installed with the proposed development and would connect to the existing utilities. The final sizing and design of on-site facilities would occur during the final project design. Following is a description of existing and proposed utility infrastructure. DRY UTILITIES The project site is located within the service areas of the following utility purveyors: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) (electricity), Southern California Gas Company (SCG) (natural gas), Spectrum (internet) and Frontier Communication (communications). The project includes installation of on-site utility infrastructure that would connect to the existing facilities adjacent to the project site, including RCMU electric facilities in Foothill Boulevard. WATER AND WASTEWATER The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) would provide water and wastewater services to the project site. There is an existing 10-inch water line beneath Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and an existing 8-inch water line beneath Aspen Avenue. Additionally, there is an existing 12-inch sewer line beneath Haven Avenue and an existing 8-inch sewer line beneath Aspen Avenue. There is also an existing 8-inch sewer line that transects the project the site in an east-west direction (south of the existing parking lot). The project includes installation of 8-inch water and sewer lines on-site that would connect to the existing water and sewer lines in the adjacent roadways. The existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed uses and existing development, and no upgrades to the existing infrastructure off-site would be required. STORM DRAINS AND WATER QUALITY FEATURES The City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Department maintains the public storm drain system serving the project site. The on-site storm drain system for the project is designed to accommodate anticipated on-site storm water flows and run-on from the adjacent office uses and would include structural and non-structural water quality best management practices (BMPs). Exhibit 2-6 Walls and Fences NOT TO SCALE 09/22 | JN 191736 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum FOOTHILL CENTER MIXED-USE PROJECT Source: ktgy Architecture + Planning CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 2-18 Project Description Stormwater runoff and nuisance flows from the project site would sheet-flow and gutter-flow to various proposed drop inlet catch basins throughout the site and enter an underground storm drainage system. Before the stormwater leaves the site through existing parkway drains, a low flow diversion pipe would intercept the water quality volume and route it to an underground retention/infiltration system. Stormflows exceeding the water quality volume and the system retention capabilities would exit the site via existing parkway drains located within each drainage area. Stormflows entering the proposed underground infiltration systems would first be treated by hydro-international first-defense clarifiers. The clarifiers would remove trash, debris, oils, and pollutants from the runoff before routing it into the proposed 60-inch perforated retention system. As the pipe fills, water would infiltrate through the perforations and the underlying gravel bed. The proposed infiltration systems would allow for infiltration of the entire water quality design volume. Due to the existing soil characteristics being extremely favorable for high infiltration rates, portions of the storm water volumes beyond the water quality requirements would also infiltrate. 2.3.8 BUS SHELTER IMPROVEMENTS The OmniTrans 66 bus stop would be relocated approximately 280 feet east of the existing bus stop location, within the project limits along eastbound Foothill Boulevard, to accommodate the angled surface parking north of Building B. Similar to existing conditions, the bus shelter would include a bench with a 72 square-foot, 11 feet, six inches tall overhead canopy. Building materials would be similar to the metal panels, vertical screening, and glazing incorporated into the project design. 2.3.9 OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS The off-site improvements would include realignment and widening of portions of the existing pedestrian walkways around the site, restriping of surface parking, installation of new parking medians, landscape and hardscape improvements, fortifying the current access points, and roadway right-of-way improvements. Specifically, where the existing right-of-way along Foothill Boulevard becomes a right-turn lane approximately 275 feet west of the intersection at Aspen Avenue, the project proposes improvements to the sidewalk and curb to accommodate the new right-out only access point that would be constructed along Foothill Boulevard approximately 200 feet west of the Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue intersection. This improvement would shorten the existing right-turn lane onto Aspen Avenue. Exhibit 2-3 details the landscaping and parking improvements proposed for the off-site improvement areas. Exhibit 2-5 depicts internal circulation, including off-site improvements, that would be required to accommodate proposed site-wide emergency access. Proposed improvements for site-wide utility installation and connection would also occur within the bounds of the off-site improvement areas, where existing facilities occur. 2.4 CONSTRUCTION The project would be constructed as a single phase with a 12-month construction period (anticipated to begin Fall 2022 and completed by Fall 2023). Anticipated construction activities include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Anticipated equipment includes, but is not limited to a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators. Excavations throughout the project will be less than five feet in depth. It is anticipated that approximately 5,959 cubic yards (cy) of material will be excavated and utilized for the approximately 19,847 cy of fill material required, resulting in the need for approximately 13,888 cy of imported material. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 3-1 Environmental Review Conclusion 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONCLUSION The analysis presented in Section 4.0 demonstrates that the proposed project meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and as such, no additional CEQA review, such as a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, is required for the project. Specifically: • The proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that are peculiar to the project site (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(1)); • The proposed project is fully consistent with the project site’s adopted 2021 General Plan Update land use designation of “City Center,” and there are no environmental effects associated with the proposed project that were not previously analyzed as a significant effect by the GPU EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2)); • There are no potentially significant off-site or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not discussed by the GPU EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183(b)(3) and 15183(j)); • There is no substantial new information which was not known at the time the GPU EIR was certified that would result in a more severe environmental impact beyond the significant impacts previously identified as part of the GPU EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(4)); • The GPU EIR was certified in conjunction with the City’s adoption of the 2021 General Plan Update, and the proposed project is fully consistent with the project site’s existing 2021 General Plan Update land use designation of “City Center” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(d)); and • All of the Standard Conditions of Approval (COAs), Mitigation Measures (MMs), and Regulatory Requirements (RRs) relied upon by the GPU EIR to reduce environmental effects and that are applicable to the proposed project are feasible and would be implemented as part of the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(e)). Accordingly, and pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, because the proposed project is fully consistent with the 2021 General Plan Update, and because the proposed project would not result in any new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the GPU EIR, no additional environmental review is required for the proposed project beyond the analysis and conclusions provided in Section 4. 3.1 OVERVIEW OF CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 Article 12 (Special Situations) of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies situations for which certain CEQA- compliance procedures may apply. Specifically, Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to projects that are consistent with existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. CEQA mandates that such projects 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. Section 15183 is intended to streamline the review of such projects and reduce the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. For projects that meet the requirements CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 3-2 Environmental Review Conclusion of Section 15183, the Lead Agency is required to limit its examination of environmental effects to those effects which the Lead Agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: 1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; 2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan with which the project is consistent; 3) 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 4) 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. 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c), then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(h), an environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. Section 15183(e) allows for the analysis to be limited for those significant environmental effects which were previously identified in the prior EIR, and for which all applicable mitigation measures identified by the prior EIR are found to be feasible. For such effects, the Lead Agency is required to make a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), 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 or county with a finding that the development policies or standards 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. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a city or county, in previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision-making body of the city or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to Section 15183, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the city or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in Section 15183. Section 15183(j) of the State CEQA Guidelines does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then Section 15183 may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-1 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.0 PROJECT-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The following analysis addresses the potential impacts from the proposed Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project in relation to the analysis presented in the GPU EIR that was certified on December 15, 2021 (SCH No. 2021050261). The discussion below is formatted to address each of the thresholds identified by Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, which also were relied upon by the GPU EIR. The analysis assumes that the proposed project would be subject to all applicable Mitigation Measures (MMs) identified by the GPU EIR, applicable Regulatory Requirements (RRs), and applicable Standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) as identified in Subsection 1.8 of the GPU EIR. Applicable MMs, RRs, and COAs that were relied upon to evaluate the project’s potential environmental effects are listed under the appropriate environmental subject heading in the following subsections. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-2 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-3 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.1 AESTHETICS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?  b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?  c. In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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?  d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?  The information presented in this analysis is based on and supplemented with the Lighting Plan, including the Photometric Plan, prepared by Candela Engineering and submitted as part of the Design Review - Development Review Committee Submittal Package (DRC 2019-00850), dated May 18, 2022; refer to Appendix A. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that development associated with the buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would continue to preserve existing open space areas, parks, and agricultural lands that currently provide views of visually resources, including scenic mountain views, scenic City views and prominent scenic vistas; maintain a generally low-density residential use allowance within or adjacent to these scenic vistas; and support design standards under the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code that guide future development characteristics, thus resulting in less than significant impacts to scenic vistas; no mitigation measures were necessary. Project‐Specific Analysis: Generally, scenic vistas are defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed. Scenic vistas may also be represented by a distant view that provides visual relief from less attractive views of nearby features. Other designated federal and State lands, as well as local open space or recreational areas, may also offer scenic vistas if they represent a valued aesthetic view within the surrounding landscape of nearby features. The GPU EIR identifies visual resources consisting of scenic mountain views, scenic City views, and prominent scenic vistas. Based on the GPU EIR, there are no designated scenic vistas that include the project site. The City is at the southern base of the San Gabriel Mountains at the eastern end of the range. The San Bernardino Mountains are just east of the San Gabriel Mountains, divided by the Cajon Pass. Views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains are visible from various vantage points in the City; distant views of the CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-4 Project Specific Environmental Assessment San Gabriel Mountains are afforded to motorists and pedestrians traveling northbound on Haven Avenue, which is identified as a View Corridor, and Aspen Avenue. Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 is not a designated scenic highway, but is considered a historic route by residents of the City and it affords distant views of the San Bernardino Mountains to motorists and pedestrians traveling eastbound along the corridor. Due to the mature trees and ornamental landscaping along the perimeter of the project site, and surrounding structures, motorist and pedestrians traveling northbound on Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue, and eastbound on Foothill Boulevard near the project site are afforded partial obstructed views of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains, respectively. According to the 2021 General Plan Update, the (C) “City Center” land use designation regulates building height to a maximum of 12 stories; consistent with this design standard, the project proposes a maximum height of 60 feet for the mixed-use buildings. As shown on Exhibit 2-3, the proposed buildings would be located in the center of the project site, not adjacent to Haven Avenue or Aspen Avenue and therefore would not further obstruct existing views of scenic resources. Similarly, partial views of the San Bernardino Mountains from Foothill Boulevard would be maintained. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. There are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that there are no State-designated or State-eligible scenic highways within the City; however, Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 is considered an unofficial historic route by the City and identified as “Special Boulevards.” Although future development and redevelopment along the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 corridor may alter views of scenic resources, the place types and focus areas approach taken with the 2021 General Plan Update would enhance the streetscape and create a unified theme for this major corridor. As such, there would be no impact to scenic resources and the City’s beautification master plans and design guidelines for designated “Special Boulevards” would ensure that “Special Boulevards” remain unaffected. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on Caltrans, California State Scenic Highway System Map,2 and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, there are no State-designated or State-eligible scenic highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest State-designated scenic highway to the project site is a segment of the Angeles Crest Scenic Highway (State Route 2 [SR-2]), approximately 17 miles from the project site; the nearest State-eligible scenic highway is a segment of State Route 142, located approximately 12 miles southwest of the project site. Due to the absence of State-designated and State-eligible scenic highways in the project site vicinity, no impact to scenic resources within a State scenic highway would occur. The proposed project would front Foothill Boulevard, which is a City- designated “Special Boulevard.” However, consistent with the GPU EIR, the proposed project would include contribute to an enhanced streetscape by providing landscaping and sidewalk improvements to further unify the theme for this corridor and would not substantially alter existing views of scenic resources. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 2 California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed on September 21, 2022. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-5 Project Specific Environmental Assessment c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that while buildout in accordance with the proposed 2021 General Plan Update Land Use and Community Character Element would alter the existing visual appearance of the City, because the City is largely already developed with urban and suburban uses, buildout would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality. By complying with the City’s existing regulations, standard conditions of approval, and applicable 2021 General Plan Update policies, future development would be built to reflect and maintain the City’s existing visual character and quality. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project site occurs in a portion of the City that is targeted for higher densities of development and is surrounded by existing urban development (retail, commercial, civic, and office uses) to the north, east, south, and west. The project proposes to construct a mixed-use residential and retail development consisting of four, four-story (approximately 60 feet tall), buildings. The project’s proposed land uses are consistent with the adopted 2021 General Plan Update land use designation of “City Center” and zoning “Mixed-Use (MU)”. As noted by the GPU EIR, design standards under the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code guide future development characteristics, such as height and placement of buildings and structures, setback requirements, and architectural design parameters, and the project would be subject to, and would comply with, applicable Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code requirements. The proposed buildings would be of similar height and mass and similar architectural design as the surrounding structures and would adhere to the setback requirements of the Mixed-Use zoning district. Additionally, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, as the project would be developed in accordance with the project’s Design Review Approval (DRC 2019-00850), which identifies site design, architectural, landscaping, and hardscape features that have been determined by the City to be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the surrounding area. It should be noted that based on the design standards of the Mixed-Use zoning district, a variance would be required for the exceedance of the retaining wall/fence height along southern property boundary. However, the existing matures trees on the Courthouse property along the property boundary, and within the Courthouse parking area would be retained and would screen views of the proposed wall/fence. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that development in accordance with the 2021 General Plan Update would generate additional light and glare; however, with compliance with Chapter 17.58 (Outdoor Lighting Standards) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and the 2021 General Plan Update policies pertaining to light and glare, impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Under existing conditions, the project site is subject to nighttime lighting associated with security parking lot lighting and from surrounding development; street lighting along CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-6 Project Specific Environmental Assessment surrounding roadways; and light from motor vehicles traveling along these roadways. The project would introduce new light sources on-site during construction and operation that currently do not exist. However, light and glare associated with the proposed project would be typical of that of a mixed-use community. The project would include installation of lighting throughout the site including parking areas, along walkways, within the recreation areas, as well as on the proposed buildings. Lighting elements proposed as part of the project would be subject to compliance with Chapter 17.58 (Outdoor Lighting Standards) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which prohibits certain types of lighting elements, and requires that all outdoor lighting shall be designed, located, installed, directed downward or toward structures, fully shielded, and maintained to prevent glare, light trespass, and light pollution. The project Applicant prepared an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, to demonstrate compliance with Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 17.58 and GPU EIR Standard COA 5.1-1 to ensure that the project’s proposed lighting would not spill onto off-site uses resulting in a substantial impact. Based on the lighting plan, the project would adhere to City standards regarding nighttime lighting. Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight. Glare can create hazards to motorists and can be a nuisance for pedestrians and other viewers. Non-reflective exterior building materials are proposed and would not result in substantial glare impacts on-site or surrounding areas. The use of glass in windows would be in small, localized areas, and would not generate noticeable glare. The project does not include any uses that would have the potential to create noticeable glare from sunlight or vehicle lights that would pose a hazard to motorist traveling in the project area or that could affect surrounding uses. Further, the project would not create substantial new glare impacts from vehicle headlights as the project site serves as a parking lot and is surrounded by transportation uses to the north, east, and west. Therefore, impacts related to glare would be less than significant. As such, impacts concerning light or glare would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Significance Determination: No substantial increase in the level of impact from previous analysis. 4.1.1 APPLICABLE GPU EIR MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Aesthetics. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Aesthetics. Standard Conditions of Approval: The project adheres to the GPU EIR Standard COA 5.1-1. Refer to Appendix A. COA 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 CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-7 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 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. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-8 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-9 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. 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?  b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?  c. 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))?  d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?  e. 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?  a) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would convert farmland to non-agricultural uses and, as a result, impacts would represent a significant and unavoidable impact. A total of 7,352 acres of farmland occurs within the City; the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) designates approximately 13.37 acres as Prime Farmland, 125.12 acres as Unique Farmland, and 0.06 acres as Farmland of Statewide Importance. The 2021 General Plan Update does not include an agricultural designation within the City’s Land Use Plan and, therefore, future development associated with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update Land Use Plan would result in the conversion of these farmland areas to nonagricultural uses. No mitigation measures were recommended in the GPU EIR and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-10 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Project‐Specific Analysis: According to the California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is not located within an area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Farmland of Local Importance.3 The project site and all adjoining uses are designated “Urban and Built-Up Land.”4 Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that, as the City has no zoning for agricultural use and that there are no lands in the City under a Williamson Act contract, no impact would occur. Project‐Specific Analysis: Refer to Response 4.2(a). Neither the project site, nor its adjoining uses are zoned for agricultural use or are under a Williamson Act contract.5 Project implementation would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project 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))? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberlands and would not result in the loss of forest land or timberland. There are no existing land or land zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. As such, no impact would occur. Project‐Specific Analysis: Neither the project site, nor its adjoining uses are zoned as forest land (as defined in PRC section 12220(g), timberland (as defined in PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 4526) by the Zoning Code. No impacts associated with forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 3 California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, accessed September 12, 2022. 4 Ibid. 5 California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Preserves 2004 (Williamson Act Parcels Orange County, California), 2004. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-11 Project Specific Environmental Assessment d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐ forest use? Previous Significance Determination: Refer to Response 4.2(c) above; the GPU EIR determined that implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberlands and would not result in the loss of forest land. No impact would occur. Project‐Specific Analysis: Refer to Response 4.2(c) above. Project implementation would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. e) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: Refer to Responses 4.2(a) and 4.2(d) above. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts due to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses would represent a significant and unavoidable impact resulting from buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. No mitigation measures were recommended in the GPU EIR and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would not result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Project‐Specific Analysis: Refer to Responses 4.2(a) and 4.2(d) above. Project implementation would not involve changes in the existing environment which would result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use or forestland to non-forest use. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.2.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include COAs for Agriculture and Forestry Resources. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-12 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-13 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.3 AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?  b. 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?  c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?  d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?  The information presented in this analysis is based on and supplemented with the Foothill Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Evaluation (AQ and GHG Assessment) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated July 12, 2022; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Assessment. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Previous Significance Determination: The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is principally responsible for air pollution control in the SCAB and has adopted a series of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to reduce air emissions in the Basin. The SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the Final 2016 AQMP for the SCAB in March 2017. The 2016 AQMP incorporates scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2016 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. The 2016 AQMP control strategy strongly relies on a transition to zero and near-zero emission technologies in the mobile source sector, including automobiles, transit buses, medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and off-road equipment. The RTP/SCS includes transportation programs, measures, and strategies generally designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related air pollutant emissions from vehicles. The GPU EIR concluded that the 2021 General Plan Update contains policies and action items that would be consistent with the control strategy of the 2016 AQMP. In addition to the 2021 General Plan Update policies that support AQMP consistency and air pollutant emissions reductions, the City prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) as a companion document to the 2021 General Plan Update that includes a set of goals, strategies, and measures with specific metrics and quantified reduction estimates that will achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from existing and future development in the City. While intended to reduce GHG emissions, this set of strategies and measures would also have the effect of reducing air pollutant emissions under implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update. The CAP strategies and measures would reduce both localized air pollutant emissions within the City and regionwide emissions in the SCAB. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-14 Project Specific Environmental Assessment The GPU EIR also concluded that the growth in population projected for the 2021 General Plan Update is not fully accounted for in the 2016-2040 SCAG growth forecasts because those forecasts were made before the sixth cycle regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) estimates resulting from a statewide housing crisis. The City’s RHNA requires that the City’s Housing Element be able to accommodate over 10,000 housing units that could add over 30,000 new residents over an eight-year period. The 2040 population projection for the City in the RTP/SCS is 204,300, which is less than the projected population for planning period buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update of 233,088. However, the 2021 General Plan Update, including the companion CAP document, are both consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS and would further AQMP goals through policies, strategies, and measures that reduce air pollutant emissions from mobile, stationary, and areawide sources. Therefore, the 2021 General Plan Update would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP. The GPU EIR concluded that impacts are less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project is subject to the SCAQMD’s 2016 AQMP. The Criteria for determining consistency with the AQMP is defined by the following indicators: • Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. • Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project would not exceed the assumptions in the AQMP based on the years of project buildout phase. The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 1, the proposed project would not involve a change of land use which would increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2016 AQMP. The proposed project involves the construction of a mixed-use development. Consistent with the GPU EIR findings, the project’s regional and localized construction-source and operational-source emissions would not exceed the applicable regional significance threshold and LST thresholds; refer to Responses 4.3(a), 4.3(b), and 4.3(c), below. As such, a less than significant impact would occur and the project is determined to be consistent with the first criterion. Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the 2016 AQMP contains air pollutant reduction strategies and demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the periods required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts that are used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in the 2021 General Plan Update is considered consistent with the AQMP. Based on the 2021 General Plan Update permissible density and intensity for the “City Center” land use designation, the GPU EIR projected that the 7.49 net-acre project site would be developed with up to 749 multi-family residential dwelling units and gross floor area of up to approximately 652,529 square feet; whereas, the project proposes to develop the site with 311 multi-family dwelling units, including 16,000 square feet of retail uses, for approximately 387,118 square feet of gross floor area. As identified in Section 2.0, the project is estimated to generate 654 residents and 40 jobs. Based on population and employment generation factors in the Fiscal Impact Analysis, the GPU EIR anticipated the generation of CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-15 Project Specific Environmental Assessment approximately 2,255 residents (749 households x 3.01 people per household = 2,255 residents) and 40 jobs (16,000 square feet ÷ 400 retail square feet per employee = 40 employees). Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the 2021 General Plan Update and would not generate additional new population and employment, and thus vehicular trips, beyond those anticipated in the GPU EIR. As such, it can be concluded that the proposed project would result in a reduction in air quality emissions as compared to what was evaluated by the GPU EIR for the project site, particularly concerning VMT. Further, construction activities at the project site would adhere to emissions control strategies established by the SCAQMD and assumed in the AQMP, and emission control strategies included in the 2021 General Plan Update and the City’s CAP. For these reasons, the project would be consistent with Consistency Criterion No. 2, and project implementation would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 AQMP. As such, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that construction activity associated with the 2021 General Plan Update would generate volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM10) emissions in excess of SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds. Construction activities resulting from implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update could contribute substantially to the SCAB’s non-attainment status for ozone (O3), PM10, and fine inhalable particulate matter (PM2.5) and could result in an increase in the potential for adverse health impacts from these pollutants. The Resource Conservation Element of the 2021 General Plan Update includes goals and policies focused on reducing criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions from construction activity associated with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. However, implementation of these policies cannot guarantee construction-generated emissions would be reduced to below the SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, construction emissions could contribute to the existing non-attainment condition in the SCAB and the City for O3, PM2.5, and PM10, and could result in an increase in the potential for adverse health impacts to occur from exposure to O3 and PM10. Implementation of Standard COAs 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 would reduce impacts to air quality to the extent feasible because construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would be minimized through the use of the highest rate diesel engines available for heavy-duty, off-road equipment and dust suppression techniques. While these measures would reduce potential impacts of future development projects associated with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update, construction-related impacts would still be significant and unavoidable. The GPU EIR also concluded that operational activities would result in emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that exceed the South Coast AQMD thresholds of significance. The 2021 General Plan Update includes policies in its Land Use and Community Character Element that would reduce operational emissions of air pollutants associated with individual development projects (buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update). It also includes goals and policies in its Mobility Element which would help reduce VMT and shift mobility choices to alternative modes of transportation. While there are policies in the 2021 General Plan Update that would reduce criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions, it is unknown if emission levels from future development would be reduced below the SCAQMD thresholds. Because the SCAB is in non-attainment for O3, PM2.5, and PM10, future development under the 2021 General Plan Update could contribute to the existing non-attainment status. Therefore, no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. Local mobile-source carbon monoxide (CO) emissions near CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-16 Project Specific Environmental Assessment roadway intersections are a direct function of traffic volume, vehicle speed, and traffic delay. All areas of the SCAB have remained below the federal standard level since 2003. The U.S. EPA redesignated the SCAB to attainment of the federal CO standards, effective June 11, 2007. As such, the GPU EIR concluded that local mobile-source CO emissions generated by future development that could be accommodated under the 2021 General Plan Update would not result in or substantially contribute to concentrations of CO; impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod Version 2022.1) was used for to determine construction and operational emissions for the proposed project. As analyzed in the AQ and GHG Assessment and summarized below in Table 4.3-1, Proposed Project Construction Emissions Summary, and Table 4.3-2, Proposed Project Operational Emissions Summary, the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD regional or localized significance thresholds. Refer to Appendix B for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Short-Term Construction Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emission (PM10 and PM2.5), construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions (i.e., ROG, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5), and ROG emissions (O3 precursors) from the application of asphalt and surface coatings. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. Table 4.3-1 Proposed Project Construction Emissions Summary Criteria Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx Pm10 PM2.5 Maximum Daily Emissions 53.70 59.40 55.80 0.09 10.43 4.40 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Note: Total includes proposed off-site parking improvements To reduce fugitive dust emissions, the project would implement required SCAQMD dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours, and adhere to SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (which require watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), reducing PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. Additionally, as required by SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, all architectural coatings for the proposed structures would comply with specifications on painting practices as well as regulation on the ROG content of paint.6 As shown on Table 4.3-1, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, and Regulation XI, Rule 1113, along with GPU EIR 6 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf, accessed May 10, 2021. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-17 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Standard COAs 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 would further reduce construction-related impacts to less than significant levels. Although the project would not result in increased impacts or increased cumulatively-considerable impacts due to construction-related emissions beyond what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR, project-related air quality emissions during construction activities would contribute to the significant and unavoidable construction-related air quality impacts identified by the GPU EIR, consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. As stated, the project would implement GPU EIR Standard COAs 5.3-1 through 5.3-4 and SCAQMD rules and regulations; however, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Long-Term Operations Long-term operational air quality impacts consist of mobile source emissions generated from project- related traffic and emissions from area and energy sources. Table 4.3-2 Proposed Project Operational Emissions Summary Criteria Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NOx CO SOx Pm10 PM2.5 Summer Total Maximum Daily Emissions 21.58 15.78 115.99 0.24 7.07 1.79 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Winter Total Maximum Daily Emissions 18.28 16.25 76.49 0.23 7.06 1.77 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No As shown in Table 4.3-2, the operational emissions for both summer and winter would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds. As discussed above in Response 4.3(a), the project would result in reduced emissions compared to what was projected in the GPU EIR due to the proposed development of the project site resulting in a lower residential and employment population. However, project-related operational emissions of criteria pollutants would contribute to the significant and unavoidable long-term air quality impact identified by the GPU EIR, consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR. As such, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-18 Project Specific Environmental Assessment c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to construction-related toxic air contaminants (TACs). However, given that future development under the 2021 General Plan Update would occur by 2040 and would occur in various areas throughout the City, it is unlikely that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to construction-related TACs for extended periods of time. Therefore, construction activity associated with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would not result in the exposure of existing or new sensitive receptors to a substantial increase in TAC emissions. The 2021 General Plan Update would also result in an increase in total VMT along local roadways within the City as a result of future growth and development. Because there are roads in and around the City that exceed 100,000 vehicles per day, new sensitive receptors could be exposed to roadway traffic levels that could result in adverse health effects from TACs. However, the 2021 General Plan Update includes policies and action items that would minimize TAC impacts to the extent feasible. Regarding stationary sources of TACs, the 2021 General Plan Update includes policies that would limit exposure of new sensitive receptors to TACs from stationary sources such as industrial land uses. Additionally, all new development undergoing discretionary review would be required to evaluate existing TAC exposure and incorporate available reduction measures in accordance with SCAQMD requirements. However, it cannot be guaranteed that emissions of TACs and associated health risk would be reduced to an acceptable level for individual projects. In consideration of these factors, implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update could result in the exposure of new sensitive receptors to a substantial increase in TAC emissions. As such, impacts were found to be significant and unavoidable. Project‐Specific Analysis: Sensitive receptors (i.e., children, senior citizens, and acutely or chronically ill people) are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Land uses that are considered sensitive receptors typically include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, hospitals, convalescent homes, and retirement homes. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project is the existing apartment complex located approximately 468 feet to the west (west of Haven Avenue). However, the project proposes to construct a mixed-use development consisting of residential and retail land uses, which are not associated with the creation of substantial pollutant concentrations that could adversely affect sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant. Localized Construction Impacts The Project’s maximum disturbed area during grading is approximately 2.5 acres per day, and the maximum disturbed area during on- and off-site demolition is approximately 1.0 acre per day. Table 4.3- 3, Proposed Project Localized Construction Emissions, identifies the localized impacts at the nearest receptor location in the vicinity of the project. As shown, construction-source emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for on- and off-site project-related local construction-source emissions. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-19 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Table 4.3-3 Proposed Project Localized Construction Emissions Criteria On-Site Emissions (pounds/day) NOx CO Pm10 PM2.5 Demolition Total Maximum Daily Emissions 31.90 26.50 7.62 2.29 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 863 66 19 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Grading Total Maximum Daily Emissions 32.00 27.90 2.26 0.94 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 187 1,392 55 23 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Demolition (Off-Site Parking Improvements) Total Maximum Daily Emissions 29.50 25.70 3.43 1.55 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 863 66 19 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Carbon Monoxide Hotspots The GPU EIR determined that localized impacts due to CO “hot spots” would be less than significant. CO “hot spots” are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections. As previously indicated in Response 4.3(a), the proposed project would result in a lower density and intensity than what was analyzed for the project site in the GPU EIR, and thus fewer vehicular trips per day as compared to what was evaluated for the project site by the GPU EIR. As such, the proposed project would result in reduced impacts regarding CO “hot spots” as compared to the less than significant impact identified by the GPU EIR. Consistent with the conclusion reached by the GPU EIR, project impacts due to CO “hot spots” would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Significance Determination: No substantial increase in the level of impact from previous analysis. d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that minor odors from the use of heavy- duty diesel-powered equipment and the laying of asphalt during construction activities would be intermittent and temporary; these types of odor-generating activities would not occur at any single location or within proximity to the same off-site receptors for an extended period of time and would not CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-20 Project Specific Environmental Assessment result in permanent odor sources. Therefore, construction is not anticipated to result in substantial odors. Future nonresidential land uses or specific facilities in the City could generate odor emissions that could be a nuisance. Specifically, industrial land uses have the potential to generate objectionable odors. However, stand-alone residential uses would not be permitted in these districts. Industrial land uses associated with the 2021 General Plan Update would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402. In addition, the Land Use and Community Character Element of the 2021 General Plan Update includes land use compatibility policies that would serve to reduce potential impacts from receptors near existing odors sources in addition to policies that would also serve to minimize odor impacts. As a result, implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would not result in odor impacts on existing sensitive receptors or future sensitive receptors. The impact would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coating. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by requiring equipment to be shut off when not in use or limiting idling time to no more than five minutes. Compliance with these existing regulations would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also be required to comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any odor impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and negligible. As such, the project would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.3.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Air Quality. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Air Quality. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA 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 SC AQMD recommendations for construction BMPs (per the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD’s Mitigation Monitoring and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-21 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 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 SCAQMD). COA 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 SCAQMD (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 construction 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. COA 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 SCAQMD’s Rule 403 requirements to reduce emissions to be less than applicable thresholds. COA 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 SCAQMD’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: o 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. o 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. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-22 Project Specific Environmental Assessment • 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. • 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. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-23 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Have a substantial adverse 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  b. 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?  c. 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?  d. 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?  e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?  f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?  The information presented in this analysis is based on and supplemented with the Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mixed-Use Development Located on the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Habitat Assessment) prepared by ELMT Consulting, dated June 28, 2022; refer to Appendix C, Habitat Assessment. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that buildout of the City in accordance with the 2021 General Plan Update could impact special status vegetation and special status wildlife in the City. The City’s environment is not static and may change over time as a result of development, fire, climate change, and other environmental factors. Therefore, vegetation species and communities and wildlife species not currently identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species may become listed in the future. The 2021 General Plan Update Resource Conservation Element identifies policies to reduce impacts on the City’s biological resources, such as Policy RC-3.1, which encourages the CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-24 Project Specific Environmental Assessment preservation of sensitive vegetation and/or habitats, and Policy RC-3.2 which allows and encourages the expansion of sensitive biological preserve areas. However, the GPU EIR concluded that even with adherence to the City’s policies protecting biological resources and compliance with State and federal law, future development projects could require more detailed evaluations of biological resources and formulation of mitigation measures by a qualified biologist. While most of the future growth is anticipated to occur in focus areas that are currently developed and are surrounded by existing development and unlikely to provide high quality habitat, the impact on sensitive plant and animal species is considered significant and unavoidable. Project‐Specific Analysis: The Habitat Assessment determined that based on the literature review and field survey, none of the special-status plant or wildlife species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site are expected to be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the proposed project; previous on-site disturbances have greatly reduced potential foraging and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species on-site and in off-site improvement areas. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, the Habitat Assessment determined that the project site has a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actua), which are all identified as special-status wildlife species. None of these species are federally- or State- listed as endangered or threatened. In order to ensure no impacts to Cooper’s hawk and/or California horned lark occur from site development, and as required by GPU EIR Standard COA 5.4-4, a pre- construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted within three days prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey (Standard COA 5.4- 4), impacts to Cooper’s hawk and California horned lark would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Based on the Habitat Assessment, no burrowing owls or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or white wash) was observed during the field investigation. The Habitat Assessment determined that the project site has a low potential to support burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended; however, out of an abundance of caution, the proposed project would implement a City of Rancho Cucamonga Standard COA BIO-1, which would require a pre-construction clearance survey for burrowing owl prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities to ensure that the burrowing owl remain absent and impacts do not occur to occupied burrows on or within 500 feet of the project site. As part of the Habitat Assessment, a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; DSF) Suitability Assessment was conducted for the project. The DSF Suitability Assessment determined that the project site does not support Delhi Sand soils needed for suitable habitat for DSF and DSF is presumed absent from the project site. As indicated in the foregoing analysis, with compliance with GPU EIR Standard COA 5.4-4 and City of Rancho Cucamonga Standard COA BIO-1, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-25 Project Specific Environmental Assessment b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR stated that numerous streams in the Santa Ana Watershed drain from the north into the City. The western boundary of the City runs along Cucamonga Creek. Other creeks that flow through the City include Deer Creek, Day Creek, and Etiwanda Creek. Riparian vegetation can be found along the canyon bottoms in the northern portion of the City. Channels occur within the City; some channels are dry, while others have water. Open water occurs in various natural and constructed catch basins throughout the City. These water resources may support biological resources, including riparian vegetation and associated wildlife species; at least 13 special status plant species are found in riparian and/or freshwater habitats. As was concluded in Response 4.4(a), the GPU EIR determined that the goals and policies in the 2021 General Plan Update Resource Conservation Element would help conserve, protect, and manage the City’s biological resources. Specifically, Policy RC- 3.1 and Policy RC-3.2 would ensure that the City protects sensitive habitats, such as wetlands and riparian habitats, and biological preserves. In addition, Standard COAs 4.4-1, 4.4-2, and 4.4-3 would prevent impacts on special status species by requiring pre-construction surveys and obtaining take permits from appropriate agencies. These would protect species in sensitive natural communities. Consequently, impacts on sensitive natural communities are considered less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on the Habitat Assessment, no riparian habitat exists on-site. Therefore, the project would not impact riparian habitat. Further, no sensitive plant communities were identified as having the potential to occur in the project area, and the project site and surrounding areas are not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. The project would not impact any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS; no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR stated that wetlands are present in the City and that these water resources may support biological resources. As described in Response 4.4(a), the goals and policies in the 2021 General Plan Update Resource Conservation Element would help conserve, protect, and manage the City’s biological resources. Specifically, Policy RC-3.1 and Policy RC-3.2 would ensure that the City protects sensitive habitats, such as wetlands and riparian habitats, and biological preserves. Standard COAs 5.4-6 and 5.4-7 require developers to obtain permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for waters of the U.S. and from CDFW for waters of the State. Compliance with these Standard COAs would ensure no net loss of waters of the U.S. or waters of the State. Consequently, impacts are considered less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on the Habitat Assessment, no jurisdictional drainage features, and/or wetland features were observed on-site that would be considered jurisdictional by USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW. The project would not impact State or federally protected wetlands; no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-26 Project Specific Environmental Assessment considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that the majority of the City is developed. These areas have little natural open space and therefore provide few wildlife movement corridors. Existing corridors include creeks and open drainage canals, which connect wildlife to the mountains to the north. The northern portion of the City has large, contiguous open space areas and areas designated for preservation in perpetuity. A number of migratory bird species are known to occur within the City. Buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update could impact these migratory birds through future development and removal of vegetation that could be used for nesting. Development in existing open space and undeveloped areas of the City could result in habitat fragmentation and constrain wildlife movement that has regional significance. The Resource Conservation Element of the 2021 General Plan Update includes policies that would reduce impacts to wildlife corridors, such as Policy RC-3.3, which encourages maintaining and creating wildlife corridors and connectivity. In addition, to avoid conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Standard COA 5.4-4 requires preconstruction nest surveys for projects with construction activities involving vegetation removal conducted between September 16 and March 14. If active nests are present, the project would require buffers around the nest and monitors to ensure there are no inadvertent impacts on the nests. Compliance with the MBTA would ensure impacts to migratory birds are less than significant. With adherence to the 2021 General Plan Update policies and implementation of the Standard COAs (specifically Standard COAs 5.4-4 and 5.4-7, which would require a habitat connectivity/wildlife corridor evaluation) the GPU EIR concluded that impacts to wildlife movement, corridors, and wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on the Habitat Assessment, the project would not impact regional wildlife corridors/linkages because none exist within the area. The project site provides minimal foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. In addition, the undeveloped portion of the project site has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for birds that nest on the open ground and those acclimated to routine disturbances. Additionally, existing trees provide suitable nesting opportunities. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code and any impact to nesting birds would be considered a potentially significant impact. As such, in order to protect migratory bird species, the proposed project would implement GPU EIR Standard COA 5.4-4, reducing potential impacts to less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that tree or plant removal permits are required for the removal of regulated trees and plants. Municipal Code Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation, protects certain designated heritage trees, which are considered a community resource, from indiscriminate cutting or removal; the provisions of Chapter 17.80 are specifically intended to protect and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-27 Project Specific Environmental Assessment expand the eucalyptus windrows. A tree removal permit is required before such heritage trees may be removed, and mitigation is required to account for the loss of heritage trees. As such, the GPU EIR concluded that compliance with the County’s ordinances and City’s municipal code would protect these resources; impacts were found to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project site is not located within or near any areas planned for long-term habitat conservation. In addition, the project has no potential to conflict with the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The project site contains approximately 24 trees that would qualify as heritage trees under the City’s Municipal Code Item No. 2, which is any tree in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 20 inches or more as measured 4.25 feet from ground level. Heritage trees on the project site include five pine (Pinus sp.) and 15 silver dollar eucalyptus (Eucalyptus polyanthemos) on the southern boundary of the project site, and four sycamore at the northern boundary of the project site. Any tree removal would require a tree removal permit from the City, pursuant to a Rancho Cucamonga Standard COA BIO-2. Compliance with Standard COA BIO-2 would ensure that the project does not result in a conflict with Municipal Code Chapter 17.80, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Previous Significance Determination: The City adopted the EHNCP in October 2019; the GPU EIR determined that designations of this area as “Natural Open Space,” “Rural Open Space,” and “General Open Space and Facilities” under the 2021 General Plan Update would ensure that development in accordance with the 2021 General Plan Update would not conflict with the plan. Additionally, the 2021 General Plan Update policies, such as Policy RC-3.1, Policy RC-3.2, and Policy RC-3.3, would help preserve and protect sensitive habitats and biological preserves as well as wildlife corridors, and Policy RC-3.4, Policy RC-3.5, and Policy RC-3.7 would encourage the use of noninvasive species, maintenance of protective buffers adjacent to plant and wildlife habitat areas, and the development of an urban forestry plan. Therefore, future development under the 2021 General Plan Update would be required to comply with applicable policies governing biological resources, which would ensure a less than significant impact. Project‐Specific Analysis: The only portions of the City that are presently conserved and managed for biological resources and/or targeted for biological conservation pursuant to the EHNCP occur in the northeastern portion of the City. The project site is not located within the EHNCP or near any areas planned for long-term habitat conservation. As such, the project has no potential to conflict with the EHNCP and the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-28 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.4.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Biological Resources. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Biological Resources. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA 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. Although the following Standard COA pertaining to pre-construction burrowing owl surveys was not included in the GPU EIR, the GPU EIR acknowledges that burrowing owl have been observed in multiple locations in the City, and the City routinely requires such pre-construction surveys for any new development within the City on properties that contain suitable burrowing owl habitat (i.e., arid and semi- arid environments with well-drained, level to gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground). Furthermore, there were no burrowing owls identified on-site during the field surveys that were conducted. As such, the following Standard COA, which expands on the pre-construction survey requirements in COA 5.4-4, comprises a uniformly applied development policy or standard that is routinely applied to new development projects by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. COA BIO 1 As a condition of grading permit issuance, two pre-construction surveys for resident burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The first survey shall occur between 14 and 30 days prior to commencement of grading and construction activities, with the second survey occurring 24 hours prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities. If ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the preconstruction surveys, the site shall be resurveyed for burrowing owls as indicated above. The pre-construction survey and any relocation activity shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. In the event that burrowing owl is determined to be present, or in the event CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-29 Project Specific Environmental Assessment that an assumption is made that the burrowing owl occurs on-site, a burrowing owl management plan shall be prepared and implemented in coordination with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department and the CDFW that shall detail the relocation of owls from the project site, passively and/or actively. A copy of the results of the pre- construction survey (and all additional surveys), as well as copies of the Burrowing Owl Management Plan, if required, shall be provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department for review and approval (in the case of the Burrowing Owl Management Plan) prior to any vegetation clearing and ground disturbance activities. The following standard COA is intended to implement the requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 17.80 and Section 17.60.080. COA BIO 2 Prior to removal of any existing trees on site that comprise a heritage tree (as defined by Municipal Code Section 17.16.080, “Tree Removal Permit”) or that is otherwise considered a “protected tree” pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 17.80, the project Applicant shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit as specified in Municipal Code Section 17.60.080 (Tree Removal Permit) and provide a copy of the approved permit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-30 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-31 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?  b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?  d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?  Consistent with the requirements of Standard COA 5.5-8, a site-specific Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project (Cultural Assessment) was prepared for the project by Brian F. Smith & Associates, Inc., dated June 30, 2022. Refer to Appendix D, Cultural Resources Assessment. The results of the analysis are summarized below. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that future development under the 2021 General Plan Update could adversely impact previously identified historic resources through changes to accommodate adaptive reuse, removal, or reconstruction. Known or future historic sites or resources listed in the national, California, or local registers maintained by the City would be protected through local ordinances, the 2021 General Plan Update policies, and State and federal regulations restricting alteration, relocation, and demolition of historical resources. Compliance with the 2021 General Plan Update policies, and State and federal regulations would ensure that development would not result in adverse impacts to identified historic and cultural resources. However, identified historic structures and sites that are potentially eligible for future historic resources listing may be vulnerable to development activities accompanying infill, redevelopment, or revitalization that would be accommodated by the 2021 General Plan Update. Regardless of the implementation of 2021 General Plan Update policies and adherence to State regulations, some historic properties may be significantly affected by implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update. This impact was found to be significant and unavoidable. Project‐Specific Analysis: The Cultural Assessment prepared for the proposed project concluded that the project site does not contain any known historical resources as defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. As such, the project would not impact any previously-identified historical resources on- site. The records search conducted as part of the Cultural Assessment identified 13 historic archaeological sites within a one-mile radius of the project site, including six historic single-family residences, one historic single-family residence with ancillary structures, one historic trash scatter, one historic railroad spur, the historic Cucamonga Pioneer Winery District, one historic industrial building, one historic commercial building, and the historic Milliken Ranch (California Historical Point of Interest [CHPI] No. SBR-075). Additionally, a total of 20 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-32 Project Specific Environmental Assessment proposed project. Included within the records search, a previous Archaeological Resource Management Corp. (ARMC) study was conducted, which consisted of a Phase I survey of a larger 304-acre parcel which included the current project site. At the time of the ARMC study, the property was not yet developed and was described as agricultural and “planted in vineyards.” Another previous study included in the records search, the 2020 Garrison and Smith study, was a Phase I cultural resources survey of the current project site, to which this study serves as an update. No cultural resources were observed on-site at the time of either survey. The Cultural Assessment concluded that based on the known settlement of the region, the frequency of cultural and type of resources surrounding the project, the developed nature of the parcel, and that it has previously been surveyed, there is a low potential for archaeological discoveries. Although there is a low potential for previously-undiscovered historic archaeological discoveries, the project would be subject to compliance with GPU EIR Standard COA 5.5-7 to reduce potential impacts to previously- unknown historic resources. Based on the Cultural Assessment, Foothill Boulevard is identified as a California Historical Landmark (No. 781) in the 2021 General Plan Update; however, Foothill Boulevard has been improved multiple times throughout the twentieth century and, beyond the street alignment, no associated historic features are present within the project or along the current project boundary. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, with compliance with Standard COA 5.5-7, project impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that while the 2021 General Plan Update in itself would not directly affect archaeological resources, long-term implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update land use plan could include grading of known and unknown sensitive areas. Grading and construction activities of undeveloped areas or redevelopment that require more intensive soil excavation than in the past could potentially cause the disturbance of archaeological resources. Review and protection of archaeological resources are afforded by CEQA for individual development projects that would be accommodated by the 2021 General Plan Update, subject to discretionary actions that are implemented in accordance with the land use plan of the 2021 General Plan Update. According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 of CEQA, the lead agency is required to determine whether a development project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. If the lead agency determines that the project may have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources, the project- level CEQA document prepared for the development project is required to address the issue of those resources. Therefore, future development could potentially unearth previously unknown/unrecorded archaeological resources. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on the results of the project’s Cultural Assessment, the project site does not contain any known archaeological resources as defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The records search conducted as part of the Cultural Assessment did not identify any archaeological resources beyond the 13 historic archaeological sites identified within a one-mile radius. As such, the project would not impact any previously identified archaeological resources. The Cultural Assessment concluded that based on the known settlement of the region, the frequency of cultural and type of resources surrounding the project, the developed nature of the parcel, and that it has CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-33 Project Specific Environmental Assessment previously been surveyed, there is a low potential for archaeological discoveries. Although there is a low potential for previously-undiscovered archaeological discoveries, the project would be subject to compliance with GPU EIR Standard COAs 5.5-2 and 5.5-7 to reduce potential impacts to previously- unknown archaeological resources. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, with compliance with Standard COAs 5.5-2 and 5.5-7, project impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with existing laws and proposed General Plan policies would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur the 2021 General Plan Update includes Policies RC-4.1 and RC-4.2, which require measures to prevent impacts to human remains and compliance with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act if human remains are found on a project site; additionally, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5; CEQA Section 15064.5; and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. A such, and although soil-disturbing activities associated with development in accordance with the 2021 General Plan Update could result in the discovery of human remains, compliance with existing law and 2021 General Plan Update policies would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on the Cultural Assessment prepared for the proposed project, human remains are not anticipated to be found on the project site, and there is little potential for the discovery of human remains to occur. Nonetheless, the project would be subject to GPU EIR Standard COA 5.5-2. Additionally, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the project would be subject to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98 to reduce potential impacts in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5, requires that if human remains are discovered on a project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and has reason to believe they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, although soil-disturbing activities associated with development of the project as proposed could result in the discovery of human remains, mandatory compliance with existing law, applicable 2021 General Plan Update policies, and Standard COA 5.5-2 would ensure that significant impacts to human remains would not occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-34 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.5.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Cultural Resources. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Cultural Resources. Standard Conditions of Approval: Refer to Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, for additional applicable Standard COAs 5.18-1 through 5.18-7. COA 5.5-2 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. COA 5.5-7 If cultural resources that are eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register are identified within or adjacent to the proposed development, the construction limits shall be clearly flagged to ensure impacts to eligible cultural resources are avoided or minimized to the extent feasible. Prior to implementing construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall verify that the flagging clearly delineates the construction limits and eligible resources to be avoided. Since the location of some eligible cultural resources is confidential, these resources will be flagged as environmentally sensitive areas. COA 5.5-8 To determine the archaeological sensitivity for discretionary projects within the city, an archaeological resources assessment shall be performed under the supervision of an archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professionally Qualified Standards (PQS) in either prehistoric or historic archaeology. The assessments shall include a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search and a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The records searches shall determine if the proposed project has been previously surveyed for archaeological resources, identify and characterize the results of previous cultural resource surveys, and disclose any cultural resources that have been recorded and/or evaluated. A Phase I pedestrian survey shall be undertaken in areas that are undeveloped to locate any surface cultural materials. (a) If potentially significant archaeological resources are identified through an archaeological resources assessment, and impacts to these resources cannot be avoided, a Phase II Testing and Evaluation investigation shall be performed by an archaeologist who meets the PQS prior to any construction-related ground- disturbing activities to determine significance. If resources determined significant or unique through Phase II testing, and site avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. These might include a Phase III data recovery program that would be implemented by a qualified archaeologist and shall be performed in accordance with the Office of Historic Preservation’s Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-35 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Recommended Contents and Format (1990) and Guidelines for Archaeological Research Designs (1991). (b) If the archaeological assessment did not identify potentially significant archaeological resources within the proposed General Plan area but indicated the area to be highly sensitive for archaeological resources, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground-disturbing construction and pre-construction activities in areas with previously undisturbed soil. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities of the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial onsite safety meeting, and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for significance by an archaeologist who meets the PQS. If the discovery proves to be significant, it shall be curated with a recognized scientific or educational repository. (c) If the archaeological assessment did not identify potentially significant archaeological resources, but indicates the area to be of medium sensitivity for archaeological resources, an archaeologist who meets the PQS shall be retained on an on-call basis. The archaeologist shall inform all construction personnel prior to construction activities about the proper procedures in the event of an archaeological discovery. The training shall be held in conjunction with the project’s initial on-site safety meeting, and shall explain the importance and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground- disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall be halted while the on-call archaeologist is contacted. If the discovery proves to be significant, it shall be curated with a recognized scientific or education repository. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-36 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-37 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.6 ENERGY Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation?  b. Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?  a) Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that regulatory compliance with Building Energy Efficiency Standards, California Green Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11, known as “CALGreen”), renewables portfolio standard (RPS), and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards would increase building energy efficiency and vehicle fuel efficiency, and reduce building energy demand and transportation-related fuel usage for buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. Additionally, the 2021 General Plan Update includes policies related to land use and transportation planning and design, energy efficiency, and renewable energy which would contribute to minimizing building- and transportation-related energy demands overall and demands on nonrenewable sources of energy. Implementation of proposed policies of the 2021 General Plan Update in conjunction with and complementary to regulatory requirements would ensure that energy demand associated with growth under the 2021 General Plan Update would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. Therefore, energy impacts associated with implementation and operation of land uses accommodated under the 2021 General Plan Update would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project would entail the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 311 dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of retail space, for a total of 387,118 gross square feet of building area, whereas the GPU EIR anticipated that the project site, consistent with its 2021 General Plan Update land use designation of “City Center,” would be developed with up to 749 multi- family residential dwelling units and 652,529 gross square feet of building area. Since the proposed project would result in reduced residential density or non-residential intensity then what was previously analyzed in the GPU EIR, it can be concluded that the proposed project would result in less demand for energy resources as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed for the project site by the GPU EIR. Construction-Related Energy Consumption Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, construction activities associated with the project would create temporary demands for electricity (i.e., for the use of construction equipment) as well as a temporary increase in demand for gas and diesel fuel resources associated with construction-related vehicles (i.e., construction vehicles and construction worker traffic). However, because the land uses CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-38 Project Specific Environmental Assessment proposed as part of the project would be less intense than what was assumed by the GPU EIR, overall construction-related electricity and fuel demands would be less than assumed by the GPU EIR. Consistent with the analysis presented in the GPU EIR, the use of energy resources during construction of the project would fluctuate according to the phase of construction and would be temporary. In addition, all operation of construction equipment would cease upon completion of project construction. Furthermore, the construction contractors would be required to minimize nonessential idling of construction equipment during construction in accordance with Section 2449 of 13 California Code of Regulations Article 4.8, Chapter 9. Such required practices would limit wasteful and unnecessary energy consumption. It also should be noted that there are no unusual project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities, or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). In general, current construction processes promote conservation and efficient use of energy by reducing raw materials demands, with related reduction in energy demands associated with raw materials extraction, transportation, processing, and refinement. Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations. Accordingly, and consistent with the conclusion reached by the GPU EIR, the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction activities, and impacts would be less than significant. Operational-Related Energy Consumption Energy consumption in support of or related to project operations would include transportation energy demands (energy consumed by vehicles accessing the project site) and facilities energy demands (energy consumed by building operations and site maintenance activities). The level of energy demand is directly correlated to a development’s land use intensity (e.g., the number of dwelling units or amount of commercial retail building area). As discussed above, the project would have a reduced intensity and density than what was analyzed in the GPU EIR. As such, the project’s overall demands for energy resources under long-term operating conditions would be less than was assumed by the GPU EIR for the project site. With respect to facilities energy demands, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the project would entail future development of conventional retail and residential uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. Uses proposed by the project are not inherently energy intensive, and the project energy demands in total would be comparable to, or less than, other mixed-use projects of similar scale and configuration. Consistent with the analysis presented in the GPU EIR, the project would incorporate a series of measures that generally reduce energy demand associated with the project. The project would comply with the applicable Title 24 Standards, which include incorporating contemporary design features such as photovoltaic systems or renewable energy for new homes. Notably, the project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; CCR, Title 24, Part 11) as implemented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-39 Project Specific Environmental Assessment With respect to transportation energy demands, fuel would be provided by current and future commercial vendors. Trip generation and vehicle miles travelled (VMT) generated by the project are consistent with other retail and residential uses of similar scale and configuration, as reflected respectively in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). That is, the project does not propose uses or operations that would inherently result in excessive and wasteful vehicle trips and VMT, nor associated excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption. Given that the project site would be developed with an intensity and density far lower than what was analyzed in the GPU EIR, the project is assumed to result in fewer trip ends per day as compared what was assumed for the project site by the GPU EIR. As such, the project’s level of demand for transportation-related energy would be reduced in comparison to the project evaluated by the GPU EIR. Enhanced fuel economies realized federal and State regulatory actions and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. The project would implement sidewalks, facilitating and encouraging pedestrian access. Facilitating pedestrian and bicycle access would reduce VMT and associated energy consumption. In compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code, the project would promote the use of bicycles as an alternative mean of transportation by providing short-term and/or long-term bicycle parking accommodations. As supported by the preceding discussions, project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. Conclusion Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the energy demands of the project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. Additionally, the project would be less intense than the development assumed by the GPU EIR for the project site, indicating the project’s overall energy demand would be less than was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Accordingly, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Previous Significance Determination: The State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The Statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as Southern California Edison (SCE), whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State objective of transitioning to renewable energy. The City does not have its own renewable energy plan; however, the City has prepared a CAP as a companion to the 2021 General Plan Update that includes goals, strategies, and measures to reduce communitywide and municipal GHG emission reductions in the categories of zero emission and CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-40 Project Specific Environmental Assessment clean fuels, efficient and carbon free buildings, renewable energy and zero carbon electricity, carbon sequestration, local food supply, efficient water use, waste reductions, and sustainable transportation. The GPU EIR concluded that the land uses accommodated under the 2021 General Plan Update would comply with the current and future iterations of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The 2021 General Plan Update includes policies which would support the statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. Therefore, implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would not conflict or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS Program, and impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: As noted by the GPU EIR, the State’s electricity grid is transitioning to renewable energy under California’s RPS Program. The Statewide RPS requirements do not directly apply to individual development projects, but to utilities and energy providers such as Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU), whose compliance with RPS requirements would contribute to the State objective of transitioning to renewable energy. The project’s proposed land uses would comply with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. The project also would be subject to compliance with applicable 2021 General Plan Update policies related to energy consumption and energy efficiency, which would support the Statewide goal of transitioning the electricity grid to renewable sources. Accordingly, and consistent with the conclusion reached by the GPU EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of California’s RPS Program, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.6.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Energy. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Energy. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include COAs for Energy. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-41 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) 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.  2) Strong seismic ground shaking?  3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?  4) Landslides?  b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?  c. 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?  d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?  e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?  f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?  Consistent with the requirements of Standard COAs 5.7-3 through 5.7-6, a site-specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 9612, 10575 Foothill Boulevard, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (Geotechnical Investigation) was prepared for the project by GeoSoils Consultants, Inc., dated April 25, 2018, and a site-specific Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project (Paleontological Assessment) was prepared for the project by Brian F. Smith & Associates, Inc., dated June 30, 2022. Refer to Appendix E, Geotechnical Investigation and Appendix F, Paleontological Assessment, respectively. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-42 Project Specific Environmental Assessment a) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that the City and its underlying geology make it likely to experience seismic hazards such as ground rupture and/or ground shaking, given that the Cucamonga Fault and Etiwanda Avenue Fault Scarp are located within the City and are Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faults, and that the Red Hill Fault, the inferred alignment of which runs from the northeast around Etiwanda Avenue to the southwest around Red Hill, is designated by the City as a fault hazard zone. During an earthquake, liquefaction may occur in areas with loose soils and high water tables. Though no liquefaction hazards are known in the City, three small areas in the southwestern portion of the City, north of Red Hill have perched water conditions and could be subject to liquefaction. Additionally, an earthquake combined with heavy rains have the potential to result in landslides; during such events, development in the northern end of the City could be effected by rock falls and landslides from the San Gabriel Mountains. As such, future development under the 2021 General Plan Update that would occur near the above-listed geologic areas would be subject to potential seismic-related hazards. However, the GPU EIR determined that, for future development planned in the City-designated Earthquake Fault Zones, compliance with Standard COAs 5.7-3 and 5.7-6, which would require a project-specific geotechnical investigation and soils report during development proposals, would reduce earthquake induced hazards for future development and redevelopment under the 2021 General Plan Update. Further, the GPU EIR determined that, in order to protect buildings from damage during an earthquake event, future development would be required to construct proposed buildings in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC); redevelopment under the 2021 General Plan Update would contribute to the demolition of older structures that may not adhere to current CBC standards and thus would otherwise pose a potential seismic hazard. CBC compliance would also require a geotechnical investigation, which would ensure liquefaction hazards on individual development sites are identified and that structural integrity is maintained accordingly. Finally, project-specific compliance with City’s Hillside Development Regulations, Section 17.24.070 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, would preserve natural slopes and reduce landslide hazards. As such, the GPU EIR concluded that compliance with Standard COAs, proposed 2021 General Plan Update policies, and CBC design regulations would ensure impacts related to seismic hazards would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on the findings of the GPU EIR, no faults are known to pass through the project site. The site is not located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault-rupture hazard as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act or in a City of Rancho Cucamonga Fault Rupture Potential Zone. The closest active fault line to the project site is the Red Hill Fault located approximately 1.2-mile northwest. This is an inferred fault line, which has not yet been located. Although there is no potential for fault rupture to occur on the project site, given the project’s location in Southern California, and the common occurrence of earthquake faults in the region, the project site may experience strong seismic ground shaking from a local or regional earthquake of large magnitude. However, the CBC identifies design features required to be implemented to reduce the effects of seismic ground shaking. With compliance to the CBC requirements, future project occupants and structures would not be exposed CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-43 Project Specific Environmental Assessment to substantial adverse ground-shaking effects associated with the rupture of a known earthquake fault or due to strong seismic ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant. According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is not located in an area subject to liquefaction; no groundwater was encountered on-site during subsurface soil exploration and there are no nearby flood channels or open bodies of water that would indicate a potential for possible saturated soils. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction, and associated conditions, to impact the project is considered low. Additionally, no significant slopes are present on or near the project site; therefore, Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the potential for an earthquake-induced landslide is considered low. As such, the project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and/or landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Previous Significance Determination: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is designated by the County of San Bernardino as a Soil Erosion Control Area. The City is also underlain by soils that have moderate to high erosion hazard and soil blowing hazards. If ground disturbance activities occur during strong Santa Ana wind episodes, it is likely that wind erosion and fugitive dust would be generated. Therefore, the GPU EIR determined that future development and redevelopment under the 2021 General Plan Update could lead to soil erosion. However, the GPU EIR concluded that implementation of erosion-control measures as required by Chapter 8.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and Standard COA 5.7-1 would allow for the containment of soils on-site and would prevent impacts on adjacent properties. In addition, as described in further detail in Chapter 5.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the GPU EIR, future development would be required to implement construction phase BMPs and post-construction site design, source control, and treatment control measures in accordance with NPDES permit requirements. Any project that disturbs one or more acre of land would also be required by the SWRCB to develop and implement a SWPPP to control discharges from construction sites. Such a plan would outline drainage areas on a construction site and develop engineering solutions for the controlled detention and outflow of stormwater, which in turn reduces the potential for erosion. Assuming compliance with Chapter 8.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and Standard COA 5.7-1, future development and redevelopment would not result in significant adverse impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Impacts relating to erosion were found to be temporary and less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Under existing conditions, the northern portion of the project site is developed with a shared surface parking lot with ornamental landscaping and the southern portion contains vacant land. Accordingly, some wind and water erosion take place on the project site under existing conditions. Following construction, wind and water erosion on the project site would be reduced compared to existing conditions because the project would introduce landscaping and impervious surfaces. Drainage would be controlled through a storm drain system. The areas of exposed soils would be minimal, and the potential for erosion would be limited. Further, the project-specific WQMP, further discussed in the Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this document, would identify effective BMPs to reduce or eliminate sediment discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. As such, impacts due to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil during long-term operation would CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-44 Project Specific Environmental Assessment be less than significant. Regarding short-term construction impact, the project would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit and would implement the BMPs in the project-specific SWPPP. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403, which requires dust control, would further reduce erosion during the construction phase of the project. As such, impacts due to soil erosion and the loss of topsoil during short- term construction would be less than significant. Adherence to the requirements noted in the project’s WQMP and site-specific SWPPP would further ensure that potential erosion and sedimentation effects would be less than significant. As such, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Previous Significance Determination: The 2021 General Plan Update identifies areas subject to potential liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides as being located in the northern portion of the City. As discussed in Response 4.7(a), the GPU EIR determined that development under the 2021 General Plan Update that complies with the recommendations of project-specific geotechnical investigations (Standard COA 5.7-3 and 5.7-6) and the City’s Hillside Development Regulations would preserve natural slopes and reduce landslide hazards. Further, the GPU EIR concluded that compliance with CBC design regulations would identify potential for hazards related to soil conditions on individual development sites so the project can be designed to reflect site-specific geologic and soils conditions and prevent risks due to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Impacts were found to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Based on the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site is relatively flat and the potential for mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows is low. The project is covered by one to seven feet of fill materials that overlay one to 14 feet of alluvium consisting of silty fine sand, that in turn overly coarse sands and rock fragments starting at depths ranging from 7.5 to 14 feet deep. As discussed in Response 4.7(a), the project site is not subject to liquefaction or landslides. Based on the subsurface exploration conducted for the project during preparation of the Geotechnical Investigation, fill and alluvium are located at the project site. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded that based upon the field and laboratory test data, the on-site materials that have been disturbed by tilling (upper one to 1.5 foot) are expected to shrink between 12 to 17 percent. The underlying alluvium is expected to shrink 5 to 10 percent. As such, the Geotechnical Investigation recommended that all fill and loose alluvium be over excavated to competent alluvium and replaced as compacted fill. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided that the identified recommendations are incorporated into the final design and construction phase of the proposed development. Further, impacts related to instability of the site’s geologic materials would be less than significant with adherence to CBC design regulations and implementation of the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. Based on the foregoing analysis, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-45 Project Specific Environmental Assessment d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Previous Significance Determination: Refer to Response 4.7(c). The GPU EIR determined that soils in the City have a relatively low amount of clay and therefore are not susceptible to expansion; as such no soil expansions hazards are present in the City. The GPU EIR concluded that 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 due to unstable soils; however, compliance with CBC design regulations would identify potential for hazards related to soil conditions on individual development sites associated with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update so the implementing developments can be designed to reflect site-specific geologic and soils conditions and prevent risks due to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, thereby ensuring impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: According to the Geotechnical Investigation, the project site’s on-site materials have a low expansion index. Accordingly, no design considerations related to expansive soils are warranted for the project site and implementation of the project would result in a less than significant impact associated with expansive soils. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. e) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR future development in undeveloped areas where no sewer lines are present would be required to connect to the public sewer system. Where limitations on septic tank systems could pose hazards to surface and groundwater, Standard COAs 5.7-3 and 5.7-6, as well as compliance with RWQCB regulations and the County of San Bernardino’s Septic Tank Regulations would prevent hazards associated with soils incapable of supporting septic systems for future projects and would reduce potential impacts. Implementation of these Standard COAs would provide oversight prior to septic system construction as well as maintenance and inspection over the life of the septic system to ensure proper operation, thus reducing the potential for impacts related to septic tanks. Impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The project would connect to existing sewer facilities and existing treatment facilities. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Previous Significance Determination: Research performed at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County indicates 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. As such, the GPU EIR concluded that the presence of sedimentary units known to contain CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-46 Project Specific Environmental Assessment fossil materials indicates that there is a potential for encountering unidentified paleontological resources through grading and excavation activities during construction associated with future buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources. The GPU EIR concluded that implementation of Standard COA 5.7-7 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Project‐Specific Analysis: As previously stated, the project site is relatively flat and disturbed. The northern portion of the site is developed with a surface parking lot and the southern portion of the site a disturbed vacant lot. Based on the Paleontological Assessment prepared for the project, the project site does not contain any unique geologic features. Therefore, implementation of the project has no potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique geologic feature. The records search conducted as part of the Paleontological Assessment identified recorded fossil localities approximately four miles southeast of the project site, which was the closest recorded fossil localities. Additional fossils were recorded approximately five and a half miles south, which included extinct species of Pleistocene mastodon, bison, and camel at depths as shallow as five feet below the surface, and five miles west-southwest, which included mammoth remains at a depth of about 20 feet below the surface, among other fossil localities. The Paleontological Assessment concluded that the existence of Quaternary (i.e., middle to late Pleistocene or younger) alluvial fan deposits near and likely beneath the project site, along with the High paleontological resource sensitivity assigned to these sediments locally, and the presence of previously recorded fossil specimens from the unit about five miles south of the project site all support the recommendation that full-time paleontological monitoring be required starting at a depth of 12 feet below the surface during grading, excavation, or utility trenching activities associated with the site preparation phase of project construction. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between seven and 12 feet below the surface, periodic spot checks for potential paleontological resources are warranted. Periodic monitoring would consist of approximately one to two scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. The Paleontological Assessment recommends the preparation and implementation of a paleontological resources impact mitigation program (PRIMP) that would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present, to a less than significant level. The project-specific PRIMP would be comparable to Standard COA 5.7-7, and as such, would be required for the proposed project. With compliance with Standard COA 5.7-7, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, project impacts to paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.7.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Geology and Soils. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Geology and Soils. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-47 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Standard Conditions of Approval: COA 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. COA 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. COA 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. COA 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. COA 5.7-6 A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. COA 5.7-7 If any paleontological resource (i.e., plant or animal fossils) are 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 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. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-48 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-49 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?  b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?  The information presented in this analysis is based on and supplemented with the Foothill Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Evaluation (AQ and GHG Assessment) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., dated July 12, 2022; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Assessment. a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Previous Significance Determination: Implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would result in growth in population and the development of new residential and nonresidential projects and, as a result, generate new activities that result in GHG emissions. As noted in Section 4.3, Air Quality, the GPU EIR concluded that the 2021 General Plan Update contains policies and action items that would be consistent with the control strategy of the 2016 AQMP. In addition to the 2021 General Plan Update policies that support AQMP consistency and air pollutant emissions reductions, the City prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) as a companion document to the 2021 General Plan Update that includes a set of goals, strategies, and measures with specific metrics and quantified reduction estimates that would achieve GHG reductions from existing and future development in the City and regionwide emissions in the SCAB. Implementation of the CAP would result in a reduction in GHG emissions compared to the City’s baseline emissions. Thus, implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would not directly or indirectly result in an increase in GHG emissions. Additionally, through implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update including the CAP, the City would achieve GHG emissions reductions in alignment with the Statewide target for 2030 established in Senate Bill (SB) 32. SB 375 requires that metropolitan planning organizations, including SCAG, develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy that meets the per capita GHG emissions reduction targets set by CARB. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council unanimously voted to approve and fully adopt the 2020– 2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). The 2021 General Plan Update Land Use and Character Element and Mobility and Access Element include a comprehensive set of goals and policies that are consistent with the core visions in Connect SoCal and would support future development that reduces regional VMT and associated GHG emissions. The 2021 General Plan Update has been developed to help support future development that reduces local and regional VMT while promoting land use patterns that promote alternative transportation modes, which the GPU EIR concluded would be consistent with Connect SoCal and would support the SCAG region in achieving its SB 375 emissions reduction targets. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-50 Project Specific Environmental Assessment The 2021 General Plan Update horizon year is 2040 and does not extend to the year 2050. As a result, an interim CAP target for 2040 was established by the City in the CAP that is consistent with the pace of reductions needed by 2040 to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as established in Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-3-05. Because Executive Order B-55-18 calls for net zero GHG emissions no later than 2045, it sets a more aggressive GHG reduction goal than Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-3- 05. Therefore, as determined by the GPU EIR, if the City’s 2040 community-wide GHG emissions would not achieve the City’s 2040 reduction target, then such emissions would be considered inconsistent with the State’s ability to achieve the long-term reduction goals of Executive Orders S-3-05, B-30-15, and B-55- 18. The measures in the CAP achieve 59 percent of the reductions needed to achieve the 2040 emissions target. Because the City, through implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update and the CAP, would not achieve its 2040 emissions target, it is not projected that the City would achieve the long-term statewide emissions targets in Executive Orders B-30-15 and S-3-05 to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. For the same reasons, the City would not achieve the State’s carbon neutrality goal by 2045 as established in B-55-18 because the CAP does not include strategies that would achieve net- zero emissions by 2045. As a result, this impact is significant and unavoidable. Project‐Specific Analysis: Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project was modeled using CalEEMod 2022.1. As detailed in the AQ and GHG Assessment and as summarized below in Table 4.8-1, Proposed Project GHG Emissions Summary, the proposed project would result in the following GHG emissions: Table 4.8-1 Proposed Project GHG Emissions Summary Source Emissions (metric tons/year) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrous Oxide (N20) R Total Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2E) Annual construction- related emissions amortized over 30 years 26.47 0.00 0.00 0.01 26.77 Mobile 2,826.00 0.14 0.14 5.52 2,877.00 Area 82.50 <0.005 <0.005 0.00 82.60 Energy 424.00 0.04 <0.005 0.00 426.00 Water 50.90 1.19 0.03 0.00 89.20 Waste 7.70 0.77 0.00 0.00 26.90 Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 Total CO2E (All Sources) 3,528.94 Service Population 960 Total CO2E/Service Population 3.68 SCAQMD Threshold 4.22 Threshold Exceeded? No Although the SCAQMD’s draft significance criteria have not been adopted, the City has determined that the SCAQMD’s project level efficiency threshold methodology can be used to set an appropriate significance criterion by which to determine whether the project emits a significant amount of GHG. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-51 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Based on the AB and GHG Assessment, the target for the project’s buildout year of 2023 is 4.22 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year. The project would result in 3.68 MTCO2e per service population per year in 2023. As such, the project total GHG emissions would not exceed the screening threshold of 4.22 MTCO2e per service population per year. Thus, project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change. Further, Table 4.8-2, Project Consistency with CARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update, summarizes the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which reflects the State 2030 reduction target. As summarized, the project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan Update and in fact supports several of the action categories. Any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the project. Further, recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. As such, the project would be consistent with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and therefore also would be considered consistent with the GHG reduction mandates specified by SB 32. Table 4.8-2 Project Consistency with CARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update Action Responsible Parties Consistency Implement SB 350 by 2030 Increase the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 50 percent of retail sales by 2030 and ensure grid reliability. CPUC, CEC, CARB Consistent. This measure is not directly applicable to development projects, but the proposed project would use energy from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility, which has committed to diversify its portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from solar sources. Establish annual targets for statewide energy efficiency savings and demand reduction that will achieve a cumulative doubling of statewide energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas end uses by 2030. Consistent. Although this measure is directed towards policymakers, the proposed project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new residential and commercial developments and would include several measures designed to reduce energy consumption. Reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector through the implementation of the above measures and other actions as modeled in Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) to meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets in the IRP process. Load- serving entities and publicly- owned utilities meet GHG emissions reductions planning targets through a combination of measures as described in IRPs. Consistent. The proposed project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures, where applicable by including several measures designed to reduce energy consumption. The proposed project includes energy efficient field lighting and fixtures that meet the current Title 24 Standards throughout the project site and would be a modern development with energy efficient boilers, heaters, and air conditioning systems. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-52 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Action Responsible Parties Consistency Implement Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner Technology and Fuels) At least 1.5 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2025. CARB, California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), Strategic Growth Council (SGC), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), CEC, OPR, Local Agencies Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project site that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. At least 4.2 million zero emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty electric vehicles by 2030. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project site that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Further increase GHG stringency on all light-duty vehicles beyond existing Advanced Clean cars regulations. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project site that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Medium- and Heavy-Duty GHG Phase 2. Consistent. These are CARB enforced standards; vehicles that access the project site that are required to comply with the standards will comply with the strategy. Innovative Clean Transit: Transition to a suite of to-be-determined innovative clean transit options. Assumed 20 percent of new urban buses purchased beginning in 2018 will be zero emission buses with the penetration of zero-emission technology ramped up to 100 percent of new sales in 2030. Also, new natural gas buses, starting in 2018, and diesel buses, starting in 2020, meet the optional heavy- duty low-NOX standard. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Last Mile Delivery: New regulation that would result in the use of low NOX or cleaner engines and the deployment of increasing numbers of zero-emission trucks primarily for class 3-7 last mile delivery trucks in California. This measure assumes ZEVs comprise 2.5 percent of new Class 3–7 truck sales in local fleets starting in 2020, increasing to 10 percent in 2025 and remaining flat through 2030. Not applicable. This project is not responsible for implementation of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. Further reduce VMT through continued implementation of SB 375 and regional Sustainable Communities Strategies; forthcoming statewide implementation of SB 743; and potential additional VMT reduction strategies not specified in the Mobile Source Strategy but included in the document “Potential VMT Reduction Strategies for Discussion.” Not applicable. This project is not responsible for implementation of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-53 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Action Responsible Parties Consistency Increase stringency of SB 375 Sustainable Communities Strategy (2035 targets). CARB Not applicable. The project is not within the purview of SB 375 and would therefore not conflict with this measure. By 2019, adjust performance measures used to select and design transportation facilities Harmonize project performance with emissions reductions and increase competitiveness of transit and active transportation modes (e.g., via guideline documents, funding programs, project selection, etc.). CalSTA, SGC, OPR, CARB, Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz), California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank), Department of Finance (DOF), California Transportation Commission (CTC), Caltrans Not applicable. Although this is directed towards CARB and Caltrans, the proposed project would be designed to promote and support pedestrian activity on-site and in the project site area. By 2019, develop pricing policies to support low-GHG transportation (e.g. low- emission vehicle zones for heavy duty, road user, parking pricing, transit discounts). CalSTA, Caltrans, CTC, OPR, SGC, CARB Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Implement California Sustainable Freight Action Plan Improve freight system efficiency. CalSTA, CalEPA, CNRA, CARB, Caltrans, CEC, GO-Biz Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Deploy over 100,000 freight vehicles and equipment capable of zero emission operation and maximize both zero and near-zero emission freight vehicles and equipment powered by renewable energy by 2030. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Adopt a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) with a Carbon Intensity reduction of 18 percent. CARB Not applicable. LCFS, with an increased stringency (18 percent by 2030). When adopted, this measure would apply to all fuel purchased and used by the project in the state. The LCFS applies to manufacturers of automotive fuels, not to individual land uses. Nonetheless, as previously discussed, GHG emissions related to vehicular travel by the project would benefit from this regulation and mobile source emissions generated by the project would be reduced with implementation of the LCFS consistent with reduction of GHG emissions under AB 32. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-54 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Action Responsible Parties Consistency Implement the Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Strategy by 2030 40 percent reduction in methane and hydrofluorocarbon emissions below 2013 levels. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA, SWRCB, Local Air Districts Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. 50 percent reduction in black carbon emissions below 2013 levels. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. By 2019, develop regulations and programs to support organic waste landfill reduction goals in the SLCP and SB 1383. CARB, CalRecycle, CDFA SWRCB, Local Air Districts Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Implement the post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program with declining annual caps. CARB Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. By 2018, develop Integrated Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan to secure California’s land base as a net carbon sink Protect land from conversion through conservation easements and other incentives. CNRA, Departments Within CDFA, CalEPA, CARB Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Increase the long-term resilience of carbon storage in the land base and enhance sequestration capacity. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Utilize wood and agricultural products to increase the amount of carbon stored in the natural and built environments. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Establish scenario projections to serve as the foundation for the Implementation Plan. Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Establish a carbon accounting framework for natural and working lands as described in SB 859 by 2018. CARB Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Implement Forest Carbon Plan. CNRA, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), CalEPA and Departments Within Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Identify and expand funding and financing mechanisms to support GHG reductions across all sectors. State Agencies & Local Agencies Not applicable. This measure is not within the purview of this project. Source: Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2020 Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-55 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.8.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include COAs for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-56 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-57 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?  b. 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?  c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?  d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?  e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?  f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?  g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?  a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that during construction of future projects throughout the City, new development would potentially involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, such as fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and greases in construction equipment and coatings used in construction; additionally, operation of existing and future residential and commercial uses would involve the transport, use, and disposal of numerous types of hazardous materials. However, future construction activities would be short term in nature, and the materials used would not require transport, use, or storage of hazardous materials in quantities that would pose a substantial safety hazard. Additionally, the use, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to existing laws and regulations. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that less than significant hazard to the public or the environment occur. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-58 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Project‐Specific Analysis: Construction may involve temporary hazards related to the use and transport of hazardous materials, including those used for typical construction activities (i.e., diesel fuel, motor oil, etc.). Construction contractors would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations regarding the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous construction-related materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the SCAQMD, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the San Bernardino Environmental Health Services (EHS). Thus, construction related impacts due to use, transport, and storage of hazardous materials would be less than significant. The project proposes a mixed-use developed with residential and commercial retail land uses, which are land uses not typically associated with the transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. Toxic substances used and stored in residential and retail uses are usually low in concentration and small in quantity; therefore, there is no significant risk to humans or the environment. In addition, hazardous materials and hazardous waste programs are managed by the San Bernardino County Fire Department Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA is charged with the responsibility of conducting compliance inspections for regulated facilities within San Bernardino County that handle hazardous material above certain quantities (e.g., a retail use that sells cleaning supplies or pool supplies). The CUPA administers permits, inspection activities, and enforcement activities. The use of any hazardous materials for operation of the proposed project would be regulated by the CUPA through a Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory (Business Plan). Compliance with the CUPA permit requirements would reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. As such, project construction and operation would not create a hazard related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials beyond what was analyzed in the GPU EIR. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Previous Significance Determination: As described in Response 4.9(a), the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials during construction and operation related to implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would comply with all applicable existing local, State, and federal regulations, thus ensuring impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the GPU EIR found that grading and excavation in infill areas may expose construction workers and the public to known or potentially unknown hazardous materials in the soil or groundwater, especially on sites (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA] Cortese List Data Resources) that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the DTSC have identified containing hazardous materials, which have the potential to pose health hazards. Demolition of older buildings could also potentially result in exposure to asbestos containing materials (ACM) or lead-based paint (LBP). The 2021 General Plan Update would encourage and facilitate the adequate and timely cleanup of existing and future contaminated sites and the compatibility of future land uses. Remediation would be required to satisfy the appropriate responsible agency—DTSC, RWQCB, or the San Bernardino County Fire Department—and would prevent exposure of people and the environment to these hazards. Compliance with the California Health and Safety Code, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-59 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Rule 1403 related to removal of ACM and LBP would not result in substantial hazards to the public due to the transport, use, and/or disposal of hazardous material. Impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Refer to Response 4.9(a). As indicated therein, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident involving the release of hazardous materials. Additionally, the GPU EIR does not identify the project site as a hazardous materials site based on a search of the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database and the DTSC’s EnviroStor database, and the proposed project would not include the demolition of an existing building. Based on historic aerials of the project site, past uses of the site included agricultural uses. Since that time, the project site has been cleared and graded for construction of future development. No know contamination has been reported in association with these past uses. Thus, no impacts associated with accidental release of hazardous materials in existing soils during grading activities are anticipated. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that the use and handling of hazardous materials, substances, and wastes involved with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would be subject to conformance with appropriate State and federal rules and regulations through the permitting process and that no unauthorized use of hazardous materials would be allowed. Thus, although proposed mixed-use developments could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The nearest school, United Christian Academy, is located approximately 0.25- mile to the southeast of the project site at 10900 Civic Center Drive. However, the residential and commercial retail land uses proposed as part of the project are not associated with hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Thus, no impacts associated with emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would result. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. d) Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded there are 34 hazardous materials sites in the City, including 29 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites and five Cleanup Program Sites, according to the SWRCB’s GeoTracker database. Cases for all 29 LUST sites have been completed and closed. Additionally, according to the DTSC’s EnviroStor database, there are 24 toxic substance sites within the City, including seven voluntary cleanup sites, nine school investigation sites, six tiered permit CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-60 Project Specific Environmental Assessment sites, one school cleanup site, and one non-operating site. However, properties contaminated by hazardous substances are regulated at the federal, State, and local levels and are subject to compliance with stringent laws and regulations for investigation and remediation. Therefore, impacts resulting from buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would be less than significant with the compliance with existing laws and regulations. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (also known as the “Cortese Listing”).7 No impacts would result in this regard. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that the southern boundary of the City is approximately 3.2 miles north of the Ontario International Airport and 4.5 miles east of Cable Municipal Airport in Upland. The southwestern portion of the City (south of Church Street, east to approximately Etiwanda Avenue) is in the Ontario International Airport Influence Area (AIA); thus, compliance with applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would be required, and the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) would be considered for any proposed project in the area. The City participates in the airport land use planning process for Ontario International Airport, and new development in the Ontario Airport Influence Area would be consistent with the approved Airspace Protection Zones identified in the latest version of the ALUCP. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project site is located 3.5 miles northeast of the Ontario International Airport; according to Policy Map 2-1 of the LA/Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is located within the AIA for the Ontario International Airport.8 However, the project site does not occur within any of the safety zones associated with this airport according to ALUCP Policy Map 2-2, indicating that the project site is not subject to safety hazards associated with the Ontario International Airport and also indicating that the project site is not subject to limitations on residential density or non- residential intensity.9 Additionally, according to ALUCP Policy Map 2-3, the project site is located well outside of the Noise Impact Zones, indicating the project site is not subject to excessive noise associated with this facility.10 According to ALUCP Policy Map 2-4, the project site is not subject to any height restrictions for the project site, but the project site is located within the FAA Height Notification Surface 7 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/ CorteseList/, accessed on September 12, 2022. 8 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-1: Airport Influence Area, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf, accessed on September 12, 2022. 9 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-2: Safety Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-2.pdf, accessed on September 12, 2022. 10 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-3: Noise Impact Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-3.pdf, accessed on September 12, 2022. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-61 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Zone which requires that the project Applicant submit notification of the proposed project to the FAA.11,12 The FAA will conduct an “aeronautical study” of the project and determine whether the proposed structures would be of a height that would constitute a hazard to air navigation. Pursuant to ALUCP Policy Map 2-5, the project site is located within the “Real Estate Transaction Disclose” notification zone, which requires an Avigation Easement Dedication and Recorded Overflight Notification for new developments.13 This disclosure informs future property owners and occupants that the property is in the vicinity of an airport but does not represent a safety hazard. The City would apply a Standard Condition of Approval on the project to require the dedication of an Avigation Easement and to require future notification of property owners of aircraft overflights. With compliance with the project’s conditions of approval, the proposed project would be consistent with the ALUCP. The project site is located approximately 6.25 miles east of the Cable Municipal Airport, which is well outside of the airport’s area of concern and thus would not be subject to regulations governing safety hazards or excessive noise. As such, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area as a result of operations at the Ontario International Airport, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would result in construction activities that could temporarily affect roadways as a result of lane closures or narrowing for roadway and/or utility improvements, and result in new roadways and roadway modifications, all of which could affect emergency response times or evacuation routes. However, the 2021 General Plan Update includes policies to minimize the potential for a roadway design that could hinder its use for emergency response or evacuation. Additionally, the City has adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which complies with all requirements under the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and received approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 2021. In addition to the LHMP, the City would implement an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), a Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), and an Evacuation Assessment to provide the framework for responding to major emergencies or disasters. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed project would result in construction activities that could temporarily affect roadways as a result of partial lane closures. This could affect emergency response times or evacuation routes. Additionally, the proposed project would increase the number of people who may need to evacuate the project area in the event of an emergency. However, all roadway improvements proposed by the project would be constructed based on industry and City design standards, rules, and regulations. The project would also comply with the Fire 11 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-4: Airspace Protection Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-4.pdf, accessed on September 12, 2022. 12 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 2: Procedural & Compatibility Policies, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/chapter-2.pdf, accessed on September 12, 2022. 13 Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-5: Overflight Notification Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-5.pdf, accessed on September 12, 2022. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-62 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Department requirements pertaining to access/egress to ensure adequate emergency access; refer to Exhibit 2-5. The project would also be subject to the policies of the 2021 General Plan Update that govern adequate emergency vehicle response and evacuations, as well as the City’s LHMP, EOP, CWPP, and Evacuation Assessment. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Previous Significance Determination: Potential risks associated with exposure to wildfire hazards was discussed in Section 5.20, Wildfire, of the GPU EIR, and was not further addressed in this section. Project‐Specific Analysis: According to the 2021 General Plan Update, the project site is not located within a portion of the City that recently has been subject to fire hazards, is not mapped within the City as having a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) designation, and is not located within or near any wildland/urban interface areas that could subject the project site to fire hazards. Accordingly, the project site is not subject to hazards associated with wildland fires, and the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. This topic is further discussed in Section 4.20, Wildfire. 4.9.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA 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. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-63 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?  b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?  c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious services, in a manner which would: 1) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?  2) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?  3) 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?  4) Impede or redirect flood flows?  d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?  e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?  The information presented in this analysis is based on and supplemented with the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan for Condominium Purposes Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 9612 (PWQMP), prepared by Madole And Associates, Inc., dated May 23, 2022; refer to Appendix G, PWQMP. a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that runoff from the construction and operational phases of development pursuant to the 2021 General Plan Update would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements if the future development associated with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update are in compliance with current water quality regulations associated with: Chapter 19.04, Grading Standards, of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code; Standard COA 5.10-1 related to the City’s Master Plan of Drainage-Westside Area and the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy, with its associated Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage; the Construction General Permit and associated local National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations for CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-64 Project Specific Environmental Assessment projects with one acre or more of soil disturbance; Chapter 19.20, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, including the use of Low Impact Development (LID) features; project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs); project-specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs); and the City’s total maximum daily load (TMDL) BMPs. The amended TMDL requirements include the installation and maintenance of trash screening devices at all public curb inlets, grate inlets, and catch basin inlets. The trash screening devices must be approved by the local agency and consistent with the minimum standards of the trash. Project-specific SWPPPs and WQMPs prepared for future development associated with buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would require implementation of construction and operational best management practices (BMPs), respectively, to reduce potential water quality impacts. Impacts related to the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality were concluded to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with buildout of the proposed project may impact water quality due to sheet erosion of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages. Grading activities lead to exposed areas of loose soil and sediment stockpiles that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow. Although erosion occurs naturally in the environment, primarily from weathering by water and wind action, improperly managed construction activities can lead to substantially accelerated rates of erosion that are considered detrimental to the environment. As noted by the GPU EIR, both State and local regulations would effectively mitigate construction stormwater runoff impacts from new development. Chapter 19.04 (Grading Standards) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code contains requirements for grading and site erosion control. The project would also be subject to GPU EIR Standard COA 5.10-1, which requires storm drainage system improvements in the City be constructed in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage-Westside Area and the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy, with its associated Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage. The project also would be subject to standard COA 5.10-2, which requires that, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, the project Applicant shall submit a final drainage study to and approved by the City Engineer and that all drainage facilities be installed as required by the City Engineer. In addition, pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 19.20, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), the project Applicant would be required to obtain a NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (“Basin Plan”). Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Basin Plan involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP with specific BMPs included but not limited to erosion controls, sediments controls, waste and materials management; non-storm water management; training and education; and inspections, maintenance, monitoring, and sampling. Implementation of the SWPPP would ensure that the proposed project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-65 Project Specific Environmental Assessment OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Water quality information for the Santa Ana River is contained in the Santa Ana RWQCB Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan). The City of Rancho Cucamonga is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the MS4 Permit for San Bernardino County. The County and Cities in the County are co-permittees under the MS4 permit and have legal authority to enforce the terms of the permit in their jurisdictions. Based on current receiving water impairments, the project’s primary pollutants of concern are pathogens, nutrients, sediment, oil and grease, trash/debris, pesticides/herbicides, organic compounds, and oxygen demanding compounds. The goal of the NPDES Permit and the related urban storm water management program is to protect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters identified in the Basin Plan. Pursuant to the NPDES and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 19.20.260, Water Quality Management Plan, a project-specific WQMP would be prepared prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The WQMP would specify LID practices and post-construction BMPs that would be incorporated into project design to capture and treat stormwater runoff to reduce pollutants of concern before conveying the stormwater to the City’s storm drain system, and ultimately to the Santa Ana River. Additionally, as detailed in Section 2.3-7, the project proposes catch basins through the site to direct stormwater and site runoff into an underground treatment and infiltration system. These features would be effective in reducing pollutants of concern in runoff leaving the project site. The project would also be subject to other applicable requirements of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 19.20, including regulations related to stormwater discharge, prohibited discharges, and requirements to implement and maintain BMPs. Adherence to these statutory requirements and long- term maintenance of BMPs would ensure that water quality and waste discharge requirements are not violated. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not result in substantial impacts to water quality, water quality standards, or waste discharge requirements associated with long-term operational activities, and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Previous Significance Determination: The Cucamonga Valley Water District’s (CVWD) main sources of water supply are from groundwater pumped from the Chino Basin and imported surface water. The GPU EIR concluded that, based on the CVWD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), water supply would exceed the water demand for normal, single dry, and multiple dry years from 2025 through 2045; consequently, the UWMP overestimates the demand that would be generated by buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. Additionally, the policies contained with the 2021 General Plan Update, such as Policies RC-2.1 and RC-2.2, 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 2021 General Plan Update, buildout would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The CVWD’s UWMP forecasts water demands and supplies under normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry year conditions; assesses supply reliability; and describes methods of CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-66 Project Specific Environmental Assessment reducing demands under potential water shortages. The CVWD’s UWMP is based, in part, on the land uses planned as part of the 2021 General Plan Update. As concluded in the GPU EIR, the 2020 UWMP overestimates the demand that would be generated by buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. Based on permissible density and intensity for the “City Center” land use designation, the GPU EIR projected that the 7.49 net-acre project site would be developed with up to 749 multi-family residential dwelling units and gross floor area of up to approximately 652,529 square feet, whereas the project proposes to develop the site with 311 multi-family dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of retail use for a total of approximately 387,118 square feet of gross floor area. Thus, due to the reduction in density and intensity on-site as compared to the site’s 2021 General Plan Update land use designation, the project would result in a decrease in the amount of water demand generated on-site as compared to what was assumed in the GPU EIR. As such, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed project is fully accounted for by the 2020 UWMP. Because the 2020 UWMP demonstrates that the CVWD would have sufficient water supplies, including groundwater, to meet water demands within its district through 2040, it can therefore be concluded that the project’s demand for potable water would not result in the depletion of groundwater supplies. As such, project impacts to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. According to GPU EIR Figure 5.10-1, Water Basin, the project site is not located within a recharge basin. Although implementation of the proposed project would reduce the pervious areas available for potential natural recharge, the area of the project site is relatively small (approximately 7.94 acres) in relation to the total size of the Chino Groundwater Basin. Further, the project site is surrounded by improved roadways to the north, east, and west, and a parking lot for a public use development to the south. As described above in Response 4.10(a), the project proposes catch basins throughout the site to direct stormwater and site runoff into an underground infiltration system, which would treat the stormwater and allow for a portion of the runoff to infiltrate into the groundwater table. The remaining portions of the project’s runoff would be conveyed through existing parkway drains. As such, the project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. Based on the foregoing analysis, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR stated that the continual subdivision and development of property in the City has placed a serious demand on existing facilities for the removal of surface water and stormwater, and that development within the 2021 General Plan Update area would CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-67 Project Specific Environmental Assessment result in an increase in impervious surfaces. This could result in an increase in stormwater runoff, higher peak discharges in channels, and the potential to cause erosion or sedimentation in drainage swales and streams. Increased runoff volumes and velocities could create nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities or increase the pollutant load to storm drain system. As a response, the City Council adopted Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 13.08, Storm Drainage Plan, to implement a drainage plan and a drainage fee established to provide funds for the construction of facilities described in the drainage plan. While implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update land use changes in undeveloped areas would likely result in increased runoff, discharges would be required to remain within the parameters defined by the most current Drainage Plan or site-specific watershed study. As further discussed in Section 5.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of the GPU EIR, the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District coordinate the preparation of regional drainage plans. Continued implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage-Westside Area and the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy, with its associated Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage, would fund the improvement of the storm drainage systems in these areas. The GPU EIR determined that existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the 2021 General Plan Update buildout. Additionally, for new development with one acre or more of soil disturbance, a NPDES permit would be required; all new development or significant redevelopment would be required to prepare a project-specific WQMP that would describe BMPs and site-design measures that would minimize stormwater runoff from the site. Future development in the General Plan area would involve construction activities that could increase the potential for erosion and/or siltation. Standard erosion control measures would be implemented as part of the SWPPP for any proposed project to minimize the risk of erosion or sedimentation during construction. Development within flood hazard areas would comply with policies contained within the 2021 General Plan Update that would reduce impacts to less than significant, such as Policy S-4.1, Policy S-4.2, Policy S-4.3, Policy S-4.4, and Policy S-4.5. With the implementation of applicable site design measures and BMPs included in the project-specific WQMP and SWPPP during the construction and operational phases of future development associated with the buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update, and the implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update policies, and federal, State, and local regulations, any erosion, siltation, polluted runoff, storm drain capacity, or flood hazard impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Erosion and Siltation Under existing conditions, the project site is generally developed with paved parking lots, and a vacant lot. During construction, proposed grading activities associated with the project would temporarily expose soils to water and air, which would increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Under post-development conditions, the impervious surface area would increase and, as a result, the amount of exposed soils on the project site would decrease. As discussed in Response 4.10(a), the project Applicant would be required to obtain a NPDES permit for construction activities. Additionally, and consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, implementation of erosion-control measures as required by Chapter 8.16, Section 15.12.140, and Chapter 19.04 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code would allow for the containment of soils on-site and would prevent impacts on adjacent properties. The project Applicant would be required to prepare and submit a project- specific SWPPP and WQMP to the City for approval. The SWPPP and WQMP must identify and implement CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-68 Project Specific Environmental Assessment an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from storm water and non-storm water discharges. Therefore, storm water runoff flows leaving the project site would not carry substantial amounts of sediment. Following construction, wind and water erosion on the project site would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces. Compliance with the project’s NPDES permit, WQMP, and SWPPP requirements would ensure that water and wind erosion impacts would be less than significant. Flood Flows, Flood Hazards, and Stormwater Drainage Capacity According to GPU EIR Figure 5.10-2, FEMA Flood Hazard Zones, the project site is not located within or adjacent any 100-year or 500-year floodplains, indicating that the project site is not subject to flood hazards under existing conditions. As such, the project has no potential to impede or redirect flood flows, and no impact would occur. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Department maintains the public storm drain system serving the project site. The existing storm drains within Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue, and Aspen Avenue have been designed to contain and convey flows that would be generated by buildout of this portion of the City. The on-site storm drain system for the proposed project has been designed to accommodate anticipated on-site water flows and would include structural and non-structural BMPs to reduce storm water pollution. In addition, proposed on-site drainage and storm drain facilities are adequately sized for the 100-year storm event. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site and would not contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system. With adherence to existing water quality regulations, including implementation of required BMPs, the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed project would not 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: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; 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; or impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that with implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update policies and compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, future development pursuant to the 2021 General Plan Update would not increase flood hazards associated with flood zones, seiche zones, or dam inundation, and impacts would be less than significant. The City is more than 30 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean and is well outside of the tsunami inundation zone. No impacts would arise from tsunamis. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-69 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Project‐Specific Analysis: According to GPU EIR Figure 5.10-2, FEMA Flood Hazard Zones, the project site is not located within or adjacent any 100-year or 500-year floodplains, indicating that the project site is not subject to flood hazards under existing conditions. According to GPU Figure 5.10-3, Dam Inundation Zones, the project site is not located in a portion of the City that is subject to dam inundation, and there are no large bodies of water within the project vicinity that are capable of producing a seiche; thus, the project is not subject to seiche hazards. The project site is located approximately 40 miles east of the Pacific Ocean, indicating that the project site is not subject to inundation associated with tsunamis. Accordingly, the project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation as a result of floods, tsunamis, or seiches, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Previous Significance Determination: Refer to Response 4.10(a), which describes the measures put in place to ensure future development has a less than significant impact on surface and groundwater quality. These measures would also ensure that future development does not obstruct or conflict with the implementation of the UWMP. As discussed in Response 4.10(b), the water supply would exceed the water demand, and buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Further, the GPU EIR concluded that because the City is within the Chino Basin, an adjucated 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. Project‐Specific Analysis: Similar to findings in the GPU EIR, the project site is within the Chino Basin, an adjucated basin, and is consistent with the Chino Basin Water Bank Strategic Plan, which manages the basin. As such, the project has no potential to conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan, and no impact would occur. The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB. Water quality information for the Santa Ana River watershed is contained in the Santa Ana Basin Plan. The Basin Plan describes actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region’s groundwater and surface water. Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. The RWQCB ensures compliance with the Santa Ana Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. As discussed under Response 4.10(a), with adherence to State and local water quality regulations, the potential for the proposed project to generate pollutants and impact water quality during construction and operation would be less than significant. The project would not degrade water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. Based on the foregoing analysis, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-70 Project Specific Environmental Assessment site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.10.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Hydrology and Water Quality. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Hydrology and Water Quality. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA 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. COA 5.10-2 Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-71 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Physically divide an established community?  b. 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?  a) Would the project physically divide an established community? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that no physical division of an established community would result from implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update, as the document includes provisions that directly address land use connectivity, compatibility, and encroachment of new development on existing neighborhoods and land uses and no mitigation was required. Project‐Specific Analysis: Under existing conditions, the project site is developed with a paved parking lot and vacant land. Surrounding the project site, commercial/retail and office uses are located to the north, commercial/retail and office uses are located to the east, the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall and San Bernardino Superior Courthouse are located to the south, and commercial/retail uses are located to the west of the project site, which contribute to the urban character of the community. Vehicular access to the project site is provided by an existing right-in/right-out driveways along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, and an existing full access driveway along Aspen Avenue. The project site shares access with the existing office buildings to the east and west. Sidewalks are provided along both sides of Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue, and Aspen Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is designated (C) “City Center” under the 2021 General Plan Update. The intent of this land use designation is to provide for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready environment. The project proposes a mixed-use development that would include multifamily residential and ground-floor retail uses, which would be consistent with the urban character of the community and consistent with the project site’s land use designation. The project also proposes site access improvements to the existing Foothill Boulevard driveway in order to improve mobility along Foothill Boulevard while maintaining other existing access points on Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue. Partial roadway closures during construction of proposed off-site roadway right-of-way improvements would be temporary, and the roadway would be restored at project completion; as such, construction would not result in any physical division of the existing neighborhood. Existing sidewalks along Foothill Boulevard would connect to proposed sidewalks fronting the project site; additionally, as part of the project, sidewalks would be constructed along all abutting roadways, which would facilitate access through the project area, including internal sidewalks. Partial sidewalk realignment along Foothill Boulevard is proposed to accommodate parking and site access improvements; however, following construction, access to these sidewalks would be restored; sidewalk access in the public right-of-way along Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue would be maintained throughout project construction. As such, the project would not physically divide an established CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-72 Project Specific Environmental Assessment community, but would instead benefit the community by connecting the existing surrounding uses with implementation of the proposed mixed-use (residential and retail) development and mobility improvements; no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that growth in population projected for the 2021 General Plan Update is not fully accounted for in the 2016-2040 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts because those forecasts were made before the sixth cycle regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) estimates, which resulted from a statewide housing crisis. The City’s RHNA requires accommodation of over 10,000 housing units that could add over 30,000 new residents over an eight-year period. While this is unlikely given the historical growth pattern for the City, the potential remains, and that growth potential is considered inconsistent with the RTP/SCS forecast. However, the 2021 General Plan Update is both consistent with the goals of SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and would further State goals through emphasis on design and reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Further, the 2021 General Plan Update would require an update the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and Zoning Map and would replace or amend specific plans and master plans previously adopted to establish the 2021 General Plan Update and the zoning code as the source for development standards. None of the changes in the 2021 General Plan Update would affect plans, policies, or regulations of other agencies that have jurisdiction within the planning area. Most of the design of the 2021 General Plan Update is intended to address State and global issues related to climate change and reduce VMT. As individual projects are considered by the City, those proposed projects would be subject to a variety of federal, State, and locally adopted plans designed to mitigate environmental impacts or to preserve important resources. Plans and policies related to specific resource issues are addressed in those specific sections of the GPU EIR. No conflicts between the specific resources and a policy or regulation of another agency would occur because of the adoption of the 2021 General Plan Update. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The proposed project is fully consistent with the site’s existing 2021 General Plan Update land use designation of “City Center” and thus the project would not conflict with any land use plans. Based on a review of the project’s application materials by City staff, and as otherwise demonstrated throughout the analysis provided herein, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable goals, objectives, or policies of the 2021 General Plan Update, zoning requirements, Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code requirements, and other applicable regulations (e.g., regulations promulgated by the SCAQMD) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As such, the proposed project would not 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, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-73 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.11.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Land Use and Planning. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Land Use and Planning. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Land Use and Planning. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-74 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-75 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.12 MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. 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?  b. 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?  a) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR acknowledged that sand and gravel are necessary for urban construction, and builders often rely on local sources for these materials to control construction costs. The designated aggregate resource sectors are near the northern boundary of the City, where limited urban development is present. The majority of these areas are planned for Open Space, Conservation, Flood Control/Utility Corridor, or Hillside Residential that allows low density development. The GPU EIR concluded that, although there are aggregate mineral resources in the City, no mine is currently operating within the City, and the existing resources would not be considered regionally significant. In 2017, the State Geologist released an updated designation report for the termination of mineral resource designation for 18 areas in 11 sectors due to the presence of adjacent incompatible land use developments, such as housing, a new freeway, and a flood-control channel; therefore, these areas are no longer considered mineral resource areas. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation is required. Project‐Specific Analysis: As shown on GPU EIR Figure 5.12-2, Mineral Land Classification, the project site is classified as Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 2, which indicates “areas where geologic data indicate that significant Plain Cement Concrete (PCC)- grade aggregate resources are present.” However, as noted by the GPU EIR, in 2017 the State Geologist released an updated designation report for the termination of mineral resource designation for 18 areas in 11 sectors; therefore, these areas are no longer considered mineral resource areas. The project site is surrounded by urban land uses, and these existing land uses generally are incompatible with mining operations. Thus, mining on-site for mineral resources would not be feasible as mining operations would represent a conflict with existing and planned land uses on-site and the surrounding area. As noted by the GPU EIR, although there are aggregate mineral resources in the City, no mine is currently operating within the City or on-site, and the existing resources would not be considered regionally significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-76 Project Specific Environmental Assessment b) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that construction of future development and redevelopment in the City would require sand and gravel resources for roadways, infrastructure, and building construction. These resources would be derived from local sources in the City or other nearby areas. Since the City does not have any active mining operations, resource demand would have to be met from other available resources in the region. The GPU EIR concluded that these outsourced mining operations would not be impacted by buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. Thus, there would be no impact due to the potential loss of availability of these local resources due to future development; no mitigation is required. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project site is designated “City Center” by the 2021 General Plan Update, which does not allow for mining activities. The project site is not located within a specific plan, nor is the project site identified as a locally-important mineral resource recovery site by any other land use plan. Accordingly, the project would not 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, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.12.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Minerals. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Minerals. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Minerals. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-77 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.13 NOISE Would the project result in: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?  b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?  c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?  In accordance with GPU EIR Standard COA 5.13-1 through 5.13-5a, the Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis, City of Rancho Cucamonga (Noise Impact Analysis), was prepared for the project by Urban Crossroads, dated June 29, 2022; refer to Appendix H, Noise Impact Analysis. This section summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Noise Impact Analysis. NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately 3 dBA to around 140 dBA. Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between 3 dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between 6 dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. There are a number of metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. Noise exposure over a CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-78 Project Specific Environmental Assessment longer period of time is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light and medium density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA. Two of the primary factors that reduce levels of environmental sounds are increasing the distance between the sound source to the receiver and having intervening obstacles such as walls, buildings, or terrain features between the sound source and the receiver. Factors that act to increase the loudness of environmental sounds include moving the sound source closer to the receiver, sound enhancements caused by reflections, and focusing caused by various meteorological conditions. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are office uses located approximately 23 feet north of the project site, and the nearby apartment community located approximately 468 west of the project site. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development: Off-Site Traffic Noise When the noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, etc.): • are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater project-related noise level increase; or • range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater project-related noise level increase; or • already exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and the project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL. When the noise levels at existing and future non-noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., office, commercial, industrial): • are less than the City’s normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater project related noise level increase; or • are greater than the City’s normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater project noise level increase. On-Site Traffic Nose If the on-site noise levels: • exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL for multiple unit residential mixed use at the outdoor living areas (patios and common areas); or CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-79 Project Specific Environmental Assessment • exceed an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL for residential land uses; or • exceed an interior noise level of 50 dBA Leq for non-residential buildings (CALGreen Section 5.507 Environmental Comfort). Operational Noise • If project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the exterior 65 dBA Leq daytime or 60 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards at nearby noise sensitive residential receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050). • If project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the exterior 70 dBA Leq daytime or 65 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards at nearby commercial and office receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050). • If the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby noise-sensitive receivers near the project site: o are less than 60 dBA Leq and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA Leq or greater Project-related noise level increase; or o range from 60 to 65 dBA Leq and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA Leq or greater Project-related noise level increase; or o already exceed 65 dBA Leq, and the project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA Leq. • If the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby non noise-sensitive receivers near the project site (e.g., office, commercial, industrial): o are less than the City’s normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater project related noise level increase; or o are greater than the City’s normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater project noise level increase. Construction Noise • If project-related construction activities occur at any time other than the permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays and holidays and generate noise levels which exceed the 65 dBA Leq noise level limit at nearby sensitive receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050[D][4][a]); or • If project-related construction activities occur at any time other than the permitted hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays and holidays and generate noise levels which exceed the 70 dBA Leq noise level limit at nearby sensitive receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050[D][4][b]). Construction Vibration If short-term project construction vibration levels exceed the Caltrans distinctly perceptible maximum continuous vibration human annoyance threshold of 0.04 peak particle velocity (PPV) (in/sec) at sensitive receiver locations (Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual). CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-80 Project Specific Environmental Assessment a) Would the project result in generation of substantial temporary or permanent increases in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that construction activities would result in temporary noise increases in the vicinity of the future development under the 2021 General Plan Update, even with compliance with Standard COA 5.13-1 and Development Code Section 17.66.050. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update could generate a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels at noise-sensitive land uses in excess of local standards. Although future development associated with the buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update within the City would be subject to standard COA 5.13-2, impacts would nonetheless be significant and unavoidable. The 2021 General Plan update could generate a substantial permanent increase in stationary noise at noise-sensitive uses that exceeds City standards; however, compliance with Standard COA 5.13-3 and Development Code Section 17.66.050(F) would ensure impacts remain below a level of significance. Even with compliance with Standard COA 5.13-4a through 5.13-4e, buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would 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; thus, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Project‐Specific Analysis: The Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the project concluded that, based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated project-related traffic noise levels during both opening year (2022) and horizon year (2040). No mitigation would be required. The Noise Impact Analysis concluded that, based on the significance criteria for on-site traffic noise, unmitigated exterior noise levels at the first-floor patio and upper balconies for units in Buildings A and B fronting Foothill Boulevard would experience potentially significant exterior noise levels exceeding the City of Rancho Cucamonga 65 dBA CNEL criteria for residential land use. To satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga exterior noise criteria for the planned residential use, Standard COA NSE-1, the construction of a minimum six-foot-high noise barrier for residential uses fronting Foothill Boulevard would be required for all outdoor living areas (first floor patios and upper floor balconies) in Buildings A and B. Incorporation of the six-foot-high noise barrier would reduce impacts to less than significant. Additionally, the interior noise levels for the residential building facades fronting Foothill Boulevard in Buildings A and B would exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard and represents a potentially significant impact requiring interior noise mitigation. As such the proposed project would incorporate GPU EIR Standard COA 5.13-4c, noise attenuation measures, such as dual glazed windows and well-sealed doors. Incorporation of such features would reduce impacts to interior noise levels to less than significant. The Noise Impact Analysis concluded that, based on the significance criteria for construction noise levels, the highest construction noise levels associated with implementation of the proposed project would satisfy City of Rancho Cucamonga construction-related noise level significance thresholds during project construction activities. Therefore, project construction noise impacts would be considered less than significant at all noise-sensitive receiver locations. No mitigation would be required. The Noise Impact Analysis concluded that, based on the significance criteria for operational noise, including incremental operational noise levels, project operational noise would be less than significant at all receiver locations. No mitigation would be required. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-81 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Based on the preceding analysis, although the project would cumulatively contribute to the significant and unavoidable noise impacts identified by the GPU EIR as Impact Sections 5.13-1 and 5.13-2 related to construction and transportation-related noise, the project would not result in a substantial increase in these previously identified impacts. The project’s proposed land uses would be less intense than the land uses assumed for the project site by the GPU EIR, indicating that the project’s construction and transportation-related noise impacts would be less than assumed by the GPU EIR. The GPU EIR assumed that the project site would be developed with up to 749 dwelling units and a total of 652,529 square feet of gross floor area for mixed-use, resulting in 2,255 residents; however, the project proposes 311 dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of retail use for a total of 387,118 square feet of gross floor area, resulting in approximately 654 residents and 40 retail employees. Furthermore, the project would be subject to the GPU EIR Standard COA 5.13-4c and the City’s Standard COA NSE-1, which would reduce project- related exterior and interior on-site traffic levels to less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR conclude that future development under the 2021 General Plan Update could generate short-term construction vibration or exposure to new sensitive land uses to long-term operational vibration sources that would exceed City thresholds. Even with compliance with Standard COAs 5.13-5a through 5.13-5c, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Project‐Specific Analysis: The Noise Impact Analysis concluded that, based on the significance criteria for construction vibration levels, construction vibration levels would remain below the Caltrans 0.04 PPV inches per second human annoyance threshold at all receiver locations. Therefore, the project-related construction vibration impacts are considered less than significant. Further, vibration levels at near the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period, but would occur intermittently when heavy construction equipment is operating closest to the sensitive receiver. Based on the foregoing analysis, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that the closest airport to the City is the Ontario International Airport, approximately one mile south of the City’s southern border. According to the GPU EIR, Rancho Cucamonga’s southern border is approximately one mile north of the Ontario International Airport’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Therefore, aircraft noise does not significantly impact the City; this threshold was not discussed further in in the GPU EIR. Project‐Specific Analysis: The Noise Impact Analysis concluded that, as the project site is located approximately three miles north of Ontario International Airport and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-82 Project Specific Environmental Assessment and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant. No further noise analysis was conducted in this regard. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.13.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Noise. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Noise. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA 5.13-1 For construction activities that do not involve pile driving occurring within 580 feet of residential, schools, churches, or similar uses or within 330 feet of commercial/industrial uses or for construction activities involving pile driving occurring within 1,000 feet of residential, schools, churches, or similar uses, or within 330 feet of commercial/industrial uses, or nighttime construction activities, as defined in Development Code Section 17.66.050, the City shall require that project applicants prepare a site-specific construction noise analysis demonstrating compliance with the noise standards of Development Code Section 17.66.050, as determined by the City. The analysis shall be 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, restrictions on construction timing to avoid nighttime hours, restrictions on the location of equipment and vehicle use within the construction site, installing noise mufflers on construction equipment, use of electric- powered vehicles and equipment, use of sound blankets on construction equipment, and the use of temporary walls or noise barriers to block and deflect noise. COA 5.13-2 To avoid or substantially lessen exposure to substantial permanent increases in traffic noise, the City shall, at the time of development application submittal, require the preparation of a traffic noise study that includes (1) the evaluation of potential traffic noise impacts of new noise sources (e.g., project-generated traffic noise increases) on nearby existing noise sensitive receptors (such as residential neighborhoods) and (2) require noise reduction measures (e.g., sound walls, rubberized asphalt) to prevent exposure of noise sensitive receptors to substantial noise increases, consistent with 2040 General Plan Noise Element Table N-1 (Table N-1) and incremental increase standards of no greater than 3 dB where existing levels are below 65 dBA CNEL, 1 dB where existing levels are between 70 dBA CNEL and 75 dBA and any increase where existing levels are above 75 dBA CNEL, as determined by the City. COA 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, CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-83 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 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). COA 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 (Table N-1) are met. COA 5.13-4b Applicants for development projects shall, at the time of application submittal, evaluate noise impacts for compliance with noise compatibility standards (Table N-1), and when noise attenuation measures are required, prioritize site planning that reduces noise exposure over other attenuation measures, particularly the location of parking, ingress/egress/loading, and refuse collection areas relative to surrounding residential development and other noise-sensitive land uses. COA 5.13-4c Applicants for development projects shall, at the time of application submittal, evaluate noise impacts for compliance with noise compatibility standards (Table N-1), and when noise attenuation measures are required, incorporate building orientation, design, and interior layout into the project to achieve compatible noise levels. For example, noise insulation materials (e.g., double-glazed windows and well-sealed doors) substantially lessen interior noise levels. In addition, interior building layouts that place active rooms, such as kitchens, between noise-sensitive rooms, such as bedrooms, and exterior noise sources, such as roadways, substantially lessen interior noise levels within the noise- sensitive rooms. COA 5.13-4d The City shall require that mixed-use development be designed to minimize exposure of noise-sensitive uses from adjacent noise sources and require full disclosure of the potential noise impacts of living in a mixed-use development by requiring residential disclosure notices within deeds and lease agreements as a condition of project approval. COA 5.13-4e The City shall review and comment on transportation capital projects and operations sponsored by Caltrans and other agencies to minimize exposure of noise sensitive uses within the city to adverse levels of transportation-related noise, including noise associated with freeways, major arterials, bus transit, and rail lines. COA 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: CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-84 Project Specific Environmental Assessment • 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, non-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 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. In accordance with GPU EIR standard COA 5.13-4c, the following standard COA was recommended by Urban Crossroads and comprises uniformly applied development policies or standards that are routinely applied to new development projects by the City. COA NSE 1 The project shall incorporate the following noise attenuation measures into the final project design: • Outdoor living areas facing Foothill Boulevard: First floor patios and second, third, fourth, and fifth floor balconies in Buildings A and B facing Foothill Boulevard shall CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-85 Project Specific Environmental Assessment incorporate a solid, six-foot-tall perimeter wall. The wall material shall have a minimum density of two pounds per square foot or otherwise documented to have a minimum transmission loss (TL) value of 15. Materials that satisfy this requirement include, but are not limited to, standard one-inch fir fence boards (overlapped to prevent openings), plexiglass panels (sealed to prevent openings), or any other combination of solid materials with a TL of 15 or more. All barrier gaps except drainage holes shall be filled with grout, caulking, or otherwise sealed • Residential Buildings/Dwelling Units: o The project will require forced air mechanical ventilation to permit occupancy of units with windows closed. o All window and glass door assemblies shall be well fitted, sealed, and weather- stripped. Window and door assemblies (perimeter of assembly, any gaps during assembly installation) shall be sealed with an acoustical caulk/sealant to reduce noise transmission with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 30. o All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. All units require exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 27. o At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. o Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or well-sealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least an R-value rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-86 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-87 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. 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)?  b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?  a) Would the project 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)? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would result in a greater projected population increase than that projected by SCAG in 2016; however, given the change in market since the publishing of the RTP/SCS, as well as other factors such as the COVID pandemic and RHNA assignments, the GPU EIR concluded that the 2021 General Plan Update would accommodate future growth in the City by providing for infrastructure and public services to accommodate the projected growth. The 2021 General Plan Update includes policies that promotes land uses designed to reduce VMT, and several land use designations specifically intended to create jobs. By increasing the number of jobs within the City, and providing development that includes both housing and employment, the City would maintain a healthy jobs-housing balance and provide opportunities for residents to live and work within the City. Proposed policies under the 2021 General Plan Update’s Community Development Element would also ensure that the City provides adequate housing choices for various income levels. By focusing development in areas that are designated for intense growth, the 2021 General Plan Update would not directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth in the area. Implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact relating to population growth. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project would entail development of 311 dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of retail uses for a total of 387,118 square feet of new development. The project’s proposed mixed-use land use is consistent with the site’s 2021 General Plan Update land use designation of “City Center.” Furthermore, the GPU EIR anticipated that the project site would be developed with up to 749 multi-family residential dwelling units and gross floor area of up to approximately 652,529 square feet. As identified in Section 2.0, the project is estimated to generate 654 residents and 40 jobs, which is anticipated to be filled by the local labor force. Based on population and employment generation factors in the GPU EIR, the GPU EIR anticipated the generation of 2,255 residents (794 households x 3.01 people per household = 2,255 residents) and 40 jobs (16,000 retail square feet ÷ 400 retail square feet per employee = 40 employees). As such, the project’s future residential population and employment generation would not exceed that assumed for the project site by the GPU EIR. The project would provide both housing and employment, which would contribute to maintaining a jobs-housing balance, which would be an improvement from current conditions. Additionally, the project would not extend any roadways or utilities in a manner that would indirectly induce substantial unplanned growth in the CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-88 Project Specific Environmental Assessment immediate vicinity of the project site or elsewhere. The project would introduce development in an area that is surrounded by urban development; the existing infrastructure systems are designed/sized assuming development of the site. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update would add residential uses to existing non-residential land use designations and focus growth in areas of the City that do not have high concentrations of housing; avoiding existing, established neighborhoods, would reduce the potential to displace substantial numbers of people or housing. As a result, new development in the City would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and the impact would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: No people or housing would be displaced as a result of project implementation. Under existing conditions, the project site generally consists of a paved parking lot and a vacant lot; no housing is developed on the project site. As such, the project has no potential to displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.14.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Population and Housing. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Population and Housing. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Population and Housing. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-89 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:  1) Fire protection?  2) Police protection?  3) Schools?  4) Parks?  5) Other public facilities?  a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1) Fire Protection? 2) Police Protection? 3) Schools? 4) Parks? 5) Other public facilities? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that increase in population and housing as a result of buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts related to public services including fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries with the implementation of relevant goals and policies in the proposed General Plan Update and with compliance with existing regulations; no mitigation is required. Impacts related to parks was discussed in Section 5.16, Recreation, of the GPU EIR. Project‐Specific Analysis: As discussed in Section 4.14(a), the project would entail development of the project site with 311 dwelling units, and 16,000 square feet of retail space, for a total of 387,118 gross square feet of building area, whereas the GPU EIR anticipated that the project site would be developed with up to 749 multi-family residential dwelling units and 652,529 gross square feet of building area. Based on these assumptions, the GPU EIR projected a net population of 2,255 residents and 40 employees, whereas the project would result in approximately 654 residents and 40 employees. As such, the project’s future residential population and employment generation would not exceed what was assumed for the project site by the GPU EIR, thereby indicating that the project’s demand for fire protection, police protection, schools, and libraries would be less than what was assumed in the analysis CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-90 Project Specific Environmental Assessment of impacts to public services presented in the GPU EIR. Recreational impacts including impacts related to public parks is analyzed in Section 4.16, Recreation. With the payment of mandatory property taxes and special taxes pursuant to CFD 85-1, which was established to provide funding for fire suppression services and facilities, school impact fees, and other development impact fees as required by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (Chapter 3.64 requires new residential and business development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of police assets in the City; and Chapter 3.56 requires new residential development to contribute to the cost of expanding the availability of library and cultural center assets in the City), the project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.15.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Public Services. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Public Services. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Public Services. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-91 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.16 RECREATION Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?  b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?  a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that the 2021 General Plan Update would generate additional residents that would increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities. However, with 644 acres of existing parks and recreational facilities (including approximately 295 acres of land for recreational use within its Multi-Use Regional and Community Trails), the City currently provides approximately 3.64 acres per 1,000 residents. Using the City’s established park standard of three to five acres for every 1,000 residents, between 532.9 and 888.01 acres of parkland would be required to meet this standard to serve the project population of the 2021 General Plan Update buildout. With the existing total area of 644 acres of parkland, trails and special use facilities, existing facilities would exceed the minimum City standard. As such, the majority of the park needs would be accommodated by the existing parkland in the City. Furthermore, new development under the 2021 General Plan Update would be required to pay in-lieu fees and/or dedicate parkland to contribute to enhancing recreational opportunities in the City. The development of new facilities as part of the “pay in- lieu fee”/parkland dedication program would prevent the accelerated physical deterioration of existing facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Future residents of the project are likely to increase demands on public parks, recreational facilities, and recreational programs at nearby parks. However, the project proposes private on-site recreational amenities including a residential pool deck lounge/spa, children’s play elements, family barbeque and picnic tables, rooftop patios, a synthetic open space lawn area, fire pits and seating, fitness room, and yoga studio. Additionally, the project would result in approximately 654 new residents, compared to the 2,255 residents analyzed by the GPU EIR. Considering the proposed on- site open space and recreational amenities, the increased use of existing local and regional public park facilities and potential increased participation in recreational programs would not be at a level that would result in a substantial deterioration of existing facilities. Additionally, the project Applicant would pay required fees in compliance with the City’s Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fee program (Chapter 3.68 of the City’s Municipal Code), which provides funding for the expansion of park and recreation center assets and community and recreation center assets in the City to serve new residential development. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-92 Project Specific Environmental Assessment project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update and the construction of new and/or expanded recreational facilities would result in less than significant impacts. Project‐Specific Analysis: The project would provide private on-site open space and public recreational facilities including but not limited to: children’s play elements, picnic and barbeque with family tables, pool lounge (patio, spa), retail plaza, rooftop patio, art sculptures, and other proposed community amenities. The physical impacts resulting from the construction of these facilities have been addressed through the analyses presented throughout this document. No additional impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Significance Determination: No substantial increase in the level of impact from previous analysis. 4.16.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Recreation. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Recreation. Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include COAs for Recreation. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-93 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.17 TRANSPORTATION Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?  b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?  c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?  d. Result in inadequate emergency access?  The information presented in this analysis is based on and supplemented with the Foothill Center Focused Traffic Assessment (Traffic Assessment) prepared by the Urban Crossroads, dated June 13, 2022. Refer to Appendix I, Traffic Assessment. a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR analyzed roadway improvements proposed under the 2021 General Plan, which was found to reduce overall VMT, but would not be consistent with the RTP/SCS. However, the GPU EIR concluded that the reduction in VMT would be a City-wide benefit. The 2021 General Plan Update was found to otherwise provide extensive consistency related to regional active transportation plans, transit plans, and other mobility infrastructure, and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Volume 2: Built Environment of the 2021 General Plan Update includes the Mobility and Access chapter, in compliance with the State’s General Plan requirements. The Mobility and Access chapter of the 2021 General Plan Update indicates that the mobility system needs to provide for safe, enjoyable, and healthy accessibility within the City. The following goals guide and direct long-term planning in the City: • Goal MA-1 – Regional Mobility Hub: A multimodal transportation hub that connects regional and local destinations. • Goal MA-2 – Access for All: A safe, efficient, accessible, and equitable transportation system that serves the mobility needs of all users. • Goal MA-3 – Safety: A transportation network that adapts to change mobility needs while preserving community values. • 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. • Goal MA-5 – Sustainable Transportation: A transportation network that adapts to changing mobility needs. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-94 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 2021 General Plan Update Figure M-1, Transit Plan, identifies planned Bus Rapid Transit along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, and a proposed Local Circulator along Aspen Avenue adjacent to the project site. GPU Figure M-3 depicts the City’s layered network complete street system and identifies the City’s complete streets strategy for prioritizing modes based on street typology. A street network that prioritizes pedestrians and bicycles is shown on GPU Figure M-4, and GPU Figure M-5 shows the network of streets where automotive travel is prioritized. As shown on the maps, it is this network of priority modes that provides a comprehensive mobility system within the City. Following is information pertinent to the roadways that border the project site: • Foothill Boulevard is a “Boulevard” with bike, pedestrian and transit modes of travel prioritized and the automobile mode of travel allowable. • Haven Avenue is a “Boulevard” with bike, pedestrian and transit modes of travel prioritized and the automobile mode of travel allowable. • Aspen Avenue is an “Arterial Roadway” with automobile and transit modes of travel prioritized and bike and pedestrian modes of travel allowable. The project would not conflict with these roadway classifications and would implement accessible improvements consistent with the roadway prioritizations. Currently, there are bike routes implemented on Foothill Boulevard west of Haven Avenue and on Haven Avenue south of the project site. The project would not conflict with existing or planned bikeways and would encourage the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. Bicycle parking would be provided in accordance with Section 17.64.100, Bicycle Parking Requirements, of the City’s Development Code. Additionally, there are existing sidewalks along the roadways surrounding the project site. Pedestrian pathways would be provided on-site to provide efficient access to the existing sidewalks and transit facilities along Foothill Boulevard, Haven Street, and Aspen Avenue. There is an existing bus stop on Foothill Boulevard, between Haven Avenue and main entrance of the project site, directly adjacent to the project site. To accommodate the proposed angled parking that would front Foothill Boulevard north of Buildings A and B, this bus stop would be relocated eastward, between the main entrance to the project site on Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue. The proposed project would also include the development of a bus shelter at the new bus stop location in order to improve safety and aesthetics. The project is consistent with the 2021 General Plan Update and specifically the anticipated complete street system identified in the 2021 General Plan Update Mobility and Access chapter. The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy related to transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. No impact would occur. Based on the preceding analysis, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Previous Significance Determination: A Full Accounting Method VMT assessment with the 2021 General Plan Update under a variety of scenarios was prepared for GPU EIR. The results of the VMT assessment indicates that, with implementation of the land use and circulation element in the 2021 General Plan Update, VMT/Service Population (SP) would be reduced by approximately 16 percent (i.e., improves) compared to the existing condition. Furthermore, the proposed General Plan provides benefits to the region by also reducing Countywide and Region Wide VMT accordingly. However, given the uncertainty of the effectiveness of implementing the GPU EIR policies, mitigation measures, and Standard COA at a citywide level in the short term, the impact would be significant and unavoidable in the short- CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-95 Project Specific Environmental Assessment term, and less than significant at buildout. Given this information, the VMT impact is considered significant. As a programmatic project for a future scenario that encompasses many different individual projects, potential mitigation to address this significant VMT impact would need to be applied at the Citywide level. While these policies and Standard COAs 5.17-1 through 5.17-3 could help reduce VMT in the City, the applicability of them as project-level mitigation would be dependent on the significance and context of the project and the size of the impact. As such, the GPU EIR concluded that this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Project‐Specific Analysis: According to the City Guidelines, projects can be presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT if the project is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA). The project site is located within 0.5 miles of a stop on the OmniTrans Route 66 alignment which provides 15-minute headways along Foothill Boulevard during commute periods. Due to the 15-minute headways, Foothill Boulevard is classified as a high-quality transit corridor, and the project is located within a TPA. A project can be presumed less than significant and screened from further VMT analysis when it meets the requirements outlined in the City Guidelines for TPA screening. The project’s ability to be screened from VMT assessment is summarized in Table 4.17-1, VMT Transit Priority Area Screening Criteria. Based on the project’s location within a TPA and the analysis presented in Table 4.17-1, the project meets the requirements of screening under a TPA. Table 4.17-1 VMT Transit Priority Area Screening Criteria Criteria Project Eligibility Project is located within a half mile of high-quality transit. Consistent. The proposed project is within a half mile of OmniTrans Route 66 alignment which provides 15-minute headways along Foothill Boulevard during commute periods. Project has a minimum FAR of 0.75. Consistent. The proposed project includes 387,118 square feet of gross floor area on 7.94 net-acres. This results in a FAR of 1.19, which exceeds the minimum FAR requirement for screening eligibility. Project shall not supply more parking than is required by the City code. Consistent. Based on the City parking requirements for residential units (one space for a 1-bedroom units, and 1.5 spaces for 2- and 3-bedroom units) and retail use (4 spaces per 1,000 square feet), the project is required to provide 798 parking spaces. The project would provide 718 parking spaces, which is below the parking requirement for the site. Project is consistent with the RTP/SCS land use assumptions which should be consistent with the General Plan land use assumptions. Consistent. The project site is designated for “City Center” land uses, and the 2021 General Plan Update and GPU EIR assumed the project site would be developed with up to 749 multi-family residential dwelling units and up to 652,529 square feet of gross floor area. The project Applicant is proposing to develop the site with 311 multi-family dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of retail use, for a total of approximately 387,118 square feet of gross floor area. As such, the project is considered consistent with the 2021 General Plan Update assumptions and would be consistent with the goals/policies of RTP/SCS. Project does not replace affordable housing with market- rate housing units. Consistent. There are no existing affordable housing units on the project site under existing conditions; thus, the project would not replace affordable housing with market-rate housing units. Based on the preceding analysis, the project would meet the requirements outlined in the City Guidelines for TPA screening. Accordingly, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-96 Project Specific Environmental Assessment impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Previous Significance Determination: Based on the GPU EIR, the City has adopted engineering standards to ensure consistency in the geometric design of their mobility facilities. Additionally, all future development plans associated with buildout of the GPU EIR would undergo an extensive review process at the City to ensure consistency with these adopted standards. Given that all future projects would be subject to these City review procedures, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Project‐Specific Analysis: Project-related construction or operation would not require the construction of new roadways. To accommodate the proposed angled parking and the proposed new right-out only access point that would be constructed along Foothill Boulevard approximately 200 feet west of the Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue intersection, the existing right-turn lane onto Aspen Avenue would be shortened. However, this improvement would not increase hazards as the proposed roadway right-of-way improvements would conform to the street design standards pursuant to the City’s Engineering Department. Therefore, impacts related to sharp curves or dangerous intersections would not occur. Further, internal roadway and driveway improvements planned as part of the project would be in conformance with applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga standards and would not result in any hazards due to a design feature. The project would be compatible with existing and planned land uses in the surrounding area and would not substantially increase safety hazards due to incompatible uses. Construction-related traffic would primarily be associated with delivery of building materials and construction equipment, removal of construction debris, and construction workers commuting to/from the project site; construction staging and worker parking would occur onsite. Trucks would be used to haul soil, equipment and building materials to and from the project site. Trucks would use designated truck routes including Foothill Boulevard, which is an unrestricted truck route (refer to Chapter 10.56.010 of the City’s Municipal Code). Construction work in the public right-of-way would be conducted in compliance with Title 12 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga also requires compliance with applicable standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD would be used to determine the necessary temporary traffic-control devices in and near construction work areas. Compliance with these City requirements would ensure that obstruction of City streets during construction activities is minimized and that public facilities are returned to their original conditions unless otherwise improved. Therefore, construction activities would not substantially increase hazards resulting in a less than significant impact. As such, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-97 Project Specific Environmental Assessment d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Previous Significance Determination: Based on the GPU EIR, the City has adopted standards related to emergency accessibility. Additionally, all development applications are reviewed by the fire department to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and state guidance. Since all future projects will undergo such reviews and requirements, the GPU EIR concluded that impacts are considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Project‐Specific Analysis: The City has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes. I-210 runs east-west through the City and I-15 (located approximately 1.75 miles east of the project site) runs along its eastern edge. I-10 is located approximately 2.4 miles south of the project site and runs in an east-west direction through the region. These freeways provide areawide evacuation routes, with major north-south and east-west roadways in the City connecting to the freeways and adjacent cities. Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard provide direct access to both the I-10 and I-15. On-site fire access would be required to comply with applicable codes, ordinances, and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code, and would meet the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s width and turnaround requirements to provide adequate emergency access; refer to Exhibit 2-5. The City’s Fire Department reviews project plans to confirm that adequate internal street widths and turning radii are provided. During the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s review of the proposed project, the City confirmed that the project would provide adequate access to-and-from the project site for emergency vehicles. The City also confirmed the layout of the project’s proposed structures, drive aisles, and parking lots are sufficient to provide adequate on-site circulation for emergency vehicles. Construction activity would occur on the project site and within roadway right-of-way (e.g., for driveway improvements including new ingress/egress access points, utility connections, sidewalk realignment, bus stop relocation and shelter development, angled parking, and landscaped improvements). Therefore, the project may result in temporary obstructions to adjacent sidewalks and travel lanes, which could impact vehicle movement or emergency access. Construction activities would be conducted in compliance with applicable city requirements, and temporary traffic control measures would be implemented in accordance with the MUTCD. This includes coordination and accommodation of the needs of emergency service providers. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. As such, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.17.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Transportation. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Transportation. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-98 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include COAs for Transportation. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-99 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:  1) 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), or  2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.  In order to assess the project’s potential to result in impacts to cultural resources, and consistent with the requirements of Standard COA 5.5-8, a site-specific Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project (Cultural Assessment) was prepared for the project by Brian F. Smith & Associates, Inc. (BFSA), dated June 30, 2022. Refer to Appendix D, Cultural Resources Assessment. The results of the analysis are summarized below. Assembly Bill (AB) 52 took effect July 1, 2015. Under AB 52, a tribal cultural resource is defined as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources or included in a local register of historical resources; or the lead agency, supported by substantial evidence, chooses at its discretion to treat the resources as a tribal cultural resource. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: 1) 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), or 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-100 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Previous Significance Determination: As part of the GPU EIR and in accordance with AB 52, the City notified tribes regarding implementation of the 2021 General Plan Update, as well as requested a local government tribal consultation list from the California Native American Heritage Commission. While tribal notification yielded no responses, the GPU EIR concluded that future development in the City would be required to comply with AB 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(i), which addresses accidental discoveries of archaeological sites and resources, including tribal cultural resources. The standard COAs and the policies listed in this section of the GPU EIR would apply to the project-specific CEQA review for future development in the City. Therefore, the GPU EIR concluded that any discoveries of Tribal Cultural Resources would be mitigated to a less than significant level. Project‐Specific Analysis: As discussed in Response 4.5(a), no historical resources are present or previously recorded on the project site. Therefore, no impacts to historic resources, including tribal cultural resources, would occur. Although there is little potential for the project to result in impacts to previously-unknown tribal cultural resources that may be buried beneath the project site’s surface, the project would be subject to GPU EIR Standard COAs 5.5-2 5.5-7 through 5.5-8, and 5.18-1 through 5.18-7, which would reduce potential impacts to previously-unknown tribal cultural resources to less than significant levels. Accordingly, with compliance with the applicable GPU EIR Standard COAs 5.5-2, 5.5-7 through 5.5-8, and 5.18-1 through 5.18-7, project impacts to previously-unknown tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR 4.18.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Tribal Cultural Resources. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Tribal Cultural Resources. Standard Conditions of Approval: Refer to Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, for additional applicable Standard COAs 5.5-2, 5.5-7, and 5.5-8. COA 5.18-1 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, CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-101 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 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 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 archaeological 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. COA 5.18-2 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: a) 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, b) 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 CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-102 Project Specific Environmental Assessment be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. c) 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 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. COA 5.18-3 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 CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-103 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 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 any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resources evaluation. COA 5.18-4 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. COA 5.18-5 Prior to final inspection, the developer/permit holder shall prompt the project Archeologist to submit two (2) copies of the Phase III Data Recovery report (if required for the project) and the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Community Development Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre-grade meeting. The Planning Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Community Development Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s). COA 5.18-6 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. COA 5.18-7 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). CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-104 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-105 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?  b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?  c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?  d Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?  e. Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?  a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR determined that water supply and delivery systems (provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District [CVWD]) have the capacity to meet the needs of buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update; new or expanded facilities would not be required. The GPU EIR determined that wastewater conveyance providers (CVWD) and treatment processing facilities (Inland Empire Utilities Agency [IEUA]) have the capacity to meet the needs of buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update; new or expanded facilities would not be required. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District is responsible for regional flood control facilities. Together, the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District coordinate the preparation of regional drainage plans. Continued implementation of the Master Plan of Drainage-Westside Area and the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy, with its associated Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage, would fund improvements of the storm drainage systems in these areas. As such, the GPU EIR determined that existing and/or proposed storm drainage systems are adequate to serve the drainage requirements of the 2021 General Plan Update buildout. Section 5.6, Energy, of the GPU EIR discussed electric power and natural gas usage under buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. Energy service providers within the City include the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) and Southern California Edison (SCE) for electrical service and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for natural gas. The GPU EIR concluded that while demand for these energy sources would increase due to development under the 2021 General Plan CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-106 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Update, it is anticipated that compliance with each update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would result in greater building energy efficiency and move closer toward buildings achieving zero net energy. As such, the GPU EIR determined that existing service providers have the capacity to meet the needs of buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update, and that new or expanded facilities would not be required. Impacts were found to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: As described in Section 2.3.7, municipal and private utility services necessary to serve the project (residential and retail components) are currently available within or adjacent to the project site. On-site utility infrastructure necessary to serve the project, including water, sanitary sewer, drainage, storm water runoff treatment facilities, and dry utilities, would be installed with the proposed development and would connect to the existing utilities. The final sizing and design of on-site facilities would occur during the final project design. The installation of water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would result in physical impacts to the surface and subsurface of infrastructure alignments. These impacts are considered to be part of the project’s construction phase and are evaluated throughout this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum accordingly. As demonstrated in the Memorandum, impacts associated with the project’s infrastructure improvements would be less than significant; would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of the GPU EIR Standard COAs and/or RRs; or were previously identified as significant and unavoidable impacts as part of the GPU EIR (e.g., construction-related noise). There are no impacts to the environment associated with the project’s infrastructure improvements that have not already been addressed by the analysis herein. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Previous Significance Determination: As discussed in Response 4.10(b), the GPU EIR determined that, according to the 2020 UWMP, CVWD would have sufficient water supplies to meet the demands of the City’s population growth through 2040 in wet, dry, and multiple-dry years; and the UWMP overestimated population growth through 2040 compared to projected buildout for the 2021 General Plan Update. As such, the GPU EIR determined that CVWD’s projections for water supply through 2040 would meet the demands of the City’s population increase as a result of buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update. Impacts were found to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: The GPU EIR assumed the 7.49 net-acre project site would be developed with up to 749 multi-family residential dwelling units and up to 652,529 square feet of gross floor area, whereas the project proposes to develop the site with 311 multi-family dwelling units and approximately 387,118 square feet of gross floor area. Thus, due to the reduction in dwelling units and building intensity on-site as compared to the site’s 2021 General Plan Update land use designation, the project would result in a decrease in the amount of water demand generated on-site as compared to what was assumed by the GPU EIR. Because the GPU EIR found that there would be adequate water supplies to accommodate buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update, and because the project would result in less demand for water than was assumed by the GPU EIR, it can be concluded that the proposed project is fully accounted for by the UWMP. Because the UWMP demonstrates that the CVWD would have sufficient water supplies, including groundwater, to meet water demands within its district through 2040 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, it can therefore be concluded that there would be sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development. Impacts would be less than CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-107 Project Specific Environmental Assessment significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Previous Significance Determination: As disclosed by the GPU EIR, the IEUA operates the wastewater Regional Plant No. 4 within the City, which has a treatment capacity of 14 million gallons per day (MGD). The current average treatment volume at the facility is 10 MGD. The wastewater Regional Plant No. 4 facility treats water from Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and local portions of unincorporated San Bernardino County. As was concluded by the GPU EIR, the Wastewater Treatment Plants are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Regional Collection System’s needs through 2030. Impacts were found to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Due to the reduction in residential units and building intensity proposed by the project as compared to what was assumed to be developed on the project site by the GPU EIR, the project would result in a decrease in the amount of wastewater generated on-site as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Accordingly, and consistent with the finding of the GPU EIR, the project’s impacts to wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Previous Significance Determination: As indicated by the GPU EIR, solid waste collection, transport, and disposal are handled by a contracted private firm that hauls collected materials to several regional landfills and materials recovery facilities. For household waste disposal, the City utilizes a three-container system for recycling, organics collection, and waste disposal. Solid waste generated in the City is transferred to Burrtec’s West Valley Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). Solid waste that is not diverted is primarily disposed at Mid-Valley Landfill which has a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards (cy), and an anticipated close date of 2045. Thus, existing facilities have ample capacity to accommodate increased volumes of waste from the City through 2040. Impacts were found to be less than significant. Project‐Specific Analysis: Implementation of the project would generate an incremental increase in solid waste volumes requiring off-site disposal during short-term construction and long-term operational activities. Per the San Bernardino County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), which applies to the project, up to 50 percent of its solid waste would need to be diverted from area landfills. In conformance with the CIWMP, the project Applicant is required to work with future contract refuse haulers to implement recycling and waste reduction programs for solid wastes. The GPU EIR assumed the 7.49 net-acre project site would be developed with up to 749 multi-family residential dwelling units and up to 652,529 square feet of gross floor area, whereas the project proposes CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-108 Project Specific Environmental Assessment to develop the site with 311 multi-family dwelling units and approximately 387,118 square feet of gross floor area. Due to the reduction in dwelling units and building intensity on-site as compared to what was assumed to be developed on the site by the GPU EIR, the project would result in a decrease in the amount solid waste generated on-site as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Consistent with the conclusion reached by the GPU EIR, the existing solid waste facilities have ample capacity to accommodate increased volumes of waste from the City through 2040, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. e) Would the project comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Previous Significance Determination: Buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would be required to comply with the CALGreen Building Code Standards, which requires that at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Furthermore, future development would also comply with the requirements of AB 341 that mandates recycling for commercial land uses, any organic waste generated in amounts over thresholds would be recycled in accordance with AB 1826. The GPU EIR concluded that compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local solid waste regulations would result in less than significant impacts. Project‐Specific Analysis: As required by the City, solid waste disposal for the project site would be coordinated with Burrtec Waste Industries to develop a collection program for recyclables in accordance with local and State programs. Notably, Burrtec provides commercial and multi-family bin collection services for properties in the City and assists businesses with adhering to applicable waste management requirements, such as AB 341 and AB 1826. Additionally, the project would be required to comply with applicable practices enacted by the City under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) and any other applicable solid waste management regulations. Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and CALGreen Code require new developments to divert 65 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris for all projects. In compliance with these regulations, the project contractor would submit a Waste Diversion Plan to the City. Based on the above analysis, the project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.19.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Utilities and Service Systems. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Utilities and Service Systems. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-109 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Standard Conditions of Approval: The GPU EIR does not include COAs for Utilities and Service Systems. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-110 Project Specific Environmental Assessment This page intentionally left blank. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-111 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.20 WILDFIRE If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?  b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?  c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?  d. 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?  a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c) Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d) Would the project 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? Previous Significance Determination: The GPU EIR concluded that buildout of the 2021 General Plan Update would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; the 2021 General Plan Update would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, thereby exposing project occupants to elevated particulate concentrations from a wildfire; the 2021 General Plan Update 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. With adherence to standard building practices, 2021 General Plan Update Policies S-1.1 through S-1.9 and S-3.1 through S-3.8, and standard RRs, impacts associated with buildout under the 2021 General Plan Update would be less than significant; and the 2021 General Plan Update 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. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-112 Project Specific Environmental Assessment Project‐Specific Analysis: According to GPU EIR Figure 5.20-2, Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zones, the project site is located well outside of the areas that are mapped within the City as having a “Very High” fire hazard severity zone. GPU EIR Figure 5.20-3, Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area [WUIFA], also indicates that the project site is not located within or near any wildland/urban interface areas that could subject the project site to fire hazards. Similarly, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), the project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is largely surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. 14 As such, the project site would not be subject to wildfire hazards. Consistent with the findings of the GPU EIR, the proposed project would result in construction activities that could temporarily affect roadways as a result of partial lane closures. This could affect emergency response times or evacuation routes. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be conducted in compliance with applicable City requirements, and temporary traffic control measures would be implemented in accordance with the MUTCD. Additionally, the proposed project would increase the number of people who may need to evacuate the project area in the event of an emergency. However, all roadway improvements proposed by the project would be constructed based on industry and City design standards, rules, and regulations. The project would also comply with the Fire Department requirements pertaining to access/egress to ensure adequate emergency access; refer to Exhibit 2-5. The project would also be subject to the policies of the 2021 General Plan Update that govern adequate emergency vehicle response and evacuations, as well as the City’s LHMP, EOP, CWPP, and Evacuation Assessment. Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. 4.20.1 APPLICABLE MMs, RRs, AND/OR COAs Mitigation Measures: The GPU EIR does not include MMs for Wildfire. Regulatory Requirements: The GPU EIR does not include RRs for Wildfire. Standard Conditions of Approval: COA 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. 14 CAL FIRE, FHSZ Viewer, https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed September 19, 2022. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-113 Project Specific Environmental Assessment 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Would the project: New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts New Ability to Substantially Reduce Significant Impact No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?  b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?  c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?  a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? No substantial change from previous analysis. As concluded in Section 4.1 through 4.20 of this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum, project implementation would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment. Project implementation would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal beyond the level of impact as previously analyzed in GPU EIR; refer to Section 4.4, Biological Resources. As indicated in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the project site does not contain important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 4-114 Project Specific Environmental Assessment b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? No substantial change from previous analysis. Cumulative effects that would result from implementation of the project have been evaluated throughout this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum, which concludes that such impacts would not occur, would be less than significant, would be reduced to a level below significant with implementation of the standard COAs specified by the GPU EIR (as supplemented herein), or would be significant and unavoidable but within the scope of analysis of the GPU EIR. Additionally, this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum concludes that the project as proposed would not result in any new or more severe cumulative effects beyond what was already evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. All applicable standard COAs identified as part of the GPU EIR and that were imposed to address cumulatively- considerable effects would continue to apply to the project. The analysis throughout this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum demonstrates that all project impacts would be less than significant or would be reduced in comparison to the analysis and conclusions of the GPU EIR. Additionally, the analysis herein demonstrates that physical impacts associated with the project (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, etc.) would not substantially change or increase compared to the analysis presented in the GPU EIR. Accordingly, because the project would have similar or reduced cumulative impacts to the environment as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR, the project would not result in any new or increased impacts to the environment beyond what was evaluated, disclosed, and mitigated for by the GPU EIR. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No substantial change from previous analysis. The project’s potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings has been evaluated throughout this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum (e.g., Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Noise, etc.). Where potentially significant impacts are identified, Standard COAs from the GPU EIR have been imposed, as supplemented by this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum, to reduce these adverse effects to a level below significance. There are no components of the project that could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings that are not already evaluated and disclosed throughout this CEQA Guidelines § 15183 Compliance Memorandum and/or by the GPU EIR. Accordingly, no additional impacts would occur. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the project site; there are no direct or cumulatively- considerable impacts of the proposed project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 5-1 References 5.0 REFERENCES Brian F Smith and Associates, Inc., Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, 2022. Brian F Smith and Associates, Inc., Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, 2022. California Department of Conservation, Agricultural Preserves 2004 (Williamson Act Parcels Orange County, California), 2004. California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, accessed September 12, 2022. California Department of Transportation, California State Scenic Highway System Map, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap- liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed on September 21, 2022. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/ CorteseList/, accessed September 12, 2022. City of Rancho Cucamonga, PlanRC: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2021. City of Rancho Cucamonga, PlanRC: City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan General Plan, 2021. ELMT Consulting, Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mixed-Use Development Located on the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, 2022. Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-1: Airport Influence Area, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-1.pdf, accessed September 12, 2022. Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-2: Safety Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2- 2.pdf, accessed September 12, 2022. Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-3: Noise Impact Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy- map-2-3.pdf, accessed September 12, 2022. Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-4: Airspace Protection Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-4.pdf, accessed September 12, 2022. Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Chapter 2: Procedural & Compatibility Policies, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/chapter-2.pdf, accessed September 12, 2022. CEQA GUIDELINES § 15183 COMPLIANCE Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Final | October 2022 5-2 References Ontario Airport Planning, Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Policy Map 2-5: Overflight Notification Zones, https://www.ontarioplan.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/4/2015/05/policy-map-2-5.pdf, accessed September 12, 2022. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xi/r1113.pdf, accessed May 10, 2021. Stanley R. Hoffman and Associates, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis, 2022. Urban Crossroads, Foothill Center Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Evaluation, 2022. Urban Crossroads, Foothill Center Focused Traffic Assessment, 2022. Urban Crossroads, Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis, 2022. APPENDIX A: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE (DRC 2019-00850) Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A0.0SHEET INDEXPROJECT TEAMPROPERTY OWNERRC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS LLC23929 VALENCIA BLVD, SUITE 404VALENCIA, CA 91355CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTHARCHITECTUREKTGY GROUP, INC.17911 VON KARMAN AVE, SUITE 200IRVINE, CA 92614CONTACT: KEITH LABUSCIVILMADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.9302 PITTSBURGH AVE, STE. 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730CONTACT: MARK BERTONELANDSCAPESUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS34197 PACIFIC COAST HWY, STE. 200DANA POINT, CA 92629CONTACT: TRENT NOLLELECTRICALCANDELA ENGINEERING27201 CALLE JUANITADANA POINT, CA 92624CONTACT: BRIAN OVERLEYARCHITECTUREA0.0 SHEET INDEXA0.1 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA0.2 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA0.3 CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVESA1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEWA1.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANA2.0 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSA2.1 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSA2.2 BUILDING A ELEVATIONSA2.3 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSA2.4 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSA2.5 BUILDING B ELEVATIONSA2.6 BUILDING C ELEVATIONSA2.7 BUILDING C ELEVATIONSA2.8 CARPORT / POOL BUILDING ELEVATIONSCIVILCF-01CUT - FILL MAPCG-01CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-02CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-03CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-04CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-05CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANCG-06CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLANSU-01SITE UTILIZATION MAPDSP-01DETAILED SITE PLANDSP-02DETAILED SITE PLANDSP-03DETAILED SITE PLANDSP-04DETAILED SITE PLANPWQMP-01WQMPLANDSCAPEL-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLANL-2 PROJECT ENTRY ENLARGEMENT PLANL-3 INTERNAL STREET ENLARGEMENT PLANL-4 COMMUNITY POOL ENLARGEMENTL-5 PROJECT ENTRY ENLARGEMENT PLAN - WESTL-6 PROJECT ENTRY ENLARGEMENT PLAN - EASTL-7 ROOF PATIO ENLARGEMENT PLANL-8 WALL AND FENCE PLANL-9 WALL AND FENCE DETAILSL-10 WATER USE CALCULATIONSELECTRICALEP-1 PARTIAL PHOTOMETRIC PLANEP-2 PARTIAL PHOTOMETRIC PLANA3.0 BUILDING PLANSA3.1 BUILDING PLANSA3.2 BUILDING PLANSA3.3 BUILDING PLANSA3.4 BUILDING PLANSA4.0 BUILDING SECTIONSA5.0 UNIT PLANSA5.1 UNIT PLANSA5.2 UNIT PLANSA5.3 UNIT PLANSA5.4 ENLARGED PLANS - RETAILA5.5 ENLARGED PLANS - RETAILA5.6 ENLARGED PLANS - AMENITIESA5.7 ENLARGED PLANS - AMENITIESA6.0 CONCEPTUAL FIRE EXHIBITA7.0 RESIDENTIAL DETAILSA8.0 BUS SHELTER Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355NTSA0.1CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES1. VIEW OF PROJECT ENTRY Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355NTSA0.2CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES2. VIEW OF PROJECT ENTRYF O O T H I L L B L V DKey PlanN.T.S. Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355NTSA0.3CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVES3. VIEW OF POOL AMENITYKey PlanN.T.S. EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EVEVEVEVEV EVEV EV EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 9135506012030A1.1CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANRetail at First Floor withResidential Units AboveResident Amenity at First Floorwith Residential Units Above4 Story Residential Buildingwith Tuck-Under Parking4 Story Mixed-Use Buildingwith Tuck-Under ParkingResident Amenity at First Floorwith Residential Units AboveSecondaryProject EntrySecondaryProject EntryTrashStagingTrashStagingSingle StoryPool BuildingLobbyCovered CarportsLobbyClubroomFitnessTrashPoolCourtyardVehicular Connectionto CourthousePedestrian Connectionto CourthouseTrashStagingTrashStagingProject Main EntryFOOTHILL BLVDHAVEN AVENUE ASPEN STREETTrash Retail at First Floor withResidential Units AbovePARCEL 1PARCEL 3PARCEL 2BUILDING A117 UnitsLeasing/AmenityBUILDING C I51 UnitsBUILDING C II51 UnitsBUILDING B100 UnitsMail Center/AmenityTrashTrash112 Units97 Units Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±65'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EVEV EVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.0ELEVATIONSBUILDING A08162448910338521061015Key PlanN.T.S.21Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure624Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East Elevation191111778 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EVEV EVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.1ELEVATIONSBUILDING A0816244196832592Elevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.43Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure1811768 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 152'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EVEV EVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.2ELEVATIONSBUILDING A - INTERIOR081624682898264284Elevation 1 - North ElevationElevation 2 - East ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.1342Elevation 3 - South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationMaterial Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure2968677944 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.3ELEVATIONSBUILDING B0816248623131921Key PlanN.T.S.21Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure1058Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East Elevation4311116 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±65'15'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.4ELEVATIONSBUILDING B08162462498321041068511Key PlanN.T.S.43Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade StructureElevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West Elevation59311178 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±52'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±52'12'-7"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1" EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.5ELEVATIONSBUILDING B - INTERIOR08162486268429849Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.1342Elevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationMaterial Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure464982779 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±58'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±48'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.6ELEVATIONSBUILDING C08162449263894185106Elevation 1- North ElevationElevation 2 - East ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.21Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure57618 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±50'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±50'10'-1"9'-1"9'-1"9'-1"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.7ELEVATIONSBUILDING C08162486226243Elevation 3- South ElevationElevation 4 - West ElevationKey PlanN.T.S.43Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade Structure9374 ±14'-0"T.O.P.29±14'-0"T.O.P.1111Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.8ELEVATIONSPOOL BUILDING / CARPORTS04816Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade StructurePool Building - North ElevationCarport - Side Elevation*South ElevationWest ElevationFront Elevation**Refer to "Wall andFence Plan" on sheetL-8 for wall height andlocations ±14'-0"T.O.P.29±14'-0"T.O.P.1111Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A2.8ELEVATIONSCARPORTS / POOL BUILDING04816Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Fiber Cement Siding3.Masonry4.Stucco - 20/30 Finish5.Storefront Glazing6.Recessed Bronze Vinyl Windows7.Fiber Cement Trim8.Balcony Railing9.Awning10.Signage11.Permanent Solid Shade StructurePool Building - North ElevationCarport - Side ElevationSouth ElevationWest ElevationFront Elevation*Refer to "Wall and Fence Plan" on sheetL-8 for wall height and locations. Refer to"Conceptual Landscape Plan" on sheetL-1 for proposed tree and shrub palette.Carport Architectural Screening at Building B* EVEV EV RetailLeasingP1-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1LobbyBreezeway TrashElecRoomMechAmenity20'-2"typ.10'-1"typ.12'-1"typ.5'-0"20'-2" typ.Level 127739 SQ. FT.LobbyDNDNRetailLiving Room 12'-1" x 25'-9" Master Bed 11'-0" x 12'-0" W/D Bath Kitchen Deck 10'-10" x 6'-0" 65 SQ. FT. L Plan 1-1 1 Bed, 1 Bath ±669 SQ. FT.Net ±764 SQ. FT.Gross WIC L Storage Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck11'-9" x 6'-0"71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLPlan 2-1.12 Bed, 2 Bath±1047 SQ. FT.Net±1149 SQ. FT.NetLWICStorageLevel 235786 SQ. FT.P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1.1P2-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1P1-2altP1-2.1 altP1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-3P1-3P1-1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P2-2Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A3.0BUILDING PLANBUILDING A0204010 Level 3-435792 SQ. FT.P2-1P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1P1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-1P1-1P2-2P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-2altP1-2.1 altP1-3P1-3Flat RoofRoofDeckRoofROOF ACCESS FROMSTAIR SHAFT BELOW.CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT,TYP.19'-4"20'-6"18'-6"21'-5"18'-6"21'-4"+2'-6"+5'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A3.1BUILDING PLANBUILDING A0204010 EV EVEV RetailMail CenterP1-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1P1-1LobbyBreezeway TrashElec.RoomMechAmenity20'-2"typ.10'-1"typ.12'-1"typ.5'-0"20'-2"typ.Level 125307 SQ. FT.LobbyDNDNRetailLevel 232130 SQ. FT.P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P1-1P1-2 altP2-4P1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P2-2Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A3.2BUILDING PLANBUILDING B0204010 Level 3-432137 SQ. FT.P1-1.1P2-1P1-1P2-2P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1.1P2-2P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1.1P1-1P1-1P2-4P1-3P1-2P1-2P1-3P2-3P1-2P1-2.1P1-1P2-2P1-1.1P1-2 altFlat RoofRoofDeckRoofROOF ACCESS FROMSTAIR SHAFT BELOW.CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT,TYP.18'-6"22'-4"21'-5"18'-6"19'-4"20'-6"+2'-6"+5'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A3.3BUILDING PLANBUILDING B0204010 P1-1P1-1P1-1ClubroomP1-1P2-1P2-1Breezeway Fitness12'-1"typ.5'-0"20'-2" typ.10'-1"typ.TrashLevel 113568 SQ. FT.P2-1Mech/ElecP1-4BreezewayMech/ElecP1-4(open to below)(open to below)P2-3Seating AreaYoga StudioLevel 216596 SQ. FT.P1-5P2-3Mech/ElecP1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P2-1.1P3-1TP1-4P1-4Mech/ElecP1-5P1-5Level 3-418495 SQ. FT.P2-3P2-3P1-1.1P1-1.1P2-1P1-1.1P2-1P2-1.1P3-1TP1-4Mech/ElecP2-1P2-2P1-5P1-5P1-5Flat RoofRoofROOF ACCESS FROMSTAIR SHAFT BELOW.CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT,TYP.20'-9"19'-1"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A3.4BUILDING PLANBUILDING C0204010Building C.2Building C.1Building C.2Building C.1 Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1GarageUnitUnitUnitRetail±48'E FOOTHILL BLVDEXISTINGRANCHO CUCAMONGASUPERIOR COURTUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnit±55' ±55'CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, TYP.Floor 2Floor 3Floor 4RoofFloor 1±55'Existing Office BuildingExisting Office Building<<ASPEN AVEPROJECTENTRY DRIVEUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageHAVEN AVE >>RetailUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitUnitGarageRetailUnit±55' ±55'CONDENSER SCREENROOFTOP EQUIPMENT, TYP.Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A4.0BUILDING SECTIONS0163264Section AASection BBKey PlanN.T.S.AAAABBBB Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck10'-10" x 6'-0"65 SQ. FT.LPlan 1-11 Bed, 1 Bath±669 SQ. FT.Net±731 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft3WICL24'-0"32'-0"Plan 1-21 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±740 SQ. FT.Net±810 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed12'-11" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage144 ft324'-0"37'-0"Deck10'-10" x 7'-0"3'-0"Plan 1-1.1±697 SQ. FT.Net±761 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed10'-6" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-2"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage183 ft3Plan 1-2 alt1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±770 SQ. FT.Net24'-0"36'-10 1/2"Living Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed11'-11" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage144 ft3Plan 1-2 alt1 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±689 SQ. FT.Net±756 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft324'-0"33'-0 1/2"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.0UNIT PLANSONE BEDROOM0248 Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck10'-10" x 6'-0"65 SQ. FT.LPlan 1-41 Bed + Den, 1 Bath±812 SQ. FT.Net±881 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft3WICLDen7'-8" x 11'-10"32'-2"32'-0"Plan 1-2.11 Bed + Den / 1 Bathroom±887 SQ. FT.Net±966 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed11'-0" x 15'-4"KitchenDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLStorage144 ft3Den8'-0" x 11'-0"24'-0"43'-6 1/2"Plan 1-31 Bedroom / 1 Bathroom±660 SQ. FT. Net±729 SQ. FT.GrossKitchen/DiningDeck7'-0" x 8'-2"56 SQ. FT.W/DBathWICM.Bedroom11'-0" x 12'-10"LStorage126 ft3Living Room14'-0" x 11-0"33'-10"23'-0" 24'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.1UNIT PLANSONE BEDROOM0248 Plan 2-22 Bed, 2 Bath±1078 SQ. FT.Net±1155 SQ. FT.GrossDeck9'-0" x 11'-0"99 SQ. FT.KitchenBathWICW/DM. BathMaster Bed13'-6" x 11'-6"Living Room19'-4" x 11'-0"Bedroom 211'7" x 11'-0"Storage160 ft333'-6"37'-10"Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck11'-9" x 6'-0"71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLPlan 2-12 Bed, 2 Bath±1041 SQ. FT.Net±1117 SQ. FT.GrossLStorage144 ft3WIC36'-0"32'-0"BathDeck12'-8" x 6'-0"77 SQ. FT.BathWICKitchenW/DPlan 2-32 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom±1049 SQ. FT.Net±1153 SQ. FT.GrossWICLDining10'-0" x 12'-6"Living13'-0" x 13'-0"M. Bedroom12'-9" x 12'-2"Bedroom 211'-6" x 10'-3"Storage Storage126 ft352'-2"23'-0" 24'-0"Plan 2-1.1±1,071 SQ. FT.Net±1,149 SQ. FT.Gross3'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.2UNIT PLANSTWO BEDROOMS0248 50'-2"Plan 3-13 Bed, 2 Bath±1285 SQ. FT.Net±1377 SQ. FT.GrossDeck12'-0" x 6'-0"69 SQ. FT.KitchenBathW/DM. BathLiving Room12'-4" x 15'-8"WICBedroom 311'-0" x 11'-0"Bedroom 211'-0" x 11'-0"Master Bed14'-1" x 11'-8"Dining10'-0" x 12'-6"Storage160 ft3Plan 2-42 Bedroom / 2 Bathroom±1079 SQ. FT.Net±1158 SQ. FT.GrossLiving Room12'-0" x 16'-0"Master Bed11'-10" x 13'-4"Kitchen/DiningDeck11'-10" x 6'-0"73 SQ. FT.WICBathLM. BathLMaster Bed11'-0" x 11'-4"WICStorageStorage130 ft324'-0"48'-3 1/2"32'-0"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.3UNIT PLANSTWO BEDROOM & THREE BEDROOM0248 Retail TBD16' Floor to Floor15' to Bottom of Slab5,843 SQ. FT.37'-8" 32'-0"139'-7"33'-10"173'-5"Retail TBD16' Floor to Floor15' to Bottom of Slab4,061 SQ. FT.35'-6" 37'-8"78'-6"33'-10"112'-4"15'-0" 16'-0" Floor to Floor 18" Plumbing Drop13'-6"RETAILArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.4ENLARGED PLANSRETAIL ALONG FOOTHILL BLVD04812Building A - Level 1Building B - Level 1Typical Section Retail TBD14' Floor to Floor13' to Bottom of Slab2,588 SQ. FT.31'-0"83'-6"Retail TBD14' Floor to Floor13' to Bottom of Slab2,588 SQ. FT.31'-0"83'-6" 13'-0" 14'-0" Floor to Floor 18" Plumbing Drop11'-6"RETAILArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.5ENLARGED PLANSRETAIL ALONG ENTRY DRIVE04812Building A - Level 1Building B - Level 1Typical Section LeasingLobbyOfficeWorkRoomOfficeMail CenterResidentialMedia LoungeBusiness Center /CoWorkTrashBreezeway TrashBreezeway10'-6" Floor to Floor9' to Bottom of Slab1,000 SQ. FT.10'-6" Floor to Floor9' to Bottom of Slab1,222 SQ. FT.9'-0" 10'-6" Floor to Floor AMENITIESWomen'sMen'sArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.6ENLARGED PLANSBUILDING A & B AMENITY / POOL BUILDING04812Building A - Level 1Building B - Level 1Residential Amenities:1.Media Lounge2.Business/CoWork CenterPool Building KitchenGameRoomClubroomWomen'sMen'sMen'sWomen'sCyclingWeightsFitnessBreezeway BreezewaySeating AreaYoga Studio502 SQ. FT.502 SQ. FT.1,801 SQ. FT.1,824 SQ. FT.Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A5.7ENLARGED PLANSBUILDING C AMENITY04812Building C.1 - Level 1Building C.2 - Level 1Building C.1 - Level 2Building C.2 - Level 2Residential Amenities: 3. Clubroom 4. Fitness Room 120'-0"150' Max26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0" 26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0"26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0"150'-0"26'-0"26'-0"150' Max Hose Pull 150'-0"35'-0" 36'-0" 30' to level above 30' to level above 26'-0"150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull 150' Max Hose Pull24'-0"26'-0"24'-0"24'-0"120'-0"30' to level above 30' to level above 30'to level above26'-0"26'-0"24'-0"30'to level above150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull 150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull150' Max Hose Pull24'-0"Hose Pull150'-0"150'-0"30'to level above30'to level aboveEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EVEVEVEVEV EVEV EV EV EVEVArchitecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 9135506012030A6.0CONCEPTUAL FIRE EXHIBITFire Access Hose PullGateProject Main EntryFOOTHILL BLVDHAVEN AVENUE ASPEN STREETFire Access HammerheadLEGEND26'Fire Turn RadiusFire Hose150' Max Hose Pull Fire AccessHammerhead26'40'26'GateAERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANEAERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANERescue Window Ladder PadsFire Turn RadiusAERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANE AERIAL APPARATUS ACCESS LANE R 4 6 'R 2 0 '4 Story Residential Buildingwith Tuck-Under Parking4 Story Mixed-Use Buildingwith Tuck-Under ParkingFire Access HammerheadFire Access HammerheadResident Amenity at First Floorwith Residential Units AboveRetail at First Floor withResidential Units AboveRetail at First Floor withResidential Units Above Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355NTSA7.0RESIDENTIAL DETAILSBALCONY RAILINGS & GARAGE DOORSRailing Type 1: Vertical Slat Front Mount(Exact Product TBD)Railing Type 2: Metal Panel Front Mount(Exact Product TBD)Paint to Match Fiber Cement SidingWindows recessed3" from face ofbuilding claddingwith additional trimWindows recessed3" from face ofbuilding cladding 11'-6"6'-0"12'-8"Architecture + Planning17911 Von Karman Ave,Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614949.851.2133ktgy.comDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 18, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355A8.0BUS SHELTER25Key PlanN.T.S.43Elevation 1 - Front210248Material Legend1.Metal Panels2.Vertical Screening3.Glazing4.Bench5.Metal Canopy163Overhead Canopy:72 SF Minimum Area30" x 48"Clear FloorSpaceBenchElevation 2 - LeftElevation 3 - RearElevation 4 - Right ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S.EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVFOOTHILL BOULEVARD HAVEN AVENUEASPEN STREETPOOLCOURTYARDBUILDING "A"BUILDING "B"BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II" DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUT - FILL MAP APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20227.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 1 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 1 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CUT - FILL MAP DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.48 AC. NET CF - 01 OWNER/DEVELOPER RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH (650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com CIVIL ENGINEER MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 CONTACT: MARK BERTONE (909) 481-6322 ext. 120 Email: mbertone@madoleinc.com ARCHITECT KTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA. 92614 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS 34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DANA POINT, CA. 92629 CONTACT: TRENT NOLL (949) 443-1446 x 279 Email: tnoll@smpinc.net CONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK (949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.com SUITE 200 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: 5,959 C.Y. CUT (RAW) 19,847 C.Y. FILL (RAW) NET: 13,888 C.Y. IMPORT NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDE EARTHWORK FOR REMEDIAL PURPOSES, OVER-EXCAVATION, OR ORGANIC REMOVAL. QUANTITIES FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM ALL QUANTITIES WITH ENGINEER. 0.6 FILL CONDITION - 0.6 CUT CONDITION DAYLIGHT LINE LEGEND: C / F ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S.EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV60' 47' / VAR. 13' (VAR.)(VAR.) EXIST. S'LY R/W N'LY R/W CL CONST. 40' / VAR.33'8 EXIST. PAVEMENT EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE PROP. CURB & GUTTER 14' / VAR. 7' / (VAR.) 7' / (VAR.) (VAR.)(VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN PROP. S'LY R/W 16'-10" PROP. PARKING 1% MIN. 12' / VAR.40' / VAR. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROADPROP. PROP. CURB PROP. PAVEMENT PROP. CURB & GUTTER 16' & 19.5' BUILDING PROP. SIDEWALK 2% 120' 60'25' 7' & 10.5'EXIST. PAVEMENT 88' 44'44' 12' (2%)(2%) R/W R/W CL 32'32'12' EXIST. PAVEMENT EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER EXIST. SIDEWALK TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE EXIST. CURB & GUTTER TYPICAL SECTION NO SCALE 134' 47'47' 20' (VAR.)(VAR.) E'LY R/W W'LY R/W CL CONST. 40' / VAR.40' / VAR.20' EXIST. PAVEMENT EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER EXIST. SIDEWALK EXIST. CURB & GUTTER 14' / VAR. 7' / (VAR.) 7' / (VAR.) (VAR.)(VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN 6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET CG - 01 INDEX MAP SCALE: 1"=100'SHT. 2SHT. 3SHT. 4SHT. 5OWNER/DEVELOPER RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH (650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com CIVIL ENGINEER MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 CONTACT: MARK BERTONE (909) 481-6322 ext. 120 Email: mbertone@madoleinc.com ARCHITECT KTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA. 92614 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS 34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DANA POINT, CA. 92629 CONTACT: TRENT NOLL (949) 443-1446 x 279 Email: tnoll@smpinc.net APN: 0208-353-02 THE BEARING OF N89°53'38"E FOR THE CENTERLINE OF FOOTHILL BLVD., AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP No. 9612, P.M.B. 105 /14, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING BENCHMARK: BENCHMARK NO. 10039 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - 2" BRASS DISK IN THE CONCRETE CURB STAMPED "CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BM 10039 1987" AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. AND HAVEN AVE., 1 FOOT NORTH OF BEGINNING OF CURB RETURN AT SOUTHERLY END OF CATCH BASIN. ELEVATION: 1208.173' DATUM: NGVD29 BENCHMARK: UTILITY COMPANIES WATER/SEWER: CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 10440 ASHFORD STREET P.O. BOX 638 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91729 PHONE: (909) 987-2591 ELECTRIC: RCMU 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 PHONE: (909) 919-2612 EMAIL: rcmu.customer@cityforc.us TELEPHONE: FRONTIER 1400 E. PHILLIPS BLVD. POMONA, CA 91766 ATTN: JERRY PAUBEL PHONE: (909) 469-6354 GAS: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 13525 12th STREET CHINO, CA 91719 PHONE: (909) 613-1531 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 811 CONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK (949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.com CL CENTERLINE FS FINISHED SURFACE R/W RIGHT OF WAY TC TOP OF CURB - - - - GB GRADE BREAK- AC ASPHALTIC CONCRETE- FL FLOWLINE- SD STORM DRAIN- TRW TOP OF RETAINING WALL- FG FINISHED GRADE- THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, OF SAID COUNTY AND STATE, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL MINERAL RIGHTS NOT HERETOFORE OTHERWISE CONVEYED OR RESERVED BY GRANTOR, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL OIL, GAS, HYDROCARBON AND SIMILAR RIGHTS, AND ALL WATER, WATER RIGHTS, GEOTHERMAL STEAM POWER, WITHIN OR UNDERLYING THE REAL PROPERTY HEREIN CONVEYED TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DEVELOPMENT THEREOF; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE RIGHTS HEREIN RESERVED AND EXCEPTED DO NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE AND TOP 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE REAL PROPERTY HEREIN CONVEYED, AS RESERVED IN THE CONVEYANCE FROM DAON CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, BY THE DEED RECORDED APRIL 28, 1982 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-08283 , OFFICIAL RECORDS. LEGAL DESCRIPTION : SUITE 200 FF FINISHED FLOOR- AREA: GROSS ACRES .............................................. 7.94 AC REVISED GROSS ACRES.............................. 7.71 AC NET ACRES .................................................... 7.48 AC TOTAL DISTURBED AREA.............................. 8.91 AC REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA................ 3.97 AC REPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA....... 0.02 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA................... 7.70 AC TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA............................ 7.72 AC EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: 5,959 C.Y. CUT (RAW) 19,847 C.Y. FILL (RAW) NET: 13,888 C.Y. IMPORT NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES DO NOT INCLUDE EARTHWORK FOR REMEDIAL PURPOSES, OVER-EXCAVATION, OR ORGANIC REMOVAL. QUANTITIES FOR PERMIT PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFORM ALL QUANTITIES WITH ENGINEER. EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVHAVEN AVENUEEXIST. CURB POOL COURTYARDTRASHEXIST. CURBEXIST. CURB (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 125.51 N00° 06' 22"W117.00N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINECENTERLINE EXISTING R/WEXISTING R/W PARCEL 1 BARTON PLAZA (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)PROPERTY LINE( TYP . ) ( TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)BUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-I"PROPERTY LINEA A EE8"CF(07.76 TC)(07.41 FL)(08.08 TC)(0.32%)8"CF(08.28 TC)(08.05 FL)GB8 " C F ( 0 9 . 2 8 T C ) (0.32%)(0.20%) 8 " C F ( 0 9 . 4 3 T C )8"CF;HP(09.62 TC)(0.20%)(08.26 FS)(08.76 TC)(08.48 FS)(08.98 TC)(08.86 FS)(09.36 TC)(09.19 FS)(09.69 TC)(09.37 FS)(09.87 TC)(09.61 FS)(10.11 TC)(09.67 FS)(10.17 TC)(09.10 FS)(09.60 TC)(0.22%)(0.38%)(0.48%)(0.177%)(0.177%)(0.28%)(09.63 FS)(10.13 TC)(0.04%)(0.05%)(09.74 FS)(10.24 TC)(0.06%)(0.17%)10'10'10'EXIST. MEANDERING SIDEWALK PROP. R/WPROP. R/W NO FIRE ACCESS LANESBX BUS SHELTER 3.3'16'-10"20'11'9' ( T Y P . ) 26' APPROX. 130.00' PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS 0.40% FF = 1208.8 03.51 FL04.01 TC03.75 FS0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFF = 1205.5 FS06.171.7%1.38%1%2.5%04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%04.46 FL04.96 TC1.7%1.7% 1.7%1.7%1.2%1.2%0.47%1.7%FS09.00FS08.00FS07.00FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1207.6 FF = 1208.5 FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1208.5 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%05.67 TC1.7%0 5 . 3 1 F S 0 5 . 8 1 T C 0.381%0.44% FF = 1206.8 0 8 . 2 0 F S 0 8 . 7 0 T C 08.20 FS08.70 TC08.50 FS09.00 TC0 7 . 5 0 F S 0 8 . 0 0 T C 0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C 06.20 FS06.70 TC1%05.70 FS0 6 . 0 0 F S07.86 FS07.90 FS0 6 . 9 0 F S05.25 FL0.82%(03.4 FS)(03.9 TC)1.7%1.7%0 7 . 8 6 F S 07.27 FS07.77TC07.04 FS07.54 TC2.9%0 6 . 1 5 T C (05.40 FS)05.90 TC(05.30 FS)05.90 TC(06.10 FS)06.60 TC(06.45 FS)06.15 TC(04.40 FS)04.90 TC0 4 . 3 0 T C (03.40 FS)03.90 TC(03.00 FS)03.50 TC(03.40 FS)03.90 TC03.00 FS03.50 TC(03.30 FS)03.50 TC(02.90 FS)03.40 TC03.00 TC(02.30 FS)02.80 TC(0 2 . 8 0 F S ) 0 3 . 3 0 T C 1.2%0.98%0 5 . 5 8 F S 3% 0 5 . 0 4 F S 0 5 . 5 4 T C0.635%FF = 1206.4 0 3 . 9 6 F S 0 4 . 4 6 T C 03.38 TC04.15 TC0.50%F S 0 4 . 2 1 03.71 FS04.21 TC01.70 FS02.20 TC1% 0 3 . 7 1 F S 0 4 . 2 1 T C2.9%(01.10 FS)01.60 TC0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 00.90FS01.40 TC(01.90 FS)02.40 TC1.2%02.60 FS03.10 TC00.60 FS01.10 TC06.20 FS06.70 TC08.70 FS09.20 TC0 8 . 7 0 F S 0 9 . 2 0 T C 1.2%0 8 . 5 0 F S 0 9 . 0 0 T C 07.50 FS08.00 TC0 5 . 8 0 F S 0 6 . 3 0 T C 0 5 . 8 0 F S 0 6 . 3 0 T C 05.54 FL0.53% 1%LP05.80 FL06.25 FL0 8 . 0 8 T C 0 7 . 5 7 T C 0.93% 0 8 . 2 6 F S 1.2% 0 8 . 4 6 F S1.38%1.7%1.7%05.56 FS2.5%1.2%08.00 FS0 5 . 8 4 F L3.95%0.50%3%06.81 FS07.31 TC2.86%06.52 FS07.02 TC0.50% 0 6 . 1 4 F L2.11%2.58%06.90 FS3% 0 8 . 1 3 F L G B 2.38% 0 7 . 5 6 F S 0 8 . 1 6 T C 0 3 . 1 6 F S 0 3 . 6 6 T C04.27 TC0 3 . 4 7 F S 0 3 . 9 7 T C 06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C FF = 1205.5 FF = 1205.5 PROP. V-GUTTER PROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. V-GUTTERPROP. V-GUTTERPROP. C & G PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SEWERPROP. WATEREXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER4%0 4 . 7 9 F S 0 5 . 0 2 F S 0 3 . 1 3 F L 0 3 . 6 3 T C 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%PROP. C & GPROP. C & GPUEPUEPUEPUE8"CF09.45 TC8"CF09.56 TC8"CF09.64 TC0.18% 8 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 7 2 T C 8"CF08.56 TC8"CF08.74 TC8"CF08.89 TC8"CF09.12 TC8"CF09.31 TC8"CF09.38 TC0 7 . 7 8 F L 0 8 . 4 5 T C 8. 6 7 F S 0 9 . 1 7 T C 1.7%2%0.16%1.7%MAX0 8 . 4 5 F S 0 8 . 9 5 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 4 T C 1.7%1.7%6 " C F 0 8 . 9 8 T C 0 7 . 7 2 F L 0 8 . 2 2 T C 0.40% 0 8 . 2 9 F S 0 8 . 7 9 T C 07.62 FS08.12 TC0 7 . 6 5 F S 0 8 . 1 5 T C 8 " C F 6 " C F 06.70 FL08.20 TC06.75 FL07.25 TCLP1. 3 % 0 7 . 9 2 F L 0 8 . 4 2 T C H P L P 0 8 . 5 6 F S 0 9 . 0 6 T C 8"CF09.22 TC1.8%0 7 . 9 2 F L 0 8 . 4 2 T C 0.40%0.40% FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.8 08.80 FL08.85 FL6 " C F 0 9 . 2 8 T C 0 8 . 6 4 F L 0 9 . 1 4 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 2 T C 6 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 3 3 T C 0 8 . 1 6 F L 0 8 . 6 6 T C 08.57 FL09.07 TC1%3%0.40%HPFF = 1209.3FF = 1209.0 0 8 . 0 8 F L 0 8 . 5 8 T C 09.64 FS10.14 TC1.7%1.7%FS; HP10.00PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN05.17 FS0 6 . 0 8 T C 0 6 . 3 4 F S (0 5 . 6 5 F S )03.77 FS(0 3 . 8 0 F S )03.65 FL(02.50 FS)10'0 7 . 5 8 F L 0 7 . 0 7 F L PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN 26'(06.60 FS)07.10 TC0 7 . 4 0 T C (0 6 . 9 0 F S )2%07.29 FL07.79 TC3.9%(0 7 . 1 8 F S ) 0 7 . 6 8 T C (07.61 FS)08.11 TC(07.09 FS)07.59 TC(06.30 FS)06.80 TC0 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C(07.40 FS)07.90 TC(0 6 . 9 2 F S ) 0 7 . 4 2 T C (0 7 . 0 2 F S ) 0 7 . 5 2 T C (0 5 . 9 2 F S ) 0 6 . 4 2 T C (05. 7 7 F S ) 06. 2 7 T C (06. 4 0 F S ) 06.9 0 T C (0 6 . 2 4 F S ) 0 6 . 7 4 T C (0 6 . 6 5 F S ) 0 7 . 1 5 T C (7 . 3 2 F S ) 0 7 . 8 2 T C 24' 13'21'13'17' 13' 11'26'17'15'20'3'22'9' 9'20'3'20'3'9'26'18' 16'14'17'9' 9'9'9' 9' 17'26'17'9'18'18'12'26'26' 8' 9' 9'26'26'26'4'26'7'26'10'10'3' 20'18'9' 7'17'17'17'25'45'32'18' 26'14'14' 9' 5'9'20' 68' 58'10'60'13'47'26' 10'26'26'26'24'9'5'9'18'29' 9' 13'21'15'15'35'8.33' 10' 12'12' 26'14'14' 68' 17'17'17'9'45'24' 20'10'10'35'24'9' 35'35'17'9' 7'5'8'11'31' 3' 5' 6'6'8' 5'9'9'6'8' 13'14'26'18'9' 12'5'18' 13' 14'5'8'8'6'5'5' 24'9'9' 24'9' 24' FOOTHILL BLVD. EXIST. CURB F F 5'10.5'(TYP.) 9' (TYP.) 9'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET CG - 02SEE SHEET CG-03SEE SHEET CG-04 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVTRASHTRASHN89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N00° 06' 22"W 117.00N89° 53' 38"E 184.14 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 PARCEL 3 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA BUILDING "C-II"ASPEN STREETBUILDING "B" BB 8 " C F ( 0 9 . 2 8 T C ) 8 " C F ( 0 9 . 4 3 T C )8"CF(09.21 TC)8"CF;HP(09.62 TC)(0.20%)(0.20%)8"CF(08.66 TC)8"CF(09.03 TC)(09.67 FS)(10.17 TC)(09.63 FS)(10.13 TC)(0.04%)(0.05%)(09.74 FS)(10.24 TC)(0.06%)(09.67 FS)(10.17 TC)(09.69 FS)(10.19 TC)(09.66 FS)(10.16 TC)(0.04%)(0.17%)(0.06%)(09.59 FS)(10.09 TC)(0.14%)(09.87 FS)(10.37 TC)(0.28%)( 0 9 . 7 3 F S ) ( 1 0 . 2 3 T C )(09.86 FS)(10.36 TC)(09.83 FS)(10.33 TC)(09.82 FS)(10.32 TC)(0.02%)(0.06%)(0.02%)(09.93 FS)(10.43 TC)(0.26%) (0.20%)10'10'10'EXIST. MEANDERING SIDEWALK PROP. R/W PROP. R/W SBX BUS SHELTER 16'-10"26' APPROX. 130.00' PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS 0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFS06.171.7%1.38%1%2.5%0 3 . 8 7 F S04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%0.50%04.46 FL04.96 TC0 3 . 3 8 F L 0 3 . 8 8 T C 1.7%1.7% 1.7%1.7%1.2%1.7%FS09.00FS08.00FS07.00FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1207.6 FF = 1208.5 FF = 1209.1 FF = 1208.8 FF = 1208.1 FF = 1208.5 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%08.50 FS09.00 TC0 7 . 5 0 F S 0 8 . 0 0 T C07.90 FS0 6 . 9 0 F S FF = 1206.806.20 FS06.70 TC0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C08.70 FS09.20 TC0 8 . 7 0 F S 0 9 . 2 0 T C 1.2%0 8 . 5 0 F S 0 9 . 0 0 T C FF = 1206.807.50 FS08.00 TC(05.00 FL)06.87 FL07.37 TC05.87 FL06.37 TC0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C06.20 FS06.70 TC0.77%0.77%05.25 FLLP05.80 FL06.25 FL0 8 . 0 8 T C 0 7 . 5 7 T C 1.2%0 5 . 6 0 F L 06.29 FL0.93% 0 8 . 2 6 F S 1.2% 0 8 . 4 6 F S1.38%1.7%1.7%03.65 FS04.15 TC(0 3 . 0 0 F S ) 0 3 . 5 0 T C (02.95 FS)03.45 TC1.2%08.00 FS3% 0 6 . 1 4 F L 05.75 FL0.50% 0 7 . 2 1 F S 0 7 . 7 1 T C 06.90 FS3% 0 8 . 1 3 F L G B 2.38% 0 7 . 5 6 F S 0 8 . 1 6 T C 06.64 FL07.14 TC06.80 FS07.30 TC3% (0 4 . 0 0 F S ) (0 4 . 5 0 T C )04.92 FS05.42 TC2.45%06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C (03.00 FS)03.50 TC02.10 TC0 2 . 1 0 T C05.37 FS05.87 TC0 5 . 9 1 T C 1.2%05.72 FL06.22 TC05.49 FL05.99 TC04.34 FS04.84 TC04.92 FS05.42 TC(0 8 . 0 0 F S ) 0 8 . 5 0 T C (07 . 81 FS )08. 31 TC (0 7 . 3 4 F S ) 0 7 . 8 4 T C 1.2% 0 3 . 5 0 F S 0 4 . 0 0 T C 03.50 TC03.26 FS03.76 TC1% MIN1% MIN0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 0 3 . 5 5 F L 0 4 . 0 5 T C (02.20 FS)02.70 TC(0 2 . 3 5 F S ) 0 2 . 8 5 T C (02.45 FS)02.95 TC0 3 . 0 0 T C (00.90 FS)01.40 TC(02.40 FS)02.90 TC(02.50 FS)03.00 TCPROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB CB CB PROP. V-GUTTERPROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALK PROP. C & G PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SEWERPROP. WATEREXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%G BPROP. C & GPROP. C & G(03.00 FS)03.50 TC(0 3 . 4 0 F S ) 0 3 . 9 0 T C PUEPUEPUE8"CF09.45 TC8"CF09.56 TC8"CF09.64 TC8"CF09.63 TC0.18% 8 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 7 2 T C8"CF09.31 TC8"CF09.38 TC0.16%1.7%MAX0 8 . 4 5 F S 0 8 . 9 5 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 4 T C 1.7%1.7%0 7 . 9 2 F L 0 8 . 4 2 T C 0.40% FF = 1208.8 08.80 FL08.85 FL6 " C F 0 9 . 6 1 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 8 T C 0 8 . 6 4 F L 0 9 . 1 4 T C 6 " C F 0 9 . 2 2 T C 6 " C F ; H P 0 9 . 3 3 T C 0 8 . 1 6 F L 0 8 . 6 6 T C 08.57 FL09.07 TC1%3%0.40%HP08.35 FL08.85 TC2.3%0.40% FF = 1209.3FF = 1209.0 0 8 . 0 8 F L 0 8 . 5 8 T C 8"CF09.36 TC8"CF09.27 TC8"CF08.87 TC8"CF09.07 TC8 " C F 0 9 . 0 7 T C8"CF09.45 TC09.64 FS10.14 TC1.7%1.7%FS; HP10.00PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 7 . 5 8 F L 0 7 . 0 7 F L 0 5 . 4 1 F S (0 2 . 5 0 F S ) 1.67%7.50 FL08.00 TCLPPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN 9' 5' 9' 26'(06.70 FS)07.40 TC0 7 . 4 0 T C (0 6 . 7 0 F S )7.9%0 7 . 7 9 F L 0 8 . 2 9 T C 0.40% 6 " C F 0 8 . 4 0 T C G B 1.5%0" CF 0" CF (0 7 . 7 1 F S ) 0 8 . 2 1 T C (06.65 FS)07.15 TC(06.84 F S)07.34 T C (05.85 FS)06.35 TC0 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C (07.15 FS)07.65 TC(07.04 FS)07.54 TC(06.63 F S)07.13 T C (06.84 FS)07.34 TC(06.22 F S)06.72 T C (06.16 F S)06.66 T C(07.07 FS)07.77 TC(07.27 FS)07.97 TC(07 .26 FS )07.76 TC(06.45 FS)06.95 TC(06.67 FS)07.37 TCEXIST. CURB (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.) EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/W(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) ( TYP . ) ( TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)13'21' 18'14'26'17'16'9' 9' 9'20'3'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'15'16'9'9' 9' 9' 9'24'7' 14'24'18'17'26'6'9'18'18'26'26'20' 9'18'7'26'4'10'13'32'26'17'17'10'25'25'27'45'32'14' 26'14'9'13'47'13'21'15'15' 12'12' 26' 68' 11'45'24' 20'10'13'9'17'16'10' 24'9' 35' 35'15'9' 8'9'9'6'8' 16'14'18'9' 16' 14' 15'8'12'8'5'5'6'6'5'5' 24'9'9' 24'9'24'26'26' 27'24'24' FOOTHILL BLVD. A A 32'5'16'(TYP.) G G5'(TYP.) 9' (TYP.) 9'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'(TYP.)18'6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET CG - 03SEE SHEET CG-02SEE SHEET CG-05 X XEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVHAVEN AVENUEPOOL COURTYARDTRASH N00° 10' 24"W52.50N89° 53' 38"E 157.50 N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 1275.39 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEBUILDING "C-I" WQMP 10'10'10'36'03.51 FL04.01 TC03.75 FS0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFF = 1205.5 FS06.171.7%04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%04.46 FL04.96 TC1.7%1.7%1.2%1.2%0.47%1.7%FS07.00FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%05.67 TC1.7%0 5 . 3 1 F S 0 5 . 8 1 T C 0.381%0.44% FF = 1206.8 0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C 06.20 FS06.70 TC1%05.70 FS0 6 . 0 0 F S 0 6 . 9 0 F S05.25 FL(03.4 FS)(03.9 TC)0 4 . 9 0 F S 0 5 . 4 0 T C 04.90 FS05.40 TC(04.40 FS)04.90 TC0 4 . 3 0 T C (00.95 FS)01.45 TC(01.70 FS)02.20 TC(03.40 FS)03.90 TC(03.00 FS)03.50 TC(03.40 FS)03.90 TC03.00 FS03.50 TC(98.8 FS)(99.7 FS)(03.30 FS)03.50 TC(02.90 FS)03.40 TC03.00 TC(02.30 FS)02.80 TC(0 2 . 8 0 F S ) 0 3 . 3 0 T C 0.98%0 5 . 5 8 F S 3% 0 5 . 0 4 F S 0 5 . 5 4 T C0.635%FF = 1206.4 0 4 . 2 7 F S3%1.2%04.66 FS04.94 TC0 4 . 0 5 F L 0 4 . 5 5 T C03.40 FS0.58%3%1.2%02.46 FL02.96 TC04.44 TC02.91 FL03.41 TC03.71 FS04.21 TC0 4 . 6 8 T C 3%03.17 FL03.67 TC03.57 FL04.07 TC0 0 . 4 9 F S 0 3 . 9 6 F S 0 4 . 4 6 T C 02.88 FL03.38 TC04.15 TC0.50%F S 0 4 . 2 1 03.71 FS04.21 TC01.70 FS02.20 TC0 2 . 7 5 F L 0 3 . 2 8 T C 1% 0 3 . 7 1 F S 0 4 . 2 1 T C2.9%1.7%3%1.75%(00.39) FS00.89 TC(00.74) FS01.24 TC00.83 FS01.33 TC(01.10 FS)01.60 TC99.23 FL99.73 TC99.48 FL99.98 TC99.58 FL00.08 TC1.48% 0.50% 0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 00.90FS01.40 TC(00.90 FS)01.40 TC(00.60 FS)01.10 TC(01.90 FS)02.40 TC1.2%02.60 FS03.10 TC00.60 FS01.10 TC0 4 . 9 0 F S 0 5 . 4 0 T C 06.20 FS06.70 TC0 5 . 8 0 F S 0 6 . 3 0 T C 99.43 FL99.73 TCLP00.28 FS00.78 TC2%HP00.35 FS3.5%04.44 FS04.94 TC1.2%05.56 FS2.5%1.5%0 5 . 8 4 F L 0 6 . 1 4 F L 06.90 FS04.05 FL04.55 TC99.00 FL99.50 TC01.20 FS01.70 TC0 2 . 6 4 F S 0 3 . 1 4 T C 0 2 . 8 2 F S 0 3 . 3 2 T C 0 3 . 0 0 F S 0 3 . 5 0 T C 01.79 FS02.29 TC0 3 . 1 6 F S 0 3 . 6 6 T C04.27 TC0 3 . 4 7 F S 0 3 . 9 7 T C 04.22 FS1.36%GB(96.3 FS)0"CF(96.7 FS)0"CF1.7%02.83 FL0"CF7.5%0 0 . 9 0 F S 0 1 . 7 7 F S 00.80FS3.1%4.5% 9 9 . 5 0 F S 9 9 . 4 0 F S 9 7 . 0 0 F S 7.5%02.95FS02.85FS97.239-6"R06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C 03.87 FL04.37 TC0.50%GBFF = 1205.5 FF = 1205.5 PROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB CB CB PROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. SIDEWALKPROP. V-GUTTERPROP. V-GUTTERPOOL R / R EXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER4%0 4 . 7 9 F S 0 5 . 0 2 F S 0 3 . 1 3 F L 0 3 . 6 3 T C 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%CB CB PROP. C & G PROP. C & G 03.29 FS02.77 FS3%3%8.9%0.6%GB02.85 FL03.35 TC3%0.58%3%3%0.58%GBGB 01.81FS01.73FSPROP. C & GPROP. C & G99.59 FL00.09 TC9 9 . 7 4 F S 0 0 . 2 4 T C 2%2%2%(98.2 FG)04.7 FG(97.5 FG)05.50 FS(98.0 FG)04.7 FG( 9 8 . 1 F G ) 0 3 . 9 F G (98.0 FG)99.7 FG (97.5 FG)00.4 FG2.9' RET1.7' RET5. 8 ' R E T (97.5 FG)02.0 FG4.5' RET6.7' RET8.0' RET6.5' RETPUEPUEPUEPUEPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN05.17 FS0 6 . 0 8 T C 0 6 . 3 4 F S 03.77 FS(0 3 . 8 0 F S )03.65 FL(02.50 FS)10'0 4 . 1 8 F S 04.44 FS03.94 FL(96.30 FS)96.80 TC(96.73 FS)97.23 TC01.96 FS02.46 TC26'99.65 FS96.39 FS9 6 . 6 7 F S(96.60 FS)97.10 TC9.1%99.70 FS01.21 FLGB0 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C D D EE C C (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)EXISTING R/W(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) 17' 13'17'11'11'26'17'15'9' 7' 9'9' 9' 9' 9'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'17'9' 9'9' 9' 9' 9' 17'26'17'10'14'9' 17' 17'17'26'3'20'12'7'26'9'18'18'18'18'12' 12' 23'36'26'26' 8' 9' 9'4'26'26'26'17'17'26' 9'26' 10'26'9' 5'18'9'5'9'18'9' 12'12' 26' 14'26'26' 17'17'17'9'10' 10' 10' 24' 35' 35'15'6'6'8' 5'6'18'9' 18' 14'6'5'5' 24' 9'9'N00° 06' 22"W381.506 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET CG - 04SEE SHEET CG-05SEE SHEET CG-02 X XEVEVEVEV EVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVPOOL COURTYARD TRASHN00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 N00° 06' 22"W126.00N89° 53' 38"E 139.00 N00° 06' 22"W39.00BUILDING "C-II" WQMP10'10'10'10'35'26' 0 5 . 1 5 F S 0 4 . 4 8 F L 0 4 . 9 8 T C 0 4 . 8 2 F L 0 5 . 3 2 T C 05.74 FS06.24 TCFS06.171.7% 0 3 . 8 7 F S04.80 FS05.30 TCHP0.50%0.50% FF = 1205.504.46 FL04.96 TC0 3 . 3 8 F L 0 3 . 8 8 T C 1.7%1.7%1.2%1.7%FS07.00FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 8 4 T C 0 6 . 2 2 F L 0 6 . 7 2 T C 06.22 FS06.72 TCGB1.7%0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C1%0 6 . 0 0 F S 0 6 . 9 0 F S 04.90 FS05.40 TC1.2%04.66 FS04.94 TC0 4 . 0 5 F L 0 4 . 5 5 T C1.2%04.44 TC0 4 . 9 0 F S 0 5 . 4 0 T C 04.90 FS05.40 TCFF = 1206.806.20 FS06.70 TC0 6 . 2 0 F S 0 6 . 7 0 T C FF = 1206.8 (05.00 FL)05.25 FL05.80 FL06.25 FL1.2%04.44 FS04.94 TC1.2%0 3 . 3 1 F S 0 3 . 8 1 T C 1.03%03.97 FS03.64 FS04.14 TC1.5%VAR3%03.65 FS04.15 TC(0 3 . 0 0 F S ) 0 3 . 5 0 T C (02.95 FS)03.45 TC0 5 . 8 4 F L 0 6 . 1 4 F L 06.90 FS04.05 FL04.55 TC0 2 . 7 1 F L 0 3 . 2 1 T C (0 4 . 0 0 F S ) (0 4 . 5 0 T C )(97.00 FS)JOIN EXIST.(9 7 . 5 7 F S ) J O I N E X I S T .04.18 FS3%3%04.22 FS1.36%GB0 2 . 7 8 F L 0 3 . 2 8 T C 04.92 FS05.42 TC2.45%06.06 FS06.56 TC1.2%05.15 FS1.7%FF = 1207.6 0 6 . 3 4 F S 0 6 . 8 4 T C (03.00 FS)03.50 TC(01.60 FS)02.10 TC(0 1 . 6 0 F S ) 0 2 . 1 0 T C (00.70 FS)01.20 TC(0 0 . 9 0 F S ) 0 1 . 4 0 T C 99.70 FS00.20 TC04.68 TC(00.2 FG)03.5 FG03.87 FL04.37 TC0.50%GB0.50%03.37 FL03.87 TCGB0 3 . 4 0 F S 0.50%04.47 TC03.02 FL03.52 TC(98.70 FS)0"CF(98.40 FS)98.90 TC(99.27 FS)99.77 TC(00.00 FS)99.20 FL00.50 TC99.00 FL99.50 TC98.00 FL98.50 TC9 8 . 6 4 F L 9 9 . 1 4 T C05.37 FS05.87 TC1.2%04.34 FS04.84 TC04.92 FS05.42 TC0.88%99.11 FS99.61 TC03.16 FL9 9 . 9 4 F S 2.1%99.39 FLGB0.88%2.3%00.77 FS01.27 TC98.73 FS9 8 . 4 8 F S7.4%6.85%1.2% 0 3 . 5 0 F S 0 4 . 0 0 T C 02.80 FS03.30 TC03.00 FS03.50 TC03.26 FS03.76 TC03.50 FS04.00 TC02.55 FS03.05 TC02.35 FS02.85 TC03.24 FS1% MIN1% MIN0 2 . 9 0 F L 0 3 . 4 0 T C 02.70 FL03.20 TC0 3 . 5 5 F L 0 4 . 0 5 T C (02.20 FS)02.70 TC(0 2 . 3 5 F S ) 0 2 . 8 5 T C FF = 1205.5 FF = 1205.5 (02.45 FS)02.95 TC0 3 . 0 0 T C (00.90 FS)01.40 TC(0 0 . 3 0 F S ) 0 0 . 8 0 T C (0 0 . 5 5 F S ) 0 1 . 0 5 T C (02.40 FS)02.90 TC(02.50 FS)03.00 TC(00.00 FS)00.50 TCPROP. V-GUTTER CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB PROP. C & GPROP. C & G PROP. V-GUTTERPROP. SIDEWALK PROP. SIDEWALK POOL R / R EXIST. SEWER EXIST. WATER0 4 . 7 9 F S 1.7%06.05 FS3.5%06.05 FS3.5%PROP. C & G 04.82 FL05.32 TC1.7%01.67 FSG B 0 3 . 8 0 F S GBPROP. C & GPROP. C & G2%2%2%(98.2 FG)04.7 FG (97.5 FG)05.50 FS(98.0 FG)04.7 FG6.7' RET8.0' RET6.5' RET3.3' RET(0 0 . 3 F G ) 0 2 . 5 F G 2. 2 ' R E T (99.5 FG)99.4 FG (03.00 FS)03.50 TC(0 3 . 4 0 F S ) 0 3 . 9 0 T C (9 9 . 8 0 F S ) 0 0 . 3 0 T C (00.00 FS)00.50 TC(00.30 FS)00.80 TCPUEPUEPUEPUE(00.1 FG)0.70 FG 0.6' RETPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAINPROP. STORM DRAIN PROP. STORM DRAIN 0 6 . 3 4 F S (0 2 . 5 0 F S )04.44 FS03.94 FL02.14 FL02.64 TC01.80 FL02.30TC00.00 FL7.9%99.967-6"R01.73FSFS3.46FS98.78FS99.78FS3.540 6 . 2 4 F L 0 6 . 7 4 T C ASPEN STREETBB C C D D (TYP.)EXISTING R/W(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)26'17'16'9' 9' 9' 9' 9'9' 9'9'20'3'9'26'14' 16'14'15'16'9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9'10'14'9' 17' 26'24'7' 14'24'5'4'17'26'3'20'17'12'7'26'18'18'18'18'17'26'6' 26'9'18'18'26'26'26'17'17'17'26' 9' 5'18'12'12' 26'9'17'16'10' 10' 24' 35' 35'15'6'18'9' 14'6'6'5'5'5'24'24' 9'9' N89° 53' 38"E 1275.39 N00° 06' 22"W381.006 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET CG - 05SEE SHEET CG-04SEE SHEET CG-03 (VAR.) PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER 16' & 19.5' ℄ PROP. SIDEWALK BUILDING 2% SECTION A-A SCALE: 1"=5' FOOTHILL BLVD. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROAD 1% MIN. 16'-10" PROP. PARKING PROP. 6" CURB ONLY 8' EXIST. PAVEMENT EXISTR/W PROP.R/W 33' 7' (VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN (VAR.) PROP. 1% MIN. PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTERPROP. PAVEMENT 60' 12' (VAR.) 25' LANES 7' & 10.5' 17' PARKING (TYP.) PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER 1% MIN AISLE 1% MIN. ℄ 44' EXIST CURB & GUTTER 11' 12'EXIST. LANDSCAPE 4' SIDEWALK E'LYPL 32' VARIES (2%) SECTION B-B SCALE: 1"=5' ASPEN STREET 26' EXIST. GROUNDPROP. AC PAVEMENT VARIES 26'17' PARKING 1.2% EXIST. 6" CURB 1% MIN PROP. X-GUTTER SECTION E-E SCALE: 1"=5' ℄ 64.5' EXIST CURB & GUTTER 11.8' 9'EXIST. LANDSCAPE 5' SIDEWALK E'LYPL 55.5' VARIES HAVEN AVENUE EXIST. GROUND AISLE 1% MIN.(2%) 17' PARKING (TYP.) AISLE 36' 1% MIN. PARKING PROP. AC PAVEMENT 36' SECTION D-D SCALE: 1"=5' 11'-12.25' S'LYP/L 2'-3.5'8.75'-9' PROP. 6' HIGH FENCE PROP. RET. WALL 2% PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER 1% MIN.1% MIN. PROP. AC PAVEMENT (0' MIN. - 4.4' MAX. RET) 11.4'-12.4' S'LYP/L 8.9'-9.9' 17' PARKING (TYP.) PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER PROP. RET. WALL (3.3' MIN.- 8' MAX. RET) AISLE 1% MIN.1% MIN. PROP. AC PAVEMENT 26' SECTION C-C SCALE: 1"=5' 2% 6" CURB ONLY BUILDING PARKING W/ HANGER 6.5'23.6' 2% EXIST. GROUND PROP. 6' HIGH FENCE 2.5'-3.5' (VAR.) PROP. 8" CURB & GUTTER 6' ℄ PROP. SIDEWALK 2% SECTION F-F SCALE: 1"=5' FOOTHILL BLVD. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROAD 20' LANDSCAPE PROP. 6" CURB ONLY EXIST. PAVEMENT EXISTR/W PROP.R/W 33' 1% MIN. PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTER PROP. PAVEMENT 60' LANES EXIST. GROUND (VAR.) EXIST. LANDSCAPE 11.5' 2% MIN. 4.7' 3' EXIST. MEDIAN 9' (VAR.) EXIST. PAVEMENT 21.7' (VAR.) PROP. 8" CURB & GUTTER 6' ℄ PROP. SIDEWALK 2% SECTION G-G SCALE: 1"=5' FOOTHILL BLVD. 11' PROP. FRONTAGE ROAD 4' VARIES EXIST. PAVEMENT EXISTR/W PROP.R/W 33' 60' LANES EXIST. GROUND(VAR.) 5' 2% MIN. 4.7' 21.7' EXIST. LANDSCAPE 1% MIN. 16'-10" PROP. PARKING PROP. 6" CURB ONLY 1% MIN. PROP. 6" CURB & GUTTERPROP. PAVEMENT 11' (VAR.) EXIST. MEDIAN LANDSCAPE 6 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET CG - 06 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV660'660'660'660'FOOTHILL BOULEVARD HAVEN AVENUEASPEN STREETAPN: 1077-661-02 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-661-01 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-25 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-15 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-16 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-17 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-22 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-29 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-24 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-30 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 1077-423-28 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGHAPN: 1077-423-27 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-44 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-43 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-216-82 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-47 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-331-48 EXISTING ZONING: MU CITY CORRIDOR HIGH APN: 0208-353-05 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-04 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-03 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-01 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-03 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-23 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-353-19 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-353-20 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-353-21 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-222-15 EXISTING ZONING: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT APN: 0208-232-14 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-11 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-10 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER APN: 0208-353-15 EXISTING ZONING: CITY CENTER PARCEL 2, P.M. No. 9612 ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S. DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA SITE UTILIZATION MAP APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR SITE UTILIZATION MAP DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET SU - 01 1 EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVHAVEN AVEEXIST. CURB POOLEXIST. CURBEXIST. CURB (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 125.51 N00° 06' 22"W117.00N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINECENTERLINE EXISTING R/WPARCEL 1 BARTON PLAZA (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)PROPERTY LINE( TYP . ) ( TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)BUILDING "B"BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II"PROPERTY LINER=10' EXIST. R/W PROP. R/WPROP. R/W DESIGN SPEED OF 15 M.P.H. AT ENTRY PROP. R/W NO FIRE ACCESS R=30' R=30'LANELANELANER=15' R=20'LANESBX BUS SHELTER 445' 24' 13'21'13'17'13' 11'26'17'15'20'3'22'9' 9'20'3'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'17'9' 9'9'9' 9' 17'26'17'9'18'18'12'26'26'8' 9' 9'26'26'26'4'26'7'26'10'10'3'20'18'9' 7'17'17'25'45'32'14' 26'8'14' 9' 5'9'20' 68' 58'10' 26'10'26'26'26'9'5'9'18'29' 9'27'44' 9'9' 9'9' 9'(17')(60')45'40'(7')(12')(11')40'26' 60'30'11'11'11'16'14'5'5'3.3'6.0' S.W.11'16'-10"20'6' S.W.11'11'25'25'9'11'4.3'APPROX. 130'24'18'18'18'9' R=15' FOOTHILL BLVD. 13'21'15'15' 8' 10' 12'12' 26'14'14' 68' 17'17'17'9'24' 20'10'10'24' 24'9' 35'35'15'9' 10' 8'11'31' 3' 5' 6'6'8' 5'9'9'6'8' 16'26'18'9' 12'5'18' 16' 12'7'6'5'5' 24'9'9' 24'9'9'9'9'9'35'8'9'( T Y P . )9'( T Y P . )9'( T Y P . )10.5'(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS ARROW ROUTE CIVIC CENTER DR RED OAK ST HAVEN AVENUEFOOTHILL BLVD MILLIKEN AVENUEELM AVENUESPRUCE AVENUECENTER AVENUEDEER CREEK CHANNELUTICA AVENUECHURCH S T R E E T TO W N C E N T E R D R I V E C H U R C H S T R E E T PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S.EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVPOOL COURTYARD TRASHDRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DSP - 01SEE SHEET DSP-02SEE SHEET DSP-03 INDEX MAP SCALE: 1"=100'SHT. 1SHT. 2SHT. 3SHT. 4OWNER/DEVELOPER RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH (650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com CIVIL ENGINEER MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 CONTACT: MARK BERTONE (909) 481-6322 ext. 120 Email: mbertone@madoleinc.com ARCHITECT KTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA. 92614 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS 34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY DANA POINT, CA. 92629 CONTACT: TRENT NOLL (949) 443-1446 x 279 Email: tnoll@smpinc.net CONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK (949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.com SUITE 200 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV24' 13'13'21'21'15'15' 12'12' 26'ASPEN ST.68'11' 24' 20'10'13'18'14'9'17'26'17'16'16'20'3'22'POOL COURTYARD 9' 9' 9'20'3'10'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'15'16'9' 9'9' 9'9' 9' 9'26'17'TRASH26'24'7'14'24'18'17'26'6' 26'9'18'18'26'26'10'3'20'7' 9'18'7'26'4'10'13'32'26'17'17'17'10'25'25'27'45'32'35'14' 26' 24' 24'9' 35'35'15'9' 10'9'9'6'8' 16'18'9'9' 12'5' (TYP.)(TYP.)16' 14'8'12'8'5'5'6'6'5'5'5' (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.) N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N89° 53' 38"E 405.31 N00° 06' 22"W117.00N89° 53' 38"E 184.14 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 N00° 06' 22"W126.00BUILDING "A"EXISTING R/W EXISTING R/WPARCEL 3 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) 24'9'9' 24'9' ( TYP . ) ( TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)26'26' 27'24'BUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-II"EXIST. CURBEXIST. CURB 62'30' CENTERLINE CENTERLINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE9'9'18'32'9'9'9'9' 9' 9' 9' 9' 9'9' 9' 45' 45'27'24'EXIST. R/W R=10' PROP. R/WPROP. R/W LANER=15' R=20'LANELANELANEPROP. R/W R=50' R=50' R=50' SBX BUS SHELTER PLATFORM PLUS ENTRY RAMPS 45'32'(17')(60')40'(7')(12')(11')40'26' 33'30'11'11'11'11'11'11'16'14'7'414'11'25'25'16'-10"2'11'11'11'6' S.W.6' S.W.6'18'23.5'APPROX. 130'5'24'18'9' R=15' FOOTHILL BLVD.27'7'8'9'( T Y P . )9' ( T Y P . )9' ( T Y P . ) 9'18'5' 26'5'5'10.5'18'9'18'9' (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DSP - 02SEE SHEET DSP-01SEE SHEET DSP-04 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVEV EV EVEV EVEVHAVEN AVE12' 12' 26' 14'17'13'26'17'11'26' 17'11'17'26'17'15'17'9'POOL COURTYARD 9'7'9'9' 9' 9' 9' 10' 10'20'3'10' 9'26'14' 14'14'17'9' 9'9'9' 9' 9' 17'26'17'TRASH10'14'9' 17' 17'17'26'3'20'12'10' 7'26'9'18'18'18'18'12' 12' 23'36'26'26'8' 9' 9'4'26'26'26'17'17'17'24' 24' 35'35'15'EXIST. CURB6'6'8' 6'6'18'9'9'5'18' (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)12'6'5'5'5' (TYP.) (TYP.)N00° 10' 24"W52.50N89° 53' 38"E 157.50 N00° 06' 22"W112.50N89° 53' 38"E 129.00 N00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 1275.39 BUILDING "A"PROPERTY LINEEXISTING R/W68' 58'10' PARCEL 1 BARTON PLAZA 26'10'(TYP.)(TYP.)26'(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)9' (TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)9'5'9'18'9'5'9'18'PROPERTY LINEBUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II" 9' PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEEXISTING CENTERLINEPROPERTY LINE 8' 169' 7'55'86'7'14'9'9'86'9' 26'N00° 06' 22"W381.50DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DSP - 03SEE SHEET DSP-04SEE SHEET DSP-01 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. EV12' 26'ASPEN ST.13'18'14'9'17'26'17'16'16'POOL COURTYARD 9' 9' 9' 9'9'9' 10'20'3'10'20'3'9'26'14' 14'14'15'16'17'9' 9'9' 9'9' 9' 9' 9' 9'26'17'10'14'9' 17' 26'24'7'14'24'26'4'17'26'3'20'17'12'7'26'17'18'18'17'26'6'35'26'9'18'18'10' 9'26'26'10'9'18'26'17'17'17'10'25'25'26' 24' 24'9' 35'35'15'9'6'18'9'9'(TYP.)(TYP.)14' 5'6'6'5'5'5' (TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EVEV EV EV EVEV EVEVEVEVEVEVEVN00° 06' 22"W172.00N89° 53' 38"E 135.00 N00° 06' 22"W126.00N89° 53' 38"E 139.00 N00° 06' 22"W39.00S89° 53' 38"W1275.39 BUILDING "A"EXISTING R/WPARCEL 3 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)(TYP.) (TYP.) (TYP.)9'5'9'18'(TYP . )(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)(TYP.)26'24'BUILDING "B" BUILDING "C-I"BUILDING "C-II"EXIST. CURBCENTERLINEPROPERTY LINE9'9'18'PROPERTY LINE26'(TYP.)5'9'18'6'3'6'3' 6'5'(TYP.) (TYP.)9'(TYP.)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 9' 9' 9'9' 9' 45'86'14'86'7' 7' 170' 6'9' (TYP.) 6' 6'N00° 06' 22"W381.00DRAWING NO. OF DRAWINGS IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETAILED SITE PLAN APN: 0208-353-02-0-000 MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOT BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY. (313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES) FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612 4 FOOTHILL CENTER 10575 FOOTHILL BLVD. RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 PHONE: 909.481.6322 FAX: 909.481.6320 DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTAL MAY 23, 2022 PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN DRC2019 - 00850 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-0381 7.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS 7.48 AC. NET DSP - 04SEE SHEET DSP-03SEE SHEET DSP-02 NOTE: PARKING WILL BE DOUBLE STRIPED PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EVEVEVEVEV EVEV EV EV EVEVDA1AREA=210,191 SQ. FT. (4.8 AC.)DCV=13,881 CU. FT.QBMP=0.7 CFSSYSTEM RETENTION VOLUME=14,109 (102%)PRETREATMENT CAPACITY = 0.84 CFSDA2AREA=200,235 SQ. FT. (4.6 AC.)DCV=13,224 CU. FT.QBMP=0.6 CFSSYSTEM RETENTION VOLUME=13,487 (102%)PRETREATMENT CAPACITY = 0.84 CFSBMP-3FOOTHILL BOULEVARDHAVEN AVENUE ASPEN AVENUEBMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-1BMP-2BMP-1BMP-2EXIST.BUILDINGEXIST.BUILDINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGBMP-4N14BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4EXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKING114'23'103'23' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10'PROP. R/WPROP. R/WNO FIREACCESSLANE PROP. R/WSBX BUSSHELTER3.3'16'-10"20'11' 16'-10"9'(TYP.)APPROX. 130.00'PLATFORM PLUSENTRY RAMPS10'9'5'9'EXIST. PLEXIST. PARKWAY CULVERTEXIST. PARKWAY CULVERTDRAINAGE AREABOUNDARYPROP. STORM DRAINLOW FLOW DIVERSION TOINFILTRATION SYSTEM383' L.F. 60-INCH PERFORATEDRETENTION PIPE323' L.F. 60-INCH PERFORATEDRETENTION PIPEPROP. STORM DRAINEXIST. 8" WATEREXIST. 8" SEWEREXIST. 8" WATEREXIST. 8" SEWER101'℄60'13'13'PROP. WATERPROP. SEWER8.5'EXIST. PLPOOL COURTYARD 60' 13'13' 8.5'℄60' ℄48'LOW FLOW DIVERSION TOINFILTRATION SYSTEMARROW ROUTECIVIC CENTER DRRED OAK STHAVEN AVENUE FOOTHILL BLVDMILLIKEN AVENUE ELM AVENUE SPRUCE AVENUE CENTER AVENUE DEER C R E E K C H A N N E L U T I C A A V E N U E CHURCH STREETTOWN CENTER DRIVECHURCH STREETPROJECTSITEVICINITY MAPN.T.S.10' 4'5'1'23'2'2'7'19'36-INCH Ø ACCESS RISER FORMAINTENANCE PURPOSESGEOTEXTILE/ FILTER FABRIC1"-2" CLEAN WASHED ROCK(n=0.40).60-INCH Ø PERFORATED H.D.P.E.RETENTION/ INFILTRATION SYSTEMFINISHED SURFACE1DRAWING NO.OF DRAWINGSIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINOSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAPN: 0208-353-02-0-000MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOTBEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OFPARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY.(313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES)FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSESPARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENT PLANFOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVD.RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 913559302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730PHONE: 909.481.6322FAX: 909.481.6320DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 23, 2022PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612FORPRELIMINARY WATER QUALITYDRC2019 - 00850MANAGEMENT PLANRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-03817.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS7.48 AC. NETWATER QUALITY MITIGATION SUMMARYSITE AREA (TRACT BOUNDARY) = 345,599 SQ. FT. (7.9 AC.)DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY (DISTURBED AREA)= 384,262 SQ. FT. (8.8 AC.)LAND USE = CONDOMINIUMS; FIGURE C-4; IMPERVIOUS COVER = 65%REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA = 3.97 ACREPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.02 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 7.70 ACTOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 7.72 ACP2YR-1HR = 0.607 INCbmp = 0.45P6 =0.89948 HOUR DRAWDOWN , a = 1.963SITE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME (DA1) = 13,881 CU. FT.SITE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FLOW RATE (DA1) = 0.7 C.F.SSITE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME (DA2) = 13,224 CU. FT.SITE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FLOW RATE (DA2) = 0.6 C.F.SHYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FD-3HC TREATMENT RATE = 0.84 C.F.S.NOTES:1.ALL SOILS GROUP A2.SITE IS HCOC EXEMPT; ALL DOWNSTREAM CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS EHM.3.DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEM AND RETENTION VOLUME BASED ONESTIMATED 5IN/HR. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATIONS OF SYSTEM DESIGN ARE SUBJECTTO CHANGE UPON FINAL ENGINEERING.MITIGATION SUMMARY:STORMWATER RUNOFF AND NUISANCE FLOWS FROM THE PROJECT SITE WILL SHEETFLOWAND GUTTERFLOW TO VARIOUS DROP INLET CATCH BASINS THROUGHOUT THE SITE ANDENTER AN UNDERGROUND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. BEFORE THE STORMWATER LEAVESTHE SITE THROUGH EXISTING PARKWAY DRAINS, A LOW FLOW DIVERSION PIPE WILLINTERCEPT THE WATER QUALITY VOLUME AND ROUTE IT TO AN UNDERGROUNDRETENTION/INFILTRATION SYSTEMS. STORMFLOWS EXCEEDING THE WATER QUALITYVOLUME AND THE SYSTEM RETENTION CAPABILITIES WILL EXIT THE SITE VIA THE EXISTINGPARKWAY DRAINS LOCATED WITHIN EACH DRAINAGE AREA.STORMFLOWS ENTERING THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEMS WILLFIRST BE TREATED BY A HYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FD-3HC CLARIFIERS. THECLARIFIERS WILL REMOVE TRASH, DEBRIS, OILS, AND POLLUTANTS FROM THE RUNOFFBEFORE ROUTING IT INTO THE PROPOSED 60" PERFORATED HDPE RETENTION SYSTEM. ASTHE PIPE FILLS, WATER WILL INFILTRATE THROUGH THE PERFORATIONS AND THEUNDERLYING GRAVEL BED.SOURCE CONTROL BMPsINSTALL STORMWATER PLACARDS/STENCILED MESSAGES WITH "NO DUMPING" MESSAGE TO DISCOURAGE ILLEGAL DUMPING AND PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND THE PROTECTION OF STORMWATER QUALITY.DESIGN AN EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO MINIMIZE WATER LOSS, RUNOFF, AND EVAPORATION. (NOTE: S4 NOT SHOWN ON PLAN;APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE).LITTER DEBRIS AND TRASH CONTROL PROGRAM. MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AND REMOVING LITTER AND DEBRIS FROM PUBLICAREAS BEFORE IT CAN ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM (NOTE: N11 NOT SHOWN; APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE)INSPECT CATCH BASINS AND DROP INLETS ON A REGULAR BASIS OR TRASH AND DEBRIS THAT COULD CLOG THE DOWNSTREAMRETENTION/INFILTRATION SYSTEMMINIMIZE TRASH AND DEBRIS IN STORM RUNOFF THROUGH A REGULAR PARKING LOT AND ROADWAY SWEEPING PROGRAM. (NOTE: N15NOT SHOWN ON PLAN; APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE).BMP-4S4N14STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPsHYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FC-3HC (OR APPROVED EQUAL): WATER QUALITY RUNOFFWILL FIRST ENTER THE PRETREATMENT CLARIFIER TO REMOVE OIL, DEBRIS, TRASH, AND POLLUTANTS BEFORE RELEASING IT TO THE UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM.60" DIAMETER PERFORATED RETENTION AND INFILTRATION SYSTEM. WATER QUALITY RUNOFF WILLBE STORED WITHIN THE 60" PIPE WHILE IT INFILTRATES INTO THE SOILS BELOW.CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERTS TO BE INSTALLED IN CATCH BASINS 12-INCHE AND BIGGER TO REMOVE FIRST FLUSH DEBRIS, TRASH, AND POLLUTANTS FROM RUNOFF PRIOR TO ENTERING THEONSITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.BMP-1BMP-2N15N11RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 VALENCIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 404SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355BMPMAINTENANCEFREQUENCYCONTECH CDS 2020-5PRETREATMENT CLARIFIER (ORAPPROVED EQUAL)CLEARING AND VACUUMING OFSEDIMENT AND DEBRIS WITHINSTORAGE AREA PERMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTS60" PERFORATEDRETENTION/INFILTRATIONPIPESCLEARING AND VACUUMING OFSEDIMENT AND DEBRIS WITHINPIPE PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTSSTORM DRAINSTENCILINGREPLACEMENT OF STORM DRAINSTENCIL TO MAINTAIN VISIBILITY.AS NEEDEDALL FUTURE APPLICABLESTRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROLAND NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCECONTROL BMPSMAINTENANCE, INSPECTION,REPAIR, ETC. AS APPLICABLEFOR ALL BMPs THAT APPLYDURING FINAL DESIGN OFPROJECT.TO BE DETERMINEDRESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAINTENANCE & INSPECTIONS:CATCH BASINFILTER INSERTSCLEARING OF SEDIMENT ANDDEBRIS WITHIN BASKET PERMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTSHOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO MAINTAINAFTER COMPLETION AND TURNOVERBMP-3LEGEND:DCVDESIGN CAPTURE VOLUMESFSQUARE FEET (FT2)CFCUBIC FEET (FT3)CYCUBIC YARDSVRETRETENTION VOLUMEDMADRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAPROP. PROPOSEDEXIST. EXISTINGDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARYEXISTING 1.0' CONTOURFLOW DIRECTIONINFILTRATION SYSTEM - TYPICAL SECTIONSCALE: 1"=10'I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE NECESSARY STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANSTRUCTURAL STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND AREFUNCTIONAL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AS OF THE DATE BELOW.                                                                                                                                        ______________                 SIGNATURE DATEWQMP BMP AS-BUILT CERTIFICATEPWQMP-01OWNER/DEVELOPERRC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH(650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.comCIVIL ENGINEERMADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730CONTACT: MARK BERTONE(909) 481-6322 ext. 120Email: mbertone@madoleinc.comARCHITECTKTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200IRVINE, CA. 92614LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYDANA POINT, CA. 92629CONTACT: TRENT NOLL(949) 443-1446 x 279Email: tnoll@smpinc.netCONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK(949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.comSUITE 200AREA:GROSS ACRES .............................................. 7.94 ACREVISED GROSS ACRES.............................. 7.71 ACNET ACRES .................................................... 7.48 ACTOTAL DISTURBED AREA.............................. 8.91 ACREMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA................ 3.97 ACREPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA....... 0.02 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA................... 7.70 ACTOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA............................ 7.72 AC TON PLAZA /2-.___.__._�....,___,,.__,, \ ---- Irrigation Water Audit Note : MAINTENANCE COMPANY TO PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION AUDIT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED IRRIGATION AUDITOR PRIOR TO TURNOVER OF PROJECT AND EVERY 5 YEARS THEREAFTER. A SCHEDULE SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF AT LEAST ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE COUPLED WITH THE AUDITS SHOULD HELP TO MAINTAIN THE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY AS INTENDED IN THE DESIGN. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE TESTED AND MAINTAINED ON A MONTHLY BASIS BY THE MAINTENANCE STAFF. Water Conservation Notes: THE FOLLOWING WATER CONSERVATION TECHNIQUES SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THIS PROJECT: e WATER CONSERVING PLANTS, AND PLANTS NATIVE TO HOT, DRY SUMMERS, UTILIZED IN 95% OF THE TOTAL PLANT AREA. • • • • • • IRRIGATION ZONES SEPERATED BY PLANT MATERIAL. USE OF HYDROZONES WITH PLANTS GROUPED BASED UPON AMOUNT OF WATER NEEDED TO SUSTAIN THEM. SOIL AMENDMENTS UTILIZED TO IMPROVE WATER HOLDING CAPACITY OF SOIL. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM ADJUSTED SEASONALLY AND WITH WATERING HOURS BETWEEN 9:00 P.M. AND 9:00 A.M. IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGNED TO WATER DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LANDSCAPE BASED ON WATERING NEED. RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN FOR ANNUAL IRRIGATION SCHEDULE . Maintenance Schedule : WEEKLY ITEMS CHECK FLOW RA TES FROM THE SMART CONTROLLER ON A DAILY BASIS TO CONFIRM THAT THE FLOWS FOR EACH CONTROL VALVE ARE CONSISTENT EVERY DAY. MONTHLY ITEMS CHECK AND CLEAN THE BASKET STRAINER OR BACKFLOW STRAINER SCREEN($). DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE FLUSHED OF ALL ACCUMULATED DEBRIS. CHECK ALL AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVES TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE OPERATING CORRECTLY AND THAT THE FLUSHED AREA IS NOT OVER SATURATED. IF OVER SATURATION OCCURS CORRECT THE PROBLEM AN NOTE IT IN ANNUAL REPORT. PROVIDE A REPORT IN A CHECKLIST FORM SHOWING WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM, DATE THE PROBLEM WAS FIRST KNOW, WHEN THE PROBLEM WAS CORRECTED, WHO CORRECTED THE PROBLEM . THIS REPORT SHALL BE TURNED OVER TO THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE BY THE FIRST WEEK OF EACH MONTH. YEARLY ITEMS VERIFY THE SMART CONTROLLER SERVICE IS OPERATIONAL AND CONFIRM ITS RENEWAL DATE. VERIFY THAT THE CURRENT TO THE REMOTE CONTROL VALVES IS WITHIN A MANUF ACTURERS ACCEPTABLE RANGE. IF IT IS NOT, REPLACEMENT OF THE SOLENOID IS RECOMMENDED. SHOULD THIS NOT CORRECT THE ISSUE ADDITION TROUBLESHOOTING SHALL BE PERFORMED. . . . . . .,.. • • • • • • Foothill enter Water Use Calculations 10575 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA I 33 North I May 20, 2022 I DLC #: 00850 • l_J __ , __ ,_ WAT.Ell Ef'fiCJENCT LANDSCAl't: W'OIUrSBEET Thi, wor�sheeti, il!e:l out by the proiechµl)licantand !tis• req1lire:l item o! l!,o Land,c,p, Document>tion P>ck>i-e. One worMheetcompleta for point of connection (waler meter}* Raocho Selctt 91UI lit\-: Cucamcnz, Proj!ct nine or a411he:ss: 105 75 Foothill blvd. Reference Ev-�raospinrien (no): 55.5 California Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet Refe.-ence Evai:,olransplration (ET0) ,, 55.6 ProJe.:t Type ResIder1Jal f-ttdtozona "#'/ Planilno Plalll lrr�allon lrrigatlOn ETAF Landscape ETAF X Oesc1iptiona Factor (PF) hlelhod•Eff�iencv (Pf /E) A111a (6�. Fl.) Area 0EI° R-"JarLandsca-Areas 1..o\11 Water Use <shrub\ 0,3 Q,tp 0.81 0.37 34605 12817 Med Water use <shnb 0.5 Ono 0.81 0.62 14831 9155 Med water Use IT reel 0.5 Bublier 0.77 0.6.5 0 0 Hinh W�er Use7turli 0.8 Ovemeacl 0.75 107 0 0 A•..eraae Total Totaf 0 44 49,436 21,972 Average ET.AF for Regular Land$cape Areas: Saec/a/Landsc=e Areas SLA-1 � 1Ret""leWater used Tttais I -I 0 I 0 0 Total Landscape Are� Stat�d� ET AF 0.56 E Slimaled T(ial Water Use (ElWUt' 441816 315589 0 0 In Comr>llance QI 49.4213 I 0 .44 ETWUTotal --757,4051 Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)• 937,287 ET AFC alculations Renular Landscaoe l>reas Average ETAF tor Regular Percenuge of MA.WA Total ETAF X Area 21972 u,noocapo Areas rnu,;t be 0.55 or 81% Total Area 49436 below for readen11al areas, and 0.45 Avera=ETAF 0.44 or below for non-residential areas. All L.al'ICISC 0�e Neas 0.45 N on-R es1C1ent1a1 Total ETAF X Area 21972 0.55 Resk:lentral Total.Area 4S436 0.81 OrioAvera'""?ETAF 0.44 0.75 011emeae1 REV. 5/3/22 L-10 E8 NORTH -----l�----- � CIVIC CENTER PLA 8 �u rr_ - 1-:i:. --.:r:....__ -.!..._ __ --�- Irrigation Areas (:) SYMBOL INDICATES LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED USING THE MOST EFFICIENT IRRIGATION PRODUCTS AVAILABLE TO MINIMIZE RUN-OFF AND WATER WASTE. NOTE: WATER USE CALCULATIONS ONLY INCLUDE AREAS WITHIN PROPERTY LINES. ,J I I I I I I I I I I I Q • SCALE: 1" = 40' -O" 0 40 80 120 160 ENVIR ONMENTAL DESIGN SUMMERS/MURPHY & PARTNERS, INC. 34197 COAST HWY SUITE 200 DANA POINT CA 92629(949)443-1446 EVEV EV Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"Deck10'-10" x 6'-0"65 SQ. FT.Living Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLLStorage144 ft3WICLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLLStorage144 ft3WICLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLLStorage144 ft3WICLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck10'-10" x 6'-0"65 SQ. FT.LPlan 1-11 Bed, 1 Bath±669 SQ. FT.Net±731 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft3WICLEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.50.50.40.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.41.31.20.80.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.22.32.01.20.60.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.32.92.51.40.70.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.63.02.51.50.70.40.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.42.92.51.40.70.40.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.30.81.12.42.01.20.60.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.41.71.91.91.40.90.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.22.72.41.60.90.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.53.02.51.60.80.50.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.43.12.61.50.80.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.42.92.51.50.70.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.93.54.51.70.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.21.05.28.91.90.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.62.00.90.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.11.30.70.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.30.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.83.96.81.40.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.70.80.70.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.83.35.31.40.50.30.30.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.51.41.71.40.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.71.92.41.21.01.00.80.90.90.60.71.00.80.80.90.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.62.62.71.70.70.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.31.15.39.12.43.16.42.13.75.81.62.27.02.52.86.81.60.40.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.83.42.91.30.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.31.36.39.72.73.47.02.34.06.31.72.27.02.62.86.81.70.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.42.63.21.61.00.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.31.04.15.91.81.31.51.11.31.41.01.01.41.11.21.30.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.41.33.32.21.40.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.11.41.11.62.41.41.92.31.21.42.51.51.62.41.00.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.73.33.01.70.70.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.92.51.53.910.02.75.28.92.02.810.83.23.610.42.10.50.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.82.12.51.90.90.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.95.38.52.02.33.71.92.73.51.61.83.62.02.13.41.30.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.81.82.01.60.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.33.01.62.23.61.92.63.41.61.93.82.12.23.71.40.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.92.02.31.70.80.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.82.63.61.74.010.12.75.28.92.12.810.63.23.610.32.10.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.21.03.12.81.70.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.95.28.11.81.72.51.41.92.41.21.42.41.51.62.31.00.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.41.23.52.61.20.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.61.51.91.11.21.41.11.31.31.01.11.41.21.21.30.80.40.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.20.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.52.73.11.30.80.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.50.70.81.13.16.42.33.75.81.82.37.02.73.06.81.90.60.30.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.40.50.50.60.60.50.50.30.20.10.10.00.00.10.10.41.43.42.31.30.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.40.60.80.91.01.33.57.52.54.26.61.92.67.63.03.47.52.20.80.40.30.20.20.20.20.20.30.40.70.91.11.21.11.00.90.60.40.20.10.10.00.10.10.21.13.42.91.70.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.01.41.71.81.81.91.81.31.61.81.41.51.81.71.92.01.40.90.60.50.50.50.50.50.50.60.91.31.92.22.12.12.11.81.10.60.30.20.10.00.10.10.21.12.42.71.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.42.32.72.82.61.91.21.12.52.73.02.31.81.92.22.21.91.40.90.82.02.01.32.41.71.62.82.64.34.13.53.03.43.01.80.90.50.20.10.00.10.10.21.12.32.51.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.52.53.02.82.92.01.11.48.27.310.45.02.22.73.13.22.81.91.11.27.36.72.39.84.53.710.84.311.54.71.11.02.33.62.21.10.60.20.10.10.10.10.21.12.92.91.90.80.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.30.40.91.30.80.70.50.82.52.73.12.21.82.01.51.32.01.71.00.92.32.21.32.71.91.72.91.92.81.60.70.50.63.12.11.20.60.30.10.10.10.10.31.13.72.91.40.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.62.57.11.91.00.20.30.60.70.70.60.40.50.70.70.70.70.70.80.80.60.50.60.60.60.60.60.70.70.80.80.73.02.11.20.60.30.10.10.10.10.52.23.02.11.10.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.62.56.82.01.20.20.91.21.21.01.01.21.30.91.12.61.81.00.50.20.10.10.10.20.51.83.12.11.20.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.62.61.41.10.31.42.21.81.41.41.92.41.31.21.71.50.90.50.20.10.10.10.10.31.13.62.91.50.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.73.59.72.21.31.21.13.02.31.61.82.43.00.60.91.21.10.80.50.20.10.10.10.10.21.12.62.81.90.80.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.62.14.01.61.20.40.93.42.31.81.92.43.40.81.41.61.30.80.50.20.10.10.10.10.21.12.22.41.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.61.83.31.51.20.20.93.02.31.71.82.53.00.72.62.51.60.90.50.20.10.10.10.10.21.12.42.71.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.73.610.42.31.20.11.42.42.01.51.62.02.41.12.12.91.91.00.50.20.10.10.10.10.31.13.52.91.60.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.03.51.61.20.41.21.61.61.51.51.61.61.02.41.81.71.70.81.43.11.91.00.60.20.10.10.10.20.51.53.42.21.30.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.73.18.12.11.21.31.31.51.51.51.51.61.61.20.81.00.80.70.52.12.81.80.90.50.30.20.10.10.10.52.73.11.51.00.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.62.45.61.81.20.21.42.21.91.51.62.02.31.10.20.80.60.60.51.82.01.40.80.50.40.40.20.10.20.41.53.82.81.40.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.40.91.20.91.10.21.13.02.31.71.82.53.00.70.20.71.12.11.11.21.10.90.71.83.63.32.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.51.52.81.31.10.81.03.42.41.91.92.53.51.00.20.92.610.42.70.90.70.60.71.93.13.32.41.10.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.73.510.32.31.20.91.03.12.41.71.92.53.10.60.20.81.63.61.71.11.20.90.81.73.33.32.21.00.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.61.93.41.61.20.41.52.62.01.61.62.12.61.20.20.81.21.91.42.17.12.60.91.74.03.11.60.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.97.22.11.31.31.51.71.71.51.51.61.71.10.20.82.69.32.72.26.62.51.02.33.22.21.30.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.62.76.61.91.20.41.21.51.51.41.51.51.51.10.21.01.95.02.01.11.20.90.72.13.22.21.30.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.40.91.30.91.11.01.62.11.81.51.61.92.11.20.20.71.21.91.41.21.61.00.81.53.93.11.60.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.22.01.11.10.61.42.92.21.61.72.43.00.80.21.02.59.02.82.79.12.50.81.53.23.32.21.00.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.63.39.82.11.20.50.83.32.41.81.92.53.31.00.20.71.85.12.12.04.91.80.91.73.03.22.31.10.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.73.51.41.01.40.93.22.41.81.92.63.20.60.20.70.70.80.70.70.80.70.51.53.53.32.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.60.80.70.90.21.42.82.11.61.72.22.81.10.50.70.50.50.50.50.50.50.81.73.92.91.40.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.41.11.81.00.90.21.41.91.71.51.51.81.91.21.21.80.61.60.61.50.61.31.13.93.31.71.00.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.73.29.62.00.81.01.31.51.51.51.51.51.61.42.03.62.21.30.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.31.20.61.71.91.81.51.51.82.11.92.33.83.01.70.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.50.11.72.82.11.61.72.32.91.31.52.62.81.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.80.20.73.12.41.81.92.53.20.62.22.42.51.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.50.20.63.22.41.81.92.53.20.61.62.82.91.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.60.11.12.82.21.61.72.32.90.82.13.93.01.50.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.60.32.61.82.22.11.82.51.62.70.90.11.21.91.91.61.72.12.21.52.02.51.11.90.82.11.40.90.81.92.51.50.81.31.30.91.23.01.41.70.91.92.53.42.21.30.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.31.20.71.50.51.20.51.00.80.70.20.71.21.61.81.92.02.53.13.23.53.22.91.91.51.62.02.93.43.33.12.72.22.22.73.13.33.43.02.01.62.93.22.11.20.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.81.32.83.01.93.11.93.32.03.32.40.60.40.81.92.52.32.02.63.33.21.53.03.32.41.71.72.63.52.62.13.63.22.72.73.23.62.12.63.52.51.61.74.03.01.50.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.52.01.00.60.80.60.90.81.31.80.70.30.73.03.22.41.92.32.41.71.21.82.32.21.61.72.32.21.81.52.02.62.72.72.72.01.51.82.22.21.41.73.33.12.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.31.10.70.40.30.30.40.60.90.70.30.41.03.43.01.91.51.61.61.21.11.21.51.61.51.51.71.51.21.21.41.82.12.11.91.41.21.21.41.51.21.82.82.92.11.00.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.41.70.80.50.50.40.60.71.21.40.30.42.93.71.51.41.51.81.81.41.11.41.71.91.61.61.91.81.51.21.52.12.32.32.21.61.31.41.61.81.41.73.03.12.10.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.90.62.41.51.11.50.91.71.02.21.40.30.51.23.52.92.01.72.32.92.61.52.22.82.51.71.72.42.82.21.52.63.02.82.73.12.82.02.22.82.61.71.73.93.11.70.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.70.33.71.14.11.03.01.32.22.51.10.20.51.03.43.62.62.02.43.43.73.03.33.62.31.71.62.33.53.43.13.73.42.62.53.23.92.93.23.82.51.82.23.52.21.30.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.31.92.12.72.12.72.22.42.21.70.30.91.62.73.12.72.32.22.01.92.71.81.91.41.51.41.31.62.02.81.91.61.71.71.71.93.02.21.91.51.63.03.22.01.10.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.21.01.32.42.62.32.32.32.41.02.44.02.91.40.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.61.03.12.62.02.12.63.00.51.53.23.12.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.0TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTA3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3 A3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB3B3B3B3B3 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCC AAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAABB BBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCB3B3CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC15FT TALL DECORATIVE POST LIGHT75W LED - TYPE III DISTRIBUTIONW/ HOUSE SIDE SHIELD 3000° KA3B315FT TALL STREET LIGHT52W LED - TYPE III DISTRIBUTIONW/ HOUSE SIDE SHIELD 3000° KCLED CARPORT LIGHT30W LED, 3000° KAAAAPALM TREE LED ACCENT LIGHT(2) UP (2) DOWN, 3000° KAAAABBBBPALM TREE LED ACCENT LIGHT(2) UP (2) DOWN, (4) DIRECTED ATHARDSCAPE TO LIGHT POOL DECK3000° KLED DECORATIVE WALL LIGHT12W LED, 3000° KDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 16, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355030601527201 Calle JuanitaDana Point, CA 92624Ph. 949.201.1333candelaengineering.comCANDELA ENGINEERING INCEP-1PARTIAL PHOTOMETRIC PLANMATCHLINE SEE SHEET EP-2 EV EVEVLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLLStorage144 ft3WICLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLLStorage144 ft3WICLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Bedroom 211'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen71 SQ. FT.LMaster Bed11'-8" x 13'-6"M. BathWICLLStorage144 ft3WICLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchen65 SQ. FT.LStorage144 ft3WICLLiving Room12'-1" x 25'-9"Master Bed11'-0" x 12'-0"W/DBathKitchenDeck10'-10" x 6'-0"65 SQ. FT.LPlan 1-11 Bed, 1 Bath±669 SQ. FT.Net±731 SQ. FT.GrossStorage144 ft3WICLEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EVEVEV0.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.21.01.32.42.62.32.32.32.41.02.44.02.91.40.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.61.03.12.62.02.12.63.00.51.53.23.12.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.90.83.52.41.92.02.53.40.82.02.52.82.41.40.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.71.03.12.41.81.92.53.00.41.62.63.35.24.31.10.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.31.01.72.62.01.61.62.12.40.82.03.63.97.66.71.30.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.62.35.71.60.81.31.81.71.61.61.71.60.91.83.93.12.51.80.70.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.62.87.61.91.11.51.71.71.51.51.61.60.93.83.41.61.10.80.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.40.91.40.91.11.72.42.01.61.62.02.30.81.41.00.50.90.50.80.50.80.80.51.93.62.41.40.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.41.11.71.01.11.03.02.31.71.82.52.90.40.30.70.50.50.40.40.30.30.61.21.53.63.01.70.80.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.63.29.12.11.20.83.42.31.81.92.43.30.70.20.70.91.40.80.40.30.30.40.31.82.62.82.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.52.04.31.51.20.83.02.31.71.82.42.90.40.20.82.48.92.40.70.40.40.61.11.42.52.62.01.00.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.30.70.90.81.01.32.41.91.51.52.02.30.80.20.91.95.01.80.90.80.70.70.71.83.13.01.90.90.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.41.01.61.01.11.11.51.51.41.41.51.50.80.10.81.21.81.22.12.21.51.91.10.91.80.40.10.10.31.43.82.91.40.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.73.29.12.21.30.91.31.41.41.41.41.30.80.20.92.58.72.41.52.92.01.30.80.60.50.20.10.20.52.33.02.01.10.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.65.22.01.31.32.01.81.41.51.92.00.90.20.82.05.31.90.93.22.31.40.70.40.20.10.10.20.51.73.12.11.20.60.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.73.07.22.11.31.12.92.21.61.72.32.90.50.10.81.11.51.11.03.32.31.40.70.40.20.10.10.10.31.13.72.91.50.60.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.86.92.01.30.63.22.31.81.92.43.20.70.10.82.16.92.11.23.02.21.20.70.30.10.10.10.10.21.12.62.81.90.80.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.41.01.31.01.10.63.02.41.71.82.53.00.40.10.92.17.02.12.02.21.81.10.60.30.10.10.10.10.21.12.22.41.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.51.32.31.21.21.22.62.01.51.62.12.50.70.10.60.81.00.71.81.71.41.00.70.30.10.10.10.10.21.12.42.71.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.73.410.12.31.31.11.71.61.31.31.61.60.80.20.70.50.40.41.11.91.71.10.70.30.10.10.10.10.31.13.52.91.60.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.13.91.71.30.81.11.21.21.21.21.10.61.01.10.70.80.61.42.92.21.20.70.30.10.10.10.20.51.53.32.11.30.60.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.46.02.11.41.01.41.41.31.31.41.40.81.03.32.51.40.70.40.10.10.10.10.52.53.01.50.90.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.88.32.31.41.32.31.91.41.51.92.30.81.63.32.41.40.70.40.10.10.10.10.41.23.62.71.30.60.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.52.31.51.30.82.92.31.61.82.42.90.30.72.92.31.30.70.40.10.10.10.10.21.13.22.91.80.80.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.62.68.62.41.40.73.32.31.81.92.43.30.70.82.11.81.10.70.30.10.10.10.10.21.12.42.62.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.62.25.72.11.30.82.92.21.61.72.42.80.40.91.71.51.10.70.30.10.10.10.10.21.12.42.72.00.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.63.11.61.21.22.21.81.31.41.82.10.80.82.01.81.10.70.30.10.10.10.10.21.13.32.91.80.80.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.62.810.72.61.20.20.10.20.30.30.20.20.91.21.31.01.01.21.20.80.30.20.20.20.20.20.20.30.51.31.20.62.92.21.30.70.30.10.10.10.10.41.33.52.61.30.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.51.32.91.30.70.30.30.61.41.30.70.91.10.81.11.01.31.20.91.21.20.60.51.01.00.50.81.20.70.50.50.83.12.31.40.70.30.10.10.10.10.52.73.21.20.80.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.91.82.31.72.22.21.30.71.36.85.61.31.42.43.03.53.02.31.31.03.86.81.51.15.34.61.22.77.22.00.80.50.63.52.61.40.70.30.10.10.10.10.41.43.42.31.30.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.91.92.83.12.92.41.40.81.03.63.11.21.31.82.32.22.21.71.10.93.15.31.31.14.94.31.33.07.84.12.83.13.03.92.51.20.60.30.10.10.10.10.21.13.42.91.70.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.81.31.81.91.91.61.10.70.60.80.90.81.01.21.41.51.31.00.70.60.80.90.50.50.91.00.71.52.63.02.82.62.82.81.91.00.50.20.10.10.10.10.21.02.32.61.90.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.50.81.01.11.00.90.70.60.81.10.91.01.31.31.31.51.10.70.50.30.30.20.20.20.30.30.40.81.31.61.71.61.61.51.10.70.40.20.10.00.00.10.21.12.22.41.80.90.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.40.60.81.00.80.60.50.72.06.52.42.26.72.82.86.72.00.60.30.20.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.50.70.80.80.80.80.70.50.40.20.10.10.00.10.10.21.12.72.81.90.80.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.61.63.61.50.60.40.72.27.52.52.47.52.92.87.42.00.50.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.40.40.40.40.40.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.10.10.31.13.72.91.40.60.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.72.910.52.60.80.60.61.01.41.11.11.51.21.21.40.80.40.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.51.93.02.11.10.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.72.14.12.01.62.21.31.42.31.41.42.41.61.52.21.00.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.51.93.02.01.10.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.73.410.82.93.410.52.83.010.63.02.810.53.43.410.42.30.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.31.03.52.81.30.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.72.24.32.22.23.81.92.03.82.01.93.82.22.13.71.50.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.92.42.51.50.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.73.09.72.82.13.61.91.93.51.91.93.62.12.13.41.40.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.61.31.41.10.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.61.94.72.13.310.72.83.010.83.02.810.73.53.410.62.30.50.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.30.50.60.50.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.41.01.61.31.62.51.41.52.51.51.42.51.61.62.41.10.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.52.27.02.31.21.31.01.11.31.11.01.31.11.11.20.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.52.26.92.42.56.32.22.36.42.32.26.32.62.56.21.70.40.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.40.81.31.22.67.62.32.57.62.52.37.62.82.77.51.90.40.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.41.12.31.41.01.20.80.81.10.80.81.10.90.91.10.60.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.52.410.62.80.70.40.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.30.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.53.51.60.60.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.84.81.90.60.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.52.49.52.60.60.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.51.42.61.50.50.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.62.59.02.50.70.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.52.05.52.10.80.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.21.21.91.50.80.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.92.51.81.00.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.42.92.21.20.60.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.73.22.11.30.60.30.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.52.82.01.10.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.81.91.50.80.50.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.60.90.80.50.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.30.30.30.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0TTTTTTTTA3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3A3B3B3B3B3CCC B3C B3CCCCCCCB3CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCC15FT TALL DECORATIVE POST LIGHT75W LED - TYPE III DISTRIBUTIONW/ HOUSE SIDE SHIELD 3000° KA3B315FT TALL STREET LIGHT52W LED - TYPE III DISTRIBUTIONW/ HOUSE SIDE SHIELD 3000° KCLED CARPORT LIGHT30W LED, 3000° KAAAAPALM TREE LED ACCENT LIGHT(2) UP (2) DOWN, 3000° KAAAABBBBPALM TREE LED ACCENT LIGHT(2) UP (2) DOWN, (4) DIRECTED ATHARDSCAPE TO LIGHT POOL DECK3000° KLED DECORATIVE WALL LIGHT12W LED, 3000° KDESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 16, 2022DRC2019-00850FOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVDRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA#2021-038133 North Development Group23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 91355030601527201 Calle JuanitaDana Point, CA 92624Ph. 949.201.1333candelaengineering.comCANDELA ENGINEERING INCEP-2PARTIAL PHOTOMETRIC PLANMATCHLINE SEE SHEET EP-1 APPENDIX B: AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT 14975-02 AQ & GHG Memo July 12, 2022 Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 FOOTHILL CENTER AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Mr. Jeff Warmoth, Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment Evaluation (referred to as Memo) for Foothill Center development which is located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BACKGROUND The Project evaluated in the 2020 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis included the development of 362 multifamily residential dwelling units and 8,650 square feet of commercial retail use. However, the Project has been revised to include the development of 311 multifamily residential dwelling units and an increase square footage of 16,000 square feet of commercial retail (ground floor retail with residential units above). Exhibit 1 presents the currently proposed site plan. Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC July 12, 2022 Page 2 of 7 14975-02 Memo In May 2022, the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in conjunction with other California air districts, including SCAQMD, released the latest version of the CalEEMod Version 2022. The purpose of this model is to calculate construction-source and operational- source criteria pollutant (VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources; and quantify applicable air quality and GHG reductions achieved from MMs. The previously completed Foothill Center Air Quality Impact Analysis (dated November 25, 2020) and Foothill Center Greenhouse Gas Analysis (dated November 25, 2020) (referred to herein as “previous technical study”) were prepared before the release of CalEEMod Version 2022.1. Accordingly, the latest version of CalEEMod has been used for this Project to determine construction and operational emissions. Output from the model runs for the Proposed Project construction and operational activity are provided in Attachment A. The Off-Site Parking Improvements construction activity are provided in Attachment B. Construction emissions were modeled in CalEEMod 2022 utilizing phasing, and equipment assumptions detailed in the previous technical studies, but adjusted construction schedule to account for Project opening year of 2023. Operational emissions were modeled assuming a Project opening year of 2023. As shown in Table 1 through 4, the Proposed Project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD regional significance threshold. It should be noted that although the Proposed Project is anticipated to generate slightly more emissions per day for pollutants of VOCs and SOX during the operational phase, as compared to emissions generated by the Previous Study; the Proposed Projects emissions would still be less than the applicable thresholds. PROJECT AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS SUMMARY TABLE 1: PROPOSED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer 2022 3.53 40.20 32.10 0.07 9.27 2.81 2023 2.07 18.30 16.20 0.03 4.97 2.01 Winter 2022 3.82 33.8 39.4 0.04 5.47 2.81 2023 50.5 27.6 27.7 0.04 6.31 2.65 Off-Site Parking Improvements (Winter Only) 2023 3.2 31.8 28.1 0.05 4.12 1.75 Maximum Daily Emissions 53.70 59.40 55.80 0.09 10.43 4.40 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC July 12, 2022 Page 3 of 7 14975-02 Memo TABLE 2: CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS TECHNICAL STUDY Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project 53.70 59.40 55.80 0.09 10.43 4.40 Previous Technical Study 57.93 83.24 80.46 0.20 10.56 5.02 Net Emissions (Proposed – Previous) -4.23 -23.84 -24.66 -0.11 -0.13 -0.62 TABLE 3: PROPOSED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer Mobile 8.93 9.5 89.7 0.2 6.57 1.28 Area 12.6 5.39 25.9 0.03 0.43 0.44 Energy Source 0.05 0.89 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.07 Total Max. Daily Emissions 21.58 15.78 115.99 0.24 7.07 1.79 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Winter Mobile 8.24 10.2 73.9 0.19 6.57 1.28 Area 9.99 5.16 2.2 0.03 0.42 0.42 Energy Source 0.05 0.89 0.39 0.01 0.07 0.07 Total Max. Daily Emissions 18.28 16.25 76.49 0.23 7.06 1.77 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC July 12, 2022 Page 4 of 7 14975-02 Memo TABLE 4: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS TECHNICAL STUDY Source Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 Summer Proposed Project 21.58 15.78 115.99 0.24 7.07 1.79 Previous Technical Study 16.69 23.67 87.93 0.21 14.70 4.58 Net Emissions (Proposed – Previous) 4.89 -7.89 28.06 0.03 -7.63 -2.79 Winter Proposed Project 18.28 16.25 76.49 0.23 7.06 1.77 Previous Technical Study 16.35 24.19 81.81 0.20 14.69 4.58 Net Emissions (Proposed – Previous) 1.93 -7.94 -5.32 0.03 -7.63 -2.81 LOCALIZED EMISSIONS SUMMARY CONSTRUCTION-SOURCE LOCALIZED EMISSIONS Emissions during peak construction activity will not exceed the SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds as illustrated on Table 5 and compared to the Previous Study on Table 6. As such, the Project’s localized impacts during construction activity would be less than significant. Outputs from the model runs for construction LSTs are provided in Attachment A. Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC July 12, 2022 Page 5 of 7 14975-02 Memo TABLE 5: PROPOSED PROJECT LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Demolition Maximum Daily Emissions 31.90 26.50 7.62 2.29 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 863 66 19 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Grading Maximum Daily Emissions 32.00 27.90 2.26 0.94 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 187 1,392 55 23 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO Off-Site Parking Improvements Demolition Maximum Daily Emissions 29.50 25.70 3.43 1.55 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 118 863 66 19 Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO TABLE 6: LOCALIZED CONSTRUCTION COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS TECHNICAL STUDY On-Site Emissions Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Proposed Project Demolition Proposed Project 31.90 26.50 7.62 2.29 Previous Technical Study 34.94 25.9 4.11 2.01 Net Emissions (Proposed – Previous) -3.04 0.60 3.51 0.28 Grading Proposed Project 32.00 27.90 2.26 0.94 Previous Technical Study 39.95 16.38 5.00 2.89 Net Emissions (Proposed – Previous) -7.95 11.52 -2.74 -1.95 Off-Site Parking Improvements Demolition Proposed Project 29.50 25.70 3.43 1.55 Previous Technical Study 28.94 24.93 2.22 1.46 Net Emissions (Proposed – Previous) 0.56 0.77 1.21 0.09 Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC July 12, 2022 Page 6 of 7 14975-02 Memo PROJECT GHG ANALYSIS Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project was also modeled using CalEEMod 2022. However, all other assumptions and inputs remain consistent with the previous technical studies. Tables 7 through 10 below present the construction and operational GHG emissions from CalEEMod 2022. TABLE 7: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS Year Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2E Proposed Project 2022 364.00 0.02 0.02 0.28 371.00 2023 372.00 0.02 < 0.005 0.00 373.00 Off-Site Parking Improvements 2023 58.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 59.00 Total Construction Emissions 794.00 0.04 0.02 0.30 803.00 Amortized Emissions (MTCO2e) 26.47 0.00 0.00 0.01 26.77 TABLE 8: CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS TECHNICAL STUDY Year Amortized Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O R Total CO2E Proposed Project 26.47 0.00 0.00 0.01 26.77 Previous Technical Study 58.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 58.58 Net Emissions (Proposed – Previous) -31.89 -0.01 0.00 0.01 -31.81 Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC July 12, 2022 Page 7 of 7 14975-02 Memo TABLE 9: PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS SUMMARY Source Emissions (MT/yr) CO2 CH4 N20 R Total CO2E Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 26.47 0.00 0.00 0.01 26.77 Mobile 2,826.00 0.14 0.14 5.52 2,877.00 Area 82.50 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 82.60 Energy 424.00 0.04 < 0.005 0.00 426.00 Water 50.90 1.19 0.03 0.00 89.20 Waste 7.70 0.77 0.00 0.00 26.90 Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.47 Total CO2E (All Sources) 3,528.94 Service Population 960 Total CO2e/Service Population 3.68 SCAQMD Threshold 4.22 Threshold Exceeded? NO TABLE 10: OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS TECHNICAL STUDY Source Emissions (MT/yr) Proposed Project Total CO2E 3,528.94 Proposed Project Total CO2e/SP 3.68 Previous Study Total CO2E 4,288.57 Previous Study Total CO2e/SP 3.90 Net Total CO2E (Proposed – Previous) -759.63 Net Total CO2e/SP (Proposed – Previous) -0.22 Although the SCAQMD’s draft significance criteria have not been adopted, the City has determined that the SCAQMD’s project level efficiency threshold methodology can be used to set an appropriate significance criterion by which to determine whether the project emits a significant amount of GHG. As previously noted, the 2017 Scoping Plan identifies a reduction target of 40% below 2020 levels by 2030. As such, the appropriate reduction target for 2030 would be 2.88 MT CO2e/yr. For analysis purposes herein, the SP threshold for the Project’s buildout year of 2023 was calculated by linear interpolation between the 2020 target of 4.8 MT CO2e/yr and the 2030 target of 2.88 MT CO2e/yr. As such, the target for the Project’s buildout year of 2023 is 4.22 MT CO2e/yr. The Project would result in 3.68 MTCO2e/SP per year in 2023 as summarized in Table 9 (presented previously). As such, the Project total GHG emissions would not exceed the screening threshold of 4.22 MTCO2e/SP per year. Thus, project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on GHG and climate change. 14975-02 Memo ATTACHMENT A CALEEMOD 2022 PROPOSED PROJECT EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 1 / 50 14975-Foothill Boulevard 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 (2022) - Unmitigated 3.3. Grading (2022) - Unmitigated 3.5. Building Construction (2022) - Unmitigated 3.7. Building Construction (2023) - Unmitigated 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 2 / 50 3.9. Paving (2023) - Unmitigated 3.11. Architectural Coating (2023) - 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 4.3.2. Unmitigated 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. Unmitigated 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. Unmitigated 4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use 4.6.1. Unmitigated 4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 3 / 50 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 5.3.1. Unmitigated 5.4. Vehicles 5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 4 / 50 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 5.11.1. Unmitigated 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 5 / 50 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 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.2. Sequestration 5.18.2.1. Unmitigated 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 6 / 50 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 8. User Changes to Default Data 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 7 / 50 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name 14975-Foothill Boulevard Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)2.80 Precipitation (days)6.40 Location 34.10619436793927, -117.57403923762735 County San Bernardino-South Coast City Rancho Cucamonga Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 5293 EDFZ 10 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas 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 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 50.4 1000sqft 0.51 0.00 0.00 ——— Parking Lot 485 Space 1.94 0.00 0.00 ——— Apartments Mid Rise 311 Dwelling Unit 3.63 387,118 0.00 —1,029 — 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 8 / 50 Regional Shopping Center 16.0 1000sqft 0.16 16,000 0.00 ——— Enclosed Parking with Elevator 312 Space 1.25 124,800 0.00 ——— 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.4.79 3.53 40.2 32.1 0.07 1.88 7.70 9.27 1.73 1.34 2.81 —9,098 9,098 0.78 0.87 11.7 9,388 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.4.66 50.5 33.8 39.4 0.04 1.88 4.70 6.31 1.73 1.18 2.81 —8,474 8,474 0.45 0.44 0.63 8,617 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.1.95 8.77 14.4 13.2 0.02 0.88 2.84 3.72 0.81 0.71 1.52 —2,248 2,248 0.14 0.13 1.67 2,256 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.0.36 1.60 2.62 2.42 < 0.005 0.16 0.52 0.68 0.15 0.13 0.28 —372 372 0.02 0.02 0.28 373 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) 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 9 / 50 Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily - Summer (Max) —————————————————— 2022 4.79 3.53 40.2 32.1 0.07 1.88 7.70 9.27 1.73 1.34 2.81 —9,098 9,098 0.78 0.87 11.7 9,388 2023 2.47 2.07 18.3 16.2 0.03 1.14 3.83 4.97 1.05 0.96 2.01 —2,806 2,806 0.11 0.02 —2,815 Daily - Winter (Max) —————————————————— 2022 4.66 3.82 33.8 39.4 0.04 1.88 4.16 5.47 1.73 1.07 2.81 —8,474 8,474 0.45 0.44 0.63 8,617 2023 3.75 50.5 27.6 27.7 0.04 1.60 4.70 6.31 1.47 1.18 2.65 —4,496 4,496 0.18 0.04 —4,511 Average Daily —————————————————— 2022 1.36 1.08 9.62 10.3 0.01 0.48 1.32 1.80 0.44 0.33 0.77 —2,196 2,196 0.14 0.13 1.67 2,241 2023 1.95 8.77 14.4 13.2 0.02 0.88 2.84 3.72 0.81 0.71 1.52 —2,248 2,248 0.09 0.02 —2,256 Annual —————————————————— 2022 0.25 0.20 1.76 1.88 < 0.005 0.09 0.24 0.33 0.08 0.06 0.14 —364 364 0.02 0.02 0.28 371 2023 0.36 1.60 2.62 2.42 < 0.005 0.16 0.52 0.68 0.15 0.13 0.28 —372 372 0.02 < 0.005 —373 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 Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.13.5 21.6 15.8 116 0.24 0.65 6.43 7.07 0.64 1.15 1.79 116 29,840 29,956 13.2 1.12 90.2 30,708 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.9.97 18.3 16.3 76.5 0.22 0.63 6.43 7.06 0.62 1.15 1.77 116 28,463 28,579 13.2 1.15 5.11 29,257 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 10 / 50 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.10.2 18.8 10.6 84.7 0.18 0.24 5.68 5.91 0.23 1.01 1.24 116 20,369 20,486 13.0 1.04 36.2 21,155 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.1.87 3.44 1.94 15.5 0.03 0.04 1.04 1.08 0.04 0.18 0.23 19.3 3,372 3,392 2.14 0.17 5.99 3,502 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 9.94 8.93 9.50 89.7 0.20 0.14 6.43 6.57 0.13 1.15 1.28 —20,419 20,419 0.95 0.91 87.4 20,803 Area 3.43 12.6 5.39 25.9 0.03 0.43 —0.43 0.44 —0.44 0.00 6,621 6,621 0.13 0.01 —6,628 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.89 0.39 0.01 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —2,562 2,562 0.24 0.02 —2,574 Water ———————————69.9 237 307 7.19 0.17 —539 Waste ———————————46.5 0.00 46.5 4.65 0.00 —163 Refrig.————————————————2.85 2.85 Total 13.5 21.6 15.8 116 0.24 0.65 6.43 7.07 0.64 1.15 1.79 116 29,840 29,956 13.2 1.12 90.2 30,708 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Mobile 9.26 8.24 10.2 73.9 0.19 0.14 6.43 6.57 0.13 1.15 1.28 —19,115 19,115 0.98 0.95 2.27 19,424 Area 0.60 9.99 5.16 2.20 0.03 0.42 —0.42 0.42 —0.42 0.00 6,548 6,548 0.12 0.01 —6,555 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.89 0.39 0.01 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —2,562 2,562 0.24 0.02 —2,574 Water ———————————69.9 237 307 7.19 0.17 —539 Waste ———————————46.5 0.00 46.5 4.65 0.00 —163 Refrig.————————————————2.85 2.85 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 11 / 50 Total 9.97 18.3 16.3 76.5 0.22 0.63 6.43 7.06 0.62 1.15 1.77 116 28,463 28,579 13.2 1.15 5.11 29,257 Average Daily —————————————————— Mobile 8.15 7.25 9.22 68.0 0.17 0.12 5.68 5.80 0.12 1.01 1.13 —17,071 17,071 0.87 0.85 33.3 17,378 Area 1.98 11.5 0.51 16.4 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 0.00 498 498 0.01 < 0.005 —499 Energy 0.10 0.05 0.89 0.39 0.01 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —2,562 2,562 0.24 0.02 —2,574 Water ———————————69.9 237 307 7.19 0.17 —539 Waste ———————————46.5 0.00 46.5 4.65 0.00 —163 Refrig.————————————————2.85 2.85 Total 10.2 18.8 10.6 84.7 0.18 0.24 5.68 5.91 0.23 1.01 1.24 116 20,369 20,486 13.0 1.04 36.2 21,155 Annual —————————————————— Mobile 1.49 1.32 1.68 12.4 0.03 0.02 1.04 1.06 0.02 0.18 0.21 —2,826 2,826 0.14 0.14 5.52 2,877 Area 0.36 2.10 0.09 2.99 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.00 82.5 82.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —82.6 Energy 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —424 424 0.04 < 0.005 —426 Water ———————————11.6 39.3 50.9 1.19 0.03 —89.2 Waste ———————————7.70 0.00 7.70 0.77 0.00 —26.9 Refrig.————————————————0.47 0.47 Total 1.87 3.44 1.94 15.5 0.03 0.04 1.04 1.08 0.04 0.18 0.23 19.3 3,372 3,392 2.14 0.17 5.99 3,502 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2022) - 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) —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 12 / 50 Off-Road Equipment 3.89 3.27 31.9 26.5 0.04 1.48 —1.48 1.36 —1.36 —3,742 3,742 0.15 0.03 —3,755 Demolitio n ——————6.14 6.14 —0.93 0.93 ——————— 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 0.27 0.22 2.18 1.82 < 0.005 0.10 —0.10 0.09 —0.09 —256 256 0.01 < 0.005 —257 Demolitio n ——————0.42 0.42 —0.06 0.06 ——————— 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 0.05 0.04 0.40 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —42.4 42.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —42.6 Demolitio n ——————0.08 0.08 —0.01 0.01 ——————— 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 0.12 0.10 0.11 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —262 262 0.01 0.01 1.20 266 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 0.79 0.14 8.16 3.77 0.03 0.09 0.40 0.50 0.09 0.12 0.22 —5,094 5,094 0.62 0.83 10.5 5,367 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 13 / 50 ——————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —16.7 16.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 16.9 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 0.05 0.01 0.59 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 —349 349 0.04 0.06 0.31 367 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —2.76 2.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.80 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —57.8 57.8 0.01 0.01 0.05 60.8 3.3. Grading (2022) - 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 4.02 3.37 32.0 27.9 0.04 1.86 —1.86 1.71 —1.71 —4,004 4,004 0.16 0.03 —4,017 Dust From Material Movement ——————2.26 2.26 —0.94 0.94 ——————— 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) —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 14 / 50 4,017—0.030.164,0044,004—1.71—1.711.86—1.860.0427.932.03.374.02Off-Road Equipment Dust From Material Movement ——————2.26 2.26 —0.94 0.94 ——————— 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 0.50 0.42 3.94 3.44 < 0.005 0.23 —0.23 0.21 —0.21 —494 494 0.02 < 0.005 —495 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.28 0.28 —0.12 0.12 ——————— 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 0.09 0.08 0.72 0.63 < 0.005 0.04 —0.04 0.04 —0.04 —81.7 81.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —82.0 Dust From Material Movement ——————0.05 0.05 —0.02 0.02 ——————— 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 0.15 0.13 0.14 2.27 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 —337 337 0.01 0.01 1.55 343 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 0.16 0.03 1.61 0.74 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.04 —1,005 1,005 0.12 0.16 2.07 1,059 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 15 / 50 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.14 0.12 0.16 1.71 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 —309 309 0.01 0.01 0.04 313 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 0.15 0.03 1.68 0.75 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.04 —1,005 1,005 0.12 0.16 0.05 1,057 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.22 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —38.6 38.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 39.2 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 0.02 < 0.005 0.21 0.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —124 124 0.01 0.02 0.11 130 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —6.40 6.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.49 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —20.5 20.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 21.6 3.5. Building Construction (2022) - 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 2.69 2.25 20.0 16.7 0.03 1.28 —1.28 1.18 —1.18 —2,806 2,806 0.11 0.02 —2,816 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 16 / 50 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.29 0.24 2.15 1.79 < 0.005 0.14 —0.14 0.13 —0.13 —302 302 0.01 < 0.005 —303 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 0.05 0.04 0.39 0.33 < 0.005 0.03 —0.03 0.02 —0.02 —50.0 50.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —50.2 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) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 1.77 1.50 1.98 21.4 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 —3,865 3,865 0.18 0.14 0.50 3,912 Vendor 0.21 0.06 2.78 1.25 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.06 —1,802 1,802 0.15 0.28 0.13 1,889 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 0.19 0.16 0.21 2.43 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 —422 422 0.02 0.02 0.90 428 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.30 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 —194 194 0.02 0.03 0.23 204 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 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —69.9 69.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 70.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —32.1 32.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 33.7 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 17 / 50 3.7. Building Construction (2023) - 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 2.47 2.07 18.3 16.2 0.03 1.14 —1.14 1.05 —1.05 —2,806 2,806 0.11 0.02 —2,815 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 2.47 2.07 18.3 16.2 0.03 1.14 —1.14 1.05 —1.05 —2,806 2,806 0.11 0.02 —2,815 Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 1.75 1.47 13.0 11.5 0.02 0.81 —0.81 0.75 —0.75 —1,993 1,993 0.08 0.02 —2,000 Annual —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.32 0.27 2.37 2.10 < 0.005 0.15 —0.15 0.14 —0.14 —330 330 0.01 < 0.005 —331 Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 18 / 50 3.9. Paving (2023) - 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 1.04 0.88 8.06 10.0 0.01 0.41 —0.41 0.38 —0.38 —1,512 1,512 0.06 0.01 —1,517 Paving —0.15 ———————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.16 0.13 1.21 1.51 < 0.005 0.06 —0.06 0.06 —0.06 —228 228 0.01 < 0.005 —229 Paving —0.02 ———————————————— Annual —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —37.7 37.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 —37.8 Paving —< 0.005 ———————————————— Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 19 / 50 3.11. Architectural Coating (2023) - 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 0.24 0.20 1.25 1.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —178 178 0.01 < 0.005 —179 Architect ural Coatings —47.2 ———————————————— Average Daily —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.04 0.03 0.19 0.23 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 —26.9 Architect ural Coatings —7.12 ———————————————— Annual —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.44 4.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.46 Architect ural Coatings —1.30 ———————————————— Offsite —————————————————— Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 20 / 50 ——————————————————Daily, Winter (Max) Average Daily —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— 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) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise 7.87 6.99 8.19 78.0 0.18 0.12 0.97 1.09 0.12 0.30 0.42 —18,094 18,094 0.80 0.79 77.6 18,427 Regional Shopping Center 2.07 1.94 1.31 11.7 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.02 0.04 0.05 —2,326 2,326 0.15 0.12 9.73 2,376 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 21 / 50 Total 9.94 8.93 9.50 89.7 0.20 0.14 1.09 1.23 0.13 0.34 0.47 —20,419 20,419 0.95 0.91 87.4 20,803 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise 7.35 6.47 8.83 63.7 0.17 0.12 0.97 1.09 0.12 0.30 0.42 —16,933 16,933 0.82 0.82 2.01 17,201 Regional Shopping Center 1.91 1.77 1.41 10.3 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.02 0.04 0.05 —2,181 2,181 0.16 0.13 0.25 2,223 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 9.26 8.24 10.2 73.9 0.19 0.14 1.09 1.23 0.13 0.34 0.47 —19,115 19,115 0.98 0.95 2.27 19,424 Annual —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise 1.19 1.05 1.47 10.8 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.18 0.02 0.05 0.07 —2,527 2,527 0.12 0.12 4.95 2,572 Regional Shopping Center 0.30 0.28 0.22 1.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 —299 299 0.02 0.02 0.57 305 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 22 / 50 Total 1.49 1.32 1.68 12.4 0.03 0.02 0.18 0.20 0.02 0.05 0.08 —2,826 2,826 0.14 0.14 5.52 2,877 4.2. Energy 4.2.1. Electricity 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) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————1,282 1,282 0.12 0.01 —1,290 Regional Shopping Center ————————————149 149 0.01 < 0.005 —150 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ————————————1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.11 Total ————————————1,432 1,432 0.14 0.02 —1,440 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 23 / 50 0.00—0.000.000.000.00————————————Parking Lot Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————1,282 1,282 0.12 0.01 —1,290 Regional Shopping Center ————————————149 149 0.01 < 0.005 —150 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ————————————1.10 1.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 —1.11 Total ————————————1,432 1,432 0.14 0.02 —1,440 Annual —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ————————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————212 212 0.02 < 0.005 —214 Regional Shopping Center ————————————24.6 24.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 —24.8 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ————————————0.18 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.18 Total ————————————237 237 0.02 < 0.005 —238 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) 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 24 / 50 CO2eRN2OCH4CO2TNBCO2BCO2PM2.5TPM2.5DPM2.5EPM10TPM10DPM10ESO2CONOxROGTOGLand Use Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.10 0.05 0.87 0.37 0.01 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —1,100 1,100 0.10 < 0.005 —1,103 Regional Shopping Center < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.5 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.10 0.05 0.89 0.39 0.01 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —1,130 1,130 0.10 < 0.005 —1,134 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.10 0.05 0.87 0.37 0.01 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —1,100 1,100 0.10 < 0.005 —1,103 Regional Shopping Center < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —30.4 30.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —30.5 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 25 / 50 0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Enclosed Parking with Elevator Total 0.10 0.05 0.89 0.39 0.01 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —1,130 1,130 0.10 < 0.005 —1,134 Annual —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —182 182 0.02 < 0.005 —183 Regional Shopping Center < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —5.03 5.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —5.04 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 —0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —187 187 0.02 < 0.005 —188 4.3. Area Emissions by Source 4.3.2. 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 0.60 0.30 5.16 2.20 0.03 0.42 —0.42 0.42 —0.42 0.00 6,548 6,548 0.12 0.01 —6,555 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 26 / 50 ————————————————8.64—Consum er Architect ural Coatings —1.05 ———————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 2.83 2.65 0.23 23.7 < 0.005 0.02 —0.02 0.02 —0.02 —72.4 72.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 —72.6 Total 3.43 12.6 5.39 25.9 0.03 0.43 —0.43 0.44 —0.44 0.00 6,621 6,621 0.13 0.01 —6,628 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Architect ural Coatings —48.3 ———————————————— Hearths 0.60 0.30 5.16 2.20 0.03 0.42 —0.42 0.42 —0.42 0.00 6,548 6,548 0.12 0.01 —6,555 Consum er Products —8.64 ———————————————— Total 0.60 57.2 5.16 2.20 0.03 0.42 —0.42 0.42 —0.42 0.00 6,548 6,548 0.12 0.01 —6,555 Annual —————————————————— Architect ural Coatings —1.49 ———————————————— Hearths 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.00 74.3 74.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 —74.3 Consum er Products —1.58 ———————————————— Landsca pe Equipme nt 0.35 0.33 0.03 2.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —8.21 8.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 —8.23 Total 0.36 3.40 0.09 2.99 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 0.00 82.5 82.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 —82.6 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 27 / 50 4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use 4.4.2. 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) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————58.7 199 258 6.04 0.15 —452 Regional Shopping Center ———————————11.2 38.0 49.2 1.15 0.03 —86.2 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————69.9 237 307 7.19 0.17 —539 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 28 / 50 452—0.156.0425819958.7———————————Apartme nts Regional Shopping Center ———————————11.2 38.0 49.2 1.15 0.03 —86.2 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————69.9 237 307 7.19 0.17 —539 Annual —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————9.72 33.0 42.7 1.00 0.02 —74.9 Regional Shopping Center ———————————1.85 6.29 8.14 0.19 < 0.005 —14.3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————11.6 39.3 50.9 1.19 0.03 —89.2 4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use 4.5.2. 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 29 / 50 Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 —131 Regional Shopping Center ———————————9.05 0.00 9.05 0.90 0.00 —31.7 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————46.5 0.00 46.5 4.65 0.00 —163 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————37.4 0.00 37.4 3.74 0.00 —131 Regional Shopping Center ———————————9.05 0.00 9.05 0.90 0.00 —31.7 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 30 / 50 0.00—0.000.000.000.000.00———————————Enclosed Parking with Elevator Total ———————————46.5 0.00 46.5 4.65 0.00 —163 Annual —————————————————— Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Parking Lot ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Apartme nts Mid Rise ———————————6.20 0.00 6.20 0.62 0.00 —21.7 Regional Shopping Center ———————————1.50 0.00 1.50 0.15 0.00 —5.24 Enclosed Parking with Elevator ———————————0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 Total ———————————7.70 0.00 7.70 0.77 0.00 —26.9 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) —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 31 / 50 2.772.77————————————————Apartme nts Mid Rise Regional Shopping Center ————————————————0.08 0.08 Total ————————————————2.85 2.85 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————2.77 2.77 Regional Shopping Center ————————————————0.08 0.08 Total ————————————————2.85 2.85 Annual —————————————————— Apartme nts Mid Rise ————————————————0.46 0.46 Regional Shopping Center ————————————————0.01 0.01 Total ————————————————0.47 0.47 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 32 / 50 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 Daily, Summer (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Total —————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 33 / 50 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 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 —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 34 / 50 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 —————————————————— 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 —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 35 / 50 Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Remove d —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— ——————————————————— Annual —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 36 / 50 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2022 9/2/2022 5.00 25.0 — Grading Grading 9/5/2022 11/4/2022 5.00 45.0 — Building Construction Building Construction 11/7/2022 12/29/2023 5.00 300 — Paving Paving 10/16/2023 12/29/2023 5.00 55.0 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/16/2023 12/29/2023 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 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 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 Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Crawler Tractors Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 87.0 0.43 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 8.00 37.0 0.48 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 37 / 50 0.3784.08.003.00AverageDieselGradingTractors/Loaders/Backh oes Demolition Other Construction Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42 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 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 70.4 20.0 HHDT Demolition Onsite truck ——HHDT Grading ———— Grading Worker 22.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Grading Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Grading Hauling 13.9 20.0 HHDT Grading Onsite truck ——HHDT Building Construction ———— Building Construction Worker 281 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction Vendor 56.3 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 38 / 50 Paving Onsite truck ——HHDT Architectural Coating ———— Architectural Coating Worker 56.3 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 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 783,914 261,305 34,840 11,613 14,453 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards)Material Exported (Cubic Yards)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Ton of Debris) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,039 — Grading 5,000 —113 0.00 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.70 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day)PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 39 / 50 Water Exposed Area 3 74%74% 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.51 0% Parking Lot 1.94 100% Apartments Mid Rise —0% Regional Shopping Center 0.00 0% Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1.25 100% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2022 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 2023 0.00 532 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 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Apartments Mid Rise 1,256 1,421 1,172 462,736 18,088 20,466 16,884 6,663,395 Regional Shopping Center 472 457 49.2 149,468 2,365 2,564 276 764,691 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 40 / 50 5.10. Operational Area Sources 5.10.1. Hearths 5.10.1.1. Unmitigated Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Apartments Mid Rise — Wood Fireplaces 0 Gas Fireplaces 311 Propane Fireplaces 0 Electric Fireplaces 0 No Fireplaces 0 Conventional Wood Stoves 0 Catalytic Wood Stoves 0 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) 783913.95 261,305 218,444 72,815 9,659 5.10.3. Landscape Equipment Season Unit Value Snow Days day/yr 0.00 Summer Days day/yr 250 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 41 / 50 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) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Apartments Mid Rise 1,342,326 349 0.0330 0.0040 3,432,563 Regional Shopping Center 155,653 349 0.0330 0.0040 94,755 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,152 349 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption 5.12.1. Unmitigated Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year)Outdoor Water (gal/year) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 Apartments Mid Rise 30,649,050 0.00 Regional Shopping Center 5,840,000 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 5.13. Operational Waste Generation 5.13.1. Unmitigated Land Use Waste (ton/year)Cogeneration (kWh/year) Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 42 / 50 Apartments Mid Rise 69.5 0.00 Regional Shopping Center 16.8 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 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 Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C & Other residential A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0 Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators and/or freezers R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00 Regional Shopping Center Other commercial A/C and heat pumps R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0 Regional Shopping Center Stand-alone retail refrigerators and freezers R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 43 / 50 5.16.2. Process Boilers 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 44 / 50 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. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth Wildfire 0.00 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 (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth 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 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft. 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 1 0 0 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality 0 0 0 N/A 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 45 / 50 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. 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 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality 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 95.3 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 46 / 50 AQ-PM 96.1 AQ-DPM 69.3 Drinking Water 74.8 Lead Risk Housing 16.4 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 94.0 Traffic 71.0 Effect Indicators — CleanUp Sites 86.5 Groundwater 0.00 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 97.5 Impaired Water Bodies 43.8 Solid Waste 0.00 Sensitive Population — Asthma 34.1 Cardio-vascular 68.7 Low Birth Weights 66.8 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 26.4 Housing 49.0 Linguistic 43.9 Poverty 45.1 Unemployment 90.9 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 47 / 50 Economic — Above Poverty 39.93327345 Employed 61.79905043 Education — Bachelor's or higher 71.35891184 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 9.713845759 Transportation — Auto Access 34.87745413 Active commuting 15.55241884 Social — 2-parent households 32.04157577 Voting 36.14782497 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 65.96945977 Park access 10.21429488 Retail density 84.12678044 Supermarket access 57.03836777 Tree canopy 33.77389965 Housing — Homeownership 5.607596561 Housing habitability 9.739509817 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 1.514179392 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 44.4629796 Uncrowded housing 36.78942641 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 53.66354421 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 48 / 50 Arthritis 95.1 Asthma ER Admissions 43.7 High Blood Pressure 94.2 Cancer (excluding skin)85.3 Asthma 46.1 Coronary Heart Disease 96.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 89.8 Diagnosed Diabetes 90.6 Life Expectancy at Birth 80.7 Cognitively Disabled 96.9 Physically Disabled 83.0 Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.5 Mental Health Not Good 56.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 93.4 Obesity 56.8 Pedestrian Injuries 42.1 Physical Health Not Good 79.7 Stroke 91.3 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 8.3 Current Smoker 57.8 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 76.1 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 11.7 Elderly 95.3 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 49 / 50 English Speaking 21.8 Foreign-born 68.0 Outdoor Workers 79.7 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 69.3 Traffic Density 63.4 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — Hardship 52.5 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 37.1 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)74.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)35.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)Yes 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 and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 14975-Foothill Boulevard Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 50 / 50 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use Taken from updated Site plan Land use acreage adjusted using CalEEMod defaults and the ratio Construction: Construction Phases Work days per phase taken from previous technical study, and applied to construction schedule Construction: Off-Road Equipment Standard 8-hour working day Construction: Architectural Coatings Rule 1113 Operations: Vehicle Data Taken from traffic analysis Operations: Hearths Rule 455 - no wood burning devices Operations: Water and Waste Water Taken from original analysis and based on information provided by the Project Applicant. 14975-02 Memo ATTACHMENT B CALEEMOD 2022 PROPOSED PROJECT (OFF-SITE PARKING IMPROVMENTS) EMISSIONS MODEL OUTPUTS – CONSTRUCITON 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 1 / 23 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) 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 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2023) - Unmitigated 3.3. Paving (2023) - Unmitigated 3.5. Architectural Coating (2023) - Unmitigated 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 2 / 23 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 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 5.18. Vegetation 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 3 / 23 5.18.1. Land Use Change 5.18.1.1. Unmitigated 5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 4 / 23 8. User Changes to Default Data 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 5 / 23 1. Basic Project Information 1.1. Basic Project Information Data Field Value Project Name 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Lead Agency — Land Use Scale Project/site Analysis Level for Defaults County Windspeed (m/s)2.80 Precipitation (days)6.40 Location 10575 Foothill Blvd, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, USA County San Bernardino-South Coast City Rancho Cucamonga Air District South Coast AQMD Air Basin South Coast TAZ 5293 EDFZ 10 Electric Utility Southern California Edison Gas Utility Southern California Gas 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 Parking Lot 211 Space 0.58 0.00 ———— 1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 6 / 23 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, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.3.99 3.20 31.8 28.1 0.05 1.37 2.75 4.12 1.26 0.49 1.75 —5,687 5,687 0.36 0.31 0.12 5,788 Average Daily (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.0.25 0.24 1.95 1.80 < 0.005 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.08 0.03 0.11 —350 350 0.02 0.02 0.12 356 Annual (Max) —————————————————— Unmit.0.05 0.04 0.36 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 —58.0 58.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 59.0 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 Daily - Summer (Max) —————————————————— Daily - Winter (Max) —————————————————— 2023 3.99 3.20 31.8 28.1 0.05 1.37 2.75 4.12 1.26 0.49 1.75 —5,687 5,687 0.36 0.31 0.12 5,788 Average Daily —————————————————— 2023 0.25 0.24 1.95 1.80 < 0.005 0.08 0.16 0.24 0.08 0.03 0.11 —350 350 0.02 0.02 0.12 356 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 7 / 23 Annual —————————————————— 2023 0.05 0.04 0.36 0.33 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 —58.0 58.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 59.0 3. Construction Emissions Details 3.1. Demolition (2023) - 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 3.66 3.07 29.5 25.7 0.04 1.35 —1.35 1.24 —1.24 —3,746 3,746 0.15 0.03 —3,759 Demolitio n ——————2.08 2.08 —0.31 0.31 ——————— 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 0.20 0.17 1.62 1.41 < 0.005 0.07 —0.07 0.07 —0.07 —205 205 0.01 < 0.005 —206 Demolitio n ——————0.11 0.11 —0.02 0.02 ——————— 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 0.04 0.03 0.29 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —34.0 34.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 —34.1 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 8 / 23 Demolitio ——————0.02 0.02 —< 0.005 < 0.005 ——————— 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) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.10 0.09 0.11 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —236 236 0.01 0.01 0.03 238 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 0.23 0.03 2.24 1.21 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.02 0.04 0.06 —1,705 1,705 0.20 0.27 0.09 1,790 Average Daily —————————————————— Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —13.1 13.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 13.3 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 —93.4 93.4 0.01 0.01 0.08 98.2 Annual —————————————————— Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —2.17 2.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.20 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 < 0.005 < 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 0.01 16.3 3.3. Paving (2023) - 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) —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 9 / 23 Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Off-Road Equipment 0.84 0.71 5.97 6.77 0.01 0.30 —0.30 0.28 —0.28 —1,027 1,027 0.04 0.01 —1,030 Paving —0.15 ———————————————— 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 0.16 0.19 < 0.005 0.01 —0.01 0.01 —0.01 —28.1 28.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 —28.2 Paving —< 0.005 ———————————————— 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.66 4.66 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.67 Paving —< 0.005 ———————————————— 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) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.09 0.08 0.09 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 —202 202 0.01 0.01 0.02 204 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 —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 10 / 23 Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —5.61 5.61 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.69 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 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.93 0.93 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.94 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. Architectural Coating (2023) - 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 0.24 0.20 1.25 1.54 < 0.005 0.05 —0.05 0.05 —0.05 —178 178 0.01 < 0.005 —179 Architect ural Coatings —1.41 ———————————————— 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 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —4.88 4.88 < 0.005 < 0.005 —4.89 Architect ural Coatings —0.04 ———————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 11 / 23 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 < 0.005 —< 0.005 —0.81 0.81 < 0.005 < 0.005 —0.81 Architect ural Coatings —0.01 ———————————————— 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) —————————————————— Daily, Winter (Max) —————————————————— Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 12 / 23 4. Operations Emissions Details 4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type 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 —————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 13 / 23 Annual —————————————————— Total —————————————————— 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 —————————————————— ——————————————————— 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 14 / 23 Annual —————————————————— Avoided —————————————————— Subtotal —————————————————— Sequest ered —————————————————— 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 1/2/2023 1/27/2023 5.00 20.0 — Paving Paving 1/30/2023 2/10/2023 5.00 10.0 — Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/13/2023 2/24/2023 5.00 10.0 — 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 Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 10.0 0.56 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 15 / 23 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 37.0 0.48 Demolition Other Construction Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.42 Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 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 17.5 18.5 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Demolition Vendor —10.2 HHDT,MHDT Demolition Hauling 23.9 20.0 HHDT Demolition 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 0.00 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 16 / 23 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 0.00 0.00 1,137 379 1,516 5.6. Dust Mitigation 5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities Phase Name Material Imported (cy)Material Exported (cy)Acres Graded (acres)Material Demolished (Ton of Debris) Acres Paved (acres) Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,907 — Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 5.7. Construction Paving Land Use Area Paved (acres)% Asphalt Parking Lot 0.58 100% 5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh) Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O 2023 0.00 532 0.03 < 0.005 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 17 / 23 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. Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit Temperature and Extreme Heat 20.2 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 5.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise 0.00 meters of inundation depth Wildfire 0.00 annual hectares burned 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 18 / 23 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 (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential inundation depth 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 50 meters (m) by 50 m, or about 164 feet (ft) by 164 ft. 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 1 0 0 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 N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality 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. 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 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 19 / 23 Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2 Wildfire 1 1 1 2 Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A Snowpack N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Quality 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 95.3 AQ-PM 96.1 AQ-DPM 69.3 Drinking Water 74.8 Lead Risk Housing 16.4 Pesticides 0.00 Toxic Releases 94.0 Traffic 71.0 Effect Indicators — 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 20 / 23 CleanUp Sites 86.5 Groundwater 0.00 Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 97.5 Impaired Water Bodies 43.8 Solid Waste 0.00 Sensitive Population — Asthma 34.1 Cardio-vascular 68.7 Low Birth Weights 66.8 Socioeconomic Factor Indicators — Education 26.4 Housing 49.0 Linguistic 43.9 Poverty 45.1 Unemployment 90.9 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 39.93327345 Employed 61.79905043 Education — Bachelor's or higher 71.35891184 High school enrollment 100 Preschool enrollment 9.713845759 Transportation — 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 21 / 23 Auto Access 34.87745413 Active commuting 15.55241884 Social — 2-parent households 32.04157577 Voting 36.14782497 Neighborhood — Alcohol availability 65.96945977 Park access 10.21429488 Retail density 84.12678044 Supermarket access 57.03836777 Tree canopy 33.77389965 Housing — Homeownership 5.607596561 Housing habitability 9.739509817 Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 1.514179392 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 44.4629796 Uncrowded housing 36.78942641 Health Outcomes — Insured adults 53.66354421 Arthritis 95.1 Asthma ER Admissions 43.7 High Blood Pressure 94.2 Cancer (excluding skin)85.3 Asthma 46.1 Coronary Heart Disease 96.0 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 89.8 Diagnosed Diabetes 90.6 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 22 / 23 Life Expectancy at Birth 80.7 Cognitively Disabled 96.9 Physically Disabled 83.0 Heart Attack ER Admissions 10.5 Mental Health Not Good 56.0 Chronic Kidney Disease 93.4 Obesity 56.8 Pedestrian Injuries 42.1 Physical Health Not Good 79.7 Stroke 91.3 Health Risk Behaviors — Binge Drinking 8.3 Current Smoker 57.8 No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 76.1 Climate Change Exposures — Wildfire Risk 0.0 SLR Inundation Area 0.0 Children 11.7 Elderly 95.3 English Speaking 21.8 Foreign-born 68.0 Outdoor Workers 79.7 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity — Impervious Surface Cover 69.3 Traffic Density 63.4 Traffic Access 23.0 Other Indices — 14975-Foothill Boulevard (Off-Site Parking Construction) Detailed Report, 7/11/2022 23 / 23 Hardship 52.5 Other Decision Support — 2016 Voting 37.1 7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores Metric Result for Project Census Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a)74.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b)35.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535)Yes 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 and Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed. 8. User Changes to Default Data Screen Justification Land Use Taken from previous study acreage Construction: Construction Phases Taken from previous technical study Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment based on information provided by the Project Applicant. APPENDIX C: HABITAT ASSESSMENT 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com June 28, 2022 RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS LLC c/o Island View Ventures, LLC Contact: Jeff Warmoth 120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite D Santa Barbara, California 93101 SUBJECT: Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Mixed-Use Development Located on the Southeast Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California Introduction This report contains the findings of ELMT Consulting’s (ELMT) habitat assessment for the proposed mixed use development located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue (project site or site) and off-site improvement areas located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The habitat assessment was conducted by biologists Travis J. McGill and Jacob H. Lloyd Davies on October 8, 2019 and February 13, 2020 to document baseline conditions and assess the potential for special-status 1 plant and wildlife species to occur within the project site and off-site improvement areas that could pose a constraint to implementation of the proposed project. An updated field investigation was conducted on June 14, 2022, to reconfirm existing site conditions previously documented onsite. Special attention was given to the suitability of the project site and off-site improvement areas to support special-status plant and wildlife species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and other electronic databases as potentially occurring in the general vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Project Location The project site and off-site improvement areas are generally located north of Interstate 10, west of Interstate 15, east of State Route 83, and south of State Route 210 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The project site and off-site improvement areas are depicted on the Guasti quadrangle of the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-minute map series within an unsectioned portion of Township 1 South, Range 7 West. The project site is located south of Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven Avenue, west of Aspen Street, and north of the San Bernardino County Superior Court facility. Specifically, the site is located at 10575 Foothill Boulevard on the southeast corner of the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Road within Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0208-353-02. Refer to Exhibits 1 As used in this report, “special-status” refers to plant and wildlife species that are federally and State listed, proposed, or candidates; plant species that have been designated with a California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Rank; wildlife species that are designated by the CDFW as fully protected, species of special concern, or watch list species; and specially protected natural vegetation communities as designated by the CDFW. June 28, 2022 Page 2 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment 1-3 in Attachment A. Project Description The proposed project will develop apartment homes with associated parking, retail, amenities, and infrastructure on approximately 7.9 acres of the project site (refer to Attachment B, Site Plans). Approximately 302 domestic units will be constructed. Associated structures include an office, pool, pool house, and multiple amenities. Parking would be provided on-site and consist of private garages, covered carports, and surface parking. In addition to the development of the proposed mixed-use development, off-site street improvements will occur along Haven Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, and Aspen Street. These off-site street improvements include widening the pedestrian walkways around the site and fortifying the current access points. Methodology A literature review and records search were conducted to determine which special-status biological resources have the potential to occur on or within the general vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas. In addition to the literature review, a general habitat assessment or field investigation of the project site and off-site street improvement areas was conducted to document existing conditions and assess the potential for special-status biological resources to occur within the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Literature Review Prior to conducting the field investigation, a literature review and records search was conducted for special- status biological resources potentially occurring on or within the vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Previously recorded occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species and their proximity to the project site and off-site street improvement areas were determined through a query of the CDFW’s QuickView Tool in the Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS), CNDDB Rarefind 5, the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, Calflora Database, compendia of special-status species published by CDFW, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species listings. All available reports, survey results, and literature detailing the biological resources previously observed on or within the vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas were reviewed to understand existing site conditions and note the extent of any disturbances that have occurred within the project site and off-site street improvement areas that would otherwise limit the distribution of special- status biological resources. Standard field guides and texts were reviewed for specific habitat requirements of special-status and non-special-status biological resources, as well as the following resources: • Google Earth Pro historic aerial imagery (1985-2021); June 28, 2022 Page 3 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment • United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Soil Survey 2; • USFWS Critical Habitat designations for Threatened and Endangered Species; and • USFWS Endangered Species Profiles. The literature review provided a baseline from which to inventory the biological resources potentially occurring within the project site and off-site street improvement areas. The CNDDB database was used, in conjunction with ArcGIS software, to locate the nearest recorded occurrences of special-status species and determine the distance from the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Habitat Assessment/Field Investigation Following the literature review, biologists Travis J. McGill and Jacob H. Lloyd Davies inventoried and evaluated the condition of the habitat within the project site and off-site street improvement areas on October 8, 2019, February 13, 2020, and June 14, 2022. Plant communities and land cover types identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects throughout the project site and off-site street improvement areas. In addition, aerial photography was reviewed prior to the site investigation to locate potential natural corridors and linkages that may support the movement of wildlife through the area. These areas identified on aerial photography were then walked during the field investigation. Soil Series Assessment On-site and adjoining soils were researched prior to the field investigation using the USDA NRCS Soil Survey for San Bernardino County, California. In addition, a review of the local geological conditions and historical aerial photographs was conducted to assess the ecological changes that the project site and off- site street improvement areas have undergone. Plant Communities Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography. The plant communities were classified in accordance with Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf and Evens (2009), delineated on an aerial photograph, and then digitized into GIS Arcview. The Arcview application was used to compute the area of each plant community and/or land cover type in acres. Plants Common plant species observed during the field investigation were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less familiar plants were photographed in the field and identified in the laboratory using taxonomic guides. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows the 2012 Jepson Manual (Hickman 2012). In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following common names of plant species (first reference only). 2 A soil series is defined as a group of soils with similar profiles developed from similar parent materials under comparable climatic and vegetation conditions. These profiles include major horizons with similar thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics, which may promote favorable conditions for certain biological resources. June 28, 2022 Page 4 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment Wildlife Wildlife species detected during the field investigation by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the survey included The Sibley Field Guide to the Birds of Western North America (Sibley 2003), A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003), and A Field Guide to Mammals of North America (Reid 2006). Although common names of wildlife species are well standardized, scientific names are provided immediately following common names in this report (first reference only). Jurisdictional Drainages and Wetlands Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting a field investigation in order to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features, ponded areas, or water bodies that may fall under the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), or CDFW. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potential riparian/riverine habitat and are also subject to state and federal regulatory jurisdiction. In addition, ELMT reviewed jurisdictional waters information through examining historical aerial photographs to gain an understanding of the impact of land-use on natural drainage patterns in the area. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas have been documented on or within the vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Existing Site Conditions The proposed project site and off-site street improvement areas are located in a developed area in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The site is surrounded by existing developments, with commercial developments to the north, west, and east, and the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court, City Hall, and Police Department to the south. The northern portion of the project site is developed (e.g., existing structures, parking, and landscaping), and the southern portion of the project site consists of an undeveloped, vacant lot. Off-site street improvement areas are limited to existing developed areas (i.e., driveways, pedestrian walkways, and landscaped areas along Haven Avenue, East Foothill Boulevard, and Aspen Street). Elevation ranges from approximately 1,197 to 1,210 feet above mean sea level and generally slopes from the north to south. Based on the NRCS USDA Web Soil Survey, the project site and off-site street improvement areas are historically underlain by Tujunga loamy sand (0 to 5 percent slopes) and Delhi fine sand. Refer to Exhibit 4, Soils, in Attachment A. Soils on-site have been mechanically disturbed and compacted from grading and weed abatement activities, and on-site and surrounding development. Vegetation Due to historic and existing land uses, no native plant communities or natural communities of special concern were observed on or adjacent to the project site or off-site street improvement areas. The project site and off-site street improvement areas consist of a mix of developed and undeveloped land that was historically used for agricultural land uses. The project site and off-site street improvement areas are no longer used for agricultural activities. The undeveloped southern portion of the project site has been subject to on-going weed abatement activities and disturbance associated with surrounding development. These June 28, 2022 Page 5 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment disturbances have eliminated the natural plant communities that once occurred on and surrounding the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Refer to Attachment B, Site Photographs, for representative site photographs. The project site consists of two (2) land cover types that would be classified as disturbed and developed (refer to Exhibit 5, Vegetation, in Attachment A). The northern portion of the site consists only of developed land with associated ornamental landscaping. The southern portion primarily consists of vacant, undeveloped land that has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances associated with surrounding development and existing disturbances including grading, disking, and weed abatement. Early successional and non-native weedy plant species compose the majority of the southern portion of the project. Plant species observed on-site include tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), fan palm (Washingtonia sp.), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), jimson weed (Datura stramonium), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), fiddleneck (Amsinkia menziesii), sycamore (Platanus racemose), and short- podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). It should be noted that several pine (Pinus sp.) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) occur along the southern boundary of the project site that separate the project site from the development to the south. The off-site street improvement areas are entirely developed and only contains plants associated with existing ornamental vegetation. These species include Bermuda grass and sycamore. While some native trees occur within the boundary of the project site and off-site street improvement areas, they were planted ornamentally and are not part of a natural plant community. Wildlife Plant communities provide foraging habitat, nesting/denning sites, and shelter from adverse weather or predation. This section provides a discussion of those wildlife species that were observed or are expected to occur within the project site and off-site street improvement areas. The discussion is to be used a general reference and is limited by the season, time of day, and weather conditions in which the field investigation was conducted. Wildlife detections were based on calls, songs, scat, tracks, burrows, and direct observation. The project site and off-site street improvement areas provides limited habitat for wildlife species except those adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbances and development. Fish No fish or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) with frequent sources of water that would support populations of fish were observed on or within the vicinity of the project site and off- site street improvement areas. Therefore, no fish are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Amphibians No amphibians or hydrogeomorphic features (e.g., creeks, ponds, lakes, reservoirs) with frequent sources of water that would support populations of amphibians were observed on or within the vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Therefore, no amphibians are expected to occur and are presumed absent from the project site and off-site street improvement areas. June 28, 2022 Page 6 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment Reptiles The project site and off-site street improvement areas provide marginal foraging and cover habitat for a limited variety of reptile species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only reptile species observed during the field investigation was western side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans). Other reptilian species that could be expected to occur include great basin fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis longipes). Birds The project site and off-site street improvement areas provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. Bird species detected during the field investigation include northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Cassin’s kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), bushtit (Psaltripus minimus), house finch (Haemorhouse mexicanus), and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Mammals The project site and off-site street improvement areas provide marginal foraging and cover habitat for a mammalian species adapted to a high degree of anthropogenic disturbance. The only mammalian species detected during the field investigation was California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Common mammalian species that could potentially occur on-site include opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Nesting Birds No active nests or birds displaying nesting behavior were observed during the field investigations. The project site and off-site street improvement area and surrounding areas provide minimal foraging and nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area. In addition, the undeveloped portion of the project site has the potential to provide suitable nesting opportunities for birds that nest on the open ground and those acclimated to routine disturbances (e.g. killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)). Additionally, the trees that border the project site and those within off-site street improvement areas provide suitable nesting opportunities Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. Migratory Corridors and Linkages Habitat linkages provide connections between larger habitat areas that are separated by development. Wildlife corridors are similar to linkages but provide specific opportunities for animals to disperse or migrate between areas. A corridor can be defined as a linear landscape feature of sufficient width to allow animal movement between two comparatively undisturbed habitat fragments. Adequate cover is essential June 28, 2022 Page 7 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment for a corridor to function as a wildlife movement area. It is possible for a habitat corridor to be adequate for one species yet still inadequate for others. Wildlife corridors are features that allow for the dispersal, seasonal migration, breeding, and foraging of a variety of wildlife species. Additionally, open space can provide a buffer against both human disturbance and natural fluctuations in resources. According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, the project site has not been identified as occurring within a Wildlife Corridor or Linkage. As designated by the San Bernardino County General Plan Open Space Element, major open space areas documented in the vicinity of the project site include Lytle Creek, located approximately 9.74 miles to the northeast. The proposed project will be confined to existing disturbed and developed areas and is surrounded by development, which has removed natural plant communities from the surrounding area. The project site and off-site street improvement areas are isolated from regional wildlife corridors and linkages, and there are no riparian corridors, creeks, or useful patches of steppingstone habitat (natural areas) within or connecting the project site and off-site street improvement areas to any identified wildlife corridors or linkages. As a result, implementation of the proposed project will not disrupt or have any adverse effects on any migratory corridors or linkages in the surrounding area. Jurisdictional Areas There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates discharge of dredge or fill materials into “waters of the United States” pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFW regulates alterations to streambed and bank under Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1600 et seq., and the Regional Board regulates discharges into surface waters pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the project site and off-site street improvement areas during the habitat assessment that would be considered jurisdictional by the Corps, Regional Board, or CDFW. Therefore, regulatory approvals from the Corps, Regional Board, and/or CDFW will not be required for implementation of the project. Special-Status Biological Resources The CNDDB Rarefind 5 and the CNPS Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were queried for reported locations of special-status plant and wildlife species as well as special- status natural plant communities in the Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Only one quadrangle was quired since the project site and off-site street improvement areas are already developed, completely surrounded by existing development, and does not connect with any natural areas or native plant communities in the region. The habitat assessment evaluated the conditions of the habitat(s) within the boundaries of the project site and off-site street improvement areas to determine if the existing plant communities, at the time of the survey, have the potential to provide suitable habitat(s) for special-status plant and wildlife species. The literature search identified thirteen (13) special-status plant species and thirty-three (33) special-status wildlife species as having the potential to occur within the Guasti 7.5-minute quadrangle. No special-status June 28, 2022 Page 8 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment plant communities haven been recorded within the Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Special-status plant and wildlife species were evaluated for their potential to occur within the project site and off-site street improvement areas based on habitat requirements, availability and quality of suitable habitat, and known distributions. Species determined to have the potential to occur within the general vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas are presented in Attachment D: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources. Special-Status Plants According to the CNDDB and CNPS, thirteen (13) special-status plant species have been recorded in the Guasti quadrangle (refer to Attachment D). No special-status plant species were observed on-site during the habitat assessment. The majority of the project site and off-site street improvement areas have been subject to anthropogenic disturbances from grading, weed abatement, and development activities. These disturbances have reduced the suitability of the habitat to support special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Based on habitat requirements for specific special-status plant species and the availability and quality of habitats needed by each species, it was determined that the project site and off-site street improvement areas do not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area and are presumed to be absent from the project site and off-site street improvement areas. No focused surveys are recommended. Special-Status Wildlife According to the CNDDB, thirty-three (33) special-status wildlife species have been reported in the Guasti quadrangle (refer to Attachment D). No special-status wildlife species were observed on-site during the habitat assessment. On-site disturbances have greatly reduced potential foraging and nesting/denning opportunities for wildlife species on-site. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and the availability and quality of on-site habitats, it was determined that the proposed project site and off-site street improvement areas have a low potential to support Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actua). All remaining special-status wildlife species are presumed to be absent from the project site and off-site street improvement areas due to lack of quality habitat. None of the aforementioned species are federally or state listed as endangered or threatened. In order to ensure impacts to Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, and California horned lark do not occur from implementation of the proposed project, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted prior to ground disturbance. With implementation of mitigation through the pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey, impacts to the aforementioned species will be less than significant. Based on regional significance, the potential occurrence of burrowing owl within the project site and off- site street improvement areas are described in further detail below. Burrowing Owl The burrowing owl is currently listed as a California Species of Special Concern. It is a grassland specialist distributed throughout western North America where it occupies open areas with short vegetation and bare ground within shrub, desert, and grassland environments. Burrowing owls use a wide variety of arid and June 28, 2022 Page 9 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment semi-arid environments with well-drained, level to gently-sloping areas characterized by sparse vegetation and bare ground (Haug and Didiuk 1993; Dechant et al. 1999). Burrowing owls are dependent upon the presence of burrowing mammals (such as ground squirrels) whose burrows are used for roosting and nesting (Haug and Didiuk 1993). The presence or absence of colonial mammal burrows is often a major factor that limits the presence or absence of burrowing owls. Where mammal burrows are scarce, burrowing owls have been found occupying man-made cavities, such as buried and non-functioning drain pipes, stand-pipes, and dry culverts. Burrowing mammals may burrow beneath rocks and debris or large, heavy objects such as abandoned cars, concrete blocks, or concrete pads. They also require open vegetation allowing line-of-sight observation of the surrounding habitat to forage as well as watch for predators. No burrowing owls or recent sign (i.e., pellets, feathers, castings, or white wash) was observed during the field investigation. The southern portion of the project site is unvegetated and/or vegetated with a variety of low-growing plant species that allow for line-of-sight observation favored by burrowing owls. Ground squirrel burrows were observed along the northern boundary of the undeveloped southern portion of the project site. These burrows were occupied with ground squirrels at the time of the survey, and no sign of burrowing owl use was observed. Further, several power poles, overhead power lines, ornamental trees, and tall office buildings surround the project site and off-site street improvement areas which decrease the likelihood that burrowing owls would occur on the project site and off-site street improvement areas as these features provide perching opportunities for larger raptor species (i.e., red-tailed hawk [Buteo jamaicensis]) that prey on burrowing owls. Based on the results of the field investigation and isolation of the undeveloped area on the project site, it was determined that the project site and off-site street improvement areas have a low potential to support burrowing owls and focused surveys are not recommended. However, out of an abundance of caution, a pre-construction burrowing owl clearance survey is recommended to be conducted prior to development to ensure burrowing owl remain absent from the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Special-Status Plant Communities According to the CNDDB, no special-status plant communities are reported to occur in the Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. Based on the results of the field investigation, no special-status plant communities were observed on-site. Therefore, no special-status plant communities will be impacted from project implementation. Critical Habitat Under the federal Endangered Species Act, “Critical Habitat” is designated at the time of listing of a species or within one year of listing. Critical Habitat refers to specific areas within the geographical range of a species at the time it is listed that include the physical or biological features that are essential to the survival and eventual recovery of that species. Maintenance of these physical and biological features requires special management considerations or protection, regardless of whether individuals or the species are present or not. All federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS regarding activities they authorize, fund, or permit which may affect a federally listed species or its designated Critical Habitat. The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that projects will not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species or adversely modify or destroy its designated Critical Habitat. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing is on federal lands, uses federal funds, or June 28, 2022 Page 10 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highways Administration or a Clean Water Act Permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers). If a there is a federal nexus, then the federal agency that is responsible for providing the funding or permit would consult with the USFWS. The project site and off-site street improvement areas are not located within federally designated Critical Habitat. The nearest designated Critical Habitat is located approximately 2.6 miles northeast of the project site and off-site street improvement areas for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). Therefore, the loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat from site development will not occur and consultation with the USFWS for impacts to Critical Habitat will not be required for implementation of the proposed project. Heritage Trees Under the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (17.16.080), certain trees may qualify as Heritage Trees and require a permit for removal. A heritage tree is defined as any tree which meets at least one of the following criteria: 1. All eucalyptus windrows; or 2. Any tree in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 20 inches or more as measured 4½ feet from ground level; or 3. Multi-trunk trees having a total diameter at breast height (DBH) of 30 inches or more as measured 4½ feet from ground level; or 4. A stand 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 age, size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. The project site and off-site street improvement areas contain approximately twenty-four (24) trees that would qualify as Heritage Trees under the City’s Municipal Code Item No. 2 above. These include five (5) pine (Pinus sp.), fifteen (15) silver dollar eucalyptus (Eucalyptus polyanthemos), on the southern boundary of the project site and four (4) sycamore within the off-site street improvement areas. Refer to Exhibit 6, for the location of the trees on-site. If any of these trees will be removed from project implementation, a tree removal permit will need to be acquired from the City. DSF Suitability Assessment In addition the general habitat assessment, ELMT biologists conducted a Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; DSF) suitability assessment. The suitability assessment consisted of a visual and tactile inspection of all soils on the project site and off-site street improvement areas. Since the project site and off-site street improvement areas are located within mapped Delhi Sand soils, the site was evaluated for the quality or purity of on-site soils and for its potential to support DSF. Areas were assigned one or more ratings ranging between 1 and 5, with 5 being the best quality and most suitable habitat as described below: June 28, 2022 Page 11 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment 1. Soils dominated by heavy deposits of alluvial material including coarse sands and gravels with little or no Delhi sand soils and evidence of soil compaction. Developed areas, non-Delhi sands soils with high clay, silt, and/or gravel content. Delhi sands extensively and deeply covered by dumping of exotic soils, rubble, trash or organic debris. Unsuitable. 2. Delhi sand soils are present, but the soil characteristics include a predominance of alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand), or predominance of other foreign contamination. Sever and frequent disturbance (such as maintenance yard or high use roadbed). Very Low Quality. 3. Although not clean, sufficient Delhi sand soils are present to prevent soil compaction. Moderately contaminated Delhi sands. Delhi sands with moderate to high disturbance (such as annual disking). Sufficient Delhi sands are present to prevent soil compaction (related to contamination by foreign soils). Some sandy soils exposed on the surface due to fossorial animal activity. Low Quality. 4. Abundant clean Delhi sand soils with little or no foreign soils (such as alluvial material, Tujunga soils or Hilmar loamy sand) present. Moderate abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence of moderate degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. May represent high quality habitat with mild or superficial disturbance. Moderate Quality. 5. Sand dune habitat with clean Delhi sand soils. High abundance of exposed sands on the soil surface. Low vegetative cover. Evidence (soil surface often gives under foot) of high degree of fossorial animal activity by vertebrates and invertebrates. Sand associated plant and arthropod species may be abundant. High Quality. The criteria discussed in detail above were used to rate the relative abundance of clean Delhi Sand soils verses the amount of Cienba, Tujunga, or other alluvial soils, to rate the suitability of the habitat to support DSF. Soils high in gravel and alluvial materials, or high in fine materials such as silts and clays, were rated low, while soils that appear to be high in Aeolian deposited sands were rated high. This qualitative assessment of DSF habitat was further refined by considering the relative degree of soil compaction. Alluvial soils tend to solidify to a hard surface pavement, while Aeolian soils are easier to penetrate and provide good substrate for DSF. Background It has been generally acknowledged that DSF occur in Delhi Sand soils, particularly clean dune formations composed of Aeolian sands. Conversely, soils and sands deposited by fluvial processes from the surrounding alluvial fans do not support DSF. These alluvial soils are composed of course sands, cobble and gravel (Tujunga soils) or course sands, silts and clays (Cieneba soils). In this part of San Bernardino County, the separation of soil types has been lost due to the mixing and cross contamination from years of agricultural activities, development, and other man-made disturbances. Depending on the extent of mixing and contamination, some areas formally mapped in 1970 as Delhi Sand soils no longer have potential to support DSF populations. Conversely, some areas formally mapped as Cieneba soils may now be composed of Delhi Sand soils and have potential to support DSF. Six DSF June 28, 2022 Page 12 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment experts (Ken Osborne, Greg Ballmen, Rudy Matoni, Karen Cleary-Rose, Alison Anderson, and Tom McGill) used this criterion, the relative abundance of clean Delhi Sand soils verses the amount of Cienba or other alluvial soils, to rate the suitability of the habitat to support DSF (Michael Brandman Associates, 2003). Soils high in gravel and alluvial materials, or high in fine materials such as silts and clays, were rated low, while soils that appear to be high in Aeolian deposited sands were rated high. This qualitative assessment of DSF habitat was further refined by considering the relative degree of soil compaction. Alluvial soils have a tendency to solidify to a hard surface pavement, while Aeolian soils are easier to penetrate and provide good substrate for DSF. Although it has been common to attribute the presence of four common plant species California buckwheat, California croton (Croton californicus), deerweed (Acmispon glaber), and telegraph weed as indicators of habitat suitability, for the assessment, vegetation composition was not given much weight in making this habitat evaluation. These dominant plant species, and plant species composition of habitats, may not be directly relevant to larval development (due to likely predatory or parasitic habitat of DSF larvae) (Osborne, et al. 2003). The known immature life histories of the nine asiloid fly families, including that to which the DSF is classified, are primarily predatory and/or parasitic on other invertebrate species (mainly insects) and the presence or absence of plant species appears not to be relevant to the life history of these flies. Land with suitable DSF habitat include only those areas with open, undisturbed Delhi Series soils that have not been permanently altered by residential, commercial, or industrial development, or other human actions. Areas known to contain Delhi Sand soils and/or to be occupied by DSF have been divided by USFWS into three recovery units (Colton, Jurupa, and Ontario Recovery Units (USFWS, 1997)). These recovery units are defined as large geographic areas based on geographic proximity, similarity of habitat, and potential genetic exchange. The project site and off-site street improvement areas are located within the Ontario Recovery Unit, outside the areas protected under the conservation easements. The Ontario Recovery Unit includes all areas of the Delhi Sand soils within the cities of Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Chino, and Fontana. Suitability Assessment As a result of development and disturbances on and surrounding the proposed project site and off-site street improvement areas, surface soils have been heavily mixed and compacted. The northern portion of the project site and the off-site street improvement areas are developed and consists of impervious surfaces. The southern portion of the project site is undeveloped, with heavily mixed soils containing alluvial materials (Tujunga Soils and Hilmar loamy sand) from routine weed abatement activities and surrounding development. Further, the entire project site and off-site street improvement areas are surrounded by existing developments and no longer has connectivity to areas upwind containing Delhi Sands soils, areas subjected to Aeolian processes, or areas supporting DSF populations. Therefore, the soils within the northern portion of the project site and the off-site street improvement areas are rated as “unsuitable quality” with a habitat quality rating of 1, and soils within the southern portion of the project site were rated as “very low quality” with a habitat quality rating of 2. Refer to Exhibit 6, DSF Suitability in Attachment A. Therefore, it was determined that the site does not support Delhi Sand soils needed for suitable habitat for DSF and DSF is presumed absent from the project site and off-site street improvement areas. No further actions or focused surveys are recommended. June 28, 2022 Page 13 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment Conclusion Based on the literature review and field survey, none of the special-status plant or wildlife species known to occur in the general vicinity of the project site and off-site street improvement areas are expected to be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, the project will have no effect on designated Critical Habitat or regional wildlife corridors/linkage because none exists within the area. No jurisdictional drainage and/or wetland features were observed on the project site during the field investigation. No further surveys are recommended. With completion of the recommendations provided below, no impacts to year-round, seasonal, or special-status avian residents or special-status species will occur from implementation of the proposed project. Recommendations Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey should be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that may disrupt the birds during the nesting season. If construction occurs between February 1st and August 31st, a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within three (3) days of the start of any vegetation removal or ground disturbing activities to ensure that no nesting birds will be disturbed during construction. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active avian nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the pre-construction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a no-disturbance buffer. The size of the no-disturbance buffer will be determined by the wildlife biologist and will depend on the level of noise and/or surrounding anthropogenic disturbances, line of sight between the nest and the construction activity, type and duration of construction activity, ambient noise, species habituation, and topographical barriers. These factors will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis when developing buffer distances. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest will be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers; and construction personnel will be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biological monitor should be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity. Once the young have fledged and left the nest, or the nest otherwise becomes inactive under natural conditions, construction activities within the buffer area can occur. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 17.16.080 Approximately twenty-four trees on the project site and off-site street improvement areas will qualify as “Heritage Trees” under the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Municipal Code. If any of these trees will be removed from project implementation, a tree removal permit will need to be acquired from the City. Please do not hesitate to contact Tom McGill at (951) 285-6014 or tmcgill@elmtconsulting.com or Travis McGill at (909) 816-1646 or travismcgill@elmtconsulting.com should you have any questions this report. June 28, 2022 Page 14 Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Jurisdictional Assessment Sincerely, Thomas J. McGill, Ph.D. Travis J. McGill Managing Director Director Attachments: A. Project Exhibits B. Site Plan C. Site Photographs D. Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources E. Regulations Attachment A Project Exhibits ^_ MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - SEC OF FOOTHILL AND HAVEN HABITAT ASSESSMENT Regional Vicinity Exhibit 1 !0 10 205 Miles Source: Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation ^_ San Bernardino County Riverside CountyOrange County PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATIONLos Angeles County MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - SEC OF FOOTHILL AND HAVEN HABITAT ASSESSMENT Site Vicinity Exhibit 2 !0 2,000 4,0001,000 Feet Source: USA Topographic Map, San Bernardino County Legend Project Site Offsite Improvement Area MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - SEC OF FOOTHILL AND HAVEN HABITAT ASSESSMENT Project Site Exhibit 3 !0 250 500125 Feet Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County Legend Project Site Offsite Improvement Area Foothill Blvd Aspen StHaven Ave Db TuB Db MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - SEC OF FOOTHILL AND HAVEN HABITAT ASSESSMENT Soils Exhibit 4 !0 250 500125 Feet Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database, San Bernardino County Legend Project Site Offsite Improvement Area Delhi fine sand (Db) Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (TuB) Foothill Blvd Aspen StHaven Ave !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - SEC OF FOOTHILL AND HAVEN HABITAT ASSESSMENT Vegetation Exhibit 5 !0 250 500125 Feet Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County Legend Project Site Offsite Improvement Area Disturbed Developed Heritage Tree Locations !(Eucalyptus !(Pine !(Sycamore Foothill Blvd Aspen StHaven Ave MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - SEC OF FOOTHILL AND HAVEN HABITAT ASSESSMENT DSF Suitability Exhibit 6 !0 250 500125 Feet Source: ESRI Aerial Imagery, San Bernardino County Legend Project Site Offsite Improvement Area Unsuitable Habitat (Habitat Quality Rating 1) Very Low Quality Habitat (Habitat Quality Rating 2) Foothill Blvd Aspen StHaven Ave Attachment B Site Plans Attachment C Site Photographs Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 1: Looking southwest from the middle of the northern boundary of the project site. Photograph 2: Looking southeast from the middle of the northern boundary of the project site. Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 3: Looking west from within the northeast boundary of the project site. The undeveloped portion is visible on the left. Photograph 4: Looking west from the middle of the project site where the developed and undeveloped portions meet. Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 5: Looking east from the middle of the project site where the developed and undeveloped portions meet. Photograph 6: Looking west from the southeast corner of the project site. Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 7: Looking east from the western boundary of the project site at the undeveloped southern boundary. Eucalyptus trees on the southern border are visible on the right side of the photo. Photograph 8: Looking east from the southwest corner of the project site. Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 9: Looking east from within the northwest boundary of the project site. Photograph 10: Examples of potential heritage trees in the southeast corner of the project site. Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 11: From the southwest corner of the project site looking north along Haven Avenue at the off-site improvement area west of the project site. Photograph 12: From the northwest corner of the project site looking south along Haven Avenue at the off-site improvement area west of the project site. Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 13: From the northwest corner of the project site looking east along Foothill Boulevard at the off-site improvement area north of the project site. Photograph 14: From the northeast corner of the project site looking west along Foothill Boulevard at the off-site improvement area north of the project site. Attachment C – Site Photographs Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Photograph 15: From the northeast corner of the project site looking south along Aspen Street at the off- site improvement area east of the project site. Photograph 16: From the southeast corner of the project site looking north along Aspen Street at the off- site improvement area east of the project site. Attachment D Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Table D-1: Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Observed Onsite Potential to Occur SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk Fed: CA: None WL Common yearlong resident of California. Typically forages in broken woodland and habitat edges with dense stands of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), riparian deciduous, or other forest habitat near water. Usually nests in dense riparian areas, usually near streams. No Low. There is limited foraging habitat on-site. This species is adapted to urban environments. Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird Fed: CA: None Candidate END/SSC Range is limited to the coastal areas of the Pacific coast of North America, from Northern California to upper Baja California. Can be found in a wide variety of habitat including annual grasslands, wet and dry vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands, agricultural fields, cattle feedlots, and dairies. Occasionally forage in riparian scrub habitats along marsh borders. Basic habitat requirements for breeding include open accessible water, protected nesting substrate (freshwater marsh dominated by cattails, willows, and bulrushes [Schoenoplectus sp.]), and either flooded or thorny or spiny vegetation and suitable foraging space providing adequate insect prey. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Aimophila ruficeps canescens southern California rufous-crowned sparrow Fed: CA: None WL Typically found between 3,000 and 6,000 feet in elevation. Breed in sparsely vegetated scrubland on hillsides and canyons. Prefers coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), but they can also be found breeding in coastal bluff scrub, low-growing serpentine chaparral, and along the edges of tall chaparral habitats. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Anniella stebbinsi southern California legless lizard Fed: CA: None SSC Occurs in sparsely vegetated habitat types including coastal sand dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodland, desert scrub, open grassland, and riparian areas. Requires sandy or loose loamy substrates conducive to burrowing. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Ardea alba great egret Fed: CA: None None Yearlong resident throughout California, except for the high mountains and deserts. Feeds and rests in fresh, and saline emergent wetlands, along the margins of estuaries, lakes, and slow-moving streams, on mudflats and salt ponds, and in irrigated croplands and pastures. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Ardea herodias great blue heron Fed: CA: None None Fairly common all year throughout most of California, in shallow estuaries and fresh and saline emergent wetlands. Less common along riverine and rocky marine shores, in croplands, pastures, and in mountains about foothills. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake Fed: CA: None SSC Occurs in a wide variety of habitat types including open desert, grasslands, shrublands, chaparral, and woodlands. Prefers areas where the soil is loose and sandy which allows for burrowing. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail Fed: CA: None SSC Found in a variety of ecosystems, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse foliage - chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Observed Onsite Potential to Occur Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Fed: CA: None SSC Primarily a grassland species, but it persists and even thrives in some landscapes highly altered by human activity. Occurs in open, annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation. The overriding characteristics of suitable habitat appear to be burrows for roosting and nesting and relatively short vegetation with only sparse shrubs and taller vegetation. No Low. Marginal foraging and nesting habitat are present on the southern portion of the site. However, perching opportunities for predators of burrowing owl are present. Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee Fed: CA: None None Exclusive to coastal California east towards the Sierra-Cascade Crest; less common in western Nevada. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Calypte costae Costa’s hummingbird Fed: CA: None None Desert and semi-desert, arid brushy foothills and chaparral. A desert hummingbird that breeds in the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts. Departs desert heat moving into chaparral, scrub, and woodland habitats. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Fed: CA: None SSC Occurs in desert and coastal habitats in southern California, Mexico, and northern Baja California, from sea level to at least 1,400 meters above msl. Found in a variety of temperate habitats ranging from chaparral and grasslands to scrub forests and deserts. Requires low growing vegetation or rocky outcroppings, as well as sandy soils for burrowing. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Circus hudsonius northern harrier Fed: CA: None SSC Frequents meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, fresh and saltwater emergent wetlands; seldom found in wooded areas. Mostly found in flat, or hummocky, open areas of tall, dense grasses moist or dry shrubs, and edges for nesting, cover, and feeding. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat Fed: CA: END SSC Primarily found in Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub (RAFSS) and sandy loam soils, alluvial fans and flood plains, and along washes with nearby sage scrub. May also occur at lower densities in Riversidean upland sage scrub, chaparral and grassland in uplands and tributaries in proximity to RAFSS habitat. Tends to avoid rocky substrates. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Dipodomys simulans Dulzura kangaroo rat Fed: CA: None None Relatively common in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and peninsular juniper woodland habitats. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat Fed: CA: END THR Occur in arid and semi-arid habitats with some grass or brush. Prefer open habitats with less than 50% protective cover. Require soft, well-drained substrate for building burrows and are typically found in areas with sandy soil. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Egretta thula snowy egret Fed: CA: None None Widespread in California along shores of coastal estuaries, fresh and saline emergent wetlands, ponds, slow-moving rivers, irrigation ditches, and wet fields. In southern California, common yearlong in the Imperial Valley and along the Colorado River. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite Fed: CA: None None Widespread in California along shores of coastal estuaries, fresh and saline emergent wetlands, ponds, slow-moving rivers, irrigation ditches, and wet fields. In southern California, common yearlong in the Imperial Valley and along the Colorado River. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Eremophila alpestris actua California horned lark Fed: CA: None WL Occurs in meadows, grasslands, open fields, prairie, and alkali flats. This subspecies is typically found in coastal regions. No Low. There is limited foraging habitat on-site and no suitable nesting habitat on-site. Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Observed Onsite Potential to Occur Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat Fed: CA: None SSC Primarily a cliff-dwelling species, roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs. Roosts are generally high above the ground, usually allowing a clear vertical drop of at least 3 meters below the entrance for flight. In California, it is most frequently encountered in broad open areas including dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open ponderosa pine forest, grassland, and agricultural areas. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Fed: CA: None SSC Common yearlong resident of California. Prefers open habitats with bare ground, scattered shrubs, and areas with low or sparse herbaceous cover. Requires suitable perches including trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Larus californicus California gull Fed: CA: None WL Require isolated islands in rivers, reservoirs and natural lakes for nesting, where predations pressures from terrestrial mammals are diminished. Uses both fresh and saline aquatic habitats at variable elevations and degrees of aridity for nesting and for opportunistic foraging. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat Fed: CA: None SSC Occurs in valley/foothill riparian, desert riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats. Roosts under palm trees and feeds in, and near, palm oases and riparian habitats. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail Fed: CA: None FP Shallow marshes, and wet meadows; in winter, drier fresh-water and brackish marshes, as well as dense, deep grass. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Fed: CA: None SSC Occupies many diverse habitats, but primarily is found in arid regions supporting short-grass habitats, agricultural fields, or sparse coastal scrub. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat Fed: CA: None SSC Occurs in coastal scrub communities between San Luis Obispo and San Diego Counties. Prefers moderate to dense canopies, and especially rocky outcrops. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron Fed: CA: None None Common in wetlands across North America, including saltmarshes, freshwater marshes, swamps, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, lagoons, tidal mudflats, and wet agricultural fields. They require aquatic habitat for foraging and terrestrial vegetation for cover. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse Fed: CA: None SSC Occurs in lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage scrub communities in and around the Los Angeles Basin. Prefers open ground with fine sandy soils. May not dig extensive burrows, but instead will seek refuge under weeds and dead leaves instead. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Perognathus longimembris pacificus Pacific pocket mouse Fed: CA: END SSC Occurs on loose sandy soils that support sparse coastal sage scrub, grassland, and ruderal habitats. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard Fed: CA: None SSC Found in a wide variety of vegetation types including coastal sage scrub, annual grassland, chaparral, oak woodland, riparian woodland and coniferous forest. The key elements of such habitats are loose, fine soils with a high sand fraction; an abundance of native ants or other insects; and open areas with limited overstory for basking and low, but relatively dense shrubs for refuge. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Observed Onsite Potential to Occur Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher Fed: CA: THR SSC Common yearlong resident of southern California in sage scrub habitats that are dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Prefers scrub habitat with more low-growing vegetation. Species generally occurs below 750 feet above mean sea level (msl) along the coast and below 1,500 feet above msl within inland regions. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Fed: CA: END None DSF habitat is limited to areas that include Delhi fine sand, an aeolian (wind-deposited) soil type. The highest density of DSF have been found in habitat that includes a variety of plants including California buckwheat, California croton, deerweed, and telegraph weed. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Spizella breweri Brewer's sparrow Fed: CA: None None Habitats include sagebrush and brushy plains. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES Calochortus catalinae Catalina mariposa-lily Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 4.2 Grows in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 49 to 2,297 feet. Blooming period is from March to June. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa-lily Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 4.2 Prefers openings in chaparral, foothill woodland, coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest and yellow pine forest. Often found on dry, rocky slopes and soils and brushy areas. Can be very common after a fire. From 328 to 5,577 feet in elevation. Blooming period is from May to July. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Chirozanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s spineflower Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 1B.2 Occurs on sandy and/or rocky soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and sandy openings within alluvial washes and margins. Found at elevations ranging from 951 to 3,773 feet. Blooming period is from April to June. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Cladium californicum California saw-grass Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 2B.2 Found in meadows and seeps, marshes and alkaline swamps or freshwater habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 197 to 5,249 feet. Blooming period is from June to September. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 4.2 Typically found in vernally mesic, sometimes sandy soils in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Found at elevations ranging from 82 to 3,084 feet. Blooming period is from April to November. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 1B.1 Occurs on sandy or gravelly soils in chaparral, woodlands, and coastal scrub plant communities. Found at elevations ranging from 230 to 2,657 feet. Blooming period is from February to September. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Juglans californica southern California black walnut Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 4.2 Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 164 to 2,953 feet. Blooming period is from March to August. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Muhlenbergia californica California muhly Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 4.3 Found in mesic, seeps, and streambanks within chaparral, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, and meadows and seeps. Found at elevations ranging from 328 to 6,562 feet. Blooming period is from June to September. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Attachment D – Potentially Occurring Special-Status Biological Resources Mixed Use Development – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Observed Onsite Potential to Occur Muhlenbergia utilis aparego grass Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 2B.2 Native to north and central America. Grows in wet habitats, including riverbanks and meadows, sometimes alkaline soils. Blooming period is from October to March. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 1B.1 Found in mesic soils in coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grasslands (alkaline), and vernal pools. Found at elevations ranging from 65 to 2,100 feet. Blooming period is from April to July. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Phacelia stellaris Brand’s star phacelia Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 1B.1 Occurs in coastal dunes and coastal sage scrub habitats. In western Riverside County this species is restricted to sandy benches along the Santa Ana River. Grows in elevations ranging from 3 to 1,312 feet. Blooming period is from March to June. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present. Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit-tobacco Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 2B.2 Grows in sandy, gravelly soils within chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and riparian woodland habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 0 to 6,890 feet. Blooming period is from July to December. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster Fed: CA: CNPS: None None 1B.2 Grows in cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic). Can be found growing near ditches, streams, and springs within these habitats. Found at elevations ranging from 7 to 6,693 feet. Blooming period is from July to November. No Presumed absent. No suitable habitat is present on-site. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) - Federal END - Federally Endangered THR - Federally Threatened California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) - California END - State Endangered CEND - State Candidate Endangered SSC - Species of Special Concern WL - Watch List FP - Fully Protected California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank 1A Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere 2B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but More Common Elsewhere 4 Plants of Limited Distribution – A Watch List Threat Ranks 0.1 - Seriously threatened in California 0.2 - Moderately threatened in California 0.3 - Not very threatened in California Attachment E Regulations Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Special status species are native species that have been afforded special legal or management protection because of concern for their continued existence. There are several categories of protection at both federal and state levels, depending on the magnitude of threat to continued existence and existing knowledge of population levels. Federal Regulations Endangered Species Act of 1973 Federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats are protected under provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of threatened or endangered species. “Take” under the ESA is defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The presence of any federally threatened or endangered species that are in a project area generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations of the ESA, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may authorize “take” when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act. Critical Habitat is designated for the survival and recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Critical Habitat includes those areas occupied by the species, in which are found physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of an ESA listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. Critical Habitat may also include unoccupied habitat if it is determined that the unoccupied habitat is essential for the conservation of the species. Whenever federal agencies authorize, fund, or carry out actions that may adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, they must consult with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. The designation of Critical Habitat does not affect private landowners, unless a project they are proposing uses federal funds, or requires federal authorization or permits (e.g., funding from the Federal Highway Administration or a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)). If USFWS determines that Critical Habitat will be adversely modified or destroyed from a proposed action, the USFWS will develop reasonable and prudent alternatives in cooperation with the federal institution to ensure the purpose of the proposed action can be achieved without loss of Critical Habitat. If the action is not likely to adversely modify or destroy Critical Habitat, USFWS will include a statement in its biological opinion concerning any incidental take that may be authorized and specify terms and conditions to ensure the agency is in compliance with the opinion. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S. Government Code [USC] 703) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, possess, or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union, and authorizes the U.S. Secretary of the Interior to protect and regulate the taking of migratory birds. It establishes seasons and bag limits for hunted species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703; 50 CFR 10, 21). Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment The MBTA covers the taking of any nests or eggs of migratory birds, except as allowed by permit pursuant to 50 CFR, Part 21. Disturbances causing nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (i.e., killing or abandonment of eggs or young) may also be considered “take.” This regulation seeks to protect migratory birds and active nests. In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (e.g., raptors). Six families of raptors occurring in North America were included in the amendment: Accipitridae (kites, hawks, and eagles); Cathartidae (New World vultures); Falconidae (falcons and caracaras); Pandionidae (ospreys); Strigidae (typical owls); and Tytonidae (barn owls). The provisions of the 1972 amendment to the MBTA protects all species and subspecies of the families listed above. The MBTA protects over 800 species including geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds and many relatively common species. State Regulations California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides for the protection of the environment within the State of California by establishing State policy to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures for projects. It applies to actions directly undertaken, financed, or permitted by State lead agencies. If a project is determined to be subject to CEQA, the lead agency will be required to conduct an Initial Study (IS); if the IS determines that the project may have significant impacts on the environment, the lead agency will subsequently be required to write an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A finding of non-significant effects will require either a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of an EIR. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines independently defines “endangered” and “rare” species separately from the definitions of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under CEQA, “endangered” species of plants or animals are defined as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy, while “rare” species are defined as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. California Endangered Species Act (CESA) In addition to federal laws, the state of California implements the CESA which is enforced by CDFW. The CESA program maintains a separate listing of species beyond the FESA, although the provisions of each act are similar. State-listed threatened and endangered species are protected under provisions of the CESA. Activities that may result in “take” of individuals (defined in CESA as; “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) are regulated by CDFW. Habitat degradation or modification is not included in the definition of “take” under CESA. Nonetheless, CDFW has interpreted “take” to include the destruction of nesting, denning, or foraging habitat necessary to maintain a viable breeding population of protected species. The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above. The CDFW has also produced a species of special concern list to serve as a species watch list. Species on this list are either of limited distribution or their habitats have been reduced substantially, such that a threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of special concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have formal statutory protection. At the federal level, USFWS also uses the label species of concern, as an informal term that refers to species which might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. As the Species of Concern designated by USFWS do not receive formal legal protection, the use of the term does not necessarily ensure that the species will be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species. Fish and Game Code Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 are applicable to natural resource management. For example, Section 3503 of the Code makes it unlawful to destroy any birds’ nest or any birds’ eggs that are protected under the MBTA. Further, any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (Birds of Prey, such as hawks, eagles, and owls) are protected under Section 3503.5 of the Fish and Game Code which makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy their nest or eggs. A consultation with CDFW may be required prior to the removal of any bird of prey nest that may occur on a project site. Section 3511 of the Fish and Game Code lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFW is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are State fully protected by the State include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Section 3513 of the Fish and Game Code makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the MBTA. Native Plant Protection Act Sections 1900–1913 of the Fish and Game Code were developed to preserve, protect, and enhance Rare and Endangered plants in the state of California. The act requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. Provisions of the Native Plant Protection Act prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of the CDFW at least ten days in advance of any change in land use which would adversely impact listed plants. This allows the CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. California Native Plant Society Rare and Endangered Plant Species Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which have no designated status under FESA or CESA are defined as follows: California Rare Plant Rank 1A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere 1B- Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment 2A- Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More 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) .3- Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known). LocalRegulations Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Under the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (17.16.080), certain trees may qualify as Heritage Trees and require a permit for removal. A heritage tree is defined as any tree which meets at least one of the following criteria: • All eucalyptus windrows; or • Any tree in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 20 inches or more as measured 4½ feet from ground level; or • Multi-trunk trees having a total diameter at breast height (DBH) of 30 inches or more as measured 4½ feet from ground level; or • A stand of trees the nature of which makes each dependent upon the others for survival; or • Any other tree as may be deemed historically or culturally significant by the planning director because of age, size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment There are three key agencies that regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The Corps Regulatory Branch regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Of the State agencies, the CDFG regulates activities under the Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616, and the Regional Board regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Federal Regulations Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Since 1972, the Corps and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have jointly regulated the filling of “waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Corps has regulatory authority over the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. The Corps and EPA define “fill material” to include any “material placed in waters of the United States where the material has the effect of: (i) replacing any portion of a water of the United States with dry land; or (ii) changing the bottom elevation of any portion of the waters of the United States.” Examples include, but are not limited to, sand, rock, clay, construction debris, wood chips, and “materials used to create any structure or infrastructure in the waters of the United States.” In order to further define the scope of waters protected under the CWA, the Corps and EPA published the Clean Water Rule on June 29, 2015. Pursuant to the Clean Water Rule, the term “waters of the United States” is defined as follows: (i) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. (ii) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands 1. (iii) The territorial seas. (iv) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition. (v) All tributaries 2 of waters identified in paragraphs (i) through (iii) mentioned above. (vi) All waters adjacent 3 to a water identified in paragraphs (i) through (v) mentioned above, including wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters. 1 The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 2 The terms tributary and tributaries each mean a water that contributes flow, either directly or through another water (including an impoundment identified in paragraph (iv) mentioned above), to a water identified in paragraphs (i) through (iii) mentioned above, that is characterized by the presence of the physical indicators of a bed and banks and an ordinary high water mark. 3 The term adjacent means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring a water identified in paragraphs (i) through (v) mentioned above, including waters separated by constructed dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like. Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment (vii) All prairie potholes, Carolina bays and Delmarva bays, Pocosins, western vernals pools, Texas coastal prairie wetlands, where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (i) through (iii) meantioned above. (viii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (i) through (iii) mentioned above and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (i) through (v) mentioned above, where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a waters identified in paragraphs (i) through (iii) mentioned above. The following features are not defined as “waters of the United States” even when they meet the terms of paragraphs (iv) through (viii) mentioned above: (i) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act. (ii) Prior converted cropland. (iii) The following ditches: (A) Ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary. (B) Ditches with intermittent flow that are not a relocated tributary, excavated in a tributary, or drain wetlands. (C) Ditches that do not flow, either directly or through another water, into a water of the United States as identified in paragraphs (i) through (iii) of the previous section. (iv) The following features: (A) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land should application of water to that area cease; (B) Artificial, constructed lakes and ponds created in dry land such as farm and stock watering ponds, irrigation ponds, settling basins, fields flooded for rice growing, log cleaning ponds, or cooling ponds; (C) Artificial reflecting pools or swimming pools created in dry land; (D) Small ornamental waters created in dry land; (E) Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to mining or construction activity, including pits excavated for obtaining fill, sand, or gravel that fill with water; (F) Erosional features, including gullies, rills, and other ephemeral features that do not meet the definition of a tributary, non-wetland swales, and lawfully constructed grassed waterways; and (G) Puddles. (v) Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems. (vi) Stormwater control features constructed to convey, treat, or store stormwater that are created in dry land. Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment (vii) Wastewater recycling structures constructed in dry land; detention and retention basins built for wastewater recycling; groundwater recharge basins; percolation ponds built for wastewater recycling; and water distributary structures built for wastewater recycling. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in any discharge to waters of the United States must provide certification from the State or Indian tribe in which the discharge originates. This certification provides for the protection of the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of waters, addresses impacts to water quality that may result from issuance of federal permits, and helps insure that federal actions will not violate water quality standards of the State or Indian tribe. In California, there are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Board) that issue or deny certification for discharges to waters of the United States and waters of the State, including wetlands, within their geographical jurisdiction. The State Water Resources Control Board assumed this responsibility when a project has the potential to result in the discharge to waters within multiple Regional Boards. State Regulations Fish and Game Code Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et. seq. establishes a fee-based process to ensure that projects conducted in and around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely impact fish and wildlife resources, or, when adverse impacts cannot be avoided, ensures that adequate mitigation and/or compensation is provided. Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires any person, state, or local governmental agency or public utility to notify the CDFW before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following: (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. Fish and Game Code Section 1602 applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State. CDFW’s regulatory authority extends to include riparian habitat (including wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and saturated soil conditions. Generally, the CDFW takes jurisdiction to the top of bank of the stream or to the outer limit of the adjacent riparian vegetation (outer drip line), whichever is greater. Notification is generally required for any project that will take place in or in the vicinity of a river, stream, lake, or their tributaries. This includes rivers or streams that flow at least periodically or permanently through a bed or channel with banks that support fish or other aquatic life and watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that support or have supported riparian vegetation. A Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required if impacts to identified CDFW jurisdictional areas occur. Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment Porter Cologne Act The California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act gives the State very broad authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. The Porter-Cologne Act has become an important tool in the post SWANCC and Rapanos regulatory environment, with respect to the state’s authority over isolated and insignificant waters. Generally, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must file a Report of Waste Discharge in the event that there is no Section 404/401 nexus. Although “waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the Regional Board also interprets this to include fill discharged into water bodies. Local Ordinances Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides a review process for the removal of heritage trees considered to be a community resource under Title 17, Article II, Chapter 16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. A) Purpose. The purpose of a tree removal permit is to provide a review process for the removal of heritage trees that are considered to be a community resource. B) Applicability. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all heritage trees on all private property within the city, except as set forth in section 17.16.080.E (Exemptions) of this chapter. Further, this chapter is not intended to supersede the tree preservation policies of the Etiwanda Specific Plan if the specific plan is more stringent than the requirements of this title; if the specific plan is less stringent than the requirements of this title, this title shall supersede the specific plan. C) Heritage tree. A heritage tree is defined as any tree which meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) All eucalyptus windrows; or 2) Any tree in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk diameter at breast height (DBH) of 20 inches or more as measured 4½ feet from ground level; or 3) Multi-trunk trees having a total diameter at breast height (DBH) of 30 inches or more as measured 4½ feet from ground level; or 4) A stand 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 age, size, condition, location, or aesthetic qualities. D) Permit requirements. 1) No person, firm, or corporation shall remove, relocate, or destroy any heritage tree within the city limits, including an applicant for a building permit, without first obtaining a tree removal permit from the planning director. Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment 2) No tree removal permit shall be issued for the removal of any heritage tree on any lot associated with a proposal for development, unless all discretionary approvals have been obtained from the city, or unless an emergency waiver is granted pursuant to section 17.16.080.H (Emergency Waiver). 3) No tree designated as a historic landmark shall be altered, removed, relocated, or destroyed by any person, firm, or corporation without first obtaining both a certificate of compliance and a tree removal permit. Alteration, removal, relocation, or destruction of trees designated as historic landmarks may require a certificate of compliance even if exempt from the requirement for a tree removal permit under this section. E) Exemptions. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1) Trees which are fruit or nut bearing. 2) Trees planted, grown, and/or held for sale by licensed nurseries and/or tree farms or the removal or transplanting of such trees pursuant to the operation of a licensed nursery and/or tree farms. 3) Trees within existing or proposed public rights-of-way where their removal or relocation is necessary to obtain adequate line-of-sight distances as required by the city engineer, or designee. 4) Trees that, in the opinion of the director of public works services, or designee, will cause damage to existing public improvements. 5) Trees that require maintenance or removal action for the protection of existing electrical power or communication lines or other property of a public utility. 6) Trees within a designated urban wildlife interface area. F) Review process. 1) An application for a tree removal permit shall be filed, together with any required fee as set by resolution of the city council, with the planning director on forms provided for the purpose. 2) A tree removal application may be submitted together with any application for tentative subdivision maps or other proposals for urban development. 3) In addition to required application materials, the planning director may cause to be prepared, at the applicant’s expense, a report by a qualified arborist to assist in making a determination on an application for a tree removal permit. 4) If more than five trees or 50 linear feet of eucalyptus windrows are proposed to be removed, the planning director shall, not less than ten days before rendering a decision, provide for public comment through notice to adjacent property owners of the pending application. The notice shall include: i) Description of the tree removal permit request. ii) Results of the investigation by staff. Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment 5) The planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a tree removal permit, and may impose such conditions deemed necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to: i) Replacement of the removed tree or trees with tree(s) of species and quantity commensurate with the aesthetic value of the tree or trees removed. ii) Tree relocation to another site on the property; provided that the environmental conditions of said new location are favorable to the survival of the tree and provided further that such relocation is accomplished by qualified landscape architect or qualified arborist. G) Historic landmark designation. Where the trees in question are designated as a historic landmark, a request for a tree removal permit shall be subject to review and approval by the historic preservation commission and certificate of appropriateness procedure pursuant to chapter 17.18 (Historic Preservation Commission Decisions). The action of the historic preservation commission can be appealed to the city council. H) Emergency waiver. Where a tree is determined by the planning director or designee to be in a dangerous condition requiring emergency action to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, the permit requirement may be waived. In the event of an emergency caused by a hazardous or dangerous tree, which condition poses an immediate threat to person or property, any member of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District may authorize the destruction or removal of such tree without securing a permit. I) Factors for consideration. 1) Private property. Where an application for a tree removal permit is filed on private property and is limited to five trees or 50 linear feet of windrow, the planning director shall consider the following prior to approval: i) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any portion of the tree(s), proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services. ii) The necessity to remove a tree in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property. iii) The number of trees existing in the neighborhood, and the effect the removal would have on the established character of the area and the property values. iv) Whether or not such trees are required to be preserved by any specific plan, community plan, condition of approval, or designation as a historic landmark. 2) Associated with a proposal for development. Where an application for a tree removal permit is associated with a proposal for development or is on private property and involves greater than five trees or more than 50 linear feet of windrow, the planning director shall consider the following: i) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of collapse of all or any portion of the tree(s), proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services. Attachment E – Regulations Mixed Use Developmet – SEC of Foothill and Haven Habitat Assessment ii) The necessity to remove a tree in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property. iii) The number of trees existing in the neighborhood, and the effect the removal would have on the established character of the area and the property values. iv) Whether or not the removal of the tree(s) is necessary to construct required improvements within the public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way. v) Whether or not the tree could be preserved by pruning and proper maintenance or relocation rather than removal. vi) Whether or not such tree(s) constitute a significant natural resource of the city. vii) Whether or not such trees are required to be preserved by any specific plan, community plan, condition of approval, or designation as a historic landmark. J) Findings. The director shall approve, or approve with conditions, an application for a tree removal permit after finding all of the following: 1) For a development project, every effort has been made to incorporate the tree(s) into the design of the project and the only appropriate alternative is the removal of the tree; 2) For requests not associated with a development project, the tree presents a threat to public health and safety and must be removed; and 3) The removal of the tree will not have a negative impact on the health, safety, or viability of surrounding trees, nor will it negatively impact the aesthetics or general welfare of the surrounding area. (Code 1980, § 17.16.080; Ord. No. 855 § 4, 2012; Ord. No. 858 § 4, 2013; Ord. No. 860 § 4, 2013) APPENDIX D: PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT A PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE 10575 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PROJECT RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APNs 208-353-01, -02, and -03 Project Location: Section 12, Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the Guasti USGS Quadrangle Topographic Map Prepared on Behalf of: Island View Ventures, LLC 120 East De La Guerre Street, Suite D Santa Barbara, California 93101 Prepared for: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Prepared by: Andrew J. Garrison and Brian F. Smith Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 June 30, 2022 Fieldwork Performed: June 22, 2022 Key Words: Survey of 7.93-acre project area and 5.3-acre off-site improvement areas; no cultural resources identified. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Archaeological Report Summary Information Author(s): Andrew J. Garrison, M.A., RPA and Brian F. Smith, M.A. Prepared by: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 Report Date: April 13, 2020 Report Title: A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California Prepared on Behalf of: Island View Ventures, LLC 120 East De La Guerra Street, Suite D Santa Barbara, California 93101 Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 208-353-01, -02, and -03 USGS Quadrangle: Section 12, Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the Guasti USGS topographic quadrangle map Study Area: 7.93-acre project and approximately 5.3 acres of off-site improvement areas Key Words: Archaeological survey program; city of Rancho Cucamonga; Guasti USGS topographic quadrangle; no cultural resources identified. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY / ABSTRACT ......................................................... 1.0–1 1.1 Purpose of Investigation ................................................................................... 1.0–1 1.2 Recommendation Summary .............................................................................. 1.0–2 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2.0–1 2.1 Previous Work .................................................................................................. 2.0–5 2.2 Project Setting ................................................................................................... 2.0–5 2.3 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................. 2.0–6 2.3.1 Prehistoric Period ................................................................................... 2.0–6 2.3.2 Historic Period ........................................................................................ 2.0–11 2.4 Research Goals .................................................................................................. 2.0–14 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 .......................................................................... 3.0–2 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 – Archaeological Records Search Results* Appendix C – NAHC Sacred Lands File Search* *Deleted for public review and bound separately in the Confidential Appendix A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 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 Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................... 2.0–4 List of Plates Plate Page Plate 4.2–1 Overview of the developed north half of the project from the southeast corner, facing northwest .............................................................................. 4.0–4 Plate 4.2–2 Overview of the undeveloped southern half of the project, facing east ...... 4.0–4 List of Tables Table Page Table 4.1–1 Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ........................................................................................ 4.0–1 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–1 1.0 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT The following report describes the results of the cultural resources survey conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. (BFSA) for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project. The survey included 7.93 acres for a planned mixed-use development on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 208-353-02, and an additional approximately 5.3-acre area for off-site improvements on APNs 208-353-01 and -03, located in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. The off-site improvements will consist of modifications to the landscape and hardscape associated with existing buildings on APNs 208-353-01 and -03. The subject property is located at 10575 Foothill Boulevard and is primarily surrounded by commercial and multi-family residential properties. The property is located within the city of Rancho Cucamonga and is bound by Foothill Boulevard to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, and Aspen Street to the east. This project may be found in the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the USGS 7.5-minute Guasti, California topographic quadrangle map. This study was conducted in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the environmental guidelines of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to locate and record any cultural resources present within the project. The proposed development property currently consists of a developed parking lot within the northern half and a vacant open field surrounded by development within the southern half. The entire parcel appears to have been previously graded at the time the parking lot was developed. Vegetation within the parking lot is mainly comprised of maintained landscaping consisting of trees, planters, and manicured lawns. The vegetation found within the open field consists of pockets of non-native weeds and grasses. The off-site areas are identified as the two adjacent parcels, located to the northwest (APN 208-353-01) and northeast (APN 208-353-03), that are fully developed and each containing a single multi-story office building, parking lots, and associated maintained landscaping. BFSA conducted the assessment to locate and record any cultural resources identified within the project in compliance with CEQA and following City of Rancho Cucamonga cultural resource guidelines. During the survey, no artifacts or cultural resources were discovered, and therefore, no further archaeological study is required to complete the archaeological assessment of the project. A copy of this report will be permanently filed with the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton (CSU Fullerton). All notes, photographs, and other materials related to this project will be curated at the archaeological laboratory of BFSA in Poway, California. 1.1 Purpose of Investigation The purpose of this investigation was to complete a records search of previously recorded archaeological sites on or near the property, survey the project acreage, including the off-site areas; identify any archaeological resources within the project; and test and evaluate any cultural resources that may be impacted by the proposed development. The project site plan (see Figure A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1.0–2 2.0–3) shows the configuration of the mixed-use development proposed on APN 208-353-02 as well as the location of the off-site areas found within APNs 208-353-01 and -03. 1.2 Recommendation Summary The 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project will not result in direct impacts to recorded cultural resources and no mitigation measures will be recommended as a condition of approval. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–1 2.0 INTRODUCTION BFSA was retained by the applicant to conduct a cultural resources survey of the proposed 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project in the city of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County. 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 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project consists of a 7.93-acre parcel (APN 208-353-02) and an approximately 5.3-acre off-site improvement area (APNs 208-353-01 and -03), located in the city of Rancho Cucamonga within southwestern San Bernardino County, California (Figure 2.0–1). The subject property is located in the northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 1 South, Range 7 West of the USGS 7.5-minute Guasti, California topographic map (Figure 2.0–2). The project proposes the construction of a mixed-use development along with associated parking lots, landscaping, and infrastructure within an already partially-developed parcel (Figure 2.0–3). The office buildings located within the off-site parcels will remain, with the off-site improvements mainly focused on the alteration of the existing landscaping and hardscape. The maximum depth of any proposed excavation for the project is five feet. However, as all proposed structures will be constructed above the existing grade, on average, excavations throughout the project will be less than five feet in depth. Archaeological Field Director Clarence Hoff conducted the cultural resources study for the project under the direction of Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith. The survey was accomplished by walking survey transects in 10-meter intervals across the property. Due to the prior development of the parcel and off-site areas, and the presence of a parking lot within the northern half of the subject property, visibility of the natural ground surface was mainly limited to the open field that comprises the southern half of the property. Vegetation within the parking lot and off- site areas is mainly comprised of maintained landscaping consisting of trees, planters, and manicured lawns. The vegetation found within the open field consists of sporadic pockets of non- native weeds and grasses along with a few sycamore and pine trees which are generally located along the southern boundary and within the southeast and southwest corners. Andrew Garrison and Brian F. Smith prepared the technical report, Chad Rankle generated the report graphics, and Courtney McNair conducted technical editing and report production. Qualifications of key personnel are provided in Appendix A. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–5 2.1 Previous Work The records search for the property from the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton reported that no archaeological sites have been recorded within the subject property. However, 13 sites have been recorded within a one-mile radius of the project. A total of 20 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the proposed project. Two of the previous studies overlap the subject property. One study, conducted in 1980 by Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (ARMC), included the subject property (Cooley 1980). The ARMC study was conducted before the subject property was developed, and did not identify any cultural resources within it. The other study was conducted by BFSA in 2020 (Garrison and Smith 2020), which studied the exact project parcels and to which this study serves as an update. A discussion of the complete records search is provided in Section 4.1 of this report. 2.2 Project Setting The proposed project is generally located in southwestern San Bernardino County at 10575 Foothill Boulevard and is primarily surrounded by commercial and multi-family residential properties. Further, the project parcel is situated within the city of Rancho Cucamonga bound by Foothill Boulevard to the north, Haven Avenue to the west, and Aspen Street to the east. The subject property is located within former agricultural land south of the eastern end of the San Gabriel Mountains and west of the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Gabriel Mountains extend from Newall 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). Specifically, the property is located within the Cucamonga Fan which consists of a broad southward-sloping valley floodplain. The project does not contain any natural sources of water. The closest water sources to the subject property include two small streams, Deer Creek and Day Creek, located 300 meters west and 1,500 meters east, respectively. Both water sources have been channelized and are tributaries of the larger Cucamonga Creek which is situated over three kilometers south of the project (Cooley 1980). The property currently consists of a developed parking lot and a vacant open field surrounded by development. Generally, the parcel area can be split in half with the northern half containing the parking lot and the open field located to the south. The project’s lowest point is located along its southern border and its highest point is located along its northern border. Elevations within the project range from approximately 1,200 to 1,210 feet AMSL. The entire project has been previously disturbed by clearing and grading. Specifcally, geotechnical studies of the property indicate that currently, the northern parking lot area contains between four to seven feet of artificial fill over Quaternary alluvium, while the southern open field generally contains one to 1.5 feet of artificial fill over Quaternary alluvium (Miller and Van Meter 2018). Vegetation within the parking lot is mainly comprised of maintained landscaping consisting of trees, planters, and manicured lawns. The vegetation found within the open field consists of sporadic pockets of non-native weeds and grasses along with a few sycamore and pine trees which are generally A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–6 located along the southern boundary and within the southeast and southwest corners. 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. Reference will be made to the geologic framework 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). A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–7 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 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 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–8 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 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. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–9 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). 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, hook and line, 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 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–10 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 “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) A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–11 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 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 The historic background of the project 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). In the late eighteenth century, the San Gabriel (Los Angeles County), San Juan Capistrano (Orange County), and San Luis Rey (San Diego County) missions began colonizing southern California, and gradually expanded their use of the interior valley (presently western Riverside County) for raising grain and A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–12 cattle to support the missions. The San Gabriel Mission claimed lands in what is presently Jurupa, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass, while the San Luis Rey Mission claimed land in what is presently Lake Elsinore, Temecula, and Murrieta (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998). The indigenous groups who occupied these lands were recruited by missionaries, converted, and put to work in the missions (Pourade 1964). 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). In the mid- to late 1770s, Juan Bautista de Anza passed through much of what is now Riverside County while searching for an overland route from Sonora, Mexico to San Gabriel and Los Angeles, describing fertile valleys, lakes, and sub-desert areas (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998; Riverside County n.d.). Spanish missionaries formed Mission San Gabriel in the San Bernardino Valley in the early nineteenth century. The mission established Rancho San Bernardino in 1819, which included the present-day areas of San Bernardino, Fontana, Rialto, Redlands, and Colton (City of San Bernardino 2015). Since there was no reliable water source in the area, from 1819 to 1820, the missionaries developed a zanja through the use of Native American labor from the Guachama Rancheria (Smallwood 2006). The creation of the zanja was implemented to divert waters from Mill Creek all the way through the city of Redlands, ending near the mission to assist with agricultural enterprises. The new water source allowed nearby ranching districts to develop during the nineteenth century (City of Redlands 2010; Smallwood 2006). Mexico gained independence in 1822 and desecularized the missions in 1832, signifying the end of the Mission Period (Brigandi 1998; Riverside County n.d.). By this time, the missions owned some of the best and most fertile land in southern California. In order for California to develop, the land would have to be made productive enough to turn a profit (Brigandi 1998). The new government began distributing the vast mission holdings to wealthy and politically connected Mexican citizens. The “grants” were called “ranchos,” and many of these ranchos have lent their names to modern-day locales (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998). 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 the San Luis Rey Mission 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. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–13 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 compared to the Mexican and United States ranchers. Spanish colonialism (missions) is based upon utilizing human resources while integrating them into their society. The Mexican and American ranchers 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). In 1846, war erupted between Mexico and the United States. In 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the region was annexed as a territory of the United States, leading to California became a state in 1850. These events generated a steady flow of settlers into the area, including gold miners, entrepreneurs, health-seekers, speculators, politicians, adventurers, seekers of religious freedom, and individuals desiring to create utopian colonies. In 1851, 500 Mormons moved to the Redlands/San Bernardino area and purchased Rancho San Bernardino from the Lugo family (City of Redlands 2010). The settlement that the Mormons created within the rancho was short-lived, however, as in 1857, Brigham Young recalled all Mormons in San Bernardino back to Utah. Approximately 1,400 Mormons returned to Utah, while the remaining 45 percent stayed in San Bernardino, choosing “to forsake the church rather than leave their homes” (Lyman 1989). 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 San Bernardino, several people from Riverside decided to investigate the possibility of a new county. In May 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 (American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998; Riverside County n.d.). 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 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–14 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, 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 Maria 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 Dona Maria 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 city of Rancho Cucamonga was incorporated in 1977, and included three towns: Cucamonga, 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 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project included the survey of 7.93 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 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.0–15 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? Data Needs At the survey level, the principle 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 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–1 3.0 METHODOLOGY The archaeological program for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project consisted of an institutional records search, an intensive pedestrian survey of the 7.93-acre property and off-site improvement areas, and preparation of a technical study. This archaeological study conformed to City of Rancho Cucamonga cultural resource guidelines. 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 March, 1995). 3.1 Archaeological Records Search The records search conducted by the SCCIC at CSU Fullerton was reviewed for an area of one mile surrounding the project in order to determine the presence of any previously recorded sites. Results of the records search are provided in Appendix B and discussed in Section 4.1. The SCCIC also provided the standard review of the National Register of Historic Places 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 and the BFSA research library was 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 10-meter intervals to locate archaeological sites within the project and off-site parcels. The archaeological survey of the project was conducted on June 22, 2022. The entire project was covered by the survey process and photographs were taken to document project conditions during the survey (see Section 4.2). Ground visibility throughout the property was moderate and limited to the open field found within the southern half of the project. No artifacts or cultural resources were observed as a result of the survey. 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. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–2 3.4 Native American Consultation The analysis of nearby site components and artifacts did not indicate Native American religious, ritual, or other special activities at this location. In addition, BFSA requested a review of the Sacred Lands Files (SLF) by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to determine if any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance are present within one mile of the project. As of the date of this report, no response from the NAHC has been received. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C. 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. 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 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–3 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 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 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3.0–4 and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. 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 21803.2 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 EIR, 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 requirement of CEQA and the Coastal Act. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–1 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Records Search Results 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 for the project did not identify any previously recorded cultural resources within the subject property. However, within a one-mile radius of the project, 13 archaeological sites have been recorded. All of the resources are historic, and include six historic single-family residences, one historic single- family residence with ancillary structures, one historic trash scatter, one historic railroad spur, the historic Cucamonga Pioneer Winery District, one historic industrial building, one historic commercial building, and the historic Milliken Ranch (California Historical Point of Interest [CHPI] No. SBR-075). Brief descriptions of the sites located within a one-mile radius are provided in Table 4.1–1 and the complete records search results are provided in Appendix B. Table 4.1–1 Archaeological Sites Located Within One Mile of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project Site(s) Description SBR-10,289H Historic single-family residence and ancillary structures SBR-11,278H, SBR-11,279H, SBR-11,280H, P- 36-016438, P-36-016462, and P-36-016487 Historic single-family residence SBR-11,276H Historic trash scatter SBR-11,277H Historic railroad spur SBR-11,281H Historic Cucamonga Pioneer Winery District P-36-012367 Historic industrial building P-36-016439 Historic commercial building P-36-016440 Historic Milliken Ranch (CHPI No. SBR-075) A total of 20 cultural resource studies have been conducted within a one-mile radius of the proposed project (Appendix C), one of which included the current project (Cooley 1980; Garrison and Smith 2020). The Cooley (1980) study was conducted by Archaeological Resource Management Corp. (ARMC) and consisted of a Phase I survey of a larger 304-acre parcel which included the current subject property. At the time of the ARMC study, the property was not yet developed and was described as agricultural and “planted in vinyards” (Cooley 1980). The 2020 Garrison and Smith study was a Phase I cultural resources survey of the current project parcels, to which this study serves as an update. No cultural resources were observed within the current project parcels at the time of either survey. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–2 BFSA also reviewed the following sources: • The National Register of Historic Places Index • The Office of Historic Preservation, Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility • The Office of Historic Preservation, Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File • Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan) • Historic USGS maps including the 1897 15' Cucamonga and the 1953 7.5' Guasti quadrangle maps. None of these additional sources identified any resources within the subject property. However, the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan does identify the alignment of Foothill Boulevard, which lies along the northern boundary of the project, as a “historic transportation route” that is part of the historic U.S. Route 66 (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010). Although noted within the General Plan, Foothill Boulevard has been improved multiple times throughout the twentieth century and, beyond the street alignment, no associated historic features are present within the project or along the current project boundary. In addition, historic aerial photographs dating between 1938 and 2018 were consulted. Based on the earliest aerial photographs (1938 through 1980), the property historically was utilized as an agricultural field. By the next available photograph in 1994, the project and off-site areas had been developed and appear similar to their current state. Based on parcel data available online from the San Bernardino County Assessor’s Office, the project parcel was created in 1988 through a subdivision. As such, the development currently found within the project and adjacent off-site parcels likely occurred in the late 1980s or early 1990s. BFSA also requested a records search of the SLF of the NAHC. As of the date of this report, no response has been received from the NAHC. All correspondence is provided in Appendix C. The records search and literature review suggest that there is a low potential for archaeological sites to be contained within the boundaries of the property because the project site has been previously graded, historically consisted of an agricultural field, does not contain any natural water sources, and prehistorically, likely had minimal food resources. Further, the subject property has been previously studied and no resources have been recorded within the project parcel. In addition, the records search results only show historic resources, which are primarily associated with the built environment, have been recorded within a one-mile radius. Given the known settlement of the region, the frequency of cultural and type of resources surrounding the project, the developed nature of the parcel, and that it has previously been surveyed there is a low potential for archaeological discoveries. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–3 4.2 Results of the Field Survey The archaeological survey of the project was conducted on June 22, 2022. All elements of the survey were completed by Archaeological Field Director Clarence Hoff. The archaeological survey of the property was an intensive reconnaissance consisting of a series of parallel survey transects spaced at approximately 10-meter intervals. The entire property was accessible and currently consists of a developed parking lot and a vacant open field surrounded by commercial and multi-family residential developments. The adjacent off-site parcels are fully developed containing additional parking, multi-story office buildings, maintained landscaping, and hardscape. Generally, the project parcel can be split in half, with the northern half containing the parking lot and southern half containing the open field. The entire parcel appears to have been previously graded at the time the parking lot and two office buildings located within the off-site area were developed. The property topography is relatively flat and no seasonal drainages were observed within the project. Vegetation within the parking lot is mainly comprised of maintained landscaping consisting of trees, planters, and manicured lawns. The vegetation found within the open field consists of mowed non-native weeds and grasses. Due to the prior development of the project and off-site areas and the presence of a parking lot within the northern half of the subject property, visibility of the natural ground surface was mainly limited to the open field that comprises the southern half of the property. This characterization of a disturbed landscape is relevant to the consideration of the presence of cultural resources within the project. Overviews of the project are provided in Plates 4.2–1 and 4.2–2. The intensive archaeological survey of the property did not result in the identification of any cultural resources. The observation that the property has been previously cleared, graded, and partially developed suggests that previous disturbance may have contributed to the negative survey results; however, no evidence was detected during the survey or records search to suggest the prior existence of any cultural sites on the property. Plate 4.2–1: Overview of the developed northern half of the project and A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.0–4 Plate 4.2–1: View of the developed north half of the project from the southeast corner, facing northwest. Plate 4.2–2: View of the undeveloped south half of the project, facing east. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5.0–1 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The cultural resources study for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project was completed in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga cultural resource guidelines and CEQA significance evaluation criteria. The intensive-level survey conducted for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project did not identify any cultural resources within the property or the off-site improvement areas. In addition, the subject property was previously studied before the current development was constructed and no resources were identified within the property at that time. Further, based on the records search and literature review, the project and off-site improvement areas have been previously graded and developed, currently containing between one to seven feet of artificial fill; historically consisted of an agricultural field; do not contain any natural water source; and prehistorically, likely had minimal food resources. The records search results also show only historic resources have been recorded within a mile of the project, which are primarily associated with the built environment, and based on the review of historic aerial photographs, the property did not historically contain structures. Therefore, based upon the absence of any cultural resources within the project, site-specific mitigation measures will not be required for this project. As a result of previous ground-disturbing activities associated with the agricultural uses and current development of the property, there is little potential for cultural resources to be present or disturbed by the proposed development. Therefore, based upon the records search and the results of the field survey, no further archaeological study is recommended and no mitigation monitoring for cultural resources is recommended as a condition of approval. However, in the event that any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are inadvertently discovered, all construction work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall stop and a qualified archaeologist shall be engaged to discuss the discovery and determine if further mitigation measures are warranted. Should human remains be discovered, treatment of these remains shall follow California Public Resources Code 5097.9. Any human remains that are determined to be Native American shall be reported to the Riverside County Medical Examiner and subsequently to the NAHC. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard 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. June 30, 2022 Brian F. Smith Date Principal Investigator A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–1 7.0 REFERENCES American Local History Network: Riverside County, California 1998 American Local History Network’s Page for Riverside County, California. Electronic document, http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ca/county/riverside/, accessed March 28, 2006. Antevs, Ernst 1953 The Postpluvial or Neothermal. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, No. 22, Berkley, (1953). pp. 9-23. 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. Benedict, Ruth Fulton 1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26(3). Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Various dates. Research library holdings including Sanborn maps, city directories, Published regional histories, aerial photographs, and geologic and paleontological references. 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. 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. City of Redlands 2010 City of Redlands General Plan. City of San Bernardino 2015 History of San Bernardino. Electronic document, https://www.ci.san- A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–2 bernardino.ca.us/about/history/history_of_san_bernardino_(short_version).asp, accessed November 10, 2015. Cook, Sherburne F. 1976 The Conflict Between the California Indian and White Civilization. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Cooley Theodore 1980 Archaeological Assessment of Rancho Cucamonga Business Park EIR. Archaeological Resource Management Corporation. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University at Fullerton, Fullerton, 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. 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. Garrison, Andrew J. and Brian F. Smith 2020 A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Unpublished report on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard 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. Lyman, Edward Leo 1989 The Rise and Decline of Mormon San Bernardino. Brigham Young University Studies 29(4):43–63. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 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. 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. Miller, Karen L. and James L. Van Meter 2018 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 9612, 10575 Foothill Boulevard, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Unpublished technical report on file at the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7.0–4 Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Moss, M.L. and J. Erlandson 1995 Reflections on North American Coast Prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 9(1):1- 46. Pourade, Richard F. 1964 The Glory Years. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. 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. Riverside County N.d. Welcome to Riverside County, California: Riverside County History. Electronic document, http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/county_info/history.asp, accessed March 28, 2006. Smallwood, Josh 2006 Site record form for Site SBR-8092/H. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University at Fullerton. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Strong, William Duncan 1971 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. Reprint of 1929 Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 26, University of California, Berkeley. 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 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– APPENDIX A Qualifications of Key Personnel Brian F. Smith, MA Owner, Principal Investigator Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road — Suite A — Phone: (858) 679-8218 — Fax: (858) 679-9896 — E-Mail: bsmith@bfsa-ca.com Education Master of Arts, History, University of San Diego, California 1982 Bachelor of Arts, History, and Anthropology, University of San Diego, California 1975 Professional Memberships Society for California Archaeology Experience Principal Investigator 1977–Present Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. Poway, California Brian F. Smith is the owner and principal historical and archaeological consultant for Brian F. Smith and Associates. Over the past 32 years, he has conducted over 2,500 cultural resource studies in California, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Texas. These studies include every possible aspect of archaeology from literature searches and large-scale surveys to intensive data recovery excavations. Reports prepared by Mr. Smith have been submitted to all facets of local, state, and federal review agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Mr. Smith has conducted studies for utility companies (Sempra Energy) and state highway departments (CalTrans). Professional Accomplishments These selected major professional accomplishments represent research efforts that have added significantly to the body of knowledge concerning the prehistoric life ways of cultures once present in the southern California area and historic settlement since the late 18th century. Mr. Smith has been principal investigator on the following select projects, except where noted. Downtown San Diego Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Programs: Large numbers of downtown San Diego mitigation and monitoring projects, some of which included Broadway Block (2019), 915 Grape Street (2019), 1919 Pacific Highway (2018), Moxy Hotel (2018), Makers Quarter Block D (2017), Ballpark Village (2017), 460 16th Street (2017), Kettner and Ash (2017), Bayside Fire Station (2017), Pinnacle on the Park (2017), IDEA1 (2016), Blue Sky San Diego (2016), Pacific Gate (2016), Pendry Hotel (2015), Cisterra Sempra Office Tower (2014), 15th and Island (2014), Park and G (2014), Comm 22 (2014), 7th and F Street Parking (2013), Ariel Suites (2013), 13th and Marker (2012), Strata (2008), Hotel Indigo (2008), Lofts at 707 10th Avenue Project (2007), Breeza (2007), Bayside at the Embarcadero (2007), Aria (2007), Icon (2007), Vantage Pointe (2007), Aperture (2007), Sapphire Tower (2007), Lofts at 655 Sixth Avenue (2007), Metrowork (2007), The Legend (2006), The Mark (2006), Smart Corner (2006), Lofts at 677 7th Avenue (2005), Aloft on Cortez Hill (2005), Front and Beech Apartments (2003), Bella Via Condominiums (2003), Acqua Vista Residential Tower (2003), Northblock Lofts (2003), Westin Park Place Hotel (2001), Parkloft Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 2 Apartment Complex (2001), Renaissance Park (2001), and Laurel Bay Apartments (2001). 1900 and 1912 Spindrift Drive: An extensive data recovery and mitigation monitoring program at the Spindrift Site, an important prehistoric archaeological habitation site stretching across the La Jolla area. The project resulted in the discovery of over 20,000 artifacts and nearly 100,000 grams of bulk faunal remains and marine shell, indicating a substantial occupation area (2013-2014). San Diego Airport Development Project: An extensive historic assessment of multiple buildings at the San Diego International Airport and included the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey documentation to preserve significant elements of the airport prior to demolition (2017-2018). Citracado Parkway Extension: A still-ongoing project in the city of Escondido to mitigate impacts to an important archaeological occupation site. Various archaeological studies have been conducted by BFSA resulting in the identification of a significant cultural deposit within the project area. Westin Hotel and Timeshare (Grand Pacific Resorts): Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of Carlsbad consisted of the excavation of 176 one-square-meter archaeological data recovery units which produced thousands of prehistoric artifacts and ecofacts, and resulted in the preservation of a significant prehistoric habitation site. The artifacts recovered from the site presented important new data about the prehistory of the region and Native American occupation in the area (2017). The Everly Subdivision Project: Data recovery and mitigation monitoring program in the city of El Cajon resulted in the identification of a significant prehistoric occupation site from both the Late Prehistoric and Archaic Periods, as well as producing historic artifacts that correspond to the use of the property since 1886. The project produced an unprecedented quantity of artifacts in comparison to the area encompassed by the site, but lacked characteristics that typically reflect intense occupation, indicating that the site was used intensively for food processing (2014-2015). Ballpark Village: A mitigation and monitoring program within three city blocks in the East Village area of San Diego resulting in the discovery of a significant historic deposit. Nearly 5,000 historic artifacts and over 500,000 grams of bulk historic building fragments, food waste, and other materials representing an occupation period between 1880 and 1917 were recovered (2015-2017). Archaeology at the Padres Ballpark: Involved the analysis of historic resources within a seven-block area of the “East Village” area of San Diego, where occupation spanned a period from the 1870s to the 1940s. Over a period of two years, BFSA recovered over 200,000 artifacts and hundreds of pounds of metal, construction debris, unidentified broken glass, and wood. Collectively, the Ballpark Project and the other downtown mitigation and monitoring projects represent the largest historical archaeological program anywhere in the country in the past decade (2000-2007). 4S Ranch Archaeological and Historical Cultural Resources Study: Data recovery program consisted of the excavation of over 2,000 square meters of archaeological deposits that produced over one million artifacts, containing primarily prehistoric materials. The archaeological program at 4S Ranch is the largest archaeological study ever undertaken in the San Diego County area and has produced data that has exceeded expectations regarding the resolution of long-standing research questions and regional prehistoric settlement patterns. Charles H. Brown Site: Attracted international attention to the discovery of evidence of the antiquity of man in North America. Site located in Mission Valley, in the city of San Diego. Del Mar Man Site: Study of the now famous Early Man Site in Del Mar, California, for the San Diego Science Foundation and the San Diego Museum of Man, under the direction of Dr. Spencer Rogers and Dr. James R. Moriarty. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3 Old Town State Park Projects: Consulting Historical Archaeologist. Projects completed in the Old Town State Park involved development of individual lots for commercial enterprises. The projects completed in Old Town include Archaeological and Historical Site Assessment for the Great Wall Cafe (1992), Archaeological Study for the Old Town Commercial Project (1991), and Cultural Resources Site Survey at the Old San Diego Inn (1988). Site W-20, Del Mar, California: A two-year-long investigation of a major prehistoric site in the Del Mar area of the city of San Diego. This research effort documented the earliest practice of religious/ceremonial activities in San Diego County (circa 6,000 years ago), facilitated the projection of major non-material aspects of the La Jolla Complex, and revealed the pattern of civilization at this site over a continuous period of 5,000 years. The report for the investigation included over 600 pages, with nearly 500,000 words of text, illustrations, maps, and photographs documenting this major study. City of San Diego Reclaimed Water Distribution System: A cultural resource study of nearly 400 miles of pipeline in the city and county of San Diego. Master Environmental Assessment Project, City of Poway: Conducted for the City of Poway to produce a complete inventory of all recorded historic and prehistoric properties within the city. The information was used in conjunction with the City’s General Plan Update to produce a map matrix of the city showing areas of high, moderate, and low potential for the presence of cultural resources. The effort also included the development of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, which were adopted as City policy. Draft of the City of Carlsbad Historical and Archaeological Guidelines: Contracted by the City of Carlsbad to produce the draft of the City’s historical and archaeological guidelines for use by the Planning Department of the City. The Mid-Bayfront Project for the City of Chula Vista: Involved a large expanse of undeveloped agricultural land situated between the railroad and San Diego Bay in the northwestern portion of the city. The study included the analysis of some potentially historic features and numerous prehistoric Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Audie Murphy Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,113.4 acres and 43 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination; direction of field crews; evaluation of sites for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; assessment of cupule, pictograph, and rock shelter sites, co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February- September 2002. Cultural Resources Evaluation of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Otay Ranch Village 13 Project, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of 1,947 acres and 76 sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on County of San Diego and CEQA guidelines; co- authoring of cultural resources project report. May-November 2002. Cultural Resources Survey for the Remote Video Surveillance Project, El Centro Sector, Imperial County: Project manager/director for a survey of 29 individual sites near the U.S./Mexico Border for proposed video surveillance camera locations associated with the San Diego Border barrier Project—project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; site identification and recordation; assessment of potential impacts to cultural resources; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Border Patrol, and other government agencies involved; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January, February, and July 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee West GPA, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of nine sites, both prehistoric and historic—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; assessment of sites Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 4 for significance based on County of Riverside and CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. January-March 2002. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed French Valley Specific Plan/EIR, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of two prehistoric and three historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; survey of project area; Native American consultation; direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; cultural resources project report in prep. July-August 2000. Cultural Resources Survey and Test of Sites Within the Proposed Development of the Menifee Ranch, Riverside County, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of one prehistoric and five historic sites—included project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; historic structure assessments; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; historic research; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. February-June 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of the San Diego Presidio Identified During Water Pipe Construction for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Tyrian 3 Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Lamont 5 Project, Pacific Beach, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. April 2000. Enhanced Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for the Reiss Residence Project, La Jolla, California: Project manager/director of the investigation of a single-dwelling parcel—included project coordination; assessment of parcel for potentially buried cultural deposits; authoring of cultural resources project report. March-April 2000. Salvage Mitigation of a Portion of Site SDM-W-95 (CA-SDI-211) for the Poinsettia Shores Santalina Development Project and Caltrans, Carlsbad, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis and authoring of cultural resources project report in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Survey and Testing of Two Prehistoric Cultural Resources for the Airway Truck Parking Project, Otay Mesa, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. December 1999-January 2000. Cultural Resources Phase I and II Investigations for the Tin Can Hill Segment of the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for a survey and testing of a prehistoric quarry site along the border—NRHP eligibility assessment; project coordination and budgeting; direction of field crews; feature recordation; meeting and coordinating with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; co-authoring of cultural resources project report. December 1999-January 2000. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 5 Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Westview High School Project for the City of San Diego, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program including collection of material for specialized faunal and botanical analyses; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; co-authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. October 1999-January 2000. Mitigation of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Otay Ranch SPA-One West Project for the City of Chula Vista, California: Project archaeologist/director—included direction of field crews; development of data recovery program; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. September 1999-January 2000. Monitoring of Grading for the Herschel Place Project, La Jolla, California: Project archaeologist/ monitor— included monitoring of grading activities associated with the development of a single- dwelling parcel. September 1999. Survey and Testing of a Historic Resource for the Osterkamp Development Project, Valley Center, California: Project archaeologist/ director—included direction of field crews; development and completion of data recovery program; budget development; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Testing of a Prehistoric Cultural Resource for the Proposed College Boulevard Alignment Project, Carlsbad, California: Project manager/director —included direction of field crews; development and completion of testing recovery program; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report, in prep. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources for the Palomar Christian Conference Center Project, Palomar Mountain, California: Project archaeologist—included direction of field crews; assessment of sites for significance based on CEQA guidelines; management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July-August 1999. Survey and Evaluation of Cultural Resources at the Village 2 High School Site, Otay Ranch, City of Chula Vista, California: Project manager/director —management of artifact collections cataloging and curation; assessment of site for significance based on CEQA guidelines; data synthesis; authoring of cultural resources project report. July 1999. Cultural Resources Phase I, II, and III Investigations for the Immigration and Naturalization Services Triple Fence Project Along the International Border, San Diego County, California: Project manager/director for the survey, testing, and mitigation of sites along border—supervision of multiple field crews, NRHP eligibility assessments, Native American consultation, contribution to Environmental Assessment document, lithic and marine shell analysis, authoring of cultural resources project report. August 1997- January 2000. Phase I, II, and II Investigations for the Scripps Poway Parkway East Project, Poway California: Project archaeologist/project director—included recordation and assessment of multicomponent prehistoric and historic sites; direction of Phase II and III investigations; direction of laboratory analyses including prehistoric and historic collections; curation of collections; data synthesis; coauthorship of final cultural resources report. February 1994; March-September 1994; September-December 1995. Andrew J. Garrison, MA, RPA Project Archaeologist Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road — Suite A — Phone: (858) 679-8218 — Fax: (858) 679-9896 — E-Mail: agarrison@bfsa-ca.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 Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 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. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 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 Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 3 Mills Act application. 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 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– APPENDIX B Archaeological Records Search Results (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– APPENDIX C NAHC Sacred Lands File Search (Deleted for Public Review; Bound Separately) APPENDIX E: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION MDN 19870 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION, Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 9612, 10575 Foothill Boulevard, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California for Watt Communities, LLC April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 GeoSoils Consultants Inc. MDN 19870 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 WATT COMMUNITIES, LLC 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 2025 Santa Monica, California 90405 Attention: Mr. Efrem Joelson Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 9612, 10575 Foothill Boulevard, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Joelson: At your request, GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. (GSC) has prepared this geotechnical engineering report for the subject property. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the geotechnical engineering characteristics of the underlying earth materials in order to evaluate their suitability to receive the planned improvements. The site was explored by excavating eighteen test pits with a backhoe. The field exploration procedures and test pit logs are attached in Appendix A. Laboratory test procedures and results are enclosed in Appendix B. Grading guidelines are presented in Appendix C. Infiltration testing results are provided in Appendix D. The test pit locations are shown on the both the Test Pit Location Map, Plate 1, and Proposed Site Plan, Plate 2. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. 6634 Valjean Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91406 Phone: (818) 785-2158 Fax: (818) 785-1548 Page 2 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at 10575 Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The property is an irregular shaped lot extending south from Foothill Boulevard (see Test Pit Location Map, Plate 1). The property extends from Haven Avenue on the west to Aspen Street on the east. Barton Plaza and Civic Center Plaza are not a part of this planned development (see Plate 2). PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site encompasses approximately 7.93 acres. One hundred, single family dwellings are proposed on the rear of the site. Retail structures are proposed along Foothill Boulevard. The remaining portion of the site will be utilized for parking and roadway access. The proposed site development is shown on Plate 2. Geologic Setting The subject property is located in the eastern portion of the 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. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 3 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 Earth Units Fill and alluvium were observed on the property. A brief description of the earth materials are as follows: Fill (af): Two different types of fill were observed. The first fill type is found along the southern portion of the site (where soil is exposed). The upper 1 to 1.5 foot of fill consists of native material disturbed from tilling of the weeds. This material consists of light brown, silty sand in a loose condition. The second fill material underlies the existing slope and parking lot and consists of silty, fine to medium sand with rock fragments and is generally moderately firm to firm. Alluvium (Qal): The alluvium on site has two distinct soil layers. The upper portion (7.5 to 14 feet) consists of silty fine sand while below 7.5 to 14.5 feet, the soil consists of fine to coarse sand with a varied degree of rock fragments. Where encountered in the test pits, the depth to this coarse sand layer is shown on Plate 1 next to the test pit location. Surface and Subsurface Water Conditions Surface water on the site is limited to precipitation falling directly on the site and irrigation. Springs or seeps were not observed on the site. No groundwater was encountered in any of the test pits excavated on site. The Seismic Hazard Zone Reports published by the Department of Conservation Division of Mines do not yet extend into this area. However, the neighboring Ontario Quadrangle indicates that generally groundwater depth varies from 10 to 600 feet below grade. FAULTING AND SEISMICITY The proposed site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone; therefore, there are no known active faults on the property. This site has experienced earthquake-induced ground shaking in the past and can be expected to experience further shaking in the future. There are some faults in close enough proximity to the site to cause moderate to intense ground shaking during the lifetime of the proposed development. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 4 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 Secondary Earthquake Effects Secondary earthquake effects include ground rupture, landsliding, seiches and tsunamis, and liquefaction. 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. Since the site is not located within a State established Earthquake Fault Zone, the ground rupture hazard for the site is considered to be low. Landsliding Earthquake-induced landsliding often occurs in areas where previous landslides have moved and in areas where the topographic, geologic, geotechnical and subsurface groundwater conditions are conducive to permanent ground displacements. No significant slopes are present on or near the site. The potential for earthquake-induced landsliding is considered low. 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. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 5 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 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 generate seiches as well. Since the site is not located near the shoreline or within 50 feet of sea level, the tsunami hazard is considered low. Liquefaction Liquefaction describes a phenomenon where cyclic stresses, which are produced by earthquake-induced ground motions, creates excess pore pressures in cohesionless soils. As a result, the soils may acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral spreading, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, ground oscillation, flow failure, loss of bearing strength, ground fissuring, and sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil as excess pore water escapes. Descriptions of each of the phenomena associated with liquefaction are described below: Lateral Spreading: Lateral spreading is the lateral movement of stiff, surficial blocks of sediments as a result of a subsurface layer liquefying. The lateral movements can cause ground fissures or extensional, open cracks at the surface as the blocks move toward a slope face, such as a stream bank or in the direction of a gentle slope. When the shaking stops, these isolated blocks of sediments come to rest in a place different from their original location and may be tilted. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 6 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 Ground Oscillation: Ground oscillation occurs when liquefaction occurs at depth but the slopes are too gentle to permit lateral displacement. In this case, individual blocks may separate and oscillate on a liquefied layer. Sand boils and fissures are often associated with this phenomenon. Flow Failure: A more catastrophic mode of ground failure than either lateral spreading or ground oscillation, involves large masses of liquefied sediment or blocks of intact material riding on a liquefied layer moving at high speeds over large distances. Generally flow failures are associated with ground slopes steeper than those associated with either lateral spreading or ground oscillation. Bearing Strength Loss: Bearing strength decreases with a decrease in effective stress. Loss of bearing strength occurs when the effective stresses are reduced due to the cyclic loading caused by an earthquake. Even if the soil does not liquefy, the bearing of the soil may be reduced below its value either prior to or after the earthquake. If the bearing strength is sufficiently reduced, structures supported on the sediments can settle, tilt, or even float upward in the case of lightly loaded structures such as gas pipelines. Ground Fissuring and Sand Boils: Ground fissuring and sand boils are surface manifestations associated with liquefaction and lateral spreading, ground oscillation, and flow failure. As apparent from the above descriptions, the likelihood of ground fissures developing is high when lateral spreading, ground oscillations, and flow failure occur. Sand boils occur when the high pore water pressures are relieved by drainage to the surface along weak spots that may have been created by fissuring. As the water flows to the surface, it can carry sediments, and if the pore water pressures are high enough create a gusher (sand boils) at the point of exit. • Sediments must be relatively young in age and must not have developed large amounts of cementation; • Sediments must consist mainly of cohesionless sands and silts; GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 7 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 • The sediment must not have a high relative density; • Free groundwater must exist in the sediment; and • The site must be exposed to seismic events of a magnitude large enough to induce straining of soil particles. At the time of exploration, groundwater was not encountered in the test pits. There are no nearby flood channels or open bodies of water that would indicate a potential for possible saturated soils. A review of available published maps of the adjacent Ontario Quadrangle shows no liquefaction areas to the west of the site; therefore, the potential for liquefaction for this site is considered low. Total and Differential Settlement Based upon the consolidation test results, static settlement is expected to be less than 1.0-inch, while differential settlement is expected to be less than 0.5-inch. CONCLUSIONS The proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the final design and construction phase of the proposed development. A portion of the proposed development area is currently covered with asphalt that limits our exploration in this area. Based on the exploration of the slope adjacent to the parking lot and materials encountered in Test Pit TP-9, the existing fill in this area appears suitable for structural support. However, further investigation will be performed upon removal of the parking lot to verify the stability of the fill for structural support. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Grading Standard grading recommendations are enclosed in Appendix C. These recommendations should be incorporated into the development plans, where applicable. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 8 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 Removals The subsurface exploration revealed that on the site, the upper 3 to 4 feet of material on the site consists of loose alluvium and fill. All fill and loose alluvium should be overexcavated to competent alluvium and replaced as compacted fill. Locally, removals may be deeper depending on field conditions exposed during grading. The alluvium is suitable for replacement as engineered fill, provided that the materials do not contain debris or large rocks. All building pads must be underlain by a minimum of 5 feet of compacted fill. Removals should extend a minimum of 5 feet beyond the proposed building footprint or a distance equal to the depth of fill placement, which is greater. In street and parking lot areas, the removals may be reduced to two feet. As previously mentioned, exploration of the slope adjacent to the parking lot and materials encountered in Test Pit TP-9, indicate the existing fill in this area may be compacted and suitable for structural support. However, this area will require additional investigation once the existing asphalt is removed from the parking lot. Seismic Design Criteria Based upon the 2016 CBC (California Building Code), the following table provides design parameters for the subject site. 2016 CBC Section 1613, Earthquake Loads Site Class Definition (Table 1613.5.2) D Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Ss (Figure 1613.5(3) for 0.2 second) 1.504 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 (Figure 1613.5(4) for 1.0 second) 0.600 Site Coefficient, Fa (Table 1613.5.3(1) short period) 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv (Table 1613.5.3(2) 1-second period) 1.5 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter SMS (Eq. 16-37) 1.504 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter SM1 (Eq. 16-38) .900 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS (Eq. 16-39) 1.002 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 (Eq. 16-40) 0.600 Notes: 34.1055, -117.5735 1. Site Class Designation: Class D is recommended based on subsurface condition. 2. Ss, SMs, and SDs are spectral response accelerations for the period of 0.2 second. 3. S1, SM1, and SD1 are spectral response accelerations for the period of 1.0 second. 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 GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 9 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Following a major earthquake, a properly designed building may be damaged beyond repair, yet not collapse. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION CRITERIA The on-site materials have a low expansion index. Chemical testing has been performed and the results are presented in Appendix B. The on-site materials are not corrosive to steel or ferrous metals. The following engineering criteria are recommended, should conventional foundations be used. 1. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot can be used for design of conventional spread foundations founded in compacted fill. A one-third increase in the above bearing value may be used for transient live loadings such as wind and seismic forces. Footings should be continuous and be founded a minimum of 18 inches into compacted fill with a minimum width of 12 inches for both one and two story structures. Footings should be reinforced with a minimum two, No. 4 rebar, both top and bottom. 2. A friction coefficient for concrete on compacted soil of 0.4, and a lateral bearing value of 250 pounds per square foot of depth may be employed to resist lateral loads. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. For design of isolated poles, the allowable passive pressure may be increased by 100 percent. 3. Standard International Building Code structural setback guidelines per Section 1808.7 should be followed. 4. Subgrade soil beneath footings should be pre-moistened prior to placement of concrete. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 10 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 General Recommendations a. The above parameters are applicable provided the structures have gutters and downspouts and positive drainage is maintained away from the structure. All slab foundation areas should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture b. The above recommendations assume and GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. strongly recommends that surface water will be kept from infiltrating into the subgrade adjacent to the structures foundation system. This may include, but not be limited to rain water, roof water, landscape water and/or leaky plumbing. Slabs-on-Grade Should conventional slabs on grade be used, the following recommendations apply: Floor slabs-on-grade should be designed for a nominal thickness of 4 inches, reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 16 inches on-center in both directions, placed at mid-height in the slab. A 10-mil Visqueen vapor barrier should be placed underneath all slabs. This barrier should be placed between two, one-inch thick sand layers. This vapor barrier shall be lapped and sealed adequately (especially around the utility perforations) to provide a continuous waterproof barrier under the entire slab. Subgrade soils beneath slabs should be pre- moistened prior to the placement of concrete. POST-TENSIONED SLAB FOUNDATION The following may be considered as an alternative to conventional foundations. These post- tensioned slabs should be designed in accordance with the recommendations of either the California Foundation Slab Method or Post-Tensioning Institute. Based on review of laboratory data for the on-site materials, the average soil modulus of subgrade reaction, K, to be used for design is 100 pounds per cubic inch. Specific recommendations for the design of California Foundation Slab and Post Tension Institute methods are presented below. A surface bearing value of 1,000 pounds per square foot can also be used in design. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 11 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 1. California Foundation Slab (Spanability) Method It is recommended that slabs be designed for a free span of 15 feet. From a soil expansion/shrinkage standpoint, a common contributing factor to distress of structures using post-tensioned slabs is fluctuation of moisture in soils underlying the perimeter of the slab, compared to the center, causing a "dishing" or "arching" of the slabs. To mitigate this possibility, a combination of soil presaturation and construction of a perimeter "cut off" wall should be employed. All slab foundation areas should be moisture conditioned to at least optimum moisture, but no more than 5 percent above optimum moisture for a depth of at least 12 inches for low EI soil. A continuous perimeter curtain wall should extend to a depth of at least 12 inches for low EI soil to preserve this moisture. The cut-off walls may be integrated into the slab design or independent of the slab and should be a minimum of 6 (six) inches wide. 2. Post-Tensioning Institute Method 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 design specifications of the Post-Tensioning Institute. The following table presents suggested minimum coefficients to be used in the Post-Tensioning Institute design method. Suggested Coefficients Thornthwaite Moisture Index -20 in/yr Depth to Constant Soil Suction 9 (feet) Constant Soil Suction: (pf) 3.8 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 GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 12 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 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, and settlements be passed on to future homeowners. Based on the above parameters, the following values were obtained from the Post Tensioning Institute Design manual. If a stiffer slab is desired, higher values of ym may be warranted. Expansion Index of Soil Subgrade Low EI em center lift 9.0 feet em edge lift 4.7 feet Ym center lift 0.34 inch Ym edge lift 0.48 inch Deepened footings/edges around the slab perimeter must be used as indicated above to minimize non-uniform surface moisture migration (from an outside source) beneath the slab. An edge depth of at least 12 inches for low EI soil is recommended. The bottom of the deepened footing/edge should be designed to resist tension, using cable or reinforcement per the Structural Engineer. Retaining Walls If retaining walls are planned, the footings should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches into compacted fill and be designed in accordance to the recommendations presented herein. The near surface on site soil has a low expansion index. The equivalent fluid pressures recommended are based on the assumption of a uniform backfill and no build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. To prevent the build-up of lateral soil pressures in excess of the recommended design pressures, over compaction of the fill behind the wall should be avoided. This can be accomplished by placement of the GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 13 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 backfill above a 45-degree plane projected upward from the base of the wall, in lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose depth, and compacting with a hand-operated or small, self- propelled vibrating plates. (Note: Placement of free-draining material in this zone could also prevent the build-up of lateral soils pressures.) 1. Conventional (Yielding) Retaining Walls All recommendations for active lateral earth pressures contained herein assume that the anticipated retaining structures are in tight contact with the fill soil (or alluvium) that they are supposed to support. The earth support system must be sufficiently stiff to hold horizontal movements in the soil to less than one percent of the height of the vertical face, but should be free-standing to the point that they yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall. 2. Earth Pressures on Conventional (Yielding) Retaining Walls The earth pressures on walls retaining permeable material, compacted fill, or natural soil shall be assumed equal to that exerted by an equivalent fluid having a density not less than that shown in the following table: Backfill Slope (Horizontal to Vertical) Equivalent Fill Fluid Density Level 30 pcf 2:1 43 pcf 3. Restrained (Non-Yielding) Walls Earth pressures will be greater on walls where yielding at the top of the wall is limited to less than 1/1000 the height of the wall either by stiffness (i.e., return walls, etc.) or structural floor network prior to backfilling. Utilizing the recommended backfill compaction of 90 percent Modified Proctor Density per ASTM D-1557-12, we recommend the following equivalent fluid density for non-yielding walls: Backfill Slope (Horizontal to Vertical) Equivalent Fluid Density Level 45 pcf 2:1 65 pcf GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 14 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 General Any anticipated superimposed loading (i.e., upper retaining walls, other structures etc.) within a 45 degree projection upward from the wall bottom, except retained earth, shall be considered as surcharge and provided in the design. A vertical component equal to one-third of the horizontal force so obtained may be assumed at the application of force. The depth of the retained earth shall be the vertical distance below the ground surface, measured at the wall face for stem design or measured at the heel of the footing for overturning and sliding. The walls should be constructed with weep holes near the bottom, on five-foot centers or with perforated drainpipe in a gravel envelope at the bottom and behind the wall. A one-foot thick zone of clean granular, free-draining material should be placed behind the wall to within three feet of the surface. On-site soil may be used for the remainder of the backfill and should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-12. A concrete-lined swale is recommended behind retaining walls that can intercept surface runoff from upslope areas. The surface runoff shall be transferred to an approved drainage channel via non-erosive drainage devices. Property Line Walls Property line walls may be located in areas of unsuitable materials as removals adjacent to property boundaries cannot extend off site. We recommend deepened foundations or different wall design to accommodate an unsuitable foundation soil situation. Temporary Excavations Temporary cuts may be made vertical up to five feet in height, thereafter; cuts should be laid back to a 1:1 or less. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 15 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 The 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. Shrinkage Based upon our field and laboratory test data, the on-site materials that have been disturbed by tilling (upper 1 to 1.5 foot) are expected to shrink between 12 to 17 percent. The underlying alluvium is expected to shrink 5 to 10 percent. The existing fill material beneath the existing parking lot is not expected to shrink but this should be verified in the field. Preliminary Pavement Design Assuming a traffic index of 6 and an R value of 30, a pavement section of 4.5 inches of AC overlying 6.0 inches of base material (minimum R value of 78) may be utilized. R-value testing will be performed at the completion of grading and finalized pavement sections provided at that time. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. Page 16 April 25, 2018 W.O. 7141 MDN 19870 Drainage/Landscape Maintenance Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground, or flow over slopes in a concentrated manner. Roof gutters and yard drains should be provided. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or any approved watercourse area swale via non- erosive channel, pipe and/or dispersion devices. Control of moisture is important in regard to control of mold within the future living environment. Molds can deteriorate building materials and lead to health problems such as asthma episodes and allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. Mold spores waft through both indoor and outdoor continually. When mold spores land on damp areas, they begin growing and digesting the host material in order to survive. Some molds propagate much more quickly than others. Molds can grow when moisture is present on and within wood, paper, carpet, and foods. Mold growth will often occur when excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, particularly if moisture problems remain undiscovered, or are not addressed. Obviously, the key to mold control is moisture control. Generally speaking, in the semi-arid climate of Southern California, we would not have mold problems if we did not have excessive landscape watering and the occasional leaking water, storm drain, or sewer pipe. The average annual rainfall in Southern California is less than 15 inches per year; however, studies have shown that the average Southern California homeowner applies at least 200 inches of equivalent rainfall to their yard each year. It is important than in addition to control of landscape watering, that pad drainage slopes away from structures. Placement of planters next to houses can also lead to increased moisture under pad areas. Review and Inspection The site foundation and grading plans, including foundation-loading details, should be forwarded to the Geotechnical Engineer for review and approval prior to finalizing design. GeoSoils Consultants Inc. APPENDIX F: PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE 10575 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PROJECT RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA APNs 208-353-01, -02, and -03 Prepared for: Island View Ventures, LLC 120 East De La Guerra Street, Suite D Santa Barbara, California 93101 Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Prepared by: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 June 30, 2022 Paleontological Assessment for 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Paleontological Database Information Author: Todd A. Wirths, M.S., Senior Paleontologist, California Professional Geologist No. 7588 Consulting Firm: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 (858) 484-0915 Report Date: June 30, 2022 Report Title: Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (APNs 208-353-01, -02, and -03) Prepared for: T&B Planning, Inc. 3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92602 Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Prepared by: Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road, Suite A Poway, California 92064 USGS Quadrangle: Guasti, California (7.5 minute) Study Area: 7.93-acre project and approximately 5.3 acres of off-site improvement areas Key Words: Paleontological assessment; High paleontological resource sensitivity; county of San Bernardino. Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents Section Page I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION ...................................................................... 1 II. REGULATORY SETTING ...................................................................................... 1 State of California .................................................................................................... 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga ...................................................................................... 4 III. GEOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 4 IV. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................... 5 Definition ................................................................................................................... 5 Fossil Records Search ............................................................................................... 7 V. PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ................................................................... 7 Overview .................................................................................................................... 7 Professional Standards ............................................................................................. 8 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 9 Suggested PRIMP ..................................................................................................... 9 VII. CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................... 10 VIII. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 10 Appendices Appendix A – Qualifications of Key Personnel Appendix B – Paleontological Records Search List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 General Location Map ................................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Project Location Map .................................................................................. 3 Figure 3 Geologic Map .............................................................................................. 6 Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCATION A paleontological resource assessment has been completed for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The project consists of 7.93 acres for a planned mixed-use development on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 208-353-02, and an additional approximately 5.3-acre area for off-site improvements on APNs 208-353-01 and -03 (Figures 1 and 2). The project is part of an area of residential, retail, and local government establishments. On the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-scale Guasti, California topographic quadrangle map, the project is located within the northern half of Section 12 of Township 1 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian (Figure 2). The project parcel (APN 208-353-02) is currently vacant, or partly covered by parking areas, and has been recently graded, whereas the off-site improvement parcels (APNs 208-353-01 and -03) are fully developed, each containing a single multi-story office building, parking lots, and associated maintained landscaping A retail/residential complex is proposed for construction at the project, consisting of four buildings and associated parking and infrastructure. The off-site improvements will consist of modifications to the landscape and hardscape associated with the existing buildings on APNs 208-353-01 and -03. II. REGULATORY SETTING The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is the overriding environmental document that sets the requirement for protecting California’s cultural and paleontological resources. The document 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 the Implementation of CEQA, as amended March 29, 1999 (Title 1, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations: 15000 et seq.), procedures define the type of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with CEQA. In the Environmental Checklist, one of the questions to answer is, “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” (Section 15023, Appendix G, Section XIV, Part a). The California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.5 states: Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4 a) No person shall 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. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor. 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. City of Rancho Cucamonga A search for paleontological resource mitigation measures or guidelines was performed via the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Services webpage (City of Rancho Cucamonga n.d.). Nothing specific regarding paleontology was available, however on the Construction and Development webpage, under Environmental Studies in the Project Approval Process header, it states: All projects are reviewed for compliance with [CEQA]. CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. Most proposals for physical development in California are subject to the provisions of CEQA. Every development project which requires a discretionary government approval, such as, an approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Department, will require at least some environmental review pursuant to CEQA, unless an exemption applies. (City of Rancho Cucamonga n.d.) In addition, in a final environmental impact report (FEIR) for the Etiwanda Heights neighborhood for Rancho Cucamonga, no paleontological mitigation measures are listed (Meridian Consultants 2019). The 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project location is over two miles south of the nearest Etiwanda Heights boundary, as outlined within the FEIR. III. GEOLOGY The project is located within the eastern limits of the Pomona Valley alluvial plain. Sediments underlying the project and off-site improvement areas consist of late Holocene alluvial fan deposits, (light yellow area, “Qf,” on Figure 3, after Bedrossian et al. 2010). These deposits are composed of unconsolidated boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, and silt emanating as erosional detritus from the eastern San Gabriel Mountains north of the project. Holocene alluvial fan deposits in the region are as much as 50 feet thick, but are generally roughly 15 feet thick for a Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 broad area within the Fontana Plain about eight to nine miles east of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, while older Quaternary sediments are over 1,000 feet thick in the valley (Dutcher and Garrett 1963). To the south and adjacent to the project are Quaternary (late Pleistocene to Holocene) young eolian and dune deposits (“Qye” on Figure 3, after Bedrossian et al. 2010). The nearest late to middle Pleistocene sedimentary outcrops are old alluvial fan deposits comprising what appears to be an uplifted fault block (“Red Hill” on the Guasti, California topographic quadrangle map), approximately two miles west of the project (Bedrossian et al. 2010). Geomorphically, the project is relatively flat-lying, with a gentle slope to the south. A geotechnical investigation was performed for the project in 2018 (Miller and Van Meter 2018). The investigation included the excavation of 18 test pits using a backhoe, at depths ranging from five to 15 feet. Results of the investigation indicated that the project is covered by one to seven feet of fill materials that overly one to 14 feet of alluvium consisting of silty fine sand, that in turn overly coarse sands and rock fragments starting at depths ranging from 7.5 to 14 feet deep. The study did not speculate on the age of the deposits, but did label the alluvial deposits as “alluvium Qal,” implying an age of Quaternary. 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, county, and local guidelines (Section II of this report). Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7 Fossil Records Search An in-house paleontological records search was performed for the project. The records search was based on the locality files of the Division of Geological Sciences at the San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) in Redlands and the Vertebrate Paleontology Section of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in Los Angeles (LACM, which also contains the collections and records of the University of California at Los Angeles, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of Southern California). The closest recorded fossil localities were reported in an SBCM records search for the Slover Avenue Distribution Center Project, located approximately four miles southeast of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project (Scott 2014, attached). Fossils located approximately five and a half miles south of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project included extinct species of Pleistocene mastodon, bison, and camel at depths as shallow as five feet below the surface (SBCM locs. 5.1.14 to 5.1.21). Another fossil locality about five miles west-southwest of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project property included mammoth remains at a depth of about 20 feet below the surface (SBCM loc. 5.1.8). The resulting report did not identify any previously recorded fossil localities from within the boundaries of that project, but did discuss the presence of Ice Age vertebrate fossils, mainly larger terrestrial mammals, recovered from older, Pleistocene, sediments to the south of the Slover Avenue Distribution Center Project, probably from the late Pleistocene to early Holocene old alluvial fan deposits. The older Pleistocene sediments were accorded a High paleontological resource sensitivity by Scott (2014) in his literature review and records search report, and suggested they might be present at an undetermined depth below the younger Quaternary alluvial fan sediments across the Slover Avenue Distribution Center Project. A records search conducted by the LACM for the Kaiser Commerce Center Project, located about four miles southeast of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, identified LACM Locality No. 7811, located in Jurupa Valley about nine miles to the south of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, consisting of the fossil remains of a whipsnake (McLeod 2019). This appears to be the closest LACM vertebrate fossil locality to the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project, as McLeod referenced the same locality (as the closest) for a record search performed for a project in the Monarch Hills, located approximately five to six miles northwest of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project (McLeod 2014). McLeod (2019) indicated that shallow excavations in the overlying younger alluvium are unlikely to yield significant vertebrate fossils, but deeper excavations into older deposits of Quaternary alluvium have a greater potential to encounter vertebrate fossils. 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, Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 and whether or not the original depositional environment of the sediments is one that might have been conducive to the accumulation of organic remains that might have become fossilized over time. Late Quaternary (Holocene, or “modern”) alluvium is generally considered to be geologically too young to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) and is thus typically assigned a low paleontological sensitivity. Older, Pleistocene (greater than 11,000 years old), alluvial and alluvial fan deposits in the Inland Empire, however, often 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 (Scott 2014, attached). These Pleistocene sediments are thus accorded a High paleontological resource sensitivity. Professional Standards The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) drafted guidelines outlining procedures that include: [E]valuating the potential for impacts of a proposed action on paleontological resources and for mitigating those impacts. Impact mitigation includes pre-project survey and salvage, monitoring and screen washing during excavation to salvage fossils, conservation and inventory, and final reports and specimen curation. The objective of these procedures is to offer standard methods for assessing potential impacts to fossils and mitigating these impacts. (SVP 2010) The guidelines include four categories of paleontological sensitivity for geologic units (formations) that might be impacted by a proposed project, as listed 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 upon 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. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS The existence of Quaternary (i.e., middle to late Pleistocene or younger) alluvial fan deposits near and likely beneath the project, along with the High paleontological resource Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 9 sensitivity assigned to these sediments locally (Scott 2014), and the presence of previously recorded fossil specimens from the unit about five miles south of the subject property all support the recommendation that full-time paleontological monitoring be required starting at a depth of 12 feet below the surface during grading, excavation, or utility trenching activities concomitant with the site preparation phase of the 10575 Foothill Boulevard construction project. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between seven and 12 feet below the surface, periodic spot checks for potential paleontological resources are warranted. Periodic monitoring will consist of approximately one to two scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. A paleontological resources impact mitigation program (PRIMP) is proposed and must be consistent with the provisions of CEQA, Scott (2014), attached, and those of the guidelines of the SVP (2010). If implemented, the approved PRIMP would mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources (fossils), if present, to a level below significant. A suggested PRIMP follows. Suggested PRIMP: 1. Monitoring of mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources shall be performed by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. Monitoring will be conducted full time in areas where grading, excavation, or drilling activities occur beginning at a depth of 12 feet in order to mitigate any adverse impacts (loss or destruction) to potential nonrenewable paleontological resources. For grading and other earth disturbance activities at depths between seven and 12 feet below the surface, periodic spot checks for potential paleontological resources are warranted. Periodic monitoring will consist of approximately one to two scheduled site visits per week by a paleontological monitor during construction ground disturbance. 2. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediment that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the 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 they are present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. 3. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including screen-washing sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates if indicated by the results of test sampling. Preparation of individual Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 10 vertebrate fossils is often more time-consuming than for accumulations of invertebrate fossils. 4. All fossils must be deposited in an accredited institution (university or museum) that maintains collections of paleontological materials. All costs of the paleontological monitoring and mitigation program, including any one-time charges by the receiving institution, are the responsibility of the developer. 5. Preparation of a final monitoring and mitigation report of findings and significance, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location(s). A letter documenting receipt and acceptance of all fossil collections by the receiving institution must be included in the final report. The report, when submitted to (and accepted by) the appropriate lead agency (e.g., the City of Rancho Cucamonga), will signify satisfactory completion of the project program to mitigate impacts to any nonrenewable paleontological resources. 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. June 30, 2022 Todd A. Wirths Date Senior Paleontologist California Professional Geologist No. 7588 VIII. REFERENCES Bedrossian, T.L., Hayhurst, C.A., and Roffers, P.D. 2010. Geologic compilation of Quaternary surficial deposits in southern California, San Bernardino 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle. California Geological Survey Special Report 217, Plate 13, scale 1:100,000. City of Rancho Cucamonga. N.d. Environmental studies guidelines. https://www.cityofrc.us/ construction-development Dutcher, L.C., and Garrett, A.A. 1963. Geologic and hydrologic features of the San Bernardino area, California - with special reference to underflow across the San Jacinto fault. USGS Water-Supply Paper 1419. Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 11 McLeod, S.A. 2014. Paleontological resources records search for the proposed Monarch Hills Project, LLE project # RLCC-14-427, near the City of Devore, San Bernardino project area. In Irish, L., Roeder, M., and Sonnentag, J., 2017, A Phase I paleontological resources inventory for Monarch Hills, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished technical report for Richland Communities, Irvine, California, by L&L Environmental, Inc., Redlands, California. McLeod, S.A. 2019. Paleontological resources records search for the proposed Kaiser Commerce Center Project, BFSA Project #19-032, in the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, project area. Unpublished letter report for Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., of Poway, California, by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Vertebrate Paleontology Section, Los Angeles, California. Meridian Consultants. 2019. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, SCH No. 2017091027. Prepared for the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, Rancho Cucamonga, California, by Meridian Consultants, Westlake Village and Los Angeles, California. http://etiwanda-heights- regis.hub.arcgis.com/ Miller, K.L., and Van Meter, J.L. 2018. Geotechnical engineering investigation, parcel 2 of parcel map 9612, 10575 Foothill Boulevard, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Unpublished technical report by Geosoils Consultants, Inc. of Van Nuys, California, for Watt Communities, LLC, of Santa Monica, California. Scott, E.G. 2014. Paleontology literature and records review, Slover Avenue Distribution Center project, city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished letter report for Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc., of Poway, California, by the San Bernardino County Museum, Division of Geological Sciences, Redlands, California (Attached). Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources; by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee: https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines-1.pdf Paleontological Assessment for the 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX A Qualifications of Key Personnel To dd A. W ir ths , MS, PG No. 7588 Senior Paleontologist Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 14010 Poway Road — Suite A — Phone: (858) 679-8218 — Fax: (858) 679-9896 — E-Mail: twirths@bfsa-ca.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. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Inc. 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 10575 Foothill Boulevard Project _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ APPENDIX B Fossil Locality Search Results APPENDIX G: PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN EVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV EVEVEVEVEV EVEV EV EV EVEVDA1AREA=210,191 SQ. FT. (4.8 AC.)DCV=13,881 CU. FT.QBMP=0.7 CFSSYSTEM RETENTION VOLUME=14,109 (102%)PRETREATMENT CAPACITY = 0.84 CFSDA2AREA=200,235 SQ. FT. (4.6 AC.)DCV=13,224 CU. FT.QBMP=0.6 CFSSYSTEM RETENTION VOLUME=13,487 (102%)PRETREATMENT CAPACITY = 0.84 CFSBMP-3FOOTHILL BOULEVARDHAVEN AVENUE ASPEN AVENUEBMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-3N14BMP-1BMP-2BMP-1BMP-2EXIST.BUILDINGEXIST.BUILDINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGBMP-4N14BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4BMP-4EXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKINGEXIST. PARKING114'23'103'23' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10'PROP. R/WPROP. R/WNO FIREACCESSLANE PROP. R/WSBX BUSSHELTER3.3'16'-10"20'11' 16'-10"9'(TYP.)APPROX. 130.00'PLATFORM PLUSENTRY RAMPS10'9'5'9'EXIST. PLEXIST. PARKWAY CULVERTEXIST. PARKWAY CULVERTDRAINAGE AREABOUNDARYPROP. STORM DRAINLOW FLOW DIVERSION TOINFILTRATION SYSTEM383' L.F. 60-INCH PERFORATEDRETENTION PIPE323' L.F. 60-INCH PERFORATEDRETENTION PIPEPROP. STORM DRAINEXIST. 8" WATEREXIST. 8" SEWEREXIST. 8" WATEREXIST. 8" SEWER101'℄60'13'13'PROP. WATERPROP. SEWER8.5'EXIST. PLPOOL COURTYARD 60' 13'13' 8.5'℄60' ℄48'LOW FLOW DIVERSION TOINFILTRATION SYSTEMARROW ROUTECIVIC CENTER DRRED OAK STHAVEN AVENUE FOOTHILL BLVDMILLIKEN AVENUE ELM AVENUE SPRUCE AVENUE CENTER AVENUE DEER C R E E K C H A N N E L U T I C A A V E N U E CHURCH STREETTOWN CENTER DRIVECHURCH STREETPROJECTSITEVICINITY MAPN.T.S.10' 4'5'1'23'2'2'7'19'36-INCH Ø ACCESS RISER FORMAINTENANCE PURPOSESGEOTEXTILE/ FILTER FABRIC1"-2" CLEAN WASHED ROCK(n=0.40).60-INCH Ø PERFORATED H.D.P.E.RETENTION/ INFILTRATION SYSTEMFINISHED SURFACE1DRAWING NO.OF DRAWINGSIN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINOSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAPN: 0208-353-02-0-000MAY 23, 20221 NUMBERED LOTBEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 9612, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OFPARCEL MAPS, PAGE 14. IN SAID COUNTY.(313 UNITS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES)FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSESPARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP No. 9612PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITYMANAGEMENT PLANFOOTHILL CENTER10575 FOOTHILL BLVD.RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404Santa Clarita, CA 913559302 PITTSBURGH AVE., SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730PHONE: 909.481.6322FAX: 909.481.6320DESIGN REVIEW - DRC SUBMITTALMAY 23, 2022PARCEL 2 OF P. M. No. 9612FORPRELIMINARY WATER QUALITYDRC2019 - 00850MANAGEMENT PLANRANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA # 2021-03817.94 AC. GROSS 7.71 AC. REVISED GROSS7.48 AC. NETWATER QUALITY MITIGATION SUMMARYSITE AREA (TRACT BOUNDARY) = 345,599 SQ. FT. (7.9 AC.)DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY (DISTURBED AREA)= 384,262 SQ. FT. (8.8 AC.)LAND USE = CONDOMINIUMS; FIGURE C-4; IMPERVIOUS COVER = 65%REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA = 3.97 ACREPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.02 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 7.70 ACTOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA = 7.72 ACP2YR-1HR = 0.607 INCbmp = 0.45P6 =0.89948 HOUR DRAWDOWN , a = 1.963SITE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME (DA1) = 13,881 CU. FT.SITE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FLOW RATE (DA1) = 0.7 C.F.SSITE DESIGN CAPTURE VOLUME (DA2) = 13,224 CU. FT.SITE WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FLOW RATE (DA2) = 0.6 C.F.SHYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FD-3HC TREATMENT RATE = 0.84 C.F.S.NOTES:1.ALL SOILS GROUP A2.SITE IS HCOC EXEMPT; ALL DOWNSTREAM CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS EHM.3.DESIGN OF UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEM AND RETENTION VOLUME BASED ONESTIMATED 5IN/HR. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATIONS OF SYSTEM DESIGN ARE SUBJECTTO CHANGE UPON FINAL ENGINEERING.MITIGATION SUMMARY:STORMWATER RUNOFF AND NUISANCE FLOWS FROM THE PROJECT SITE WILL SHEETFLOWAND GUTTERFLOW TO VARIOUS DROP INLET CATCH BASINS THROUGHOUT THE SITE ANDENTER AN UNDERGROUND STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. BEFORE THE STORMWATER LEAVESTHE SITE THROUGH EXISTING PARKWAY DRAINS, A LOW FLOW DIVERSION PIPE WILLINTERCEPT THE WATER QUALITY VOLUME AND ROUTE IT TO AN UNDERGROUNDRETENTION/INFILTRATION SYSTEMS. STORMFLOWS EXCEEDING THE WATER QUALITYVOLUME AND THE SYSTEM RETENTION CAPABILITIES WILL EXIT THE SITE VIA THE EXISTINGPARKWAY DRAINS LOCATED WITHIN EACH DRAINAGE AREA.STORMFLOWS ENTERING THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEMS WILLFIRST BE TREATED BY A HYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FD-3HC CLARIFIERS. THECLARIFIERS WILL REMOVE TRASH, DEBRIS, OILS, AND POLLUTANTS FROM THE RUNOFFBEFORE ROUTING IT INTO THE PROPOSED 60" PERFORATED HDPE RETENTION SYSTEM. ASTHE PIPE FILLS, WATER WILL INFILTRATE THROUGH THE PERFORATIONS AND THEUNDERLYING GRAVEL BED.SOURCE CONTROL BMPsINSTALL STORMWATER PLACARDS/STENCILED MESSAGES WITH "NO DUMPING" MESSAGE TO DISCOURAGE ILLEGAL DUMPING AND PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND THE PROTECTION OF STORMWATER QUALITY.DESIGN AN EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO MINIMIZE WATER LOSS, RUNOFF, AND EVAPORATION. (NOTE: S4 NOT SHOWN ON PLAN;APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE).LITTER DEBRIS AND TRASH CONTROL PROGRAM. MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY AND REMOVING LITTER AND DEBRIS FROM PUBLICAREAS BEFORE IT CAN ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM (NOTE: N11 NOT SHOWN; APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE)INSPECT CATCH BASINS AND DROP INLETS ON A REGULAR BASIS OR TRASH AND DEBRIS THAT COULD CLOG THE DOWNSTREAMRETENTION/INFILTRATION SYSTEMMINIMIZE TRASH AND DEBRIS IN STORM RUNOFF THROUGH A REGULAR PARKING LOT AND ROADWAY SWEEPING PROGRAM. (NOTE: N15NOT SHOWN ON PLAN; APPLIES TO ENTIRE SITE).BMP-4S4N14STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPsHYDRO INTERNATIONAL FIRST DEFENSE FC-3HC (OR APPROVED EQUAL): WATER QUALITY RUNOFFWILL FIRST ENTER THE PRETREATMENT CLARIFIER TO REMOVE OIL, DEBRIS, TRASH, AND POLLUTANTS BEFORE RELEASING IT TO THE UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM.60" DIAMETER PERFORATED RETENTION AND INFILTRATION SYSTEM. WATER QUALITY RUNOFF WILLBE STORED WITHIN THE 60" PIPE WHILE IT INFILTRATES INTO THE SOILS BELOW.CATCH BASIN FILTER INSERTS TO BE INSTALLED IN CATCH BASINS 12-INCHE AND BIGGER TO REMOVE FIRST FLUSH DEBRIS, TRASH, AND POLLUTANTS FROM RUNOFF PRIOR TO ENTERING THEONSITE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.BMP-1BMP-2N15N11RC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 VALENCIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 404SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355BMPMAINTENANCEFREQUENCYCONTECH CDS 2020-5PRETREATMENT CLARIFIER (ORAPPROVED EQUAL)CLEARING AND VACUUMING OFSEDIMENT AND DEBRIS WITHINSTORAGE AREA PERMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTS60" PERFORATEDRETENTION/INFILTRATIONPIPESCLEARING AND VACUUMING OFSEDIMENT AND DEBRIS WITHINPIPE PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTSSTORM DRAINSTENCILINGREPLACEMENT OF STORM DRAINSTENCIL TO MAINTAIN VISIBILITY.AS NEEDEDALL FUTURE APPLICABLESTRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROLAND NON-STRUCTURAL SOURCECONTROL BMPSMAINTENANCE, INSPECTION,REPAIR, ETC. AS APPLICABLEFOR ALL BMPs THAT APPLYDURING FINAL DESIGN OFPROJECT.TO BE DETERMINEDRESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR MAINTENANCE & INSPECTIONS:CATCH BASINFILTER INSERTSCLEARING OF SEDIMENT ANDDEBRIS WITHIN BASKET PERMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.EVERY APRIL & OCTOBERANDAFTER MAJOR RAIN EVENTSHOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION TO MAINTAINAFTER COMPLETION AND TURNOVERBMP-3LEGEND:DCVDESIGN CAPTURE VOLUMESFSQUARE FEET (FT2)CFCUBIC FEET (FT3)CYCUBIC YARDSVRETRETENTION VOLUMEDMADRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAPROP. PROPOSEDEXIST. EXISTINGDRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARYEXISTING 1.0' CONTOURFLOW DIRECTIONINFILTRATION SYSTEM - TYPICAL SECTIONSCALE: 1"=10'I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE NECESSARY STORM WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLANSTRUCTURAL STORM WATER TREATMENT DEVICES HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND AREFUNCTIONAL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AS OF THE DATE BELOW.                                                                                                                                        ______________                 SIGNATURE DATEWQMP BMP AS-BUILT CERTIFICATEPWQMP-01OWNER/DEVELOPERRC FOOTHILL HOLDINGS, LLC23929 VALENCIA BLVD., SUITE 404SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355CONTACT: JEFF WARMOTH(650) 400-6293 Email: jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.comCIVIL ENGINEERMADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730CONTACT: MARK BERTONE(909) 481-6322 ext. 120Email: mbertone@madoleinc.comARCHITECTKTGY ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING17911 VON KARMAN AVE., SUITE 200IRVINE, CA. 92614LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSUMMERS MURPHY & PARTNERS34197 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAYDANA POINT, CA. 92629CONTACT: TRENT NOLL(949) 443-1446 x 279Email: tnoll@smpinc.netCONTACT: KIRSTEN HALIK(949) 221-6252 Email: khalik@ktgy.comSUITE 200AREA:GROSS ACRES .............................................. 7.94 ACREVISED GROSS ACRES.............................. 7.71 ACNET ACRES .................................................... 7.48 ACTOTAL DISTURBED AREA.............................. 8.91 ACREMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS AREA................ 3.97 ACREPLACEMENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA....... 0.02 ACPROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA................... 7.70 ACTOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA............................ 7.72 AC APPENDIX H: NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS Foothill Center NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PREPARED BY: Bill Lawson, PE, INCE blawson@urbanxroads.com (949) 584-3148 JUNE 29, 2022 14975-02 Noise Study Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study ii Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... III APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ IV LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. V LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................... V LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Noise Descriptors .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Sound Propagation ........................................................................................................................ 8 2.4 Noise Control .............................................................................................................................. 10 2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ........................................................................................................... 10 2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 10 2.7 Community Response to Noise ................................................................................................... 10 2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 11 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 15 3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 15 3.2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Health and Safety Element ................................................... 15 3.4 Operational Noise Standards ...................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Construction Noise Standards..................................................................................................... 18 3.6 Construction Vibration Standards ............................................................................................... 19 4 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 21 4.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 21 4.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Noise Measurement Results ....................................................................................................... 22 5 RECEIVER LOCATIONS................................................................................................................ 25 6 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 27 6.1 CEQA Guidelines Not Further Analyzed ...................................................................................... 27 6.2 Noise-Sensitive Receivers ........................................................................................................... 27 6.3 Significance Criteria Summary .................................................................................................... 29 7 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.................................................................................................... 31 7.1 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model ........................................................................................ 31 8 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 35 8.1 Traffic Noise Contours ................................................................................................................ 35 8.2 Existing 2020 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases .................................................................... 38 8.3 Opening Year Cumulative 2022 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ....................................... 39 8.4 Horizon Year 2040 Project Traffic Noise Level Increases ............................................................ 39 9 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 43 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study iv 9.1 Exterior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 43 9.2 Interior Noise Analysis ................................................................................................................ 45 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS ................................................................................................ 49 10.1 Operational Noise Sources .......................................................................................................... 49 10.2 Operational Reference Noise Levels ........................................................................................... 49 10.3 CadnaA Noise Prediction Model ................................................................................................. 52 10.4 Project Operational Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 53 10.5 Project Operational Noise Level Compliance .............................................................................. 54 10.6 Project Operational Noise Level Increases ................................................................................. 54 11 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 57 11.1 Construction Noise Sources ........................................................................................................ 57 11.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 57 11.3 Project Construction Noise Levels .............................................................................................. 59 11.4 Typical Construction Noise Level Compliance ............................................................................ 60 11.5 Typical Construction Vibration Levels ......................................................................................... 61 12 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 63 13 CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDICES APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE APPENDIX 4.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS APPENDIX 4.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 8.1: OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 9.1: ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 9.2: INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS APPENDIX 11.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study v LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN........................................................................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... 7 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 11 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 13 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX ..................................................................................... 17 EXHIBIT 4-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ............................................................................... 24 EXHIBIT 5-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................................................................... 26 EXHIBIT 9-A: ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS .............................................................. 43 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS .................................................................. 50 EXHIBIT 11-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS ............................................................... 58 LIST OF TABLES TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................. 1 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS ................................................................................... 16 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS ................................................................................ 19 TABLE 4-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .......................................................... 23 TABLE 6-1: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS .................................. 28 TABLE 7-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS................................................................................... 32 TABLE 7-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ................................................................................. 32 TABLE 7-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS ........................................................................................... 33 TABLE 7-4: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) ................................... 33 TABLE 7-5: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ................................................................................... 34 TABLE 8-1: EXISTING 2020 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ..................................................... 35 TABLE 8-2: EXISTING 2020 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ............................................................ 36 TABLE 8-3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ....................... 36 TABLE 8-4: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE 2022 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ............................. 37 TABLE 8-5: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ............................................ 37 TABLE 8-6: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ................................................... 38 TABLE 8-7: EXISTING 2020 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ...................................... 40 TABLE 8-8: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE 2022 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ....... 41 TABLE 8-9: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................ 42 TABLE 9-1: UNMITIGATED EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS ............................................................. 44 TABLE 9-2: MITIGATED EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS .................................................................. 44 TABLE 9-3: UNMITIGATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) ................................................................. 46 TABLE 9-4: NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS .................................................................................. 46 TABLE 9-4: MITIGATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) ..................................................................... 48 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................... 51 TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ............................................................. 53 TABLE 10-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ......................................................... 53 TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ...................................................................... 54 TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ............................................ 55 TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ....................................................... 56 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study vi TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... 59 TABLE 11-2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ..................................... 60 TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE ............................................... 60 TABLE 11-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ...................................... 61 TABLE 11-5: TYPICAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS ................................................... 62 LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (1) Reference ADT Average Daily Traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute Calveno California Vehicle Noise CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA A-weighted decibels FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval mph Miles per hour PPV Peak Particle Velocity Project Foothill Center REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level RMS Root-mean-square VdB Vibration Decibels Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Project is anticipated to include the development of up to 311 multi-family dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of retail use as shown on Exhibit 1-B. The on-site Project- only operational noise sources are expected to include: roof-top air conditioning, outdoor/roof deck activity, pool activity, trash enclosure activity and parking activity. This study has been prepared consistent with applicable City of Rancho Cucamonga noise standards, and significance criteria based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) The results of Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 6 of this report. Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures. TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS Analysis Report Section Significance Findings Unmitigated Mitigated Off-Site Traffic Noise 8 Less Than Significant - On-Site Traffic Noise 9 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Operational Noise 10 Less Than Significant - Construction Noise 11 Less Than Significant - Construction Vibration Less Than Significant - Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 2 This page intentionally left blank Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 3 1 INTRODUCTION This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Foothill Center (“Project”). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, presents the study methods and procedures for transportation noise analysis, and evaluates the future exterior noise environment. In addition, this study includes an analysis of the potential Project-related long-term operational noise and short-term construction noise and vibration impacts. 1.1 SITE LOCATION The proposed Foothill Center site is located at 10575 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. Existing land uses near the site include nearby commercial retail centers to the north, and east of the Project site with the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court to the south, and residential homes to the west of the Project site. In addition, two office buildings, the Barton Plaza and City Center, located east and west the Project will remain with the development of the Project. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project is anticipated to include the development of up to 311 multi-family dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of retail use as shown on Exhibit 1-B. The on-site Project- only operational noise sources are expected to include: roof-top air conditioning, outdoor/roof deck activity, pool activity, trash enclosure activity and parking activity. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 5 EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 6 This page intentionally left blank Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 7 2 FUNDAMENTALS Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A- weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below. EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS 2.1 RANGE OF NOISE Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (3) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (4) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 8 2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period (typically one hour) and is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the City of Rancho Cucamonga relies on the L25, L17, L8 and Lmax, percentile noise levels to describe the stationary source noise level limits. The percentile noise descriptors are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 25 percent, 17 percent, and 8 percent of a stated time. Sound levels associated with the L8 typically describe transient or short-term events, while levels associated with the L25 describe the base or typical noise conditions. The City of Rancho Cucamonga relies on the percentile noise levels to describe the stationary source noise level limits. While the L25 describes the noise levels occurring 25 percent of the time, the Leq accounts for the total energy (average) observed for the entire hour. Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Rancho Cucamonga relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources. 2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. Based on guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, the way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors. 2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 9 as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (3) 2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receiver such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (5) 2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (3) 2.3.4 SHIELDING A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line-of-sight to nearest residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line-of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (5) 2.3.5 REFLECTION Field studies conducted by the FHWA have shown that the reflection from barriers and buildings does not substantially increase noise levels. (5) If all the noise striking a structure was reflected back to a given receiving point, the increase would be theoretically limited to 3 dBA. Further, not all the acoustical energy is reflected back to same point. Some of the energy would go over the structure, some is reflected to points other than the given receiving point, some is scattered by ground coverings (e.g., grass and other plants), and some is blocked by intervening structures Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 10 and/or obstacles (e.g., the noise source itself). Additionally, some of the reflected energy is lost due to the longer path that the noise must travel. FHWA measurements made to quantify reflective increases in traffic noise have not shown an increase of greater than 1-2 dBA; an increase that is not perceptible to the average human ear. 2.4 NOISE CONTROL Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements. 2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by up to 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (5) 2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, recreation areas or buildings where people normally sleep. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (6) 2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE Community responses to noise varies depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including: • Fear associated with noise producing activities; • Socio-economic status and educational level; • Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated; Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 11 • Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity; • Belief that the noise source can be controlled. Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (7) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (7) Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA are considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (5) EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION 2.8 VIBRATION Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. (8) The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground- borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Just Perceptible Barely Perceptible Readily Perceptible Twice as Loud Noise Level Increase (dBA) Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 12 on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment and/or activities. The background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 13 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 14 This page intentionally left blank Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 15 3 REGULATORY SETTING To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies. 3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (9) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts. The State of California’s noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, and the California Building Code. These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for the purpose of controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when noise-sensitive structures, such as residential buildings, schools, or hospitals, are developed near major transportation noise sources, and where such noise sources create an exterior noise level of 60 dBA CNEL or higher. Acoustical studies that accompany building plans for noise-sensitive land uses must demonstrate that the structure has been designed to limit interior noise in habitable rooms to acceptable noise levels. For new residential buildings, schools, and hospitals, the acceptable interior noise limit for new construction is 45 dBA CNEL. 3.2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT The City of Rancho Cucamonga has adopted a Public Health and Safety Element of the General Plan to, among other purposes, minimize noise impacts on the community and to coordinate with surrounding jurisdictions and other entities regarding noise control. (10) The Public Health and Safety Element identifies noise-sensitive land uses and establishes compatibility guidelines for land use and noise. In addition, the Public Health and Safety Element identifies goals and policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community. The noise- related Public Health and Safety Element goals are as follows: Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 16 PS-13: Minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community and adopt appropriate noise level requirements for all land uses. PS-14: Minimize the impacts of transportation-related noise. The noise criteria identified in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Health and Safety Element (Figure PS-8) are guidelines to evaluate the land use compatibility of transportation-related noise. The compatibility criteria, shown on Exhibit 3-A, provides the City with a planning tool to gauge the compatibility of land uses relative to existing and future exterior noise levels. The Noise Compatibility Matrix describes categories of compatibility and not specific noise standards. The Project includes multi-family residential land use which is considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 65 dBA CNEL and considered conditionally acceptable with exterior noise levels approaching 70 dBA CNEL. For conditionally acceptable exterior noise levels, new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and the needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Outdoor environment will seem noisy. (10) 3.4 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Foothill Center Project, operational source noise such as the expected roof-top air conditioning, outdoor/roof deck activity, pool activity, trash enclosure activity and parking activity are typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, however, the operational noise standards are found in the Development Code. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Chapter 17.66 Performance Standards, Section 17.66.050 Noise Standards, contains the base exterior and interior noise level limits for residential (Noise Zone 1) and exterior noise level limits for all commercial (Noise Zone 2) land uses, as shown on Table 3-1 and included in Appendix 3.1. TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS Receiving Land Use Time Period Exterior Noise Standards (dBA)1 L25 (15 mins) L17 (10 mins) L8 (5 mins) Lmax (0 min) Residential (Noise Zone 1) Daytime 65 70 79 80 Nighttime 60 65 74 75 All Commercial (Noise Zone 2) Daytime 70 -2 -2 -2 Nighttime 65 -2 -2 -2 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050 Noise Standards (Appendix 3.1). 2 No base noise level adjustments are identified in Section 17.66.050[G] for commercial land use. The percent noise level is the level exceeded "n" percent of the time during the measurement period. L25 is the noise level exceeded 25% of the time. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 17 EXHIBIT 3-A: NOISE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 18 In order to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050[C][1] identifies the following operational exterior noise level limits. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or allow the creation of any noise on the property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on the property line of any other property to exceed the basic noise level as adjusted below: a. Basic noise level for a cumulative period of not more than 15 minutes in any one hour; or b. Basic noise level plus five dBA for a cumulative period of not more than ten minutes in any one hour; or c. Basic noise level plus 14 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than five minutes in any one hour; or d. Basic noise level plus 15 dBA at any time. Table 17.66.050-1 Residential Noise Limits of the Development Code identifies a daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA, and a nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 60 dBA for residential land uses. In addition, Table 17.66.050-1 identifies a daytime base interior noise level standard of 50 dBA and a nighttime base interior noise level standard of 45 dBA for residential land uses. However, since typical building construction provides a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed" (11), project related noise levels that comply with the exterior noise level limits generally satisfy the interior noise level limits. Section 17.66.050[G] identifies a daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 70 dBA, and a nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) base exterior noise level standard of 65 dBA for commercial and office properties. No base noise level adjustments or interior noise levels standards are identified in Section 17.66.050[G] for commercial properties. The City of Rancho Cucamonga percentile noise descriptors are provided to ensure that the duration of the noise source is fully considered. However, due to the relatively constant intensity of the Project operational activities, the L25 (base exterior noise level limit) or the average Leq noise level metrics best describe the roof-top air conditioning, outdoor/roof deck activity, pool activity, trash enclosure activity and parking activity. The Leq noise level metric accounts for noise fluctuations over time by averaging the louder and quieter events and giving more weight to the louder events. In addition, a review of the existing ambient noise level measurements shows that the Leq is generally greater than or equal to the L25. Therefore, this noise study conservatively relies on the average Leq sound level limits to describe the Project operational noise levels. 3.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project the City of Rancho Cucamonga has established limits to the hours of construction and noise levels. According to Section 17.66.050[D][4][a] of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code the following activities are exempt from the provisions of the noise standards: (12) Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 19 a. When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not 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 provided that noise levels created do not exceed the base noise level standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. b. When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the standards of 70 dBA at the adjacent property line. If the Project demonstrates compliance with the standards for both types of uses, the construction noise level impacts are considered exempt from the noise standards. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Noise Standards for construction activities are shown on Table 3-2 and included in Appendix 3.1. TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS City Receiving Land Use Permitted Hours of Construction Activity Construction Noise Level Standard (dBA Leq)2 Rancho Cucamonga1 Residential, School, & Church 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday; no activity on Sundays or national holidays 65 Commercial or Industrial 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday; no activity on Sundays or national holidays 70 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050[D][4] Special Exclusions (Appendix 3.1). 2 When measured at the adjacent property line. 3.6 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION STANDARDS The City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.070, identifies the City’s vibration standards. However, Section 17.66.070(D) indicates that vibrations from temporary construction/demolition and vehicles that leave the subject parcel (e.g., trucks, trains, and aircraft) are exempt from the provisions of this section. (12) Based on these standards, vibration activity associated with construction activity is considered exempt from the vibration standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, annoyance criteria are used in this noise study to assess potential temporary construction-related impact at adjacent receiver locations. For sensitive residential receiver locations, potential annoyance due to construction-related vibration levels is evaluated based on the Caltrans distinctly perceptible maximum continuous vibration level of 0.04 in/sec PPV. (13) Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 20 This page intentionally left blank Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 21 4 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at five locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 4-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Thursday, January 9th, 2020. Appendix 4.1 includes study area photos. 4.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (14) 4.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (3) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (8) Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (8) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 22 and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels. 4.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 4-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. Appendix 5.2 provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels described below: • Location L1 represents the noise levels north of the Project site on Foothill Boulevard near the existing commercial plaza. The noise levels at this location consist primarily of traffic noise from Foothill Boulevard. The noise level measurements collected show an overall 24-hour exterior noise level of 65.6 dBA CNEL. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 61.8 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 58.0 dBA Leq. • Location L2 represents the noise levels east of the Project site in a parking lot near Root 66 Endodontics. The ambient noise levels at this location account for the parking lot vehicle movements that take place within the plaza in addition to nearby traffic noise from Foothill Boulevard and Aspen Avenue. The noise level measurements collected show an overall 24 - hour exterior noise level of 59.0 dBA CNEL. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 55.2 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 51.6 dBA Leq. • Location L3 represents the noise levels south of the Project site near the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court. The 24-hour CNEL indicates that the overall exterior noise level is 61.5 dBA CNEL. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 56.2 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 54.7 dBA Leq. Parking lot vehicle movements represent the primary source of noise at this location. • Location L4 represents the noise levels southwest of the Project site near Verano at Rancho Cucamonga Town Square residential community. The noise level measurements collected show an overall 24-hour exterior noise level of 61.3 dBA CNEL. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 58.4 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 53.3 dBA Leq. The noise levels at this location consist primarily of parking lot vehicle movements as well as movements through local streets. • Location L5 represents the noise levels northwest of the Project site near Rancho Cucamonga Dental Care and United Therapy Network Offices. The 24-hour CNEL indicates that the overall exterior noise level is 66.2 dBA CNEL. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 62.2 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 58.9 dBA Leq. Traffic on Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue represents the primary source of noise at this location. Table 4-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 4.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 23 the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, L90, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods. The background ambient noise levels in the Project study area are dominated by the transportation-related noise associated with Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue. This includes the auto and heavy truck activities on study area roadway segments near the noise level measurement locations. The 24-hour existing noise level measurement results are shown on Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Location1 Description Energy Average Noise Level (dBA Leq)2 CNEL Daytime Nighttime L1 Located north of the Project site on Foothill Boulevard near existing commercial plaza. 61.8 58.0 65.6 L2 Located east of the Project site in a parking lot near Root 66 Endodontics. 55.2 51.6 59.0 L3 Located south of the Project site near the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court. 56.2 54.7 61.5 L4 Located southwest of the Project site near the Verano at Rancho Cucamonga Town Square residential community. 58.4 53.3 61.3 L5 Located northwest of the Project site near Rancho Cucamonga Dental Care and United Therapy Network Offices. 62.2 58.9 66.2 1 See Exhibit 4-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) average levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 4.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 24 EXHIBIT 4-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 25 5 RECEIVER LOCATIONS To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following receiver locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A were identified as representative locations for focused analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noise- sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out- patient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals. Receiver locations are located in outdoor living areas (e.g., backyards) at 10 feet from any existing or proposed barriers or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site, based on FHWA guidance, and consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously described in Section 4.2. Sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area include offices and the nearby apartment community as described below. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location. R1: Located approximately 23 feet north of the Project site, R1 represents the City Center Building. R2: Located approximately 384 feet east of the Project site, R2 represents Root 66 Endodontics north of Laurel Street. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R3: Location R3 represents the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court south of the Project site at roughly 205 feet. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment R4: Location R4 represents the Verano at Rancho Cucamonga Town Square apartment community on the west side of Haven Avenue at approximately 468 feet from the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment R5: Location R5 represents the Barton Plaza business center located roughly 22 feet west of the Project site at the corner of East Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. R6: Location R6 represents Rancho Cucamonga Dental Care on the north side of Foothill Boulevard at approximately 527 feet from the Project site. A 24-hour noise measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 26 EXHIBIT 5-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 27 6 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes: A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? While the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Guidelines provide direction on noise compatibility and establish noise standards by land use type that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guideline A. CEQA Appendix G Guideline C applies to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project’s land use compatibility. 6.1 CEQA GUIDELINES NOT FURTHER ANALYZED The Project site is located roughly 3 miles north of Ontario International Airport and is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is conducted in relation to Guideline C. 6.2 NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. (15) This approach recognizes that there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction, primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an effective way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (16) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 28 percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (Leq). As previously stated, the approach used in this noise study recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant, based on a 2008 California Court of Appeal ruling on Gray v. County of Madera. (15) For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project-related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the existing noise levels are below 60 dBA. Per the FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. Table 6-1 below provides a summary of the potential noise impact significance criteria, based on guidance from FICON. TABLE 6-1: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS AT NOISE-SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Without Project Noise Level Potential Significant Impact < 60 dBA 5 dBA or more 60 - 65 dBA 3 dBA or more > 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the without Project noise levels are already shown to exceed certain land-use specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise-sensitive uses. These levels of increases and their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (5 p. 9) and Caltrans (17 p. 2_48). Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 29 6.3 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE • When the noise levels at existing and future noise-sensitive land uses (e.g. residential, etc.): o are less than 60 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater Project-related noise level increase; or o range from 60 to 65 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater Project-related noise level increase; or o already exceed 65 dBA CNEL, and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA CNEL (FICON, 1992). • When the noise levels at existing and future non-noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., office, commercial, industrial): o are less than the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Figure PS-8, normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater Project related noise level increase; or o are greater than the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Figure PS-8, normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater Project noise level increase. ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE • If the on-site noise levels: o exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA CNEL for multiple unit residential mixed use at the outdoor living areas (patios and common areas) (City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health & Safety Element, Figure PS-8); or o exceed an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL for residential land uses (City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health & Safety Element, Figure PS-8). o exceed an interior noise level of 50 dBA Leq for non-residential buildings (CALGreen Section 5.507 Environmental Comfort). OPERATIONAL NOISE • If Project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the exterior 65 dBA Leq daytime or 60 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards at nearby noise sensitive residential receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050). • If Project-related operational (stationary-source) noise levels exceed the exterior 70 dBA Leq daytime or 65 dBA Leq nighttime noise level standards at nearby commercial and office receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050). • If the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby noise-sensitive receivers near the Project site: o are less than 60 dBA Leq and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA Leq or greater Project-related noise level increase; or Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 30 o range from 60 to 65 dBA Leq and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA Leq or greater Project-related noise level increase; or o already exceed 65 dBA Leq, and the Project creates a community noise level increase of greater than 1.5 dBA Leq (FICON, 1992). • If the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby non noise-sensitive receivers near the Project site (e.g., office, commercial, industrial): o are less than the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Figure PS-8, normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA CNEL or greater Project related noise level increase; or o are greater than the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Public Health and Safety Element, Figure PS-8, normally acceptable 70 dBA CNEL and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA CNEL or greater Project noise level increase. CONSTRUCTION NOISE • If Project-related construction activities occur at any time other than the permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays and holidays and generate noise levels which exceed the 65 dBA Leq noise level limit at nearby sensitive receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050[D][4][a]; • If Project-related construction activities occur at any time other than the permitted hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, including Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays and holidays and generate noise levels which exceed the 70 dBA Leq noise level limit at nearby sensitive receiver locations (City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, Section 17.66.050[D][4][b]; CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION • If short-term Project construction vibration levels exceed the Caltrans distinctly perceptible maximum continuous vibration human annoyance threshold of 0.04 PPV (in/sec) at sensitive receiver locations (Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual). Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 31 7 METHODS AND PROCEDURES The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the future traffic noise environment. Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Noise Compatibility Matrix, all transportation related noise levels are presented in terms of the 24-hour CNEL’s. 7.1 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL The estimated roadway noise impacts from vehicular traffic were calculated using a computer program that replicates the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Prediction Model- FHWA-RD-77-108. (18) The FHWA Model arrives at a predicted noise level through a series of adjustments to the Reference Energy Mean Emission Level (REMEL). In California the national REMELs are substituted with the California Vehicle Noise (Calveno) Emission Levels. (19) Adjustments are then made to the REMEL to account for: the roadway classification (e.g., collector, secondary, major or arterial), the roadway active width (i.e., the distance between the center of the outermost travel lanes on each side of the roadway), the total average daily traffic (ADT), the travel speed, the percentages of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks in the traffic volume, the roadway grade, the angle of view (e.g., whether the roadway view is blocked), the site conditions ("hard" or "soft" relates to the absorption of the ground, pavement, or landscaping), and a peak hour to average daily traffic (peak-to-daily) relationship of approximately 8.81%. (2) 7.1.1 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS Table 7-1 presents the roadway parameters used to assess the Project’s off-site dBA CNEL transportation noise impacts. Table 7-1 identifies the 12 study area roadway segments, the distance from the centerline to adjacent land use based on the functional roadway classifications per the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Circulation Element, the posted vehicle speeds and. The ADT volumes used in this study are presented on Table 7-2 are based on the Foothill Center Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Traffic Analysis (2) prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. for the following traffic scenarios: • Existing (2020) • Existing plus Project (E+P) Conditions • Opening Year Cumulative (2022) Without Project Conditions • Opening Year Cumulative (2022) With Project Conditions • Horizon Year (2040) Without Project Conditions • Horizon Year (2040) With Project Conditions The ADT volumes vary for each roadway segment based on the existing and future horizon year traffic volumes plus the project traffic volumes for each scenario. This analysis relies on a comparative analysis of the off-site traffic noise impacts, without and with project ADT traffic volumes from the Project traffic study. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 32 TABLE 7-1: OFF-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS ID Roadway Segment Receiving Land Use1 Classification2 Centerline Distance to Receiving Land Use (Feet)3 Vehicle Speed (mph) 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 63' 50 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 63' 50 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 55' 50 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 55' 50 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive Secondary 44' 35 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive Secondary 44' 35 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive Secondary 44' 35 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 55' 50 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 55' 50 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 55' 50 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive Major Divided Arterial 55' 50 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive Secondary 44' 35 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan. 3 Based upon the right-of-way distances for each roadway classification provided in the General Plan Circulation Element. TABLE 7-2: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ID Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic Volumes1 Existing 2019 Opening Year 2022 Horizon Year 2040 Without Project With Project Without Project With Project Without Project With Project 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. 32,819 33,039 35,794 36,014 39,653 39,873 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. 32,753 33,556 35,850 36,653 40,146 40,949 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. 32,864 33,525 35,968 36,629 40,257 40,918 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. 32,115 32,531 35,172 35,588 39,540 39,956 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. 6,586 6,776 6,990 7,180 7,689 7,879 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. 5,973 6,453 6,435 6,915 7,067 7,547 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. 4,270 4,562 4,625 4,917 5,088 5,380 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. 27,470 27,981 30,155 30,666 44,993 45,504 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. 30,924 31,512 33,463 34,051 43,810 44,398 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. 28,742 29,348 31,147 31,753 34,262 34,868 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. 28,401 28,905 30,762 31,266 33,838 34,342 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. 5,553 5,790 5,893 6,130 6,482 6,719 1 Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 33 TABLE 7-3: TIME OF DAY VEHICLE SPLITS Vehicle Type Time of Day Splits1 Total of Time of Day Splits Daytime Evening Nighttime Autos 75.55% 13.96% 10.49% 100.00% Medium Trucks 48.91% 2.17% 48.91% 100.00% Heavy Trucks 47.30% 5.41% 47.30% 100.00% 1 Typical Southern California Time of Day Vehicle Splits Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; "Evening" = 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. TABLE 7-4: DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC FLOW BY VEHICLE TYPE (VEHICLE MIX) Classification Total % Traffic Flow Total Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks All Roadways 97.42% 1.84% 0.74% 100.00% 1 Typical Southern California Vehicle Mix 7.1.2 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION MODEL INPUTS The on-site roadway parameters including the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes used for this study are presented on Table 7-5. Based on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Community Mobility Element, Figure CM-2, Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue are classified as 6-lane Major Divided Arterials. Aspen Avenue is classified as a 4-lane Secondary Arterial. The traffic volumes shown on Table 7-5 were obtained from the Foothill Center Traffic Analysis (2), prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., and reflect future long-range traffic conditions needed to assess the future on-site traffic noise environment and to identify the appropriate noise mitigation measures that address the worst-case future noise conditions. Soft site conditions were used to analyze the traffic noise impacts within the Project study area. Research conducted by Caltrans has shown that the use of soft site conditions is appropriate for the application of the FHWA traffic noise prediction model used in this analysis. (20) Table 7-3 presents the time of day vehicle splits by vehicle type, and Table 7-4 presents the total traffic flow distributions (vehicle mixes) used for the on-site traffic noise analysis. The vehicle mix provides the hourly distribution percentages of automobile, medium trucks and heavy trucks for input into the FHWA Model based on roadway types. To predict the future noise environment at each building within the Project site, coordinate information was collected to identify the noise transmission path between the noise source and receiver. The coordinate information is based on the Project site plan showing the plotting of each building in relationship to Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 34 TABLE 7-5: ON-SITE ROADWAY PARAMETERS Roadway Lanes Classification1 Average Daily Traffic Volume2 Posted Speed Limits (mph) Site Conditions Foothill Blvd. 6 Major 44,491 50 Soft Haven Av. 6 Major 40,798 50 Soft Aspen Av. 4 Secondary 7,466 35 Soft 1 Road classifications based upon the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Circulation Element, Figure CM-2. 2 Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Traffic Analysis, Urban Crossroads, Inc. The site plan is used to identify the relationship between the roadway centerline elevation, the pad elevation and the centerline distance to the building façade. The noise level impacts at the exterior building facades placed five feet above the pad elevation and one foot from the proposed barrier location or at the proposed building façade. All second-floor receivers were located 14 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation, all third-floor receivers were located 23 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation, all fourth-floor receivers were located 32 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation, all fifth-floor receivers were located 41 feet above the proposed finished floor elevation. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 35 8 OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS To assess the off-site transportation dBA CNEL noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project, noise contours were developed based on the Foothill Center Traffic Analysis. (2) Noise contour boundaries represent the equal levels of noise exposure and are measured in dBA CNEL from the center of the roadways. 8.1 TRAFFIC NOISE CONTOURS Noise contours were used to assess the Project's incremental 24-hour dBA CNEL traffic-related noise impacts at receiving land uses adjacent to roadways conveying Project traffic. The noise contours represent the distance to noise levels of a constant value and are measured from the center of the roadway for the 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise levels. The noise contou rs do not consider the effect of any existing noise barriers or topography that may attenuate ambient noise levels. In addition, because the noise contours reflect modeling of vehicular noise on area roadways, they appropriately do not reflect noise contributions from the surrounding stationary noise sources within the Project study area. Tables 8-1 through 8-6 present a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise levels, without barrier attenuation. Roadway segments are analyzed from the without Project to the with Project conditions in each of the following timeframes: Existing 2020, Opening Year Cumulative 2022, and Horizon Year 2040. Appendix 8.1 includes a summary of the dBA CNEL traffic noise level contours for each of the traffic scenarios. TABLE 8-1: EXISTING 2020 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.1 137 296 637 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.1 137 295 636 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 75.9 137 295 635 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 75.8 135 290 625 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.3 RW 53 115 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 65.8 RW 50 108 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 64.4 RW RW 86 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 75.2 121 261 563 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.7 131 283 609 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.4 125 269 580 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.3 124 267 576 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 65.5 RW 48 103 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 36 TABLE 8-2: EXISTING 2020 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.1 138 297 640 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.2 139 300 647 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.0 139 299 643 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 75.9 136 293 630 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.4 RW 54 117 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.2 RW 53 114 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 64.7 RW RW 90 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 75.2 123 265 570 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.8 133 286 617 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.4 127 273 589 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.4 126 270 583 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 65.7 RW 49 106 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. TABLE 8-3: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE 2022 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.4 145 313 675 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.5 146 314 676 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.3 145 313 674 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.2 143 308 664 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.5 RW 56 120 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.2 RW 53 113 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 64.7 RW RW 91 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 75.6 129 278 599 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.0 138 298 642 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.7 132 284 612 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.6 131 282 607 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 65.8 RW 50 107 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 37 TABLE 8-4: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE 2022 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.5 146 315 678 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.6 148 318 686 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.4 147 317 682 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.3 144 311 669 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.6 RW 57 122 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.5 RW 55 119 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 65.0 RW 44 95 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 75.6 131 281 606 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.1 140 302 650 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.8 134 288 620 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.7 132 285 614 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 66.0 RW 51 110 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. TABLE 8-5: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITHOUT PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.9 156 335 723 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.9 157 338 729 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.8 157 337 727 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.7 155 333 718 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.9 RW 59 128 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.6 RW 56 121 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 65.1 RW 45 97 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 77.3 169 363 782 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 77.2 166 357 769 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.1 141 303 653 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.1 139 300 647 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 66.2 RW 53 114 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 38 TABLE 8-6: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT NOISE CONTOURS ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Nearest Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Distance to Contour from Centerline (Feet) 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL 60 dBA CNEL 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.9 156 337 725 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 76.0 159 343 738 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.9 158 341 734 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.8 156 336 723 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 67.0 RW 60 130 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.9 RW 59 126 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 65.4 RW 47 101 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 77.3 170 366 788 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 77.2 167 360 776 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.2 142 306 660 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.1 141 303 654 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 66.4 RW 54 117 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the nearest receiving land use. "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. 8.2 EXISTING 2020 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES An analysis of existing traffic noise levels plus traffic noise generated by the proposed Project has been included in this report to fully analyze all the existing traffic scenarios identified in the Foothill Center Traffic Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. This condition is provided solely for informational purposes and will not occur, since the Project will not be fully developed and occupied under Existing conditions. Therefore, no mitigation measures are considered to reduce the Existing Plus Project traffic noise level increases. The Opening Year Cumulative 2022 and Horizon Year 2040 traffic noise conditions that include all cumulative projects are used to determine the significance of the Project off-site traffic noise level increases on the study area roadway segments. Table 8-1 shows the Existing 2020 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Existing 2020 without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 64.4 to 75.9 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 8-2 shows the Existing 2020 with Project conditions range from 64.7 to 76.0 dBA CNEL. Table 8-7 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.4 dBA CNEL. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 39 8.3 OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE 2022 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Table 8-3 presents the Opening Year Cumulative 2022 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Opening Year Cumulative 2022 without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 64.7 to 76.3 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 8-4 shows the Opening Year Cumulative 2022 with Project conditions range from 65.0 to 76.4 dBA CNEL. Table 8-8 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off- site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels 8.4 HORIZON YEAR 2040 PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Table 8-5 presents the Horizon Year 2040 without Project conditions CNEL noise levels. The Horizon Year 2040 without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 65.1 to 77.3 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. Table 8-6 shows the Horizon Year 2040 with Project conditions range from 65.4 to 77.3 dBA CNEL. Table 8-9 shows that the Project off-site traffic noise level increases range from 0.0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. Based on the significance criteria for off-site traffic noise presented in Table 4-1, land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level impacts due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 40 TABLE 8-7: EXISTING 2020 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded? 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.1 75.1 0.0 3.0 No 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.1 75.2 0.1 3.0 No 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 75.9 76.0 0.1 3.0 No 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 75.8 75.9 0.1 3.0 No 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.3 66.4 0.1 5.0 No 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 65.8 66.2 0.4 5.0 No 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 64.4 64.7 0.3 5.0 No 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 75.2 75.2 0.0 1.5 No 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.7 75.8 0.1 3.0 No 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.4 75.4 0.0 3.0 No 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.3 75.4 0.1 3.0 No 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 65.5 65.7 0.2 5.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 41 TABLE 8-8: OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE 2022 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded? 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.4 75.5 0.1 3.0 No 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.5 75.6 0.1 3.0 No 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.3 76.4 0.1 3.0 No 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.2 76.3 0.1 3.0 No 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.5 66.6 0.1 5.0 No 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.2 66.5 0.3 5.0 No 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 64.7 65.0 0.3 5.0 No 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 75.6 75.6 0.0 1.5 No 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.0 76.1 0.1 3.0 No 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.7 75.8 0.1 3.0 No 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 75.6 75.7 0.1 3.0 No 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 65.8 66.0 0.2 5.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 42 TABLE 8-9: HORIZON YEAR 2040 WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES ID Road Segment Receiving Land Use1 CNEL at Receiving Land Use (dBA)2 Incremental Noise Level Increase Threshold3 No Project With Project Project Addition Limit Exceeded? 1 Haven Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.9 75.9 0.0 3.0 No 2 Haven Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 75.9 76.0 0.1 3.0 No 3 Haven Ave. n/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.8 76.9 0.1 3.0 No 4 Haven Ave. s/o Civic Center Dr. Non-Sensitive 76.7 76.8 0.1 3.0 No 5 Aspen Ave. n/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.9 67.0 0.1 5.0 No 6 Aspen Ave. s/o Foothill Blvd. Non-Sensitive 66.6 66.9 0.3 5.0 No 7 Aspen Ave. s/o Laurel St. Non-Sensitive 65.1 65.4 0.3 5.0 No 8 Foothill Blvd. w/o Haven Ave. Sensitive 77.3 77.3 0.0 1.5 No 9 Foothill Blvd. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 77.2 77.2 0.0 3.0 No 10 Foothill Blvd. w/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.1 76.2 0.1 3.0 No 11 Foothill Blvd. e/o Aspen Ave. Non-Sensitive 76.1 76.1 0.0 3.0 No 12 Civic Center Dr. e/o Haven Ave. Non-Sensitive 66.2 66.4 0.2 5.0 No 1 Based on a review of existing aerial imagery. Noise sensitive uses limited to existing residential land uses. 2 The CNEL is calculated at the boundary of the right-of-way of each roadway and the property line of the receiving land use. 3 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria (Table 4-1)? "RW" = Location of the respective noise contour falls within the right-of-way of the road. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 43 9 ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS A noise impact analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure levels that would result from the adjacent transportation noise sources, and to identify potential noise mitigation measures that would achieve acceptable Project exterior and interior noise levels. The primary source of traffic noise affecting the Project site is anticipated to be from Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue as shown on Exhibit 9-A. EXHIBIT 9-A: ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE ANALYSIS LOCATIONS 9.1 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS A review of the Project site plan suggests that the areas subject to the City of Rancho Cucamonga exterior noise level standards will be limited to the first-floor patio areas, balconies and outdoor common areas (pool and adjacent courtyard spaces). Using the FHWA traffic noise prediction model, and the parameters outlined in Section 7, the expected future exterior noise levels were calculated. Table 9-1 presents a summary of the future unmitigated exterior noise levels at the building façade facing Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue. The unmitigated exterior traffic noise levels are estimated to range from 50.9 to 72.2 dBA CNEL. The exterior noise level calculations are included in Appendix 9.1. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 44 TABLE 9-1: UNMITIGATED EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Land Use Receiver Location1 Roadway Unmitigated Exterior Noise Level (dBA CNEL)2 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor Commercial Bldg. A & B Foothill Blvd. 72.2 -3 -3 -3 -3 Residential Bldg. A & B Foothill Blvd. 72.2 72.1 72.0 71.8 71.5 Pool Foothill Blvd. 62.1 -3 -3 -3 -3 Bldg. A Haven Av. 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.8 61.7 Bldg. C1 Haven Av. 61.1 61.1 61.1 61.1 61.1 Bldg. B Aspen Av. 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 50.9 Bldg. C2 Aspen Av. 50.7 50.7 50.7 50.7 50.7 1 Receiver located one foot behind the patio and/or balcony as shown on Exhibit 9-A. 2 Exterior noise level calculations are included in Appendix 9.1. 3 Use limited to the first floor only. Table 9-1 shows that the unmitigated exterior noise levels at the first-floor patio and balconies for units in Building A and B facing Foothill Boulevard will experience potentially significant exterior noise levels exceeding the City of Rancho Cucamonga 65 dBA CNEL criteria for residential land use. To satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga exterior noise criteria for the planned residential use, the construction of a minimum 6-foot-high noise barrier is required for all outdoor living areas (first floor patios and second, third, fourth and fifth floor balconies) in Buildings A and B facing Foothill Boulevard. Table 9-2 shows that the future exterior noise levels with the required 6-foot-high noise barrier will range from 63.2 to 63.9 dBA CNEL. The on-site traffic noise analysis shows that the recommended 6-foot-high noise for the outdoor living areas (first floor patios and second, third, fourth and fifth floor balconies) in Buildings A and B facing Foothill Boulevard will satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standards for residential land use. Therefore, the on-site traffic noise level impacts are less than significant with mitigation. TABLE 9-2: MITIGATED EXTERIOR TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS Land Use Receiver Location1 Roadway Mitigated Exterior Noise Level (dBA CNEL)2 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor 5th Floor Residential Bldg. A & B Foothill Blvd. 63.9 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.2 1 Receiver located one foot behind the patio and/or balcony as shown on Exhibit 9-A. 2 Mitigated exterior noise levels include a 6-foot-high patio wall/balcony enclosure. Exterior noise level calculations are included in Appendix 9.1. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 45 9.2 INTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS To ensure that the interior noise levels comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga interior noise level standards, future exterior noise levels were calculated at the first, second, third, fourth and fifth floor building facade’s locations for planned residential use, and at the first floor façade where the planned commercial retail land use is located. 9.2.1 NOISE REDUCTION METHODOLOGY The interior noise level is the difference between the predicted exterior noise level at the building façade and the noise reduction of the structure. Typical building construction will provide a Noise Reduction (NR) of approximately 12 dBA with "windows open" and a minimum 25 dBA noise reduction with "windows closed." (5) (11) However, sound leaks, cracks and openings within the window assembly can greatly diminish its effectiveness in reducing noise. Several methods are used to improve interior noise reduction, including: [1] weather-stripped solid core exterior doors; [2] upgraded dual glazed windows; [3] mechanical ventilation/air conditioning; and [4] exterior wall/roof assembles free of cut outs or openings. 9.2.2 UNMITIGATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT Table 9-3 shows that the future unmitigated exterior noise levels at the building façades are expected to range from 50.7 to 72.2 dBA CNEL. Table 9-2 shows that the estimated interior noise levels using typical building construction and standard windows will provide an interior noise level reduction of 25 dBA. With standard windows, residential units facing Foothill Boulevard, Haven Avenue and Aspen Avenue will experience unmitigated interior levels ranging from 25.7 to 47.2 dBA CNEL. The interior noise levels at the first-floor commercial retail uses in the building facades facing Foothill Boulevard are expected to experience noise levels of 47.2 dBA Leq and will satisfy the 50 dBA Leq noise level requirements for non-residential buildings (CALGreen Section 5.507 Environmental Comfort). However, the interior noise levels at the for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth floor building facades for residential units facing Foothill Boulevard in Buildings A & B exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard and represents a potentially significant impact requiring interior noise mitigation. 9.2.3 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS To describe the potential interior noise mitigation, the noise reduction characteristics of the Project were evaluated by combining the transmission loss of each of the building components that make up the building. Each unique component has a transmission loss value. For residential homes, the critical building components include the roof, walls, windows, doors, and attic configuration and insulation characteristics. The total noise reduction is dependent upon the transmission loss of each element and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. To account for the acoustic energy absorbed within a room, the absorption coefficients for individual surface areas such as drywall and carpet are used to calculate the interior room effects. The calculated building noise reduction includes both the transmission loss associated with the exterior wall assembly and the room absorption characteristics. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 46 TABLE 9-3: UNMITIGATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) Land Use Receiver Location Roadway Floor Noise Level at Façade1 Required Interior NR2 Typical Interior NR3 Interior Noise Level4 Threshold Threshold Exceeded? Commercial Bldg. A & B Foothill Blvd. 1 72.2 22.2 25.0 47.2 50 No Residential 1 72.2 27.2 25.0 47.2 45 Yes 2 72.1 27.1 25.0 47.1 45 Yes 3 72.0 27.0 25.0 47.0 45 Yes 4 71.8 26.8 25.0 46.8 45 Yes 5 71.5 26.5 26.0 45.5 45 Yes Residential Bldg. A Haven Av. 1-5 61.8 16.8 25.0 36.8 45 No Residential Bldg. C1 Haven Av. 1-5 61.1 16.1 25.0 36.1 45 No Residential Bldg. B Aspen Av. 1-5 50.9 5.9 25.0 25.9 45 No Residential Bldg. C2 Aspen Av. 1-5 50.7 5.7 25.0 25.7 45 No 1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air cond itioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the interior noise level standards (See Section 6.3) 3 Typical building construction interior noise reduction with standard windows. 4 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. "NR" = Noise Reduction Noise reduction calculations are based on the conceptual architectural floor plans for the Project. (21) The floor plans for individual bedrooms of the Foothill Center Project were used to estimate the "windows closed" interior noise levels. To satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga NR requirements for exterior noise levels, the calculations were completed using standard windows with a minimum sound transmission class (STC) of 27, in addition to upgraded windows with minimum STC ratings of 30. Table 9-3 shows the calculated interior noise reductions. The interior noise reduction calculations are included in Appendix 9.2. TABLE 9-4: NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS Floor Plans Adjacent to Roadways Sample Rooms1 Calculated Noise Level Reduction (STC 27) "Standard Windows"2 Calculated Noise Level Reduction (STC 30) "Upgraded Windows"2 P1-1 Master Bedroom 27.0 29.5 P1-3 Master Bedroom 27.5 30.0 P1-L Master Bedroom 27.7 30.1 P2-1 Master Bedroom 27.7 30.2 P2-2 Master Bedroom 27.6 30.1 Commercial Retail3 25.0 - 1 Sample is based on the interior habitable room(s) with exterior walls and openings (windows, doors, etc.). 2 Interior noise reduction calculations included in Appendix 9.2. 3 Standard building construction (CALGreen) typically provides up to 25 dBA of attenuation. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 47 9.2.4 MITIGATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL ASSESSMENT Using the calculated interior noise levels based on the noise reduction calculations for individual rooms within the Foothill Center Project, we can estimate the interior noise levels with upgraded windows. Table 9-5 presents the mitigated interior noise levels (CNEL) with the following mitigation measures are required to satisfy the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard: • Windows & Glass Doors: o Windows and glass doors of residential units and rooms (all floors) within Building A1 and A2 facing Foothill Boulevard require minimum sound transmission class (STC) ratings of 30; o All other units require windows and glass doors with minimum STC ratings of 27. All windows and glass doors shall be well-fitted, well-weather-stripped assemblies. • Exterior Doors (Non-Glass): All exterior doors shall be well weather-stripped. Well-sealed perimeter gaps around the doors are essential to achieve the optimal STC rating. (22) All units require exterior doors with minimum STC ratings of 27. • Walls: At any penetrations of exterior walls by pipes, ducts, or conduits, the space between the wall and pipes, ducts, or conduits shall be caulked or filled with mortar to form an airtight seal. • Roof: Roof sheathing of wood construction shall be per manufacturer’s specification or caulked plywood of at least one-half inch thick. Ceilings shall be per manufacturer’s specification or well- sealed gypsum board of at least one-half inch thick. Insulation with at least a rating of R-19 shall be used in the attic space. • Ventilation: Arrangements for any habitable room shall be such that any exterior door or window can be kept closed when the room is in use and still receive circulated air. A forced air circulation system (e.g. air conditioning) or active ventilation system (e.g. fresh air supply) shall be provided which satisfies the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Table 9-5 shows that the interior noise levels with mitigation will range from 42.0 to 42.7 dBA CNEL. The interior noise levels satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga interior 45 dBA CNEL standard and will be less than significant with mitigation. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 48 TABLE 9-4: MITIGATED INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS (CNEL) Land Use Receiver Location Roadway Floor Noise Level at Façade1 Required Interior NR2 Minimum Calculated Interior NR3 Upgraded Windows4 Interior Noise Level5 Threshold Threshold Exceeded? Residential Bldg. A & B Foothill Blvd. 1 72.2 27.2 29.5 Yes 42.7 45 No 2 72.1 27.1 29.5 Yes 42.6 45 No 3 72.0 27.0 29.5 Yes 42.5 45 No 4 71.8 26.8 29.5 Yes 42.3 45 No 5 71.5 26.5 29.5 Yes 42.0 45 No 1 Exterior noise level at the facade with a windows closed condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioning). 2 Noise reduction required to satisfy the interior noise level standards. 3 Calculated interior noise reduction with upgraded windows (STC 30) from all rooms Table 9-4. 4 Does the required interior noise reduction trigger upgraded windows with a minimum STC rating of greater than 27? 5 Estimated interior noise level with minimum STC rating for all windows. "NR" = Noise Reduction Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 49 10 OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS This section analyzes the potential stationary-source operational noise impacts at the nearby receiver locations, identified in Section 5, resulting from the operation of the proposed Foothill Center Project. Exhibit 10-A identifies the noise source locations used to assess the operational noise levels. 10.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCES The proposed Project will be developed to support multi-family residential and commercial land use. It is expected the on-site Project-related noise sources will include: roof-top air conditioning, outdoor/roof deck activity, pool activity, trash enclosure activity and parking activity. This noise analysis is intended to describe noise level impacts associated with the planned operational activities at the Project site. 10.2 OPERATIONAL REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 10-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts. It is important to note that the following projected noise levels assume the worst-case noise environment with the roof-top air conditioning, outdoor/roof deck activity, pool activity, trash enclosure activity and parking activity all operating at the same time. These noise level impacts will likely vary throughout the day. 10.2.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES The reference noise level measurements presented in this section were collected using Larson Davis Type 1 and Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meters and dataloggers. All sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 200, was programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form and was located at approximately five feet above the ground elevation for each measurement. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (14) Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 50 EXHIBIT 10-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 51 TABLE 10-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Noise Source1 Noise Source Height (Feet) Min./Hour2 Reference Noise Level @50' (dBA Leq) Sound Power Level (dBA)3 Day Night Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 5' 39 28 57.2 88.9 Outdoor/Roof Deck Activity 5' 60 0 59.8 91.5 Pool Activity 5' 60 0 48.7 80.4 Trash Enclosure Activity 5' 20 0 57.3 89.0 Parking Activity 5' 60 60 59.7 91.4 1 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2 Anticipated duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during typical hourly conditions expected at the Project site. "Day" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Night" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 3 Sound power level represents the total amount of acoustical energy (noise level) produced by a sound source independent of distance or surroundings. Sound power levels calculated using the CadnaA noise model at the reference distance to the noise source. 10.2.2 ROOF-TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS To assess the noise levels created by the roof-top air conditioning units, reference noise level measurements were collected from a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. At the uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise levels are 57.2 dBA Leq. Based on the typical operating conditions observed over a four-day measurement period, the roof-top air conditioning units are estimated to operate for an average of 39 minutes per hour during the daytime hours, and 28 minutes per hour during the nighttime hours. For this noise analysis, the air conditioning units are expected to be located on the roof of the proposed building. This reference noise level describes the expected roof-top air conditioning units located 5 feet above the roof. 10.2.3 OUTDOOR/ROOF DECK ACTIVITY To describe the outdoor common area courtyards activity areas, a reference noise level measurement was taken at the Louie’s by the Bay in Newport Beach. At 50 feet, the reference noise level is 59.8 dBA Leq at a noise source height of 5 feet. The reference noise level measurement includes outdoor eating, drinking, with laughing and talking. Outdoor common area and roof deck activities area are limited to the daytime hours only. 10.2.4 POOL ACTIVITY To represent the noise levels associated with pool activities, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at the Covenant Hill Clubhouse Pool in the unincorporated community of Ladera Ranch in the County of Orange. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 48.7 dBA Leq for pool activity. The pool activity noise levels include kids playing, running, screaming, splashing, playing with a ball, and parents talking. Noise associated with pool activities is expected to occur for the entire hour (60 minutes). Pool activities area are limited to the daytime hours only. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 52 10.2.5 TRASH ACTIVITY To describe the noise levels associated with a trash enclosure, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at an existing commercial and office park trash enclosure within a parking lot on the northeast corner of Baker Street and Red Hill Avenue. The measured reference noise level at the uniform 50-foot reference distance is 57.3 dBA Leq for the trash enclosure activity. The trash enclosure activity noise levels include two metal gates opening and closing, metal scraping against concrete floor sounds, dumpster movement on metal wheels, trash dropping into the metal dumpster, and background parking lot vehicle movements. Noise associated with trash enclosure activities is conservatively expected to occur for 20 minutes per daytime hour. 10.2.6 PARKING ACTIVITY To describe the noise levels associated with the parking activities, Urban Crossroads collected a reference noise level measurement at the Old Town West Parking structure in the City of Orange. At a uniform 50-foot reference distance, the reference noise level measured 59.7 dBA Leq. The parking activities describe vehicle navigating the parking lot, vehicles parking with drivers and passengers entering and exiting the vehicle. The parking activities are expected to occur for 24 hours per day. 10.3 CADNAA NOISE PREDICTION MODEL To fully describe the exterior operational noise levels from the Project, Urban Crossroads, Inc. developed a noise prediction model using the CadnaA (Computer Aided Noise Abatement) computer program. CadnaA can analyze multiple types of noise sources using the spatially accurate Project site plan, georeferenced Nearmap aerial imagery, topography, buildings, and barriers in its calculations to predict outdoor noise levels. Using the ISO 9613 protocol, CadnaA will calculate the distance from each noise source to the noise receiver locations, using the ground absorption, distance, and barrier/building attenuation inputs to provide a summary of noise level at each receiver and the partial noise level contributions by noise source. Consistent with the ISO 9613 protocol, the CadnaA noise prediction model relies on the reference sound power level (Lw) to describe individual noise sources. While sound pressure levels (e.g. Leq) quantify in decibels the intensity of given sound sources at a reference distance, so und power levels (Lw) are connected to the sound source and are independent of distance. Sound pressure levels vary substantially with distance from the source and diminish from intervening obstacles and barriers, air absorption, wind, and other factors. Sound power is the acoustical energy emitted by the sound source and is an absolute value that is not affected by the environment. The operational noise level calculations provided in this noise study account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. A default ground attenuation factor of 0.0 was used in the CadnaA noise analysis to account for hard site conditions. Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 53 10.4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Using the reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations that include roof- top air conditioning, outdoor/roof deck activity, pool activity, trash enclosure activity and parking activity, Urban Crossroads, Inc. calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project-related noise level increase that would be experienced at each of the nearby receiver locations. Tables 10-2 shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are estimated to range from 50.4 to 60.3 dBA Leq. TABLE 10-2: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 45.6 40.3 47.8 38.8 42.4 40.2 Outdoor/Roof Deck Activity 41.9 35.3 52.5 33.2 30.1 38.7 Pool Activity 26.1 16.6 40.9 12.6 14.9 10.5 Trash Enclosure Activity 44.3 35.3 36.2 33.9 51.0 35.3 Parking Activity 60.0 51.3 54.8 50.5 59.0 49.5 Total (All Noise Sources) 60.3 51.8 57.5 50.9 59.7 50.4 1 See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.1. Tables 10-3 shows the Project operational noise levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 36.4 to 45.4 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels is largely related to the duration of noise activity (Table 10-1). Noise activity associated with the outdoor/roof deck, pool, and trash enclosures, are expected to be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Appendix 10.1 includes the detailed noise model inputs including used to estimate the Project operational noise levels presented in this section. TABLE 10-3: NIGHTTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Noise Source1 Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Roof-Top Air Conditioning Units 43.2 37.9 45.4 36.4 40.0 37.8 Outdoor/Roof Deck Activity -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Pool Activity -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Trash Enclosure Activity -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 Parking Activity 60.0 51.3 54.8 50.5 59.0 49.5 Total (All Noise Sources) 43.2 37.9 45.4 36.4 40.0 37.8 1 See Exhibit 10-A for the noise source locations. CadnaA noise model calculations are included in Appendix 10.1. 2 No planned nighttime activity for the noise source. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 54 10.5 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the estimated Project-only operational noise levels at nearby receiver locations are evaluated against the City of Rancho Cucamonga exterior noise level standards. Table 10-4 shows that the operational noise levels associated with Foothill Center Project will satisfy the City of Rancho Cucamonga daytime and nighttime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise impacts are considered less than significant. TABLE 10-4: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver Location1 Receiving Land Use Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA Leq)2 Noise Level Standards (dBA Leq)3 Noise Level Standards Exceeded?4 Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime R1 Office 60.3 43.2 70 65 No No R2 Commercial 51.8 37.9 70 65 No No R3 Office 57.5 45.4 70 65 No No R4 Residential 50.9 36.4 65 60 No No R5 Commercial 59.7 40.0 70 65 No No R6 Commercial 50.4 37.8 70 65 No No 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the receiver locations. 2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 10-3 and 10-4. 3 Exterior noise level standards by land use, as shown on Table 3-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 10.6 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES To describe the Project operational noise level increases, the Project operational noise levels are combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the nearest receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (3) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation: SPLTotal = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + … 10SPLn/10] Where “SPL1,” “SPL2,” etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project-operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describe the Project noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project - source noise is added to the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. Tables 10-5 and 10-6 show that the Project will generate an unmitigated daytime and nighttime operational noise level increases ranging from 0.4 to 2.8 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Project-related operational noise level increases will satisfy the operational noise level increase significance criteria presented in Section 6.3. Therefore, the incremental Project operational noise level increase is considered less than significant at all receiver locations. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 55 TABLE 10-5: DAYTIME PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Noise Sensitive Land Use? Increase Criteria7 Increase Criteria Exceeded?7 R1 60.3 L3 67.9 68.6 0.7 No 5.0 No R2 51.8 L2 56.5 57.8 1.3 No 5.0 No R3 57.5 L3 67.9 68.3 0.4 No 5.0 No R4 50.9 L4 58.7 59.4 0.7 Yes 5.0 No R5 59.7 L3 67.9 68.5 0.6 No 5.0 No R6 50.4 L5 54.1 55.7 1.6 No 5.0 No 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project daytime operational noise levels as shown on Table 10-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 4-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 4-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown in Section 6.3. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 56 TABLE 10-6: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Receiver Location1 Total Project Operational Noise Level2 Measurement Location3 Reference Ambient Noise Levels4 Combined Project and Ambient5 Project Increase6 Noise Sensitive Land Use? Increase Criteria7 Increase Criteria Exceeded?7 R1 60.3 L3 67.1 67.9 0.8 No 5.0 No R2 51.8 L2 52.7 55.3 2.6 No 5.0 No R3 57.5 L3 67.1 67.5 0.4 No 5.0 No R4 50.9 L4 56.5 57.6 1.1 Yes 5.0 No R5 59.7 L3 67.1 67.8 0.7 No 5.0 No R6 50.4 L5 50.9 53.7 2.8 No 5.0 No 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the receiver locations. 2 Total Project nighttime operational noise levels as shown on Table 10-3. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 4-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 4-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown in Section 6.3. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 57 11 CONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 11-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 5. 11.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCES Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages. • Demolition • Site Preparation • Grading • Building Construction • Paving • Architectural Coating This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. The reference construction noise level measurements represent peak operating activities with multiple pieces of construction equipment operating concurrently with no periods of inactivity. This approach is used to present a conservative analysis, and therefore, does not include any usage factors that may reduce the average construction noise levels. 11.2 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS To describe the Project construction noise levels, measurements were collected for similar activities at several construction sites. Table 11-1 provides a summary of the construction reference noise level measurements. Since the reference noise levels were collected at varying distances of 30 feet and 50 feet, all construction noise level measurements presented on Table 11-1 have been adjusted for consistency to describe a uniform reference distance of 50 feet. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 58 EXHIBIT 11-A: CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 59 TABLE 11-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS Construction Stage Reference Construction Activity1 Reference Noise Level @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq) Highest Reference Noise Level (dBA Leq) Demolition Demolition Activity 67.9 71.9 Backhoe 64.2 Water Truck Pass-By & Backup Alarm 71.9 Site Preparation Scraper, Water Truck, & Dozer Activity 75.3 75.3 Backhoe 64.2 Water Truck Pass-By & Backup Alarm 71.9 Grading Rough Grading Activities 73.5 73.5 Water Truck Pass-By & Backup Alarm 71.9 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 67.5 Building Construction Foundation Trenching 68.2 71.6 Framing 62.3 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes 71.6 Paving Concrete Mixer Truck Movements 71.2 71.2 Concrete Paver Activities 65.6 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 65.9 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 65.2 65.2 Generator 64.9 Crane 62.3 1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. 11.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To describe the construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at boundary of the primary construction activity area. It is expected that the background construction noise levels associated with the secondary construction area will be limited and generally overshadowed by the primary construction activities. Table 11-2 shows that the unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 61.0 to 70.0 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. Appendix 11.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 60 TABLE 11-2: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY Receiver Location1 Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Demolition Site Preparation Grading Building Construction Paving Architectural Coating Highest Levels2 R1 65.0 68.4 66.6 64.7 64.3 58.3 68.4 R2 58.6 62.0 60.2 58.3 57.9 51.9 62.0 R3 63.2 66.6 64.8 62.9 62.5 56.5 66.6 R4 57.6 61.0 59.2 57.3 56.9 50.9 61.0 R5 66.6 70.0 68.2 66.3 65.9 59.9 70.0 R6 58.8 62.2 60.4 58.5 58.1 52.1 62.2 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the primary construction activity area to nearby receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 11.1. 11.4 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearby receiver locations, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has established a construction-related noise level threshold of 65 dBA Leq for noise sensitive residential land use and 70 dBA Leq for commercial, office and industrial land uses. The analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will satisfy City of Rancho Cucamonga construction-related noise level significance thresholds during Project construction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise is considered less than significant at all noise sensitive receiver locations. TABLE 11-3: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver Location1 Receiving Land Use Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq) Highest Construction Noise Levels2 Construction Noise Level Threshold3 Threshold Exceeded?4 R1 Office 68.4 70 No R2 Commercial 62.0 70 No R3 Office 66.6 70 No R4 Residential 61.0 65 No R5 Office 70.0 70 No R6 Commercial 62.2 70 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 11-A. 2 Highest construction noise levels based on the distance from the primary source of construction activity to nearby receiver locations as shown on Table 11-2. 3 Construction noise level thresholds as shown on Table 3-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 61 11.5 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground-borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Development Site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). (8) However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 11-4. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5 TABLE 11-4: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 Jackhammer 0.035 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Large bulldozer 0.089 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Table 11-5 presents the expected Project related construction vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations. At distances ranging from 49 feet (at location R5) to 450 feet (at location R4) from the Project construction activities, construction vibration levels are estimated to range from 0.001 to 0.032 PPV in/sec and will remain below the Caltrans 0.04 PPV in/sec human annoyance threshold at all receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related construction vibration impacts are considered less than significant. Further, vibration levels at the site of the closest sensitive receiver are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating simultaneously adjacent to the site perimeter. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 62 TABLE 11-5: TYPICAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS Receiver1 Distance to Const. Activity (Feet) Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)2 Threshold PPV (in/sec)3 Threshold Exceeded?4 Small Bulldozer (< 80k lbs) Jack- hammer Loaded Trucks Large Bulldozer (> 80k lbs) Highest Vibration Level R1 59' 0.001 0.010 0.021 0.025 0.025 0.04 No R2 360' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.04 No R3 205' 0.000 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.04 No R4 450' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.04 No R5 49' 0.001 0.013 0.028 0.032 0.032 0.04 No R6 286' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.04 No 1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 5-A. 2 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 11-4. 3 Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. 4 Does the vibration level exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold? Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 63 12 REFERENCES 1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018. 2. Urban Crossroads, Inc. Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Traffic Analysis. November, 2020. 3. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013. 4. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004. 5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011. 6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3. 7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981). EPA 550/9/82/106. 8. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. 9. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. 2017. 10. City of Rancho Cucamonga. General Plan Public Health and Safety Element. May 2010. 11. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. May 2011. 12. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Development Code, 17.66 Performance Standards. 13. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. 14. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. 15. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008. 16. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992. 17. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009. 18. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. December 1978. FHWA-RD-77-108. 19. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program, Office of Environmental Engineering. Use of California Vehicle Noise Reference Energy Mean Emission Levels (Calveno REMELs) in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction. September 1995. TAN 95-03. 20. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Attenuation as a Function of Ground and Vegetation Final Report. June 1995. FHWA/CA/TL-95/23. 21. KTGY Architecture & Planning. 10575 Foothill Blvd. Architectural Plans. February 13, 2019. 22. Harris, Cyril M. Noise Control in Buildings. s.l. : McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994. Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 64 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 65 13 CERTIFICATION The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Foothill Center Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 584-3148. Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE Principal URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 260 E. Baker Street, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 336-5979 blawson@urbanxroads.com EDUCATION Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS PE – Registered Professional Traffic Engineer – TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP – American Institute of Certified Planners – 013011 • June, 1997–January 1, 2012 PTP – Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 – May, 2013 INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ASA – Acoustical Society of America ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS Certified Acoustical Consultant – County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study 66 This page intentionally left blank Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE 67 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 68 8/13/2020 17.66.050 Noise standards. qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/view.php?topic=17-iv-17_66-17_66_050&frames=on 1/3 Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames Title 17 DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS Chapter 17.66 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 17.66.050 Noise standards. A.Purpose. In order to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration in the city, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the city to prohibit such noise generated from or by all sources as specified in this section. The provisions apply within all jurisdictions within all zoning districts. Provisions apply based on the designated noise zones: Noise Zone I: All single- and multiple-family residential properties. Noise Zone II: All commercial properties. B.Decibel measurement criteria. Any decibel measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be based on a reference sound pressure of 20 micropascals as measured with a sound level meter using the A- weighted network (scale) at slow response. C.Exterior noise standards. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or allow the creation of any noise on the property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on the property line of any other property to exceed the basic noise level as adjusted below: a. Basic noise level for a cumulative period of not more than 15 minutes in any one hour; or b. Basic noise level plus five dBA for a cumulative period of not more than ten minutes in any one hour; or c. Basic noise level plus 14 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than five minutes in any one hour; or d. Basic noise level plus 15 dBA at any time. 2. If the measurement location is a boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard shall apply. 3. If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, the measured noise level obtained while the noise is in operation shall be compared directly to the allowable noise level standards as specified respective to the measurement’s location, designated land use, and for the time of day the noise level is measured. The reasonableness of temporarily discontinuing the noise generation by an intruding noise source shall be determined by the planning director for the purpose of establishing the existing ambient noise level at the measurement location. D.Special exclusions. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this section: 1. City- or school-approved activities conducted on public parks, public playgrounds, and public or private school grounds including, but not limited to, athletic and school entertainment events between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. 2. Occasional outdoor gatherings, dances, shows, and sporting and entertainment events, provided said events are conducted pursuant to the approval of a temporary use permit issued by the city. 3. Any mechanical device, apparatus, or equipment used, related to, or connected with emergency machinery, vehicle, work, or warning alarm or bell, provided the sounding of any bell or alarm on any building or motor vehicle shall terminate its operation within 30 minutes in any hour of its being activated. 4. Noise sources associated with, or vibration created by, construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property or during authorized seismic surveys, provided said activities: 69 8/13/2020 17.66.050 Noise standards. qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/view.php?topic=17-iv-17_66-17_66_050&frames=on 2/3 a. When adjacent to a residential land use, school, church or similar type of use, the noise generating activity does not 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 provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA when measured at the adjacent property line. b. When adjacent to a commercial or industrial use, the noise generating activity does not take place between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday and Sunday, and provided noise levels created do not exceed the noise standards of 70 dBA at the when measured at the adjacent property line. 5. All devices, apparatus, or equipment associated with agricultural operations, provided: a. Operations do not take place between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. b. Such operations and equipment are utilized for protection or salvage of agricultural crops during periods of potential or actual frost damage or other adverse weather conditions. c. Such operations and equipment are associated with agricultural pest control through pesticide application, provided the application is made in accordance with permits issued by, or regulations enforced by, the state department of agriculture. 6. Noise sources associated with the maintenance of real property, provided said activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on any day. 7. Any activity to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal law. E.Schools, churches, libraries, health care institutions. It shall be unlawful for any person to create any noise which causes the noise level at any school, hospital or similar health care institution, church, or library while the same is in use, to exceed the noise standards specified in this section and prescribed for the assigned noise zone in which the school, hospital, church, or library is located. F.Residential noise standards. 1. Table 17.66.050-1 (Residential Noise Limits) includes the maximum noise limits in residential zones. These are the noise limits when measured at the adjacent residential property line (exterior) or within a neighboring home (interior). TABLE 17.66.050-1 RESIDENTIAL NOISE LIMITS Location of Measurement Maximum Allowable 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Exterior 60 dBA 65dBA Interior 45 dBA 50dBA Additional: (A) It shall be unlawful for any person at any location within the city to create any noise or to allow the creation of any noise which causes the noise level when measured within any other fully enclosed (windows and doors shut) residential dwelling unit to exceed the interior noise standard in the manner described herein. (B) If the intruding noise source is continuous and cannot reasonably be discontinued or stopped for a time period whereby the ambient noise level can be determined, each of the noise limits above shall be reduced five dBA for noise consisting of impulse or simple tone noise. 2.Other residential noise limitations. a.Peddlers; use of loud noise, etc., to advertise goods, etc. No peddler or mobile vendor or any person in their behalf shall shout, cry out, or use any device or instrument to make sounds for the purpose of advertising in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance. b.Animal noises. No person owning or having the charge, care, custody, or control of any dog or other animal or fowl shall allow or permit the same to habitually howl, bark, yelp, or make other noises, in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance. c.Radios, television sets, musical instruments, and similar devices. No person shall operate or permit the operation or playing of any device which reproduces, produces, or amplifies sound, such as a radio, musical instrument, phonograph, or sound amplifier, in such a manner as to create a noise disturbance. i. Across any real property boundary or within Noise Zone I, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on the following day (except for activities for which a temporary use permit has been70 8/13/2020 17.66.050 Noise standards. qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/view.php?topic=17-iv-17_66-17_66_050&frames=on 3/3 issued). ii. At 50 feet from any such device, if operated on or over any public right-of-way. G.Commercial and office noise provisions. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards: 1. All commercial and office activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 65 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 70 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. when measured at the adjacent property line. 2.Loading and unloading. No person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 3.Vehicle repairs and testing. No person shall cause or permit the repairing, rebuilding, modifying, or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, or motorboat in such a manner as to increase a noise disturbance between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. adjacent to a residential area. H. Industrial noise provision included in Table 17.66.110-1 (Industrial Performance Standards). (Code 1980, § 17.66.050; Ord. No. 855, § 4, 2012) View the mobile version. 71 8/19/2020 17.66.070 Vibration. qcode.us/codes/ranchocucamonga/1/1 Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames Title 17 DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE IV. SITE DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS Chapter 17.66 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 17.66.070 Vibration. Uses that generate vibrations that may be considered a public nuisance or hazard on any adjacent property shall be cushioned or isolated to prevent generation of vibrations. Uses shall be operated in compliance with the following provisions: A. No vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and is discernible without the aid of instruments at the points of measurement specified in section 17.66.030 (Points of Measurement) of this chapter, nor shall any vibration produced exceed 0.002g peak at up to 50 CPS frequency, measured at the point of measurement specified in section 17.66.030 (Points of Measurement) of this chapter using either seismic or electronic vibration measuring equipment. Vibrations occurring at higher than 50 CPS frequency of a periodic vibration shall not induce accelerations exceeding 0.001g. Single-impulse periodic vibrations occurring at an average interval greater than five minutes shall not induce accelerations exceeding 0.01g. B. Uses, activities, and processes shall not generate vibrations that cause discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons of normal sensitivity or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, or peace of residents whose property abuts the property line of the parcel. C. Uses shall not generate ground vibration that interferes with the operations of equipment and facilities of adjoining parcels. D. Vibrations from temporary construction/demolition and vehicles that leave the subject parcel (e.g., trucks, trains, and aircraft) are exempt from the provisions of this section. (Code 1980, § 17.66.070; Ord. No. 855, § 4, 2012) View the mobile version. 72 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 4.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS 73 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 74 JN: 12796 Study Area Photos L1_E 34, 6' 24.100000", 117, 34' 23.730000" L1_N 34, 6' 34.110000", 117, 34' 32.820000" L1_S 34, 6' 24.050000", 117, 34' 23.780000" L1_W 34, 6' 24.120000", 117, 34' 23.700000" L2_E 34, 6' 19.610000", 117, 34' 12.820000" L2_N 34, 6' 24.540000", 117, 34' 24.000000" 75 JN: 12796 Study Area Photos L2_S 34, 6' 19.840000", 117, 34' 12.800000" L2_W 34, 6' 19.540000", 117, 34' 12.770000" L3_E 34, 6' 17.640000", 117, 34' 26.910000" L3_N 34, 6' 17.750000", 117, 34' 26.890000" L3_S 34, 6' 17.560000", 117, 34' 27.020000" L3_W 34, 6' 17.680000", 117, 34' 26.910000" 76 JN: 12796 Study Area Photos L4_E 34, 6' 17.020000", 117, 34' 37.510000" L4_N 34, 6' 16.820000", 117, 34' 37.600000" L4_S 34, 6' 17.010000", 117, 34' 37.400000" L4_W 34, 6' 17.010000", 117, 34' 37.510000" 77 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 78 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 4.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS 79 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 80 Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo I JN:12796 Project:Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Analyst:P. Mara Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 58.8 85.1 42.9 68.0 66.0 62.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 44.0 44.0 43.0 58.8 10.0 68.8 1 52.9 72.8 45.8 63.0 61.0 57.0 55.0 50.0 48.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 52.9 10.0 62.9 2 53.1 73.2 45.4 63.0 61.0 58.0 55.0 50.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 45.0 53.1 10.0 63.1 3 52.9 73.1 45.7 62.0 60.0 58.0 56.0 51.0 49.0 46.0 46.0 46.0 52.9 10.0 62.9 4 57.6 76.9 50.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 56.0 54.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 57.6 10.0 67.6 5 60.2 78.7 48.8 71.0 68.0 65.0 63.0 59.0 55.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 60.2 10.0 70.2 6 61.1 79.3 50.9 70.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 60.0 57.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 61.1 10.0 71.1 7 61.5 77.3 52.0 69.0 67.0 65.0 64.0 62.0 59.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 61.5 0.0 61.5 8 60.6 79.1 47.5 69.0 67.0 65.0 63.0 61.0 58.0 53.0 51.0 48.0 60.6 0.0 60.6 9 62.7 91.0 45.9 69.0 67.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 57.0 51.0 50.0 47.0 62.7 0.0 62.7 10 61.5 82.2 47.8 71.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 61.0 58.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 61.5 0.0 61.5 11 61.7 86.9 46.9 71.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 60.0 58.0 53.0 51.0 48.0 61.7 0.0 61.7 12 60.9 76.1 48.7 70.0 67.0 65.0 64.0 61.0 58.0 54.0 53.0 50.0 60.9 0.0 60.9 13 62.8 87.7 47.7 72.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 61.0 58.0 53.0 52.0 50.0 62.8 0.0 62.8 14 62.9 83.3 49.3 72.0 70.0 67.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 62.9 0.0 62.9 15 62.2 81.8 51.2 70.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 61.0 59.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 62.2 0.0 62.2 16 62.8 84.6 50.2 72.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 62.0 60.0 56.0 55.0 53.0 62.8 0.0 62.8 17 62.7 81.1 51.2 71.0 69.0 66.0 65.0 62.0 60.0 56.0 55.0 53.0 62.7 0.0 62.7 18 61.6 80.7 50.0 70.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 61.0 59.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 61.6 0.0 61.6 19 61.1 79.2 46.8 71.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 60.0 57.0 51.0 50.0 48.0 61.1 5.0 66.1 20 61.3 85.9 45.8 71.0 68.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 56.0 51.0 49.0 47.0 61.3 5.0 66.3 21 59.2 78.6 44.9 70.0 67.0 64.0 62.0 58.0 54.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 59.2 5.0 64.2 22 58.3 81.1 43.7 67.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 57.0 52.0 46.0 45.0 44.0 58.3 10.0 68.3 23 58.9 78.4 47.7 68.0 65.0 63.0 62.0 59.0 54.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 58.9 10.0 68.9 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 60.6 76.1 45.9 69.0 67.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 57.0 51.0 50.0 47.0 Max 62.9 91.0 52.0 72.0 70.0 67.0 66.0 62.0 60.0 56.0 55.0 53.0 62.1 70.5 68.3 65.6 64.2 61.2 58.6 54.0 52.7 50.5 Min 59.2 78.6 44.9 70.0 67.0 64.0 62.0 58.0 54.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 Max 61.3 85.9 46.8 71.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 60.0 57.0 51.0 50.0 48.0 60.6 70.7 67.7 64.7 63.0 59.3 55.7 50.0 48.7 46.7 Min 52.9 72.8 42.9 62.0 60.0 57.0 55.0 50.0 48.0 44.0 44.0 43.0 Max 61.1 85.1 50.9 71.0 68.0 65.0 64.0 60.0 57.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 58.0 66.6 64.3 61.3 59.7 55.2 51.9 48.6 47.9 47.1 Evening L1 - Located north of the Project site on Foothill Boulevard near existing commercial plaza. 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary Thursday, January 09, 2020 Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted) Night Day Night L eq (dBA) Day Energy Average Average: 24-Hour Daytime Nighttime Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA) 60.7 61.8 58.0 Energy Average Average:65.6Night Energy Average Average:58.852.953.152.957.660.261.161.560.662.761.561.760.962.862.962.262.862.761.661.161.359.258.358.935.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Hourly Leq(dBA)Hour Beginning \\Uxr-fs\ucdata\UcJobs\_12600-13000\_12700\12796\Field Work\Measurements\12796_L1_H 81 Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo I JN:12796 Project:Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Analyst:P. Mara Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 51.6 75.1 46.4 57.0 56.0 54.0 53.0 51.0 50.0 47.0 47.0 46.0 51.6 10.0 61.6 1 45.3 58.5 40.9 53.0 51.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 44.0 42.0 41.0 41.0 45.3 10.0 55.3 2 50.7 65.1 44.8 57.0 56.0 55.0 55.0 50.0 48.0 46.0 45.0 45.0 50.7 10.0 60.7 3 49.0 68.5 45.2 53.0 52.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 46.0 46.0 45.0 49.0 10.0 59.0 4 52.0 62.9 47.9 58.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 49.0 48.0 52.0 10.0 62.0 5 53.3 68.1 47.5 60.0 59.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 49.0 53.3 10.0 63.3 6 54.7 67.3 49.7 61.0 60.0 58.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 51.0 50.0 54.7 10.0 64.7 7 55.0 70.9 46.2 64.0 62.0 60.0 58.0 54.0 52.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 55.0 0.0 55.0 8 57.6 77.3 45.9 67.0 65.0 61.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 50.0 48.0 57.6 0.0 57.6 9 56.9 80.7 45.5 68.0 64.0 60.0 58.0 53.0 51.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 56.9 0.0 56.9 10 56.0 78.5 46.0 66.0 63.0 60.0 59.0 54.0 51.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 56.0 0.0 56.0 11 55.4 74.3 45.3 66.0 63.0 60.0 58.0 54.0 51.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 55.4 0.0 55.4 12 56.2 77.2 45.4 65.0 64.0 61.0 60.0 55.0 51.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 56.2 0.0 56.2 13 54.1 70.6 46.8 63.0 61.0 58.0 57.0 53.0 51.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 54.1 0.0 54.1 14 54.5 73.9 46.1 63.0 61.0 58.0 57.0 53.0 51.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 54.5 0.0 54.5 15 55.9 74.6 48.6 65.0 63.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 55.9 0.0 55.9 16 55.9 76.2 48.1 65.0 63.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 55.9 0.0 55.9 17 55.7 72.7 47.4 63.0 61.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 55.7 0.0 55.7 18 54.7 72.4 45.6 64.0 62.0 59.0 57.0 53.0 51.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 54.7 0.0 54.7 19 52.4 69.9 45.6 61.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 51.0 49.0 47.0 47.0 46.0 52.4 5.0 57.4 20 51.9 69.0 45.2 61.0 59.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 49.0 47.0 46.0 45.0 51.9 5.0 56.9 21 51.7 69.5 43.3 59.0 58.0 56.0 55.0 52.0 48.0 45.0 44.0 44.0 51.7 5.0 56.7 22 50.1 70.3 42.6 59.0 57.0 54.0 53.0 49.0 46.0 44.0 43.0 43.0 50.1 10.0 60.1 23 51.8 76.6 42.4 62.0 59.0 55.0 53.0 48.0 46.0 43.0 43.0 42.0 51.8 10.0 61.8 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 54.1 70.6 45.3 63.0 61.0 58.0 57.0 53.0 51.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 Max 57.6 80.7 48.6 68.0 65.0 61.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 55.8 64.9 62.7 59.8 58.2 54.2 51.8 48.9 48.3 47.2 Min 51.7 69.0 43.3 59.0 58.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 48.0 45.0 44.0 44.0 Max 52.4 69.9 45.6 61.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 52.0 49.0 47.0 47.0 46.0 52.0 60.3 58.7 56.0 54.7 51.3 48.7 46.3 45.7 45.0 Min 45.3 58.5 40.9 53.0 51.0 48.0 47.0 45.0 44.0 42.0 41.0 41.0 Max 54.7 76.6 49.7 62.0 60.0 58.0 57.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 51.0 50.0 51.6 57.8 56.2 54.0 53.0 50.2 48.6 46.4 46.0 45.4 Evening L2 - Located east of the Project site in a parking lot near Root 66 Endodontics. 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary Wednesday, January 08, 2020 Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted) Night Day Night L eq (dBA) Day Energy Average Average: 24-Hour Daytime Nighttime Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA) 54.2 55.2 51.6 Energy Average Average:59.0Night Energy Average Average:51.645.350.749.052.053.354.755.057.656.956.055.456.254.154.555.955.955.754.752.451.951.750.151.835.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Hourly Leq(dBA)Hour Beginning \\Uxr-fs\ucdata\UcJobs\_12600-13000\_12700\12796\Field Work\Measurements\12796_L2_I 82 Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo I JN:12796 Project:Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Analyst:P. Mara Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 1 53.8 67.4 51.5 58.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 53.8 10.0 63.8 2 53.2 57.9 51.6 55.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 53.2 10.0 63.2 3 54.4 65.8 52.0 60.0 58.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 54.4 10.0 64.4 4 54.8 67.6 52.6 59.0 57.0 56.0 56.0 54.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 53.0 54.8 10.0 64.8 5 55.8 71.9 53.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 57.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 54.0 53.0 55.8 10.0 65.8 6 54.5 72.5 50.7 59.0 59.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 54.5 10.0 64.5 7 58.9 79.8 51.4 69.0 65.0 62.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 58.9 10.0 68.9 8 53.6 70.1 50.2 59.0 57.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 53.6 0.0 53.6 9 56.1 77.5 51.3 63.0 60.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 56.1 0.0 56.1 10 56.4 77.9 51.5 63.0 60.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 56.4 0.0 56.4 11 57.0 66.7 53.0 63.0 62.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 54.0 54.0 57.0 0.0 57.0 12 59.0 72.6 53.5 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.0 60.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 54.0 59.0 0.0 59.0 13 56.5 66.1 53.9 60.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 56.0 55.0 55.0 54.0 56.5 0.0 56.5 14 56.8 67.4 54.5 62.0 60.0 59.0 57.0 56.0 56.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 56.8 0.0 56.8 15 57.1 73.4 53.8 62.0 61.0 59.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 55.0 55.0 54.0 57.1 0.0 57.1 16 59.0 72.7 54.9 65.0 63.0 62.0 61.0 59.0 58.0 56.0 56.0 55.0 59.0 0.0 59.0 17 56.2 70.3 51.5 62.0 60.0 58.0 57.0 56.0 55.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 56.2 0.0 56.2 18 54.5 69.2 51.5 61.0 58.0 56.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 54.5 0.0 54.5 19 55.3 68.7 51.5 63.0 62.0 59.0 57.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 55.3 0.0 55.3 20 54.0 63.4 51.7 60.0 58.0 55.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 54.0 5.0 59.0 21 53.4 69.9 51.3 58.0 57.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 53.4 5.0 58.4 22 53.2 70.5 50.6 59.0 57.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 53.2 5.0 58.2 23 52.5 64.4 50.7 55.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 52.5 10.0 62.5 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 53.6 66.1 50.2 59.0 57.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 Max 59.0 77.9 54.9 65.0 63.0 63.0 62.0 60.0 58.0 56.0 56.0 55.0 56.7 62.2 60.4 58.7 57.5 56.2 55.0 53.7 53.4 53.1 Min 53.2 63.4 50.6 58.0 57.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 51.0 51.0 Max 54.0 70.5 51.7 60.0 58.0 55.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 52.0 52.0 53.5 59.0 57.3 55.0 54.3 53.3 52.3 51.7 51.3 51.3 Min 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Max 58.9 79.8 53.0 69.0 65.0 62.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 54.0 54.0 53.0 54.7 52.7 51.2 50.0 49.4 48.3 47.6 46.6 46.3 46.1 Evening L3 - Located south of the Project site near the Rancho Cucamonga Superior Court. 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary Wednesday, January 08, 2020 Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted) Night Day Night L eq (dBA) Day Energy Average Average: 24-Hour Daytime Nighttime Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA) 55.7 56.2 54.7 Energy Average Average:61.5Night Energy Average Average:53.853.254.454.855.854.558.953.656.156.457.059.056.556.857.159.056.254.555.354.053.453.252.535.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0Hourly Leq(dBA)Hour Beginning \\Uxr-fs\ucdata\UcJobs\_12600-13000\_12700\12796\Field Work\Measurements\12796_L3_B 83 Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo I JN:12796 Project:Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Analyst:P. Mara Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 50.1 68.7 44.3 58.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 49.0 48.0 46.0 46.0 45.0 50.1 10.0 60.1 1 50.4 70.3 43.9 61.0 57.0 53.0 51.0 49.0 47.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 50.4 10.0 60.4 2 53.8 79.8 43.6 63.0 61.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 48.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 53.8 10.0 63.8 3 50.1 65.9 44.7 56.0 55.0 53.0 52.0 50.0 49.0 46.0 46.0 45.0 50.1 10.0 60.1 4 53.0 71.9 47.4 62.0 58.0 55.0 54.0 51.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 48.0 53.0 10.0 63.0 5 54.3 72.5 46.3 64.0 62.0 58.0 56.0 53.0 51.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 54.3 10.0 64.3 6 56.3 70.6 49.1 65.0 63.0 60.0 58.0 56.0 54.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 56.3 10.0 66.3 7 58.3 76.2 51.6 67.0 65.0 61.0 60.0 57.0 56.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 58.3 0.0 58.3 8 56.8 83.5 44.9 65.0 64.0 61.0 59.0 55.0 53.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 56.8 0.0 56.8 9 59.2 88.2 42.9 67.0 65.0 61.0 58.0 52.0 49.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 59.2 0.0 59.2 10 56.2 75.8 44.3 66.0 64.0 62.0 61.0 54.0 50.0 47.0 46.0 45.0 56.2 0.0 56.2 11 56.0 80.4 45.9 66.0 64.0 60.0 58.0 54.0 52.0 49.0 48.0 47.0 56.0 0.0 56.0 12 62.6 87.6 45.5 71.0 68.0 63.0 61.0 55.0 52.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 62.6 0.0 62.6 13 60.5 81.0 46.6 71.0 69.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 56.0 50.0 49.0 47.0 60.5 0.0 60.5 14 58.9 81.1 44.3 70.0 67.0 63.0 61.0 55.0 53.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 58.9 0.0 58.9 15 59.4 79.3 45.4 71.0 67.0 63.0 61.0 56.0 53.0 49.0 48.0 46.0 59.4 0.0 59.4 16 57.4 74.0 46.8 66.0 65.0 62.0 61.0 57.0 54.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 57.4 0.0 57.4 17 58.4 78.4 47.8 68.0 66.0 63.0 61.0 57.0 54.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 58.4 0.0 58.4 18 55.4 71.2 47.2 64.0 62.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 52.0 49.0 49.0 48.0 55.4 0.0 55.4 19 57.6 78.5 46.0 69.0 67.0 62.0 60.0 55.0 52.0 48.0 47.0 46.0 57.6 5.0 62.6 20 56.5 77.8 49.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 58.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 56.5 5.0 61.5 21 55.8 81.1 43.9 66.0 63.0 59.0 57.0 52.0 49.0 46.0 45.0 44.0 55.8 5.0 60.8 22 52.6 75.9 40.6 62.0 61.0 57.0 56.0 49.0 46.0 43.0 42.0 42.0 52.6 10.0 62.6 23 54.7 82.9 40.7 64.0 61.0 57.0 55.0 49.0 45.0 42.0 42.0 41.0 54.7 10.0 64.7 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 55.4 71.2 42.9 64.0 62.0 60.0 58.0 52.0 49.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 Max 62.6 88.2 51.6 71.0 69.0 65.0 63.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 53.0 53.0 58.7 67.7 65.5 62.0 60.2 55.6 52.8 48.9 48.2 47.1 Min 55.8 77.8 43.9 65.0 63.0 59.0 57.0 52.0 49.0 46.0 45.0 44.0 Max 57.6 81.1 49.0 69.0 67.0 62.0 60.0 55.0 53.0 50.0 50.0 49.0 56.7 66.7 64.3 60.3 58.3 54.0 51.3 48.0 47.3 46.3 Min 50.1 65.9 40.6 56.0 55.0 53.0 51.0 49.0 45.0 42.0 42.0 41.0 Max 56.3 82.9 49.1 65.0 63.0 60.0 58.0 56.0 54.0 52.0 51.0 50.0 53.3 61.7 59.2 55.7 54.0 50.7 48.7 46.3 45.9 45.1 Evening L4 - Located southwest of the Project site near Verano at Rancho Cucamonga Town Square. 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary Wednesday, January 08, 2020 Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted) Night Day Night L eq (dBA) Day Energy Average Average: 24-Hour Daytime Nighttime Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA) 57.1 58.4 53.3 Energy Average Average:61.3Night Energy Average Average:50.150.453.850.153.054.356.358.356.859.256.256.062.660.558.959.457.458.455.457.656.555.852.654.735.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Hourly Leq(dBA)Hour Beginning \\Uxr-fs\ucdata\UcJobs\_12600-13000\_12700\12796\Field Work\Measurements\12796_L4_F 84 Date:Location:Meter:Piccolo I JN:12796 Project:Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Analyst:P. Mara Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99%L eq Adj.Adj. L eq 0 55.2 81.4 43.7 64.0 61.0 57.0 55.0 51.0 48.0 45.0 45.0 44.0 55.2 10.0 65.2 1 54.3 78.7 44.4 64.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 48.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 54.3 10.0 64.3 2 52.7 70.1 45.4 62.0 60.0 57.0 55.0 51.0 49.0 47.0 46.0 46.0 52.7 10.0 62.7 3 60.5 75.2 47.0 68.0 67.0 66.0 66.0 57.0 52.0 48.0 48.0 47.0 60.5 10.0 70.5 4 60.1 83.5 47.4 69.0 67.0 64.0 62.0 58.0 55.0 50.0 49.0 48.0 60.1 10.0 70.1 5 61.6 81.3 50.4 71.0 69.0 66.0 65.0 60.0 57.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 61.6 10.0 71.6 6 61.9 77.7 52.5 70.0 68.0 66.0 65.0 62.0 59.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 61.9 10.0 71.9 7 61.8 76.8 49.9 71.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 61.0 58.0 54.0 53.0 51.0 61.8 0.0 61.8 8 62.0 85.2 48.6 71.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 60.0 57.0 53.0 52.0 50.0 62.0 0.0 62.0 9 62.1 83.0 49.6 72.0 69.0 67.0 65.0 61.0 58.0 53.0 52.0 51.0 62.1 0.0 62.1 10 62.8 83.0 49.3 73.0 70.0 67.0 65.0 61.0 58.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 62.8 0.0 62.8 11 62.4 77.9 50.8 71.0 69.0 67.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 55.0 54.0 52.0 62.4 0.0 62.4 12 63.5 82.7 49.6 74.0 71.0 67.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 54.0 53.0 51.0 63.5 0.0 63.5 13 63.1 81.7 49.3 72.0 71.0 68.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 54.0 53.0 51.0 63.1 0.0 63.1 14 62.6 77.5 51.1 72.0 70.0 67.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 62.6 0.0 62.6 15 63.6 83.9 50.6 74.0 71.0 67.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 53.0 63.6 0.0 63.6 16 62.7 77.3 52.5 72.0 70.0 68.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 53.0 62.7 0.0 62.7 17 60.9 77.2 50.7 69.0 67.0 65.0 64.0 61.0 58.0 54.0 53.0 52.0 60.9 0.0 60.9 18 64.2 89.3 47.7 73.0 70.0 66.0 64.0 60.0 57.0 53.0 52.0 50.0 64.2 0.0 64.2 19 61.2 80.6 48.1 71.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 59.0 56.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 61.2 5.0 66.2 20 58.3 73.4 45.7 68.0 66.0 64.0 62.0 57.0 54.0 50.0 49.0 47.0 58.3 5.0 63.3 21 58.0 78.7 44.1 70.0 67.0 62.0 60.0 55.0 52.0 47.0 47.0 45.0 58.0 5.0 63.0 22 59.4 80.7 42.8 72.0 68.0 62.0 59.0 54.0 51.0 46.0 45.0 44.0 59.4 10.0 69.4 23 53.4 75.6 43.1 63.0 60.0 57.0 56.0 52.0 48.0 44.0 44.0 43.0 53.4 10.0 63.4 Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1%L2%L5%L8%L25%L50%L90%L95%L99% Min 60.9 76.8 47.7 69.0 67.0 65.0 64.0 60.0 57.0 53.0 52.0 50.0 Max 64.2 89.3 52.5 74.0 71.0 68.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 56.0 55.0 53.0 62.7 72.0 69.8 66.8 65.3 61.3 58.3 54.3 53.3 51.6 Min 58.0 73.4 44.1 68.0 66.0 62.0 60.0 55.0 52.0 47.0 47.0 45.0 Max 61.2 80.6 48.1 71.0 69.0 66.0 64.0 59.0 56.0 52.0 51.0 49.0 59.4 69.7 67.3 64.0 62.0 57.0 54.0 49.7 49.0 47.0 Min 52.7 70.1 42.8 62.0 60.0 56.0 54.0 51.0 48.0 44.0 44.0 43.0 Max 61.9 83.5 52.5 72.0 69.0 66.0 66.0 62.0 59.0 55.0 54.0 53.0 58.9 67.0 64.4 61.2 59.7 55.1 51.9 48.1 47.6 46.8 Energy Average Average:66.2Night Energy Average Average: Evening 24-Hour CNEL (dBA) 61.3 62.2 58.9 Night L eq (dBA) Day Energy Average Average: 24-Hour Daytime Nighttime Evening L5 - Located northwest of the Project site near Rancho Cucamonga Dental Care and United Therapy Network Offices. 24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary Wednesday, January 08, 2020 Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted) Night Day 55.254.352.760.560.161.661.961.862.062.162.862.463.563.162.663.662.760.964.261.258.358.059.453.435.040.045.050.055.060.065.070.075.080.085.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Hourly Leq(dBA)Hour Beginning \\Uxr-fs\ucdata\UcJobs\_12600-13000\_12700\12796\Field Work\Measurements\12796_L5_G 85 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 86 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 8.1: OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS 87 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 88 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:Existing 32,819 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,891 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.20 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.04 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.99 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.5 70.0 68.7 62.7 71.771.1 65.1 65.5 61.7 54.2 63.0 69.269.1 62.0 58.6 63.2 69.569.4 Vehicle Noise:73.2 71.2 69.2 67.7 75.174.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 131 282 1,307607 137 296 1,372637 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:Existing 32,753 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,886 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.19 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.04 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.00 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.5 70.0 68.7 62.7 71.771.1 65.1 65.5 61.7 54.2 63.0 69.269.1 62.0 58.6 63.2 69.569.4 Vehicle Noise:73.2 71.2 69.2 67.7 75.174.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 131 281 1,305606 137 295 1,371636 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:Existing 32,864 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,895 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.21 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.03 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.99 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.3 70.9 69.6 63.5 72.672.0 65.9 66.3 62.6 55.1 63.8 70.070.0 62.8 59.5 64.1 70.470.3 Vehicle Noise:74.0 72.0 70.1 68.6 75.975.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 130 281 1,302604 137 295 1,367635 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:Existing 32,115 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,829 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.11 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.13 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.09 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.2 70.8 69.5 63.4 72.571.9 65.8 66.2 62.5 55.0 63.7 69.969.9 62.7 59.4 64.0 70.370.2 Vehicle Noise:73.9 71.9 70.0 68.5 75.875.5 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 128 276 1,282595 135 290 1,346625 Monday, November 16, 2020 89 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:Existing 6,586 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:580 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.22 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.46 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.42 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.8 60.4 59.0 53.0 62.161.5 56.1 57.9 52.7 45.2 54.0 60.260.1 54.4 51.0 55.7 62.061.9 Vehicle Noise:64.1 61.9 59.8 59.1 66.366.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 24 51 238110 25 53 248115 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:Existing 5,973 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:526 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.65 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.89 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.84 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.4 59.9 58.6 52.6 61.761.0 55.6 57.5 52.3 44.8 53.5 59.859.7 54.0 50.6 55.3 61.661.5 Vehicle Noise:63.6 61.5 59.4 58.7 65.865.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 22 48 223103 23 50 232108 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Laurel St. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:Existing 4,270 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:376 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -5.11 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -22.34 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -26.30 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.9 58.5 57.2 51.1 60.259.6 54.2 56.0 50.8 43.3 52.1 58.358.3 52.6 49.2 53.8 60.160.0 Vehicle Noise:62.2 60.0 58.0 57.3 64.464.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 18 38 17883 19 40 18686 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Existing 27,470 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,420 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.43 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.81 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.76 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.6 70.1 68.8 62.8 71.871.2 65.1 65.6 61.8 54.3 63.0 69.369.2 62.1 58.7 63.3 69.669.5 Vehicle Noise:73.3 71.3 69.3 67.8 75.274.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 116 249 1,155536 121 261 1,213563 Monday, November 16, 2020 90 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Existing 30,924 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,724 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.94 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.29 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.25 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.1 70.6 69.3 63.3 72.371.7 65.7 66.1 62.3 54.8 63.6 69.869.7 62.6 59.2 63.8 70.170.0 Vehicle Noise:73.8 71.8 69.8 68.3 75.775.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 125 269 1,250580 131 283 1,313609 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Existing 28,742 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,532 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.61 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.57 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.7 70.3 69.0 63.0 72.071.4 65.3 65.8 62.0 54.5 63.2 69.569.4 62.3 58.9 63.5 69.869.7 Vehicle Noise:73.5 71.4 69.5 68.0 75.475.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 119 257 1,191553 125 269 1,250580 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Existing 28,401 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,502 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.57 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.66 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.62 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.7 70.2 68.9 62.9 72.071.3 65.3 65.7 61.9 54.4 63.2 69.469.4 62.2 58.8 63.5 69.869.7 Vehicle Noise:73.4 71.4 69.5 68.0 75.375.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 118 255 1,181548 124 267 1,241576 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Civic Center Dr. Scenario:Existing 5,553 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:489 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.96 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -21.20 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -25.16 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.1 59.6 58.3 52.3 61.360.7 55.3 57.2 52.0 44.5 53.2 59.459.4 53.7 50.3 54.9 61.261.1 Vehicle Noise:63.3 61.2 59.1 58.4 65.565.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 21 46 21299 22 48 221103 Monday, November 16, 2020 91 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:E+P 33,039 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.23 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.01 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.96 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.5 70.0 68.7 62.7 71.871.1 65.1 65.5 61.7 54.2 63.0 69.269.2 62.0 58.6 63.3 69.669.5 Vehicle Noise:73.2 71.2 69.3 67.8 75.174.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 131 283 1,313609 138 297 1,379640 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:E+P 33,556 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,956 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.30 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.94 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.90 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.6 70.1 68.8 62.8 71.871.2 65.2 65.6 61.8 54.3 63.1 69.369.2 62.1 58.7 63.3 69.669.5 Vehicle Noise:73.3 71.3 69.3 67.8 75.274.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 133 286 1,327616 139 300 1,393647 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:E+P 33,525 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,954 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.29 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.94 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.90 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.4 71.0 69.6 63.6 72.772.1 66.0 66.4 62.7 55.2 63.9 70.170.1 62.9 59.5 64.2 70.570.4 Vehicle Noise:74.1 72.1 70.2 68.7 76.075.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 132 284 1,320612 139 299 1,386643 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:E+P 32,531 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,866 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.07 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.03 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.3 70.8 69.5 63.5 72.571.9 65.9 66.3 62.5 55.0 63.8 70.070.0 62.8 59.4 64.1 70.370.3 Vehicle Noise:74.0 72.0 70.1 68.6 75.975.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 129 279 1,293600 136 293 1,358630 Monday, November 16, 2020 92 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:E+P 6,776 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:597 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.10 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.34 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.29 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.9 60.5 59.2 53.2 62.261.6 56.2 58.1 52.8 45.3 54.1 60.360.3 54.6 51.2 55.8 62.162.0 Vehicle Noise:64.2 62.0 60.0 59.3 66.466.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 24 52 242112 25 54 253117 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:E+P 6,453 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:569 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.31 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.55 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.51 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.7 60.3 59.0 52.9 62.061.4 56.0 57.8 52.6 45.1 53.9 60.160.1 54.3 50.9 55.6 61.961.8 Vehicle Noise:64.0 61.8 59.7 59.1 66.265.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 23 51 235109 24 53 245114 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Laurel St. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:E+P 4,562 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:402 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -4.82 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -22.06 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -26.01 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.2 58.8 57.4 51.4 60.559.9 54.5 56.3 51.1 43.6 52.4 58.658.5 52.8 49.4 54.1 60.460.3 Vehicle Noise:62.5 60.3 58.2 57.5 64.764.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 19 40 18686 19 42 19490 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:E+P 27,981 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,465 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.73 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.68 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.6 70.2 68.9 62.8 71.971.3 65.2 65.6 61.9 54.4 63.1 69.369.3 62.2 58.8 63.4 69.769.6 Vehicle Noise:73.3 71.3 69.4 67.9 75.274.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 117 252 1,170543 123 265 1,228570 Monday, November 16, 2020 93 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:E+P 31,512 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,776 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.03 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.21 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.17 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.1 70.7 69.4 63.4 72.471.8 65.7 66.2 62.4 54.9 63.6 69.969.8 62.7 59.3 63.9 70.270.1 Vehicle Noise:73.9 71.8 69.9 68.4 75.775.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 127 273 1,266588 133 286 1,330617 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:E+P 29,348 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,586 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.72 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.52 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.48 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.8 70.4 69.1 63.1 72.171.5 65.4 65.9 62.1 54.6 63.3 69.569.5 62.4 59.0 63.6 69.969.8 Vehicle Noise:73.5 71.5 69.6 68.1 75.475.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 121 260 1,208560 127 273 1,268589 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:E+P 28,905 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,547 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.65 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.59 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.54 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.8 70.3 69.0 63.0 72.071.4 65.4 65.8 62.0 54.5 63.3 69.569.4 62.3 58.9 63.5 69.869.7 Vehicle Noise:73.5 71.5 69.5 68.0 75.475.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 120 258 1,195555 126 270 1,255583 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Civic Center Dr. Scenario:E+P 5,790 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:510 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.78 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -21.02 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.98 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.3 59.8 58.5 52.5 61.560.9 55.5 57.4 52.2 44.7 53.4 59.659.6 53.9 50.5 55.1 61.461.3 Vehicle Noise:63.5 61.3 59.3 58.6 65.765.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 22 47 218101 23 49 228106 Monday, November 16, 2020 94 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC 35,794 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,153 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.58 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.66 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.61 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.9 70.4 69.1 63.1 72.171.5 65.4 65.9 62.1 54.6 63.3 69.569.5 62.4 59.0 63.6 69.969.8 Vehicle Noise:73.6 71.5 69.6 68.1 75.475.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 138 298 1,385643 145 313 1,454675 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC 35,850 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,158 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.59 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.65 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.61 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.9 70.4 69.1 63.1 72.171.5 65.4 65.9 62.1 54.6 63.3 69.669.5 62.4 59.0 63.6 69.969.8 Vehicle Noise:73.6 71.6 69.6 68.1 75.575.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 139 299 1,386643 146 314 1,456676 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC 35,968 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,169 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.60 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.64 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.59 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.7 71.3 70.0 63.9 73.072.4 66.3 66.7 63.0 55.5 64.2 70.470.4 63.2 59.8 64.5 70.870.7 Vehicle Noise:74.4 72.4 70.5 69.0 76.376.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 138 298 1,383642 145 313 1,452674 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC 35,172 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,099 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.50 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.74 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.69 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.6 71.2 69.9 63.8 72.972.3 66.2 66.6 62.9 55.4 64.1 70.370.3 63.1 59.7 64.4 70.770.6 Vehicle Noise:74.3 72.3 70.4 68.9 76.275.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 136 294 1,362632 143 308 1,431664 Monday, November 16, 2020 95 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:OYC 6,990 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:616 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.97 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.20 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.16 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 62.1 60.6 59.3 53.3 62.361.7 56.3 58.2 53.0 45.5 54.2 60.460.4 54.7 51.3 55.9 62.262.1 Vehicle Noise:64.3 62.2 60.1 59.4 66.566.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 25 53 247115 26 56 258120 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:OYC 6,435 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:567 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.32 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.56 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.52 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.7 60.3 58.9 52.9 62.061.4 56.0 57.8 52.6 45.1 53.9 60.160.0 54.3 50.9 55.6 61.961.8 Vehicle Noise:64.0 61.8 59.7 59.0 66.265.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 23 50 234109 24 53 244113 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Laurel St. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:OYC 4,625 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:407 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -4.76 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -22.00 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -25.95 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.3 58.8 57.5 51.5 60.559.9 54.5 56.4 51.2 43.7 52.4 58.658.6 52.9 49.5 54.1 60.460.3 Vehicle Noise:62.5 60.4 58.3 57.6 64.764.5 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 19 40 18887 20 42 19691 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC 30,155 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,657 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.83 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.40 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.36 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.0 70.5 69.2 63.2 72.271.6 65.5 66.0 62.2 54.7 63.5 69.769.6 62.5 59.1 63.7 70.069.9 Vehicle Noise:73.7 71.7 69.7 68.2 75.675.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 123 265 1,230571 129 278 1,291599 Monday, November 16, 2020 96 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC 33,463 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,948 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.29 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.95 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.91 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.4 71.0 69.6 63.6 72.772.0 66.0 66.4 62.7 55.2 63.9 70.170.1 62.9 59.5 64.2 70.570.4 Vehicle Noise:74.1 72.1 70.2 68.7 76.075.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 132 284 1,318612 138 298 1,384642 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC 31,147 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,744 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.98 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.26 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.22 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.1 70.6 69.3 63.3 72.471.7 65.7 66.1 62.3 54.8 63.6 69.869.8 62.6 59.2 63.9 70.270.1 Vehicle Noise:73.8 71.8 69.9 68.4 75.775.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 126 271 1,256583 132 284 1,319612 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC 30,762 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,710 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.92 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.32 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.27 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.0 70.6 69.3 63.3 72.371.7 65.6 66.1 62.3 54.8 63.5 69.769.7 62.6 59.2 63.8 70.170.0 Vehicle Noise:73.7 71.7 69.8 68.3 75.675.3 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 125 268 1,246578 131 282 1,308607 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Civic Center Dr. Scenario:OYC 5,893 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:519 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.71 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.94 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.90 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.3 59.9 58.6 52.5 61.661.0 55.6 57.4 52.2 44.7 53.5 59.759.7 54.0 50.6 55.2 61.561.4 Vehicle Noise:63.6 61.4 59.4 58.7 65.865.5 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 22 48 221102 23 50 230107 Monday, November 16, 2020 97 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC+P 36,014 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,173 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.61 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.63 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.59 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 71.9 70.4 69.1 63.1 72.171.5 65.5 65.9 62.1 54.6 63.4 69.669.5 62.4 59.0 63.6 69.969.8 Vehicle Noise:73.6 71.6 69.6 68.1 75.575.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 139 300 1,391645 146 315 1,460678 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC+P 36,653 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,229 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.68 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.56 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.51 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.0 70.5 69.2 63.2 72.271.6 65.5 66.0 62.2 54.7 63.4 69.769.6 62.5 59.1 63.7 70.069.9 Vehicle Noise:73.7 71.7 69.7 68.2 75.675.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 141 303 1,407653 148 318 1,477686 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC+P 36,629 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,227 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.68 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.56 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.51 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.8 71.3 70.0 64.0 73.172.4 66.4 66.8 63.0 55.5 64.3 70.570.5 63.3 59.9 64.6 70.970.8 Vehicle Noise:74.5 72.5 70.6 69.1 76.476.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 140 302 1,400650 147 317 1,470682 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:OYC+P 35,588 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,135 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.55 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.68 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.64 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.7 71.2 69.9 63.9 72.972.3 66.3 66.7 62.9 55.4 64.2 70.470.3 63.2 59.8 64.4 70.770.6 Vehicle Noise:74.4 72.4 70.4 68.9 76.376.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 137 296 1,373637 144 311 1,442669 Monday, November 16, 2020 98 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:OYC+P 7,180 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:633 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.85 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.09 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.04 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 62.2 60.7 59.4 53.4 62.561.8 56.4 58.3 53.1 45.6 54.3 60.660.5 54.8 51.4 56.1 62.462.3 Vehicle Noise:64.4 62.3 60.2 59.5 66.666.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 25 54 252117 26 57 263122 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:OYC+P 6,915 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:609 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.01 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.25 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.21 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 62.0 60.6 59.3 53.2 62.361.7 56.3 58.1 52.9 45.4 54.2 60.460.4 54.6 51.2 55.9 62.262.1 Vehicle Noise:64.3 62.1 60.0 59.4 66.566.2 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 25 53 246114 26 55 256119 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Laurel St. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:OYC+P 4,917 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:433 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -4.49 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -21.73 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -25.69 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.5 59.1 57.8 51.8 60.860.2 54.8 56.7 51.5 44.0 52.7 58.958.9 53.2 49.8 54.4 60.760.6 Vehicle Noise:62.8 60.6 58.6 57.9 65.064.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 20 42 19691 20 44 20495 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC+P 30,666 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,702 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.91 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.33 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.29 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.0 70.6 69.3 63.2 72.371.7 65.6 66.0 62.3 54.8 63.5 69.769.7 62.5 59.2 63.8 70.170.0 Vehicle Noise:73.7 71.7 69.8 68.3 75.675.3 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 124 268 1,243577 131 281 1,306606 Monday, November 16, 2020 99 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC+P 34,051 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,000 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.36 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.88 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.83 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.5 71.0 69.7 63.7 72.772.1 66.1 66.5 62.7 55.2 64.0 70.270.2 63.0 59.6 64.3 70.570.5 Vehicle Noise:74.2 72.2 70.3 68.8 76.175.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 133 287 1,333619 140 302 1,400650 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC+P 31,753 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,797 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.06 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.18 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.14 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.2 70.7 69.4 63.4 72.471.8 65.8 66.2 62.4 54.9 63.7 69.969.8 62.7 59.3 63.9 70.270.1 Vehicle Noise:73.9 71.9 70.0 68.5 75.875.5 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 127 274 1,273591 134 288 1,336620 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:OYC+P 31,266 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,755 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 1.99 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -15.25 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -19.20 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.1 70.7 69.3 63.3 72.471.7 65.7 66.1 62.4 54.9 63.6 69.869.8 62.6 59.2 63.9 70.270.1 Vehicle Noise:73.8 71.8 69.9 68.4 75.775.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 126 271 1,260585 132 285 1,323614 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Civic Center Dr. Scenario:OYC+P 6,130 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:540 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.54 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.77 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.73 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.5 60.0 58.7 52.7 61.861.1 55.8 57.6 52.4 44.9 53.7 59.959.8 54.1 50.7 55.4 61.761.6 Vehicle Noise:63.7 61.6 59.5 58.8 66.065.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 23 49 227105 24 51 236110 Monday, November 16, 2020 100 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY 39,653 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,493 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.02 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.21 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.17 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.3 70.8 69.5 63.5 72.671.9 65.9 66.3 62.5 55.0 63.8 70.070.0 62.8 59.4 64.1 70.470.3 Vehicle Noise:74.0 72.0 70.1 68.6 75.975.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 148 319 1,483688 156 335 1,557723 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY 40,146 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,537 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.08 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.16 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.12 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.4 70.9 69.6 63.6 72.672.0 65.9 66.4 62.6 55.1 63.8 70.070.0 62.9 59.5 64.1 70.470.3 Vehicle Noise:74.1 72.0 70.1 68.6 75.975.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 149 322 1,495694 157 338 1,570729 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY 40,257 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,547 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.09 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.15 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.10 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.2 71.8 70.4 64.4 73.572.8 66.8 67.2 63.5 56.0 64.7 70.970.9 63.7 60.3 65.0 71.371.2 Vehicle Noise:74.9 72.9 71.0 69.5 76.876.5 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 149 321 1,491692 157 337 1,565727 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY 39,540 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,483 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.01 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.23 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.18 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.1 71.7 70.4 64.4 73.472.8 66.7 67.1 63.4 55.9 64.6 70.870.8 63.7 60.3 64.9 71.271.1 Vehicle Noise:74.8 72.8 70.9 69.4 76.776.4 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 147 317 1,473684 155 333 1,547718 Monday, November 16, 2020 101 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:HY 7,689 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:677 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.55 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -19.79 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -23.75 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 62.5 61.0 59.7 53.7 62.862.1 56.7 58.6 53.4 45.9 54.6 60.960.8 55.1 51.7 56.4 62.762.6 Vehicle Noise:64.7 62.6 60.5 59.8 66.966.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 26 57 264122 28 59 275128 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:HY 7,067 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:623 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.92 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.16 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.11 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 62.1 60.7 59.4 53.3 62.461.8 56.4 58.2 53.0 45.5 54.3 60.560.4 54.7 51.3 56.0 62.362.2 Vehicle Noise:64.4 62.2 60.1 59.4 66.666.3 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 25 54 249116 26 56 260121 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Laurel St. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:HY 5,088 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:448 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -4.34 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -21.58 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -25.54 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.7 59.2 57.9 51.9 61.060.3 54.9 56.8 51.6 44.1 52.8 59.159.0 53.3 49.9 54.6 60.960.8 Vehicle Noise:62.9 60.8 58.7 58.0 65.164.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 20 43 20093 21 45 20997 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY 44,993 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,964 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.57 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -13.67 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -17.62 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.7 72.2 70.9 64.9 74.073.3 67.3 67.7 63.9 56.4 65.2 71.471.4 64.2 60.8 65.5 71.871.7 Vehicle Noise:75.4 73.4 71.5 70.0 77.377.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 161 346 1,606745 169 363 1,686782 Monday, November 16, 2020 102 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY 43,810 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,860 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.46 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -13.78 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -17.74 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.6 72.1 70.8 64.8 73.873.2 67.2 67.6 63.8 56.3 65.1 71.371.2 64.1 60.7 65.3 71.671.5 Vehicle Noise:75.3 73.3 71.4 69.8 77.276.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 158 340 1,577732 166 357 1,656769 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY 34,262 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,018 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.39 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.85 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.80 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.5 71.1 69.7 63.7 72.872.1 66.1 66.5 62.8 55.3 64.0 70.270.2 63.0 59.6 64.3 70.670.5 Vehicle Noise:74.2 72.2 70.3 68.8 76.175.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 134 288 1,339621 141 303 1,406653 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY 33,838 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:2,981 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.34 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.90 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.86 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.5 71.0 69.7 63.7 72.772.1 66.1 66.5 62.7 55.2 64.0 70.270.1 63.0 59.6 64.2 70.570.4 Vehicle Noise:74.2 72.2 70.2 68.7 76.175.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 133 286 1,328616 139 300 1,394647 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Civic Center Dr. Scenario:HY 6,482 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:571 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.29 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.53 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.49 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.7 60.3 59.0 53.0 62.061.4 56.0 57.9 52.7 45.2 53.9 60.160.1 54.4 51.0 55.6 61.961.8 Vehicle Noise:64.0 61.8 59.8 59.1 66.265.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 24 51 235109 25 53 245114 Monday, November 16, 2020 103 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY+P 39,873 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,513 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.05 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.19 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.15 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.3 70.9 69.5 63.5 72.672.0 65.9 66.3 62.6 55.1 63.8 70.070.0 62.8 59.4 64.1 70.470.3 Vehicle Noise:74.0 72.0 70.1 68.6 75.975.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 149 321 1,488691 156 337 1,563725 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY+P 40,949 8.81% 63.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 63.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:84 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 0.27 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.07 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.03 0.29 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.70 -4.88 -5.32 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 47.223 47.035 47.054 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.4 71.0 69.7 63.7 72.772.1 66.0 66.4 62.7 55.2 63.9 70.170.1 62.9 59.6 64.2 70.570.4 Vehicle Noise:74.1 72.1 70.2 68.7 76.075.7 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 151 326 1,515703 159 343 1,591738 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY+P 40,918 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,605 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.08 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.03 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.3 71.8 70.5 64.5 73.572.9 66.9 67.3 63.5 56.0 64.8 71.070.9 63.8 60.4 65.1 71.371.2 Vehicle Noise:75.0 73.0 71.1 69.6 76.976.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 151 325 1,507700 158 341 1,582734 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Civic Center Dr. Road Name:Haven Ave. Scenario:HY+P 39,956 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,520 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.06 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.18 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.14 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.2 71.7 70.4 64.4 73.472.8 66.8 67.2 63.4 55.9 64.7 70.970.8 63.7 60.3 64.9 71.271.1 Vehicle Noise:74.9 72.9 71.0 69.4 76.876.5 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 148 320 1,483688 156 336 1,558723 Monday, November 16, 2020 104 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:n/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:HY+P 7,879 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:694 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.45 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -19.68 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -23.64 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 62.6 61.1 59.8 53.8 62.962.2 56.8 58.7 53.5 46.0 54.7 61.060.9 55.2 51.8 56.5 62.862.7 Vehicle Noise:64.8 62.7 60.6 59.9 67.066.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 27 58 268124 28 60 280130 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Foothill Blvd. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:HY+P 7,547 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -19.87 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -23.83 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 62.4 60.9 59.6 53.6 62.762.0 56.7 58.5 53.3 45.8 54.6 60.860.7 55.0 51.6 56.3 62.662.5 Vehicle Noise:64.6 62.5 60.4 59.7 66.966.6 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 26 56 260121 27 59 272126 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:s/o Laurel St. Road Name:Aspen Ave. Scenario:HY+P 5,380 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:474 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -4.10 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -21.34 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -25.30 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.9 59.5 58.2 52.2 61.260.6 55.2 57.0 51.8 44.3 53.1 59.359.3 53.6 50.2 54.8 61.161.0 Vehicle Noise:63.2 61.0 59.0 58.3 65.465.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 21 45 20896 22 47 217101 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY+P 45,504 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:4,009 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.62 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -13.62 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -17.57 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.7 72.3 71.0 65.0 74.073.4 67.3 67.8 64.0 56.5 65.2 71.471.4 64.3 60.9 65.5 71.871.7 Vehicle Noise:75.4 73.4 71.5 70.0 77.377.0 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 162 349 1,618751 170 366 1,699788 Monday, November 16, 2020 105 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY+P 44,398 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -13.72 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -17.68 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 73.6 72.2 70.9 64.9 73.973.3 67.2 67.6 63.9 56.4 65.1 71.371.3 64.2 60.8 65.4 71.771.6 Vehicle Noise:75.3 73.3 71.4 69.9 77.276.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 159 343 1,591739 167 360 1,671776 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:w/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY+P 34,868 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,072 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.47 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.77 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.73 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.6 71.1 69.8 63.8 72.972.2 66.2 66.6 62.8 55.3 64.1 70.370.3 63.1 59.7 64.4 70.770.6 Vehicle Noise:74.3 72.3 70.4 68.9 76.275.9 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 135 292 1,355629 142 306 1,422660 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Aspen Ave. Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:HY+P 34,342 8.81% 55.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,026 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 55.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 2.40 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.12 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 81.00 -14.84 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 85.38 -18.79 1.15 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.67 -4.87 -5.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 70.20 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 41.446 41.232 41.253 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 72.5 71.1 69.8 63.7 72.872.2 66.1 66.5 62.8 55.3 64.0 70.270.2 63.0 59.6 64.3 70.670.5 Vehicle Noise:74.2 72.2 70.3 68.8 76.175.8 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 134 289 1,341622 141 303 1,408654 Monday, November 16, 2020 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed U Job Number:12796 Road Segment:e/o Haven Ave. Road Name:Civic Center Dr. Scenario:HY+P 6,719 8.81% 44.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:592 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 44.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Road Grade:0.0% Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -3.14 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% 1.94 Finite Road -1.20 Left View:-90.0 Right View:90.0 degrees degrees Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 0.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType 75.75 -20.37 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 81.57 -24.33 1.98 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -4.61 -4.87 -5.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: 64.30 Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 36.551 36.308 36.332 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.9 60.4 59.1 53.1 62.261.5 56.2 58.0 52.8 45.3 54.1 60.360.2 54.5 51.1 55.8 62.162.0 Vehicle Noise:64.1 62.0 59.9 59.2 66.466.1 Centerline Distance to Noise Contour (in feet) CNEL: Ldn: 70 dBA 65 dBA 55 dBA60 dBA 24 52 241112 25 54 251117 Monday, November 16, 2020 106 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 9.1: ON-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS 107 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 108 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A & B Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:First Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 90.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 91.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:6.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -3.48 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 -8.350 -11.350 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -3.46 -1.20 -8.200 -11.200 -17.68 -3.46 -1.20 -7.900 -10.900 0.47 0.44 0.38 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 83.899 83.764 83.705 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 70.0 68.5 67.2 61.2 70.269.6 60.4 60.7 57.1 49.6 58.3 64.564.5 57.2 53.8 58.4 64.764.6 Vehicle Noise:70.9 69.1 67.5 64.3 72.171.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 61.6 60.1 58.8 52.8 61.961.2 52.2 52.8 48.9 41.4 50.1 56.356.3 49.3 45.9 50.5 56.856.7 Vehicle Noise:62.6 60.8 59.1 56.1 63.963.5 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Pool Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:First Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.47 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -13.47 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -13.47 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -3.98 -4.01 -4.08 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 389.325 389.302 389.304 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.0 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.9 59.1 57.5 54.3 62.161.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.0 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.9 59.1 57.5 54.3 62.161.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:First Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.47 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -13.47 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -13.47 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -3.98 -4.01 -4.08 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 389.325 389.302 389.304 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.2 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.254.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.4 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.2 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.254.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.4 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C1 Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:First Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 430.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 431.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -14.11 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -14.11 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -14.11 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -3.98 -4.01 -4.07 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 429.481 429.460 429.462 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.1 38.6 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.9 58.1 56.5 53.3 61.160.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.1 38.6 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.9 58.1 56.5 53.3 61.160.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 109 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. B Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:First Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 400.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 401.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.65 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.65 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.65 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -3.98 -4.01 -4.08 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 400.251 400.229 400.231 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.2 44.9 38.8 47.947.3 40.1 41.4 36.8 29.3 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.5 50.950.5 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.2 44.9 38.8 47.947.3 40.1 41.4 36.8 29.3 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.5 50.950.5 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C2 Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:First Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 410.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 411.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):5.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.81 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.81 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.81 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -3.98 -4.01 -4.08 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 410.269 410.248 410.250 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.5 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.144.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.345.2 Vehicle Noise:49.0 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.5 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.144.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.345.2 Vehicle Noise:49.0 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A & B Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Second Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 90.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 91.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:6.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -3.52 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -3.50 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -3.45 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -6.06 -6.25 -6.74 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 84.527 84.177 83.574 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.9 68.5 67.1 61.1 70.269.5 60.4 60.7 57.0 49.5 58.3 64.564.4 57.2 53.8 58.4 64.764.6 Vehicle Noise:70.8 69.0 67.4 64.3 72.171.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.9 68.5 67.1 61.1 70.269.5 60.4 60.7 57.0 49.5 58.3 64.564.4 57.2 53.8 58.4 64.764.6 Vehicle Noise:70.8 69.0 67.4 64.3 72.171.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Pool Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Second Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.48 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -13.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -13.47 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -12.51 -12.59 -12.79 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 389.544 389.468 389.339 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.0 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.9 59.1 57.5 54.3 62.161.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.0 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.9 59.1 57.5 54.3 62.161.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 110 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Second Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.48 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -13.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -13.47 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -12.51 -12.59 -12.79 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 389.544 389.468 389.339 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.254.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.4 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.254.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.4 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C1 Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Second Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 430.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 431.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -14.12 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -14.11 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -14.11 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -12.53 -12.60 -12.79 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 429.680 429.611 429.494 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.1 38.6 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.9 58.1 56.5 53.3 61.160.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.1 38.6 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.9 58.1 56.5 53.3 61.160.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. B Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Second Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 400.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 401.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.66 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.66 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.65 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -12.52 -12.59 -12.79 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 400.465 400.391 400.265 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.2 44.8 38.8 47.947.3 40.1 41.4 36.8 29.3 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.5 50.950.5 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.2 44.8 38.8 47.947.3 40.1 41.4 36.8 29.3 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.5 50.950.5 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C2 Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Second Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 410.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 411.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):14.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.82 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -12.52 -12.60 -12.79 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 410.478 410.406 410.283 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.5 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.144.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.345.2 Vehicle Noise:49.0 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.5 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.144.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.345.2 Vehicle Noise:49.0 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 111 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A & B Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Third Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 90.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 91.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:6.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):23.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -3.67 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -3.63 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -3.54 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -13.08 -13.48 -14.50 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 86.474 85.892 84.697 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.8 68.3 67.0 61.0 70.069.4 60.2 60.6 56.9 49.4 58.1 64.464.3 57.1 53.7 58.4 64.764.6 Vehicle Noise:70.7 68.9 67.3 64.1 72.071.5 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.8 68.3 67.0 61.0 70.069.4 60.2 60.6 56.9 49.4 58.1 64.464.3 57.1 53.7 58.4 64.764.6 Vehicle Noise:70.7 68.9 67.3 64.1 72.071.5 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Pool Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Third Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):23.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.48 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -13.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -13.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -20.88 -21.02 -21.35 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 389.971 389.843 389.581 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.0 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.8 59.1 57.4 54.3 62.161.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 60.0 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.8 59.1 57.4 54.3 62.161.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Third Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):23.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.48 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -13.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -13.48 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -20.88 -21.02 -21.35 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 389.971 389.843 389.581 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.154.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.3 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.154.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.3 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C1 Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Third Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 430.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 431.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):23.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -14.12 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -14.12 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -14.12 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -20.95 -21.07 -21.36 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 430.067 429.950 429.713 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.1 38.6 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.9 58.1 56.5 53.3 61.160.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.1 38.6 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.9 58.1 56.5 53.3 61.160.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 112 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. B Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Third Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 400.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 401.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):23.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.66 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.66 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.66 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -20.90 -21.03 -21.35 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 400.880 400.755 400.501 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.2 44.8 38.8 47.947.2 40.1 41.4 36.7 29.2 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.4 50.950.5 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.2 44.8 38.8 47.947.2 40.1 41.4 36.7 29.2 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.4 50.950.5 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C2 Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Third Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 410.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 411.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):23.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.82 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -20.92 -21.04 -21.36 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 410.883 410.761 410.513 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.5 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.044.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.345.2 Vehicle Noise:49.0 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.5 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.044.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.345.2 Vehicle Noise:49.0 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A & B Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Fourth Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 90.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 91.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:6.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):32.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -3.88 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -3.82 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -3.69 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -19.33 -19.93 -21.46 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 89.290 88.493 86.744 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.6 68.1 66.8 60.8 69.869.2 60.0 60.4 56.7 49.2 57.9 64.264.1 57.0 53.6 58.2 64.564.4 Vehicle Noise:70.5 68.7 67.1 63.9 71.871.3 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.6 68.1 66.8 60.8 69.869.2 60.0 60.4 56.7 49.2 57.9 64.264.1 57.0 53.6 58.2 64.564.4 Vehicle Noise:70.5 68.7 67.1 63.9 71.871.3 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Pool Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Fourth Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):32.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.49 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -13.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -13.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -29.07 -29.25 -29.71 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 390.606 390.424 390.031 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.9 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.8 59.1 57.4 54.3 62.161.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.9 58.5 57.2 51.2 60.259.6 50.4 50.7 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.5 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.8 59.1 57.4 54.3 62.161.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 113 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Fourth Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):32.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.49 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -13.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -13.49 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -29.07 -29.25 -29.71 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 390.606 390.424 390.031 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.154.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.3 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.959.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.154.1 46.8 43.4 48.1 54.454.3 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.861.3 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C1 Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Fourth Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 430.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 431.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):32.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -14.13 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -14.13 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -14.12 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -29.19 -29.35 -29.77 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 430.642 430.478 430.121 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.0 38.5 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.8 58.1 56.4 53.3 61.160.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.0 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.0 38.5 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.8 58.1 56.4 53.3 61.160.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. B Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Fourth Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 400.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 401.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):32.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.67 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.67 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -29.10 -29.28 -29.72 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 401.497 401.321 400.939 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.1 44.8 38.8 47.947.2 40.1 41.4 36.7 29.2 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.4 50.950.5 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.1 44.8 38.8 47.947.2 40.1 41.4 36.7 29.2 38.0 44.244.2 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.2 45.3 43.4 50.950.5 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C2 Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Fourth Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 410.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 411.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):32.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.83 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.83 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -29.13 -29.30 -29.74 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 411.485 411.313 410.940 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.4 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.044.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.245.1 Vehicle Noise:48.9 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.4 46.0 44.7 38.7 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.044.0 37.7 34.3 39.0 45.245.1 Vehicle Noise:48.9 47.0 45.2 43.3 50.750.4 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 114 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A & B Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Fifth Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 90.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 91.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:6.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):41.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -4.14 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -4.07 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -3.91 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -24.86 -25.64 -27.63 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 92.896 91.906 89.651 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.3 67.8 66.5 60.5 69.668.9 59.8 60.2 56.5 49.0 57.7 63.963.9 56.7 53.3 58.0 64.364.2 Vehicle Noise:70.2 68.4 66.8 63.7 71.571.1 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 69.3 67.8 66.5 60.5 69.668.9 59.8 60.2 56.5 49.0 57.7 63.963.9 56.7 53.3 58.0 64.364.2 Vehicle Noise:70.2 68.4 66.8 63.7 71.571.1 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Pool Road Name:Foothill Blvd. Scenario:Fifth Floor With Wall 44,398 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,911 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):41.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.51 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.51 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -13.72 -13.51 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -17.68 -13.50 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -37.05 -37.29 -37.87 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 391.446 391.212 390.688 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.9 58.5 57.2 51.1 60.259.6 50.4 50.6 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.4 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.8 59.1 57.4 54.3 62.161.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.9 58.5 57.2 51.1 60.259.6 50.4 50.6 47.0 39.5 48.3 54.554.4 47.2 43.8 48.4 54.754.6 Vehicle Noise:60.8 59.1 57.4 54.3 62.161.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. A Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Fifth Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 390.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 391.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):41.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.51 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -13.51 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -13.50 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -37.05 -37.29 -37.87 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 391.446 391.212 390.688 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.859.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.154.1 46.8 43.4 48.0 54.354.2 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.761.3 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 59.6 58.1 56.8 50.8 59.859.2 50.0 50.3 46.7 39.2 47.9 54.154.1 46.8 43.4 48.0 54.354.2 Vehicle Noise:60.5 58.7 57.1 53.9 61.761.3 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C1 Road Name:Haven Av. Scenario:Fifth Floor With Wall 40,949 8.81% 430.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:3,608 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 431.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):41.0 feet feet 50 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:73 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance 3.16 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -14.14 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -14.07 -14.14 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -18.03 -14.13 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -37.24 -37.46 -37.99 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 431.404 431.192 430.717 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 58.9 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.0 38.5 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.8 58.1 56.4 53.3 61.160.7 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 58.9 57.5 56.2 50.2 59.258.6 49.4 49.7 46.0 38.5 47.3 53.553.5 46.2 42.8 47.4 53.753.6 Vehicle Noise:59.8 58.1 56.4 53.3 61.160.7 78.79 83.02 71.12 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 115 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. B Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Fifth Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 400.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 401.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):41.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.69 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.68 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.68 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -37.10 -37.33 -37.90 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 402.315 402.087 401.578 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.1 44.8 38.8 47.947.2 40.1 41.3 36.7 29.2 38.0 44.244.1 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.1 45.3 43.4 50.950.5 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.6 46.1 44.8 38.8 47.947.2 40.1 41.3 36.7 29.2 38.0 44.244.1 37.9 34.5 39.1 45.445.3 Vehicle Noise:49.1 47.1 45.3 43.4 50.950.5 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 FHWA-RD-77-108 HIGHWAY NOISE PREDICTION MODEL (CALVENO) - 6/2/2013 SITE SPECIFIC INPUT DATA Project Name:Foothill Center Job Number:14975 Analyst:B. LawsonLot No:Bldg. C2 Road Name:Aspen Av. Scenario:Fifth Floor With Wall 7,547 8.81% 410.0 NOISE MODEL INPUTS Average Daily Traffic (Adt): Peak Hour Percentage: Peak Hour Volume:665 vehicles Centerline Dist. to Barrier: 411.0Centerline Dist. to Observer: Highway Data feet feet vehicles Road Elevation:0.0 Barrier Elevation:0.0 Pad Elevation:0.0 Site Data Site Conditions (Hard = 10, Soft = 15) Medium Trucks (2 Axles):15 Heavy Trucks (3+ Axles):15 Autos:15 Vehicle Mix feet feet Lane Equivalent Distance (in feet) Barrier Height:0.0 Observer Height (Above Pad):41.0 feet feet 35 mphVehicle Speed: Near/Far Lane Distance:50 feet REMEL Traffic Flow Distance -2.63 VehicleType Day Evening Night Daily Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:75.5%14.0%10.5%97.42% 48.9%2.2%48.9%1.84% 47.3%5.4%47.3%0.74% -13.85 Finite Road -1.20 Barrier Atten FHWA Noise Model Calculations 1.0Barrier Distance to Observer:feet Barrier Type (0-Wall, 1-Berm):0.0 0.000 0.000 Fresnel Berm Atten Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType -19.87 -13.84 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -23.83 -13.84 -1.20 0.000 0.000 -37.15 -37.38 -37.93 Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: Noise Source Elevations (in feet) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos:0.000 2.297 8.006 412.283 412.061 411.564 Grade Adjustment:0.0 Unmitigated Noise Levels (without Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.4 46.0 44.7 38.6 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.044.0 37.7 34.3 38.9 45.245.1 Vehicle Noise:48.9 47.0 45.1 43.3 50.750.4 Mitigated Noise Levels (with Topo and barrier attenuation) Medium Trucks: Heavy Trucks: Autos: VehicleType Leq Peak Hour Leq Day Leq Evening Leq Night CNELLdn 47.4 46.0 44.7 38.6 47.747.1 39.9 41.2 36.6 29.1 37.8 44.044.0 37.7 34.3 38.9 45.245.1 Vehicle Noise:48.9 47.0 45.1 43.3 50.750.4 74.83 80.05 65.11 Road Grade:0.0% feet Wednesday, June 29, 2022 116 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 9.2: INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTION CALCULATIONS 117 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 118 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P1-1Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 69.0 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1377 0.0044 0.0027 0.0017 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows ABC 30.0 27 17 20 23 31 31 29 0.5986 0.3000 0.1504 0.0238 0.0238 0.0378Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 99 0.0074 0.0031 0.0015 0.0003 0.0002 0.0004Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 21.29 25.12 28.11 35.88 36.03 34.15 32.86(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 132.0 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 19.80 22.44 15.84 42.2 68.6 39.6Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 132.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 13.20 10.56 6.60 3.96 3.96 3.96Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 414.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 41.40 33.12 20.70 12.42 12.42 12.42Totals 678 74.4 66.12 43.14 58.62 85.02 55.98 77.66Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-1.24 -1.75 -3.61 -2.28 -0.66 -2.48 -1.05(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)14.05 17.37 18.50 27.60 29.37 25.68Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels30.15 25.97 21.70 27.60 28.17 24.68Noise Reduction (dBA)30.02 25.84 21.57 27.48 28.04 24.5527.0119 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P1-3Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 73.5 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1467 0.0046 0.0029 0.0018 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows ABC 30.0 27 17 20 23 31 31 29 0.5986 0.3000 0.1504 0.0238 0.0238 0.0378Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 103.5 0.0072 0.0029 0.0015 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 21.43 25.31 28.29 36.05 36.21 34.34 33.04(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 151.8 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 22.77 25.81 18.22 48.58 78.9 45.54Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 151.8 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 15.18 12.14 7.59 4.55 4.55 4.55Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 444.6 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 44.46 35.57 22.23 13.34 13.34 13.34Totals 748.2 82.41 73.518 48.036 66.468 96.828 63.432 89.2Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-0.99 -1.49 -3.33 -1.92 -0.29 -2.13 -0.64(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)14.44 17.83 18.96 28.13 29.92 26.22Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels30.54 26.43 22.16 28.13 28.72 25.22Noise Reduction (dBA)30.41 26.30 22.04 28.01 28.60 25.0927.5120 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P1-LAnalyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 74.0 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1476 0.0047 0.0029 0.0019 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows ABC 25.0 27 17 20 23 31 31 29 0.4988 0.2500 0.1253 0.0199 0.0199 0.0315Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 99 0.0065 0.0026 0.0013 0.0002 0.0002 0.0003Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 21.85 25.90 28.88 36.59 36.78 34.94 33.60(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 132.0 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 19.8 22.4 15.8 42.2 68.6 39.6Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 132.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 13.20 10.56 6.60 3.96 3.96 3.96Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 414.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 41.40 33.12 20.70 12.42 12.42 12.42Totals 678 74.4 66.12 43.14 58.62 85.02 55.98 77.7Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-1.24 -1.75 -3.61 -2.28 -0.66 -2.48 -1.05(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)14.61 18.14 19.27 28.31 30.12 26.46Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels30.71 26.74 22.47 28.31 28.92 25.46Noise Reduction (dBA)30.59 26.62 22.34 28.19 28.79 25.3427.7121 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P2-1Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 76.2 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1520 0.0048 0.0030 0.0019 0.0010 0.0003Slider Windows ABC 30.0 27 17 20 23 31 31 29 0.5986 0.3000 0.1504 0.0238 0.0238 0.0378Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors Milgard 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 106.2 0.0071 0.0029 0.0014 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 21.51 25.42 28.40 36.15 36.32 34.46 33.15(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 160.5 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 24.07 27.28 19.26 51.35 83.45 48.14Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 160.5 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 16.05 12.84 8.02 4.81 4.81 4.81Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 457.2 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 45.72 36.58 22.86 13.72 13.72 13.72Totals 778.16 85.84 76.696 50.142 69.884 101.98 66.674 94.32Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-0.92 -1.41 -3.26 -1.82 -0.18 -2.02 -0.52(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)14.58 18.01 19.14 28.34 30.14 26.43Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels30.68 26.61 22.34 28.34 28.94 25.43Noise Reduction (dBA)30.56 26.48 22.22 28.21 28.82 25.3127.7122 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P2-2Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 74.4 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1484 0.0047 0.0030 0.0019 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows ABC 30.0 27 17 20 23 31 31 29 0.5986 0.3000 0.1504 0.0238 0.0238 0.0378Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 104.4 0.0072 0.0029 0.0015 0.0002 0.0002 0.0004Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 21.45 25.35 28.33 36.09 36.25 34.38 33.08(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 157.8 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 23.66 26.82 18.93 50.48 82.04 47.33Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 157.8 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 15.78 12.62 7.89 4.73 4.73 4.73Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 453.6 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 45.36 36.29 22.68 13.61 13.61 13.61Totals 769.12 84.8 75.728 49.499 68.824 100.38 65.669 92.73Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-0.90 -1.39 -3.24 -1.81 -0.17 -2.01 -0.51(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)14.55 17.95 19.09 28.28 30.08 26.37Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels30.65 26.55 22.29 28.28 28.88 25.37Noise Reduction (dBA)30.53 26.43 22.16 28.15 28.75 25.2427.6123 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P1-1Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 69.0 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1377 0.0044 0.0027 0.0017 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows Milgard 30.0 30 18 19 26 34 37 28 0.4755 0.3777 0.0754 0.0119 0.0060 0.0475Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 99 0.0062 0.0039 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 22.08 24.14 31.03 38.60 41.60 33.16 36.27(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 132.0 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 19.80 22.44 15.84 42.2 68.6 39.6Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 132.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 13.20 10.56 6.60 3.96 3.96 3.96Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 414.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 41.40 33.12 20.70 12.42 12.42 12.42Totals 678 74.4 66.12 43.14 58.62 85.02 55.98 77.66Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-1.24 -1.75 -3.61 -2.28 -0.66 -2.48 -1.05(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)14.84 16.38 21.42 30.32 34.94 24.68Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels30.94 24.98 24.62 30.32 33.74 23.68Noise Reduction (dBA)30.82 24.86 24.50 30.20 33.61 23.5629.5124 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P1-3Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 73.5 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1467 0.0046 0.0029 0.0018 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows Milgard 30.0 30 18 19 26 34 37 28 0.4755 0.3777 0.0754 0.0119 0.0060 0.0475Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 103.5 0.0060 0.0037 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 22.21 24.33 31.21 38.75 41.75 33.35 36.44(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 151.8 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 22.77 25.81 18.22 48.58 78.9 45.54Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 151.8 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 15.18 12.14 7.59 4.55 4.55 4.55Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 444.6 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 44.46 35.57 22.23 13.34 13.34 13.34Totals 748.2 82.41 73.518 48.036 66.468 96.828 63.432 89.2Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-0.99 -1.49 -3.33 -1.92 -0.29 -2.13 -0.64(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)15.22 16.84 21.88 30.83 35.46 25.23Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels31.32 25.44 25.08 30.83 34.26 24.23Noise Reduction (dBA)31.20 25.31 24.95 30.71 34.14 24.1030.0125 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P1-LAnalyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 74.0 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1476 0.0047 0.0029 0.0019 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows Milgard 25.0 30 18 19 26 34 37 28 0.3962 0.3147 0.0628 0.0100 0.0050 0.0396Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 99 0.0055 0.0032 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0004Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 22.60 24.91 31.78 39.23 42.23 33.94 36.93(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 132.0 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 19.8 22.4 15.8 42.2 68.6 39.6Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 132.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 13.20 10.56 6.60 3.96 3.96 3.96Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 414.0 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 41.40 33.12 20.70 12.42 12.42 12.42Totals 678 74.4 66.12 43.14 58.62 85.02 55.98 77.7Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-1.24 -1.75 -3.61 -2.28 -0.66 -2.48 -1.05(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)15.36 17.16 22.17 30.96 35.57 25.47Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels31.46 25.76 25.37 30.96 34.37 24.47Noise Reduction (dBA)31.34 25.63 25.25 30.83 34.25 24.3430.1126 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P2-1Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 76.2 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1520 0.0048 0.0030 0.0019 0.0010 0.0003Slider Windows Milgard 30.0 30 18 19 26 34 37 28 0.4755 0.3777 0.0754 0.0119 0.0060 0.0475Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors Milgard 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 106.2 0.0059 0.0036 0.0007 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 22.29 24.44 31.32 38.84 41.84 33.46 36.53(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 160.5 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 24.07 27.28 19.26 51.35 83.45 48.14Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 160.5 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 16.05 12.84 8.02 4.81 4.81 4.81Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 457.2 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 45.72 36.58 22.86 13.72 13.72 13.72Totals 778.16 85.84 76.696 50.142 69.884 101.98 66.674 94.32Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-0.92 -1.41 -3.26 -1.82 -0.18 -2.02 -0.52(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)15.36 17.02 22.06 31.03 35.67 25.44Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels31.46 25.62 25.26 31.03 34.47 24.44Noise Reduction (dBA)31.34 25.50 25.13 30.90 34.34 24.3230.2127 INTERIOR NOISE REDUCTIONSProject Name:Foothill Boulevard Mixed UseJob Number:12796Floor Plan:P2-2Analyst:B. LawsonRoom:Master(1) Transmission Loss Calculations (Exterior Wall)Transmission Loss (dB) by Frequency (Hz)Fractional Area S/(10^(TL/10))Exterior Wall WallAssembly Source Area STC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBStucco David Harris p. 371 74.4 46 27 42 44 46 49 54 0.1484 0.0047 0.0030 0.0019 0.0009 0.0003Slider Windows Milgard 30.0 30 18 19 26 34 37 28 0.4755 0.3777 0.0754 0.0119 0.0060 0.0475Hung Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Glass Doors 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Fixed Windows 0.000000000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Totals 104.4 0.0060 0.0037 0.0008 0.0001 0.0001 0.0005Composite Exterior Wall Sound Transmission Loss 10*LOG(1/t) 22.24 24.36 31.25 38.78 41.78 33.39 36.47(2) Room Effects (Absorption)Absorption Coefficients by Frequency (Hz)Absorption (Sabins)Room Surface/ Material Source Area NRC 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000Floor - Carpet David Harris p. 347 157.8 0.30 0.15 0.17 0.12 0.32 0.52 0.30 23.66 26.82 18.93 50.48 82.04 47.33Floor - Vinyl David Harris p. 347 0.0 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Ceiling - Drywall David Harris p. 348 157.8 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 15.78 12.62 7.89 4.73 4.73 4.73Walls - Drywall David Harris p. 348 453.6 0.50 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 45.36 36.29 22.68 13.61 13.61 13.61Totals 769.12 84.8 75.728 49.499 68.824 100.38 65.669 92.73Room Effect 10*log (Room Absorption in Sabins)/(Exterior Wall Area)-0.90 -1.39 -3.24 -1.81 -0.17 -2.01 -0.51(3) Adjustment FactorSound Source Adjustment Factor-6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00 -6.00(4) Calculated Interior Noise Reduction (dBA)125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 dBA(Transmission Loss + Room Effects + Adjustment Factor)15.33 16.97 22.01 30.97 35.61 25.38Octave Band Frequency Correction Factors for A-Weighted Sound Levels16.10 8.60 3.20 0.00 -1.20 -1.00A-Weighted Sound Levels31.43 25.57 25.21 30.97 34.41 24.38Noise Reduction (dBA)31.31 25.44 25.08 30.85 34.29 24.2530.1128 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 10.1: CADNAA OPERATIONAL NOISE MODEL INPUTS 129 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 130 12796 - Foothill Blvd. CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 14975-02.cna Date: 29.06.22 Analyst: B. Lawson Calculation Configuration Configuration Parameter Value General Max. Error (dB)0.00 Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN))2000.01 Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00 Partition Raster Factor 0.50 Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN))999.99 Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN))1.01 Min. Length of Section (%)0.00 Proj. Line Sources On Proj. Area Sources On Ref. Time Reference Time Day (min)960.00 Reference Time Night (min)480.00 Daytime Penalty (dB)0.00 Recr. Time Penalty (dB)5.00 Night-time Penalty (dB)10.00 DTM Standard Height (m)0.00 Model of Terrain Triangulation Reflection max. Order of Reflection 2 Search Radius Src 100.00 Search Radius Rcvr 100.00 Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00 Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00 Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10 Industrial (ISO 9613) Lateral Diffraction some Obj Obst. within Area Src do not shield On Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier Dz with limit (20/25) Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0 Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP))10 rel. Humidity (%)70 Ground Absorption G 0.00 Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED))3.0 Roads (RLS-90) Strictly acc. to RLS-90 Railways (FTA/FRA) Aircraft (???) Strictly acc. to AzB Receiver Noise Levels Name M.ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) RECEIVERS R1 60.4 60.1 66.8 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6161513.41 2348496.54 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 51.8 51.5 58.2 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6162004.38 2348413.12 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 57.5 55.3 62.2 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6161001.77 2348079.79 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 51.0 50.7 57.4 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6159892.40 2348363.64 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 59.7 59.0 65.8 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6160592.70 2348594.76 5.00 RECEIVERS R6 50.4 49.8 56.5 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6160176.25 2348967.81 5.00 Point Source(s) Name M.ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time K0 Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm.Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA)(dBA)(dBA)dB(A)(min)(min)(min)(dB)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) POINTSOURCE AC01 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161084.26 2348367.77 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC02 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161283.77 2348603.61 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC03 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160915.03 2348678.42 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC04 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160847.50 2348368.82 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC05 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160912.08 2348538.31 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC06 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160815.33 2348537.56 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC07 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160812.25 2348683.64 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC08 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161268.48 2348367.05 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC09 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161209.14 2348367.18 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC10 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161143.15 2348367.68 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC11 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160906.10 2348366.34 55.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc.131 Name M.ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time K0 Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm.Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA)(dBA)(dBA)dB(A)(min)(min)(min)(dB)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) POINTSOURCE AC12 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160745.04 2348368.44 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC13 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161283.47 2348538.17 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC14 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161180.04 2348534.41 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC15 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161160.72 2348679.29 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC16 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161088.99 2348536.82 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC17 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160915.13 2348603.44 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC18 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161086.58 2348675.53 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC19 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161086.59 2348606.23 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC20 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160719.89 2348538.21 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC21 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160716.48 2348605.70 55.00 POINTSOURCE AC22 88.9 88.9 88.9 Lw 88.9 585.00 0.00 252.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160796.37 2348368.58 55.00 POINTSOURCE CARS01 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160383.41 2348345.61 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS02 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161561.73 2348326.76 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS03 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161499.30 2348325.50 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS04 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161428.90 2348327.18 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS05 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161299.00 2348327.60 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS06 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161223.57 2348328.85 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS07 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161150.24 2348326.34 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS08 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160854.40 2348329.27 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS09 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160777.30 2348330.11 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS10 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160707.32 2348329.69 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS11 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160687.63 2348691.74 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS12 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160739.17 2348692.16 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS13 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161312.83 2348691.32 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS14 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161244.94 2348689.64 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS15 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161346.35 2348388.36 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS16 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160657.46 2348392.97 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS17 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160658.71 2348537.11 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS18 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160718.22 2348454.14 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS19 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160786.10 2348453.73 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS20 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160860.27 2348453.73 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS21 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160934.02 2348454.14 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS22 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161006.09 2348671.21 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS23 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161006.09 2348606.25 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS24 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161003.58 2348532.92 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS25 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161071.88 2348453.31 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS26 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161145.21 2348452.89 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS27 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161215.19 2348451.21 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS28 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161296.48 2348454.14 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS29 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160367.90 2348415.59 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS30 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161427.16 2348391.62 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS31 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161563.04 2348390.38 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS32 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160461.28 2348394.11 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS33 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6161502.00 2348391.48 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS34 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160477.47 2348328.16 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS35 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160557.76 2348329.54 5.00 POINTSOURCE CARS36 91.4 91.4 91.4 Lw 91.4 0.0 5.00 a 6160564.57 2348397.60 5.00 POINTSOURCE OUT01 91.5 91.5 91.5 Lw 91.5 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 g 6161064.02 2348707.50 55.00 POINTSOURCE OUT02 91.5 91.5 91.5 Lw 91.5 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 g 6160942.49 2348709.76 55.00 POINTSOURCE OUT03 91.5 91.5 91.5 Lw 91.5 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6161036.20 2348401.89 5.00 POINTSOURCE OUT04 91.5 91.5 91.5 Lw 91.5 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6161033.62 2348300.96 5.00 POINTSOURCE OUT05 91.5 91.5 91.5 Lw 91.5 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6160956.10 2348400.85 5.00 POINTSOURCE OUT06 91.5 91.5 91.5 Lw 91.5 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6160957.93 2348302.76 5.00 POINTSOURCE POOL01 80.4 80.4 80.4 Lw 80.4 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6160999.41 2348315.82 5.00 POINTSOURCE POOL02 80.4 80.4 80.4 Lw 80.4 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6161022.90 2348356.02 5.00 POINTSOURCE POOL03 80.4 80.4 80.4 Lw 80.4 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6160975.39 2348354.98 5.00 POINTSOURCE POOL04 80.4 80.4 80.4 Lw 80.4 900.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6161000.97 2348397.79 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH01 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6161328.53 2348395.92 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH02 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6161345.83 2348602.68 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH03 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6160678.58 2348399.31 5.00 POINTSOURCE TRASH04 89.0 89.0 89.0 Lw 89 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 5.00 a 6160662.13 2348603.06 5.00 Building(s) Name M.ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) BUILDING BLDG. A1 x 0 50.00 a 6160683.75 2348661.23 50.00 0.00 6160890.68 2348712.26 50.00 0.00 6160890.68 2348717.02 50.00 0.00 6160954.30 2348716.42 50.00 0.00 6160953.71 2348668.85 50.00 0.00 6160948.36 2348669.45 50.00 0.00 6160945.38 2348551.12 50.00 0.00 6160951.33 2348551.12 50.00 0.00 6160951.33 2348494.63 50.00 0.00 6160913.87 2348494.63 50.00 0.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc.132 Name M.ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) 6160912.68 2348502.36 50.00 0.00 6160681.37 2348501.76 50.00 0.00 BUILDING BLDG. A2 x 0 50.00 a 6161048.85 2348718.21 50.00 0.00 6161111.88 2348717.61 50.00 0.00 6161111.28 2348711.67 50.00 0.00 6161288.67 2348651.11 50.00 0.00 6161318.21 2348499.98 50.00 0.00 6161087.50 2348497.60 50.00 0.00 6161086.90 2348492.25 50.00 0.00 6161048.25 2348493.44 50.00 0.00 BUILDING BLDG. B1 x 0 50.00 a 6160719.42 2348404.25 50.00 0.00 6160948.36 2348404.84 50.00 0.00 6160948.95 2348298.40 50.00 0.00 6160905.54 2348299.00 50.00 0.00 6160906.14 2348364.41 50.00 0.00 6160730.13 2348365.59 50.00 0.00 6160730.17 2348356.48 50.00 0.00 6160718.03 2348356.64 50.00 0.00 BUILDING BLDG. B2 x 0 50.00 a 6161042.31 2348406.03 50.00 0.00 6161273.02 2348404.25 50.00 0.00 6161273.10 2348355.43 50.00 0.00 6161261.72 2348355.06 50.00 0.00 6161261.89 2348364.94 50.00 0.00 6161091.66 2348364.41 50.00 0.00 6161093.44 2348342.40 50.00 0.00 6161082.15 2348343.59 50.00 0.00 6161082.74 2348297.21 50.00 0.00 6161041.71 2348298.40 50.00 0.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc.133 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 134 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study APPENDIX 11.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS 135 Foothill Center Noise Impact Analysis 14975-02 Noise Study This page intentionally left blank 136 12796 - Foothill Blvd. CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 12796_ConstructionPrimary.cna Date: 19.11.20 Analyst: B. Lawson Calculation Configuration Configuration Parameter Value General Country (user defined) Max. Error (dB)0.00 Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN))2000.01 Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00 Partition Raster Factor 0.50 Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN))999.99 Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN))1.01 Min. Length of Section (%)0.00 Proj. Line Sources On Proj. Area Sources On Ref. Time Reference Time Day (min)960.00 Reference Time Night (min)480.00 Daytime Penalty (dB)0.00 Recr. Time Penalty (dB)5.00 Night-time Penalty (dB)10.00 DTM Standard Height (m)0.00 Model of Terrain Triangulation Reflection max. Order of Reflection 2 Search Radius Src 100.00 Search Radius Rcvr 100.00 Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00 Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00 Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10 Industrial (ISO 9613) Lateral Diffraction some Obj Obst. within Area Src do not shield On Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier Dz with limit (20/25) Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0 Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP))10 rel. Humidity (%)70 Ground Absorption G 0.00 Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED))3.0 Roads (RLS-90) Strictly acc. to RLS-90 Railways (FTA/FRA) Aircraft (???) Strictly acc. to AzB Receiver Noise Levels Name M.ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) RECEIVERS R1 68.4 68.4 75.0 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6161513.41 2348496.54 5.00 RECEIVERS R2 62.0 62.0 68.6 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6162004.38 2348413.12 5.00 RECEIVERS R3 66.6 66.6 73.3 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6161001.77 2348079.79 5.00 RECEIVERS R4 61.0 61.0 67.7 65.0 60.0 0.0 5.00 a 6159892.40 2348363.64 5.00 RECEIVERS R5 70.0 70.0 76.7 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6160592.70 2348594.76 5.00 RECEIVERS R6 62.2 62.2 68.9 70.0 65.0 0.0 5.00 a 6160176.25 2348967.81 5.00 Area Source(s) Name M.ID Result. PWL Result. PWL''Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm.Day Special Night (ft) (dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)(dBA)dB(A)(min)(min)(min) AREASOURCE Building A1 112.4 112.4 112.4 75.3 75.3 75.3 Lw"75.3 8 AREASOURCE Building A2 112.6 112.6 112.6 75.3 75.3 75.3 Lw"75.3 8 AREASOURCE Building B1 105.8 105.8 105.8 75.3 75.3 75.3 Lw"75.3 8 AREASOURCE Building B2 105.9 105.9 105.9 75.3 75.3 75.3 Lw"75.3 8 AREASOURCE Garage 1 109.1 109.1 109.1 75.3 75.3 75.3 Lw"75.3 8 AREASOURCE Garage 2 109.2 109.2 109.2 75.3 75.3 75.3 Lw"75.3 8 Urban Crossroads, Inc.137 Name Height Coordinates Begin End x y z Ground (ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft)(ft) AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6160687.03 2348708.10 8.00 0.00 6160890.68 2348712.26 8.00 0.00 6160890.68 2348717.02 8.00 0.00 6160954.30 2348716.42 8.00 0.00 6160953.71 2348668.85 8.00 0.00 6160948.36 2348669.45 8.00 0.00 6160945.38 2348551.12 8.00 0.00 6160951.33 2348551.12 8.00 0.00 6160951.33 2348494.63 8.00 0.00 6160913.87 2348494.63 8.00 0.00 6160912.68 2348502.36 8.00 0.00 6160685.25 2348502.36 8.00 0.00 AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6161048.85 2348718.21 8.00 0.00 6161111.88 2348717.61 8.00 0.00 6161111.28 2348711.67 8.00 0.00 6161318.81 2348706.91 8.00 0.00 6161318.21 2348499.98 8.00 0.00 6161087.50 2348497.60 8.00 0.00 6161086.90 2348492.25 8.00 0.00 6161048.25 2348493.44 8.00 0.00 AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6160719.42 2348404.25 8.00 0.00 6160948.36 2348404.84 8.00 0.00 6160948.95 2348298.40 8.00 0.00 6160905.54 2348299.00 8.00 0.00 6160906.14 2348364.41 8.00 0.00 6160730.13 2348365.59 8.00 0.00 6160730.17 2348356.48 8.00 0.00 6160718.03 2348356.64 8.00 0.00 AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6161042.31 2348406.03 8.00 0.00 6161273.02 2348404.25 8.00 0.00 6161273.10 2348355.43 8.00 0.00 6161261.72 2348355.06 8.00 0.00 6161261.89 2348364.94 8.00 0.00 6161091.66 2348364.41 8.00 0.00 6161093.44 2348342.40 8.00 0.00 6161082.15 2348343.59 8.00 0.00 6161082.74 2348297.21 8.00 0.00 6161041.71 2348298.40 8.00 0.00 AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6161337.83 2348414.35 8.00 0.00 6161548.33 2348411.00 8.00 0.00 6161547.74 2348288.29 8.00 0.00 6161336.64 2348290.67 8.00 0.00 AREASOURCE 8.00 a 6160437.57 2348416.14 8.00 0.00 6160648.07 2348416.73 8.00 0.00 6160647.48 2348288.89 8.00 0.00 6160436.38 2348291.27 8.00 0.00 Urban Crossroads, Inc.138 APPENDIX I: FOCUSED TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT 14975-02 TA Letter June 13, 2022 Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC 23929 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 404 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 SUBJECT: FOOTHILL CENTER FOCUSED TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT Dear Mr. Jeff Warmoth: This letter has been prepared to summarize the peak hour operations for the Foothill Center development (Project), which is located on the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Specifically, the peak hour intersection operations analysis has been updated at the applicable study area intersections to account for access at: i. the Frontage Drive ingress driveway on Foothill Boulevard (near Haven Avenue), and ii. a single, signalized, center driveway (Driveway 2) on Foothill boulevard iii. the Frontage Drive egress driveway on Foothill Boulevard (near Aspen Avenue) iv. Driveway 1 on Haven Avenue and Driveway 3 on Aspen Avenue are to remain unchanged The peak hour intersection operations analysis is based on the updated Project in comparison to the Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Traffic Analysis (revised November 11, 2020, 2020 Traffic Study) which assumes right-out only at Driveway 2 on Foothill Boulevard, and a more intense Project. The following intersections have been evaluated for the purposes of this focused traffic assessment (see Exhibit 1): • Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. (#1) • Haven Av. & Driveway 1 (#2) • Driveway 2 & Foothill Bl. (#3) • Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. (#4) • Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St. (#5) • Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl. (#6) (ingress) • Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl. (#7) (egress) Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 2 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter EXHIBIT 1: STUDY AREA PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The Project evaluated in the 2020 Traffic Study included the development of 362 multifamily residential dwelling units and 8,650 square feet of commercial retail use. However, the Project has been revised to include the development of 311 multifamily residential dwelling units and an increase square footage of 16,000 square feet of commercial retail (ground floor retail with residential units above). Exhibit 2 presents the currently proposed site plan. Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 3 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter EXHIBIT 2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual is a nationally recognized source for estimating site-specific trip generation. Trip generation statistics published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) for Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) (ITE Land Use Code 221) and Strip Retail Plaza (<40,000) (ITE Land Use Code 822) have been used. Table 1A presents the trip generation summary for the Project. Consistent with the 2020 Traffic Study, internal trip capture reduction has been determined based on the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool and the retail pass-by trip reductions are consistent with the percentage identified in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition). Internal capture is a percentage reduction that can be applied to the trip generation estimates for individual land uses to account for trips internal to the site. In other words, trips may be made between individual retail uses on-site and residential uses that can be made either by walking or using internal roadways without using external streets. An internal capture reduction was applied to recognize the interactions that would occur between the residential and retail land uses. Pass-by trips are trips that are currently on the road that may visit a use on-site prior to heading to its ultimate destination. As shown on Table 1A, the proposed development is anticipated to generate a total of 1,728 two-way trips per day with 149 AM peak hour trips and 163 PM peak hour trips. This is a reduction of 318 two- way trips per day and an increase of 13 AM peak hour trips and a reduction of 9 PM peak hour trips as compared to the Project evaluated in the 2020 Traffic Study. However, the analysis in this traffic assessment is based on 305 multifamily residential dwelling units and 16,000 square feet of commercial retail use. As shown in Table 1B, the net change in trip generation between 305 dwelling units and currently proposed 311 dwelling units is a net increase of 26 two-way trips per day with 2 additional AM and PM peak hour trips. As such, no operations analysis has been revised for the current proposed plan. Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 4 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter TABLE 1A: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY TABLE 1B: TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Based on the proposed Project access assumptions, the Project trip distribution patterns have been modified for the retail and residential components from those evaluated in the 2020 Traffic Study. Exhibit 3 illustrates the Project Residential trip distribution patterns and Exhibit 4 illustrates the Project Retail trip distribution patterns. ITE Land Use 1 Code Units2 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Residential 221 DU 0.09 0.28 0.37 0.24 0.15 0.39 4.54 Strip Retail Plaza (<40 TSF)822 TSF 1.42 0.94 2.36 3.30 3.29 6.59 54.45 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, Eleventh Edition (2021). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units Land Use Quantity Units1 In Out Total In Out Total Daily Multifamily (Mid-Rise) Residential 311 DU 26 89 115 74 47 121 1,412 Internal Capture: 3 -1 -1 -2 -14 -5 -19 -156 Residential Net Trips 25 88 113 60 42 102 1,256 Retail 16.000 TSF 23 15 38 53 53 106 872 Internal Capture: 3 -1 -1 -2 -5 -14 -19 -156 Pass-By (AM: 0%; PM/Daily: 34%):2 0 0 0 -13 -13 -26 -244 Retail Net Trips 22 14 36 35 26 61 472 Project Total 47 102 149 95 68 163 1,728 2020 Traffic Study 38 98 136 103 69 172 2,046 Variance 9 4 13 -8 -1 -9 -318 1 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; DU = Dwelling Units 2 Pass-by trip reduction source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition (2017). 3 Internal Capture source: National Cooperative Highway Research Program 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use In Out Total In Out Total Daily Traffic Assessment 47 100 147 94 67 161 1,702 Proposed Project 47 102 149 95 68 163 1,728 Variance 0 2 2 1 1 2 26 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 5 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter EXHIBIT 3: PROJECT (RESIDENTIAL) TRIP DISTRIBUTION Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 6 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter EXHIBIT 4: PROJECT (RETAIL) TRIP DISTRIBUTION Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 7 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter EXISTING & E+P CONDITIONS Existing volumes from the 2020 Traffic Study have been factored by 2% to reflect a current 2021 baseline. The currently proposed Project traffic was then added for Existing plus Project (E+P) traffic conditions. Table 2 shows the operations analysis for Existing (2021) and E+P traffic conditions. There are no changes to the findings as compared to the 2020 Traffic Study as all of the study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) and continue to operate at acceptable levels with the addition of Project traffic. For With Project traffic conditions, Driveway 2 on Foothill Boulevard assumes full access (no turn restrictions) in conjunction with the installation of a traffic signal. Peak hour operations analysis results for Existing and E+P traffic conditions are included in Attachments A and B, respectively. TABLE 2: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING AND E+P CONDITIONS OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project traffic volumes have been developed by applying 2% per year growth (total of 4.04%) to the Existing (2021) baseline volumes and adding cumulative development traffic. Project traffic was then added for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project traffic conditions. Table 3 shows the updated operations analysis for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without and With Project traffic conditions. Consistent with the 2020 Traffic Study, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project traffic conditions and will continue to operate acceptably with the addition of Project traffic. For With Project traffic conditions, Driveway 2 on Foothill Boulevard assumes full access (no turn restrictions) in conjunction with the installation of a traffic signal. Peak hour operations analysis results Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of (secs.)Service (secs.)Service #Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.TS 25.5 35.4 C D 26.1 37.0 C D 2 Haven Av. & Driveway 1 CSS 11.8 30.3 B D 12.3 33.8 B D 3 Driveway 2 & Foothill Bl.CSS/TS 14.4 23.8 B C 15.6 21.5 B C 4 Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.TS 11.8 16.4 B B 11.6 15.0 B B 5 Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.CSS 10.5 11.4 B B 11.5 11.9 B B 6 Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.CSS 0.0 0.0 A A 7 Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.CSS 12.4 17.9 B C 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement Future Intersection Future Intersection Existing (2021)E+P Traffic Control3 Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 8 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter for Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without and With Project traffic conditions are included in Attachments C and D, respectively. TABLE 3: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) CONDITIONS HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic volumes are consistent with the 2020 Traffic Study. However, the currently proposed Project traffic was then added for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions. Table 4 shows the updated operations analysis for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions. Consistent with the 2020 Traffic Study, the study area intersections are anticipated to operate at an acceptable LOS for Horizon Year (2040) Without Project traffic conditions and will continue to operate acceptably with the addition of Project traffic. For With Project traffic conditions, Driveway 2 on Foothill Boulevard assumes full access (no turn restrictions) in conjunction with the installation of a traffic signal. Peak hour operations analysis results for Horizon Year (2040) Without and With Project traffic conditions are included in Attachments E and F, respectively. Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of (secs.)Service (secs.)Service #Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.TS 28.0 40.3 C D 28.9 42.2 C D 2 Haven Av. & Driveway 1 CSS 12.1 23.5 B C 12.7 34.1 B D 3 Driveway 2 & Foothill Bl.CSS/TS 15.1 27.3 C D 15.8 22.3 B C 4 Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.TS 12.0 17.1 B B 11.8 15.5 B B 5 Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.CSS 11.2 11.7 B B 11.8 12.2 B B 6 Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.CSS 0.0 0.0 A A 7 Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.CSS 12.8 19.1 B C 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in Traffic Control3 2023 Without Project 2023 With Project Future Intersection Future Intersection Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 9 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter TABLE 4: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR HORIZON YEAR (2040) CONDITIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS A traffic signal warrant analysis was evaluated at the intersection of Driveway 2 on Foothill Boulevard for With Project traffic conditions to determine whether it was anticipated to meet peak hour volume- based traffic signal warrants. As shown in Attachment G, the intersection of Driveway 2 on Foothill Boulevard is anticipated to meet a peak hour volume-based traffic signal warrant under E+P traffic conditions. As such, a traffic signal has been assumed for all With Project traffic conditions for this location. SITE ADJACENT RECOMMENDATIONS There are no changes to the proposed site adjacent and site access recommendations from the 2020 Traffic Study with the exception of allowing full access at the intersection of Driveway 2 on Foothill Boulevard. In order to facilitate the full access, Driveway 2 will need to be signalized and accommodate a minimum of 150-feet of storage in the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes. Due to the off-set nature the northbound and southbound approaches must operate in a split phase signal operation and there may be a need to have lead-lag left turn operations for the eastbound and westbound left turn lanes (where the opposing lefts do not go at the same time). The anticipated queue in the northbound direction out of the driveway is less than 90-feet during the peak hours. Delay1 Level of Delay1 Level of (secs.)Service (secs.)Service #Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM 1 Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.TS 32.8 48.8 C D 34.1 51.1 C D 2 Haven Av. & Driveway 1 CSS 13.2 24.8 B C 14.0 34.8 B D 3 Driveway 2 & Foothill Bl.CSS/TS 16.3 28.7 C D 12.4 19.0 B B 4 Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.TS 12.4 18.9 B B 12.7 18.5 B B 5 Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.CSS 12.1 12.3 B B 12.9 12.8 B B 6 Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.CSS 0.0 0.0 A A 7 Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.CSS 13.5 21.6 B C 1 2 CSS = Cross-street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal; TS = Improvement Per the Highway Capacity Manual (6th Edition), overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. HCM delay reported in Traffic Control3 2040 Without Project 2040 With Project Future Intersection Future Intersection Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 10 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter The queuing analysis has been conducted utilizing the SimTraffic software. SimTraffic is designed to model networks of signalized and unsignalized intersections, with the primary purpose of checking and fine-tuning signal operations. SimTraffic uses the input parameters from Synchro to generate random simulations. A SimTraffic simulation has been recorded five times, during the weekday AM and weekday PM peak hours, with 60-minute recording intervals. The queuing results for Horizon Year (2040) With Project traffic conditions is included in Attachment G. EXHIBIT 5: SITE ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Jeff Warmoth 33 North Foothill Holdings, LLC June 13, 2022 Page 11 of 11 14975-02 TA Letter If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 861-0177. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Charlene So, PE Principal 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT A EXISTING (2021) HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 179 411 189 259 575 100 109 399 276 1327 116 Future Volume (vph) 179 411 189 259 575 100 109 399 276 1327 116 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 16.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 44.0 21.0 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 29.2% 29.2% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 10.0% 36.7% 17.5% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 91.9 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 411 189 259 575 100 109 399 105 276 1327 116 Future Volume (veh/h) 179 411 189 259 575 100 109 399 105 276 1327 116 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 206 472 116 298 661 47 125 459 75 317 1525 69 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 295 854 262 395 1001 309 212 1851 290 415 1976 603 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1568 3456 5106 1575 3456 5638 882 3456 5106 1558 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 206 472 116 298 661 47 125 390 144 317 1525 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1568 1728 1702 1575 1728 1609 1695 1728 1702 1558 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 6.4 5.0 6.3 9.0 1.9 2.7 4.5 4.7 6.7 19.7 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 6.4 5.0 6.3 9.0 1.9 2.7 4.5 4.7 6.7 19.7 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 295 854 262 395 1001 309 212 1584 557 415 1976 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.55 0.44 0.75 0.66 0.15 0.59 0.25 0.26 0.76 0.77 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 549 1946 598 732 2216 684 366 2414 848 777 3162 965 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.6 28.9 28.3 32.4 28.0 25.2 34.5 18.5 18.6 32.2 20.2 14.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.7 2.4 1.7 2.5 3.3 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.6 2.6 6.6 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.7 29.1 28.7 33.6 28.3 25.3 35.5 18.6 18.7 33.3 20.5 14.9 LnGrp LOS CCCCCCDBBCCB Approach Vol, veh/h 794 1006 659 1911 Approach Delay, s/veh 30.5 29.7 21.8 22.4 Approach LOS CCCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 12.6 18.8 8.6 35.4 10.5 21.0 13.1 31.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 29 8.0 * 47 12.0 * 33 17.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.3 8.4 4.7 21.7 6.4 11.0 8.7 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 1.9 0.1 7.5 0.2 2.6 0.4 2.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 25.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 609 23 0 1685 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 609 23 0 1685 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 5 708 27 0 1959 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 368 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 537 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 537 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 537 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 11.8 - HCM Lane LOS - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 752 41 0 869 63 0070065 Future Vol, veh/h 0 752 41 0 869 63 0070065 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02001000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length --------0--0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 783 43 0 905 66 0070068 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - - 0 - - 415 - - 487 Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Critical Hdwy --------7.14 - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------ Follow-up Hdwy --------3.92 - - 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 501 0 0 450 Stage 1 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --------500--450 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------------ Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.3 14.4 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 500 ----450 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 ----0.15 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 ----14.4 HCM Lane LOS B ----B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----0.5 Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 28 550 182 189 856 6 69 19 27 37 18 Future Volume (vph) 28 550 182 189 856 6 69 19 27 37 18 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 47.3 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 28 550 182 189 856 6 69 19 27 37 18 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 28 550 182 189 856 6 69 19 27 37 18 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 29 567 145 195 882 6 71 20 9 38 19 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 118 1824 566 367 1830 560 338 238 199 331 412 43 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1375 1870 1570 1369 3242 335 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 29 567 145 195 882 6 71 20 9 38 10 11 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1375 1870 1570 1369 1777 1800 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.3 3.4 2.7 2.3 5.7 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.3 3.4 2.7 2.3 5.7 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 118 1824 566 367 1830 560 338 238 199 331 226 229 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.53 0.48 0.01 0.21 0.08 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 654 4677 1451 900 4677 1431 912 1018 855 1000 1093 1108 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.9 9.8 9.6 17.9 10.5 8.7 17.2 16.3 16.2 16.9 16.2 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.9 9.9 9.7 19.1 10.6 8.7 17.3 16.3 16.2 17.1 16.3 16.3 LnGrp LOS C AABBABBBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 741 1083 100 59 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 12.1 17.0 16.8 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.5 21.4 12.4 8.4 21.4 12.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.3 5.4 3.5 2.3 7.7 4.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.5 0.2 0.0 3.8 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 14361076611126861 Future Vol, veh/h 3 14361076611126861 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02003000006 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 3 14371187312129868 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 399 441 191 249 469 46 372 0 0 85 0 0 Stage 1 340 340 - 95 95 ------- Stage 2 59 101 - 154 374 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 536 509 818 684 491 1014 1183 - - 1509 - - Stage 1 648 638 - 901 815 ------- Stage 2 946 811 - 833 616 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 517 502 812 674 484 1011 1176 - - 1509 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 558 542 - 694 522 ------- Stage 1 640 634 - 895 809 ------- Stage 2 919 805 - 825 612 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 10.5 10 0.7 0 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1176 - - 659 739 1509 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.013 0.029 0.001 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - 10.5 10 7.4 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.1 0 - - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 370 886 49 328 761 143 326 1503 255 602 74 Future Volume (vph) 370 886 49 328 761 143 326 1503 255 602 74 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 22.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 46.0 17.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 29.2% 29.2% 18.3% 38.3% 14.2% 34.2% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 109.6 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 370 886 49 328 761 143 326 1503 272 255 602 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 370 886 49 328 761 143 326 1503 272 255 602 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 389 933 0 345 801 77 343 1582 204 268 634 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 465 1174 364 421 1108 336 420 1960 253 340 1605 498 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1548 3456 5810 749 3456 5106 1584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 389 933 0 345 801 77 343 1314 472 268 634 22 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1548 1728 1609 1733 1728 1702 1584 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.5 16.5 0.0 9.3 14.0 3.9 9.3 23.8 23.8 7.3 9.3 0.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.5 16.5 0.0 9.3 14.0 3.9 9.3 23.8 23.8 7.3 9.3 0.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 465 1174 364 421 1108 336 420 1628 585 340 1605 498 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.79 0.00 0.82 0.72 0.23 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.79 0.40 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 648 1586 492 612 1532 465 648 2001 719 468 1852 574 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.5 34.8 0.0 41.1 34.9 31.0 41.1 28.9 29.0 42.3 25.8 22.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.9 1.4 0.0 3.7 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.7 4.5 4.0 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 6.5 0.0 4.0 5.5 1.4 3.9 8.6 9.7 3.1 3.5 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.4 36.2 0.0 44.8 35.4 31.1 43.6 30.6 33.5 46.3 25.8 22.9 LnGrp LOS D D A DDCDCCDCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1322 1223 2129 924 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 37.8 33.3 31.7 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.7 28.3 15.7 36.4 16.9 27.0 13.4 38.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 * 30 18.0 * 35 18.0 * 29 13.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.3 18.5 11.3 11.3 12.5 16.0 9.3 25.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.1 0.4 2.5 0.4 2.8 0.2 6.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.4 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 32 2071 7 0 881 Future Vol, veh/h 0 32 2071 7 0 881 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 34 2203 7 0 937 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1105 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 176 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 176 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 30.3 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 176 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.193 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 30.3 - HCM Lane LOS - - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.7 - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1408 6 0 1038 105 0 0 31 0 0 194 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1408 6 0 1038 105 0 0 31 0 0 194 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length --------0--0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 1452 6 0 1070 108 0 0 32 0 0 200 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - - 0 - - 729 - - 589 Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Critical Hdwy --------7.14 - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------ Follow-up Hdwy --------3.92 - - 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 313 0 0 387 Stage 1 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --------313--387 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------------ Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 17.8 23.8 HCM LOS C C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 313 ----387 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.102 ----0.517 HCM Control Delay (s) 17.8 ----23.8 HCM Lane LOS C ----C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 ----2.9 Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 175 1181 82 61 908 72 150 59 157 171 28 Future Volume (vph) 175 1181 82 61 908 72 150 59 157 171 28 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 60.1 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 175 1181 82 61 908 72 150 59 157 171 28 86 Future Volume (veh/h) 175 1181 82 61 908 72 150 59 157 171 28 86 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 186 1256 77 65 966 71 160 63 138 182 30 84 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 306 1911 593 201 1466 449 388 449 374 388 427 380 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.37 0.37 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1276 1870 1559 1178 1777 1581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 186 1256 77 65 966 71 160 63 138 182 30 84 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1276 1870 1559 1178 1777 1581 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.7 10.8 1.7 1.0 8.8 1.8 6.1 1.4 3.9 7.6 0.7 2.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.7 10.8 1.7 1.0 8.8 1.8 8.3 1.4 3.9 9.0 0.7 2.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 306 1911 593 201 1466 449 388 449 374 388 427 380 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.66 0.13 0.32 0.66 0.16 0.41 0.14 0.37 0.47 0.07 0.22 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 523 3740 1160 719 3740 1144 637 814 679 685 874 778 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 13.7 10.9 23.9 16.6 14.1 19.5 15.8 16.7 19.3 15.5 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.0 3.0 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.5 1.6 0.5 1.2 2.0 0.3 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 25.2 13.9 10.9 24.8 16.7 14.1 19.7 15.8 17.0 20.2 15.6 16.4 LnGrp LOS C B B C BBBBBCBB Approach Vol, veh/h 1519 1102 361 296 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.1 17.1 18.0 18.7 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.1 26.1 19.7 11.7 21.5 19.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.0 12.8 11.0 4.7 10.8 10.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 5.9 1.2 0.2 4.3 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 16.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.11/04/2021 Existing (2021) - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 37 5 30 12 0 53 4 234 13 10 91 12 Future Vol, veh/h 37 5 30 12 0 53 4 234 13 10 91 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00001000001 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 57 8 46 18 0 82 6 360 20 15 140 18 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 373 572 80 486 571 191 159 0 0 380 0 0 Stage 1 180 180 - 382 382 ------- Stage 2 193 392 - 104 189 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 559 429 964 464 429 818 1418 - - 1175 - - Stage 1 804 749 - 612 611 ------- Stage 2 790 605 - 890 743 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 496 421 963 431 421 817 1417 - - 1175 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 562 484 - 505 491 ------- Stage 1 800 739 - 610 609 ------- Stage 2 707 603 - 828 733 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.4 10.7 0.1 0.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1417 - - 671 733 1175 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.165 0.136 0.013 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 11.4 10.7 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.6 0.5 0 - - 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT B E+P HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 179 422 189 268 587 107 131 403 283 1327 116 Future Volume (vph) 179 422 189 268 587 107 131 403 283 1327 116 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 16.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 44.0 21.0 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 29.2% 29.2% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 10.0% 36.7% 17.5% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 92.6 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 179 422 189 268 587 107 131 403 116 283 1327 116 Future Volume (veh/h) 179 422 189 268 587 107 131 403 116 283 1327 116 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 206 485 116 308 675 55 151 463 87 325 1525 69 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 294 849 261 403 1011 312 230 1819 326 422 1967 600 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.12 0.39 0.39 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1568 3456 5106 1575 3456 5513 987 3456 5106 1558 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 206 485 116 308 675 55 151 402 148 325 1525 69 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1568 1728 1702 1575 1728 1609 1675 1728 1702 1558 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 6.7 5.1 6.6 9.4 2.2 3.3 4.7 5.0 7.0 20.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 6.7 5.1 6.6 9.4 2.2 3.3 4.7 5.0 7.0 20.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 294 849 261 403 1011 312 230 1592 552 422 1967 600 V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.57 0.44 0.76 0.67 0.18 0.66 0.25 0.27 0.77 0.78 0.11 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 539 1912 587 719 2177 672 359 2371 823 764 3106 948 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 34.2 29.5 28.9 32.9 28.5 25.6 35.0 18.8 18.9 32.7 20.7 15.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.1 1.1 0.3 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 2.5 1.8 2.6 3.5 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.8 6.8 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 35.4 29.8 29.3 34.1 28.8 25.7 36.2 18.9 19.0 33.9 21.0 15.2 LnGrp LOS DCCCCCDBBCCB Approach Vol, veh/h 807 1038 701 1919 Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 30.2 22.6 23.0 Approach LOS CCCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.0 19.0 9.1 35.8 10.5 21.4 13.4 31.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 29 8.0 * 47 12.0 * 33 17.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 8.6 8.7 5.3 22.1 6.5 11.4 9.0 7.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.0 0.1 7.5 0.2 2.7 0.4 2.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 26.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 616 28 0 1706 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 616 28 0 1706 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 40 716 33 0 1984 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 375 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 532 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 532 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 532 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.074 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.3 - HCM Lane LOS - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.2 - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 5 751 50 855 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 5 751 50 855 0 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA NA Protected Phases 743826 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 743826 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 23.2 9.6 23.2 29.9 29.9 Total Split (s) 11.0 39.0 16.0 44.0 33.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 9.2% 32.5% 13.3% 36.7% 27.5% 26.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 4.9 3.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.9 4.9 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 57.8 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 751 58 50 855 63 42 0 16 7 0 65 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 751 58 50 855 63 42 0 16 7 0 65 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 782 60 52 891 66 44 0 17 7 0 71 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 12 1234 94 93 1459 108 145 0 56 20 0 198 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.26 0.26 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4837 369 1781 4851 358 1242 0 480 144 0 1457 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 549 293 52 624 333 61 0 0 78 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1802 1781 1702 1805 1722 0 0 1601 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 6.7 6.8 1.3 7.4 7.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 6.7 6.8 1.3 7.4 7.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.20 0.72 0.28 0.09 0.91 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 12 868 460 93 1024 543 201 0 0 218 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.63 0.64 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 243 2382 1261 433 2745 1456 1032 0 0 925 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.2 15.5 15.5 21.7 14.0 14.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 0.3 0.5 1.9 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.5 2.1 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 31.6 15.8 16.1 23.6 14.3 14.5 19.3 0.0 0.0 18.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C BBBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 847 1009 61 78 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.0 14.8 19.3 18.8 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.4 7.1 18.2 11.3 4.9 20.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 28 11.4 * 33 27.1 6.4 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 3.3 8.8 4.1 2.1 9.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 3.1 0.3 0.0 3.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 31 568 187 155 901 6 57 19 40 30 18 Future Volume (vph) 31 568 187 155 901 6 57 19 40 30 18 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 44.7 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 31 568 187 155 901 6 57 19 40 30 18 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 31 568 187 155 901 6 57 19 40 30 18 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 32 586 150 160 929 6 59 20 22 31 19 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 128 1865 578 346 1825 559 335 236 198 328 353 89 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1372 1870 1570 1353 2798 701 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 32 586 150 160 929 6 59 20 22 31 12 12 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1372 1870 1570 1353 1777 1723 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 3.5 2.8 1.9 6.1 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 3.5 2.8 1.9 6.1 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.5 1.3 0.2 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.41 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 128 1865 578 346 1825 559 335 236 198 328 224 217 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.31 0.26 0.46 0.51 0.01 0.18 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 653 4665 1447 897 4665 1427 906 1016 852 988 1091 1057 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.8 9.6 9.4 18.0 10.7 8.8 17.1 16.3 16.4 16.9 16.3 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 9.7 9.5 19.0 10.8 8.8 17.2 16.4 16.5 17.0 16.4 16.4 LnGrp LOS C AABBABBBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 768 1095 101 55 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.1 12.0 16.9 16.7 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.2 21.8 12.3 8.6 21.4 12.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.9 5.5 3.3 2.4 8.1 3.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 2.6 0.2 0.0 4.0 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.6 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 1 13 3 6 10 9 68 11 41 273 65 Future Vol, veh/h 16 1 13 3 6 10 9 68 11 41 273 65 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02003000006 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 18 1 14 3 7 11 10 76 12 46 303 72 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 502 545 196 348 575 47 381 0 0 88 0 0 Stage 1 437 437 - 102 102 ------- Stage 2 65 108 - 246 473 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 452 444 812 582 427 1012 1174 - - 1506 - - Stage 1 568 578 - 893 810 ------- Stage 2 938 805 - 736 557 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 425 424 806 552 408 1009 1167 - - 1506 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 482 473 - 592 455 ------- Stage 1 560 557 - 885 803 ------- Stage 2 909 798 - 698 536 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.5 10.5 0.8 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1167 - - 583 675 1506 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.057 0.031 0.03 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 - - 11.5 10.5 7.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 6: Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 814 7 0 962 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 814 7 0 962 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 885 8 0 1046 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 447 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 478 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----478 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h)---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - HCM Lane LOS A - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---- HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 7: Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 775 0 0 968 0 11 Future Vol, veh/h 775 0 0 968 0 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 842 0 0 1052 0 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 ----421 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 0 497 Stage 1 - 0 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----497 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT Capacity (veh/h) 497 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 370 907 49 338 772 150 336 1505 268 602 74 Future Volume (vph) 370 907 49 338 772 150 336 1505 268 602 74 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 22.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 46.0 17.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 29.2% 29.2% 18.3% 38.3% 14.2% 34.2% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 111.2 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 370 907 49 338 772 150 336 1505 285 268 602 74 Future Volume (veh/h) 370 907 49 338 772 150 336 1505 285 268 602 74 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 389 955 0 356 813 84 354 1584 218 282 634 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 463 1180 366 429 1131 343 428 1938 267 351 1605 498 Arrive On Green 0.13 0.23 0.00 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.12 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1585 3456 5106 1549 3456 5759 792 3456 5106 1584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 389 955 0 356 813 84 354 1327 475 282 634 22 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1585 1728 1702 1549 1728 1609 1725 1728 1702 1584 Q Serve(g_s), s 10.9 17.5 0.0 9.9 14.6 4.4 9.9 24.9 24.9 7.9 9.6 1.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 10.9 17.5 0.0 9.9 14.6 4.4 9.9 24.9 24.9 7.9 9.6 1.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 463 1180 366 429 1131 343 428 1624 581 351 1605 498 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.81 0.00 0.83 0.72 0.24 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.40 0.04 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 630 1540 478 595 1489 452 630 1944 695 455 1799 558 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 41.8 35.9 0.0 42.2 35.6 31.7 42.2 30.0 30.0 43.4 26.5 23.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.7 1.9 0.0 5.0 0.7 0.1 3.7 2.0 5.4 5.9 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.7 7.0 0.0 4.3 5.7 1.6 4.2 9.1 10.3 3.5 3.6 0.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 47.4 37.8 0.0 47.3 36.3 31.8 46.0 32.0 35.4 49.3 26.6 23.6 LnGrp LOS D D A DDCDCDDCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1344 1253 2156 938 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.6 39.1 35.1 33.3 Approach LOS DDDC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.3 29.0 16.2 37.2 17.2 28.1 14.0 39.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 * 30 18.0 * 35 18.0 * 29 13.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.9 19.5 11.9 11.6 12.9 16.6 9.9 26.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 3.0 0.4 2.5 0.4 2.9 0.2 6.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 37.0 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 46 2082 19 0 897 Future Vol, veh/h 0 46 2082 19 0 897 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 49 2215 20 0 954 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1118 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 173 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 173 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 33.8 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 173 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.283 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 33.8 - HCM Lane LOS - - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 35 1362 49 996 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 35 1362 49 996 0 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA NA Protected Phases 743826 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 743826 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 23.2 9.6 23.2 29.9 29.9 Total Split (s) 11.4 48.0 11.0 47.6 30.8 30.2 Total Split (%) 9.5% 40.0% 9.2% 39.7% 25.7% 25.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 4.9 3.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.9 4.9 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 79.6 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 35 1362 50 49 996 105 71 0 49 35 0 194 Future Volume (veh/h) 35 1362 50 49 996 105 71 0 49 35 0 194 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 36 1404 52 51 1027 108 73 0 51 36 0 200 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 64 1815 67 79 1723 181 128 0 89 44 0 244 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.18 0.00 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5054 187 1781 4682 491 998 0 697 246 0 1366 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 36 946 510 51 746 389 124 0 0 236 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1837 1781 1702 1769 1695 0 0 1612 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.4 17.6 17.6 2.0 12.6 12.7 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.4 17.6 17.6 2.0 12.6 12.7 4.9 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.28 0.59 0.41 0.15 0.85 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 1222 660 79 1252 651 217 0 0 288 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.57 0.77 0.77 0.64 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 170 1997 1077 160 1978 1028 616 0 0 572 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 33.8 20.3 20.3 33.5 18.2 18.2 29.2 0.0 0.0 28.1 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.9 0.4 0.7 3.2 0.2 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.6 5.9 6.4 0.9 4.2 4.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 36.7 20.7 21.0 36.7 18.4 18.6 30.1 0.0 0.0 30.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDBBCAACAA Approach Vol, veh/h 1492 1186 124 236 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.2 19.2 30.1 30.3 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.0 7.8 31.8 17.6 7.1 32.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 6.4 * 42 25.3 6.8 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.9 4.0 19.6 12.0 3.4 14.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 6.0 0.8 0.0 4.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 21.5 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 145 1225 85 58 933 72 125 59 163 137 28 Future Volume (vph) 145 1225 85 58 933 72 125 59 163 137 28 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 57.2 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 145 1225 85 58 933 72 125 59 163 137 28 92 Future Volume (veh/h) 145 1225 85 58 933 72 125 59 163 137 28 92 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 154 1303 80 62 993 63 133 63 69 146 30 67 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 304 1999 620 199 1538 471 365 385 321 367 366 326 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.39 0.39 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1295 1870 1558 1254 1777 1580 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 154 1303 80 62 993 63 133 63 69 146 30 67 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1295 1870 1558 1254 1777 1580 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.1 10.5 1.6 0.9 8.5 1.5 4.8 1.4 1.8 5.4 0.7 1.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.1 10.5 1.6 0.9 8.5 1.5 6.5 1.4 1.8 6.8 0.7 1.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 304 1999 620 199 1538 471 365 385 321 367 366 326 V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.65 0.13 0.31 0.65 0.13 0.36 0.16 0.22 0.40 0.08 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 551 3939 1222 758 3939 1205 692 858 714 759 921 819 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 21.8 12.5 9.8 22.7 15.2 12.8 19.2 16.4 16.5 19.2 16.1 16.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 2.8 0.4 0.3 2.5 0.4 1.3 0.5 0.6 1.5 0.3 0.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.1 12.6 9.8 23.6 15.4 12.8 19.4 16.4 16.7 19.9 16.2 16.8 LnGrp LOS C B A C BBBBBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 1537 1118 265 243 Approach Delay, s/veh 13.5 15.7 18.0 18.6 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 6.9 25.9 17.3 11.4 21.4 17.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 12.5 8.8 4.1 10.5 8.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.2 1.0 0.1 4.4 0.4 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 43 5 34 12 0 53 10 239 13 10 94 21 Future Vol, veh/h 43 5 34 12 0 53 10 239 13 10 94 21 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00001000001 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 66 8 52 18 0 82 15 368 20 15 145 32 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 407 610 90 515 616 195 178 0 0 388 0 0 Stage 1 192 192 - 408 408 ------- Stage 2 215 418 - 107 208 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 529 408 950 443 404 814 1395 - - 1167 - - Stage 1 791 740 - 591 595 ------- Stage 2 767 589 - 887 729 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 467 398 949 406 394 813 1394 - - 1167 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 538 466 - 483 469 ------- Stage 1 782 730 - 584 588 ------- Stage 2 682 583 - 819 719 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.9 10.8 0.3 0.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1394 - - 648 722 1167 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 0.195 0.139 0.013 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 11.9 10.8 8.1 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.7 0.5 0 - - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 6: Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1447 13 0 1260 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1447 13 0 1260 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1573 14 0 1370 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 794 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 284 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----284 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h)---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - HCM Lane LOS A - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---- HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 7: Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 E+P - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1445 0 0 1150 0 9 Future Vol, veh/h 1445 0 0 1150 0 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1571 0 0 1250 0 10 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 ----786 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 0 288 Stage 1 - 0 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----288 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 17.9 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT Capacity (veh/h) 288 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.034 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 17.9 - - HCM Lane LOS C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT C OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITHOUT PROJECT HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 204 448 229 290 606 110 122 426 294 1424 128 Future Volume (vph) 204 448 229 290 606 110 122 426 294 1424 128 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 16.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 44.0 21.0 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 29.2% 29.2% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 10.0% 36.7% 17.5% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 96.9 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 204 448 229 290 606 110 122 426 112 294 1424 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 204 448 229 290 606 110 122 426 112 294 1424 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 234 515 162 333 697 58 140 490 83 338 1637 83 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 317 855 263 421 1009 311 214 1907 310 427 2053 626 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.12 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1568 3456 5106 1575 3456 5605 910 3456 5106 1558 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 234 515 162 333 697 58 140 419 154 338 1637 83 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1568 1728 1702 1575 1728 1609 1690 1728 1702 1558 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 7.7 7.9 7.7 10.5 2.5 3.3 5.2 5.5 7.9 23.3 2.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 7.7 7.9 7.7 10.5 2.5 3.3 5.2 5.5 7.9 23.3 2.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 317 855 263 421 1009 311 214 1641 575 427 2053 626 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.60 0.62 0.79 0.69 0.19 0.66 0.26 0.27 0.79 0.80 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 502 1779 546 669 2026 625 334 2206 773 711 2890 882 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.6 31.9 32.0 35.3 30.8 27.6 37.9 19.7 19.8 35.2 21.8 15.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.3 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.7 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.2 2.9 2.8 3.1 4.0 0.9 1.3 1.7 1.9 3.1 8.1 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 37.8 32.1 32.8 36.5 31.1 27.7 39.2 19.7 19.9 36.4 22.5 15.6 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDBBDCB Approach Vol, veh/h 911 1088 713 2058 Approach Delay, s/veh 33.7 32.6 23.6 24.5 Approach LOS CCCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.1 20.0 9.1 39.4 11.6 22.5 14.2 34.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 29 8.0 * 47 12.0 * 33 17.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 9.7 9.9 5.3 25.3 7.5 12.5 9.9 7.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.1 0.1 7.9 0.2 2.8 0.4 2.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.0 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 657 24 0 1849 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 657 24 0 1849 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 5 764 28 0 2150 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 396 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 515 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 515 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.1 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 515 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.009 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 811 42 0 937 66 0070068 Future Vol, veh/h 0 811 42 0 937 66 0070068 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02001000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length --------0--0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 845 44 0 976 69 0070071 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - - 0 - - 447 - - 524 Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Critical Hdwy --------7.14 - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------ Follow-up Hdwy --------3.92 - - 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 478 0 0 426 Stage 1 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --------477--426 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------------ Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.7 15.1 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 477 ----426 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.015 ----0.166 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.7 ----15.1 HCM Lane LOS B ----C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----0.6 Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 29 595 195 200 922 6 73 20 29 38 19 Future Volume (vph) 29 595 195 200 922 6 73 20 29 38 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 47.6 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 29 595 195 200 922 6 73 20 29 38 19 7 Future Volume (veh/h) 29 595 195 200 922 6 73 20 29 38 19 7 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 30 613 158 206 951 6 75 21 11 39 20 2 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 121 1817 564 372 1826 559 339 240 202 332 419 41 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.11 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1374 1870 1570 1365 3260 320 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 30 613 158 206 951 6 75 21 11 39 11 11 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1374 1870 1570 1365 1777 1803 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 3.7 3.0 2.4 6.2 0.1 2.1 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.2 0.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 3.7 3.0 2.4 6.2 0.1 2.4 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.2 0.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 1817 564 372 1826 559 339 240 202 332 228 232 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.34 0.28 0.55 0.52 0.01 0.22 0.09 0.05 0.12 0.05 0.05 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 652 4661 1446 897 4661 1426 908 1015 852 994 1090 1106 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.9 10.0 9.8 18.0 10.8 8.8 17.2 16.3 16.2 17.0 16.2 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 10.0 9.9 19.3 10.8 8.8 17.4 16.3 16.3 17.1 16.3 16.3 LnGrp LOS C BABBABBBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 801 1163 107 61 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.4 12.3 17.0 16.8 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.6 21.4 12.5 8.5 21.5 12.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.4 5.7 3.5 2.4 8.2 4.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.7 0.2 0.0 4.1 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 143611771124228964 Future Vol, veh/h 3 143611771124228964 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02003000006 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 3 143712879134732171 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 519 565 204 359 594 49 398 0 0 92 0 0 Stage 1 457 457 - 102 102 ------- Stage 2 62 108 - 257 492 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 440 433 803 572 416 1009 1157 - - 1501 - - Stage 1 553 566 - 893 810 ------- Stage 2 942 805 - 725 546 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 414 414 797 550 398 1006 1150 - - 1501 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 471 464 - 591 448 ------- Stage 1 546 545 - 887 804 ------- Stage 2 914 799 - 696 526 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.2 10.5 0.6 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1150 - - 591 680 1501 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.007 - - 0.015 0.033 0.031 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 11.2 10.5 7.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.1 0.1 - - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 396 931 61 346 814 157 374 1607 272 639 98 Future Volume (vph) 396 931 61 346 814 157 374 1607 272 639 98 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 22.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 46.0 17.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 29.2% 29.2% 18.3% 38.3% 14.2% 34.2% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 113.7 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 396 931 61 346 814 157 374 1607 302 272 639 98 Future Volume (veh/h) 396 931 61 346 814 157 374 1607 302 272 639 98 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 417 980 12 364 857 91 394 1692 236 286 673 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 485 1180 364 432 1102 334 463 1987 277 351 1601 496 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1575 3456 5106 1548 3456 5747 802 3456 5106 1584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 417 980 12 364 857 91 394 1421 507 286 673 47 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1575 1728 1702 1548 1728 1609 1724 1728 1702 1584 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.3 19.0 0.6 10.7 16.4 5.1 11.6 28.4 28.4 8.4 10.8 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.3 19.0 0.6 10.7 16.4 5.1 11.6 28.4 28.4 8.4 10.8 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 485 1180 364 432 1102 334 463 1669 596 351 1601 496 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.83 0.03 0.84 0.78 0.27 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.42 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 599 1465 452 565 1415 429 599 1849 660 432 1710 530 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.7 38.0 31.0 44.4 38.4 33.9 44.0 31.5 31.5 45.7 28.2 25.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8 2.8 0.0 7.0 1.5 0.2 7.4 3.4 8.8 7.7 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.6 7.7 0.2 4.8 6.6 1.8 5.2 10.6 12.3 3.8 4.2 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 52.5 40.8 31.0 51.4 39.9 34.1 51.4 34.9 40.3 53.4 28.3 25.3 LnGrp LOS DDCDDCDCDDCC Approach Vol, veh/h 1409 1312 2322 1006 Approach Delay, s/veh 44.2 42.7 38.9 35.3 Approach LOS DDDD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.0 30.2 17.9 38.8 18.6 28.6 14.6 42.1 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 * 30 18.0 * 35 18.0 * 29 13.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.7 21.0 13.6 12.8 14.3 18.4 10.4 30.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.9 0.3 2.7 0.3 2.8 0.1 5.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.3 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 33 1750 7 0 944 Future Vol, veh/h 0 33 1750 7 0 944 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 35 1862 7 0 1004 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 935 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 229 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 229 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 23.5 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 229 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.153 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 23.5 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.5 - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1500 6 0 1114 109 0 0 32 0 0 202 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1500 6 0 1114 109 0 0 32 0 0 202 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length --------0--0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 1546 6 0 1148 112 0 0 33 0 0 208 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - - 0 - - 776 - - 630 Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Critical Hdwy --------7.14 - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------ Follow-up Hdwy --------3.92 - - 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 292 0 0 364 Stage 1 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --------292--364 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------------ Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 18.9 27.3 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 292 ----364 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 ----0.572 HCM Control Delay (s) 18.9 ----27.3 HCM Lane LOS C ----D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 ----3.4 Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 183 1264 86 65 972 75 162 62 167 178 29 Future Volume (vph) 183 1264 86 65 972 75 162 62 167 178 29 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 63 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 183 1264 86 65 972 75 162 62 167 178 29 89 Future Volume (veh/h) 183 1264 86 65 972 75 162 62 167 178 29 89 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 195 1345 81 69 1034 74 172 66 149 189 31 88 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 307 1955 607 204 1527 467 386 461 384 384 437 389 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1270 1870 1559 1163 1777 1581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 195 1345 81 69 1034 74 172 66 149 189 31 88 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1270 1870 1559 1163 1777 1581 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.0 12.2 1.8 1.1 9.9 1.9 6.9 1.5 4.4 8.4 0.7 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.0 12.2 1.8 1.1 9.9 1.9 9.4 1.5 4.4 9.9 0.7 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 307 1955 607 204 1527 467 386 461 384 384 437 389 V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.69 0.13 0.34 0.68 0.16 0.45 0.14 0.39 0.49 0.07 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 498 3562 1105 685 3562 1090 600 775 646 643 833 741 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 24.4 14.3 11.1 25.1 17.1 14.3 20.4 16.3 17.4 20.2 16.0 16.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.2 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 3.5 0.5 0.4 3.1 0.6 1.9 0.6 1.4 2.2 0.3 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 26.6 14.5 11.2 26.0 17.3 14.4 20.7 16.4 17.7 21.2 16.1 17.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B B C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1621 1177 387 308 Approach Delay, s/veh 15.8 17.6 18.8 19.5 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.3 27.5 20.7 11.9 22.9 20.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 14.2 11.9 5.0 11.9 11.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.3 1.2 0.2 4.6 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 17.1 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.11/04/2021 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 5 31 13 0 55 4 253 14 11 96 13 Future Vol, veh/h 38 5 31 13 0 55 4 253 14 11 96 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00001000001 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 58 8 48 20 0 85 6 389 22 17 148 20 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 401 616 85 524 615 207 169 0 0 411 0 0 Stage 1 193 193 - 412 412 ------- Stage 2 208 423 - 112 203 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 534 404 957 436 405 799 1406 - - 1144 - - Stage 1 790 740 - 588 593 ------- Stage 2 775 586 - 881 732 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 469 396 956 403 397 798 1405 - - 1144 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 541 464 - 483 472 ------- Stage 1 786 728 - 586 591 ------- Stage 2 689 584 - 816 720 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.7 10.9 0.1 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1405 - - 652 710 1144 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - 0.175 0.147 0.015 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 11.7 10.9 8.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.6 0.5 0 - - 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT D OPENING YEAR CUMULATIVE (2023) WITH PROJECT HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 204 459 229 299 618 117 144 430 301 1424 128 Future Volume (vph) 204 459 229 299 618 117 144 430 301 1424 128 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 16.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 44.0 21.0 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 29.2% 29.2% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 10.0% 36.7% 17.5% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 97.8 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 204 459 229 299 618 117 144 430 123 301 1424 128 Future Volume (veh/h) 204 459 229 299 618 117 144 430 123 301 1424 128 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 234 528 162 344 710 66 166 494 95 346 1637 83 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 315 845 260 430 1015 313 241 1887 346 433 2039 622 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.34 0.34 0.13 0.40 0.40 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1568 3456 5106 1575 3456 5489 1007 3456 5106 1558 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 234 528 162 344 710 66 166 431 158 346 1637 83 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1568 1728 1702 1575 1728 1609 1671 1728 1702 1558 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 8.1 8.1 8.2 11.0 3.0 4.0 5.5 5.8 8.2 24.0 2.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 8.1 8.1 8.2 11.0 3.0 4.0 5.5 5.8 8.2 24.0 2.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 315 845 260 430 1015 313 241 1659 574 433 2039 622 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.62 0.62 0.80 0.70 0.21 0.69 0.26 0.27 0.80 0.80 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 490 1737 533 653 1978 610 327 2154 746 694 2822 861 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.5 32.9 32.9 36.0 31.6 28.4 38.5 20.0 20.1 36.0 22.5 16.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.3 0.3 0.9 2.1 0.3 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.8 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 3.1 2.9 3.3 4.2 1.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 3.3 8.5 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.8 33.2 33.8 38.2 31.9 28.5 40.0 20.1 20.2 37.3 23.3 16.2 LnGrp LOS DCCDCCDCCDCB Approach Vol, veh/h 924 1120 755 2066 Approach Delay, s/veh 34.7 33.6 24.5 25.3 Approach LOS CCCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.5 20.2 9.9 40.0 11.7 23.0 14.6 35.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 29 8.0 * 47 12.0 * 33 17.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.2 10.1 6.0 26.0 7.6 13.0 10.2 7.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.2 0.1 7.8 0.2 2.8 0.4 2.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 28.9 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 664 29 0 1870 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 664 29 0 1870 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 40 772 34 0 2174 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 403 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 510 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 510 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.7 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 510 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.078 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 12.7 - HCM Lane LOS - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 5 810 51 922 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 5 810 51 922 0 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA NA Protected Phases 743826 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 743826 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 23.2 9.6 23.2 29.9 29.9 Total Split (s) 11.0 39.0 16.0 44.0 33.0 32.0 Total Split (%) 9.2% 32.5% 13.3% 36.7% 27.5% 26.7% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 4.9 3.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.9 4.9 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 58.9 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 5 810 59 51 922 66 43 0 16 7 0 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 5 810 59 51 922 66 43 0 16 7 0 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 5 844 61 53 960 69 45 0 17 7 0 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 12 1298 93 94 1522 109 146 0 55 19 0 201 Arrive On Green 0.01 0.27 0.27 0.05 0.31 0.31 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.14 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4860 350 1781 4862 349 1250 0 472 138 0 1462 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 5 590 315 53 672 357 62 0 0 81 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1806 1781 1702 1807 1723 0 0 1600 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.1 7.4 7.5 1.4 8.2 8.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.1 7.4 7.5 1.4 8.2 8.2 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.19 0.73 0.27 0.09 0.91 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 12 909 482 94 1065 566 201 0 0 219 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.42 0.65 0.65 0.56 0.63 0.63 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 236 2310 1225 420 2662 1413 1002 0 0 897 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.9 15.7 15.7 22.4 14.2 14.2 19.6 0.0 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.4 0.3 0.6 2.0 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 2.2 2.4 0.5 2.3 2.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.3 16.0 16.3 24.3 14.4 14.7 19.9 0.0 0.0 19.3 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS C B B C BBBAABAA Approach Vol, veh/h 910 1082 62 81 Approach Delay, s/veh 16.2 15.0 19.9 19.3 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 10.5 7.1 19.1 11.5 4.9 21.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 28 11.4 * 33 27.1 6.4 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.6 3.4 9.5 4.2 2.1 10.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.3 0.0 4.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 32 613 200 165 969 6 60 20 42 31 19 Future Volume (vph) 32 613 200 165 969 6 60 20 42 31 19 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 48 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 613 200 165 969 6 60 20 42 31 19 10 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 613 200 165 969 6 60 20 42 31 19 10 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.97 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 632 163 170 999 6 62 21 24 32 20 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 131 1855 575 352 1820 557 336 239 200 328 361 86 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.10 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1371 1870 1570 1349 2830 675 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 632 163 170 999 6 62 21 24 32 12 13 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1371 1870 1570 1349 1777 1728 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 3.8 3.1 2.0 6.6 0.1 1.8 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 3.8 3.1 2.0 6.6 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.3 0.3 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 131 1855 575 352 1820 557 336 239 200 328 227 221 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.34 0.28 0.48 0.55 0.01 0.18 0.09 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.06 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 651 4652 1443 895 4652 1423 903 1013 850 982 1088 1058 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.8 9.8 9.6 18.0 10.9 8.8 17.2 16.3 16.4 16.9 16.3 16.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 1.6 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 9.9 9.7 19.0 11.0 8.8 17.3 16.4 16.5 17.1 16.4 16.4 LnGrp LOS C AABBABBBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 828 1175 107 57 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.3 12.2 16.9 16.8 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.3 21.7 12.4 8.6 21.4 12.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.0 5.8 3.3 2.4 8.6 4.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.8 0.2 0.0 4.4 0.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.8 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 1 13 3 6 11 9 73 12 42 294 68 Future Vol, veh/h 16 1 13 3 6 11 9 73 12 42 294 68 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02003000006 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 18 1 14 3 7 12 10 81 13 47 327 76 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 532 579 210 368 611 50 409 0 0 94 0 0 Stage 1 465 465 - 108 108 ------- Stage 2 67 114 - 260 503 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 430 425 796 563 407 1008 1146 - - 1498 - - Stage 1 547 561 - 886 805 ------- Stage 2 936 800 - 722 540 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 404 406 790 534 389 1005 1139 - - 1498 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 464 458 - 578 440 ------- Stage 1 539 540 - 878 798 ------- Stage 2 906 793 - 684 520 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 11.8 10.5 0.8 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1139 - - 565 672 1498 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - 0.059 0.033 0.031 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 - - 11.8 10.5 7.5 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 6: Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 875 7 0 1033 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 875 7 0 1033 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 951 8 0 1123 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 480 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 455 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----455 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h)---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - HCM Lane LOS A - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---- HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 7: Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 835 0 0 1039 0 11 Future Vol, veh/h 835 0 0 1039 0 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 908 0 0 1129 0 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 ----454 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 0 473 Stage 1 - 0 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----473 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 12.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT Capacity (veh/h) 473 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.025 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.8 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 396 952 61 356 825 164 384 1609 285 639 98 Future Volume (vph) 396 952 61 356 825 164 384 1609 285 639 98 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 22.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 46.0 17.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 29.2% 29.2% 18.3% 38.3% 14.2% 34.2% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 114.9 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 396 952 61 356 825 164 384 1609 315 285 639 98 Future Volume (veh/h) 396 952 61 356 825 164 384 1609 315 285 639 98 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 417 1002 12 375 868 99 404 1694 250 300 673 47 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 483 1185 366 441 1124 341 470 1960 289 363 1597 495 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.31 0.31 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1575 3456 5106 1549 3456 5701 841 3456 5106 1584 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 417 1002 12 375 868 99 404 1434 510 300 673 47 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1575 1728 1702 1549 1728 1609 1716 1728 1702 1584 Q Serve(g_s), s 12.6 20.0 0.6 11.3 17.0 5.7 12.2 29.6 29.6 9.1 11.1 2.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 12.6 20.0 0.6 11.3 17.0 5.7 12.2 29.6 29.6 9.1 11.1 2.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 483 1185 366 441 1124 341 470 1660 590 363 1597 495 V/C Ratio(X) 0.86 0.85 0.03 0.85 0.77 0.29 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.83 0.42 0.09 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 584 1427 440 551 1380 418 584 1802 641 421 1667 517 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 44.9 39.1 31.7 45.5 39.1 34.6 45.0 32.6 32.6 46.8 29.0 25.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 9.7 3.6 0.0 8.5 1.7 0.2 8.9 4.0 10.4 9.9 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 5.8 8.3 0.2 5.2 6.9 2.1 5.6 11.3 13.1 4.2 4.3 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 54.6 42.7 31.7 54.0 40.8 34.8 53.9 36.7 43.0 56.6 29.1 26.0 LnGrp LOS DDCDDCDDDECC Approach Vol, veh/h 1431 1342 2348 1020 Approach Delay, s/veh 46.0 44.0 41.0 37.0 Approach LOS DDDD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.6 30.9 18.5 39.5 18.9 29.7 15.2 42.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 * 30 18.0 * 35 18.0 * 29 13.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.3 22.0 14.2 13.1 14.6 19.0 11.1 31.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.7 0.3 2.7 0.3 2.8 0.1 5.1 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.2 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 47 2261 19 0 960 Future Vol, veh/h 0 47 2261 19 0 960 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 50 2405 20 0 1021 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1213 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 6.7 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 173 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 173 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 34.1 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 173 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.289 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 34.1 - HCM Lane LOS - - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.1 - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 36 1453 50 1071 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 36 1453 50 1071 0 0 Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA NA NA Protected Phases 743826 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 743826 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.6 23.2 9.6 23.2 29.9 29.9 Total Split (s) 11.4 48.0 11.0 47.6 30.8 30.2 Total Split (%) 9.5% 40.0% 9.2% 39.7% 25.7% 25.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.6 4.9 3.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.6 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.9 4.9 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 81.8 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 36 1453 50 50 1071 109 72 0 50 36 0 202 Future Volume (veh/h) 36 1453 50 50 1071 109 72 0 50 36 0 202 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 37 1498 52 52 1104 112 74 0 52 37 0 208 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 64 1896 66 79 1797 182 123 0 87 45 0 251 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.37 0.37 0.04 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.18 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5067 176 1781 4700 476 995 0 699 243 0 1368 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 37 1006 544 52 799 417 126 0 0 245 0 0 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1839 1781 1702 1773 1695 0 0 1612 0 0 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.5 19.7 19.7 2.2 14.2 14.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.5 19.7 19.7 2.2 14.2 14.2 5.3 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.10 1.00 0.27 0.59 0.41 0.15 0.85 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 64 1274 688 79 1302 678 210 0 0 295 0 0 V/C Ratio(X) 0.58 0.79 0.79 0.66 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 162 1898 1025 152 1880 979 586 0 0 544 0 0 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 35.6 20.8 20.8 35.3 18.7 18.7 31.1 0.0 0.0 29.5 0.0 0.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.7 1.3 3.5 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 6.7 7.4 0.9 4.8 5.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 0.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 38.7 21.6 22.2 38.8 18.9 19.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 31.8 0.0 0.0 LnGrp LOS DCCDBBCAACAA Approach Vol, veh/h 1587 1268 126 245 Approach Delay, s/veh 22.2 19.7 32.1 31.8 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 14.2 7.9 34.2 18.6 7.3 34.9 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 6.4 * 42 25.3 6.8 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 4.2 21.7 13.0 3.5 16.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 6.4 0.8 0.0 4.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 22.3 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 150 1309 89 61 998 75 136 62 173 142 29 Future Volume (vph) 150 1309 89 61 998 75 136 62 173 142 29 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 59.7 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 150 1309 89 61 998 75 136 62 173 142 29 95 Future Volume (veh/h) 150 1309 89 61 998 75 136 62 173 142 29 95 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 160 1393 85 65 1062 66 145 66 80 151 31 70 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 299 2033 631 202 1596 488 363 394 328 364 375 333 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.06 0.31 0.31 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1291 1870 1558 1238 1777 1581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 160 1393 85 65 1062 66 145 66 80 151 31 70 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1291 1870 1558 1238 1777 1581 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.3 11.7 1.8 0.9 9.4 1.6 5.4 1.5 2.2 5.9 0.7 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.3 11.7 1.8 0.9 9.4 1.6 7.3 1.5 2.2 7.4 0.7 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 299 2033 631 202 1596 488 363 394 328 364 375 333 V/C Ratio(X) 0.53 0.69 0.13 0.32 0.67 0.14 0.40 0.17 0.24 0.42 0.08 0.21 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 531 3797 1178 731 3797 1162 662 827 689 721 888 790 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.8 13.0 10.0 23.5 15.5 12.8 20.0 16.8 17.1 19.8 16.5 17.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.9 3.2 0.4 0.3 2.8 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 24.2 13.1 10.0 24.4 15.7 12.9 20.2 16.9 17.2 20.6 16.6 17.3 LnGrp LOS C B A C B B C B B C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1638 1193 291 252 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.0 16.0 18.7 19.2 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.0 27.0 18.0 11.5 22.6 18.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.9 13.7 9.4 4.3 11.4 9.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 6.7 1.0 0.1 4.8 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 44 5 35 13 0 55 10 258 14 11 99 22 Future Vol, veh/h 44 5 35 13 0 55 10 258 14 11 99 22 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00001000001 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 68 8 54 20 0 85 15 397 22 17 152 34 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 434 653 94 552 659 211 187 0 0 419 0 0 Stage 1 204 204 - 438 438 ------- Stage 2 230 449 - 114 221 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 506 385 944 416 382 794 1385 - - 1137 - - Stage 1 779 732 - 567 577 ------- Stage 2 752 571 - 879 719 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 442 375 943 379 372 793 1384 - - 1137 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 519 447 - 461 452 ------- Stage 1 770 720 - 561 571 ------- Stage 2 664 565 - 808 707 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 11.1 0.3 0.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1384 - - 631 697 1137 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 0.205 0.15 0.015 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 12.2 11.1 8.2 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.8 0.5 0 - - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 6: Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1539 13 0 1344 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1539 13 0 1344 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1673 14 0 1461 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 844 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 263 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----263 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h)---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - HCM Lane LOS A - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---- HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 7: Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Opening Year Cumulative (2023) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1539 0 0 1230 0 9 Future Vol, veh/h 1539 0 0 1230 0 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1673 0 0 1337 0 10 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 ----837 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 0 266 Stage 1 - 0 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----266 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 19.1 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT Capacity (veh/h) 266 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 19.1 - - HCM Lane LOS C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT E HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITHOUT PROJECT HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 207 500 252 301 702 120 150 533 313 1566 130 Future Volume (vph) 207 500 252 301 702 120 150 533 313 1566 130 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 16.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 44.0 21.0 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 29.2% 29.2% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 10.0% 36.7% 17.5% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 105.2 Natural Cycle: 85 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 500 252 301 702 120 150 533 147 313 1566 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 207 500 252 301 702 120 150 533 147 313 1566 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 238 575 189 346 807 70 172 613 123 360 1800 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 310 907 279 421 1072 331 240 1956 378 436 2127 649 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.07 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.42 0.42 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1569 3456 5106 1576 3456 5438 1050 3456 5106 1558 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 238 575 189 346 807 70 172 541 195 360 1800 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1569 1728 1702 1576 1728 1609 1662 1728 1702 1558 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.4 9.9 10.7 9.3 14.1 3.5 4.6 7.7 8.1 9.7 30.2 3.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.4 9.9 10.7 9.3 14.1 3.5 4.6 7.7 8.1 9.7 30.2 3.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 907 279 421 1072 331 240 1736 598 436 2127 649 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.63 0.68 0.82 0.75 0.21 0.72 0.31 0.33 0.83 0.85 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 436 1546 475 581 1761 543 291 1918 661 618 2512 767 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 42.3 36.2 36.6 40.8 35.3 31.1 43.3 22.0 22.1 40.5 25.0 17.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.1 0.3 1.1 4.7 0.4 0.1 4.6 0.0 0.1 4.3 2.2 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 3.9 3.9 4.0 5.5 1.3 2.0 2.7 2.9 4.1 11.2 1.0 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 45.4 36.5 37.6 45.5 35.7 31.2 47.9 22.0 22.2 44.8 27.2 17.2 LnGrp LOS DDDDDCDCCDCB Approach Vol, veh/h 1002 1223 908 2245 Approach Delay, s/veh 38.8 38.2 26.9 29.6 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 15.6 23.1 10.6 45.8 12.5 26.2 16.0 40.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 29 8.0 * 47 12.0 * 33 17.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.3 12.7 6.6 32.2 8.4 16.1 11.7 10.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.3 0.0 7.4 0.1 3.1 0.3 2.9 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.8 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 4 826 24 0 2026 Future Vol, veh/h 0 4 826 24 0 2026 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 5 960 28 0 2356 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 494 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 446 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 446 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 13.2 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 446 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.01 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 13.2 - HCM Lane LOS - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0 - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 918 42 0 1055 66 0070068 Future Vol, veh/h 0 918 42 0 1055 66 0070068 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02001000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length --------0--0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 956 44 0 1099 69 0070071 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - - 0 - - 502 - - 585 Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Critical Hdwy --------7.14 - - 7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------ Follow-up Hdwy --------3.92 - - 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 440 0 0 389 Stage 1 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --------439--389 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------------ Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.3 16.3 HCM LOS B C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 439 ----389 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 ----0.182 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.3 ----16.3 HCM Lane LOS B ----C HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 ----0.7 Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 32 679 214 220 1033 7 76 22 31 59 23 Future Volume (vph) 32 679 214 220 1033 7 76 22 31 59 23 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 51.4 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 32 679 214 220 1033 7 76 22 31 59 23 12 Future Volume (veh/h) 32 679 214 220 1033 7 76 22 31 59 23 12 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 33 700 178 227 1065 7 78 23 13 61 24 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 131 1800 558 380 1810 554 339 249 209 335 364 101 Arrive On Green 0.04 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1364 1870 1571 1361 2733 756 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 33 700 178 227 1065 7 78 23 13 61 15 16 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1364 1870 1571 1361 1777 1712 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.4 4.4 3.5 2.7 7.3 0.1 2.3 0.5 0.3 1.8 0.3 0.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.4 4.4 3.5 2.7 7.3 0.1 2.6 0.5 0.3 2.2 0.3 0.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 131 1800 558 380 1810 554 339 249 209 335 237 228 V/C Ratio(X) 0.25 0.39 0.32 0.60 0.59 0.01 0.23 0.09 0.06 0.18 0.06 0.07 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 646 4617 1432 888 4617 1413 890 1005 844 980 1079 1040 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.0 10.4 10.1 18.1 11.3 9.0 17.4 16.3 16.2 17.2 16.2 16.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 21.0 10.4 10.2 19.7 11.4 9.0 17.5 16.3 16.3 17.5 16.3 16.4 LnGrp LOS C BBBBABBBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 911 1299 114 92 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.8 12.8 17.1 17.1 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.7 21.4 12.7 8.6 21.5 12.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.7 6.4 4.2 2.4 9.3 4.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 3.1 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 1547128114134738070 Future Vol, veh/h 4 1547128114134738070 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02003000006 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 4 1648139127145242278 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 660 730 258 470 762 74 506 0 0 141 0 0 Stage 1 571 571 - 152 152 ------- Stage 2 89 159 - 318 610 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 348 348 741 477 333 973 1055 - - 1440 - - Stage 1 473 503 - 835 771 ------- Stage 2 908 765 - 668 483 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 324 331 735 456 316 970 1049 - - 1440 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 397 400 - 523 385 ------- Stage 1 466 482 - 827 764 ------- Stage 2 876 758 - 636 463 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.1 11.2 0.5 0.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1049 - - 516 602 1440 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.008 - - 0.022 0.042 0.036 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 12.1 11.2 7.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 0.1 0.1 - - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 422 1080 61 382 976 161 401 1630 300 672 108 Future Volume (vph) 422 1080 61 382 976 161 401 1630 300 672 108 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 22.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 46.0 17.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 29.2% 29.2% 18.3% 38.3% 14.2% 34.2% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 118 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 422 1080 61 382 976 161 401 1630 318 300 672 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 422 1080 61 382 976 161 401 1630 318 300 672 108 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 444 1137 12 402 1027 95 422 1716 253 316 707 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 501 1260 389 460 1199 364 481 1906 281 372 1546 479 Arrive On Green 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.13 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1575 3456 5106 1550 3456 5701 841 3456 5106 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 444 1137 12 402 1027 95 422 1452 517 316 707 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1575 1728 1702 1550 1728 1609 1716 1728 1702 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.4 24.7 0.7 13.1 22.1 5.7 13.7 32.8 32.8 10.3 12.8 3.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.4 24.7 0.7 13.1 22.1 5.7 13.7 32.8 32.8 10.3 12.8 3.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 501 1260 389 460 1199 364 481 1613 574 372 1546 479 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.90 0.03 0.87 0.86 0.26 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.46 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 543 1328 410 513 1284 390 543 1677 596 392 1551 481 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.0 41.8 32.7 48.7 42.0 35.7 48.3 36.3 36.3 50.2 32.3 28.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.5 8.2 0.0 13.2 5.2 0.1 12.8 6.6 15.8 14.4 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.0 10.8 0.2 6.2 9.4 2.1 6.5 13.0 15.4 5.0 5.0 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.5 50.0 32.8 61.9 47.2 35.9 61.2 42.9 52.1 64.6 32.4 28.9 LnGrp LOS E D C E D D E D D E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1593 1524 2391 1081 Approach Delay, s/veh 53.3 50.4 48.1 41.6 Approach LOS DDDD Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.3 34.5 19.9 40.9 20.6 33.1 16.3 44.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 * 30 18.0 * 35 18.0 * 29 13.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 26.7 15.7 14.8 16.4 24.1 12.3 34.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.5 0.2 2.8 0.2 2.1 0.1 3.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.8 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.3 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 33 1816 7 0 1013 Future Vol, veh/h 0 33 1816 7 0 1013 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 35 1932 7 0 1078 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 970 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 217 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 217 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 24.8 0 0 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 217 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.162 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 24.8 - HCM Lane LOS - - C - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.6 - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1691 6 0 1317 109 0 0 32 0 0 202 Future Vol, veh/h 0 1691 6 0 1317 109 0 0 32 0 0 202 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length --------0--0 Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 1743 6 0 1358 112 0 0 33 0 0 208 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All - 0 0 - - 0 - - 875 - - 735 Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Critical Hdwy --------7.14 - - 6.5 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------------ Follow-up Hdwy --------3.92 - - 3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 251 0 0 354 Stage 1 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Stage 2 0 - - 0 - - 0 0 - 0 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver --------251--354 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------------ Stage 1 ------------ Stage 2 ------------ Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 21.5 28.7 HCM LOS C D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT WBRSBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 251 ----354 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.131 ----0.588 HCM Control Delay (s) 21.5 ----28.7 HCM Lane LOS C ----D HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 ----3.6 Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 191 1438 94 72 1150 94 178 68 184 196 32 Future Volume (vph) 191 1438 94 72 1150 94 178 68 184 196 32 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 68.5 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 191 1438 94 72 1150 94 178 68 184 196 32 98 Future Volume (veh/h) 191 1438 94 72 1150 94 178 68 184 196 32 98 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 203 1530 90 77 1223 94 189 72 167 209 34 97 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 305 2082 646 202 1690 517 380 488 406 377 463 412 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1257 1870 1559 1138 1777 1581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 203 1530 90 77 1223 94 189 72 167 209 34 97 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1257 1870 1559 1138 1777 1581 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 16.1 2.3 1.4 13.4 2.7 8.8 1.9 5.6 11.0 0.9 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 16.1 2.3 1.4 13.4 2.7 11.9 1.9 5.6 12.8 0.9 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 305 2082 646 202 1690 517 380 488 406 377 463 412 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.73 0.14 0.38 0.72 0.18 0.50 0.15 0.41 0.55 0.07 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 436 3118 967 600 3118 954 509 679 566 547 729 649 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.0 15.9 11.8 28.7 18.7 15.1 23.1 18.0 19.4 23.0 17.7 18.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 1.3 0.1 0.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 4.9 0.6 0.5 4.3 0.8 2.4 0.7 1.9 2.9 0.4 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.5 16.1 11.8 29.9 18.9 15.2 23.5 18.1 19.6 24.2 17.7 18.7 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B B C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1823 1394 428 340 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.5 19.2 21.1 22.0 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.7 32.2 23.5 12.6 27.3 23.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.4 18.1 14.8 5.6 15.4 13.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.1 1.3 0.1 5.6 0.6 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.9 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.11/04/2021 Horizon Year (2040) Without Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 42 6 34 14 0 61 5 278 15 12 106 14 Future Vol, veh/h 42 6 34 14 0 61 5 278 15 12 106 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00001000001 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 65 9 52 22 0 94 8 428 23 18 163 22 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 442 678 94 578 678 227 186 0 0 451 0 0 Stage 1 211 211 - 456 456 ------- Stage 2 231 467 - 122 222 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 499 373 944 399 373 776 1386 - - 1106 - - Stage 1 771 726 - 554 567 ------- Stage 2 751 560 - 869 718 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 431 364 943 365 364 775 1385 - - 1106 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 510 439 - 451 446 ------- Stage 1 766 714 - 551 564 ------- Stage 2 656 557 - 797 706 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 11.3 0.1 0.8 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1385 - - 621 683 1106 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - 0.203 0.169 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.6 - - 12.3 11.3 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.8 0.6 0.1 - - 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT F HORIZON YEAR (2040) WITH PROJECT HCM ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 207 511 252 310 714 127 172 537 320 1566 130 Future Volume (vph) 207 511 252 310 714 127 172 537 320 1566 130 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 16.0 35.0 35.0 20.0 39.0 39.0 12.0 44.0 21.0 53.0 53.0 Total Split (%) 13.3% 29.2% 29.2% 16.7% 32.5% 32.5% 10.0% 36.7% 17.5% 44.2% 44.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 105.8 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 207 511 252 310 714 127 172 537 158 320 1566 130 Future Volume (veh/h) 207 511 252 310 714 127 172 537 158 320 1566 130 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 238 587 189 356 821 78 198 617 136 368 1800 85 Peak Hour Factor 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 308 900 276 429 1078 333 264 1934 409 442 2111 644 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.36 0.36 0.13 0.41 0.41 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1569 3456 5106 1576 3456 5342 1130 3456 5106 1558 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 238 587 189 356 821 78 198 555 198 368 1800 85 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1569 1728 1702 1576 1728 1609 1647 1728 1702 1558 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 10.4 11.0 9.8 14.7 4.0 5.5 8.1 8.5 10.1 31.1 3.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 10.4 11.0 9.8 14.7 4.0 5.5 8.1 8.5 10.1 31.1 3.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 308 900 276 429 1078 333 264 1747 596 442 2111 644 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.65 0.68 0.83 0.76 0.23 0.75 0.32 0.33 0.83 0.85 0.13 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 426 1512 465 569 1722 532 284 1876 640 604 2457 750 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 43.3 37.3 37.5 41.6 36.1 31.8 44.0 22.4 22.5 41.4 25.8 17.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 3.6 0.3 1.1 5.9 0.4 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.1 5.3 2.4 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 4.1 4.1 4.3 5.8 1.4 2.5 2.8 3.0 4.4 11.6 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.9 37.6 38.6 47.5 36.5 32.0 52.3 22.4 22.6 46.7 28.3 17.7 LnGrp LOS DDDDDCDCCDCB Approach Vol, veh/h 1014 1255 951 2253 Approach Delay, s/veh 40.0 39.3 28.7 30.9 Approach LOS DDCC Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 16.1 23.3 11.4 46.4 12.7 26.7 16.4 41.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 16.0 * 29 8.0 * 47 12.0 * 33 17.0 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 11.8 13.0 7.5 33.1 8.6 16.7 12.1 10.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 2.4 0.0 7.1 0.1 3.2 0.3 3.0 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 34.1 HCM 6th LOS C Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 3 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.2 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 34 833 29 0 2047 Future Vol, veh/h 0 34 833 29 0 2047 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 40 969 34 0 2380 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 502 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 7.14 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 440 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 440 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 14 0 0 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 440 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.09 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 14 - HCM Lane LOS - - B - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 0.3 - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Ø7 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 922 12 1055 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 922 12 1055 0 0 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA NA Protected Phases 438267 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 43826 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 23.2 9.6 23.2 29.9 29.9 9.6 Total Split (s) 39.0 16.0 44.0 33.0 32.0 11.0 Total Split (%) 32.5% 13.3% 36.7% 27.5% 26.7% 9% Yellow Time (s) 4.9 3.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.9 4.9 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 51.1 Natural Cycle: 95 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 922 59 12 1055 66 28 0 16 0 0 68 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 922 59 12 1055 66 28 0 16 0 0 68 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 960 61 12 1099 69 29 0 17 0 0 74 Peak Hour Factor 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 4 1476 94 28 2050 129 104 0 61 0 0 212 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.02 0.42 0.42 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 4906 311 1781 4910 308 1074 0 630 0 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 666 355 12 762 406 46 000074 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1813 1781 1702 1814 1703 00001585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 7.7 7.8 0.3 7.6 7.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 7.7 7.8 0.3 7.6 7.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 0.63 0.37 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 4 1024 545 28 1421 758 165 0000212 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.65 0.65 0.44 0.54 0.54 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 251 2456 1308 447 2831 1509 1053 0000945 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 13.8 13.8 22.2 9.9 9.9 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 0.3 0.5 4.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 2.1 2.3 0.1 1.8 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 14.1 14.3 26.2 10.1 10.2 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 LnGrp LOS A B B C BBBAAAAB Approach Vol, veh/h 1021 1180 46 74 Approach Delay, s/veh 14.2 10.3 19.4 18.3 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 9.3 5.3 19.9 11.0 0.0 25.2 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 28 11.4 * 33 27.1 6.4 * 38 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.1 2.3 9.8 3.9 0.0 9.6 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 0.0 3.9 0.2 0.0 4.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.4 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 41 690 219 224 1040 7 78 22 44 59 23 Future Volume (vph) 41 690 219 224 1040 7 78 22 44 59 23 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 51.8 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 41 690 219 224 1040 7 78 22 44 59 23 15 Future Volume (veh/h) 41 690 219 224 1040 7 78 22 44 59 23 15 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 42 711 183 231 1072 7 80 23 26 61 24 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 158 1810 561 384 1789 547 337 251 211 333 334 129 Arrive On Green 0.05 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1562 1361 1870 1571 1345 2485 961 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 42 711 183 231 1072 7 80 23 26 61 17 17 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1562 1361 1870 1571 1345 1777 1669 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.5 4.5 3.6 2.8 7.5 0.1 2.4 0.5 0.6 1.8 0.4 0.4 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.5 4.5 3.6 2.8 7.5 0.1 2.8 0.5 0.6 2.3 0.4 0.4 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.58 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 158 1810 561 384 1789 547 337 251 211 333 239 224 V/C Ratio(X) 0.27 0.39 0.33 0.60 0.60 0.01 0.24 0.09 0.12 0.18 0.07 0.08 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 639 4571 1418 879 4571 1399 878 995 836 961 1069 1004 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 19.9 10.5 10.2 18.3 11.5 9.2 17.6 16.4 16.5 17.4 16.4 16.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.8 10.5 10.3 19.8 11.7 9.2 17.7 16.5 16.6 17.7 16.5 16.5 LnGrp LOS C BBBBABBBBBB Approach Vol, veh/h 936 1310 129 95 Approach Delay, s/veh 10.9 13.1 17.3 17.2 Approach LOS BBBB Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 8.8 21.6 12.8 9.0 21.4 12.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 4.8 6.5 4.3 2.5 9.5 4.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 3.2 0.3 0.0 4.8 0.2 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 17 1 14 4 7 12 10 116 13 47 385 74 Future Vol, veh/h 17 1 14 4 7 12 10 116 13 47 385 74 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 02003000006 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 19 1 16 4 8 13 11 129 14 52 428 82 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 673 744 263 479 778 75 516 0 0 143 0 0 Stage 1 579 579 - 158 158 ------- Stage 2 94 165 - 321 620 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 341 341 735 470 326 971 1046 - - 1437 - - Stage 1 468 499 - 828 766 ------- Stage 2 902 761 - 665 478 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 316 323 729 442 309 968 1040 - - 1437 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 391 395 - 511 378 ------- Stage 1 461 478 - 819 758 ------- Stage 2 869 753 - 625 458 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.9 11.3 0.6 0.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1040 - - 491 594 1437 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.011 - - 0.072 0.043 0.036 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 - - 12.9 11.3 7.6 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 6: Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 981 7 0 1151 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 981 7 0 1151 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1066 8 0 1251 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 537 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 418 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----418 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h)---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - HCM Lane LOS A - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---- HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 7: Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 939 0 0 1133 0 11 Future Vol, veh/h 939 0 0 1133 0 11 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1021 0 0 1232 0 12 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 ----511 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 0 435 Stage 1 - 0 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----435 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 13.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT Capacity (veh/h) 435 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.5 - - HCM Lane LOS B - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 422 1101 61 392 987 168 411 1632 313 672 108 Future Volume (vph) 422 1101 61 392 987 168 411 1632 313 672 108 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Prot NA Perm Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3874 Permitted Phases 2 6 4 Detector Phase 52216638744 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 Minimum Split (s) 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 9.0 31.2 9.0 31.2 31.2 Total Split (s) 22.0 36.0 36.0 21.0 35.0 35.0 22.0 46.0 17.0 41.0 41.0 Total Split (%) 18.3% 30.0% 30.0% 17.5% 29.2% 29.2% 18.3% 38.3% 14.2% 34.2% 34.2% Yellow Time (s) 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 3.0 4.9 3.0 4.9 4.9 All-Red Time (s) 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 4.0 6.2 4.0 6.2 6.2 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 118.5 Natural Cycle: 105 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 1: Haven Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 422 1101 61 392 987 168 411 1632 331 313 672 108 Future Volume (veh/h) 422 1101 61 392 987 168 411 1632 331 313 672 108 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 444 1159 12 413 1039 103 433 1718 266 329 707 58 Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 499 1263 390 469 1217 369 489 1878 291 383 1537 477 Arrive On Green 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.30 0.30 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1575 3456 5106 1550 3456 5659 876 3456 5106 1583 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 444 1159 12 413 1039 103 433 1465 519 329 707 58 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1575 1728 1702 1550 1728 1609 1710 1728 1702 1583 Q Serve(g_s), s 14.7 25.8 0.7 13.7 22.7 6.3 14.4 34.0 34.0 10.9 13.1 3.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 14.7 25.8 0.7 13.7 22.7 6.3 14.4 34.0 34.0 10.9 13.1 3.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.51 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 499 1263 390 469 1217 369 489 1601 567 383 1537 477 V/C Ratio(X) 0.89 0.92 0.03 0.88 0.85 0.28 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.86 0.46 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 532 1302 402 503 1258 382 532 1644 582 384 1537 477 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 49.1 42.8 33.4 49.6 42.5 36.3 49.2 37.5 37.5 51.1 33.1 29.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 15.4 10.0 0.0 15.0 5.4 0.2 14.5 8.0 18.4 16.7 0.1 0.0 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.2 11.5 0.3 6.7 9.7 2.3 6.9 13.7 16.2 5.5 5.2 1.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.4 52.8 33.4 64.6 48.0 36.5 63.7 45.4 55.9 67.8 33.2 29.7 LnGrp LOS E D C E D D E D E E C C Approach Vol, veh/h 1615 1555 2417 1094 Approach Delay, s/veh 55.9 51.6 51.0 43.4 Approach LOS E D D D Timer - Assigned Phs 12345678 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.8 35.1 20.5 41.4 20.9 34.1 16.9 45.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 4.0 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.0 * 30 18.0 * 35 18.0 * 29 13.0 * 40 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.7 27.8 16.4 15.1 16.7 24.7 12.9 36.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 1.1 0.2 2.8 0.1 1.9 0.0 2.7 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.1 HCM 6th LOS D Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 2: Haven Av. & Driveway 1 02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 47 2327 19 0 1029 Future Vol, veh/h 0 47 2327 19 0 1029 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - 0 ---- Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 - - 0 Grade, % 0 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 94 94 94 94 94 94 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 0 50 2476 20 0 1095 Major/Minor Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All - 1248 0 0 - - Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy - 6.6 ---- Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy - 3.92 ---- Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 0 170 - - 0 - Stage 1 0 - - - 0 - Stage 2 0 - - - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - 170 ---- Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 34.8 0 0 HCM LOS D Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBT NBRWBLn1 SBT Capacity (veh/h) - - 170 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - 0.294 - HCM Control Delay (s) - - 34.8 - HCM Lane LOS - - D - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - - 1.2 - Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 4 Lane Group EBT WBL WBT NBT SBT Ø7 Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 1680 37 1304 0 0 Future Volume (vph) 1680 37 1304 0 0 Turn Type NA Prot NA NA NA Protected Phases 438267 Permitted Phases Detector Phase 43826 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 23.2 9.6 23.2 29.9 29.9 9.6 Total Split (s) 48.0 11.0 47.6 30.8 30.2 11.4 Total Split (%) 40.0% 9.2% 39.7% 25.7% 25.2% 10% Yellow Time (s) 4.9 3.6 4.9 3.6 3.6 3.6 All-Red Time (s) 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 6.2 4.6 6.2 4.9 4.9 Lead/Lag Lag Lead Lag Lead Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 85.3 Natural Cycle: 115 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 5 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1680 50 37 1304 109 41 0 50 0 0 202 Future Volume (veh/h) 0 1680 50 37 1304 109 41 0 50 0 0 202 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 0 1732 52 38 1344 112 42 0 52 0 0 208 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 2 2136 64 65 2473 206 84 0 105 0 0 255 Arrive On Green 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.52 0.52 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1781 5094 153 1781 4793 399 745 0 922 0 0 1585 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 0 1157 627 38 955 501 94 0000208 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1781 1702 1843 1781 1702 1788 1667 00001585 Q Serve(g_s), s 0.0 22.8 22.8 1.6 14.4 14.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.0 22.8 22.8 1.6 14.4 14.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.08 1.00 0.22 0.45 0.55 0.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 2 1427 773 65 1756 923 189 0000255 V/C Ratio(X) 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.59 0.54 0.54 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 159 1868 1011 150 1850 972 567 0000526 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 0.0 19.5 19.5 36.1 12.4 12.4 31.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.9 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.0 1.6 2.9 3.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.0 7.8 8.7 0.7 4.3 4.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 0.0 21.0 22.4 39.3 12.5 12.7 32.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 LnGrp LOS A C C D B B C AAAAC Approach Vol, veh/h 1784 1494 94 208 Approach Delay, s/veh 21.5 13.3 32.5 33.3 Approach LOS C B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 2 3 4 6 7 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.5 7.4 38.1 17.1 0.0 45.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 4.9 4.6 * 6.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 26 6.4 * 42 25.3 6.8 * 41 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 6.0 3.6 24.8 11.7 0.0 16.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.0 7.1 0.7 0.0 6.3 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 19.0 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. Timings Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 6 Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 195 1447 97 81 1163 94 183 68 190 196 32 Future Volume (vph) 195 1447 97 81 1163 94 183 68 190 196 32 Turn Type Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Perm NA Perm Perm NA Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 8 4 Permitted Phases 2 6 8 8 4 Detector Phase 52216688844 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 Minimum Split (s) 12.0 26.3 26.3 9.0 29.3 29.3 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (s) 15.0 45.0 45.0 15.0 45.0 45.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 Total Split (%) 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% Yellow Time (s) 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.0 All-Red Time (s) 3.1 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.6 1.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 1.0 1.0 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 7.0 6.3 6.3 4.0 6.3 6.3 7.0 7.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Recall Mode None None None None None None None None None None None Intersection Summary Cycle Length: 90 Actuated Cycle Length: 69.6 Natural Cycle: 75 Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated Splits and Phases: 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl. HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Foothill Center (JN 14433) 4: Aspen Av. & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 195 1447 97 81 1163 94 183 68 190 196 32 104 Future Volume (veh/h) 195 1447 97 81 1163 94 183 68 190 196 32 104 Initial Q (Qb), veh 000000000000 Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 207 1539 93 86 1237 86 195 72 98 209 34 80 Peak Hour Factor 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 Percent Heavy Veh, %222222222222 Cap, veh/h 310 2099 651 214 1712 524 384 468 390 382 445 396 Arrive On Green 0.09 0.41 0.41 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 5106 1584 3456 5106 1563 1276 1870 1559 1212 1777 1581 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 207 1539 93 86 1237 86 195 72 98 209 34 80 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1702 1584 1728 1702 1563 1276 1870 1559 1212 1777 1581 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.6 15.9 2.3 1.5 13.3 2.4 8.9 1.9 3.1 10.2 0.9 2.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.6 15.9 2.3 1.5 13.3 2.4 11.4 1.9 3.1 12.0 0.9 2.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 310 2099 651 214 1712 524 384 468 390 382 445 396 V/C Ratio(X) 0.67 0.73 0.14 0.40 0.72 0.16 0.51 0.15 0.25 0.55 0.08 0.20 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 442 3160 980 608 3160 967 533 688 573 583 739 657 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 27.6 15.5 11.5 28.2 18.2 14.6 23.0 18.3 18.8 23.0 17.9 18.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 4.8 0.6 0.6 4.2 0.7 2.5 0.7 1.0 2.9 0.4 0.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 30.0 15.7 11.6 29.4 18.4 14.7 23.4 18.3 18.9 24.2 18.0 18.8 LnGrp LOS C B B C B B C B B C B B Approach Vol, veh/h 1839 1409 365 323 Approach Delay, s/veh 17.1 18.9 21.2 22.2 Approach LOS B B C C Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8 Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 7.9 32.0 22.7 12.6 27.3 22.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.0 * 6.3 * 7 7.0 * 6.3 7.0 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 11.0 * 39 * 26 8.0 * 39 23.0 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 3.5 17.9 14.0 5.6 15.3 13.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 7.2 1.1 0.1 5.6 0.5 Intersection Summary HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 18.5 HCM 6th LOS B Notes * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier. HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 5: Aspen Av. & Driveway 3/Laurel St.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 8 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 3.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 48 6 38 14 0 61 11 283 15 12 109 23 Future Vol, veh/h 48 6 38 14 0 61 11 283 15 12 109 23 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00001000001 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length ------80--80-- Veh in Median Storage, # - 1 - - 1 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 65 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222 Mvmt Flow 74 9 58 22 0 94 17 435 23 18 168 35 Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 476 715 103 606 721 230 204 0 0 458 0 0 Stage 1 223 223 - 481 481 ------- Stage 2 253 492 - 125 240 ------- Critical Hdwy 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 4.14 - - 4.14 - - Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 ------- Follow-up Hdwy 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 2.22 - - 2.22 - - Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 472 355 932 381 352 772 1365 - - 1099 - - Stage 1 759 718 - 535 552 ------- Stage 2 729 546 - 866 706 ------- Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 405 345 931 344 342 771 1364 - - 1099 - - Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 488 423 - 432 428 ------- Stage 1 749 706 - 529 545 ------- Stage 2 632 539 - 788 694 ------- Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 11.5 0.3 0.7 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR Capacity (veh/h) 1364 - - 600 672 1099 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.012 - - 0.236 0.172 0.017 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 - - 12.8 11.5 8.3 - - HCM Lane LOS A - - B B A - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.9 0.6 0.1 - - HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 6: Driveway 4 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 9 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1731 13 0 1547 0 0 Future Vol, veh/h 1731 13 0 1547 0 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1882 14 0 1682 0 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 - - - 948 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 0 - 0 225 Stage 1 - - 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - - 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----225 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 HCM LOS A Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBT Capacity (veh/h)---- HCM Lane V/C Ratio ---- HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - HCM Lane LOS A - - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)---- HCM 6th TWSC Foothill Center (JN 14433) 7: Driveway 5 & Foothill Bl.02/21/2022 Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour Synchro 11 Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 10 Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 1730 0 0 1451 0 9 Future Vol, veh/h 1730 0 0 1451 0 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length -----0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222 Mvmt Flow 1880 0 0 1577 0 10 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 ----940 Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Critical Hdwy -----7.14 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------ Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------ Follow-up Hdwy -----3.92 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 0 227 Stage 1 - 0 0 - 0 - Stage 2 - 0 0 - 0 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -----227 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------ Stage 1 ------ Stage 2 ------ Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 21.6 HCM LOS C Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT WBT Capacity (veh/h) 227 - - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - - HCM Control Delay (s) 21.6 - - HCM Lane LOS C - - HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT G TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS California MUTCD 2014 Edition (FHWA's MUTCD 2009, as amended for use in California) Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor) Traffic Conditions = E+P Conditions - Weekday PM Peak Hour Major Street Name =Foothill Bl.Total of Both Approaches (VPH) =2597 Number of Approach Lanes Major Street =3 Minor Street Name =Driveway 2 High Volume Approach (VPH) =120 Number of Approach Lanes Minor Street =1 (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) WARRANTED FOR A SIGNAL *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold for a minor-street approach with one lane 1300120 0 100 200 300 400 500 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300Minor Street - Higher-Volume Approach (VPH)Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (VPH) 1 Lane (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 1 Lane (Minor) OR 1 Lane (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) 2+ Lanes (Major) & 2+ Lanes (Minor) Major Street Approaches Minor Street Approaches 14975-02 TA Letter ATTACHMENT H SITE ACCESS QUEUEING ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) With Project - AM Peak Hour 02/21/2022 2040 WP AM Foothill Center (JN 14433) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 161 181 220 23 189 177 130 80 67 Average Queue (ft) 52 63 83 5 52 41 37 29 30 95th Queue (ft) 131 148 179 17 135 115 93 60 56 Link Distance (ft) 333 333 333 257 257 257 399 559 Upstream Blk Time (%) 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 1 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 Queuing and Blocking Report Horizon Year (2040) With Project - PM Peak Hour 02/21/2022 2040 WP PM Foothill Center (JN 14433) SimTraffic Report Urban Crossroads, Inc.Page 1 Intersection: 3: Driveway 2/Driveway & Foothill Bl. Movement EB EB EB WB WB WB WB NB SB Directions Served T T TR L T T TR LTR LTR Maximum Queue (ft) 336 334 344 77 237 216 208 106 128 Average Queue (ft) 142 152 164 17 94 84 86 50 66 95th Queue (ft) 307 302 301 53 203 188 170 89 112 Link Distance (ft) 333 333 333 257 257 257 399 559 Upstream Blk Time (%) 1 0 1 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 3 2 3 1 0 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 Storage Blk Time (%) 4 0 3 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 1 APPENDIX J: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 11661 San Vicente Blvd. Suite 306 Los Angeles, California 90049-5111 310.820.2680-p www.stanleyrhoffman.com DRAFT Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared for: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attn: Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner 909-774-4330 May 24, 2022 SRHA Job #1390 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 i DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga CONTENTS Tables ............................................................................................................................................... ii Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Organization of the Report .............................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................... 4 2.1 Development Description after Buildout ......................................................................... 4 2.2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax .............................................................................. 5 2.3 Major One-Time Development Impact Fees ................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 3 FISCAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................. 11 3.1 City General Fund .......................................................................................................... 11 3.2 City Library Fund ............................................................................................................ 13 3.3 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District .................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS ....................................... 15 4.1 City General Assumptions .............................................................................................. 15 4.2 Revenue Assumptions ................................................................................................... 17 4.3 City Cost Assumptions ................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX A POPULATION AND EMPLOYEE FACTORS ............................................................ 28 APPENDIX B MAJOR ONE-TIME CITY FEES AND CHARGES ...................................................... 30 APPENDIX C SUPPORTING FISCAL TABLES .............................................................................. 31 APPENDIX D PROJECT REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 40 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 ii DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga TABLES 1 Summary of Projected Fiscal Impacts and Major One-Time Fees after Buildout ............................ vi 2 Summary of Projected Revenues and Costs after Buildout ............................................................. vi 3 Summary of Estimated One-Time City Development Impact Fees ................................................ vii 2-1 Development Description after Buildout ......................................................................................... 6 2-2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax .............................................................................................. 7 2-3 Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation ............................................................................................ 8 2-4 On-Site and Of-Site Taxable Retail Sales Tax .................................................................................... 9 2-5 Summary of Estimated One-Time City Development Impact Fees ................................................ 10 3-1 Summary of Projected Fiscal Impacts after Buildout ..................................................................... 11 3-2 General Fund Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts ........................................................... 12 3-3 Library Fund Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts ............................................................. 13 3-4 Fire District Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts ............................................................... 14 4-1 City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions .............................................................. 16 4-2 Recurring General Fund Revenue Factors ...................................................................................... 18 4-3 Recurring Library Fund and Fire District Revenue Factors ............................................................. 21 4-4 Recurring Cost Factors ................................................................................................................... 23 4-5 Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate ............................................................... 25 A-1 Estimated Persons per Household by Unit Size .............................................................................. 28 A-2 Annual Average Taxable Expenditures per Employee .................................................................... 29 B-1 Proposed Project Major City Development Impact Fees ............................................................... 30 C-1 Estimated Percent of Employment Living and Working in Rancho Cucamonga ............................ 31 C-2 Rancho Cucamonga Employment: Inflow/Outflow Report ............................................................ 31 C-3 General Fund Recurring Revenues ................................................................................................. 32 C-4 Current Tax Rate Area (TRA) Allocations ........................................................................................ 34 C-5 Estimated Property Tax In Lieu Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Factor .................................................. 34 C-6 Calculation of Use Tax Factor ......................................................................................................... 35 C-7 Gas Tax and Library Recurring Revenues ....................................................................................... 35 C-8 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Recurring Revenues .................................................................... 36 C-9 Estimated Police Calls by Land Use and Cost per Call .................................................................... 37 C-10 Net Project and Safety, Engineering and Planning Cost Factors .................................................... 38 C-11 Gas Tax and Library Recurring Costs .............................................................................................. 39 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 iii DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga FIGURES 1 Project Location, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project ....................................................................... v 1-1 City Location, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project ............................................................................. 2 2-1 Conceptual Site Plan, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project ................................................................. 5 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 iv DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary includes the projected recurring fiscal impacts and the estimated major City one-time development impact fees for the proposed Foothill Center Mixed Use Project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The focus of the fiscal analysis is the projected net impact after buildout of the proposed land uses comprising the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project development to the City General Fund, City Library Fund and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire District (RCFPD). All recurring fiscal impacts and one-time fees are presented in annual constant 2021 dollars. Project Description The proposed Foothill Center mixed-use project site includes rental apartments and retail uses on a 7.93-acre site (321,908 square feet) (APN 020835302) located in the central portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on the southeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and Haven Ave., as shown in Figure 1. Regional access to the project is provided by the I-15 Freeway to the west and the I-10 Freeway to the north. The project site is currently vacant and is zoned as City Center CE2, as per the 2021 General Plan Update, which accommodates mixed use development. Therefore, the project will not require any rezoning. The proposed project is a new mixed-use project including 311 apartment units and 16,000 square feet of retail uses on the ground level. A total of 718 parking spaces have been provided, including 311 covered parking spots. Annual Fiscal Impacts As shown in Panel A of Table 1, recurring surpluses are projected to the City General Fund, the City Library Fund and the City Fire District after buildout of the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project. These projected surpluses represent the net increase when existing parcel valuation is subtracted from the estimated valuations of the proposed new development. General Fund Impacts. As shown in Panel A of Table 2, the projected net recurring surplus of $105,618 to the City General Fund after buildout is based on projected recurring revenues of $332,076 and projected recurring costs of $226,458. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 v DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Figure 1 Project Location Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 Project Location, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Part of City Zoning Map Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan Update Zoning Map, 2021 PROJECT SITE Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 vi DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 1 Summary of Projected Fiscal Impacts and Major One-Time Fees after Buildout Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 1 Summary of Projected Fiscal Impacts and Major One-Time Fees after Buildout Table 2 Summary of Projected Revenues and Costs after Buildout Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 2 Summary of Projected Revenues and Costs after Buildout Proposed Project Mixed Use City of Rancho Cucamonga Buildout A. PROJECTED ANNUAL RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS General Fund Annual Recurring Surplus $105,618 Library Fund Annual Recurring Surplus $8,773 Fire District Annual Recurring Surplus or (Deficit)$89,644 B. ESTIMATED MAJOR ONE-TIME CITY FEES $6,534,602 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Proposed Project Mixed Use Category Buildout A. Rancho Cucamonga General Fund Annual Recurring Revenues $332,076 Annual Recurring Costs $226,458 Annual Recurring Surplus or (Deficit)$105,618 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.47 B. Rancho Cucamonga Library Fund Annual Recurring Revenues $29,701 Annual Recurring Costs $20,928 Annual Recurring Surplus or (Deficit)$8,773 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.42 C. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Annual Recurring Revenues $238,485 Annual Recurring Costs $148,841 Annual Recurring Surplus or (Deficit)$89,644 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.60 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 vii DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Library Fund Impacts. A net recurring surplus of $8,773 is projected to the City Library Fund after buildout based on the projected recurring property tax revenues of $29,701 generated by the proposed project and total costs $20,928. Fire District Impacts. As shown in Panel C of Table 2, an annual recurring surplus of $89,644 is projected to the Fire Protection District from full buildout of the proposed project. The projected surplus is based on recurring revenues of $238,485 and recurring costs of $148,841. One-Time Development Fees Major one-time City development impact fees are estimated at about $6.53 million after buildout of the proposed project. As shown in Table 3, one-time development impact fees for the project are estimated for drainage, undergrounding of utilities, transportation, library, animal center, police and parks and recreation. The estimated development application and processing fees; construction permit fees; mapping and plan check fees for the proposed project are not estimated in the fiscal analysis. Table 3 Summary of Estimated One-Time City Development Impact Fees Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 3 Summary of Estimated One-Time City Development Impact Fees Proposed Project Mixed Use Fee Category Buildout Drainage Fees $169,615 Undergrounding Overhead Utilities Fees $1,458,000 Transportation Development Fees $2,645,267 Library Impact Fees $150,524 Animal Center Impact Fee $28,612 Police Impact Fee $88,452 Park/Recreation Fees $1,994,132 Total City Major One-Time Development Impact Fees $6,534,602 1. Major development impact fees are included in this table. Application, construction and planning fees are not included. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fees, Updated 2021 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 1 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the fiscal impact analysis for the proposed Foothill Center Mixed Use Project. The fiscal impact analysis projects recurring public revenues and costs to the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund, Library Fund and Fire Protection District assuming full development of the project. Major one-time development impact fees are also projected for full buildout of the project. 1.1 Background The Foothill Center Mixed Use Project is located at 10575 Foothill Blvd. at the southeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and Haven Ave. in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as shown in Figure 1-1. The 7.93-acre project site (APN 020835302) is in a largely institutional area in the city center. As shown in Figure 1-2, the site is currently vacant and is located south of Historic Route 66 (Foothill Blvd.) with the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall and Superior Court to its southern parcel boundary. The proposed project is a new mixed-use multifamily rental project including 311 apartment units and 16,000 square feet of retail uses on the ground level. A total of 718 parking spaces have been provided, including 311 covered parking spots. Access to the project site will be provided by three driveways located on the south side of Foothill Blvd. The focus of the fiscal analysis is the ongoing operations and maintenance costs of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as provided through the General Fund, Library Fund and the Fire Protection District. General Fund revenues include property, sales and use taxes and other taxes; franchise fees; fines and forfeitures; licenses and permits; charges for current services; revenues from other agencies; use of money and property; and other miscellaneous revenues. The Gas Tax Fund receives revenues primarily from gasoline taxes collected by the Federal and State governments. The ongoing range of services that the City of Rancho Cucamonga provides includes police protection; planning; public works, including engineering, road maintenance and park maintenance; community services; library services; and general government. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 2 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 1-1 City Location, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD), as a subsidiary district governed by the City Council, provides fire protection services to the City. The RCFPD has its own budget separate from the City’s General Fund. 1.2 Approach The fiscal analysis and the estimated major one-time development impact fees associated with the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project are based on data and assumptions from the following sources: • City of Rancho Cucamonga revenue and cost factors are estimated based on the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget. • The fiscal methodology is based on previous fiscal analyses prepared for the City by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, as presented in Chapter 4. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 3 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga • Project information was obtained from the project developer, RC Foothill Holdings LLC. • Cost and revenue factors are projected in Constant 2021 dollars and are not adjusted for possible inflation. 1.3 Organization of the Report Chapter 2 presents the detailed project description for the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project assuming full buildout. Chapter 3 consists of the fiscal analysis for the City’s General Fund, Library Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Chapter 4 describes the assumptions for the fiscal analysis. Appendix A presents the population generation factors developed for estimating the project residential population information. Detailed estimated major one-time fees are included in Appendix B. Appendix C presents supporting fiscal assumption tables, and a list of project references appears in Appendix D. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 4 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This chapter presents the detailed development description for the proposed Foothill Center Mixed Use Project assuming full buildout of the project. 2.1 Development Description after Buildout The proposed project is a new mixed-use multifamily rental and retail development and will consist of a total 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of retail use on a 7.93 acres parcel lot. The project comprises four buildings with retail and residential amenities on the first floor. As shown in Figure 2-1, Building A includes 112 residential units with retail on the first floor, Building B includes 97 units with retail use on the first floor, while Buildings C- I and C-II include 51 residential units each. All four buildings include tuck-under carports that sum up to a total of 311 covered spots. The project includes a total of 781 parking spots. Access to the project site will be provided by three driveways located on the south side of Foothill Blvd. As shown in Table 2-1, the residential use includes 200 one-bedroom units, 105 two-bedroom units and 6 three-bedroom units for a total of 311 units. The retail uses on the first floor add up to a total of 16,000 square feet and are assumed to be a mix of general retail uses for this analysis. Total residential population for the proposed project is estimated at 654 persons, which is calculated by applying the persons per household (PPH) ratio for one-, two- and three-bedroom units estimated for Rancho Cucamonga, as shown in Table 2-1. These ratios were established for multifamily rental units by number of bedrooms (unit size) from the American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) representing the City for the, as shown Appendix Table A-1. Total retail employment is estimated at 40 employees at 400 sf per employee, per industry conventions for retail operations in mixed-use settings. For purposes of projecting fiscal impacts on services from new employment, only the workers from outside the City are estimated. According to the Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Survey for 2018, about 86 percent of the City’s employment represents workers from outside the City. Based on the above assumptions on employee place of living, the service population for the proposed project, including 100 percent of the residential population and 50 percent of the 86 percent retail employees living outside the City is estimated at 671 persons. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 5 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Figure 2-1 Conceptual Site Plan Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 2-1 Conceptual Site Plan, Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Source: KTGY Architecture + Planning RC Foothill Holdings LLC 2.2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Assessed Valuation As shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2, new valuation for the Foothill Center project is estimated at about $150 million, based on information provided by the project proponent. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 6 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 2-1 Development Description after Buildout Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 2-1 Development Description after Buildout Proposed Project Residential and Retail Category Buildout A. GROSS ACRES 7.93 B. DEVELOPMENT Residential Units One Bedroom 200 Two Bedroom 105 Three Bedroom 6 Total Units 311 Estimated Residential Population 1 One Bedroom (@ 1.57 PPH)314 Two Bedroom (@ 3..01 PPH)316 Three Bedroom (@4.05 PPH)24 Total Residential Population 654 Non Residential Square Feet Retail 16,000 Industrial 0 Employment Retail 40 Service Population 2 671 C. ASSESSED VALUATION Total Project Valuation 3 $150,000,000 Less Existing Valuation $2,054,102 Net New Valuation $147,945,898 Projected Property Tax PLUS PTVLF to City General Fund $157,528 D. PROJECTED ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE SALES AND USE TAX TO CITY $104,825 1. Residential population based on household size estimates for one, two and three bedrooom apartment units developed from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2019, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for the Rancho Cucamonga subregional market. 2. Includes 100 percent of the residential population, and 50% of the employment estimated to orginate outside City, which is 86 percent of the total employment for the project. 3. Project valuation provided by the project proponent, RC Foothill Holdings LLC. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. RC Foothill Holdings LLC City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 7 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 2-2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 2-2 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax As shown in the following Table 2-3, the existing valuation of the project site is $2.05 million. When this existing value is subtracted from estimated new valuation, net new valuation for the proposed Foothill project is estimated at about $147.95 million, as shown in Panel C of Table 2- 1. While the total valuation at buildout projects the 1 percent annual property tax related revenues, the net new valuation is used to calculate the Property Tax In-Lieu of the Motor Vehicle License Fee (PTVLF) generated from the project at buildout. Proposed Project Residential and Retail Category Buildout A. ASSESSED VALUATION Total Project Valuation 1 $150,000,000 B. PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX Annual 1 Percent Property Tax Levy $1,500,000 (@ 1% of Valuation) Annual General Fund Property Tax 2 $49,527 (@ 3.30% of 1 Percent Levy) Annual Library Fund Property Tax 2 $27,300 (@ 1.82% of 1 Percent Levy) Annual Fire District Property Tax 3 $187,545 (@ 12.50% of 1 Percent Levy) C. PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX IN LIEU VLF Net New Annual Valuation for Property Tax In Lieu VLF $147,945,898 Projected Property Tax In Lieu VLF $108,001 (@ $730 per $1,000,000 assessed valuation) 1. Valuation is provided by RC Foothill Holdings LLC. 2. The total City's share of the basic one percent property tax levy is 5.12 percent, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Based on discussion with City staff, property tax is shared between the General Fund and the Library Fund, with the General Fund receiving about 65 percent of the total allocation, or about 3.30 percent of the one percent levy. The Library Fund will receive an estimated 1.82 percent of the one percent levy. 3. Fire District property tax is projected at about 12.50 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. RC Foothill Holdings LLC Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 8 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 2-3 Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 2-3 Estimated Existing Assessed Valuation Projected Property Tax The City General Fund will receive property tax at about 3.30 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy on assessed valuation, as discussed in the Chapter 4 fiscal assumptions. The total City share of the basic one percent levy is about 5.12 percent, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Based on discussion with City finance staff, the City’s property tax share of 5.001 percent is allocated between the General Fund and the Library Fund, with the General Fund receiving about 65 percent of the total allocation, or 3.30 percent of the one percent levy and the Library Fund receiving the remaining 1.82 percent of the one percent levy. As shown in Panel B of Table 2-2, for the proposed Foothill Center project, annual property tax to the City General Fund is projected at $49,527 and annual property tax to the City Library Fund is projected at $27,300 at buildout. As also shown in Panel B of Table 2-2, the Fire District is projected to receive $187,545 in property tax from the proposed project. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire District receives about 12.50 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Projected Property Tax In lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF) The City General Fund receives property tax in lieu of VLF based on the increase in assessed valuation in the City. As shown in Appendix Table C-5, the property tax in lieu of VLF in the City increases at about $730 per million dollars of new assessed valuation (AV). As shown in Panel C of Table 2-2, annual property tax in-lieu of VLF after buildout of Foothill Center Mixed Use Project is projected at $108,001, based on the estimated net new project valuation of $147.95 million. 2021 Assessed Valuation Land Improvement Personal Real Estate Tax Rate Parcel Number Value Value Property Exemptions Total 1 Area 020835302 1,887,552 166,550 0 0 $2,054,102 15049 Total $1,887,552 $166,550 $0 $0 $2,054,102 1. The total assessed valuation was calculated by subtracting the total real estate exemptions from the sum of the land value, improvement value, and personal property. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. San Bernardino County, Auditor-Controller/Treasure/Tax Collector, 2021 Roll Values Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 9 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Projected On-Site and Off-Site Retail Sales and Use Tax The City General Fund will receive retail sales and use tax generated by on-site and off-site activities associated with the project for an estimated total of $104,825, as shown in Table 2-4. The total sales and use tax are calculated from a total of $9.33 million in taxable sales, including $3.2 million from on-site taxable retail sales from the project, and $6.0 million in household off- site spending and $134,000 in employee at-work offsite spending captured within the City. This generates $93,344 in annual retail sales tax at 1 percent of taxable sales, which when factored for Use Tax for the City at 12.3 percent of sales tax results in total annual sales and use tax of $104,825. Table 2-4 On-Site and Off-Site Taxable Retail Sales Tax Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 2-4 On-Site and Of-Site Taxable Retail Sales Tax Proposed Project Residential Category Buildout Annual On-Site Retail Taxable Sales Retail Square Feet 16,000 Retail Taxable Sales (@ $200 per sq.ft.) (A)$3,200,000 Annual Off-Site Residential Retail Taxable Sales 1 New Residential Valuation $150,000,000 Household Income (@ 25% of housing valuation)$37,500,000 Retail Taxable Sales (@ 32% of household income)$12,000,000 Projected Off-Site Retail Taxable Sales Captured in City at 50% Share (B)$6,000,000 Annual Off-Site Employee Retail Taxable Sales 2 Retail Employees 36 Estimated Employment from Outside the City (86%)31 Average Annual Expenditures per Employee 2 $8,673 Employees Off-Site Taxable Sales $268,863 Projected Employee Off-Site Taxable Sales Captured at 50 percent (C) 2 $134,432 Total Annual On-Site and Off-Site Taxable Sales Projected Annual Sales and Use Tax to City (A+B+C)$9,334,432 Sales Tax (@ 1% of taxable sales)$93,344 Use Tax (@ 12.3% of sales tax) 3 11,481 Projected Residential Sales and Use Tax Captured in Rancho Cucamonga $104,825 1. Household income is estimated at 24 percent of housing value and residential taxable purchases are estimated at 32 percent of household income, based on Consumer Expenditure Survey data. The fiscal analysis assumes the City will capture 50 percent of the taxable retail purchases from new households. 2. Annual employee taxable expenditures calculated as shown in Appendix Table A-2. 3. The calculation of the use tax factor is included in Appendix Table C-6. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 10 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 2.3 Major One-Time Development Impact Fees Development fees are one-time fees paid for by the developer to offset the additional off-site public capital costs of new development, and are estimated based on the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fees, Updated July 1, 2021. Processing fees, such as Project permits and plan check fees that are charged to off-set public processing costs are not estimated. As shown in Table 2-4, the total City major one-time development impact fees for the proposed development are estimated at about $6.53 million for the proposed project. Calculations of these City development impact fees for the proposed project are included in Appendix B. Table 2-5 Summary of Estimated One-Time City Development Impact Fees Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 2-5 Summary of Estimated One-Time City Development Impact Fees Proposed Project Mixed Use Fee Category Buildout Drainage Fees $169,615 Undergrounding Overhead Utilities Fees $1,458,000 Transportation Development Fees $2,645,267 Library Impact Fees $150,524 Animal Center Impact Fee $28,612 Police Impact Fee $88,452 Park/Recreation Fees $1,994,132 Total City Major One-Time Development Impact Fees $6,534,602 1. Major development impact fees are included in this table. Application, construction and planning fees are not included. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fees, Updated 2021 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 11 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 3 FISCAL IMPACTS This chapter presents the fiscal analysis of the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project to the City General Fund, the City Library Fund and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District after buildout. Fiscal impacts are shown in Constant 2021 dollars with no adjustment for possible future inflation. The fiscal assumptions for the analysis are presented in Chapter 4. As shown in summary Table 3-1, a recurring annual surplus is projected to the City General Fund, the City Library Fund and the City Fire District for the Foothill Center Mixed Use after buildout. One-time development impact fees are estimated at about $6.53 million for the proposed project. Table 3-1 Summary of Projected Annual Fiscal Impacts after Buildout Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 3-1 Summary of Projected Fiscal Impacts after Buildout 3.1 City General Fund Detailed projected fiscal impacts to the City General Fund after buildout of Foothill Center Mixed Use Project are included in Table 3-2. Based on projected recurring revenues of $332,076 and projected recurring costs of $226,458, a recurring surplus of $105,618 is projected to the City General Fund after buildout. Proposed Project Mixed Use City of Rancho Cucamonga Buildout A. PROJECTED ANNUAL RECURRING FISCAL IMPACTS General Fund Annual Recurring Surplus $105,618 Library Fund Annual Recurring Surplus $8,773 Fire District Annual Recurring Surplus or (Deficit)$89,644 B. ESTIMATED MAJOR ONE-TIME CITY FEES $6,534,602 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 12 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 3-2 Detailed General Fund Annual Recurring Impacts: Proposed Project Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 3-2 General Fund Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Proposed Project Mixed Use Percent City of Rancho Cucamonga General Fund Buildout of Buildout Recurring Revenues Property tax (General Fund)$49,527 14.9% On and Off-site retail sales and use tax 104,825 31.6% In lieu property tax (VLF)108,001 32.5% Proposition 172 Sales Tax-Public Safety 2,468 0.7% Franchise fees 21,353 6.4% Business licenses 1,170 0.4% Animal licenses and fees 1,753 0.5% Fines and forfeitures 3,140 0.9% Recreation and Current services 10,405 3.1% Motor vehicle in lieu tax 543 0.2% Other revenues 6,616 2.0% Transfers in - Municipal Utility 4,415 1.3% State gasoline tax 17,011 5.1% Interest on invested revenues 848 0.3% Total Projected Revenues $332,076 100.0% Recurring Costs Police protection $146,701 64.8% Animal control and services 11,909 5.3% Economic and community development 489 0.2% Building and safety 642 0.3% Engineering services 712 0.3% Public works-City vehicle and facilities maintenance 781 0.3% Public works-street maintenance 1,415 0.6% Public works-park maintenance 11,268 5.0% Community services 6,762 3.0% CSD - Recreation services 13,446 5.9% General government 21,548 9.5% Subtotal Recurring Costs $215,674 95.2% Contingency/reserves (@ 5% of recurring costs)$10,784 4.8% Total Recurring Costs $226,458 100.0% Annual Net Recurring Surplus $105,618 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.47 1. The total City's share of the basic one percent property tax levy is 5.12 percent, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Based on discussion with City staff, property tax is shared between the General Fund and the Library Fund, with the General Fund receiving about 3.30 percent of the one percent levy. The projected property tax of $49,527 for the proposed project represents the estimated General Fund share. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 13 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Proposed Project: Major Recurring City General Fund Revenues and Costs Projected Recurring Revenues. As shown in Table 3-2, the major recurring revenues for the General Fund after buildout of the proposed Foothill Center Mixed Use Project are property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF), property tax, and total retail sales and use tax. These three revenues represent about 79 percent of total recurring revenues after project buildout. Projected Recurring Costs. As shown in Table 3-2, major City General Fund recurring costs after buildout are police services and general government services. These two recurring costs represent about 75 percent of recurring costs after buildout. 3.2 City Library Fund Table 3-3 presents the detailed projected fiscal impacts to the City Library Fund after buildout of Foothill Center Mixed Use Project. A recurring surplus of $8,773 is projected to the City Library Fund after buildout of the proposed project. Major Recurring City Library Fund Revenues and Costs Projected Recurring Revenues. As shown in Table 3-3, property tax represents the largest share of the total projected annual recurring revenues of $29,701 for the Library Fund after buildout of the proposed Foothill Center Mixed Use Project. The remaining revenue sources include library fees, charges and other income for services which increase based on population growth. Projected Recurring Costs. Annual library services costs are projected on a per capita basis at $20,928 for the proposed Foothill Center project. Table 3-3 Library Fund Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 3-3 Library Fund Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Proposed Project Residential Percent City of Rancho Cucamonga Library Fund Buildout of Buildout Recurring Revenues Property tax $27,300 91.9% Library fees, charges and other income for services 2,401 8.1% Total Recurring Revenues $29,701 100.0% Recurring Costs Library services $20,928 Annual Net Recurring Surplus $8,773 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.42 1. The total City's share of the basic one percent property tax levy is 5.11 percent, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Based on discussion with City staff, property tax is shared between the General Fund and the Library Fund, with the Library Fund receiving about 1.81 percent of the one percent levy. The projected property tax of $3,850 for the proposed project represents the estimated Library Fund share. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 14 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 3.3 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) provides fire protection to the City. The RCFPD is a subsidiary district of the City and has its own statutory funding. The City Council serves as the RCFPD Board of Directors. As shown in Table 3-4, annual recurring revenues to the RCFPD from buildout of Foothill Center Mixed Use Project are projected at $238,485. Based on these projected recurring revenues and projected recurring costs of $148,841, a recurring surplus of $89,644 is projected to the RCFPD after buildout. Recurring Fire District Revenues and Costs Projected Recurring Revenues. RCFPD revenues include property tax; CFD 85-1 special taxes, revenues from licenses, fines, fees, charges; and interest earned on investments. Projected property tax revenues for the proposed project of $187,545 represent about 79 percent of total projected revenues for the Fire Protection District and CFD 85-1 special taxes represent about 18 percent of total projected fire district revenues for the project. Projected Recurring Costs. Fire protection service costs are projected at $148,841 for Foothill Center Mixed Use Project after buildout. Fire protection costs are projected based on the City the citywide average cost of about $221.82 per service population. Table 3-4 Fire District Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 3-4 Fire District Detailed Projected Recurring Fiscal Impacts Proposed Project Residential Percent City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Buildout of Buildout Recurring Revenues Property tax (@ 12.5% share of 1 percent Property Tax)$187,545 78.6% CFD 85-1 special tax 44,821 18.8% Licenses, fines, fees, charges and other revenues 5,368 2.3% Interest on invested revenues 751 0.3% Total Recurring Revenues $238,485 100.0% Recurring Costs Fire protection costs $148,841 Annual Net Recurring Surplus $89,644 Revenue/Cost Ratio 1.60 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 15 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga CHAPTER 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL ASSUMPTIONS This chapter presents the revenue and cost assumptions for the fiscal analysis of the proposed Foothill Center Mixed Use Project to Rancho Cucamonga. Fiscal impacts are projected for the City’s operating General Fund, the Library Fund and the Fire District. All projections are in Constant 2021 dollars with no adjustment for future inflation. The general City demographic and economic assumptions used for calculating fiscal factors are first presented. The assumptions for projecting recurring revenues are then presented followed by the assumptions for projecting recurring costs. The City’s revenues and costs as presented in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget and discussions with key City staff are the sources for calculating fiscal factors. 4.1 City General Assumptions Fiscal impacts that are not based on valuation and taxable sales are generally projected based on a per capita, per employee, or per service population basis at City average rates. Some fiscal impacts are projected based on other factors, such as per developed acre. General fund revenue and cost factors are estimated by dividing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021/22 Adopted budget categories by the City’s resident population, employment, total service population or developed acre. Table 4-1 provides the City’s general assumptions for this fiscal analysis. Population Rancho Cucamonga’s total population of 175,131 is based on the State Department of Finance (DOF) estimate as of January 1, 2021. The City population estimate is used for developing factors that project certain revenues and costs on a per capita basis, such as State allocated gas taxes. Employment The City employment estimate of 92,230 for the year 2021 represents an interpolation of the years 2016 and 2045 from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Adopted 2020 Regional Transportation Plan Growth Forecast. As shown in Appendix Table C-1 and Appendix Table C-2, according to the latest Bureau of Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Survey for 2018, about 86 percent of the City’s employment (or 79,318 of the 2021 jobs) represents workers from outside the City. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 16 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 4-1 City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions, January 1, 2021 Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga 4-1 City Population, Housing and Employment Assumptions Assumption Description 2021 Population and Housing 1 172,371 Household Population 2,760 Group Quarters Population 175,131 Total Population 59,717 Total Housing Units 57,240 Occupied Housing Units (Households) 3.01 Persons per Household 2021 Employment 2 92,230 Estimated Employment times 86%Estimated Share of Total Employment from Outside the City 3 equals 79,318 Estimated Employment from Outside the City 3 2021 Service Population 175,131 Total Population plus 39,659 Estimated Employment at 50 Percent of Employment from Outside the City 4 equals 214,790 Estimated Total Service Population City Developed Acres 14,370 Estimated total City developed acres 4 1. Population and housing estimates are from the California Department of Finance (DOF) for January 1, 2021. 2. The total employment estimate is for 2021 based on an interpolation of the 2016 and 2045 estimates from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), RTP Adopted 2020 Growth Forecast. 3. The 2021 total estimated City employment is weighted by 86 percent based on the Census Bureau's Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Survey estimates of the share of total employment that comes from outside the City, as shown in Appendix Table C-1 and C-2. 4. Estimated private developed acres in the City are provided by City GIS staff. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, Sacramento, California, May 2021. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2020 U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Program, OnTheMap for Rancho Cucamonga, California , 2018 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Development Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 17 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Service Population Fiscal factors that are impacted by population and employment are estimated by allocating total budgeted revenues or costs to the estimated service population. Service population includes the City’s resident population (175,131) plus 50 percent share of the estimated employment commuting-in to the City (79,318). As shown in Table 4-1, the service population for the City is estimated at 214,790 Estimated Total City Developed Acres Some costs, such as public works and planning, are projected on a per-developed acre basis. As shown in Table 4-1, the number of developed acres within the City is estimated at 14,370, as provided by City Geographic Information System staff. 4.2 Revenue Assumptions City General Fund The General Fund revenue factors for projecting recurring revenues in the fiscal analysis are summarized in Table 4-2. These revenue factors are based on the City’s FY 2021/22 budget revenues included in Appendix Table C-3 and the City’s population, employment, housing unit and service population estimates that are presented in Table 4-1. As shown in Table 4-2, projected General Fund revenues include property tax; property transfer tax; property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF); sales and use tax; Proposition 172 half-cent sales tax; franchise fees; business licenses; animal licenses; fines and forfeitures; interest on investments; charges for services; motor vehicle in lieu tax; other revenue; transfers to the General Fund from the municipal utility; state gasoline tax; and recreation fees and charges. However, because there is no residential development for the proposed project, revenues generated only by population growth are not projected. Property Tax. Property tax revenues are projected based on the City’s share of the one percent property tax levy on the estimated assessed valuation for the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project proposed development. The current allocation rates of the one percent property tax for tax rate area (TRA) 15049 in which the project is located are presented in Appendix Table C-4. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 18 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 4-2 Recurring General Fund Revenue Factors Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 4-2 Recurring General Fund Revenue Factors Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Revenue Source Budget Projection Basis 1 GENERAL FUND (Fund 001) 2 Tax Revenue General Fund Property Tax 3 $6,525,570 Case Study: Project Valuation 3.30%City general share of 1% levy Property Transfer Tax $1,154,480 Property Turnover and 4.0%Residential turnover rate Valuation Assumptions $0.55 per $1,000 assessed valuation Property Tax In Lieu Vehicle License Fees $21,903,200 Case Study $730 per $1,000,000 assessed valuation Sales and Use Tax $31,231,780 Taxable Sales 1%of taxable sales Use Tax Factor Use Tax as Percent of Sales Tax 12.3%of sales tax Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax $735,370 Per $1,000 of Sales and Use Tax $23.55 per $1,000 sales and use tax Franchise Fees: Gas and Electric $2,600,620 Service Population = 214,790 $12.11 per service population Refuse-Residential $1,279,860 Population = 175,131 $7.31 per capita Refuse-Commercial $2,070,460 Employment = 92,230 $22.45 per employee Cable $1,621,820 Housing Units = 59,717 $27.16 per unit Towing Services $0 Service Population = 214,790 $0.00 per service population Licenses and Permits Business Licenses $2,698,710 Employment = 92,230 $29.26 per employee Animal Licenses $270,000 Population = 175,131 $1.54 per capita Fines and Forfeitures $1,004,750 Service Population = 214,790 $4.68 per service population Interest on Investments $205,330 Percent of Projected Recurring 0.26%of projected General Fund recurring Revenues of $80,247,020 non-interest revenues Charges for Current Services Animal Control Fees 4 $200,000 Population = 175,131 $1.14 per capita Recreation and Other Current Services 5 $2,787,070 Population = 175,131 $15.91 per capita Motor Vehicle in Lieu Tax $145,530 Population = 175,131 $0.83 per capita Other Revenue $2,117,710 Service Population = 214,790 $9.86 per service population Transfers In - Municipal Utility $1,414,010 Service Population = 214,790 $6.58 per service population Subtotal Projected Revenues $79,966,270 Gas Tax Fund State Gasoline Tax 7 $4,554,540 Population = 175,131 $26.01 per capita 1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus estimated employment that commutes into the City. 2. Detailed General Fund revenues are included in the Appendix section. 3. The total City's share of the basic one percent property tax levy is 5.12 percent, as shown in the Appendix section. Based on discussion with City staff, property tax is shared between the General Fund and the Library Fund, with the General Fund receiving about 65 percent of the 5.11 allocation, or about 3.30 percent of the one percent levy. 4. Animal control fees include adoption, spay/neuter, boarding, impound, surrender, pick-up, micro chipping and vaccination. 5. Recreation services were merged with Community Services in 2021 and Other current services include sports lighting fees, fingerprinting, returned item charges and sale of printed materials. 6. Detailed Gas Tax revenues are included in the Appendix section. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, Sacramento, California, May 2021. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2016 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Resolution No. FD 17-014, Annual Status Report, July 2021 Projection Factor 1 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 19 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga The City’s total allocation of the one percent property tax levy is 5.368 percent. Per discussion with City finance, property tax is shared between the General Fund (65 percent of total, or 3.466 percent of the one percent levy) and the Library Fund (35 percent of total or 1.902 percent of the one percent levy). Property Tax In Lieu Vehicle License Fees (VLF). Cities and counties began receiving additional property tax revenue to replace vehicle license fee (VLF) revenue that was lowered when the state reduced the vehicle license tax in 2004. This property tax in lieu of VLF is projected to grow with the change in the citywide gross assessed valuation (AV) of taxable property from the prior year. Property tax in lieu of VLF revenue is allocated in addition to other property tax apportionments. Property tax in lieu of VLF in the City is projected to increase at an average of $730 per million dollars of new AV (see Appendix Table C-5). This factor is based on the change in AV and the change in property tax in lieu of VLF in the City over the last 8 years. Sales and Use Tax. As part of the total sales tax levied by the State, all cities and counties in the State generally receive a basic one percent (1.0 percent) sales tax and have the option to levy additional sales taxes under certain circumstances. In addition to sales tax revenue, the City receives revenues from use tax, which is levied on shipments into the state and on construction materials for new residential and non-residential development not allocated to a situs location. Use tax is allocated by the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to counties and cities based on each jurisdiction's proportion of countywide and statewide direct taxable sales. Use tax revenues to Rancho Cucamonga are estimated at an additional 12.3 percent of point-of- sale sales tax, as shown in Appendix Table C-6. Calendar Year 2016 sales tax data provided by HdL Companies estimates that $3,202,832 of total sales and use tax revenues were made from levies designated as use tax and the remaining $26,070,091 of the sales and use tax was point- of-sale sales tax. Therefore, use tax revenues to the City of Rancho Cucamonga are estimated at an additional 12.3 percent of point-of-sale sales tax. Sales and use tax is projected for onsite retail uses for the proposed project, and off-site retail spending of residents and workers. Proposition 172 (Half Cent Sales Tax). As shown in Table 4-2, these revenues are projected at $23.55 per $1,000 of sales and use tax based on City estimated FY 2020/21 Proposition 172 revenues of $735,370 and the City’s total sales and use tax estimate of $31,231,780. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 20 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Franchise Fees. The City receives franchise fees from gas and electric; residential and commercial refuse; cable providers; and towing services for use of the City’s rights-of-way. Gas and Electric Franchise Fees. As shown in Table 4-2, gas and electric franchise fees are projected at $12.11 per service population based on the City budget revenues of $2,600,620 and the City service population estimate of 214,790. Refuse – Residential Franchise Fees. Residential franchise fees is projected at $7.31 per capita. Refuse – Commercial Franchise Fees. Commercial (non-residential) refuse franchise fees are projected at $22.45 per employee based on commercial refuse revenues of $2,070,460 and the City’s estimated employment of 92,230. Cable Franchise Fees. Projected at $27.61 per unit based on $1,621,820 of revenues and 59,717 residential units in the City. Business Licenses. Business licenses are projected at $29.26 per employee based on City budget revenues of $2,698,710 and the City’s current employment estimate of 92,230. Animal Licenses. Business licenses are projected at $1.54 per capita based on City budget revenues of $270,000 and the City’s current population estimate of 175,131. Fines and Forfeitures. Fines and forfeitures are projected at $3.95 per service population, based on total revenues of $1,004,750 and the City service population estimate of 214,790, as shown in Table 4-2. Revenues in this category include vehicle code fines, parking citations, vehicle release fees, citation fees and ordinance fines. Interest on Investments. These revenues are projected at 0.26 percent of projected recurring revenues based on budget interest on investments of $205,330 as a share of projected recurring non-interest revenues of $80,247,020. Charges for Current Services. This category includes animal control fees and other service charges which increase based on population growth. The City recreation fund was merged with Community Services and are estimated at $15.91 per capita resident. Motor Vehicle In Lieu Tax. These revenues are allocated from the state to City based on population . Other Revenue. As shown in Table 4-2, these revenues are projected at $9.86 per service population based on contributions, reimbursement and other revenues of $2,117,710 and the City’s estimated service population of 214,790. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 21 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Transfers In – Municipal Utility. Transfers to the City General Fund from the Municipal Utility are projected at $6.58 per service population based on City budget revenues of $1,414,010 and the City’s estimated service population estimate of 214,790. State Gasoline Tax. State Gasoline tax accrues to the Gas Tax Fund based on population growth. Detailed FY 2021/22 gas tax revenues are included in Appendix Table C-7. Library Fund As shown in Table 4-3, the Library Fund is projected to receive property tax revenue and revenue from fees, charges and other income. Library revenues are presented in detail in Appendix Table C-8. Library Fund Property Tax. As discussed earlier, the City’s total allocation of the one percent property tax levy is 5.12 percent. Per discussion with the City Finance Department, property tax is shared between the General Fund (65 percent of total, or 3.3 percent of the one percent levy) and the Library Fund (35 percent of total or 1.82 percent of the one percent levy). Table 4-3 Recurring Library Fund and Fire District Revenue Factors Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 4-3 Recurring Library Fund and Fire District Revenue Factors Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Revenue Source Budget Projection Basis 1 A. LIBRARY FUND (Fund 290) Library Fund Property Tax 2 $5,167,540 Case Study: Project Valuation 1.82%Library Fund share of 1% levy Fees, Charges and Other Income $642,410 Population = 175,131 $3.67 per capita Interest Income $0 Percent of Recurring Revenues not projected Total Projected Library Fund Revenues $5,809,950 B. FIRE DISTRICT OPERATIONAL FUNDS (Funds 281 and 282) Property Tax to Fund 281 3 $35,375,470 Case Study: Project Valuation 12.50%Fire District share of 1% levy CFD 85-1 Special Tax 4 $3,319,810 CFD Special Tax: Residential $144.12 per residential unit Commercial $144.12 per commercial/industrial acre plus $0.078 per commercial building sf. $0.095 per industrial building sf. Licenses, Fines, Fees, Rentals and Charges $1,717,860 Service Population = 214,790 $8.00 per service population Interest Income $126,690 Percent of Projected Recurring 0.32%of projected Fire District recurring Total Projected Fire District Revenues $40,539,830 Revenues of $40,413,140 non-interest revenues 1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus estimated employment that commutes into the City. 2. The total City's share of the basic one percent property tax levy is 5.12 percent, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Based on discussion with City staff, property tax is shared between the General Fund and the Library Fund, with the General Fund receiving about 65 percent of the 5.12 allocation, or about 3.30 percent of the one percent levy. 3. Fire District property tax is projected at about 12.50 of the basic one percent property tax levy, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. 4. The proposed project is located in CFD 85-1 Fire Protection and will pay a special tax determined by unit size and non-residential acres as specified in the report cited below. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, Sacramento, California, May 2021 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2020 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annual Status Report, July 2021. Projection Factor 1 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 22 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Library Fees, Charges and Other Income. These revenues are projected based on population growth. Rancho Cucamonga Fire District The revenue factors for projecting recurring revenues to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District are summarized in Panel B of Table 4-3 and are based on the City’s FY 2021/22 budget revenues included in Appendix Table C-8. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) receives property tax; CFD 85-1 special tax; revenues from licenses, fines, fees, rentals and charges; and interest earned on investments. RCFPD Property Tax. Based on TRA allocations for the project area shown in Appendix Table C-4, the RCFPD will receive an estimated 12.50 percent of the basic one percent property tax levy for the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project. CFD 85-1 Special Tax. The proposed project is located in CFD 85-1 for fire protection. A special tax will be collected based on the type of development and the special tax identified in the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annual Status Report, July 2021. For residential development, the special tax is $144.12 per dwelling unit. RCFPD Licenses, Fines, Fees, Rentals and Charges. As shown in Table 4-3, these revenues are projected at $8.00 per service population based on FY 2021/22 revenues of $1,717,860 (shown in detail in Appendix Table C-8) and the City’s estimated service population of 214,790. Interest on Investments. These revenues are projected at 0.32 percent of projected recurring non-interest Fire Fund revenues based on budget interest on investments of $126,690 as a share of projected recurring non-interest Fire Protection District revenues of $40,413,140. 4.3 City Cost Assumptions The cost factors that are used in preparing the fiscal analysis for the Foothill Center Mixed Use Project are presented in Table 4-4. These factors are based on the adopted expenditures in the City’s FY 2021/22 Adopted Budget and the City’s population, service population and developed acres estimates that are presented in Table 4-1. General Fund Projected General Fund expenditures include general government, or overhead functions, and the following non-general government services of police; animal control and services; economic and community development; building and safety; engineering; planning and planning Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 23 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga commission; facilities maintenance; vehicle and equipment maintenance; street maintenance; park maintenance; community services; recreation services; and contingency costs. However, because there is no residential development for the proposed project, costs generated only by population growth are not projected. Table 4-4 Recurring Cost Factors Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 4-4 Recurring Cost Factors FY 2021/22 Adopted Budget Cost Category Total Adjusted Projection Basis 1 Cost Factor 1 A. GENERAL FUND (Fund 001) General Government $17,275,250 $8,637,625 Percent of General Fund Costs 11.1%of direct department costs, at a 50% marginal rate Police Protection $46,958,580 $46,958,580 Service Population = 214,790 $218.63 per service population Animal Control and Services $3,189,380 $3,189,380 Population = 175,131 $18.21 per capita Economic and Community Development $886,470 $886,470 Developed Acre = 14,370 $61.69 per developed acre Building and Safety 2 $2,761,150 $1,163,940 Developed Acre = 14,370 $81.00 per developed acre Engineering Services 3 $2,569,690 $1,289,690 Developed Acre = 14,370 $89.75 per developed acre Planning and Planning Commission 4 $1,996,980 ($615,520)Developed Acre = 14,370 not projected Public Works: Fire Facilities Maintenance 5 $372,330 $74,466 Developed Acre = 14,370 $5.18 per developed acre, at a 20% marginal rate City Facilities Maintenance 5 $3,747,020 $749,404 Developed Acre = 14,370 $52.15 per developed acre, at a 20% marginal rate City Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 5 $1,181,990 $590,995 Developed Acre = 14,370 $41.13 per developed acre, at a 50% marginal rate Street Maintenance $2,563,580 $2,563,580 Developed Acre = 14,370 $178.40 per developed acre Park Maintenance $3,016,970 $3,016,970 Population = 175,131 $17.23 per capita Community Services $1,811,190 $1,811,190 Population = 175,131 $10.34 per capita CSD - Recreation Services $6,829,830 $6,829,830 Population = 175,131 $20.56 per capita Contingency n/a n/a Case Study 5.0%of total recurring costs B. LIBRARY FUND (Fund 290) Library Services $5,604,780 $5,604,780 Population = 175,131 $32.00 per capita C. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OPERATIONAL FUNDS Fire Protection Costs $47,644,950 $47,644,950 Service Population = 214,790 $221.82 per service population 1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus estimated employment that commutes into the City. 2. Building and safety includes community improvement costs. These net costs of $1,163,940 are the budgeted costs of $2,761,150 minus projected one-time development processing licenses and permits revenues of $1,597,210, as shown in Appendix C. 3. Net engineering costs of $1,289,690 represent engineering budget costs of $2,569,690 minus projected one-time development processing charges for services revenues of $1,280,000, as shown in Appendix C. 4. Net planning and planning commission costs are not projected because budgeted costs of $1,996,980 are off set by projected one-time charges for services of $2,612,500, as shown in Appendix C. 5. Based on previous fiscal analyses prepared for the City, budgeted maintenance costs of fire and city facilities are assumed at a marginal rate of 20 percent and City vehicle and equipment maintenance costs are assumed at a marginal rate of 50 percent. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, Sacramento, California, May 2021. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 24 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga General Government. General government costs include administration and support of departmental line costs such as police and public works. These costs are usually viewed as citywide overhead and are projected using an overhead rate applied to departmental line costs. As shown in Table 4-5, general government includes Non-Departmental, City Council, City Management, City Clerk, Records Management, Healthy RC Program, Communications, Administration, Business Licenses, City Facilities, Finance, Innovation and Technology Services, Personnel, Procurement, Risk Management, Treasury Management and City Telecommunications. As also shown in Table 4-5, FY 2021/22 general government costs of $17,275,250 represent about 22.2 percent of direct line costs of $77,885,160. However, overhead costs are not assumed to increase on a one-to-one basis for new development. Based on discussion with City staff for previous fiscal analyses, general government costs are projected at a marginal rate of 50 percent, or at 11.1 percent of direct costs. Police Protection. Police costs are projected based on the citywide average cost of $218.63 per service population. Animal Control and Services. These services are projected on only a population basis, and only applied to the residential component of the proposed project at $18.21 per capita. Economic and Community Development. As shown in Table 4-4, these costs are projected at $61.69 per developed acre based on FY 2021/22 economic and community development costs of $886,470 and the City’s estimated developed acres of 14,370. Building and Safety. Building and safety costs are projected at $81.00 per developed acre based on net building and safety costs of $1,163,940 and the City’s estimated 14,370 developed acres. Net building and safety costs of $1,163,940 represent the budgeted costs of $2,761,150 minus budgeted one-time development Project and safety processing revenues of $1,597,210, as shown in Panel A of Appendix Table C-10. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 25 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 4-5 Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) 4-5 Calculation of City General Government Overhead Rate Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget General Fund Expenditures Total General Government Non-General Government General Government Non-Departmental General $5,715,190 $5,715,190 Non-Departmental Personnel 148,200 148,200 City Council 137,600 137,600 City Management Total 1,079,110 1,079,110 City Clerk 1,980 1,980 Records Management 519,850 519,850 Healthy RC Program 620,230 620,230 Communications 548,640 548,640 Administrative Services - Administration 190,750 190,750 Business Licensing 378,360 378,360 City Facilities 1,009,270 1,009,270 Finance 1,598,930 1,598,930 Innovation and Technology Services 3,917,550 3,917,550 Human Resources 596,590 596,590 Procurement 266,770 266,770 Risk Management 298,600 298,600 Treasury Management 6,140 6,140 City Telecommunications 241,490 241,490 Non-General Government Animal Care and Services $3,189,380 $3,189,380 Economic and Community Development - Admin 886,470 886,470 Building and Safety 1,911,330 1,911,330 Engineering - Administration 372,640 372,640 Engineering - Development Management 1,023,390 1,023,390 Engineering - NPDES 246,430 246,430 Engineering - Project Management 686,180 686,180 Engineering - Traffic Management 241,050 241,050 Fire Facilities Maintenance 372,330 372,330 City Facilities Maintenance 3,747,020 3,747,020 Planning 1,976,590 1,976,590 Planning Commission 20,390 20,390 Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance 1,181,990 1,181,990 Street Maintenance 2,563,580 2,563,580 Park Maintenance 3,016,970 3,016,970 Community Improvement 849,820 849,820 Community Services 1,811,190 1,811,190 CSD Operations 6,829,830 6,829,830 Police - Administration 46,958,580 46,958,580 GRAND TOTAL GENERAL FUND $95,160,410 $17,275,250 $77,885,160 Current General Government Overhead Rate General Government Expenditures $17,275,250 divided by Direct General Fund Expenditures $77,885,160 equals Current General Government Overhead Rate 22.2% times Marginal Factor 50.0% equals Overhead Rate at 50 Percent Marginal Rate 11.1% Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 26 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering. Engineering costs are projected based on net engineering costs. Based on City 2020/21 budget information, engineering costs are estimated at $2,569,690. These revenues are offset with one-time development processing engineering revenues estimated at $1,280,000, resulting in estimated net engineering costs of $1,289,690, as shown in Panel B of Appendix Table C-10. Based on the estimated City developed acres of 14,370 and net engineering costs of $1,289,690, engineering costs are projected at $89.75 per developed acre. Planning and Planning Commission. These costs are not projected. As shown in Panel C of Appendix Table C-10, these budget costs of $1,996,980 are off-set by budgeted one-time planning processing related charges for services revenues of $2,612,500. Facilities, Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance. Based on the fiscal methodology used for previous analyses for the City, it is assumed that the proposed project would incur marginal cost increases for the following services: Fire Facilities Maintenance. Fire facilities maintenance costs in the City 2021/22 budget are $372,330. At a marginal increase in fire facilities maintenance costs of 20 percent, these costs are estimated at $74,446. This marginal increase of $74,446 is divided by the total 14,370 estimated developed acres in the City, for projected fire facilities maintenance costs of $5.18 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-4. City Facilities Maintenance. As with fire facilities maintenance costs, the City 2021/22 budgeted costs for city facilities of $3,747,020 are adjusted at 20 percent of this amount, or $749,404. Based on this marginal increase of $749,404 and the total 14,370 estimated developed acres in the City, city facilities maintenance costs are projected at $52.15 per developed acre, as shown in Table 4-4. City Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance. Based on the fiscal methodology used for the previous fiscal analyses, it is assumed that the proposed project would incur a marginal increase in vehicle and equipment maintenance costs of 50 percent, or an increase of $590,995 (budgeted costs of $1,181,990 times 50 percent). As shown in Table 4-4, these costs are projected at $41.13 per developed acre. Street Maintenance. Based on City budget costs of $2,563,580 and City developed acres, as shown in Table 4-4, the street maintenance is estimated at 178.40 per developed acre. Park Maintenance. Park maintenance costs are projected at the average residents’ use of City parks at $17.23 per capita. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 27 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Services. As shown in Table 4-4, City Community Services costs are projected based on population growth at $10.34 per capita CSD Recreation Services. Recreation services costs are estimated at $20.56 per capita based on 2021/21 adopted expenditures of $6,829,830 and City population of 175,131. Contingency Costs. City General Fund contingency costs of 5 percent are applied to projected costs to account for budget and economic uncertainties based on discussion with City staff. Library Fund The detailed Library Fund costs are presented in detail in Appendix Table C-11. As shown in Table 4-4, library services costs are projected at $32.00 per capita basis for the proposed project’s residential use component. Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Fire costs are projected based on the citywide average cost of $221.82 per service population based on adopted expenditures of $47,644,950 and 214,790 citywide service population. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 28 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga APPENDIX A POPULATION AND EMPLOYEE FACTORS Table A-1 Estimated Persons per Household by Unit Size Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga A-1 Estimated Persons per Household by Unit Size Multifamily Rental Units Not Multifamily Rental Units TOTAL Occupied Units (HH) 1 0 1,276 225 1,501 1 4,661 597 5,258 2 6,435 8,185 14,620 3 915 16,744 17,659 4 0 17,440 17,440 5 0 2,790 2,790 7 0 230 230 TOTAL UNITS 13,287 46,211 59,498 Persons in Units 2 0 1,950 644 2,594 1 7,112 760 7,872 2 18,847 16,693 35,540 3 3,607 48,125 51,732 4 0 63,732 63,732 5 0 11,786 11,786 7 0 925 925 TOTAL PERSONS 31,516 142,665 174,181 Persons per HH 0 1.53 2.86 1.73 1 1.53 1.27 1.50 2 2.93 2.04 2.43 3 3.94 2.87 2.93 4 n/a 3.65 3.65 5 n/a 4.22 4.22 7 n/a 4.02 4.02 TOTAL 2.37 3.09 2.93 3.01 1.03 Persons per HH Adjusted to DOF 2 0 1.57 2.94 1.78 1 1.57 1.31 1.54 2 3.01 2.10 2.50 3 4.05 2.96 3.01 4 n/a 3.76 3.76 5 n/a 4.34 4.34 7 n/a 4.14 4.14 TOTAL 2.44 3.17 3.01 1. Occupied units (households) and persons in households count developed from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2019, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for Rancho Cucamonga Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 0607111. 2. DOF to ACS PPH Adjustment Factor applied to the ACS estimates to obtain the adjusted PPH for one, two and three bedroom rental apartments used in the study. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. US Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2019. California Department of Finance (DOF) Units by Number of Bedrooms Department of Finance (DOF) 2021 PPH Total for City Adjustment Factor (Ratio of DOF to ACS PUMS) Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 29 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table A-2 Annual Average Taxable Expenditures per Employee Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga A-2 Annual Average Taxable Expenditures per Employee Spending Category Total Average Weekly Office Worker Spending (Urban Areas) in 2011 Transportation and Online Purchases $50.33 Transportation $36.37 Online Purchases Made at the Office (Personal)$13.96 Full-Service Restaurants and Fast Food $26.30 Full-Service Restaurants $13.45 Fast Food/Deli/Lunch Eateries $12.85 Goods and Services $89.30 Department Stores $6.52 Discount Stores $8.19 Drug Stores $6.13 Grocery Stores $15.98 Clothing Stores $3.25 Shoe Stores $2.43 Sporting Goods Stores $2.16 Electronics/Phone/Computer Stores $4.86 Jewelry Stores $3.92 Office Supplies/Stationery/Novelty Gifts & Cards $7.37 Warehouse Club $7.80 Other Goods (florist, non-food vendors, etc.)$3.95 Personal Care Shops $7.83 Personal Services $3.16 Other Services (not elsewhere classified)$2.30 Entertainment (sporting, live, concerts, movies)$3.45 Total Average Weekly Spending per Employee $165.93 Adjusted Average Weekly Spending per Employee Total Average Weekly Spending per Employee $165.93 minus Online Purchases Made at the Office $13.96 Non-Taxable Drug Stores (@ 38 percent of total drug stores)$2.33 Non-Taxable Grocery Stores (@ 68 percent of total grocery stores)$10.87 Total of Removed Weekly Spending $27.16 equals Adjusted Average Weekly Spending per Employee $138.77 Average Annual Taxable Expenditures per Employee (2011 Dollars) 1 $6,938.71 Annual 2011 CPI 231.93 Annual 2021 CPI 289.24 CPI Factor 1.25 Average Annual Taxable Expenditures per Employee (2021 Dollars)$8,673.00 1. Average annual expenditures per employee is calculated by multiplying the adjusted average weekly spending of $138.77 sales by 50, excluding two weeks for vacation. The 2011 amount is increased by the change in the CPI of 1.25 over the 2011 to 2021 period, rounded to the nearest whole number. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, Los Angeles- Long Beach-Anaheim, Annual 2011 and Annual 2021. Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 30 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga APPENDIX B MAJOR ONE-TIME CITY FEES AND CHARGES Table B-1 Proposed Project Major City Development Impact Fees: Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) B-1 Proposed Project Major City Development Impact Fees Fee per Fee Project Fee Schedule Fee per Frontage Fee per New Unit TOTAL Category 1 Land Use Land Use 2 Net Acres Net Acre Lineal Feet Lineal Foot New Units or 1000 Sq.Ft.FEES Drainage Fees Project Site General City Drainage Fees 7.93 $21,389 n/a n/a n/a n/a $169,615 Undergrounding Overhead Utilities Fees 3 Project Site Electric n/a n/a 3,600 $317 n/a n/a $1,141,200 Telephone n/a n/a 3,600 $59 n/a n/a 212,400 Cable Television n/a n/a 3,600 $29 n/a n/a 104,400 Total Undergrounding Overhead Utilities Fees $1,458,000 Transportation Development Fees Multifamily Units n/a n/a n/a n/a 311 $7,525 $2,340,275 Retail Use Square Feet n/a n/a n/a n/a 16,000 $19,062 $304,992 Total Undergrounding Overhead Utilities Fees $2,645,267 Library Impact Fees Multifamily Units n/a n/a n/a n/a 311 $484 $150,524 Animal Center Impact Fee Multifamily Units n/a n/a n/a n/a 311 $92 $28,612 Police Impact Fee Multifamily Units n/a n/a n/a n/a 311 $236 $73,396 Retail Use Square Feet n/a n/a n/a n/a 16,000 $941 $15,056 Total Undergrounding Overhead Utilities Fees $88,452 Park/Recreation Fees Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee n/a n/a n/a n/a 311 $2,576 $801,136 Park Improvement Impact Fee n/a n/a n/a n/a 311 $2,489 $774,079 Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee n/a n/a n/a n/a 311 $1,347 $418,917 Total Park/Recreation Fees $6,412 $1,994,132 Total Proposed Project (Multifamily and Retail) Fees $6,534,602 1. Major on-time development impact fees are included in this table. Application, construction and planning fees are not included. 2. The analysis applies the fee schedule land use category which most closely represents the proposed project land use. 3. While the actual underground fee will be charged based on the lineal feet of the utility line to the project's junction with the line, based on discussion with City engineering staff undergrounding overhead utilities fees are estimated using the lineal frontage of the project site. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fees, Updated March 1, 2019 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 31 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga APPENDIX C SUPPORTING FISCAL TABLES Table C-1 Estimated Percent of Employment Living and Working in Rancho Cucamonga Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga C-1 Estimated Percent of Employment Living and Working in Rancho Cucamonga Table C-2 Rancho Cucamonga Employment: Inflow/Outflow Report Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga C-2 Rancho Cucamonga Employment: Inflow/Outflow Report Working and Living in Rancho Cucamonga Category Total Amount Percent 2 Employment 1 81,430 11,122 14% 1. Employment is based on the Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) program which shows where people live and where people work, as shown in Appendix Table C-2. 2. Based on the LEHD data, about 86 percent of the total employment in the City represents workers from outside the City. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 2018. Category Count Share Employed in the Selection Area 81,430 100% Living in the Selection Area 77,573 97% Net Job Inflow (+) or Outflow (-)3,857 Employed in the Selection Area 81,430 100% Employed and Living in the Selection Area 11,122 14% Employed in the Selection Area but Living Outside 70,308 86% Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics, Rancho Cucamonga, California, 2018 In-Area Employment Efficiency (Primary Jobs) 2018 Selection Area Labor Market Size (Primary Jobs) Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 32 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-3 (page 1 of 2) General Fund Recurring Revenues Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) C-3 General Fund Recurring Revenues Continued… Fiscal Year One-Time Revenues Revenues 2021/22 Development Not Projected Projected Adopted Processing in Fiscal in Fiscal Revenue Category Budget Revenue 1 Analysis 2 Analysis Taxes Property Taxes $6,525,570 $0 $0 $6,525,570 Property Transfer Tax 1,154,480 0 0 1,154,480 Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (VLF)21,903,200 0 0 21,903,200 Property Tax - Post RDA Res Blc 2,590,090 0 2,590,090 0 Sales and Use Tax 31,231,780 0 0 31,231,780 Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax 735,370 0 0 735,370 Transient Occupancy Tax 3,420,000 0 3,420,000 0 Admissions Tax 1,360 0 1,360 0 Franchise Fee - Gas and Electric 2,600,620 0 0 2,600,620 Franchise Fee - Residential Refuse 1,279,860 0 0 1,279,860 Franchise Fee - Commercial Refuse 2,070,460 0 0 2,070,460 Franchise Fee - Cable 1,621,820 0 0 1,621,820 Franchise Fee - Towing Services 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Taxes $75,134,610 $0 $6,011,450 $69,123,160 Licenses and Permits Business Licenses and Penalties $2,698,710 $0 $0 $2,698,710 Building Permits (including SB1473)1,590,840 1,590,840 0 0 Building Permits - Strong Motion Fees 0 0 0 0 Mobile Home Permit 4,410 4,410 0 0 Animal Licenses 270,000 0 0 270,000 Parking Permits 1,630 1,630 0 0 Other Licenses and Permits 330 330 0 0 Subtotal Licenses and Permits $4,565,920 $1,597,210 $0 $2,968,710 Fines and Forfeitures Vehicle Code Fines $92,350 $0 $0 $92,350 Parking Citations 450,010 0 0 450,010 Vehicle Release Fees 136,670 0 0 136,670 Citation Proof of Corrected Fees 4,310 0 0 4,310 General Ordinance Fines 177,600 0 0 177,600 False Alarm Fees 64,110 0 0 64,110 Other Fines and Forfeitures 79,700 0 0 79,700 Subtotal Fines and Forfeitures $1,004,750 $0 $0 $1,004,750 Use of Money & Property Interest Earnings $205,330 $0 $0 $205,330 All Rental /Lease Income 1,322,670 0 1,322,670 0 Sale of Fixed Assets 25,990 0 25,990 0 Subtotal Use of Money & Property $1,553,990 $0 $1,348,660 $205,330 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 33 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-3 (page 2 of 2) General Fund Recurring Revenues Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) Fiscal Year One-Time Revenues Revenues 2021/22 Development Not Projected Projected Adopted Processing in Fiscal in Fiscal Revenue Category Budget Revenue 1 Analysis 2 Analysis Charges For Services Plan Check Fees $1,287,500 $1,287,500 $0 $0 Planning Fees $825,000 825,000 0 0 Planning - Special Service Fee $500,000 500,000 0 0 Engineering Fees $1,280,000 1,280,000 0 0 Web Sales Fees $87,080 0 0 87,080 Park Maintenance Fees 0 0 0 0 Sports Lighting Fees 0 0 0 0 Fingerprinting Fees 1,440 0 0 1,440 Candidates Filing Fees 0 0 0 0 Returned Item Charge 1,060 0 0 1,060 Sale of Printed Materials 8,960 0 0 8,960 Sale of Taxable Items 0 0 0 0 Ticket Sales 862,040 0 0 862,040 Recreation Fees - ActiveNet 1,884,470 0 0 1,884,470 Sale of Tax Items - ActiveNet 25,350 0 0 25,350 Advertising Revenue -ActiveNet 3,750 0 0 3,750 Animal Adoption Fees 130,000 0 0 130,000 Animal Spay/Neuter Fees 16,000 0 0 16,000 Animal Boarding Fees 7,000 0 0 7,000 Animal Impound Fees 18,000 0 0 18,000 Owner Surrender Fees 15,000 0 0 15,000 Micro Chipping Fee 7,500 0 0 7,500 Vaccination Services 6,500 0 0 6,500 Towing Services Agreement Fees 399,000 0 0 399,000 Subtotal Charges for Current Services $7,365,650 $3,892,500 $0 $3,473,150 Intergovernmental Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees $145,530 $0 $0 $145,530 Homeowners Property Tax Relief $69,050 0 69,050 0 Subtotal Intergovernmental $214,580 $0 $69,050 $145,530 Other Revenue Other Revenue $1,030,300 $0 $0 $1,030,300 4903 Animal Center Contributions $65,000 $0 $0 $65,000 Contributions/Fundraising $26,000 0 0 26,000 Reimbursements from Other Funds $996,410 0 0 996,410 State Mandated Reimbursements $59,870 0 59,870 0 Non-Abated Reimbursements $360,590 0 360,590 0 RDASA Administration Allowance $250,000 0 250,000 0 Housing SA Administration Allowance $200,000 0 200,000 0 Misc. Other Financing Sources $0 0 0 0 Other Revenue - ActiveNet $226,940 0 226,940 0 Contrib/Fundraising -ActiveNet $258,890 0 258,890 0 Processing Fee - ActiveNet $124,000 0 124,000 0 Subtotal Other Revenue $3,598,000 $0 $870,460 $2,117,710 Transfers In Transfers In - Fund 006 (Cucamonga Valley Water District)$90,510 $0 $90,510 $0 Transfers In - Fund 188 (Integrated Waste Management)$218,390 0 218,390 0 Transfers In - Municipal Utility $1,414,010 0 0 1,414,010 Subtotal Transfers In $1,722,910 $0 $308,900 $1,414,010 General Fund Total $95,160,410 $5,489,710 $8,608,520 $80,452,350 Note: 1 Development-related one-time processing fee revenues are deducted from projected departmental costs for development services and engineering. 2. Revenues not impacted by the project and certain revenues, such as fixed payments and grants, are not projected in the fiscal analysis. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 34 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-4 Current Tax Rate Area (TRA) Allocations Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga C-4 Current Tax Rate Area (TRA) Allocations Table C-5 Estimated Property Tax In Lieu Vehicle License Fees (VLF) Factor Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) C-5 Estimated Property Tax In Lieu Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Factor Agency TRA Code Agency ¹15049 AB01 GA01 San Bernardino County General Fund 0.1487 AB02 GA01 Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)0.2251 BF01 GA01 Flood Control Zone 1 0.0262 BF07 GA01 Flood Control District, Administration, 1 & 2 0.0019 BS01 GA01 County Superintendent of Schools, Countywide 0.0051 BS01 GA03 County Superintendent of Schools, Physically Handicapped 0.0020 BS01 GA04 County Superintendent of Schools, Mentally Handicapped 0.0016 BS01 GA05 County Superintendent of Schools, Development Center 0.0005 CC24 GA01 City of Rancho Cucamonga 0.0512 CS24 GA01 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District 0.1250 SC16 GA01 Chaffey Community College 0.0430 SE14 GA01 Central Elementry School District 0.1548 SH16 GA01 Chaffey Joint Union High School District 0.1568 WR04 GL01 Inland Empire Joint Resource Conservation District 0.0019 WU08 GA03 Inland Empire Utilities Agency, MID-VLY 0.0154 WU08 GA05 Inland Empire Utilities Agency, IMP C 0.0293 WT09 GL01 Chino Water Conservation District 0.0114 Total 1.0000 1. The property tax allocation to the City General Fund and RC Fire District is highlighted in bold. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller, Property Tax Division, Property Tax Allocation, Report PI739DYL, Roll Year 2021. Property Tax Assessed VLF per Fiscal Year In-Lieu of VLF 1 Valuation (AV) 2 $1,000,000 AV 3 2013 $14,806,232 $20,190,842,584 $730 2014 $15,846,849 $21,615,852,460 $730 2015 $16,638,217 $22,690,238,812 $730 2016 $17,227,705 $23,499,672,697 $730 2017 $18,033,960 $24,938,308,753 $720 2018 $19,135,120 $26,411,056,707 $720 2019 $20,193,480 $27,481,007,522 $730 2020 $21,079,930 $28,757,443,187 $730 Average $730 1. The property tax in lieu VLF amounts are from the City budget documents cited below. 2. Assessed valuation amounts are from the County Assessor Office assessment rolls, as cited below. 3. Estimated VLF per $1,000,000 AV is rounded to the nearest tens. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2014/15 Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2015/16 Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2016/17 Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2018/19 Adopted Budget, Fiscal Year 2019/20 Adopted Budget and Fiscal Year 2020/21 Adopted Budget San Bernardino County, Office of Assessor, 2013 - 2020 Assessment Rolls, City of Rancho Cucamonga Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 35 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-6 Calculation of Use Tax Factor Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga C-6 Calculation of Use Tax Factor Table C-7 Gas Tax and Library Recurring Revenues 1 Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) C-7 Gas Tax and Library Recurring Revenues Rancho Cucamonga Amount Use Tax County Pool $3,348,295 State Pool 12,399 Total Use Tax $3,360,694 divided by Point-of-Sale Sales Tax $27,220,395 equals Use Tax Rate 1 12.3% 1. The use tax rate is the County Pool plus the State Pool divided by point-of-sale taxable sales tax. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. The HdL Companies, Sales Tax Allocation Totals, Calendar Year 2017 Fiscal Year Revenues Revenues 2021-22 Not Projected Projected Adopted in Fiscal in Fiscal Revenue Category Budget Analysis 2 Analysis Gas Tax Fund Section 2105-Proposition 111 $1,032,740 $0 $1,032,740 Section 2106 622,650 0 622,650 Section 2107 1,314,240 0 1,314,240 Section 2107.5 10,000 10,000 0 R&T 7360 1,584,910 0 1,584,910 State GF Loan Repayment-HUTA 0 0 0 Unrealized Gain 0 0 0 Interest Earnings 122,970 122,970 0 Total State Gas Tax $4,687,510 $132,970 $4,554,540 290 - Library Fund Taxes $5,167,540 $0 $5,167,540 Fines and Fees 77,650 0 77,650 Interest Earnings 76,360 76,360 0 Rentals/Lease Income 5,000 0 5,000 Charges for Services 3,380 0 3,380 Grant Income 18,000 18,000 0 Other 634,030 0 634,030 Total Library Fund $5,981,960 $94,360 $5,887,600 1. This table includes only the special fund revenues that are projected in the fiscal analysis. 2. Interest earnings, Section 2107.5 gas tax revenues and grant income are not projected in the fiscal analysis. Section 2107.5 gas tax revenues are allocated from the State based on a City's population size-range. The City currently receives $10,000 annually for being within the population size-range of 100,000 to 500,000. The population of the proposed project will not move the City to a new size-range, therefore Section 2107.5 gas tax revenues are not projected in the fiscal analysis. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga , Fiscal Year 2019/20 Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 36 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-8 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Recurring Revenues Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) C-8 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Recurring Revenues Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Revenue Source Budget Projection Basis 1 A. LIBRARY FUND (Fund 290) Library Fund Property Tax 2 $5,167,540 Case Study: Project Valuation 1.82%Library Fund share of 1% levy Fees, Charges and Other Income $642,410 Population = 175,131 $3.67 per capita Interest Income $0 Percent of Recurring Revenues not projected Total Projected Library Fund Revenues $5,809,950 B. FIRE DISTRICT OPERATIONAL FUNDS (Funds 281 and 282) Property Tax to Fund 281 3 $35,375,470 Case Study: Project Valuation 12.50%Fire District share of 1% levy CFD 85-1 Special Tax 4 $3,319,810 CFD Special Tax: Residential $144.12 per residential unit Commercial $144.12 per commercial/industrial acre plus $0.078 per commercial building sf. $0.095 per industrial building sf. Licenses, Fines, Fees, Rentals and Charges $1,717,860 Service Population = 214,790 $8.00 per service population Interest Income $126,690 Percent of Projected Recurring 0.32%of projected Fire District recurring Total Projected Fire District Revenues $40,539,830 Revenues of $40,413,140 non-interest revenues 1. For fiscal factors that are based on population and employment, an estimated service population factor is applied, which represents the total population plus estimated employment that commutes into the City. 2. The total City's share of the basic one percent property tax levy is 5.12 percent, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. Based on discussion with City staff, property tax is shared between the General Fund and the Library Fund, with the General Fund receiving about 65 percent of the 5.12 allocation, or about 3.30 percent of the one percent levy. 3. Fire District property tax is projected at about 12.50 of the basic one percent property tax levy, as shown in Appendix Table C-4. 4. The proposed project is located in CFD 85-1 Fire Protection and will pay a special tax determined by unit size and non-residential acres as specified in the report cited below. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, January 1, 2011-2021, Sacramento, California, May 2021 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), 2020 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Mello-Roos Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annual Status Report, July 2021. Projection Factor 1 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 37 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-9 Estimated Police Calls by Land Use and Cost per Call Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) C-9 Estimated Police Calls by Land Use and Cost per Call A. Estimated Police Calls by Zoning Category Distribution Estimated Calls per Calls per Zoning of Police Square Footage Square Foot Parcel 1,000 Square Foot Calls Category Service Calls and Housing Units and Housing Units Acreage or Housing Unit per Acre Commercial 23,214 8,369,867 0.00277 2.77 Commercial-Office 6,175 5,229,676 0.00118 1.18 Industrial 27,618 40,955,018 0.00067 0.67 Institutional 2,566 n/a n/a n/a Multi-Family 24,742 18,556 1.33337 1.33 Recreation/Open Space 3,094 n/a n/a 30,596 n/a 0.10 Single-Family 53,935 40,762 1.32317 1.32 Highway ROW 1 4,421 n/a n/a n/a Other 5,103 n/a n/a n/a Total 150,868 n/a n/a n/a B. Estimated Cost per Police Call Fiscal Year 2020-21 Police Costs $44,869,070 divided by Total Number of Police Calls 150,868 equals Estimated Cost per Police Call $297.41 1. Police calls include calls for service in the Rights-of-Way (ROW) of I-210 and the I-15 freeways, which have a large percentage of through-trips. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga Police Department Rancho Cucamonga GIS Supervisor Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 38 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-10 Net Project and Safety, Engineering and Planning Cost Factors Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) C-10 Net Project and Safety, Engineering and Planning Cost Factors Category Amount A. Building and Safety and Community Improvement Net Costs FY 2021/22 Building and Safety and Community Improvement Costs Building and Safety $1,911,330 Community Improvement $849,820 Total FY 2021/22 Building and Safety and Community Improvement Costs $2,761,150 minus One-Time Development Processing Licenses and Permits Building Permits (including SB1473)$1,590,840 Mobile Home Permit 4,410 Parking Permits 1,630 Other Licenses and Permits 330 Total One-Time Development Processing Licenses and Permits $1,597,210 equals Recurring Net Building and Safety and Community Improvement Costs $1,163,940 divided by City Developed Acres 14,370 equals Net Building and Safety and Community Improvement Costs per Developed Acre $81.00 B. Engineering Net Costs FY 2021/22 Engineering Cost $2,569,690 minus One-Time Development Processing Charges for Services Engineering Fees $1,280,000 Engineering - Special Services 0 Total One-Time Development Processing Charges for Services $1,280,000 equals Recurring Net Engineering Costs $1,289,690 divided by City Developed Acres 14,370 equals Net Engineering Costs per Developed Acre $89.75 C. Planning Net Costs FY 2021/22 Planning and Planning Commission Costs $1,996,980 minus One-Time Development Processing Charges for Services Plan Check Fees $1,287,500 Planning Fees 825,000 Planning - Special Services 500,000 Total One-Time Development Processing Charges for Services $2,612,500 equals Recurring Net Planning and Planning Commission Costs ($615,520) divided by City Developed Acres 14,370 equals Net Planning and Planning Commission Costs per Developed Acre ($42.83) Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 39 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga Table C-11 Gas Tax and Library Recurring Costs Foothill Center Mixed Use Project Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2021 dollars) C-11 Gas Tax and Library Recurring Costs Fiscal Year 2021-22 Adopted Cost Category Budget Gas Tax Funds - State Gas Tax Fund 170 - Section 2105-Proposition 111 $0 Fund 172 - Section 2106 and 2107 0 Fund 174 - R&T 7360 7,057,210 Total State Gas Tax $7,057,210 minus Capital Projects $4,677,970 equals Operations and Maintenance Costs $2,379,240 290 - Library Fund Personnel Services $2,416,740 Operations and Maintenance 2,638,040 Capital Outlay 50,000 Debt Service 0 Transfer Out 500,000 Total Library Fund $5,604,780 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga , Fiscal Year 2021/22 Adopted Budget Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Foothill Center Mixed Use Project May 24, 2022 40 DRAFT - Fiscal Impact Analysis City of Rancho Cucamonga APPENDIX D PROJECT REFERENCES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Department Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner 909.774.4330 Administrative Services Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager 909.477.2700 Finance Department Tamara Layne, Director 909.477.2700 RC Foothill Holdings LLC Jeff Warmoth, Partner jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com HdL COMPANIES Taxable Sales Information hdlcompanies. com Attachment 2 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Attachment 3 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 188 Page 189 Page 190 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199 Clark Morrison 415.265.1107 cmorrison@coxcastle.com File No. 087750 January 4, 2023 VIA E-MAIL City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Mr. Tabe Van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Response to Letter from Poole Shaffery dated November 16, 2022, Regarding Foothill Center, 10575 Foothill Boulevard (Approved DRC2019-00850) Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Our firm represents RC Foothill Holdings LLC (“Owner”), which owns the property located at 10575 Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga (“Foothill Center”) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The Owner has proposed a mixed-use development (“Project”) at Foothill Center, which was unanimously approved by the City Planning Commission. We write to respond to the November 16, 2022 appeal letter (“Eaglecell Appeal”) from Poole Shaffery on behalf of Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Place (collectively, “Eaglecell”), the owners of 10535 Foothill Boulevard, asking the City Council to review the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project. The Eaglecell Appeal, which asserts a lack of adequate parking included within the Project, appears to be based upon a lack of understanding of staff’s analysis and the Planning Commission’s decision, both of which are fully supported by the City’s municipal code and the requirements of California law. We have therefore reached out to Eaglecell’s counsel to answer the questions raised and provide them with information already included in the administrative record and most relevant to their questions. This information included among other things the Project’s Shared Parking Analysis, which had been provided directly to Eaglecell prior to the Planning Commission’s hearing, and the applicant’s Parking Management Plan which is also included in the administrative record. Fundamental to Eaglecell’s questions are an assumption that the Project’s parking demand should be addressed independently of parking required for the office properties located at 10535 Foothill Boulevard and 10681 Foothill Boulevard (collectively, the “Office Properties”). While the Project meets all City and State requirements for parking within its own parcel (as further discussed below), it also meets all City and State requirements with respect to Attachment 4 Page 191 January 4, 2023 Page 2 the shared use parking demand of the Project and the Office Properties. The CC&Rs that cover both the Office Properties and the Project anticipate shared parking across all three properties (Parcel 1, Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 9612), which are together defined in the CC&Rs as the “Development.” Accordingly, the three properties are properly considered together within the context of the Shared Parking Analysis. As stated in the Staff Report for the Planning Commission, in exchange for providing affordable units under Density Bonus Law, projects are eligible for an automatic reduction in the required parking per Development Code Section 17.46.030.D, which complies with California Government Code Section 65915. In addition, the Shared Parking Analysis, provided as part of the Staff Report for the Planning Commission, determined that the Project meets peak parking demand during all relevant periods as required by Section 17.64.060 of the City’s municipal code. We understand that Eaglecell has retained an expert to review the conclusions set forth in the Shared Parking Analysis and other materials provided above. We are confident that this review will confirm that conclusions of staff’s analysis, the City’s peer review, and the Planning Commission’s decision, all as well-articulated in the administrative record. We look forward to staff’s analysis of the appeal and any further comments provided by Eaglecell or its counsel, we and reserve our right to provide responses thereto. In light of the foregoing, we urge the City to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, allowing the construction of much needed new housing. Sincerely, Clark Morrison cc: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Sean McPherson, Senior Planner Clark Morrison, Esq. Jeff Warmoth Page 192 CARLSBAD CLOVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California 92507 951.781.9310 www.lsa.net October 25, 2022 RC Foothill Holdings LLC c/o Jeff Warmoth Island View Ventures, LLC 120 East De La Guerra Street, Suite D Santa Barbara, CA 93102 Subject: Parking Management Plan for Foothill Center, Rancho Cucamonga, California Dear Mr. Warmoth: LSA has prepared a Parking Management Plan (PMP) for the proposed Foothill Center Project (Project) in Rancho Cucamonga. The proposed Project is to be at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The Project proposes a total of 311 multifamily dwelling units, which includes 200 one-bedroom units, 105 two-bedroom units, 6 three-bedroom units, and an additional 16,000 square feet (sf) of retail use. Two office buildings are currently east and west and adjacent to the proposed Project site. The total leasable area of the two office buildings combined is 152,892 sf. The office buildings will remain in place in conjunction with the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project would share parking with these two existing office buildings. The total parking supply is 697 parking spaces including 29 on-street parking spaces. Figure 1 illustrates the regional and project location (all figures attached). Figure 2 illustrates the conceptual site plan for the proposed Project. The 2015 Amendment to the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Foothill Center states that the site “shall have sufficient parking to meet all code requirements.” The code requirements for parking within the Project are set forth in Section 17.64.060 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s (City) Municipal Code, which allows for a reduction of parking requirements. The City’s Municipal Code states the following: B.Shared parking. In order to encourage efficient use of parking spaces and good design practices, the total parking requirements for conjunctive uses shall be based on the number of spaces adequate to meet various needs of the individual uses operating during the peak parking period. As set forth in the Foothill Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum dated July 21, 2022, during peak parking periods, under all shared parking scenarios, there is a surplus of parking to meet the peak parking needs of the office, retail, and residential uses within the Project site. This PMP has been prepared based on the results of the Foothill Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum, in conjunction with extensive prior work experience on similar projects, and LSA’s understanding of the City’s parking requirements. This PMP will set forth the framework to ensure more than adequate parking is provided for all of Foothill Center and the two adjacent office buildings. This PMP is intended to be used to ensure that the Project’s parking supply be sufficient to accommodate the actual peak parking demand for both the Foothill Center’s mixed-use retail/residential project and the two adjacent office buildings. Attachment 5 Page 193 10/25/22 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Management Plan.docx) 2 PARKING SUPPLY Parking for the Foothill Center and adjacent office buildings is provided in a combination of residential exclusive parking, office exclusive parking (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday), residential/retail exclusive parking (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday), and on-street retail parking on the Frontage Drive. The parking summary is shown in Table A and illustrated in Figure 3. Table A: Parking Supply Summary Category Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 On- Street Total Spaces Residential Exclusive (Garage/Gated) [Magenta] 0 159 0 0 159 Parcel 1 Office Exclusive (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Mon- Fri) [Green] 103 70 0 0 173 Parcel 3 Office Exclusive (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Mon- Fri) [Blue] 0 46 109 0 155 Residential/Retail Exclusive (9:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Mon- Fri) [Orange] 0 181 0 0 181 Retail on Frontage Drive [Red] 0 0 0 29 29 Total Spaces 103 456 109 29 697 Source: Compiled by LSA (2022). PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN Parking Management Plan Measures The following PMP has been developed at the request of the Foothill Center owner. The PMP will be implemented by the Foothill Center owner and the owners of the two adjacent office buildings to ensure adequate and convenient parking is provided for the tenants of 10575 Foothill Boulevard and the tenants of the two, adjacent office buildings at 10535 and 10681 Foothill Boulevard. This plan should alleviate and eliminate parking intrusion on the residential/retail parking spaces by the office tenants and on the office parking spaces by the residential/retail tenants. The following presents the recommended parking management strategies. • The PMP should identify locations of short-term parking spaces for service retail uses and/or food uses (e.g., take-out/curb side service). • The PMP should restrict residents to park in their designated garages. • The PMP should restrict vehicles from exceeding the time restrictions for the diagonal parking spaces on Frontage Drive and Center Drive. • The PMP should provide rules of conduct for residential tenants and their guests to abide by. • The PMP should provide that strict enforcement shall be applied at all times. Page 194 10/25/22 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Management Plan.docx) 3 Office, Retail, and Shared Use Parking Strategies The office, retail, and shared used parking strategies shall include the following: • The Foothill Center Owner and the owners of the two adjacent office buildings will implement a reciprocal parking program to ensure that parking spaces are available for the respective uses. The Foothill Center Owner shall be responsible for administering the PMP. • The Foothill Center Owner will work with the retail tenants of Foothill Center to implement an employee parking program for the retail uses, with the goal of providing a convenient and accessible shopping experience for customers and to leave available the most desirable parking spaces close to the retail entrances. The locations of designated employee parking spaces will be developed in collaboration with Foothill Center retail tenants. The employee parking spaces will be identified with a white or yellow circle. • The Foothill Center Owner shall identify “short term/time restricted spaces” for the diagonal parking spaces on Center Drive. Residential Parking Strategies The residential parking strategies shall include the following limitations: • The Foothill Center Owner shall assign one parking space to every unit. Additional spaces may be assigned to any unit that requests additional assigned spaces dependent on the number of bedrooms provided within said unit. Residents may not park more than two vehicles in the complex. • The Foothill Center Owner shall require residents who have garages to use their garage space for their vehicles. No garage storage shall be allowed, except for a limited amount that allows residents to park in their garages with the garage door closed. No boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles shall be allowed to park at Foothill Center or at the two adjacent office buildings. • Every Foothill Center resident will be required to register their vehicle(s). The registered owner must be a lease-holding resident. No permits will be issued to non-leaseholders, nor to vehicles not registered to a leaseholder. This registration will be updated no less frequently than annually. • Residents with a garage space must register one vehicle for their garage space. Resident vehicles with a garage space permit not parking in their garage will be towed. • Pending the requirements of the Foothill Center Owner, Resident vehicles may be allowed to park temporarily outside their garages. However, if a valid, temporary permit is not obtained from the Foothill Center Owner and is not properly displayed, the vehicle may be towed at the resident’s expense. Page 195 10/25/22 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Management Plan.docx) 4 • Vehicles lacking current registration will not be issued a permit. Vehicles that have lapsed registration will be towed by the Foothill Center Owner. The storage of inoperable or unregistered vehicles is prohibited. • Vehicles may not occupy one of the shared use spaces for more than 24 hours without contacting the residential leasing office in advance. Violators are subject to towing at the vehicle owner’s expense. • If residents obtain a new vehicle, they must provide the vehicle registration, and they will be given a new permit (transferring permits is not permissible). • Violation of the PMP strategies contained herein may result in the towing of the vehicle at the vehicle owner’s expense. • The parking conditions for the Project will be reviewed/monitored on a quarterly basis by the Foothill Center Owner and the office building owners and any appropriate actions detailed above will be taken to ensure that the necessary PMP measures are being implemented and enforced. Through the quarterly review/monitoring, a partnership will be formed to ensure that the Foothill Center Owner and its residential, retail tenants, and the office building owners and their office tenants work together to ensure the PMP is enforced property-wide. On-Street Parking Relative to the 29 diagonal on-street parking spaces on Frontage Drive, the Foothill Center Owner will work with the City to determine the time-restrictive signage for these spaces. No overnight parking should be allowed on these spaces and parking should be limited to no more than 2 hours during the period of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. daily. The PMP shall limit residential tenant and office tenant parking, including their respective visitor parking, to after 5:00 p.m. daily. CONCLUSION This PMP has been prepared based on the results of the Foothill Center Parking Analysis Memorandum to meet sufficient parking of various needs of individual uses during the peak parking period. Foothill Center and its adjacent properties would have a total of 668 off-street parking spaces and 29 on-street parking spaces. Out of the total 668 off-street parking spaces, (1) 159 parking spaces would be residential exclusive (garage/gated), and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, (2) 173 parking spaces would be Parcel 1 office exclusive, (3) 155 parking spaces would be Parcel 2 office exclusive, and (4) 181 parking spaces would be residential/retail exclusive. The implementation of PMP strategies such as short-term parking for retail/food uses, time restriction for retail parking on Frontage Drive and Center Drive, restriction of residents to park in their designated garages, limitations of resident and guest parking in shared-use spaces, and strict enforcement should alleviate potential parking intrusions between the residential and office tenants. Page 196 10/25/22 (\\lsaazfiles.file.core.windows.net\projects\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Management Plan.docx) 5 Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. My contact information is 949-553-0666 or ken.wilhelm@lsa.net. Sincerely, LSA Associates, Inc. Ken Wilhelm Principal Attachments: Figure 1: Regional Project Location Figure 2: Site Plan Figure 3: Parking Space - Categories Page 197 FOOTHILL B OU LEVARD HAVEN AVENUEARROW ROUTE Foothill CenterParking Managem ent Plan Regional and Project Location P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\GIS\fig1_RegLoc_10-18-2022.mx.mxd (10/18/2022) SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2021; Google Earth, 2019. FIGURE 1 0 1000 2000 FEET S!!N SanBernardinoCounty Los AngelesCounty RiversideCountyOrangeCounty ÃÃ142 ÃÃ173 ÃÃ57 ÃÃ210 ÃÃ71 ÃÃ91 ÃÃ60 Project Location §¨¦210 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 §¨¦10 Project Vicinity Project Location Page 198 SOURCE: KTGY Architecture + Planning, October 2022. P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\GIS\fig2_SitePlan_10-21-2022.ai (10/21/2022) FIGURE 2 Conceptual Site Plan Foothill Center Parking Management Plan FEET 160080 N Page 199 FIGURE 3Parking Space - CategoriesParking Management PlanFoothill CenterP:\TNF2101\Traffic\GIS\Reports\Traffic\Parking Management Plan Illustrations\Figure 1-328.dwg (10/22/2022)SOURCE: KTGY Architecture + Planning= Residential Exclusive (Garage/Gated)= Retail on Frontage Drive= Parcel 1 Office Exclusive (9am-5pm, Mon-Fri)= Residential/Retail Exclusive (9am-5pm, Mon-Fri)= Parcel 3 Office Exclusive (9am-5pm, Mon-Fri)LEGEND&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 200 Via Email and Overnight Mail November 16, 2022 Chair Oaxaca Vice Chair Dopp Commissioner Guglielmo Commissioner Morales Commissioner Williams Planning Commission Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us Janice Reynolds, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City.clerk@cityofrc.us Re: Appeal of Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Site Plan and Design Review for the Foothill Center Mixed-Use/Island View Ventures, LLC (DRC2019- 00850) Project Dear Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, and Ms. Thornhill: I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding the Planning Commission’s decisions of November 9, 2022 to approve the Design Review and Site Plan for the Foothill Center Mixed-Use/Island View Ventures, LLC Project, a proposed 311 unit mixed use project located at 10575 Foothill Boulevard (Southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue APN: 0208-353-02) (“Project”). This appeal is filed pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.14.070, is timely filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision and is accompanied by the required filing fee of $3,365. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in the attached letter dated November 9, 2022, which was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to its decision. Sincerely, Brian Flynn LOZEAU DRURY LLP ATTACHMENT 6 Page 201 November 9, 2022 BY E-MAIL Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tabe.vanderzwaag @cityofrc.us Re: Comment on Agenda Item D.2 - Site Plan and Design Review, Foothill Center Mixed-Use/Island View Ventures, LLC (DRC2019-00850) Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, regarding the proposed Foothill Center Mixed-Use development proposed for the southeast former of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”). The staff report indicates, based on the discussion in the “CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum,” staff recommends that the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) by relying on a CEQA streamlining provision set forth at 14 C.C.R. [“CEQA Guidelines”] § 15183, which implements Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3. However, this streamlining provision does not apply to the Project because the City has failed to address impacts that are peculiar to the Project, including indoor air quality impacts, among others, that were not addressed in a previous EIR, requiring the preparation of a negative declaration or supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA, addressing impacts peculiar to the Project. I.PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project includes the development of a 7.94-acre mixed use development with 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of ground floor retail uses, divided among four buildings, along with associated parking lots, landscaping, and ancillary improvements at 10575 Foothill Boulevard. Attachment 6 Page 202 Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Planning Commission Agenda Item D.2 City of Rancho Cucamonga November 9, 2022 II. DISCUSSION CEQA Guidelines section 15183 does not relieve the City of reviewing environmental effects that “[w]ere not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan or community plan with which the project is consistent.” 14 Cal. Admin. Code § 15183(b)(2). Section 15183 also excludes exempting impacts that are “peculiar” to the Project. Peculiar is a term of art specifically defined by the regulation: An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards 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. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15183(f). One component of an air quality impact analysis under CEQA is evaluating the health risk impacts of toxic air contaminant (“TACs”) emissions contributed by a proposed project as well as cumulatively with other nearby TAC sources. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Many composite wood products typically used in residential building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential and building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. Given the prominence of materials with formaldehyde-based resins that will be used in constructing the Project, there is a significant likelihood that the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents and workers in the buildings. Even if the materials used within the buildings comply with the Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), significant emissions of formaldehyde may still occur. The residential buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose workers and residents to cancer risks well in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance. A 2018 study by Chan et al. (attached as Exhibit A) measured formaldehyde levels in new structures constructed after the 2009 CARB rules went into effect. Even though new buildings conforming to CARB’s ATCM had a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk than buildings built prior to the enactment of the ATCM, the levels of formaldehyde will still Page 203 Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project Planning Commission Agenda Item D.2 City of Rancho Cucamonga November 9, 2022 pose cancer risks greater than 100 in a million, well above the 10 in one million significance threshold established by the SCAQMD. Based on expert comments submitted on other similar projects and assuming all the Project’s and the residential building materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure, future residents using the Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde greater than the SCAQMD’s CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Currently, the City does not have any idea what risk will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project or the residences. As a result of this significant effect to air quality, the Project may not rely upon Section 15183 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least a negative declaration for the Project. The General Plan EIR does not acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks, no analysis, nor any identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project. As a result, the City cannot rely on Section 15183 to avoid addressing this potential impact. III. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission should reject staff’s recommendation to rely on Section 15183’s streamlining provision and remand the matter back to staff to prepare the appropriate CEQA document. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Davis LOZEAU DRURY LLP Page 204 www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, California 94111-4710 P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199 Linda C. Klein 415.262.5130 lklein@coxcastle.com File No. 087750 January 3, 2022 VIA E-MAIL City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Mr. Tabe Van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Re: Response to Appeal from Lozeau Drury LLP Regarding Foothill Center, 10575 Foothill Boulevard (Approved DRC2019-00850) Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Our firm represents RC Foothill Holdings LLC (“Owner”), which owns the property located at 10575 Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga (“Foothill Center”) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The Owner has proposed a mixed-use development (“Project”) at Foothill Center, which was unanimously approved by the City Planning Commission. We write to respond to the appeal letter from Lozeau Drury (“LD Appeal”) dated November 16, 2022, asking the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project. The LD Appeal attaches a November 9, 2022, letter (“LD Letter”) that Lozeau Drury submitted to the Planning Commission and states that the reasons for the appeal are in the LD Letter. The LD Letter claims that the Project will have a significant impact peculiar to the project that was not analyzed in the General Plan Update (“GPU”) environmental impact report (“EIR”). Here, because the Project is consistent with the General Plan, the City opted to prepare a detailed checklist pursuant to section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.) (“15183 Checklist”). The 15183 Checklist confirmed that the Project would not have any effects that: Are peculiar to the project or parcel on which the project would be located; Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the general 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; or 2023 Attachment 7 Page 205 January 3, 2022 Page 2  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. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15183, subd. (b).) These conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, including the 787-page 15183 Checklist. Despite the detailed analysis, the LD Letter claims that the Project would have a peculiar impact and an impact not analyzed in the GPU EIR on indoor air quality due to the use of “composite wood products typically used in residential building construction [that] contain formaldehyde-based glues,” including “plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board.” These assertions are unfounded for at least three reasons. First, “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project's future users or residents.” (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386.) Thus, even assuming use of common construction material leads to poor indoor air quality for future building residents, that is not a CEQA impact. Second, to the extent the asserted impact is cognizable under CEQA, this is neither a new impact that could not have been known when the GPU EIR was prepared, nor is it an impact particular to the Project. The LD Letter admits that construction materials with formaldehyde “are commonly used in residential and building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Indeed, this fact was true when the City prepared the GPU EIR, and it remains so today. Further, because these are commonly used materials, they are not peculiar to the Project. There are uniformly applied standards for manufacturing construction materials imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) that these agencies have deemed protective of public health. (E.g., 40 C.F.R. Part 770; see https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/toxics/compwood/consumer_faq.pdf [“From a public health standpoint, the CWP (California Composite Wood Products Regulation) Regulation’s emission standards are set at low levels intended to protect public health.].) As discussed in the attached letter from Michael Keinath, Principal at Ramboll and a qualified air quality specialist (“Ramboll Letter”), other applicable regulations that ensure healthy indoor air quality are Title 24, Part 6, of the California Building Code, California Green Building Standards Code, California Air Resources Board (CARB) Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 62.1-2022. Even if there were no such standards, “[a]n environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it.” (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15183, subd. (h).) “Peculiar” means 2023 Page 206 January 3, 2022 Page 3 strange, odd, or unusual. (Dictionary.com.) It defies logic to say that the use of common, typical construction materials is peculiar. Third, as documented in the Ramboll Letter, the LD Letter does not provide substantial evidence of an adverse impact to indoor air quality because it is based on speculative assumptions that do not accurately reflect the Project. For example, the LD Letter extrapolates impact conclusions from a single study analyzing single-family homes constructed before 2011. The Project is a mixed-use development that uses different ventilation systems than those used in the study. In addition, the LD Letter fails to account for the fact that formaldehyde emissions decrease as materials weather and cure after being manufactured. In short, the City’s preparation of the 15183 Checklist is supported by substantial evidence and the LD Letter fails to undermine the City’s carefully documented conclusions. We urge the City to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project, allowing the construction of much needed new housing. Sincerely, Linda C. Klein Partner Attachments: Ramboll Letter cc: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Sean McPherson, Senior Planner Clark Morrison, Esq. Jeff Warmoth 2023 Page 207 900104\201938624v1 ATTACHMENT:RAMBOLL LETTER Page 208 1/3 January 2, 2023 Ramboll 2200 Powell Street Suite 700 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA T +1 510 655 7400 F +1 510 655 9517 https://ramboll.com Jeff Warmoth RC Foothill Holdings LLC c/o Island View Ventures, LLC 120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite D Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (650) 400-6293 jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com Re: Response to Lozeau Drury LLP’ s Comment Letter Regarding Indoor Air Quality for the Foothill Center Mixed-use Project Dear Mr. Warmoth: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll) has reviewed the comment letter, dated November 9, 2022, that the Lozeau Drury LLP submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the Foothill Center Mixed-use Project regarding indoor air quality. The comment makes an unfounded assertion regarding indoor air quality concerns. The statement is general and provided without any supporting evidence. Lozeau Drury LLP’s comments and the assessment of the anticipated health risks to future residents and workers in the buildings due to indoor formaldehyde concentrations are speculative for the following reasons: I. Lozeau Drury LLP’s analysis is based on speculative assumptions and do not reasonably represent potential health impacts at the Project. According to Lozeau Drury LLP’s description, it extrapolated findings from one study that measured formaldehyde concentrations from mostly single-family constructions built between 2011 and 2017 to infer potential health risks at the Project. Specifically, Lozeau Drury LLP speculates that the Project buildings will be built using particular types of materials and ventilated with the minimum 2008 Title 24 code-required amount of outdoor air. The study referenced by Lozeau Drury LLP addressed and evaluated indoor formaldehyde concentration in single-family homes, which are neither representative nor relevant to the project (the project is a new mixed-use development). Even if the project buildings were constructed using the same type of materials, the ventilation requirements for new, mid-rise, mixed-use buildings are different from those for single-family dwelling units built before 2018 (see Title 24 building code). Mid-rise, mixed-use buildings are also ventilated with more advanced systems than single-family spaces. Therefore, the Page 209 2/3 inference about the indoor air quality in the Project using outdated single-family data is not applicable and purely speculative. II. Lozeau Drury LLP also uses inappropriate and overly conservative assumptions to estimate potential health risks for future residents and workers at the Project site. The Lozeau Drury LLP’s letter appears to assume that formaldehyde emission rates will remain the same over time. Formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products are primarily due to outgassing of unreacted formaldehyde and to a degree due to decomposition of resins. Outgassing process is therefore highest for newly manufactured materials and decrease as the material weathers and cures.1 The underlying assumption of Lozeau Drury LLP’s statement is unrealistic based on scientific literature. III. There is no information at this time that there will be any materials that will lead to elevated indoor air formaldehyde concentrations. Lozeau Drury LLP’s analysis made speculative assumptions, without substantiation, that likely underestimated the Project’s ventilation capacity and overestimated the long-term formaldehyde concentrations. Thus, the cancer risk estimates from Lozeau Drury LLP are unfounded. Additionally, even though Lozeau Drury LLP acknowledges existing regulations that specifically address indoor air quality issues from building material usage, they ignore how the regulations address the issues raised. First, based on an unsubstantiated claim of expert comment on another project, Lozeau Drury LLP assert that South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) CEQA significance threshold of cancer risk will be exceeded. There are no requirements or guidance from SCAQMD or other relevant agencies to evaluate such risk. The project and its construction materials will be compliant with the existing codes and regulations in California, which adequately address potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. These codes include: A. Title 24:2 The Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Standards) already address the “energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, and alterations to existing buildings”. The Standards are applicable to Mechanical Systems whose one of the primary functions is “indoor air quality for occupant comfort and health”. These Standards addresses ventilation, indoor air quality, and air filtration requirements (including the use of high efficiency filters), the checks and balances and need to be performed, and the acceptance test requirements. One of the General Envelope Requirements is that manufacturers must certify that insulating materials comply with the California Quality Standards for Insulating Materials to assure that “insulation sold or installed in the state performs according to the stated R-value and meets minimum quality, health, and safety standards.” 1 U.S. EPA (2015) Questions on Formaldehyde (Updated 2/10/2016) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 02/documents/formaldehyde_questions_and_answers_2-16.pdf 2 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019- building-energy-efficiency Page 210 3/3 B. CALGreen:3 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), applicable to new commercial and industrial buildings, is designed to promote “environmentally responsible, cost- effective, healthier places to live and work”. “CALGreen includes both required measures and voluntary measures, a number of which help assure healthful indoor air quality, such as those addressing chemical emissions from composite wood products, carpets, resilient flooring materials, paints, adhesives, sealants, and insulation, and also ventilation.” C. CARB ATCM (Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products): 4 The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California. The composite wood products covered by this regulation are hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard.” The measure applies to manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators (that use such materials to make other goods), retailers, third party certifiers who manufacture, offer for sale or supply these goods in California. The control measure assures that all building materials and furnishings manufactured, distributed, imported and used in new construction in California meet the maximum allowable concentrations that assure healthful indoor air quality. D. ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality:5 applicable to new and existing buildings, that set up ventilation standard to “provide indoor air quality (IAQ) that is acceptable to human occupants and that minimizes adverse health effects”. In conclusion, the project will be subject to nuerous regulatory programs and standard to address indoor air quality and has adequately addressed potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. Therefore no special analyisis, mitigation or supplemental EIR is required. Thank you for the opporutnity to assist you with this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convienience. Yours sincerely, Michael Keinath, PE Principal D +1 (510) 882 1734 mkeinath@ramboll.com 3 California Green Building Standard Code: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen 4 CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf?_ga=2.6233904.2078388042.1564574457- 610727980.1563828547 5 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022: https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_62.1_2022 Page 211 1/3 January 5, 2023 Ramboll 2200 Powell Street Suite 700 Emeryville, CA 94608 USA T +1 510 655 7400 F +1 510 655 9517 https://ramboll.com Jeff Warmoth RC Foothill Holdings LLC c/o Island View Ventures, LLC 120 E. De La Guerra Street, Suite D Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (650) 400-6293 jeffwarmoth@sbislandview.com Re: Response to Lozeau Drury LLP’ s Comment Letter Regarding Indoor Air Quality for the Foothill Center Mixed-use Project Dear Mr. Warmoth: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Ramboll) has reviewed the comment letter, dated November 9, 2022, that the Lozeau Drury LLP submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the Foothill Center Mixed-use Project regarding indoor air quality. The comment makes an unfounded assertion regarding indoor air quality concerns. The statement is general and provided without any supporting evidence. Lozeau Drury LLP’s comments and the assessment of the anticipated health risks to future residents and workers in the buildings due to indoor formaldehyde concentrations are speculative for the following reasons: I.Lozeau Drury LLP’s analysis is based on speculative assumptions and do not reasonably represent potential health impacts at the Project. According to Lozeau Drury LLP’s description, it extrapolated findings from one study that measured formaldehyde concentrations from mostly single-family constructions built between 2011 and 2017 to infer potential health risks at the Project. Specifically, Lozeau Drury LLP speculates that the Project buildings will be built using particular types of materials and ventilated with the minimum 2008 Title 24 code-required amount of outdoor air. The study referenced by Lozeau Drury LLP addressed and evaluated indoor formaldehyde concentration in single-family homes, which are neither representative nor relevant to the project (the project is a new mixed-use development). Even if the project buildings were constructed using the same type of materials, the ventilation requirements for new, mid-rise, mixed-use buildings are different from those for single-family dwelling units built before 2018 (see Title 24 building code). Mid-rise, mixed-use buildings are also ventilated with more advanced systems than single-family spaces. Therefore, the Attachment 8 Page 212 2/3 inference about the indoor air quality in the Project using outdated single-family data is not applicable and purely speculative. II.Lozeau Drury LLP also uses inappropriate and overly conservative assumptions to estimate potential health risks for future residents and workers at the Project site. The Lozeau Drury LLP’s letter appears to assume that formaldehyde emission rates will remain the same over time. Formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products are primarily due to outgassing of unreacted formaldehyde and to a degree due to decomposition of resins. Outgassing process is therefore highest for newly manufactured materials and decrease as the material weathers and cures.1 The underlying assumption of Lozeau Drury LLP’s statement is unrealistic based on scientific literature. III.There is no information at this time that there will be any materials that will lead to elevated indoor air formaldehyde concentrations. Lozeau Drury LLP’s analysis made speculative assumptions, without substantiation, that likely underestimated the Project’s ventilation capacity and overestimated the long-term formaldehyde concentrations. Thus, the cancer risk estimates from Lozeau Drury LLP are unfounded. Additionally, even though Lozeau Drury LLP acknowledges existing regulations that specifically address indoor air quality issues from building material usage, they ignore how the regulations address the issues raised. First, based on an unsubstantiated claim of expert comment on another project, Lozeau Drury LLP asserts that South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) CEQA significance threshold of cancer risk will be exceeded. There are no requirements or guidance from SCAQMD or other relevant agencies to evaluate such risk. The project and its construction materials will be compliant with the existing codes and regulations in California, which adequately address potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. These codes include: A.Title 24:2 The Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Standards) already address the “energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, and alterations to existing buildings”. The Standards are applicable to Mechanical Systems whose one of the primary functions is “indoor air quality for occupant comfort and health”. These Standards addresses ventilation, indoor air quality, and air filtration requirements (including the use of high efficiency filters), the checks and balances and need to be performed, and the acceptance test requirements. One of the General Envelope Requirements is that manufacturers must certify that insulating materials comply with the California Quality Standards for Insulating Materials to assure that “insulation sold or installed in the state performs according to the stated R-value and meets minimum quality, health, and safety standards.” 1 U.S. EPA (2015) Questions on Formaldehyde (Updated 2/10/2016) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 02/documents/formaldehyde_questions_and_answers_2-16.pdf 2 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019- building-energy-efficiency Page 213 3/3 B.CALGreen:3 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), applicable to new commercial and industrial buildings, is designed to promote “environmentally responsible, cost- effective, healthier places to live and work”. “CALGreen includes both required measures and voluntary measures, a number of which help assure healthful indoor air quality, such as those addressing chemical emissions from composite wood products, carpets, resilient flooring materials, paints, adhesives, sealants, and insulation, and also ventilation.” C.CARB ATCM (Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products): 4 The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California. The composite wood products covered by this regulation are hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard.” The measure applies to manufacturers, distributors, importers, fabricators (that use such materials to make other goods), retailers, third party certifiers who manufacture, offer for sale or supply these goods in California. The control measure assures that all building materials and furnishings manufactured, distributed, imported and used in new construction in California meet the maximum allowable concentrations that assure healthful indoor air quality. D.ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality:5 applicable to new and existing buildings, that set up ventilation standard to “provide indoor air quality (IAQ) that is acceptable to human occupants and that minimizes adverse health effects”. In conclusion, the project will be subject to numerous regulatory programs and standards to address indoor air quality and has adequately addressed potential emissions and risks from building materials to ensure safe practices and healthy indoor air. Therefore no special analysis, mitigation or supplemental EIR is required. Thank you for the opportunity to assist you with this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Yours sincerely, Michael Keinath, PE Principal D +1 (510) 882 1734 mkeinath@ramboll.com 3 California Green Building Standard Code: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/CALGreen 4 CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf?_ga=2.6233904.2078388042.1564574457- 610727980.1563828547 5 ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022: https://ashrae.iwrapper.com/ASHRAE_PREVIEW_ONLY_STANDARDS/STD_62.1_2022 Page 214 LSA is a business name of LSA Associates, Inc.  CARLSBAD CLOVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200, Riverside, California  92507     951.781.9310     www.lsa.net  July 21, 2022  Tabe Van der Zwaag  City of Rancho Cucamonga  10500 Civic Center Drive  Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730  Subject: Foothill Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum  Dear Tabe:  LSA has prepared this additional shared parking analysis memorandum (Memo) for the proposed  Foothill Center Project (“Project”) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). The proposed Project site  is bounded by Haven Avenue to the east, Aspen Avenue to west, and Foothill Avenue to the north.  Figure 1 illustrates the regional and project location (all figures attached). Figure 2 illustrates the  conceptual site plan for the proposed Project.  The Project proposes a total of 311 multi‐family dwelling units, which includes 200 one‐bedroom  units, 105 two‐bedroom units, 6 three‐bedroom units, and an additional 16,000 square feet (sf) of  retail use. Two office buildings are currently located east and west and adjacent to the proposed  Project site. The total leasable area of the two office buildings combined is 152,892 sf. The office  buildings will remain in place in conjunction with the proposed Project. As such, the proposed  Project will be sharing parking with these two existing office buildings. This parking analysis has  evaluated the pre‐COVID and existing on‐site parking demand, calculated the proposed project’s  parking demand based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives'  (State law) and the City’s requirements, and determined the adequacy of shared parking upon the  completion of the Project. For purposes of this analysis, the Project site along with the two adjacent  parcels has been considered to evaluate parking demand. Hereafter, they have been collectively  referred to as the “Site.”  Pre‐COVID and Existing On‐Site Parking Demand  Parking utilization surveys were conducted at the Site by Counts Unlimited under both pre‐COVID  (year 2018) and existing (year 2022) conditions. Hourly parking utilization surveys were conducted  from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on the following weekdays:  Wednesday, July 11, 2018 Thursday, July 12, 2018 Tuesday, April 19, 2022 Wednesday, April 20, 2022 Tables A and B summarize the on‐site parking demands under pre‐COVID and existing conditions  respectively. All parking survey count sheets are included in Appendix A. It is to be noted that the  parking counts were collected by dividing the Site into five different zones. A figure illustrating the  various zones is provided in Appendix B. While specific occupancy rates are not available for the  Attachment 9 Page 215   7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx)  2  existing office buildings on the Site, as per Colliers International, at the time the pre‐COVID parking  utilization surveys were conducted, i.e. in the third quarter of 2018, office buildings in Rancho  Cucamonga had an average vacancy of 8.8 percent, or an average occupancy of 91.2 percent. The  Colliers International report is included in Appendix C. Additionally, as per Cushman & Wakefield,  just before the existing parking utilization surveys were conducted, i.e. in the first quarter of 2022,  office buildings in Rancho Cucamonga had an average vacancy of 8.4 percent, or an average  occupancy of 91.6 percent. The Cushman & Wakefield report is included in Appendix D.    As shown in Table A, the pre‐COVID on‐site peak parking demand was 287 spaces, which occurred  between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 11, 2018.   As shown in Table B, the existing on‐site peak parking demand is 186 spaces, which occurred  between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20, 2022.   Future Parking Demand Based on Shared Parking Analysis  Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.64.060, Reductions in parking requirements, the City is  required to base a project’s parking requirements for a mixed‐use project on the project’s shared  parking requirements. The Municipal Code states “In order to encourage efficient use of parking  spaces and good design practices, the total parking requirements for conjunctive uses shall be based  on the number of spaces adequate to meet various needs of the individual uses operating during the  peak parking period.”  Under actual daily operations of each of the individual uses on Project and the Site, the operating  hours for peak parking demand will vary. Therefore, to determine parking demand under forecast  conditions, a shared parking analysis was conducted to identify parking demand for the Project and  the Site by taking into account the hourly variations in parking demand among the mix of varying  land uses proposed for the Project and the Site. Shared parking is defined as the use of a parking  space to serve multiple land uses without conflict. The ability to share parking spaces results from  variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour for the individual land uses, and from the  relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip.  This analysis uses time of day percentages for office, retail, and residential land uses which are  based on the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking (3rd Edition). The Urban Land Institute’s  methodology for shared parking analysis was established in 1983 and has been approved by a  committee of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as the recommended methodology for  shared parking analysis. Shared parking analysis takes into account the time of day variations in  parking needs among the different uses on a site. For example, the peak parking demand for the  residential uses does not occur at the same time as the peak parking demand for the offices;  therefore, some parking spaces could be shared between residential and office uses at different  times of the day.  The shared parking analysis was conducted under the following two conditions:  1. Using City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site  Page 216   7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx)  3  2. Using the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for the Project and the Site   3. Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code  and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses  4. Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and  State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses  A detailed description of each of these conditions is described below.  Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City’s Municipal Code and  State Law for the Project and the Site  In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:      The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using rates provided in the  City’s Municipal Code and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking  (3rd Edition) for the land use “Office – Employees unreserved.”   The hourly demand for the retail uses was determined using rates provided in the City’s  Municipal Code and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd  Edition) for the land use “Retail typical ‐ Visitors.”   The hourly demand for the residential uses was determined using rates provided in the  State law and hourly utilization factors obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for  the category “Residential urban – Residents.” As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization  factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated  spaces were considered to be fully occupied. The demand for shared spaces in the non‐ gated areas (i.e. spaces to be shared with the non‐residential uses) was calculated by  subtracting the private garage spaces (93 spaces) and the gated spaces (66 spaces) from the  overall hourly demand.     The hourly demand for the non‐residential and residential uses were added to obtain the  hourly demand in the shared areas of the Project and the Site. There will be 509 shared  parking spaces provided outside the gated zone.  The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table C. As shown in Table C, the  peak hourly demand is 602 spaces. Therefore, there will be a deficiency of 93 spaces when all the  uses are fully operational.   Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using the ITE Parking Generation  Manual for the Project and the Site  In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:      The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using rates provided in the  ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 710 – “General Office Building”,  Setting/Location – Dense Multi‐Use Urban and hourly utilization factors obtained from the  ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the land use “Office – Employees unreserved.”  Page 217   7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx)  4   The hourly demand for the retail uses was determined using rates provided in the ITE  Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 820 – “Shopping Center – Non‐ December”, Setting/Location – Dense Multi‐Use Urban and hourly utilization factors  obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the land use “Retail typical ‐ Visitors.”   The hourly demand for the residential uses was determined using rates provided in the ITE  Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 221 – “Multifamily Housing (Mid‐ Rise)”, Setting/Location – Dense Multi‐Use Urban State law and hourly utilization factors  obtained from the ULI Shared Parking (3rd Edition) for the category “Residential urban –  Residents.” As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization factor for the category “Resident  reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be  fully occupied. The demand for shared spaces in the non‐gated areas (i.e. spaces to be  shared with the non‐residential uses) was calculated by subtracting the private garage  spaces (93 spaces) and the gated spaces (66 spaces) from the overall hourly demand.     The hourly demand for the non‐residential and residential uses were added to obtain the  hourly demand in the shared areas of the Project and the Site. As previously stated, there  will be 509 shared parking spaces provided outside the gated zone.  The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table D. As shown in Table D, the  peak hourly demand is 419 spaces. Therefore, there will be a surplus of 90 spaces when all the uses  are fully operational.   Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking  Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed  Uses  In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:     The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using the pre‐COVID parking  utilization surveys discussed above.   For all other land uses, the hourly demand was calculated in a similar manner as the  previous shared parking analysis scenarios.   The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table E. As shown in Table E, the  peak hourly demand is 356 spaces. Therefore, there will be a surplus of 153 spaces when all of the  uses are fully operational.  Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site Parking  Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s Proposed  Uses  In this scenario, the shared parking analysis was performed as follows:     The hourly demand for the existing office uses was determined using the existing parking  utilization surveys discussed above.  Page 218   7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx)  5   For all other land uses, the hourly demand was calculated in a similar manner as the  previous shared parking analysis scenarios.   The shared parking analysis under this scenario is illustrated in Table F. As shown in Table F, the  peak hourly demand is 254 spaces. Therefore, there will be a surplus of 255 spaces when all of the  uses are fully operational.  Summary  The peak parking demand evidenced by the pre‐COVID and existing parking utilization surveys are  287 and 186 spaces respectively.   Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table C), assuming that the existing office uses  use 4:1000 parking spaces, the peak hourly demand using the Municipal Code parking requirements  for the existing office uses and the proposed retail uses, and the State law requirements for the  proposed residential uses, there will be a deficiency of 93 spaces.   Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table D), the peak hourly demand using the ITE  Parking Generation Manual parking requirements for the Project and the Site, there will be a surplus  of 90 spaces.   Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table E), the peak hourly demand using the pre‐ COVID parking utilization surveys for the existing office uses, the Municipal Code parking  requirements for the proposed retail uses, and the State law requirements for the proposed  residential uses, there will be a surplus of 153 spaces.  Based on the shared parking analysis (as shown on Table F), the peak hourly demand using the  existing parking utilization surveys for the existing office uses, the Municipal Code parking  requirements for the proposed retail uses, and the State law requirements for the proposed  residential uses, there will be a surplus of 255 spaces.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (951) 781‐9310 or email me at  Ambarish.Mukherjee@lsa.net.  Sincerely,  LSA        Ambarish Mukherjee, AICP, PE  Principal    Attachments:  Figure 1: Regional and Project Location  Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan  Page 219   7/21/22 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Foothill Center Parking Analysis Shared Parking Memo.docx)  6  Table A: On‐Site Parking Demand Based on Pre‐COVID Counts  Table B: On‐Site Parking Demand Based on Existing Counts  Table C: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City’s Municipal  Code and State Law for the Project and the Site  Table D: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Institute of  Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Manual for the Project and the Site  Table E: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site  Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s  Proposed Uses   Table F: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site  Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project’s  Proposed Uses   Appendix A: Parking Survey Counts  Appendix B: Parking Zones Map  Appendix C: Colliers International Research & Forecast Report  Appendix D: Cushman & Wakefield Research Publication    Page 220 FIGURES Page 221 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD HAVEN AVENUEARROW ROUTE Foothill Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum Regional and Project Location R:\TNF2101\Traffic\GIS\Reports\Traffic\fig1_RegLoc_09-14-2021.mxd (9/14/2021) SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap, 2013; Google Earth, 2018. FIGURE 1 0 1000 2000 FEET S!!N Project Location San Bernardino County Riverside CountyOrange County Los Angeles County ÃÃ142 ÃÃ173 ÃÃ57 ÃÃ210 ÃÃ71 ÃÃ91 ÃÃ60 Project Location §¨¦210 §¨¦15 §¨¦215 §¨¦10 Project Vicinity Page 222 NCl<TH LSA t. ------------------------------FOOfHlll-Bl-VD------------------------------- SCALE: 1' • 4ll-O' MJ FIGURE 2 Foothill Center Shared Parking Analysis Memorandum SOURCE: 33 North Development Group, January 2022 Conceptual Site Plan R: \ TN F2101 \ Traffic\ G 15\Reports\ Traffic\fig2 _ S itePla n _ O 1-22-2022 .a i (01/22/2022) Page 223 TABLES Page 224 Wednesday Thursday Time July 11, 2018 July 12, 2018 7:00 AM 13 41 8:00 AM 79 126 9:00 AM 180 189 10:00 AM 254 240 11:00 AM 287 278 12:00 PM 282 251 1:00 PM 257 226 2:00 PM 266 239 3:00 PM 242 237 4:00 PM 221 193 5:00 PM 152 149 6:00 PM 88 98 7:00 PM 45 41 Peak Parking Demand: 286 Spaces Table A ‐ On‐Site Parking Demand                           Based on Pre‐COVID Counts P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Parking Utilization_2018 Counts (7/21/2022) Page 225 Tuesday Wednesday Time April 19, 2022 April 20, 2022 7:00 AM 11 7 8:00 AM 50 51 9:00 AM 118 110 10:00 AM 157 168 11:00 AM 185 177 12:00 PM 175 186 1:00 PM 168 183 2:00 PM 163 162 3:00 PM 158 153 4:00 PM 138 143 5:00 PM 110 115 6:00 PM 58 68 7:00 PM 27 36 Peak Parking Demand: 186 Spaces Table B ‐ On‐Site Parking Demand Based on Existing Counts P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Parking Utilization_2022 Counts (7/21/2022) Page 226 Size2129,958 SF Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6DURequired 4 P/1,000 SF Required 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DUTotal Required 520 SpacesTotal Required435 Spaces Total Required 182 Spaces Total Required 176 Spaces Total Required 9 SpacesTime% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces6,7Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 15% 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 153 232 509 2778:00 AM 50% 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 381 509 1289:00 AM 90% 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 559 509 (50)10:00 AM 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 602 509 (93)11:00 AM 100% 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 589 509 (80)12:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 501 509 81:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 501 509 82:00 PM 95% 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 552 509 (43)3:00 PM 95% 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 566 509 (57)4:00 PM 85% 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 533 509 (24)5:00 PM 60% 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 421 509 886:00 PM 25% 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 98 259 509 2507:00 PM 15% 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 222 509 287Peak Shared Parking Demand 602Proposed Parking Supply 509Residual / (Deficit) (93)Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet1 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required."3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking.6As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied.7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site.2 The total leasable area for the two existing office buildings is 152,892 sf. However, the Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 A.6. states that for calculating parking requirement, the number of square feet for office properties should be the net of “square footage dedicated to office hallways 44 inches or less, electrical and mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, bathrooms and storage closets.” For purposes of this analysis, these identified areas have assumed to be equal to a minimum of 15 percent of the square footage of the two neighboring office buildings. Therefore, for purposes of calculating required parking for the existing office uses, in accordance with the Municipal Code, the total net square footage of the existing offices was considered as 129,958 sf.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.Demand DemandTable C ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City's Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the SiteExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space1Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Site (Non‐Gated Area)8Residential (Total)Demand Demand Demand78 2 155 149 8260 5 137 132 7468 12 118 114 6520 21 109 105 5520 26 100 97 5442 35 91 88 5442 35 91 88 5494 33 91 88 5494 30 100 97 5442 30 109 105 5312 30 118 114 6130 32 127 123 678 28 137 132 7P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_Code (7/21/2022 )&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 227 Size 152,892 SF Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6DURequired 2.14 P/1,000 SF GFA Required 3.58 P/1,000 SF GLA Required 1.27 P/DU Required 1.27 P/DU Required 1.27 P/DUTotal Required 328 SpacesTotal Required429 Spaces Total Required 231 Spaces Total Required 149 Spaces Total Required 8 SpacesTime% Utilization2% Utilization2% Utilization2% Utilization2% Utilization2DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces6,7Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 15% 5% 85% 85% 85% 329 93 66 170 221 509 2888:00 AM 50% 15% 75% 75% 75% 291 93 66 132 300 509 2099:00 AM 90% 35% 65% 65% 65% 252 93 66 93 398 509 11110:00 AM 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 232 93 66 73 419 509 9011:00 AM 100% 75% 55% 55% 55% 213 93 66 54 404 509 10512:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 194 93 66 35 342 509 1671:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 194 93 66 35 342 509 1672:00 PM 95% 95% 50% 50% 50% 194 93 66 35 374 509 1353:00 PM 95% 85% 55% 55% 55% 213 93 66 54 390 509 1194:00 PM 85% 85% 60% 60% 60% 232 93 66 73 377 509 1325:00 PM 60% 85% 65% 65% 65% 252 93 66 93 314 509 1956:00 PM 25% 90% 70% 70% 70% 271 93 66 112 220 509 2897:00 PM 15% 80% 75% 75% 75% 291 93 66 132 204 509 305Peak Shared Parking Demand 419Proposed Parking Supply 509Residual / (Deficit) 90Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet; GFA = Gross Floor Area; GLA = Gross Leasable Area1 Rates from the Insitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 710 ‐ "General Office Building", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach.2Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.3 Rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 820 ‐ "Shopping Center ‐ Non‐December", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach.5Rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 221 ‐ "Multifamily Housing (Mid‐Rise)", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban, no nearby rail transit. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach.6As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied.7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.82 26 162 104 549 23 173 111 6279 25 139 89 5197 25 150 97 5312 28 116 74 4312 25 127 82 4279 29 116 74 4279 29 116 74 4328 17 139 89 5328 22 127 82 4164 4 173 111 6295 10 150 97 5Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand49 1 196 126 6Table D ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual for the Project and the SiteExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space3Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Residential (Total)Site (Non‐Gated Area)8P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_ITE (7/21/2022 )&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 228 Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6DURequired 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DUTotal Required 35 SpacesTotal Required4182 Spaces Total Required 176 Spaces Total Required 9 SpacesTimeDemand % Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces6,7Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 41 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 153 195 509 3148:00 AM 126 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 247 509 2629:00 AM 189 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 280 509 22910:00 AM 254 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 336 509 17311:00 AM 287 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 356 509 15312:00 PM 282 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 341 509 1681:00 PM 257 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 316 509 1932:00 PM 266 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 324 509 1863:00 PM 242 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 314 509 1954:00 PM 221 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 312 509 1975:00 PM 152 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 261 509 2486:00 PM 98 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 98 227 509 2827:00 PM 45 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 189 509 320Peak Shared Parking Demand 356Proposed Parking Supply 509Residual / (Deficit) 153Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet1 Parking demand obtained based on parking survey counts collected at the site by Counts Unlimited on July 11, 2018 and July 12, 2018. For every hour, the higher of the counts on the two days was used as a conservative approach.2 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required."3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking.6As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied.7 This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site.Demand Demand Demand DemandTable E ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project's Proposed UsesExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space2Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Residential (Total)Site (Non‐Gated Area)82 155 149 85 137 132 712 118 114 621 109 105 526 100 97 535 91 88 535 91 88 533 91 88 530 100 97 530 109 105 528 137 132 730 118 114 632 127 123 6P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_Survey 2018 (7/21/2022 )&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 229 Size 16,000 SF Size 182 DU Size 117 DU Size 6DURequired 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DUTotal Required 35 SpacesTotal Required4182 Spaces Total Required 176 Spaces Total Required 9 SpacesTimeDemand % Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces6,7Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 11 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 153 165 509 3448:00 AM 51 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 172 509 3379:00 AM 118 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 209 509 30010:00 AM 168 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 250 509 25911:00 AM 185 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 254 509 25512:00 PM 186 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 245 509 2641:00 PM 183 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 242 509 2672:00 PM 163 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 24 221 509 2893:00 PM 158 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 43 230 509 2794:00 PM 143 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 61 234 509 2755:00 PM 115 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 79 224 509 2856:00 PM 68 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 98 197 509 3127:00 PM 36 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 116 180 509 329Peak Shared Parking Demand 254Proposed Parking Supply 509Residual / (Deficit) 255Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet1 Parking demand obtained based on parking survey counts collected at the site by Counts Unlimited on April 19, 2022 and April 20, 2022. For every hour, the higher of the counts on the two days was used as a conservative approach.2 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required."3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking.6As per the ULI Shared Parking, the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages and gated spaces were considered to be fully occupied.7 This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site.32 127 123 628 137 132 730 109 105 530 118 114 633 91 88 530 100 97 535 91 88 535 91 88 521 109 105 526 100 97 55 137 132 712 118 114 6Demand Demand Demand Demand2 155 149 8Table F ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project's Proposed UsesExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space2Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Residential (Total)Site (Non‐Gated Area)8P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis.xlsx\Shared Parking_Survey 2022 (7/21/2022 )&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 230 APPENDIX A  PARKING SURVEY COUNTS Page 231 Parking Survey - Rancho Cucamonga, CASurvey Date: 7/11/2018Cucamonga 9010575 Foothilll BoulevardRancho Cucamonga CAWednesday, July 11, 2018Inv.7:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:00Zone 1 General Stalls470 102638444035362924221512Handicapped90004345401111SUBTOTAL560 102642474440 40 29 25 23 16 13Zone 2 General Stalls2283 243676817970706658443821HandicappedN/A-------------SUBTOTAL228 3 2436 76 81 79 70 70 66 58 4438 21Zone 3 General Stalls2800116109940010HandicappedN/A-------------SUBTOTAL2800116109940010Zone 4 General Stalls2239 35 76 97 106 97 94 100 99 91 58 22 9Handicapped20000000000000SUBTOTAL2259 35769710697 94100 99 91 58 22 9Zone 5 General Stalls321 10292331302223222013 7 1Handicapped60012212233100Visitor260 0 11 13 14 21 20 22 19 24 13 4 1SUBTOTAL641 10413847524447 4447 27 11 2TOTAL OCCUPANCY601 13 79 180 254287 282 257 266242 221 152 88 45TOTAL %-2% 13% 30% 42% 48% 47% 43% 44% 40% 37% 25% 15% 7%Counts Unlimited, Inc.P.O. Box 1178Corona, CA 92878951-268-6268&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 232 Parking Survey - Rancho Cucamonga, CASurvey Date: 7/11/2018Cucamonga 9010575 Foothilll BoulevardRancho Cucamonga CAThursday, July 12, 2018Inv.7:008:009:0010:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:00Zone 1 General Stalls474 213540473928282826232223Handicapped90014331320110SUBTOTAL564 21364450 42 29 31 30 26 2423 23Zone 2 General Stalls2289 253445716261606349422311HandicappedN/A-------------SUBTOTAL228 9 25 3445 71 62 61 60 63 49 42 23 11Zone 3 General Stalls280012233342200HandicappedN/A-------------SUBTOTAL280012233342200Zone 4 General Stalls22322 55 78 100 102 94 91 100 97 78 48 45 6Handicapped20000000000000SUBTOTAL22522 55 78 100 102 9491 100 97 78 48 45 6Zone 5 General Stalls325 18242826282323221814 2 0Handicapped60001211222010Visitor261 7 16 20 25 21 18 20 19 18 19 4 1SUBTOTAL646 25404953504245433833 7 1TOTAL OCCUPANCY601 41 126189 240 278 251 226239 237 193 149 98 41TOTAL %-7% 21% 31% 40% 46% 42% 38% 40% 39% 32% 25% 16% 7%Counts Unlimited, Inc.P.O. Box 1178Corona, CA 92878951-268-6268&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 233 Rancho Cucamonga10575 Foothill BoulevardTuesday, April 19th, 2022Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls 47 3 9 24 31 35 31 32 30 30 25 24 14 7Handicapped90222441112100Subtotal 56 3 11 26 33 39 35 33 31 31 27 25 14 7Total Occupancy563 1126333935333131272514 7Total Percent5% 20% 46% 59% 70% 63% 59% 55% 55% 48% 45% 25% 13%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls 228 0 13 29 43 66 71 60 59 57 46 40 35 13- --------------Subtotal 228 0 13 29 43 66 71 60 59 57 46 40 35 13Total Occupancy2280 132943667160595746403513Total Percent0% 6% 13% 19% 29% 31% 26% 26% 25% 20% 18% 15% 6%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls 280000001000000- --------------Subtotal 280000001000000Total Occupancy280000001000000Total Percent0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls 223 5 17 37 49 49 43 46 43 43 37 26 4 2Handicapped 20000000000000Motorcycle20000000000000Subtotal 227 5 17 37 49 49 43 46 43 43 37 26 4 2Total Occupancy2275 17374949434643433726 4 2Total Percent2% 7% 16% 22% 22% 19% 20% 19% 19% 16% 11% 2% 1%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls 32 1 2 10 11 12 10 9 13 12 13 7 4 3Handicapped 60000000000000Visitor26 2 7 16 21 19 16 19 17 15 15 12 1 2Subtotal 64 3 9 26 32 31 26 28 30 27 28 19 5 5Total Occupancy64 3 9 26 32 31 26 28 30 27 28 19 5 5Total Percent5% 14% 41% 50% 48% 41% 44% 47% 42% 44% 30% 8% 8%Zone 1Zone 2Zone 3Zone 5Zone 4Counts Unlimited, Inc.PO Box 1178Corona, CA 92878951-268-6268&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 234 Rancho Cucamonga10575 Foothill BoulevardWednesday, April 20th, 2022Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls 47 2 8 21 33 36 39 41 29 33 32 31 21 10Handicapped90022222222231Subtotal 56 2 8 23 35 38 41 43 31 35 34 33 24 11Total Occupancy56 2 8 23 35 38 41 43 31 35 34 33 24 11Total Percent4% 14% 41% 63% 68% 73% 77% 55% 63% 61% 59% 43% 20%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls2280 122551627164564340343118- --------------Subtotal2280 122551627164564340343118Total Occupancy2280 122551627164564340343118Total Percent0% 5% 11% 22% 27% 31% 28% 25% 19% 18% 15% 14% 8%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls280000000000021- --------------Subtotal280000000000021Total Occupancy280000000000021Total Percent0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 4%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls2234 21404746414344443626 6 0Handicapped20000000000000Motorcycle20000000000000Subtotal2274 21404746414344443626 6 0Total Occupancy2274 21404746414344443626 6 0Total Percent2% 9% 18% 21% 20% 18% 19% 19% 19% 16% 11% 3% 0%Inventory 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PMGeneral Stalls 32 0 3 7 14 13 15 15 13 12 12 10 2 2Handicapped60000000000000Visitor26 1 7 15 21 18 18 18 18 19 21 12 3 4Subtotal641 10223531333331313322 5 6Total Occupancy641 10223531333331313322 5 6Total Percent2% 16% 34% 55% 48% 52% 52% 48% 48% 52% 34% 8% 9%Zone 1Zone 2Zone 3Zone 4Zone 5Counts Unlimited, Inc.PO Box 1178Corona, CA 92878951-268-6268&nbsp;&nbsp;Page 235 APPENDIX B  PARKING ZONES MAP Page 236     10575 FOOTHILL BLVD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA &nbsp;&nbsp;Page 237 APPENDIX C  COLLINS INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND FORECAST REPORT Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 APPENDIX D  CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD RESEARCH PUBLICATION Page 241 M A R K E T B E AT Office Q1 2022 INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC OVERVIEW:Inland Empire’s Economic Recovery Progresses into 2022 The total nonfarm employment in Inland Empire (IE) grew by 98,300 or +6.4% year-over-year (YOY) between February 2021 through February 2022, with the leisure and hospitality (+31,400) and the logistics sectors (+31,000) leading YOY job gains. During the same time, the monthly unemployment rate decreased from 8.1% last year to 5.0% and is currently 110 basis points (bps) below the quarterly average of 6.1%.1 All employment sectors are expected to grow at a combined rate of 4.5% (+69,350 jobs) in 2022, while office employment is forecasted to grow by 2.8% (+6,550 jobs). The annual unemployment rate is forecasted to decrease from 7.4% in 2021 to 5.2% in 2022 and 4.0% in 2023. IE’s economy of $195.8 billion as measured by 2021 gross regional product is forecasted to grow 3.9% in 2022 and 4.1% in 2023, above its 10-year average of 3.3%.2 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: Year-Over-Year Increase in New Leasing Activity The IE wrapped the Q1 2022 with an overall vacancy rate of 9.0%, up 30 bps quarter-over-quarter (QOQ) and 150 bps YOY. Recovery for the IE office market has been ongoing and has moved at a slower pace. The IE recorded occupancy losses of 53,846 square feet (sf) in Q1 2022. The Inland Empire East (IEE) accounted for most losses with 48,690 sf of negative net absorption, resulting in a 9.6% vacancy rate for the submarket. Meanwhile, the Inland Empire West (IEW) followed with 39,135 sf of negative net absorption and a vacancy rate of 8.9%. On the bright side, the Inland Empire South recorded occupancy gains of 33,979 sf in Q1 2021 and a vacancy rate of 7.7%, with Temecula and Murietta submarkets recording the most gains. Despite Q1 2022 overall occupancy losses, new leasing activity remained strong in Q1 2022 at 293,549 sf across 123 deals, excluding renewals, compared to 271,008 sf (126 deals) in Q4 2021 and 195,911 (120 deals) in Q1 2021. This translates into an 8.3% increase in sf leased QOQ and 49.8% YOY.As tenants occupy their space over the next 12 months, this activity will boost future absorption. New construction has been minimal in the last few years as construction costs have risen and buildings are often delivered partially to fully vacant. However, a lack of projects in the pipeline has helped with oversupply and moderating vacancy rates. While recovery efforts f or the economy are still ongoing, the IE office market still has further to go before reaching pre-pandemic levels in all categories. PRICING: Asking Rents Still Rising but at a Slower Rate The overall average asking rent plateaued QOQ to $2.16 per square foot (psf) on a monthly basis after experiencing a moderate increase over the last few quarters. However, the overall average asking rent increased YOY by 4.3%. Rent growth has been more pronounced among Class A buildings with rents rising by 9.5% YOY to $2.58 psf. Additionally, rents between the IEW and IEE have separated in recent years with rents in the IEW, particularly those neighboring Los Angeles and Orange County, recording the highest asking rents. 9.0% Vacancy Rate -53.8K YTD Net Absorption,SF $2.16 Asking Rent,PSF Overall, All Property Classes) 6.1% Inland Empire Unemployment Rate 1.6M Inland Empire Employment 3.6% U.S. Unemployment Rate Source:BLS ECONOMIC INDICATORS Q1 2022 12-Mo. Forecast 12-Mo. Forecast YoY Chg YoY Chg SPACE DEMAND /DELIVERIES OVERALL VACANCY /ASKING RENT -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTDThousands Net Absorption, SF Construction Completions, SF 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% $1.70 $1.80 $1.90 $2.00 $2.10 $2.20 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 YTD Asking Rent, $ PSF Monthly Vacancy Rate Page 242 M A R K E T B E AT Office Q1 2022 INLAND EMPIRE MARKET STATISTICS SUBMARKET INVENTORY (SF) SUBLET VACANT (SF) DIRECT VACANT (SF) OVERALL VACANCY RATE CURRENT QTR OVERALL NET ABSORPTION YTD OVERALL ABSORPTION (SF) YTD LEASING ACTIVITY (SF)** UNDER CNSTR (SF) OVERALL AVG ASKING RENT (ALL CLASSES)* OVERALL AVG ASKING RENT (CLASS A)* Ontario 3,825,551 34,279 376,841 10.7%-23,602 -23,602 49,752 0 $2.28 $2.51 Rancho Cucamonga 3,103,332 6,192 252,995 8.4%2,016 2,016 44,855 0 $2.15 $2.50 Fontana 104,235 0 0 0.0%0 0 0 0 N/A N/A Chino/Chino Hills 585,172 2,099 14,624 2.9%-10,009 -10,009 6,051 0 $2.54 $2.58 Upland 831,279 0 62,777 7.6%-7,540 -7,540 4,781 0 $2.00 N/A IE WEST 8,449,569 42,570 707,237 8.9%-39,135 -39,135 105,439 0 $2.21 $2.51 Riverside 4,419,924 15,056 389,074 9.1%-19,653 -19,653 75,024 0 $2.20 $2.68 San Bernardino 3,485,884 0 366,697 10.5%-26,870 -26,870 34,244 0 $1.71 $2.18 Colton 268,295 0 66,207 24.7%-4,162 -4,162 0 0 $1.17 N/A Redlands/Loma Linda 1,093,045 3,200 48,953 4.8%1,995 1,995 11,788 0 $1.84 $2.15 IE EAST 9,267,148 18,256 870,931 9.6%-48,690 -48,690 121,056 0 $1.96 $2.53 Corona 2,009,307 5,082 240,063 12.2%5,316 5,316 34,031 0 $2.67 $2.77 Temecula 1,377,580 4,528 40,538 3.3%14,072 14,072 15,037 0 $1.65 $2.04 Murrieta 575,583 0 21,739 3.8%13,132 13,132 14,852 0 $2.01 $2.04 Lake Elsinore 122,527 0 1,925 1.6%1,459 1,459 3,134 0 $1.59 N/A IE SOUTH 4,084,997 9,610 304,265 7.7%33,979 33,979 67,054 0 $2.48 $2.70 IE TOTALS 21,801,714 70,436 1,882,433 9.0%-53,846 -53,846 293,549 0 $2.16 $2.58 *Rental rates reflect full service asking. **Renewals not included in leasing statistics. KEY SALES TRANSACTIONS Q1 2022 KEY LEASE TRANSACTIONS Q1 2022 PROPERTY SUBMARKET TENANT RSF TYPE 6296 River Crest Dr.Riverside Undisclosed 17,968 New 8250 White Oak St.Rancho Cucamonga Whittemore Enterprises 11,752 New 3610 Central Ave.Riverside ESDI, Inc. –Co-working 9,076 New PROPERTY SUBMARKET SELLER / BUYER SF PRICE / $ PSF 600 North Arrowhead Ave.San Bernardino Cantor Group II, LLC | Vismaad LLC 81,449 $22M / $270 2280 Market St.Riverside Dornin Investment Group | Atlas 999, LLC 65,380 $13M / $200 1650 Spruce St.Riverside Providence Innovation Center | Spruce Chicago Property LLC 58,312 $8M / $142 A CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD RESEARCH PUBLICATION ©2022 Cushman & Wakefield. All rights reserved. The information contained within this report is gathered from multiple sources believed to be reliable. The information may contain errors or omissions and is presented without any warranty or representations as to its accuracy. cushmanwakefield.com KAREN ADAME Senior Research Analyst Tel: +1 909 942 4656 karen.adame@cushwake.com JOLANTA CAMPION Senior Research Director, Southern California Tel: +1 858 625 5235 jolanta.campion@cushwake.com Sources:1www.bls.gov Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA MSA 2 Moody’s Analytics economy.com 2/2022. Page 243 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00850 A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCT) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0208-353-02 A.Recitals. 1. The applicant, Poole-Shaffery Attorneys at Law on behalf of Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Plaza, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00850 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2.On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3.On November 16, 2022, Poole-Shaffery Attorneys at Law (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application. 4.On January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This City Council 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 all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 18, 2023, including Attachment 10 Page 244 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 2 of 5 written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a vacant site located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard containing a site area of approximately 7.94 acres; and c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows: d. The proposed project consists of the construction a mixed-use development comprising of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, and parking at the time the application was deemed complete. 3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions medium-high to high density residential and a wide range of commercial uses. The project proposes a total of 311 apartment units 16,000 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor zone, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity in a vibrant pedestrian environment. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard; and Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) District* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) District South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update Page 245 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 3 of 5 c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, as well as the design, development standards, and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Center” land uses, 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. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR allows the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “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…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 7.94-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Center” land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Center” and would be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated October 11, 2022, was prepared by Michael Baker International. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required Page 246 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 4 of 5 to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission’s adoption of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum and concurs with their determination. 5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (DRC2022- 00445) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-29. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023. __________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of January 2023. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Page 247 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 5 of 5 ABSTAINED: Executed this 18th day of January 2023, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon Page 248 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00850 A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCT) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0208-353-02 A.Recitals. 1. The applicant, Island View Ventures, LLC, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00850 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2.On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3.On November 20, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application. 4.On January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This City Council 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 all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 18, 2023, including Attachment 11 Page 249 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 2 of 5 written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a vacant site located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard containing a site area of approximately 7.94 acres; and c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows: d. The proposed project consists of the construction a mixed-use development comprising of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, and parking at the time the application was deemed complete. 3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions medium-high to high density residential and a wide range of commercial uses. The project proposes a total of 311 apartment units 16,000 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor zone, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity in a vibrant pedestrian environment. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard; and Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) District* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) District South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update Page 250 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 3 of 5 c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, as well as the design, development standards, and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Center” land uses, 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. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR allows the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “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…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 7.94-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Center” land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Center” and would be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated October 11, 2022, was prepared by Michael Baker International. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required Page 251 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 4 of 5 to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission’s adoption of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum and concurs with their determination. 5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (DRC2022- 00449) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-29. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023. __________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of January 2023. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Page 252 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-0__- Page 5 of 5 ABSTAINED: Executed this 18th day of January 2023, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________________ Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney Richards, Watson & Gershon Page 253 C:\Users\HCB\Documents\Rancho Cucamonga Council Letter 1-12-23.docx Writer’s email: hbraly@pooleshaffery.com Via email Tabe.Vanderzwaag@cityofrc.us January 12, 2023 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga c/o Mr. Tabe Van de Swag, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Island View Ventures, LLC City Council Meeting January 18, 2023 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers This firm represents Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Place which owns the commercial office building located at 10535 Foothill Blvd, Rancho Cucamonga. Together with the other existing office building there is a total of 152,892 square feet of existing office uses adjacent to the Project. This letter provides additional support for the Appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Island View Ventures, LLC project on November 9, 2022. The proposed development is a 311-unit apartment building (“the Project”) and pursuant to the City’s Development Code Section 17.14.070 Eaglecell appealed the approval by the Planning Commission of the Project which also contains approximately 16,000 square feet of retail development. This letter incorporates the points and arguments made in our November 16 appeal letter and that letter is attached. Upon the appeal of the Project, Eaglecell began the process of engaging a traffic engineer to perform a peer review of the Shared Parking Agreement and Parking Management Plan prepared for the Project. This took considerable time to find a qualified company since several consultants had conflicts. We were able to engage MAT Engineering and their principal Alex Travizi and he prepared the attached report dated January 9, 2023 which we are submitting with this letter for the City Council’s review and which was sent to the applicant on January 9. Our analysis raises significant issues with the Project. Among them are: 1.The study by the applicant depends on parking utilization counts from July 2018 and April 2022 and bases vacancy rate on the average occupancy in the City of Rancho Cucamonga instead of the actual vacancy rate. Eaglecell has represented that in 2018 the office building was approximately 75 percent occupied and that the other office building had similar occupancy rate. As a result, the parking demand would be 287 at this vacancy level and 383 spaces at full occupancy. (MAT Comments 1 and 2) 2.The City stated on Page 5 of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission that the required parking for the Project was reduced from 690 to 431 parking spaces due to the State’s Density Bonus Law because the Project is providing 5% affordable units. That is only 16 units out of 311 units, but the Project has decreased the required parking for the Project by more than 1/3. This raises serious concerns that there will not be adequate parking for the office buildings. In 1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/12/2023 January 12, 2023 City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 C:\Users\HCB\Documents\Rancho Cucamonga Council Letter 1-12-23.docx addition, the three previous owners of the two office buildings and the Project recorded CC&Rs on all three properties which included parking requirements. Eaglecell is the successor in interest to Townsend and is required to have 217 parking spaces. The other office building is required to have 194 parking spaces. The Project does not accommodate these requirements and a copy of the CC&Rs is attached. 3. The applicant’s analysis focuses on various shared parking alternatives and scenarios. Even utilizing the reduced residential parking per State Law, at peak the entire demand would be 602 spaces which would create a parking deficit of 93. (MAC Comment 3.1). 4. The Shared Parking analysis looks at Dense Multi-Use Urban rates which our analysis believes is not appropriate for the site. We believe it should be the General Urban/Suburban setting which would increase the parking from 1.27 spaces per unit to 1.47 spaces per unit. In addition, it might be more accurate to perform the analysis based on spaces per bedroom. This would more appropriately show a parking demand for the Project at 435 spaces higher than the Project’s claim of 388 spaces (MAC Comment 3.2) 5. The Project’s Shared Parking Report needs to provide a section and table showing the breakdown of the total planned number of shared, gated and garage parking spaces. (MAC Comment 4) 6. While there is an assumption that the pandemic has resulted in an office activity shift from office uses reducing demand, it should also be analyzed if this has resulted in a higher parking demand in residential uses with workers not going to an office, working from home and leaving their car parked there during the day. (MAC Comment 5). 7. The Parking Management Plan must include a feasible mitigation measure in the event that parking exceeds capacity. This could include a parking agreement with a nearby use and site or a parking structure. This could also include the purchase and/or renting of parking spaces owned by a public agency. All mitigation costs and required actions must be covered and paid for by the Project. (MAC Comment 6). 8. The Project needs to identify who would be responsible for monitoring the parking activity to make sure make sure that residents of the Project do not take up office-related parking spaces. This would include utilization of a professional parking patrol with meaningful enforcement procedures. To assist in ensuring parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the office buildings, Eaglecell recommends that at least 50 parking spaces for its building be placed in a reserved area behind an arm gate that can only be access by the office users. January 12, 2023 City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 C:\Users\HCB\Documents\Rancho Cucamonga Council Letter 1-12-23.docx While there are 4 shared parking methodologies used, one clearly shows that the project would be deficient in parking. 9. There needs to be a showing that there will be adequate parking during the construction phase of the Project. (MAC Comments 8 and 10) My client and I have also reviewed the January 4, 2023 (inaccurately dated January 4, 2022) from the attorneys for the Project. For the reasons stated above, we respectfully disagree that the Shared Parking Analysis determined that the Project meets all peak parking demands during relevant periods pursuant to Section 17.46.060 of the City’s Development Code. Our analysis has determined otherwise. While we understand that the State has required that local Government decrease required parking for multifamily housing if some affordable housing is provided, it can not and should not result in violating the City’s parking requirements for office buildings. Eaglecell’s tenants insist that it provides code required parking in their leases. The approval of this project without further changes could result in inadequate parking and place Eaglecell in the position of being in violation of all of its tenant leases and allow tenants to vacate its office building. We request that the City Council affirm our appeal and direct the Project to further study the parking issues to ensure that they are compliant with the City’s Code for the existing office buildings and that impacts on their parking can be mitigated. We will continue to work with the Project and the City to accomplish these goals. Best regards, Hunt C Braly cc: Client Jeff Warmoth, RC Foothill Holdings LLC 1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/12/2023 January 18, 2023 BY E-MAIL Mayor L. Dennis Michael Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy Councilmember Ryan Hutchison Councilmember Kristine Scott Councilmember Ashley Stickler City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 E-Mail: Council@CityofRC.us Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Tabe.vanderzwaag @cityofrc.us Re: Comment on Agenda Item G1 – Appeal of Site Plan and Design Review, Foothill Center Mixed-Use/Island View Ventures, LLC (DRC2019-00850) Dear Mayor Michael, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, and Honorable Members of the City Council: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit corporation, regarding the proposed Foothill Center Mixed- Use development proposed for the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”). On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving design review DRC2021-00200 and finding the Project will have no significant effects on the environment and does not require an environmental impact report (“EIR”) to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Planning Commission’s findings relied in part on a CEQA streamlining provision set forth at 14 C.C.R. [“CEQA Guidelines”] § 15183, which implements Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3 (“Streamlining Provision”). According to the City’s “CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum for the Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project,” (“Compliance Memorandum”) the Streamlining Provision is applicable because the Project is consistent with the development density analyzed for the Project site in the City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021 Genreal Plan Update EIR. While applicable, the Streamlining Provision does not exempt the Project from CEQA, but rather limits the scope of environmental review and the need for an EIR. 1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/18/2023 Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project City of Rancho Cucamonga January 18, 2023 Page 2 Here, the General Plan EIR does not acknowledge or analyze the significant impacts the Project will have on biological resources, including habitat loss, loss of reproductive capacity, impacts on wildlife movement, and impacts on special-status birds as a result of window collisions. In addition, the General Plan EIR does not acknowledge the significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. As a result, the City cannot rely on Section 15183 to avoid addressing these potential impacts. We have reviewed the Project, the General Plan EIR, and the Compliance Memorandum with the assistance of expert ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. and Certified Industrial Hygienist Francis Offermann, PE, CIH. Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference. Mr. Offermann’s comments and CV are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Since the Project will have significant environmental impacts that were not addressed in the 2021 General Plan EIR, SAFER respectfully requests that the City prepare a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR for the Project as required by CEQA. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is a proposed mixed-used development located on 7.94-acres, including 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of ground floor retail uses, divided among four buildings, along with associated parking lots, landscaping, and ancillary improvements at 10575 Foothill Boulevard. II. LEGAL BACKGROUND When a project is “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified…” (14 CCR § 15183), CEQA Guidelines section 15183 applies and permits a lead agency to streamline the environmental review required by CEQA. If CEQA Guidelines section 15183 is applicable, a lead agency only needs to analyze environmental effects that the agency determines: (a) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (b) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan with which the project is consistent, (c) 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 (d) 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. (14 CCR § 15183(b).) Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project City of Rancho Cucamonga January 18, 2023 Page 3 The phrase “peculiar to the project” as used in CEQA Guidelines section 15183(a) is a term of art specifically defined by the regulation: An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards 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. (14 CCR § 15183(f).) III. DISCUSSION A. The Project Will Have Significant Impacts on Biological Resources Not Analyzed as Significant in the General Plan EIR. 1. The Project will have significant impacts on habitat loss and reproductive capacity of special-status birds that were not analyzed as significant effects in the 2021 General Plan EIR. The Project area is undergoing severe habitat fragmentation, “which is a process widely believed to pose the greatest threat to wildlife conservation.” (Smallwood, p. 8.) The project site is one of the very last patches of open space in the region. As a result, Dr. Smallwood explains, “its loss to wildlife would likely cause much greater harm to wildlife than would the loss of the same-sized area in another less-urbanized setting.” (Id.) This Project “would further fragment habitat in an environmental setting in which wildlife persisting within the region cannot tolerate furtherance of this process.” (Id.) While habitat loss results in the immediate decline in birds and other animals, it also results in a permeant loss of reproductive capacity. (Id.) Loss of reproductive capacity to birds as a result of Project-related habitat loss can be predicted. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood cites two studies in his comments showing total bird nesting densities on similar sites between 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre, for an average of 34.3 nests per acre. (Id.) When multiplied by the Project’s 4.09 acres of habitat that would be lost, Dr. Smallwood predicts a loss of 47 bird nests per year. (Id.) This loss would repeat each year. (Id.) Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent generating 181 new birds per year. (Id.) This significant impact was not analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the City cannot avoid analyzing it by relying on the Streamlining Provision. An MND or an EIR must be prepared to analyze and mitigate this significant impact. Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project City of Rancho Cucamonga January 18, 2023 Page 4 2. The Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement that was not analyzed as a significant effect in the 2021 General Plan EIR. The Genreal Plan EIR and the Compliance Memorandum improperly dismiss the Project’s potential to impact wildlife movement by focusing solely on the linear terrain features that are often assumed to serve as wildlife movement corridors. (Smallwood, p. 9.) According to the Compliance Memorandum, “The GPU EIR determined that the majority of the City is developed. These areas have little natural open space and therefore provide few wildlife movement corridors. Existing corridors include creeks and open drainage canals, which connect wildlife to the mountains to the north.” (Compliance Memorandum, p. 4-26.) The Compliance Memorandum then concludes that “the project would not impact regional wildlife corridors/linkages because none exist within the area.” (Id.) These conclusions are based on the flawed premise that only disruption of the function of a habitat linkage of wildlife corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. (Smallwood, p. 9.) The conclusions are also at odds with the threshold of significance found in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. Under that standard, a project will have a significant biological impact if it would “[i]nterfere 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.” (CEQA Guidelines, App. G.) “The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” (Smallwood, p. 9.) Because of its reliance on a false CEQA standard for determining impacts on wildlife movement, the EIR contains no evidence to support the conclusion that the Project will not have a significant impact on wildlife movement. In contrast, Dr. Smallwood concludes that the Project will significantly impact wildlife movement. (Smallwood, p. 9.) According to Dr. Smallwood: A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. Traveling farther risks exhaustion, disorientation and starvation, all outcomes of which certainly contribute to interference with wildlife movement in the region. (Smallwood, p. 9.) Dr. Smallwood’s comments are substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement. Because the 2021 General Plan EIR did not analyze this impact as significant and mitigate it, the City may not rely upon Section 15183 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least a mitigated negative declaration for the Project. Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project City of Rancho Cucamonga January 18, 2023 Page 5 3. The Project will have a significant impact on special-status birds as a result of window collisions that was not analyzed as a significant effect in the 2021 General Plan EIR. According to Dr. Shawn Smallwood, the Project will have a significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. (Smallwood, p. 9.) The 2021 General Plan EIR did not analyze or mitigate this impact to special-status birds. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife of window collisions is especially important because “[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source of human-caused bird mortality.” (Id.) Dr. Smallwood has reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and facades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged. (Smallwood, p. 11.) According to his review and calculations, Dr. Smallwood determined that each m2 of glass façade may result in 0.073 bird deaths per year. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated that the Project would include approximately 2,514 m2 of new glass windows. (Id.) Based on the estimated 2,5142 of glass windows and the 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass windows, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the project could result in 184 bird deaths per year as a result of window collisions. (Id. at 12.) The vast majority of these bird deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thereby resulting in a significant impact to special status species. The 2021 General Plan EIR did not analyze this significant impact to special status birds resulting from window collisions. The Project therefore may not rely upon Section 15183 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least an MND. B. The Project May Have a Significant Human Health Impact That Was Not Analyzed as a Significant Impact in the General Plan EIR. One component of an air quality impact analysis under CEQA is evaluating the health risk impacts of toxic air contaminant (“TACs”) emissions contributed by a proposed project as well as cumulatively with other nearby TAC sources. Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Many composite wood products typically used in residential building construction contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. (Offermann, p. 2-3.) The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. (Id.) These materials are commonly used in residential and building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. (Id. at 3.) Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Mr. Comment re: Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project City of Rancho Cucamonga January 18, 2023 Page 6 Offermann is one of the world’s leading experts on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. (See CV attached as Exhibit B.) Mr. Offerman concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose future residents and workers in the commercial spaces to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. (Id. at 3-5.) Given the prominence of materials with formaldehyde-based resins that will be used in constructing the Project, there is a significant likelihood that the Project’s emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future residents and workers in the buildings. (Id.) Even if the materials used within the buildings comply with the Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), significant emissions of formaldehyde may still occur. (Id.) The Project’s buildings will have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that will expose workers and residents to cancer risks well in excess of SCAQMD’s threshold of significance. Based on Mr. Offermann’s analysis, residents of the Project will be exposed to an excess cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, which is 12 times the 10 in one million significance threshold established by the SCAQMD. (Offermann, p. 4.) Similarly, employees of the commercial spaces are expected to have in excess cancer risk from formaldehyde of 17.7 per million, which is 1.77 times the significance threshold. (Id at pp. 4-5.) Currently, the City does not have any idea what risk will be posed by formaldehyde emissions from the Project to future residents and employees. The General Plan EIR does not acknowledge this significant indoor air emissions that will result from the Project. Specifically, there is no discussion of impacts or health risks from the Project’s formaldehyde emissions, no analysis, nor any identification of mitigations for significant emissions of formaldehyde to air from the Project. As a result of this significant effect to air quality that was not analyzed in the 2021 General Plan EIR, the Project may not rely upon Section 15183 to forego the preparation of a supplemental EIR or at least a negative declaration for the Project. IV. CONCLUSION SAFER requests the City Council grants its appeal, find the Project has not complied with CEQA, and remand the matter back to staff to prepare the appropriate CEQA document. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Rebecca L. Davis LOZEAU DRURY LLP     EXHIBIT A  1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD 3108 Finch Street Davis, CA 95616 Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 28 November 2022 RE: Island View Mixed-Use Dear Ms. van der Zwaag, I write to comment on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum that was prepared for the Foothill Center Mixed-Use Project, which I understand would add 311 residential units in 4 60-foot-tall buildings with 387,118 square feet of floorspace on 7.94 acres at the southeast corner of the intersection of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. In my comments, I will raise the issue of eucalyptus trees bordering the open space of the project – one of the last remaining patches of open space in the area, and one of the last with eucalyptus – a situation that is peculiar to the project site, and one that increases the likelihood that the site supports Monarchs, which were recently listed as Candidate Endangered Species under the federal Endangered Species Act. Other issues I raise are of project impacts that have not been addressed and not found significant in the 2021 General Plan Update EIR, and which cannot be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards in the 2021 General Plan Update EIR. The one mitigation measure that the Compliance Memorandum relies upon to mitigate potential impacts to wildlife is General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1, which reads “If potential habitat [of special-status species] is present in an area, focused surveys shall be conducted prior to construction activities in order to document the presence or absence of a species on the project site.” Requisite to whether focused surveys are performed is the determination of whether potential habitat is present in the area, which is an issue on which I will comment. Another issue is whether General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1 can avoid or minimize bird-window collision mortality that would result from the project. Another is the Compliance Memorandum’s flawed analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post-graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW TO CHARACTERIZE THE EXISTING WILDLIFE COMMUNITY The first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site, their relative abundances, how they use the site, key ecological relationships, and known and ongoing threats to those species with special status. A reasonably accurate characterization of the environmental setting can provide the basis for determining whether the site holds habitat value to wildlife, as well as a baseline against which to analyze potential project impacts. For these reasons, characterization of the environmental setting, including the project site’s regional setting, is one of CEQA’s essential analytical steps (§15125). Methods to achieve this first step typically include (1) reviews of literature, databases and local experts for documented occurrences of special-status species, and (2) surveys of the site for biological resources. The 2021 General Plan Update EIR was founded on a desktop review, in which the potential for various special-status species was determined by consulting California’s Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for confirmed occurrences in the Plan area. Notably, no field surveys were completed in support of the 2021 General Plan Update EIR. Instead, the General Plan leaves the responsibility of field surveys to each proposed project per Condition of Approval 5.4-1. Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review The purpose of literature and database review, and of consulting with local experts, is to inform the reconnaissance-level survey, to augment it, and to help determine which protocol-level detection surveys should be implemented. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and site conditions. This step is important because the reconnaissance-level survey is not going to detect all of the species of wildlife that make use of the site. This step can identity those species yet to be detected at the site but which have been documented to occur nearby or whose available habitat associations are consistent with site conditions. Some special-status species can be ruled out of further analysis, but only if compelling evidence is available in support of such determinations. The Compliance Memorandum is inadequately informed by a literature and data base review. It screens out species from further consideration if they did not turn up on ELMT’s (2022) query of CNDDB occurrence records, although the scope of the query is not reported in ELMT (2022). Regardless of the scope of the query, CNDDB was not designed to support absence determinations or to screen out species from characterization of a site’s wildlife community. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” 1 1 State of California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database, CNDDB Data Use Guidelines, p. 12. Available at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=27285&inline. 3 CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to CNDDB. Furthermore, CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of CNDDB. The results of CNDDB queries can be conclusive of species’ occurrences where occurrences have been confirmed and reported to CNDDB, but they cannot be conclusive of species’ occurrences where no occurrence records have been reported. The Compliance Memorandum misuses CNDDB. Additional occurrence databases are available but were not used to inform the Compliance Memorandum. One such data base is eBird, and another is iNaturalist. eBird reveals a recent burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) sighting within a half mile of the project site, and iNaturalist reveals a 2021 sighting of Monarch (Danaus plexippus) only 0.63 miles from the project site. The burrowing owl is a US Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, a California Department of Fish and Wildlife Bird Species of Special Concern with priority level 2 (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and protected by California Fish and Game Code 3503.5. The Monarch was listed as a Candidate for Endangered Species status by the federal government in 2019. These and other special-status species would likely have been more seriously considered in the Compliance Memorandum had ELMT (2022) relied upon more databases than CNDDB. Adding to the significance of the burrowing owl sighting was ELMT’s reported detection of ground squirrels on the project site. With ground squirrels on the 4.09 acres of soils uncovered by impervious surfaces, the project site includes sufficient space, sufficient proximity to a known occurrence record, and the burrows and mutualistic benefits of ground squirrels to warrant protocol-level detection surveys for burrowing owls. ELMT (2022) speculates that utility poles located near the site would discourage burrowing owls from using the site, but in my experience burrowing owls will nest near electric distribution poles and sometimes directly under the canopies of trees. The only scientifically defensible means of determining that the site lacks burrowing owls is to complete protocol-level detection surveys during the breeding season in accordance with the standards of CDFW (2012). No such survey was completed. Adding to the significance of the 2021 Monarch sighting was its location within an east-west band of sightings records across Rancho Cucamonga indicative of a movement corridor, and the presence of Eucalyptus on the project site – a tree that is known to be one of the principal trees used by Monarchs for roosting and as stop-over refugia to and from winter roost sites. In fact, 15 of the eucalyptus are large enough to qualify as Heritage Trees under the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (17.16.080). The reasons to expect Monarchs on the project site are compelling, but it is unclear whether ELMT searched for them as Monarch does not appear in their report. Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1 presents a potential conflict by conditioning whether focused surveys are completed to document the presence of special-status species on 4 whether a determination has been made that potential habitat of a special-status species is present in the project area. A species’ habitat is that part of the environment that is used by the species (Hall et al. 1997), and which is described by scientists through measurement (Smallwood 2002). In other words, habitat is defined by the species and as scientists are capable of measuring that use. Focused surveys are needed for the purpose of detecting special-status species, and if detections are made, then habitat can be determined as present. If detections are not made after sufficient effort has been committed to the surveys, then habitat can be determined as either absent or temporarily empty.2 The requisite step is for field surveys to inform determinations about habitat, and not the other way around as Condition of Approval 5.4-1 presents the path to the intended determination. Condition of Approval 5.4-1 is also confusing with its requirement that “focused surveys shall be conducted prior to construction activities in order to document the presence or absence of a species on the project site.” The Compliance Memorandum regards field surveys as focused surveys, but they are not necessarily the same types of survey. Before I get to what type of survey was completed for wildlife at the proposed project, I will review the types of surveys performed for CEQA review, the intended objectives of these surveys, and examples of their sources of error and bias. There are four types of survey for wildlife at a project site that are typical of CEQA review. One is known as a species-specific detection survey, which follows a methodological protocol formulated by experts on the species. The protocol balances cost against a reasonable likelihood of detection should the species be present. If the protocol is followed, but the species is not detected, then the negative outcome of the detection survey can serve as support for an absence determination, i.e., the species at issue can be determined absent from the site for however long the protocol specifies. It is therefore important that the details of the detection survey be reported so that the reader can compare these details to the minimum standards of the detection survey protocol. The detection survey is the only type of wildlife survey in CEQA review that can be regarded as a “focused” survey per General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1. Two other types of survey for wildlife at proposed project sites are known as reconnaissance survey, otherwise known as general survey, and habitat assessment. The typical objective of reconnaissance survey is to inventory the species that compose the wildlife community, whereas that of habitat assessment is to assign occurrence likelihoods to special-status species based on documented associations between each species and environmental settings. Unlike the carefully formulated protocols of detection surveys, reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments lack formal standards of implementation and interpretation. The outcome of a 5-minute reconnaissance survey should not be afforded the same credibility as that of a 5-hour reconnaissance survey, but no guidance is available on how long a reconnaissance survey should last or what its findings should mean. It is therefore very important that the methodological details of reconnaissance surveys and habitat assessments be reported. It is just as important that the standards of interpretation be reported, along with sources of uncertainty and bias. 2 Vertebrate wildlife species typically occupy only about 25% of their habitat at any given time due to their natural shifting-mosaic patterns of abundance (Taylor and Taylor 1979, Smallwood 2002), but might occupy habitat patches all the time where habitat fragmentation has been excessive (Smallwood 2015). 5 Sources of potential uncertainty and bias abound in reconnaissance surveys for the purpose of wildlife species inventory. Biologists vary in their skill at detecting wildlife species, and all are imperfect observers. After all, some species are large, loud, colorful or abundant, and can readily be seen during diurnal surveys, whereas others are tiny, quiet, cryptic or rare, or are detectable only by night or by trapping or use of remote-sensing technology. In my experience, some species typically do not reveal themselves until I have been on the survey station for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or for hours. The inventory will be the product of the amount of survey time and the range of survey methods invested. As examples, because nocturnal surveys and trapping with live bait are rarely implemented as part of reconnaissance surveys, bats and shrews rarely find their places on species inventories at proposed project sites. Membership on an inventory can also carry different meanings based on how each species occurs at the site. Whereas some species are resident year-round, others can be seasonal or ephemeral in their occurrences at a site. Should a species be included on an inventory depends on the analyst’s standard of what counts as presence, but that standard should be reported so that the public can decide whether to agree with it. In short, reconnaissance survey can only sample the true suite of wildlife species of a site, and most often, the sample will be biased against the rare, sensitive and threatened or endangered species that CEQA is most concerned about. Reconnaissance surveys occasionally reveal the presence of special-status species, sometimes due to the skill of the observer but often due to luck of survey timing. What these surveys cannot reveal is the absences of any species whose geographic ranges overlap the site and whose habitat associations at all resemble conditions of the site. And it is habitat associations that consulting biologists often rely upon to determine likelihoods of occurrence of special-status species. Unfortunately, habitat associations often poorly comport with the habitat concept. Habitat associations defined by consulting biologists typically lack foundation in actual measurements of habitat use, and are therefore speculative and prone to error. One source of error is to map vegetation complexes as habitat types, to which consulting biologists assign species by association without concern for the unrealistically hard boundaries that divide the mapped habitat types. Another source of error is to pigeon-hole species into unrealistically narrow portions of the environment, which can then be said not to exist on the project site. A third source of error is to assign functions to habitat for the purpose of dividing habitat into unrealistic functional parts, such as between breeding habitat versus foraging habitat. Primacy is assigned to breeding habitat, which often can be said not to exist on the project site. In reality, all parts of an animal’s habitat are essential to breeding success, regardless of where breeding opportunities occur.3 A fourth type of survey is referred to as preconstruction survey. Preconstruction surveys are take-avoidance surveys to be completed within days of the initiation of project construction. In these surveys, survey personnel seek to find readily detectable animals or nests to either establish a buffer around them or to relocate them to off site. These surveys should always be completed. However, it should be understood that few of the animals or nests are likely to be found and salvaged. Furthermore. those that are relocated off site could very well add to project impacts off 3 Animals unable to find sufficient forage, refugia, or travel opportunities are just as unable to reproduce as those unable to find sufficient nest-site opportunities. Per the precautionary principle of risk analysis and consistent with the habitat concept, CEQA review should be based on the broadest of available habitat characterizations, which should be interpreted on the whole rather than contrived functional parts. Any detections of a species on or over a site, regardless of time of year, should be interpreted as that species’ use of habitat, any part of which is critical to breeding success. 6 site, because they are inserted into habitat that is likely already occupied and could contribute to injuries or deaths due to territorial dispute or to starvation due to insufficient forage. The surveys completed for the proposed project were for the purpose of “general habitat assessment” (ELMT Consulting 2022), thus agglomerating the errors and biases of sampling the true species inventory typical of reconnaissance-level surveys and the errors and biases of judging whether certain species might occur based on habitat associations. Not helping to elucidate the meaning of their general habitat assessment, ELMT (2022) fails to reveal much about survey methods. They report the identifies of the two biologists who surveyed the site, the three survey dates, and that the biologists walked around the site. No start times are reported, nor how much time was spent on the surveys. Except in the case of Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis), no standards are reported of how habitat determinations were made. No compendium of species detected is reported, and left unclear is whether species reported as having been seen were all of the species that were seen. In summary, ELMT’s (2022) level of effort was too cursory to support determinations of whether the site provides habitat to special-status species, and their reporting is too vague and incomplete for readers to interpret the meanings of survey outcomes. ELMT (2022) completed a habitat assessment for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. I assume they did so because the project site occurs within a Recovery Unit of the federally Endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, and nearly the entirety of the 4.09 acres of open space on the project is composed of Delhi Sands soil, which is a type of soil peculiar to the project area and known to support Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. However, the habitat assessment does not appear to have originated from the scientific literature nor in the available US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol for the species. A source for the rating system that ELMT (2022) applied to the site’s Delhi Sands soils was cited as Michael Brandman Associates (2003) – a document authored by an environmental consulting firm -- but this citation was not referenced in ELMT (2022). Wherever the origin of the rating system used by ELMT, it does not appear to have derived from the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol. The survey protocol requires at least twice-weekly searches for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly by permitted biologists over a two-year period covering July 1 to September 20. The surveys are to be conducted within a defined portion of the day and under specific weather conditions. The Permittee should provide specific reporting information to the Carlsbad Field Office. The ratings of soils do not at all resemble the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol, and the dates of the surveys did not fall within the specified range of dates in the protocol. As far as I can determine, ELMT (2022) did not follow the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s survey protocol, so City of Rancho Cucamonga lacks foundation for concluding that Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is absent from the project site. For the foregoing reasons, the surveys completed by ELMT (2022) do not satisfy the intent of General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1. The surveys were not focused. The surveys were purportedly for the purpose of habitat assessment for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and for characterizing the site’s species inventory, but as I explained above, species inventory can only be sampled by reconnaissance-level surveys, which were the types of survey completed by ELMT (2022). ELMT’s surveys were unsuited for determining absence of special-status species, and therefore unsuited for assessing habitat. Furthermore, the survey methods and survey 7 outcomes were not reported with enough detail to enable readers to suitably interpret them. ELMT (2022) name 10 species of wildlife they detected on the project site, but without more methodological details, there is no way for the reader to know whether these 10 species were few or many relative to the survey effort. Based on my survey experience at hundreds of proposed project sites across California, one thing that is certain, however, is that the 10 species ELMT detected did not represent the species inventory. The project site undoubtedly supports more than 10 species of wildlife. My daughter and I have surveyed for wildlife at several nearby vacant lots similar to the size of the project site. In only 1 hour at a site 1.25 miles from the project site, I detected 5 species, including prairie falcon. Red- tailed hawk and American kestrel. In a follow-up survey to that same site for another 1 hour, I detected 5 more species of wildlife including Monarch butterfly, a federal Candidate Endangered Species. At another site only 1 mile away, my daughter detected 15 species in <2 hours during her first survey, and another 7 species in her second visit of the same duration. At another site 2.75 miles from the project site, and in only two 1.75-hour surveys, my daughter detected 28 species of wildlife, including golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, Allen’s hummingbird, and Cooper’s hawk, which the Compliance Memorandum claims is unlikely to occur at the project site. Based on my experience with many reconnaissance-level surveys at a research site, the latter survey outcome bridged to the many survey outcomes of my research project would predict 118 species detected by similar surveys repeated over a period of at least one year. ELMT’s (2022) reporting of only 10 species at the project site is not credible. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to base the review’s impacts analyses on a more accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting, including whether Delhi Sands flower-loving fly occurs in the site’s Delhi Sands soils, which are peculiar to the project area. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT Determination of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species is not, in and of itself, an analysis of potential project impacts. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how a proposed project would affect members of a species, larger demographic units of the species, or the whole of a species. For this project, because the surveys for wildlife at the project site were unsuited to General Plan Update Condition of Approval 5.4-1, and because the desktop analysis was flawed, the Compliance Memorandum has a very poor basis for analyzing impacts to special-status species of wildlife and to wildlife generally. Furthermore, the Compliance Memorandum does not identify likely impacts to wildlife that would result from the type, size and environmental setting of the proposed project. In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are found significant in the General Plan Update EIR or the Compliance Memorandum. HABITAT LOSS The project’s contribution to the reduction of productive capacity of birds is an issue that was not found significant in the 2021 General Plan Update EIR. The issue was not even addressed more than vaguely. But addressing this impact is warranted because the project area is undergoing 8 severe habitat fragmentation, which is a process widely believed to pose the greatest threat to wildlife conservation (Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation is a process of diminishing size and increasing isolation of habitat fragments that, relative to habitat loss, results in disproportionately greater reductions in numerical or functional capacity of a species, guild or ecological community. This larger impact of habitat fragmentation results from habitat fragments becoming too small or too isolated to support the species, guild or ecological community, thereby effectively contributing to the habitat loss that generated the fragmentation. The project would further fragment habitat in an environmental setting in which wildlife persisting within the region cannot tolerate furtherance of this process. The project site is one of the very last patches of open space, i.e., soils not covered by impervious surfaces, that remains in the region; its loss to wildlife would likely cause much greater harm to wildlife than would the loss of the same- sized area in another less-urbanized setting. Habitat fragmentation and habitat loss have been recognized as the most likely leading causes of a documented 29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last half century (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Habitat loss not only results in the immediate numerical decline of wildlife, but it also results in permanent loss of productive capacity. The productive capacity to birds that is jeopardized by this project can be predicted. The prediction can be made to the 4.09 acres of grassland and trees at the southern aspect of the project site. Two study sites in grassland/wetland/woodland complexes had total bird nesting densities of 32.8 and 35.8 nests per acre (Young 1948, Yahner 1982) for an average 34.3 nests per acre. Assuming the project site supports a third of the total nesting density of the above-referenced study sites, due to lack of wetland, and applying this adjusted density to the 4.09 acres of the project site, one can predict a loss of 47 bird nests. The loss of 47 nest sites of birds would qualify as a significant project impact that has not been addressed in the General Plan Update EIR or the Compliance Memorandum. But the impact does not end with the immediate loss of nest sites as the site is graded and trees removed in preparation for impervious surfaces. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost. The average number of fledglings per nest in Young’s (1948) study was 2.9. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity, the project would prevent the production of 162 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022): {(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 181 birds per year denied to California. The project’s denial to California of 181 birds per year has not been analyzed as a potential impact in the Compliance Memorandum, nor does the General Plan Update EIR and Compliance Memorandum provide any compensatory mitigation for this impact. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to the reproductive capacity of birds in the region. WILDLIFE MOVEMENT General Plan Update Conditions of Approval 5.4-1 and 5.4-4 would do nothing to mitigate potential project impacts to wildlife movement in the region. Preconstruction surveys would not 9 avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife that need the open space of the site for stop-over refugia, roosting or staging. Furthermore, the analysis is directed to a narrow portion of the City’s landscape and bypasses the portions that likely contribute most substantially to wildlife movement in the region. Both the 2021 General Plan Update EIR and the Compliance Memorandum focus solely on linear terrain features that are often assumed bun not conformed to serve as wildlife movement corridors (Smallwood 2015). According to the Compliance Memorandum (page 4-26), “The GPU EIR determined that the majority of the City is developed. These areas have little natural open space and therefore provide few wildlife movement corridors. Existing corridors include creeks and open drainage canals, which connect wildlife to the mountains to the north.” However, this analysis is flawed by its premise. The flaw is the implied premise that only disruption of the function of a habitat linkage of wildlife corridor can interfere with wildlife movement in the region. This premise represents a false CEQA standard, and is therefore inappropriate to the analysis. The primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor. A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes an increasingly diminishing area of open space within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of volant wildlife to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014). The project would cut wildlife off from stopover and staging opportunities, forcing volant wildlife to travel even farther between remaining stopover sites. Traveling farther risks exhaustion, disorientation and starvation, all outcomes of which certainly contribute to interference with wildlife movement in the region. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife movement in the region. BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS A substantial portion of the project site is also a portion of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is habitat (Kunz et al. 2008). And into this habitat the project would inject four 60-foot-tall buildings with an abundance of reflective and transparent glass. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human- caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds. Glass on the façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. 10 At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings. Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird-window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact. By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird-window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low. In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers 11 entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities. Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48- day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds. Project Impact Prediction By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez- Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project. The Compliance Memorandum does not disclose the extent of glass on facades of the proposed new buildings. I therefore relied on a visual rendering of the facades of the buildings provided in the Compliance Memorandum. I estimated the new glass windows added by the project would total about 2,514 m2. 12 Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimate of 2,514 m2 of glass in the project, I predict annual deaths of 184 birds (95% CI: 109‒258). Factors that could contribute to an even worse outcome than predicted include the project’s courtyards, which could result in entrapment and confusion of birds flying into those areas. The vast majority of the predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird- window collision mortality, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impact of bird-glass collisions that might be caused by the project. MITGATION MEASURES Additional to the Condition of Approval 5.4-1, which as I explain above was not appropriately implemented, the Compliance Memorandum includes one mitigation measure: “...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 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.” I concur that preconstruction surveys are warranted, should the project go forward. However, preconstruction surveys would not avoid impacts to Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, impacts of habitat loss to burrowing owl, the loss of productive capacity to birds due to habitat loss, the project’s interference with wildlife movement in the region, and bird-window collision mortality. Additional mitigation measures are needed. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately formulate mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, rectify and compensate for potential project impacts. RECOMMENDED MEASURES Detection Surveys: If the project goes forward, species detection surveys are needed to (1) support negative findings of species when appropriate, (2) inform preconstruction surveys to improve their efficacy, (3) estimate project impacts, and (4) inform compensatory mitigation and other forms of mitigation. Detection survey protocols and guidelines are available from resource agencies for multiple special-status species. Otherwise, professional standards can be learned from the scientific literature and species’ experts. Detection Surveys for Bats: Multiple special-status species of bats likely occur at the project site. A qualified bat biologist should be tasked with completing protocol-level detection surveys for bats. It needs to be learned whether bats roost in the area and whether bats forage on site, especially special-status species of bats. Preconstruction surveys: Completion of reports of the methods and outcomes of preconstruction surveys should be required. The reports should be made available to the public. 13 Construction Monitoring: If the project goes forward, two or more qualified biologists need to serve as construction monitors. They should have the authority to stop construction when construction poses a threat to wildlife, and they should have the authority to rectify situations that pose threats to wildlife. The events associated with construction monitoring, such as efforts to avoid impacts and findings of dead and injured wildlife, need to be summarized in a report that is subsequently made available to the public. Habitat Loss: If the project goes forward, compensatory mitigation would be warranted for habitat loss. At least an equal area of land should be protected in perpetuity as close to the project site as possible, but a larger area is likely warranted to mitigate for the impacts to multiple special-status species of wildlife known to occur on the site. And additional compensatory mitigation should be linked to impacts identified in construction monitoring. Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought also to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with windows of the buildings. Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced. New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and 14 internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation that is linked to monitoring outcomes should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities. Thresholds of collision mortality should be established in advance, the exceedance of which would trigger specific mitigation measures, also detailed in advance. Thank you for your attention, ______________________ Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. REFERENCES CITED Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667 Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001- 3765202020180745. Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52. Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird-window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367. Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G. J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020. Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon. 15 Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780. Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309. Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347 Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564. Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013. Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107. Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0144600. Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620. Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128. Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321. Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird- glass collisions. Unpublished report. Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411. Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R. P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. 16 Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere. Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019. Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164 Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus. PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652 O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149. Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y. Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York. Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94. Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE. Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird– window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14. Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton, A. Panjabi , L. Helft , M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 10.1126/science.aaw1313 (2019). Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent bird-window collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog-2015-0057 Runge, C. A., T. G. Martin, H. P. Possingham, S. G. Willis, and R. A. Fuller. 2014. Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12(7): 395–402, doi:10.1890/130237. 17 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI 10.7717/peerj.2170 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California. Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018. Year- round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562 Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-friendly building design, 2nd Ed., American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, [eds.]. 2008. California bird species of special concern: a ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California. Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J. Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19. Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded scale of stopover. PlosOne 6(11): e27054. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054. Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian Biology 41:621-626. Yahner, R. H. 1982. Avian nest densities and nest-site selection in farmstead shelterbelts. The Wilson Bulletin 94:156-175. Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47. 1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood Curriculum Vitae 3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California. Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two. Cell (530) 601-6857 puma@dcn.org Ecologist Expertise • Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities; • Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions. Education Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990. M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987. B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985. Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981. Experience  762 professional reports, including:  90 peer reviewed publications  24 in non-reviewed proceedings  646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews  8 in mass media outlets  92 public presentations of research results Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007. Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995. Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised Smallwood CV 2 the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities. Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife. Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach. Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation. Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines. Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001. Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding. Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS. Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape. Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues. Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California. Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County Smallwood CV 3 to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration. Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis. Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E. Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring. Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers. Projects Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue. Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built. Planning for additional repowering projects is underway. Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a before- after, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. Smallwood CV 4 Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions. Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports. Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review. Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below). Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species. Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population. Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV. Smallwood CV 5 Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management. Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits. GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County. Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams. Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators. Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc. Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China. Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China. Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. Smallwood CV 6 Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats. Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language. Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards. Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California. Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California. Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards. Peer Reviewed Publications Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216 Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540. Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863. Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities. Smallwood CV 7 Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084. Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 – 71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470. Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018. Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland. Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18. Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S. Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237. Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.     EXHIBIT B  INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700 E-mail: offermann@IEE-SF.com http://www.iee-sf.com Date: November 27, 2022 To: Brian Flynn Lozeau | Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150 Oakland, California 94612 From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4655) Pages: 19 Indoor Air Quality Impacts Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well- recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek. Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments. The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2 of 19 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants. Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68. Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015). Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 3 of 19 particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines. A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016-2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentration of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a). With respect to the Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA the building consists of residential and commercial spaces. 4 of 19 The residential occupants will potentially have continuous exposure (e.g. 24 hours per day, 52 weeks per year). These exposures are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in residential construction. Because these residences will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor residential formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) Assuming that the residential occupants inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 482 µg/day for continuous exposure in the residences. This exposure represents a cancer risk of 120 per million, which is more than 12 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. For occupants that do not have continuous exposure, the cancer risk will be proportionally less but still substantially over the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million (e.g. for 12/hour/day occupancy, more than 6 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million). The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels. Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020) 5 of 19 Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day. Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 µg/day. This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report (“EIR”), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR. In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million. Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures. Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. 6 of 19 The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the City’s CEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded. 1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (IAQ Zones). IAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For IAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single IAQ Zone of that type. 7 of 19 2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing urea-formaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard). 3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone. NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building furnishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed 8 of 19 for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate. If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual area-specific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates. Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory (https://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate. 4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. µg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3. 5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone. 9 of 19 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖= 𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑄𝑄𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (Equation 1) where: Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone. Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section 3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017). 6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015). 7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEQA Cancer and/or Non- Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0. Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all IAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include: 1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde 2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include: 10 of 19 1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone. NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems. Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. Pre- Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24‐hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session. Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24‐hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their 11 of 19 windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations. The Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., Ontario Freeway – 15, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, etc.), thus the Project site is a sound impacted site. The Recirculated Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (AECOM. 2022) contains only short-term monitoring periods over just 2 hours and does not report the CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels. In order to design the building such that the interior noise levels are acceptable, long-term one-week measurements need to be conducted to assess the ambient CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels for the purpose of selecting the appropriate STC for the windows. As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors. PM2.5 Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5. The Island View Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5. An air quality analyses should be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g., stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor 12 of 19 air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems. Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality: Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks. It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct 13 of 19 using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system. PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles are less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement. References AECOM. 2022. Recirculated Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project. 14 of 19 BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview California Air Resources Board. 2004. Formaldehyde in the Home. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov › research › indoor › formaldgl08-04.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List. California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207: 2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA. California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx. California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf. California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf 15 of 19 CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1. California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 – Activity Factors. Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. McIlvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235–242. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf 16 of 19 Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX. Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality- analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4 17 of 19 APPENDIX A INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS AND THE CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California”. In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality”, but rather “reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products”. Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 18 of 19 Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx. For the outdoor air ventilation rate, I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3/h) calculated for this model residence. For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates. The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area). For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board – 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood – 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF – 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms) Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry, could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA 19 of 19 cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy. Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million. The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met. If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde. Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. Francis (Bud) J. Offermann III PE, CIH Indoor Environmental Engineering 1448 Pine Street, Suite 103, San Francisco, CA 94109 Phone: 415-567-7700 Email: Offermann@iee-sf.com http://www.iee-sf.com Education M.S. Mechanical Engineering (1985) Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control (1980) University of California, Berkeley, CA. B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (1976) Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, N.Y. Professional Experience President: Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA. December, 1981 - present. Direct team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in conducting State and Federal research regarding indoor air quality instrumentation development, building air quality field studies, ventilation and air cleaning performance measurements, and chemical emission rate testing. Provide design side input to architects regarding selection of building materials and ventilation system components to ensure a high quality indoor environment. Direct Indoor Air Quality Consulting Team for the winning design proposal for the new State of Washington Ecology Department building. Develop a full-scale ventilation test facility for measuring the performance of air diffusers; ASHRAE 129, Air Change Effectiveness, and ASHRAE 113, Air Diffusion Performance Index. Develop a chemical emission rate testing laboratory for measuring the chemical emissions from building materials, furnishings, and equipment. Principle Investigator of the California New Homes Study (2005-2007). Measured ventilation and indoor air quality in 108 new single family detached homes in northern and southern California. Develop and teach IAQ professional development workshops to building owners, managers, hygienists, and engineers. 2 Air Pollution Engineer: Earth Metrics Inc., Burlingame, CA, October, 1985 to March, 1987. Responsible for development of an air pollution laboratory including installation a forced choice olfactometer, tracer gas electron capture chromatograph, and associated calibration facilities. Field team leader for studies of fugitive odor emissions from sewage treatment plants, entrainment of fume hood exhausts into computer chip fabrication rooms, and indoor air quality investigations. Staff Scientist: Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Program, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA. January, 1980 to August, 1984. Deputy project leader for the Control Techniques group; responsible for laboratory and field studies aimed at evaluating the performance of indoor air pollutant control strategies (i.e. ventilation, filtration, precipitation, absorption, adsorption, and source control). Coordinated field and laboratory studies of air-to-air heat exchangers including evaluation of thermal performance, ventilation efficiency, cross-stream contaminant transfer, and the effects of freezing/defrosting. Developed an in situ test protocol for evaluating the performance of air cleaning systems and introduced the concept of effective cleaning rate (ECR) also known as the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Coordinated laboratory studies of portable and ducted air cleaning systems and their effect on indoor concentrations of respirable particles and radon progeny. Co-designed an automated instrument system for measuring residential ventilation rates and radon concentrations. Designed hardware and software for a multi-channel automated data acquisition system used to evaluate the performance of air-to-air heat transfer equipment. Assistant Chief Engineer: Alta Bates Hospital, Berkeley, CA, October, 1979 to January, 1980. Responsible for energy management projects involving installation of power factor correction capacitors on large inductive electrical devices and installation of steam meters on physical plant steam lines. Member of Local 39, International Union of Operating Engineers. Manufacturing Engineer: American Precision Industries, Buffalo, NY, October, 1977 to October, 1979. 3 Responsible for reorganizing the manufacturing procedures regarding production of shell and tube heat exchangers. Designed customized automatic assembly, welding, and testing equipment. Designed a large paint spray booth. Prepared economic studies justifying new equipment purchases. Safety Director. Project Engineer: Arcata Graphics, Buffalo, N.Y. June, 1976 to October, 1977. Responsible for the design and installation of a bulk ink storage and distribution system and high speed automatic counting and marking equipment. Also coordinated material handling studies which led to the purchase and installation of new equipment. PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) • Chairman of SPC-145P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Assessing the Performance of Gas Phase Air Cleaning Equipment (1991-1992) • Member SPC-129P, Standards Project Committee - Test Method for Ventilation Effectiveness (1986-97) - Member of Drafting Committee • Member Environmental Health Committee (1992-1994, 1997-2001, 2007-2010) - Chairman of EHC Research Subcommittee - Member of Man Made Mineral Fiber Position Paper Subcommittee - Member of the IAQ Position Paper Committee - Member of the Legionella Position Paper Committee - Member of the Limiting Indoor Mold and Dampness in Buildings Position Paper Committee • Member SSPC-62, Standing Standards Project Committee - Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality (1992 to 2000) - Chairman of Source Control and Air Cleaning Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-4.10, Indoor Environmental Modeling (1988-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee • Chairman of TC-2.3, Gaseous Air Contaminants and Control Equipment (1989-92) - Member of Research Subcommittee American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) • D-22 Sampling and Analysis of Atmospheres - Member of Indoor Air Quality Subcommittee • E-06 Performance of Building Constructions American Board of Industrial Hygiene (ABIH) American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) • Bioaerosols Committee (2007-2013) 4 American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Cal-OSHA Indoor Air Quality Advisory Committee International Society of Indoor Air Quality and Climate (ISIAQ) • Co-Chairman of Task Force on HVAC Hygiene U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) - Member of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group (2007-2009) - Member of the IAQ Performance Testing Work Group (2010-2012) Western Construction Consultants (WESTCON) PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS Licensed Professional Engineer - Mechanical Engineering Certified Industrial Hygienist - American Board of Industrial Hygienists SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS AND SYMPOSIA Biological Contamination, Diagnosis, and Mitigation, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Models for Predicting Air Quality, Indoor Air’90, Toronto, Canada, August, 1990. Microbes in Building Materials and Systems, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July, 1993. Microorganisms in Indoor Air Assessment and Evaluation of Health Effects and Probable Causes, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Controlling Microbial Moisture Problems in Buildings, Walnut Creek, CA, February 27, 1997. Scientific Advisory Committee, Roomvent 98, 6th International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, June 14-17, 1998. Moisture and Mould, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Ventilation Modeling and Simulation, Indoor Air ’99, Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1999. Microbial Growth in Materials, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August, 2000. 5 Co-Chair, Bioaerosols X- Exposures in Residences, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Healthy Indoor Environments, Anaheim, CA, April 2003. Chair, Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Multi-Family Homes, Indoor Air 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2008. Co-Chair, ISIAQ Task Force Workshop; HVAC Hygiene, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, CA, July 2002. Chair, ETS in Multi-Family Housing: Exposures, Controls, and Legalities Forum, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. Chair, Energy Conservation and IAQ in Residences Workshop, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. Chair, Electronic Cigarettes: Chemical Emissions and Exposures Colloquium, Indoor Air 2016, Ghent, Belgium, July 4, 2016. SPECIAL CONSULTATION Provide consultation to the American Home Appliance Manufacturers on the development of a standard for testing portable air cleaners, AHAM Standard AC-1. Served as an expert witness and special consultant for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding the performance claims found in advertisements of portable air cleaners and residential furnace filters. Conducted a forensic investigation for a San Mateo, CA pro se defendant, regarding an alleged homicide where the victim was kidnapped in a steamer trunk. Determined the air exchange rate in the steamer trunk and how long the person could survive. Conducted in situ measurement of human exposure to toluene fumes released during nailpolish application for a plaintiffs attorney pursuing a California Proposition 65 product labeling case. June, 1993. Conducted a forensic in situ investigation for the Butte County, CA Sheriff’s Department of the emissions of a portable heater used in the bedroom of two twin one year old girls who suffered simultaneous crib death. Consult with OSHA on the 1995 proposed new regulation regarding indoor air quality and environmental tobacco smoke. 6 Consult with EPA on the proposed Building Alliance program and with OSHA on the proposed new OSHA IAQ regulation. Johnson Controls Audit/Certification Expert Review; Milwaukee, WI. May 28-29, 1997. Winner of the nationally published 1999 Request for Proposals by the State of Washington to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Washington State Department of Ecology building in Lacey, WA. Selected by the State of California Attorney General’s Office in August, 2000 to conduct a comprehensive indoor air quality investigation of the Tulare County Court House. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory IAQ Experts Workshop: “Cause and Prevention of Sick Building Problems in Offices: The Experience of Indoor Environmental Quality Investigators”, Berkeley, California, May 26-27, 2004. Provide consultation and chemical emission rate testing to the State of California Attorney General’s Office in 2013-2015 regarding the chemical emissions from e- cigarettes. PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS : F.J.Offermann, C.D.Hollowell, and G.D.Roseme, "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Environment International, 8, pp. 435-445, 1982. W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and A.W.Robb, "Automated System for Measuring Air Exchange Rate and Radon Concentration in Houses," Health Physics, 45, pp. 525-537, 1983. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 89-2B, pp 507-527, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Onset of Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91- 1B, 1984. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E Chant, D. Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.Pedersen, "Performance of Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers During Operation with Freezing and Periodic Defrosts," ASHRAE Annual Transactions, 91-1B, 1984. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, and K.L.Revzan, "Control of Respirable Particles with Portable Air Cleaners," Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 19, pp.1761-1771, 1985. 7 R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Evaluation of Indoor Control Devices and Their Effects on Radon Progeny Concentrations," Atmospheric Environment, 12, pp. 429-438, 1986. W.J. Fisk, R.K.Spencer, F.J.Offermann, R.K.Spencer, B.Pedersen, R.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques," Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, (1987). F.J.Offermann, "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," ASHRAE Transactions , Volume 94, Part 1, pp 694-704, 1988. F.J.Offermann and D. Int-Hout "Ventilation Effectiveness Measurements of Three Supply/Return Air Configurations," Environment International , Volume 15, pp 585-592 1989. F.J. Offermann, S.A. Loiselle, M.C. Quinlan, and M.S. Rogers, "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment in an Office Building," IAQ '89, The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, pp 179-183, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1989. R.G.Sextro and F.J.Offermann, "Reduction of Residential Indoor Particle and Radon Progeny Concentrations with Ducted Air Cleaning Systems," submitted to Indoor Air, 1990. S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, and F.J.Offermann, "Development of An Indoor Air Sampler for Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 2, pp 191-210, 1991. F.J.Offermann, S.A.Loiselle, A.T.Hodgson, L.A. Gundel, and J.M. Daisey, "A Pilot Study to Measure Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air , Vol 4, pp 497-512, 1991. F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance Comparisons of Six Different Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air Ventilation System," IAQ'91, Healthy Buildings, pp 342-350, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA (1991). F.J. Offermann, J. Daisey, A. Hodgson, L. Gundell, and S. Loiselle, "Indoor Concentrations and Emission Rates of Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds", Indoor Air, Vol 4, pp 497-512 (1992). F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, R.G. Sextro, "Performance of Air Cleaners Installed in a Residential Forced Air System," ASHRAE Journal, pp 51-57, July, 1992. F.J. Offermann and S. A. Loiselle, "Performance of an Air-Cleaning System in an Archival Book Storage Facility," IAQ'92, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1992. S.B. Hayward, K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, K. Shah, S. Loiselle, F.J. Offermann, Y.L. Chang, L. Webber, “Effectiveness of Ventilation and Other Controls in Reducing Exposure to ETS in Office Buildings,” Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. 8 F.J. Offermann, S. A. Loiselle, G. Ander, H. Lau, "Indoor Contaminant Emission Rates Before and After a Building Bake-out," IAQ'93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 157-163, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Hayward, S.B., Shah, S.B., Loiselle, S., and Offermann, F.J. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Determination of the Effectiveness of Pollutant Removal From Local Sources," IAQ '93, Operating and Maintaining Buildings for Health, Comfort, and Productivity, pp 119-129, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1993. L.E. Alevantis, Liu, L.E., Hayward, S.B., Offermann, F.J., Shah, S.B., Leiserson, K. Tsao, E., and Huang, Y., "Effectiveness of Ventilation in 23 Designated Smoking Areas in California Buildings," IAQ '94, Engineering Indoor Environments, pp 167-181, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1994. L.E. Alevantis, Offermann, F.J., Loiselle, S., and Macher, J.M., “Pressure and Ventilation Requirements of Hospital Isolation Rooms for Tuberculosis (TB) Patients: Existing Guidelines in the United States and a Method for Measuring Room Leakage”, Ventilation and Indoor air quality in Hospitals, M. Maroni, editor, Kluwer Academic publishers, Netherlands, 1996. F.J. Offermann, M. A. Waz, A.T. Hodgson, and H.M. Ammann, "Chemical Emissions from a Hospital Operating Room Air Filter," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 95-99, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, "Professional Malpractice and the Sick Building Investigator," IAQ'96, Paths to Better Building Environments, pp 132-136, ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA, 1996. F.J. Offermann, “Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness,” Indoor Air, Vol 1, pp.206-211, 1999. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, and J. P. Robertson, “Contaminant Emission Rates from PVC Backed Carpet Tiles on Damp Concrete”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. K.S. Liu, L.E. Alevantis, and F.J. Offermann, “A Survey of Environmental Tobacco Smoke Controls in California Office Buildings”, Indoor Air, Vol 11, pp. 26-34, 2001. F.J. Offermann, R. Colfer, P. Radzinski, and J. Robertson, “Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in an Automobile”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. F. J. Offermann, J.P. Robertson, and T. Webster, “The Impact of Tracer Gas Mixing on Airflow Rate Measurements in Large Commercial Fan Systems”, Indoor Air 2002, Monterey, California, July 2002. M. J. Mendell, T. Brennan, L. Hathon, J.D. Odom, F.J.Offermann, B.H. Turk, K.M. Wallingford, R.C. Diamond, W.J. Fisk, “Causes and prevention of Symptom Complaints 9 in Office Buildings: Distilling the Experience of Indoor Environmental Investigators”, submitted to Indoor Air 2005, Beijing, China, September 4-9, 2005. F.J. Offermann, “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes With and Without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. F.J. Offermann, “ASHRAE 62.2 Intermittent Residential Ventilation: What’s It Good For, Intermittently Poor IAQ”, IAQVEC 2010, Syracuse, CA, April 21, 2010. F.J. Offermann and A.T. Hodgson, “Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. P. Jenkins, R. Johnson, T. Phillips, and F. Offermann, “Chemical Concentrations in New California Homes and Garages”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June, 2011. W. J. Mills, B. J. Grigg, F. J. Offermann, B. E. Gustin, and N. E. Spingarm, “Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone Exposure from a Commercially Available Contact Adhesive”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9:D95-D102 May, 2012. F. J. Offermann, R. Maddalena, J. C. Offermann, B. C. Singer, and H, Wilhelm, “The Impact of Ventilation on the Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in Residences”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. F. J. Offermann, A. T. Hodgson, P. L. Jenkins, R. D. Johnson, and T. J. Phillips, “Attached Garages as a Source of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes”, HB 2012, Brisbane, CA, July, 2012. R. Maddalena, N. Li, F. Offermann, and B. Singer, “Maximizing Information from Residential Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds”, HB 2012, Brisbane, AU, July, 2012. W. Chen, A. Persily, A. Hodgson, F. Offermann, D. Poppendieck, and K. Kumagai, “Area-Specific Airflow Rates for Evaluating the Impacts of VOC emissions in U.S. Single-Family Homes”, Building and Environment, Vol. 71, 204-211, February, 2014. F. J. Offermann, A. Eagan A. C. Offermann, and L. J. Radonovich, “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. F. J. Offermann, “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Building and Environment, Vol. 93, Part 1, 101-105, November, 2015. F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Lumber Liquidators Laminate Flooring Manufactured in China”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. F. J. Offermann, “Formaldehyde and Acetaldehyde Emission Rates for E-Cigarettes”, Indoor Air 2016, Belgium, Ghent, July, 2016. 10 OTHER REPORTS: W.J.Fisk, P.G.Cleary, and F.J.Offermann, "Energy Saving Ventilation with Residential Heat Exchangers," a Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory brochure distributed by the Bonneville Power Administration, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and C.D.Hollowell, "Midway House Tightening Project: A Study of Indoor Air Quality," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-12777, 1981. F.J.Offermann, J.B.Dickinson, W.J.Fisk, D.T.Grimsrud, C.D.Hollowell, D.L.Krinkle, and G.D.Roseme, "Residential Air-Leakage and Indoor Air Quality in Rochester, New York," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-13100, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, B.Pedersen, and K.L.Revzan, Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: A Study of the Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window- Mounted Units," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-14358, 1982. F.J.Offermann, W.J.Fisk, W.W.Nazaroff, and R.G.Sextro, "A Review of Portable Air Cleaners for Controlling Indoor Concentrations of Particulates and Radon Progeny," An interim report for the Bonneville Power Administration, 1983. W.J.Fisk, K.M.Archer, R.E.Chant, D.Hekmat, F.J.Offermann, and B.S. Pedersen, "Freezing in Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers: An Experimental Study," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16783, 1983. R.G.Sextro, W.W.Nazaroff, F.J.Offermann, and K.L.Revzan, "Measurements of Indoor Aerosol Properties and Their Effect on Radon Progeny," Proceedings of the American Association of Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, April, 1983. F.J.Offermann, R.G.Sextro, W.J.Fisk, W.W. Nazaroff, A.V.Nero, K.L.Revzan, and J.Yater, "Control of Respirable Particles and Radon Progeny with Portable Air Cleaners," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16659, 1984. W.J.Fisk, R.K.Spencer, D.T.Grimsrud, F.J.Offermann, B.Pedersen, and R.G.Sextro, "Indoor Air Quality Control Techniques: A Critical Review," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-16493, 1984. F.J.Offermann, J.R.Girman, and R.G.Sextro, "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements,", Indoor Air, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Vol 1, pp 257-264, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm (1984), Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Report LBL-17603, 1984. 11 R.Otto, J.Girman, F.Offermann, and R.Sextro,"A New Method for the Collection and Comparison of Respirable Particles in the Indoor Environment," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, Special Director Fund's Study, 1984. A.T.Hodgson and F.J.Offermann, "Examination of a Sick Office Building," Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, an informal field study, 1984. R.G.Sextro, F.J.Offermann, W.W.Nazaroff, and A.V.Nero, "Effects of Aerosol Concentrations on Radon Progeny," Aerosols, Science, & Technology, and Industrial Applications of Airborne Particles, editors B.Y.H.Liu, D.Y.H.Pui, and H.J.Fissan, p525, Elsevier, 1984. K.Sexton, S.Hayward, F.Offermann, R.Sextro, and L.Weber, "Characterization of Particulate and Organic Emissions from Major Indoor Sources, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Laboratory Fume Entrainment at a Semi- Conductor Manufacturing Plant," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Tracer Gas Measurements of Ventilation Rates in a Large Office Building," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements of Volatile Organic Compounds in a New Large Office Building with Adhesive Fastened Carpeting," an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Designing and Operating Healthy Buildings", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1986. F.J.Offermann, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Spray-Applicated Pesticides", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1988. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Measurements and Mitigation of Indoor Mold Contamination in a Residence", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J.Offermann and S. Loiselle, "Performance Measurements of an Air Cleaning System in a Large Archival Library Storage Facility", an Indoor Environmental Engineering R&D Report, 1989. F.J. Offermann, J.M. Daisey, L.A. Gundel, and A.T. Hodgson, S. A. Loiselle, "Sampling, Analysis, and Data Validation of Indoor Concentrations of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Final Report, Contract No. A732-106, California Air Resources Board, March, 1990. 12 L.A. Gundel, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann, "A Sampling and Analytical Method for Gas Phase Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August 1990. A.T. Hodgson, J.M. Daisey, and F.J. Offermann "Development of an Indoor Sampling and Analytical Method for Particulate Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons", Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Indoor Air '90, July 29-August, 1990. F.J. Offermann, J.O. Sateri, “Tracer Gas Measurements in Large Multi-Room Buildings”, Indoor Air ’93, Helsinki, Finland, July 4-8, 1993. F.J.Offermann, M. T. O’Flaherty, and M. A. Waz “Validation of ASHRAE 129 - Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Final Report of ASHRAE Research Project 891, December 8, 1997. S.E. Guffey, F.J. Offermann et. al., “Proceedings of the Workshop on Ventilation Engineering Controls for Environmental Tobacco smoke in the Hospitality Industry”, U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration and ACGIH, 1998. F.J. Offermann, R.J. Fiskum, D. Kosar, and D. Mudaari, “A Practical Guide to Ventilation Practices & Systems for Existing Buildings”, Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering supplement to April/May 1999 issue. F.J. Offermann, P. Pasanen, “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, Session Summaries: Building Investigations, and Design & Construction, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. F.J. Offermann, “The IAQ Top 10”, Engineered Systems, November, 2008. L. Kincaid and F.J. Offermann, “Unintended Consequences: Formaldehyde Exposures in Green Homes, AIHA Synergist, February, 2010. F.J. Offermann, “ IAQ in Air Tight Homes”, ASHRAE Journal, November, 2010. F.J. Offermann, “The Hazards of E-Cigarettes”, ASHRAE Journal, June, 2014. PRESENTATIONS : "Low-Infiltration Housing in Rochester, New York: A Study of Air Exchange Rates and Indoor Air Quality," Presented at the International Symposium on Indoor Air Pollution, Health and Energy Conservation, Amherst, MA, October 13-16,1981. 13 "Ventilation Efficiencies of Wall- or Window-Mounted Residential Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Summer Meeting, Washington, DC, June, 1983. "Controlling Indoor Air Pollution from Tobacco Smoke: Models and Measurements," Presented at the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Stockholm, Sweden, August 20-24, 1984. "Indoor Air Pollution: An Emerging Environmental Problem", Presented to the Association of Environmental Professionals, Bar Area/Coastal Region 1, Berkeley, CA, May 29, 1986. "Ventilation Measurement Techniques," Presented at the Workshop on Sampling and Analytical Techniques, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, September 26, 1986 and September 25, 1987. "Buildings That Make You Sick: Indoor Air Pollution", Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 18, 1986. "Ventilation Effectiveness and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Northern Nevada Chapter, Reno, NV, February 18, 1987, Golden Gate Chapter, San Francisco, CA, October 1, 1987, and the San Jose Chapter, San Jose, CA, June 9, 1987. "Tracer Gas Techniques for Studying Ventilation," Presented at the Indoor Air Quality Symposium, Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta, GA, September 22-24, 1987. "Indoor Air Quality Control: What Works, What Doesn't," Presented to the Sacramento Association of Professional Energy Managers, Sacramento, CA, November 17, 1987. "Ventilation Effectiveness and ADPI Measurements of a Forced Air Heating System," Presented at the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Winter Meeting, Dallas, Texas, January 31, 1988. "Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Energy in Commercial Buildings", Presented at the Building Owners &Managers Association of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1988. "Controlling Indoor Air Quality: The New ASHRAE Ventilation Standards and How to Evaluate Indoor Air Quality", Presented at a conference "Improving Energy Efficiency and Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Buildings," National Energy Management Institute, Reno, Nevada, November 4, 1988. "A Study of Diesel Fume Entrainment Into an Office Building," Presented at Indoor Air '89: The Human Equation: Health and Comfort, American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, San Diego, CA, April 17-20, 1989. 14 "Indoor Air Quality in Commercial Office Buildings," Presented at the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition, Santa Clara, CA June 20, 1989. "Building Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented to the San Joaquin Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, September 7, 1989. "How to Meet New Ventilation Standards: Indoor Air Quality and Energy Efficiency," a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers; Chicago, IL, March 20-21, 1989; Atlanta, GA, May 25-26, 1989; San Francisco, CA, October 19-20, 1989; Orlando, FL, December 11-12, 1989; Houston, TX, January 29-30, 1990; Washington D.C., February 26-27, 1990; Anchorage, Alaska, March 23, 1990; Las Vegas, NV, April 23-24, 1990; Atlantic City, NJ, September 27-28, 1991; Anaheim, CA, November 19-20, 1991; Orlando, FL, February 28 - March 1, 1991; Washington, DC, March 20-21, 1991; Chicago, IL, May 16-17, 1991; Lake Tahoe, NV, August 15-16, 1991; Atlantic City, NJ, November 18-19, 1991; San Jose, CA, March 23-24, 1992. "Indoor Air Quality," a seminar presented by the Anchorage, Alaska Chapter of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, March 23, 1990. "Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the 1990 HVAC & Building Systems Congress, Santa, Clara, CA, March 29, 1990. "Ventilation Standards for Office Buildings", Presented to the South Bay Property Managers Association, Santa Clara, May 9, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality", Presented at the Responsive Energy Technologies Symposium & International Exposition (RETSIE), Santa Clara, CA, June 20, 1990. "Indoor Air Quality - Management and Control Strategies", Presented at the Association of Energy Engineers, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Meeting, Berkeley, CA, September 25, 1990. "Diagnosing Indoor Air Contaminant and Odor Problems", Presented at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, New York City, NY, January 23, 1991. "Diagnosing and Treating the Sick Building Syndrome", Presented at the Energy 2001, Oklahoma, OK, March 19, 1991. "Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems" a workshop presented by the Association of Energy Engineers, Chicago, IL, October 29-30, 1990; New York, NY, January 24-25, 1991; Anaheim, April 25-26, 1991; Boston, MA, June 10-11, 1991; Atlanta, GA, October 24-25, 1991; Chicago, IL, October 3-4, 1991; Las Vegas, NV, December 16-17, 1991; Anaheim, CA, January 30-31, 1992; Atlanta, GA, March 5-6, 1992; Washington, DC, May 7-8, 1992; Chicago, IL, August 19-20, 1992; Las Vegas, 15 NV, October 1-2, 1992; New York City, NY, October 26-27, 1992, Las Vegas, NV, March 18-19, 1993; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 14-15, 1994; Las Vegas, NV, April 3-4, 1995; Lake Tahoe, CA, July 11-12, 1996; Miami, Fl, December 9-10, 1996. "Sick Building Syndrome and the Ventilation Engineer", Presented to the San Jose Engineers Club, May, 21, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: Who Needs It ? How Is It Done ? What Are The Costs ?" What Are the Risks ?, Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Indianapolis ID, June 23, 1991. "Operating Healthy Buildings", Association of Plant Engineers, Oakland, CA, November 14, 1991. "Duct Cleaning Perspectives", Moderator of Seminar at the ASHRAE Semi-Annual Meeting, Indianapolis, IN, June 24, 1991. "Duct Cleaning: The Role of the Environmental Hygienist," ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, January 29, 1992. "Emerging IAQ Issues", Fifth National Conference on Indoor Air Pollution, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK, April 13-14, 1992. "International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness", Member of Scientific Advisory Board, University of Tokyo, July 22-24, 1992. "Guidelines for Contaminant Control During Construction and Renovation Projects in Office Buildings," Seminar paper at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Outside Air Economizers: IAQ Friend or Foe", Moderator of Forum at the ASHRAE Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 26, 1993. "Orientation to Indoor Air Quality," an EPA two and one half day comprehensive indoor air quality introductory workshop for public officials and building property managers; Sacramento, September 28-30, 1992; San Francisco, February 23-24, 1993; Los Angeles, March 16-18, 1993; Burbank, June 23, 1993; Hawaii, August 24-25, 1993; Las Vegas, August 30, 1993; San Diego, September 13-14, 1993; Phoenix, October 18-19, 1993; Reno, November 14-16, 1995; Fullerton, December 3-4, 1996; Fresno, May 13-14, 1997. "Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers," an EPA one half day indoor air quality introductory workshop for building owners and facility managers. Presented throughout Region IX 1993-1995. “Techniques for Airborne Disease Control”, EPRI Healthcare Initiative Symposium; San Francisco, CA; June 7, 1994. 16 “Diagnosing and Mitigating Indoor Air Quality Problems”, CIHC Conference; San Francisco, September 29, 1994. ”Indoor Air Quality: Tools for Schools,” an EPA one day air quality management workshop for school officials, teachers, and maintenance personnel; San Francisco, October 18-20, 1994; Cerritos, December 5, 1996; Fresno, February 26, 1997; San Jose, March 27, 1997; Riverside, March 5, 1997; San Diego, March 6, 1997; Fullerton, November 13, 1997; Santa Rosa, February 1998; Cerritos, February 26, 1998; Santa Rosa, March 2, 1998. ASHRAE 62 Standard “Ventilation for Acceptable IAQ”, ASCR Convention; San Francisco, CA, March 16, 1995. “New Developments in Indoor Air Quality: Protocol for Diagnosing IAQ Problems”, AIHA-NC; March 25, 1995. "Experimental Validation of ASHRAE SPC 129, Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness", 16th AIVC Conference, Palm Springs, USA, September 19-22, 1995. “Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, American Society of Safety Engineers Seminar: ‘Indoor Air Quality – The Next Door’; San Jose Chapter, September 27, 1995; Oakland Chapter, 9, 1997. “Diagnostic Protocols for Building IAQ Assessment”, Local 39; Oakland, CA, October 3, 1995. “Diagnostic Protocols for Solving IAQ Problems”, CSU-PPD Conference; October 24, 1995. “Demonstrating Compliance with ASHRAE 62-1989 Ventilation Requirements”, AIHA; October 25, 1995. “IAQ Diagnostics: Hands on Assessment of Building Ventilation and Pollutant Transport”, EPA Region IX; Phoenix, AZ, March 12, 1996; San Francisco, CA, April 9, 1996; Burbank, CA, April 12, 1996. “Experimental Validation of ASHRAE 129P: Standard Method of Measuring Air Change Effectiveness”, Room Vent ‘96 / International Symposium on Room Air Convection and Ventilation Effectiveness"; Yokohama, Japan, July 16-19, 1996. “IAQ Diagnostic Methodologies and RFP Development”, CCEHSA 1996 Annual Conference, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, August 2, 1996. “The Practical Side of Indoor Air Quality Assessments”, California Industrial Hygiene Conference ‘96, San Diego, CA, September 2, 1996. 17 “ASHRAE Standard 62: Improving Indoor Environments”, Pacific Gas and Electric Energy Center, San Francisco, CA, October 29, 1996. “Operating and Maintaining Healthy Buildings”, April 3-4, 1996, San Jose, CA; July 30, 1997, Monterey, CA. “IAQ Primer”, Local 39, April 16, 1997; Amdahl Corporation, June 9, 1997; State Compensation Insurance Fund’s Safety & Health Services Department, November 21, 1996. “Tracer Gas Techniques for Measuring Building Air Flow Rates”, ASHRAE, Philadelphia, PA, January 26, 1997. “How to Diagnose and Mitigate Indoor Air Quality Problems”; Women in Waste; March 19, 1997. “Environmental Engineer: What Is It?”, Monte Vista High School Career Day; April 10, 1997. “Indoor Environment Controls: What’s Hot and What’s Not”, Shaklee Corporation; San Francisco, CA, July 15, 1997. “Measurement of Ventilation System Performance Parameters in the US EPA BASE Study”, Healthy Buildings/IAQ’97, Washington, DC, September 29, 1997. “Operations and Maintenance for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, PASMA; October 7, 1997. “Designing for Healthy and Comfortable Indoor Environments”, Construction Specification Institute, Santa Rosa, CA, November 6, 1997. “Ventilation System Design for Good IAQ”, University of Tulsa 10th Annual Conference, San Francisco, CA, February 25, 1998. “The Building Shell”, Tools For Building Green Conference and Trade Show, Alameda County Waste Management Authority and Recycling Board, Oakland, CA, February 28, 1998. “Identifying Fungal Contamination Problems In Buildings”, The City of Oakland Municipal Employees, Oakland, CA, March 26, 1998. “Managing Indoor Air Quality in Schools: Staying Out of Trouble”, CASBO, Sacramento, CA, April 20, 1998. “Indoor Air Quality”, CSOOC Spring Conference, Visalia, CA, April 30, 1998. “Particulate and Gas Phase Air Filtration”, ACGIH/OSHA, Ft. Mitchell, KY, June 1998. 18 “Building Air Quality Facts and Myths”, The City of Oakland / Alameda County Safety Seminar, Oakland, CA, June 12, 1998. “Building Engineering and Moisture”, Building Contamination Workshop, University of California Berkeley, Continuing Education in Engineering and Environmental Management, San Francisco, CA, October 21-22, 1999. “Identifying and Mitigating Mold Contamination in Buildings”, Western Construction Consultants Association, Oakland, CA, March 15, 2000; AIG Construction Defect Seminar, Walnut Creek, CA, May 2, 2001; City of Oakland Public Works Agency, Oakland, CA, July 24, 2001; Executive Council of Homeowners, Alamo, CA, August 3, 2001. “Using the EPA BASE Study for IAQ Investigation / Communication”, Joint Professional Symposium 2000, American Industrial Hygiene Association, Orange County & Southern California Sections, Long Beach, October 19, 2000. “Ventilation,” Indoor Air Quality: Risk Reduction in the 21st Century Symposium, sponsored by the California Environmental Protection Agency/Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA, May 3-4, 2000. “Workshop 18: Criteria for Cleaning of Air Handling Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Closing Session Summary: ‘Building Investigations’ and ‘Building Design & Construction’, Healthy Buildings 2000, Espoo, Finland, August 2000. “Managing Building Air Quality and Energy Efficiency, Meeting the Standard of Care”, BOMA, MidAtlantic Environmental Hygiene Resource Center, Seattle, WA, May 23rd, 2000; San Antonio, TX, September 26-27, 2000. “Diagnostics & Mitigation in Sick Buildings: When Good Buildings Go Bad,” University of California Berkeley, September 18, 2001. “Mold Contamination: Recognition and What To Do and Not Do”, Redwood Empire Remodelers Association; Santa Rosa, CA, April 16, 2002. “Investigative Tools of the IAQ Trade”, Healthy Indoor Environments 2002; Austin, TX; April 22, 2002. “Finding Hidden Mold: Case Studies in IAQ Investigations”, AIHA Northern California Professionals Symposium; Oakland, CA, May 8, 2002. “Assessing and Mitigating Fungal Contamination in Buildings”, Cal/OSHA Training; Oakland, CA, February 14, 2003 and West Covina, CA, February 20-21, 2003. 19 “Use of External Containments During Fungal Mitigation”, Invited Speaker, ACGIH Mold Remediation Symposium, Orlando, FL, November 3-5, 2003. Building Operator Certification (BOC), 106-IAQ Training Workshops, Northwest Energy Efficiency Council; Stockton, CA, December 3, 2003; San Francisco, CA, December 9, 2003; Irvine, CA, January 13, 2004; San Diego, January 14, 2004; Irwindale, CA, January 27, 2004; Downey, CA, January 28, 2004; Santa Monica, CA, March 16, 2004; Ontario, CA, March 17, 2004; Ontario, CA, November 9, 2004, San Diego, CA, November 10, 2004; San Francisco, CA, November 17, 2004; San Jose, CA, November 18, 2004; Sacramento, CA, March 15, 2005. “Mold Remediation: The National QUEST for Uniformity Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Orlando, Florida, November 3-5, 2003. “Mold and Moisture Control”, Indoor Air Quality workshop for The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS), San Francisco, December 11, 2003. “Advanced Perspectives In Mold Prevention & Control Symposium”, Invited Speaker, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 7-9, 2004. “Building Sciences: Understanding and Controlling Moisture in Buildings”, American Industrial Hygiene Association, San Francisco, CA, February 14-16, 2005. “Indoor Air Quality Diagnostics and Healthy Building Design”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, March 2, 2005. “Improving IAQ = Reduced Tenant Complaints”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 27, 2007. “Defining Safe Building Air”, Criteria for Safe Air and Water in Buildings, ASHRAE Winter Meeting, Chicago, IL, January 27, 2008. “Update on USGBC LEED and Air Filtration”, Invited Speaker, NAFA 2008 Convention, San Francisco, CA, September 19, 2008. “Ventilation and Indoor air Quality in New California Homes”, National Center of Healthy Housing, October 20, 2008. “Indoor Air Quality in New Homes”, California Energy and Air Quality Conference, October 29, 2008. “Mechanical Outdoor air Ventilation Systems and IAQ in New Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Kansas City, MO, April 29, 2009. “Ventilation and IAQ in New Homes with and without Mechanical Outdoor Air Systems”, Healthy Buildings 2009, Syracuse, CA, September 14, 2009. 20 “Ten Ways to Improve Your Air Quality”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 30, 2009. “New Developments in Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Residential Buildings”, Westcon meeting, Alameda, CA, March 17, 2010. “Intermittent Residential Mechanical Outdoor Air Ventilation Systems and IAQ”, ASHRAE SSPC 62.2 Meeting, Austin, TX, April 19, 2010. “Measured IAQ in Homes”, ACI Home Performance Conference, Austin, TX, April 21, 2010. “Respiration: IEQ and Ventilation”, AIHce 2010, How IH Can LEED in Green buildings, Denver, CO, May 23, 2010. “IAQ Considerations for Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)”, Northern California Facilities Exposition, Santa Clara, CA, September 22, 2010. “Energy Conservation and Health in Buildings”, Berkeley High SchoolGreen Career Week, Berkeley, CA, April 12, 2011. “What Pollutants are Really There ?”, ACI Home Performance Conference, San Francisco, CA, March 30, 2011. “Energy Conservation and Health in Residences Workshop”, Indoor Air 2011, Austin, TX, June 6, 2011. “Assessing IAQ and Improving Health in Residences”, US EPA Weatherization Plus Health, September 7, 2011. “Ventilation: What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been”, Westcon, May 21, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposures”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Infectious Disease Aerosol Exposures With and Without Surge Control Ventilation System Modifications”, Indoor Air 2014, Hong Kong, July, 2014. “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes”, IMF Health and Welfare Fair, Washington, DC, February 18, 2015. “Chemical Emissions and Health Hazards Associated with E-Cigarettes”, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, August 15, 2014. “Formaldehyde Indoor Concentrations, Material Emission Rates, and the CARB ATCM”, Harris Martin’s Lumber Liquidators Flooring Litigation Conference, WQ Minneapolis Hotel, May 27, 2015. 21 “Chemical Emissions from E-Cigarettes: Direct and Indirect Passive Exposure”, FDA Public Workshop: Electronic Cigarettes and the Public Health, Hyattsville, MD June 2, 2015. “Creating Healthy Homes, Schools, and Workplaces”, Chautauqua Institution, Athenaeum Hotel, August 24, 2015. “Diagnosing IAQ Problems and Designing Healthy Buildings”, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, October 6, 2015. “Diagnosing Ventilation and IAQ Problems in Commercial Buildings”, BEST Center Annual Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, January 6, 2016. “A Review of Studies of Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes and Impacts of Environmental Factors on Formaldehyde Emission Rates From Composite Wood Products”, AIHce2016, May, 21-26, 2016. “Admissibility of Scientific Testimony”, Science in the Court, Proposition 65 Clearinghouse Annual Conference, Oakland, CA, September 15, 2016. “Indoor Air Quality and Ventilation”, ASHRAE Redwood Empire, Napa, CA, December 1, 2016. CARLSBAD CLOVIS IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 Executive Park, Suite 200, Irvine, California  92614     949.553.0666     www.lsa.net  January 18, 2023  Jeff Warmoth  Island View Ventures, LLC  120 East De La Guerra Street, Suite D  Santa Barbara, CA 93101  Subject: Response to MAT Engineering, Inc. Comments on the Foothill Center Shared Parking  Analysis Memorandum and Parking Management Plan for the Foothill Center Project  Dear Mr. Warmoth:  LSA has reviewed the MAT Engineering, Inc. comment letter dated January 9, 2023, related to the  Shared Parking Analysis (July 21, 2022) and Parking Management Plan (October 25, 2022) for the  Foothill Center Project and has prepared the following responses. The responses follow the  numbering of the MAT Engineering, Inc. (MAT) comment letter (Attachment A).   Response to Comment 1  Comment 1 seems to be comparing building occupancy rates to the actual observed parking  utilization counts. As described in the Shared Parking Analysis, the parking utilization went down  during the pandemic while the City of Rancho Cucamonga city‐wide office building occupancy rates  were essentially unchanged. Comment 2, below, provides further assessment of the  occupancy/vacancy of the adjacent office buildings during the surveys conducted.   Response to Comment 2  While there was no support provided in the MAT comment letter to support the claim that the  adjacent office buildings were at 75 percent occupancy (which is approximately 16 percent less than  the average City of Rancho Cucamonga city‐wide office building occupancy rate of 91+ percent) at  the times of the parking counts, LSA mathematically revised the existing pre‐COVID 2018 parking  demand to increase the actual parking demand to reflect the decreased occupancy factor claimed by  the adjacent office building owner/operator. After adjustment to account for the claimed 75 percent  occupancy rate, the pre‐COVID (2018) peak parking demand was increased from the actual 287  parking spaces to an adjusted demand of 383 parking spaces. As for the existing parking demand  based on the current 2022 actual parking utilization counts, the existing peak parking demand was  increased from the actual 186 parking spaces to an adjusted demand of 248 parking spaces to  represent 100 percent occupancy.   LSA prepared Tables G and H (Attachments B and C, respectively) to use a 100% occupancy factor for  both of the office buildings. As these new tables show, the peak parking demand is still  accommodated within the 575 shared parking spaces located on the Foothill Center Project site and  the adjacent office building parcels. Thus, revising the occupancy to 100 percent for the adjacent  office buildings instead of using the actual, observed parking utilization counts did not change the  conclusions of the Shared Parking Analysis.  1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Received 1/18/2023   1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx)  2  Response to Comment 3.1  The current zoning designation of the Foothill Center Project site and the adjacent office parcels is  CE2 – Center 2 Zone and is categorized under the form‐based zone category. Under City Municipal  Code Section 17.64.050.A.6, for office uses within form‐based commercial zones, floor area may be  deducted from the gross square footage for parking requirement calculations for the following:   Hallways delineated by physical walls between offices.   Areas dedicated to the storage of materials and equipment that is  necessary/used during the regular business operations of a use.   Areas occupied by automated equipment related to the regular business  operations of a use.   Areas for equipment and infrastructure related to: computer/data/networking,  electrical, mechanical, and plumbing, and/or fire suppression necessary for the  functioning of the non‐business operations of a building/use.    Miscellaneous areas such as elevator shafts, stairwells, bathrooms, employee  dining rooms, employee locker rooms, and storage closets.  Therefore, the reduction of gross square footage to net square footage for calculating parking  requirements for the adjacent office buildings is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code for this  location.  Tables C and D (Attachments D and E, respectively) have been updated to reflect the increase to the  311 multifamily dwelling units (including 200 one‐bedroom, 105 two‐bedroom, and 6 three‐ bedroom units) as written in the Foothill Center Project description. The increase from 305 units to  311 units resulted from the conversion of 12 two‐bedroom units to 18 one‐bedroom units. The  results of Table C and Table D do not change.   Standard practice for the assessment of parking demand for retail use does not include December  conditions. The retail component is included to support the residential uses and the adjacent office  uses and is not a destination shopping center. Therefore, the current utilization rates in the Shared  Parking Analysis for retail use would be the most appropriate for the Foothill Center Project.  Response to Comment 3.2  The parking tables have been updated to include the revised unit mix per the Foothill Center Project  description. The conclusions did not change.  For purposes of the Shared Parking Analysis, a conservative approach was provided that uses the  “85th percentile” parking rate for each land use rather than the “average” parking rate. Typical  shared parking studies required by cities use the “average” parking rate (which generally results in  lower peak demand).     1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx)  3  In response to the MAT comment regarding the use of “Dense Multi‐Use Urban” conditions, please  note that according to the ITE Parking Generation (5th Edition) manual, Dense Multi‐Use Urban  conditions are for “a fully developed area (or nearly so), with diverse and interacting  complementary land uses, good pedestrian connectivity, and convenient and frequent transit….” It  further states “The land use mix includes office, retail, residential, and often entertainment, hotel,  and other commercial uses.” All of these uses are available within the nearby vicinity of the Foothill  Center Project. “The residential uses are typically multi‐family….”, which is applicable because  nearby housing comprises mostly multi‐family residential units. In these Dense Multi‐Use Urban  conditions, “the motor vehicle still represents the primary mode of travel to and from the area…” A  complete description of Dense Multi‐Use Urban vs. General Urban/Suburban (ITE Parking  Generation 5th Edition) is provided in Attachment F.   Further, as defined in the purpose and intent of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan – Land  Use & Community Character, the City Center land use (which applies to the Foothill Center Project)  is for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multi‐family housing, and employment in a  pedestrian‐oriented, transit‐ready environment. Therefore, the use of Dense Multi‐Use Urban  parking rates is justified and consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan for the  Foothill Center Project and the adjacent office buildings.  Response to Comment 3.3  See response to Comment 2.  Response to Comment 3.4  See response to Comment 2.  Response to Comment 4  Table A in the Parking Management Plan for the Foothill Center Project provides a section and table  showing the total number of shared parking spaces for each area on site. The project description  provided in the Comment is consistent with the project description in the Shared Use Analysis and in  the Foothill Center Project design submittal that was approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga  Planning Commission.  Response to Comment 5  The pandemic has changed the parking habits of many land uses. The potential increase in parking  demand during the day for residential uses may be offset by the lower activity and parking demand  for office uses.   Response to Comment 6  As stated in the Parking Management Plan, parking conditions will be reviewed, monitored, and  addressed on a quarterly basis. The partnership between the Foothill Center owner, its residents  and retail tenants, and the office building owners and office building tenants, will resolve any issues  regarding the shared parking and bring forth any required changes and solutions.     1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx)  4  Response to Comment 7  As stated in the Parking Management Plan, the parking conditions for the Foothill Center Project  and the adjacent office buildings will be reviewed/monitored on a quarterly basis by the Foothill  Center owner and the office building owners, and any appropriate actions detailed above will be  taken to ensure that the necessary Parking Management Plan measures are being implemented and  enforced. Through the quarterly review/monitoring process, a partnership will be formed to ensure  that the Foothill Center owner, residents, and retail tenants, and the office building owners and  their office tenants, work together to ensure the Parking Management Program is enforced  property‐wide.  In the event a parking issue is identified, a review of the measures and strategies identified in the  Parking Management Plan will be conducted by the Foothill Center owner and the office building  owners to identify additional strategies that can be implemented to address the specific parking  issue.  Response to Comment 8  The Foothill Center Project will maintain 339 parking spaces for the office buildings during the  construction phase. The owner provided the adjacent office building owners a plan for phased  improvements prior to and during construction of the Foothill Center Project. The 339 parking  spaces provided for the adjacent office buildings during construction of the Foothill Center Project  exceed the actual peak demand observed during the 2022 parking utilization counts (186 combined  parking spaces) and the 2018 parking counts (287 combined parking spaces).   Response to Comment 9  The Foothill Center Project owner has requested that the Parking Management Plan be revised to  provide that the gated areas of the Foothill Center Project will be open to shared use from 7:00 a.m.  to 8:00 p.m. each day. Thus, upon completion, the Foothill Center Project will create a total of 575  shared parking spaces. This number exceeds the 520 parking spaces determined to be needed in  Table C (Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City Municipal Code  and State Law for the Project and the Site) by 55 parking spaces.   Response to Comment 10  See comment 8.  If you have any questions, please call me at (949) 553‐0666.  Sincerely,  LSA Associates, Inc.  Ken Wilhelm  Principal      1/18/23 (P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx)  5  Attachments:   A – Mat Engineering Inc. ‐ Foothill Center Project Parking Study Peer Review (dated    January 9, 2023)  B – Table G: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using  Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code  and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses   C – Table H: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using  Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code  and State Law for the Project’s Proposed Uses    D – Table C: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using  City Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the Site  E – Table D: Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using  Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Manual for the Project  and the Site  F – ITE Setting Description  R ESPONSE TO MAT E NGINEERING, I NC. C OMMENTS  J ANUARY 2023  F OOTHILL C ENTER S HARED P ARKING A NALYSIS M EMORANDUM AND P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN FOR THE F OOTHILL C ENTER P ROJECT R ANCHO C UCAMONGA, C ALIFORNIA   P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23)  ATTACHMENT A     MAT ENGINEERING, INC. ‐ FOOTHILL CENTER PROJECT PARKING STUDY PEER  REVIEW, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA  R ESPONSE TO MAT E NGINEERING, I NC. C OMMENTS  J ANUARY 2023  F OOTHILL C ENTER S HARED P ARKING A NALYSIS M EMORANDUM AND P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN FOR THE F OOTHILL C ENTER P ROJECT R ANCHO C UCAMONGA, C ALIFORNIA   P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23)  ATTACHMENT B    TABLE G: FUTURE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON SHARED PARKING  ANALYSIS USING PRE‐COVID ON‐SITE PARKING DEMAND FOR   THE EXISTING USES AND CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND   STATE LAW FOR THE PROJECT’S PROPOSED USES  Size 16,000 SF Size 200 DU Size 105 DU Size 6DURequired 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DUTotal Required 35 SpacesTotal Required4200 Spaces Total Required 158 Spaces Total Required 9 SpacesTimeDemand % Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces7,8Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 55 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 219 275 575 3008:00 AM 168 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 355 575 2209:00 AM 252 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 409 575 16610:00 AM 339 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 487 575 8811:00 AM 383 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 517 575 5812:00 PM 376 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 501 575 741:00 PM 343 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 468 575 1072:00 PM 355 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 478 575 973:00 PM 323 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 461 575 1144:00 PM 295 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 451 575 1245:00 PM 203 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 378 575 1976:00 PM 131 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 164 326 575 2497:00 PM 60 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 270 575 305Peak Shared Parking Demand 517Proposed Parking Supply 575Residual / (Deficit) 58Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet2 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required."3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking.6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages were considered to be fully occupied.7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8Gated spaces within the Foothill Center Project will be open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM daily for shared use parking.9 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site.1 Parking demand obtained based on parking survey counts collected at the site by Counts Unlimited on July 11, 2018 and July 12, 2018. For every hour, the higher of the counts on the two days was used as a conservative approach. Parking demand has been adjusted by a occupancy factor of 75% (25% vacancy), provided by adjacent office building owner/operator, to account for potential full occupancy of adjacent offices.Demand Demand Demand Demand2 170 134 85 150 118 712 130 102Table G ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Pre‐COVID On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project's Proposed UsesExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space2Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Residential (Total)Total Shared Parking9621 120 95 526 110 87 535 100 79 535 100 79 533 100 79 530 110 87 530 120 95 528 150 118 730 130 102 632 140 110 6P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis ‐ 20230117.xlsx\Shared Parking_Survey 2018 (1/17/2023 ) R ESPONSE TO MAT E NGINEERING, I NC. C OMMENTS  J ANUARY 2023  F OOTHILL C ENTER S HARED P ARKING A NALYSIS M EMORANDUM AND P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN FOR THE F OOTHILL C ENTER P ROJECT R ANCHO C UCAMONGA, C ALIFORNIA   P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23)  ATTACHMENT C    TABLE H: FUTURE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON SHARED PARKING  ANALYSIS USING EXISTING ON‐SITE PARKING DEMAND FOR THE  EXISTING USES AND CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE AND STATE   LAW FOR THE PROJECT’S PROPOSED USES  Size 16,000 SF Size 200 DU Size 105 DU Size 6DURequired 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DUTotal Required 35 SpacesTotal Required4200 Spaces Total Required 158 Spaces Total Required 9 SpacesTimeDemand % Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces7,8Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 15 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 219 235 575 3408:00 AM 68 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 255 575 3209:00 AM 157 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 315 575 26010:00 AM 224 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 372 575 20311:00 AM 247 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 381 575 19412:00 PM 248 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 373 575 2021:00 PM 244 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 369 575 2062:00 PM 217 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 341 575 2343:00 PM 211 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 349 575 2264:00 PM 191 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 347 575 2285:00 PM 153 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 328 575 2476:00 PM 91 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 164 286 575 2897:00 PM 48 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 258 575 317Peak Shared Parking Demand 381Proposed Parking Supply 575Residual / (Deficit) 194Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet2 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required."3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking.6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages were considered to be fully occupied.7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8Gated spaces within the Foothill Center Project will be open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM daily for shared use parking.9 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site.1 Parking demand obtained based on parking survey counts collected at the site by Counts Unlimited on April 19, 2022 and April 20, 2022. For every hour, the higher of the counts on the two days was used as a conservative approach. Parking demand has been adjusted by a occupancy factor of 75% (25% vacancy), provided by adjacent office building owner/operator, to account for potential full occupancy of adjacent offices.32 140 110 628 150 118 730 120 95 530 130 102 633 100 79 530 110 87 535 100 79 535 100 79 521 120 95 526 110 87 55 150 118 712 130 102 6Demand Demand Demand Demand2 170 134 8Table H ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Existing On‐Site Parking Demand for the Existing Uses and City’s Municipal Code and State Law for the Project's Proposed UsesExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space2Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Residential (Total)Total Shared Parking9P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis ‐ 20230117.xlsx\Shared Parking_Survey 2022 (1/17/2023 ) R ESPONSE TO MAT E NGINEERING, I NC. C OMMENTS  J ANUARY 2023  F OOTHILL C ENTER S HARED P ARKING A NALYSIS M EMORANDUM AND P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN FOR THE F OOTHILL C ENTER P ROJECT R ANCHO C UCAMONGA, C ALIFORNIA   P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23)  ATTACHMENT D    TABLE C: FUTURE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON SHARED PARKING  ANALYSIS USING CITY MUNICIPAL CODE AND STATE LAW   FOR THE PROJECT AND THE SITE  Size2129,958 SF Size 16,000 SF Size 200 DU Size 105 DU Size 6DURequired 4 P/1,000 SF Required 4 P/1,000 SF Required 1.0 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DU Required 1.5 P/DUTotal Required 520 SpacesTotal Required435 Spaces Total Required 200 Spaces Total Required 158 Spaces Total Required 9 SpacesTime% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3% Utilization3DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces7,8Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 15% 5% 85% 85% 85% 312 93 66 219 298 575 2778:00 AM 50% 15% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 447 575 1289:00 AM 90% 35% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 625 575 (50)10:00 AM 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 668 575 (93)11:00 AM 100% 75% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 655 575 (80)12:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 567 575 81:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 567 575 82:00 PM 95% 95% 50% 50% 50% 183 93 66 90 618 575 (43)3:00 PM 95% 85% 55% 55% 55% 202 93 66 109 632 575 (57)4:00 PM 85% 85% 60% 60% 60% 220 93 66 127 599 575 (24)5:00 PM 60% 85% 65% 65% 65% 238 93 66 145 487 575 886:00 PM 25% 90% 70% 70% 70% 257 93 66 164 325 575 2507:00 PM 15% 80% 75% 75% 75% 275 93 66 182 288 575 287Peak Shared Parking Demand 668Proposed Parking Supply 575Residual / (Deficit) (93)Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet1 Parking demand calculated using rates obtained from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 ‐ "Number of parking spaces required."3Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.5Parking demand calculated based on the California Law 65915‐65918 'Density Bonuses and Other Initiatives.' The parking requirement includes disability and guest parking.6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages were considered to be fully occupied.7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8Gated spaces within the Foothill Center Project will be open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM daily for shared use parking.9 This includes the parking for the gated area that will be open between 6:00AM‐9:00PM.2 The total leasable area for the two existing office buildings is 152,892 sf. However, the Municipal Code Section 17.64.050 A.6. states that for calculating parking requirement, the number of square feet for office properties should be the net of “square footage dedicated to office hallways 44 inches or less, electrical and mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, bathrooms and storage closets.” For purposes of this analysis, these identified areas have assumed to be equal to a minimum of 15 percent of the square footage of the two neighboring office buildings. Therefore, for purposes of calculating required parking for the existing office uses, in accordance with the Municipal Code, the total net square footage of the existing offices was considered as 129,958 sf.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.Demand DemandTable C ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using City's Municipal Code and State Law for the Project and the SiteExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space1Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Total Shared Parking9Residential (Total)Demand Demand Demand78 2 170 134 8260 5 150 118 7468 12 130 102 6520 21 120 95 5520 26 110 87 5442 35 100 79 5442 35 100 79 5494 33 100 79 5494 30 110 87 5442 30 120 95 5312 30 130 102 6130 32 140 110 678 28 150 118 7P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis ‐ 20230117.xlsx\Shared Parking_Code (1/17/2023) R ESPONSE TO MAT E NGINEERING, I NC. C OMMENTS  J ANUARY 2023  F OOTHILL C ENTER S HARED P ARKING A NALYSIS M EMORANDUM AND P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN FOR THE F OOTHILL C ENTER P ROJECT R ANCHO C UCAMONGA, C ALIFORNIA   P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23)  ATTACHMENT E    TABLE D: FUTURE PARKING REQUIREMENT BASED ON SHARED PARKING  ANALYSIS USING INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS’   PARKING GENERATION MANUAL FOR THE   PROJECT AND THE SITE  Size 152,892 SF Size 16,000 SF Size 200 DU Size 105 DU Size 6DURequired 2.14 P/1,000 SF GFA Required 3.58 P/1,000 SF GLA Required 1.27 P/DU Required 1.27 P/DU Required 1.27 P/DUTotal Required 328 SpacesTotal Required429 Spaces Total Required 254 Spaces Total Required 133 Spaces Total Required 8 SpacesTime% Utilization2% Utilization2% Utilization2% Utilization2% Utilization2DemandGarage Spaces6Gated Spaces7,8Shared with Non‐Residential Demand Provided Residual/(Deficit)7:00 AM 15% 5% 85% 85% 85% 336 93 66 243 293 575 2828:00 AM 50% 15% 75% 75% 75% 296 93 66 203 372 575 2039:00 AM 90% 35% 65% 65% 65% 257 93 66 164 469 575 10610:00 AM 100% 60% 60% 60% 60% 237 93 66 144 489 575 8611:00 AM 100% 75% 55% 55% 55% 217 93 66 124 474 575 10112:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 197 93 66 104 412 575 1631:00 PM 85% 100% 50% 50% 50% 197 93 66 104 412 575 1632:00 PM 95% 95% 50% 50% 50% 197 93 66 104 444 575 1313:00 PM 95% 85% 55% 55% 55% 217 93 66 124 460 575 1154:00 PM 85% 85% 60% 60% 60% 237 93 66 144 447 575 1285:00 PM 60% 85% 65% 65% 65% 257 93 66 164 385 575 1906:00 PM 25% 90% 70% 70% 70% 276 93 66 183 292 575 2837:00 PM 15% 80% 75% 75% 75% 296 93 66 203 276 575 299Peak Shared Parking Demand 489Proposed Parking Supply 575Residual / (Deficit) 86Notes:DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet; P/DU = Per Dwelling Unit; P/1,000 SF = Per 1,000 Square Feet; GFA = Gross Floor Area; GLA = Gross Leasable Area1 Rates from the Insitute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 710 ‐ "General Office Building", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach.2Hourly utilization rates obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking, 3rd Edition.3 Rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 820 ‐ "Shopping Center ‐ Non‐December", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach.5Rates from the ITE Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition) for Land Use 221 ‐ "Multifamily Housing (Mid‐Rise)", Setting/Location ‐ Dense Multi‐Use Urban, no nearby rail transit. As such, 85th percentile rates have been used as a conservative approach.6As per the ULI Shared Parking , the utilization factor for the category “Resident reserved” is 100 percent. Therefore, the garages were considered to be fully occupied.7This refers to the parking spaces provided in the gated area excluding the garages.8Gated spaces within the Foothill Center Project will be open from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM daily for shared use parking.9 This includes the parking for the non‐gated area of the site.4 The project will be constructing 29 retail exclusive parking spaces along the new Frontage Drive on Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, those spaces have been subtracted from the overall parking requirement for the retail component of the Project at the Site.82 26 178 93 549 23 191 100 6279 25 152 80 5197 25 165 87 5312 28 127 67 4312 25 140 73 4279 29 127 67 4279 29 127 67 4328 17 152 80 5328 22 140 73 4164 4 191 100 6295 10 165 87 5Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand49 1 216 113 6Table D ‐ Future Parking Requirement Based on Shared Parking Analysis Using Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual for the Project and the SiteExisting Offices1Retail/Work Space3Residential (1‐bedroom units)5Residential (2‐bedroom units)5Residential (3‐bedroom units)5Residential (Total)Total Shared Parking9P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Shared Parking Analysis ‐ 20230117.xlsx\Shared Parking_ITE (1/17/2023 ) R ESPONSE TO MAT E NGINEERING, I NC. C OMMENTS  J ANUARY 2023  F OOTHILL C ENTER S HARED P ARKING A NALYSIS M EMORANDUM AND P ARKING M ANAGEMENT P LAN FOR THE F OOTHILL C ENTER P ROJECT R ANCHO C UCAMONGA, C ALIFORNIA   P:\TNF2101\Traffic\January 2022\Comments\RTC\Foothill RTC ‐ Jeff Revisions.docx (01/18/23)  ATTACHMENT F    ITE SETTING DESCRIPTION  Resolution No. 2023-007 - Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00850 A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCT) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0208-353- 02 A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Island View Ventures, LLC, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00850 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3. On November 16, 2022, Poole-Shaffery Attorneys at Law (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application. 4. On January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Council 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 all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 18, 2023, including 1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Typos: Staff made changes in red on pages 1 and 3 Resolution No. 2023-007 - Page 2 of 5 written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a vacant site located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard containing a site area of approximately 7.94 acres; and c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) District* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) District South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update d. The proposed project consists of the construction a mixed-use development comprising of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, and parking at the time the application was deemed complete. 3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions medium-high to high density residential and a wide range of commercial uses. The project proposes a total of 311 apartment units 16,000 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor zone, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity in a vibrant pedestrian environment. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard; and Resolution No. 2023-007 - Page 3 of 5 c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, as well as the design, development standards, and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Center” land uses, 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. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR allows the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “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…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 7.94-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Center” land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Center” and would be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated October 11, 2022, was prepared by Michael Baker International. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required Resolution No. 2023-007 - Page 4 of 5 to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission’s adoption of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum and concurs with their determination. 5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (DRC2022- 00445) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-29. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2023-007 - Page 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023. Resolution No. 2023-008 - Page 1 of 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00850 A SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 311 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 16,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA ON 7.94 ACRES OF LAND AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCT) ZONE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0208-353- 02 A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Island View Ventures, LLC, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00850 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review is referred to as "the application." 2. On November 9, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-29 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision. 3. On November 20, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application. 4. On January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Council 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 all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 18, 2023, including 1/18/2023 City Council Meeting | Item G1 | Additional Material | Typos: Staff made changes in red on page 3 Resolution No. 2023-008 - Page 2 of 5 written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. The application applies to a vacant site located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard containing a site area of approximately 7.94 acres; and c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant City Center Mixed Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCT) District* North Commercial Center Mixed-Use City Corridor High Community Commercial (CC) District South County Court House City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* East Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* West Existing Office Building City Center Industrial Park (IP) District* *Project Site Redesignated Center 2 (CE2) Zone with Development Code Update d. The proposed project consists of the construction a mixed-use development comprising of 311 apartments and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks, and parking at the time the application was deemed complete. 3. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Center, which envisions medium-high to high density residential and a wide range of commercial uses. The project proposes a total of 311 apartment units 16,000 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor zone, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity in a vibrant pedestrian environment. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard; and Resolution No. 2023-008 - Page 3 of 5 c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deemed complete, as well as the design, development standards, and policies of the Planning Commission and the City; and d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Center” land uses, 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. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR allows the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “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…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 7.94-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Center” land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Center” and would be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated October 11, 2022, was prepared by Michael Baker International. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required Resolution No. 2023-008 - Page 4 of 5 to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Commission’s adoption of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum and concurs with their determination. 5. Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (DRC2022- 00449) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-29. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2023-008 - Page 5 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of January 2023. ______________________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 18th day of January 2023. AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Stickler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Executed this 19th day of January, 2023, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ______________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney City Council Appeal January 18, 2023 DRC2019-00850 •November 9,2022 –The Planning Commission approved DRC2019-00850 for the development of a mixed-use development consisting of 311 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial lease area on 7.94 acres of land; •November 17,2022 -Appeal DRC2022-00445 (Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Plaza)is based on the availability of onsite parking; •November 20,2022 –Appeal DRC2022-00449 (Lozeau Drury,LLP)is based on the adequacy of the CEQA review related to indoor air quality from formaldehyde in construction materials. Project Background Location Street View Site Plan Renderings Renderings Renderings Appeal DRC2022-00445 -Eaglecell Group LLC/Barton Plaza Appeal: •Raises concerns related to the proposed number of on-site parking and the methodology used for the parking study submitted as part of the project. Applicant Response: •State and local density bonus provisions reduce by right the required parking for all the residential units in projects that provide affordable units; •As proposed,the project provides 456 parking spaces,for a total surplus of 25 parking spaces based on density bonus law; •The project will be subject to an approved Parking Management Plan to ensure the availability of on-site parking. Appeal DRC2022-00449 -Lozeau Drury, LLP Appeal: •Contends that the CEQA review did not analyze the impact of the project on future indoor air quality due to the formaldehyde in construction materials. Applicant Response: •CEQA Guidelines section 15183 requires an analysis of impacts that are peculiar to the project or project site.However,the composition of wood materials used in the building industry is not a site or project-specific issue; •Formaldehyde in construction materials is an issue associated with all construction,so it does not merit additional analysis under section 15183; •The project is required to comply with California codes and regulations,which are designed to address potential emissions and risks from building materials. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeals DRC2022-00445 and DRC2022-00449 and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve Design Review DRC2019-00850. 1 1 6 2 0 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Deputy Director of Planning Sean McPherson, AICP, Acting Principal Planner David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner SUBJECT:Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amending the Current Zoning Map with Various Technical Amendments; and the Consideration to Adopt Resolution No. 2023-005, Amending the General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments. The City has Prepared an Addendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261) for the Project. (ORDINANCE NO. 1015) (RESOLUTION NO. 2023-005) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a first reading of Ordinance No. 1015 and adopt Resolution No. 2023-005, approving an Addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, approving the proposed text amendments to the Development Code, approving the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map, and approving the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Map. BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted the updated General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The General Plan is the City’s blueprint, or constitution, for future development. It documents the city’s long-range vision and established clear goals, objectives and actions to guide the community through the next 10 to 20 years of change. The City Council initiated this update process, referred to as PlanRC, to be compliant with changes in state law and to build on our success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant and innovative city. This comprehensive General Plan Update addresses issues and challenges facing the City, including diversifying employment opportunities, expanding housing and mobility choice and preserving the character, history, and quality of life that make Rancho Cucamonga a special place to live. The updated General Plan will advance the City’s vision for a sustainable, resilient, equitable and healthy community. On May 18, 2022, the City Council adopted the updated Development Code for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The goals of the Development Code update were to codify the community’s vision as established in the General Plan update process, increase certainty in the development review process, and facilitate implementation of key General Plan concepts related to land use and urban design. A primary objective is to integrate form-based regulations in appropriate areas, such as along Foothill Boulevard, to promote pedestrian activity and transition these areas from auto-oriented to more walkable and urban configurations. Fundamental elements of the Development Code update are: Page 254 2 1 6 2 0 •A hybrid Development Code that integrates form-based and conventional zones. •New form-based zoning regulations for walkable mixed-use areas along Foothill Boulevard and other key corridors. •Incorporation of appropriate standards from older Specific Plans and Planned Communities into the new zoning regulations to allow for repeal of outdated plans. •New objective design standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use development projects. •Revisions to conventional zones as needed to implement the land use vision of the General Plan. •Revised general development standards to address General Plan policy or existing deficiencies with respect to landscaping, open space, and noise, among others as needed. •Improved administration and permit procedures to streamline development review for projects consistent with the General Plan and ensure adequate tools for enforcement of the Code. •Compliance with State and Federal law. •Consistency with the updated General Plan. Since the updated Development Code has been in effect, certain clean-up and clarifying amendments have been identified which need to be made in order to better calibrate the Development Code to the vision of the General Plan, to have clearer standards and procedures, and to expedite development application processes. The amendments proposed in this staff report are to ensure that the Development Code maintains consistency with the City’s vision for development as stipulated by the General Plan. ANALYSIS: Development Code Text Amendments: The Development Code text amendments consist of various technical amendments to Articles II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX. The technical amendments include formatting and typographic error fixes, new definitions, new/clarified development standards, new chapters and sections, and the creation of a new Open Space zone. A summary of the changes are listed below and on Attachment A. New chapters and sections include: 1.Section 17.36.020 (Development standards for two units in single-family residential zones) a. This section was added to permanently adopt the interim code standards consistent with Senate Bill 9 which were adopted via Interim Ordinance No. 994, with final modifications consistent with case law 2.Section 17.36.030 (Urban lot splits in single-family residential zones) a. This section was added to permanently adopt the interim code standards consistent with Senate Bill 9 which were adopted via Interim Ordinance No. 994. 3.Section 17.62.070 (Nonconforming lots) a. The inclusion of this section adds to Chapter 17.62 which already addressed nonconforming uses and structures but did not include nonconforming lots. This new section provides standards for the use, development, or improvement of nonconforming lots. 4.Chapter 17.77 (Transfer of Development Rights) a. This section was added to implement a citywide Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program which mirrors the TDR program in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan. 5.Chapter 17.90 (Drive-In and Drive-Through Uses) a. The chapter has been updated with new development standards to regulate the development of drive-in and drive-through uses which align with the goals of the General Plan. 6.Chapter 17.97 (Live/Work Units) a. This new chapter establishes standards for the location, development, and operation of integrated live/work units in mixed-use zones and for the reuse of existing residential, commercial, and industrial structures to accommodate live/work opportunities. Page 255 3 1 6 2 0 Key amendments to existing chapters and sections include: 1. The Development Code currently contains four Open Space zones: OS – Open Space, HR – Hillside Residential, FC - Flood Control, and UC - Utility Corridor. The Open Space Zones help further the City’s commitment to maintaining a network of open spaces. Open Space is generally characterized by the absence of, or limited presence, of buildings and other development. The current zoning map combines three of these open space zones into one color designation, which proved to be difficult for property owners and city staff to differentiate the appropriate regulations, development standards, or allowed uses amongst the three zones. To correct this, the three combined zones have been separated on the zoning map and will be further clarified in the zoning code. The separation and clarification of the zones will result in a better understanding of each open space designation’s intention or purpose and ensure that future development and/or uses are aligned with the General Plan. 2. Article VIII (Form-Based Code) contains various technical updates including minor text edits and clarifying language for minimum parking setbacks. Generally, the updates are intended to better calibrate the Article to meet the vision of the General Plan and to make the standards clearer for applicants. In addition, the ME2 zone will allow for ‘Manufacturing, Food Processing’ by approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and allow for ‘Retail, Warehouse Club’ as a permitted use. Lastly, the section on Thoroughfares has been updated to include specific standards for new thoroughfares such as lane widths, sidewalk widths, and landscape buffer standards. Connecting places and people requires more than a simple road, paseo, or sidewalk. The characteristics of those connections is what creates the walkable environment that the General Plan envisions. The additional clarity and details for thoroughfares will help emphasize the importance of connectivity, not only with its design elements but also with the way it functions. Zoning Map and General Plan Land Plan Map Amendments: The Zoning Map amendments also consist of various technical amendments and associated amendments to the General Plan Land Plan Map. The amendments include the creation of the new Open Space zone, rezoning of residential areas, and the rezoning of various parcels as technical clean-ups. The amendments are listed below: 1. Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor (OS/FC/UC) – Various Parcels Citywide: This technical clean-up to the map will implement the text changes to the open space zones previously discussed. Open space is currently regulated by four zones, however, the zoning map identifies three of the zones as one zone on the map (OS/FC/UC). This has created conflict with applying proper zoning to the property, identifying land uses, among other things. This technical clean-up to the map and corresponding revisions to the relevant text will resolve these conflicts. 2. High Residential Zone amended to Low Medium Residential Zone – Various Parcels (Victoria Arbors): This technical clean-up will rezone a single-family neighborhood within a Master Plan community from High Residential (H) back to Low Medium Residential (LM). The LM zone is consistent with the existing development intensity, the existing character of the single-family neighborhood, and addresses the substantial nonconformities that were created by the H zone designation. Additionally, the LM zoning remains consistent with the Suburban Moderate General Plan Designation as it is within the density maximum and promotes the development of single-family neighborhoods. Page 256 4 1 6 2 0 3. High Residential Zone amended to Medium High Residential Zone – Various Parcels (Candlewood): This technical clean-up will rezone five parcels from High Residential (H) to Medium High Residential (MH). The affected parcels are vacant or underutilized, and suitable for medium-high density development up to 24 units per acre. MH zoning remains consistent with the Suburban Moderate General Plan Designation as it is within the density maximum and promotes the development of a range of medium-intensity housing options, including multifamily residential that can be compatible with nearby lower density residential developments. The rezoning of these parcels from High Residential (H) to Medium High Residential (MH) will not result in a net loss of potential housing units. Senate Bill 330 allows for the rezoning of parcels as long as the new zoning designation is not reducing the intensity of land use below what was allowed under the General Plan or Specific Plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the City that was in effect on January 1, 2018. In 2018, the parcels were zoned as “OP – Office/Professional District” within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The OP zone allowed for various commercial uses such as professional offices, banks, and restaurants with no residential density. 4. Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor amended to Neo-Industrial – APN: 020901315: This technical clean-up will rezone a 1-acre parcel from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor back to Neo-Industrial. The vacant parcel was inadvertently zoned to OS/FC/UC as it appeared to be part of the adjacent flood control channel. This zoning amendment also includes a General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Neo Industrial. 5. Center 2 Zone amended to Industrial Employment – APNs: 022902180, 022902191: This technical clean-up will rezone two vacant city-owned parcels totaling approximately 7 acres from Center 2 to Industrial Employment. The parcels were rezoned along with a large development area as part of the 2022 Zoning Map amendment. However, the parcels contain a unique property configuration and are located adjacent to the Interstate-15 freeway, which doesn’t make them conducive for the development vision of the Center 2 zone. The rezoning of this parcel from Center 2 to Industrial Employment will not result in a net loss of potential housing units. Senate Bill 330 allows for the rezoning of parcels as long as the new zoning designation is not reducing the intensity of land use below what was allowed under the General Plan or Specific Plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the City that was in effect on January 1, 2018. In 2018, the parcel was zoned as “RR – Regional Related Office/Commercial” within the Victoria Community Plan, which did not permit residential uses. 6. Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Very Low Residential – APN: 106264157: This technical clean-up will rezone a parcel from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to its previous zoning designation of Very Low Residential. The property is currently developed with a single- family residence and was mistakenly rezoned to OS/FC/UC. This zoning amendment will require a General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Semi-Rural Neighborhood. 7. Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Medium Residential – APN: 108947125: This technical clean-up will rezone an existing property from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to its previous zoning designation of Medium Residential. The property is currently developed with a private education use (Montessori School) and was errantly zoned to OS/FC/UC. This zoning amendment corresponds with a proposed General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Suburban Neighborhood Low. Page 257 5 1 6 2 0 8. Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Medium Residential – APN: 108926155, 108928157: This technical clean-up will rezone an existing property from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to its previous zoning designation of Medium Residential. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and was errantly zoned to OS/FC/UC. This zoning amendment corresponds with a proposed General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Suburban Neighborhood Low. 9. Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Neo-Industrial – APN: 020917115: This technical clean-up will change the General Plan Land Use Designation from General Open Space and Facilities to Traditional Town Center. This technical amendment requires a General Plan Amendment. Planning Commission Hearing: The proposed amendments were presented to the Planning Commission on December 13, 2022, at a noticed public hearing. During the public hearing, Staff recommended changes to the Planning in addition to those noted above. The changes primarily consisted of fixing inadvertent redline sections, deleting irrelevant text, and minor changes to ensure compliance with applicable laws. The Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution 22-30, recommending approval of the EIR Addendum, the General Plan amendments, the Zoning Map amendments, and the Development Code amendments, with the additional recommended changes, to the City Council for consideration on a 3-0 vote (two Commissioners absent). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In approving the General Plan update in December 2021, the City Council certified the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Development Code, Zoning Map, and General Plan Map against the General Plan EIR and determined the EIR adequately addresses all the environmental issues associated with the project. The proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts on the environment based upon the analysis and conclusions presented in the General Plan EIR. In addition, previously identified significant impacts would not be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. Finally, no new feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff has prepared an EIR Addendum for the amendments to the Development Code, Zoning Map, and General Plan Land Plan Map. Unlike an EIR, an Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review. FISCAL IMPACT: The adoption of these amendments will further facilitate future development consistent with the vision outlined in the General Plan. The General Plan vision for denser, mixed use urban centers can help Rancho Cucamonga maintain a high level of fiscal performance and become a regional destination and focal point of activity. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: These amendments address multiple City Council Core Values, including providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, intentionally embracing and anticipating the future, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and more. Page 258 6 1 6 2 0 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Major Development Code Amendments List (Spreadsheet) Attachment 2: Zoning Map Amendments (Parcel Changes Only) Attachment 3: CEQA Addendum Attachment 4: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, December 13, 2022 Attachment 5: Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-30 Attachment 6: City Council Ordinance No. 1015 Attachment 7: City Council Resolution No. 2023-005 Page 259 Code Amendment List Article Chapter Section III 17.30. 17.30.030.C III 17.36 17.36.040.D.5.a IV 17.62 17.62.070 IV 17.64 17.64.120 IV 17.66 17.66.110 IV 17.77 N/A EV requirements for single-family, multifamily, office, and industrial updated per CAP language. New section added for "Nonconforming Lots"N/A Performance Standard classifications no longer associated with specific industrial zones. A/B will NI and IE New Chapter added for Transfer of Development Rights All Zones N/A "Outdoor dining areas" section updated to reflect a policy change - Site development reviews are required instead of Minor Use PermitsIV17.60.17.60.020.E N/A III N/A Table 17.42.040-1 (Development Standards for Accessory Structures) updated per staff's recommendations. New rows added for Garages and Accessory Dwelling Units.17.42.04017.42IV Additional temporary use language included, allow for temporary uses that are by-right.All Zones Section updated to acknowledge new/updated open space zones. Hillside Residential development standards shall follow VL development standards. FC/UC standards reorganized.17.36.05017.36 N/A III 17.36 17.36.040 Table 17.36.040-2 updated to reflect new street classifications from General Plan Update NI and IE III 17.36 17.36.030 New section for "Urban lot splits in single-family residential zones". Section added per SB9 ordinance.VL, L, HR III Table 17.36.040-1 updated to remove "IP" zone. Table now contains the only remaining industrial zones, "NI" and "IE".17.36.04017.36 III All Single-Family and Multi-Family III 17.36 17.36.020 New section for "Development standards for two units in single-family residential zones. Section added per SB9 ordinance.VL, L, HR "Roofing Materials" section to reflect change in policy: roofing material must be consistent with architectural theme of the primary structure, exceptions can be made for sustainable roof designs such as green roofs. Removed all language referencing residential structures located on the same street and requiring structures to match materials. N/A III 17.36 17.36.010.F.6 Table 17.36.010-3 (Residential Streetscape Setback Standards) updated to reflect new street classifications from General Plan Update.17.36.010-317.36 III N/A III Affected Zones VL, L, HR; P Electric Vehicle Showroom with Indoor Sales and Outdoor Sales definitions amended to match ordinance definition, allowing for minor auto repair within an enclosed building. 17.32.030.F.7 and 817.32III N/A OSC, P, FC/UC Section updated to acknowledge new/updated open space zones. Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone): IP Zone removed; Two-Family Dwellings permitted in VL, L, and HR due to SB9; New Parks zone column included with associated use changes; Flood Control and Utility Control combined into one "FC/UC" column - uses unchanged because zones were the same. 17.30.03017.30. II Table 17.26.020-1 (Rancho Cucamonga Zones and Subzones) amended to reflect the changes in Open Space zones. Open Space zone is now Open Space Conservation; Parks added as a new open space zone designation; Flood Control and Utility Corridor combined into a single open space zone. Zone Name/Descriptions amended to reflect zone updates. 17.26.020 17.26III Code Amendment Description "Multiple entitlements" subsection edited to reflect that all project permits shall be processed concurrently and final action shall be taken by the highest-level designated approving authority. 17.14.060.B 17.14 N/A N/A Table 17.36.010-1B updated superscript reference in "M" zone to reference correct footnote. (previous typo).; Removed all "=" and replaced with "-". 17.36.01017.36 Attachment 1 Page 260 Code Amendment List Article Chapter Section Affected ZonesCode Amendment Description V 17.97 N/A V 17.90.N/A VIII 17.138 17.138.030 IX 17.154 17.154.020 17.136VIII ME2 Zone 17.130.05017.130.VIII All Form Based Zones Uses to be added to "Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses": Logistics/Distribution/Fulfillment Warehouse (N in all FBC zones) ); Food Processing (CUP in ME2, N in all other FBC zones); Membership Retail (P in ME2, N in all other FBC zones) 17.136.020 IX N/A Definitions added: Build-to-Line. Amended Definitions: Frontage Area, Private; Height, Overall N/A Parking Setbacks updated to acknowledge Transit Priority Streets V 17.100.17.100.050.I.2 Language added to "Setbacks" dictating that ADUs shall adhere to front yard setback of underlying zone.N/A Definitions added: Base Density; EV Installed; EV Ready; Farm Stands; Gated Community; Green Roof; Lot Line, Rear; Policies and Procedures Manual; Receiving Site; Residential Development Credit; Residential Development Right; Sending Site; Stacking Area; Tasting Room; Transfer of Development Rights or TDR Authority; . Deleted "Household Unit"; "Single Household". 17.140.02017.140. Language added to clarify that ADUs must adhere to front yard setback of underlying zone and reference added to Table 17.42.040-1 (Development Standards for Accessory Structures).17.100.040.A.2 Updated Drive-In and Drive-Through Uses standards Zones that allow drive-through uses Inclusion of objective Thoroughfare standards and example graphic All Form Based Zones 17.100.V N/A V ME1 Table 17.88.020-1 updated to allow sheep, goats, swine, or similarly sized animals and poultry in the ME1 zone. Previously allowed in IP. IP zone references switched to ME1V17.88 17.88.020 17.88 17.88.030 Section updated to remove "L zones" from zones that permit Beekeeping. Beekeeping is now limited to VL zone.L New Chapter added for Live/Work Units Zones that allow Live/Work Attachment 1 Page 261 Attachment 2 Page 262 October 2022 | General Plan EIR Addendum ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR SCH No. 2021050261 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared for: City of Rancho Cucamonga Contact: Jean Ward, Contract Project Manager 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 909.774.4330 Prepared by: PlaceWorks Contact: Mark Teague, AICP, Principal 303 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 714.966.9220 info@placeworks.com www.placeworks.com Attachment 3 Page 263 Page 264 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Table of Contents October 2022 Page i Section Page 1. ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN EIR ............................................................... 3 1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM ........................................................................................................... 3 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 ZONING MAP CLEANUP ................................................................................................................................ 7 2. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Tabl es Page TABLE 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS ........................................................... 6 Figures Page Figure 1, Prior to Phase 1 Zoning Map Amendment ................................................................................................. 13 Figure 2, Post Phase 1 Zoning Map Amendment ....................................................................................................... 14 Page 265 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Table of Contents Page ii October 2022 This page intentionally left blank. Page 266 Page 3 October 2022 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR 1.1 BACKGROUND This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s update to its Development Code (proposed project) to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan. This addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in December 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021050261), demonstrates that the analysis in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15162, exist and preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not necessary. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations): When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or 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; Page 267 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 4 October 2022 (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. The proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the General Plan EIR. The following analysis provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR): (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intent of the project is to ensure that the updated Development Code is consistent with the adopted General Plan. The key amendments to existing Development Code chapters and sections are described below and in Table 1. Page 268 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR October 2022 Page 5 • Currently the Development Code contains three Open Space zones: OS – Open Space, HR – Hillside Residential, and OS – Open Space, FC Flood Control, UC Utility Corridor. The combination of three open space uses into one zone, “OS – Open Space, FC Flood Control, UC Utility Corridor,” proved to be difficult for property owners and City staff to differentiate given that each use category had their own permitted uses in the Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone). As a result, the zone is proposed to be split into two: P – Parks and FC/UC – Flood Control/Utility Corridor. The ‘Parks’ zone will focus on public parks, schools, and facilities while the ‘Flood Control/Utility Corridor’ zone will focus on flood control channels, utility corridors, and utility sites. The two zones will provide more clarity to property owners and City staff to determine the zoning classification for a parcel and its associated permitted uses. The proposed zones are still in alignment with the General Plan Land Use Designation of “General Open Space & Facilities” and they will further specify the zoning classifications depending on land use. In addition, the existing “OS – Open Space zone” is proposed to be renamed to “OSC – Open Space Conservation” to differentiate it as an open space zone meant for conservation areas and protection of natural resources as well as further aligning the zone with the General Plan Land Use Designation of “Rural Open Space”. • Article VIII (Form-Based Code) contains various technical updates including minor text edits and clarifying language for minimum parking setbacks. Generally, the updates are intended to better calibrate the Article to meet the vision of the General Plan and to make the standards clearer for applicants. The substantive edits consist of changes to Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) in which zones ME2 and CE2 designate ‘EV showroom and Outdoor Sales’ as a permitted use. In addition, the ME2 zone will allow for ‘Manufacturing, Food Processing’ by approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and allow for ‘Retail, Warehouse Club’ as a permitted use. Lastly, Section 17.138.030.H (Thoroughfares) has been updated to include specific standards for new thoroughfares such as lane widths, sidewalk widths, and landscape buffer standards as well as a section diagram displaying an example of a typical thoroughfare. Page 269 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 6 October 2022 Table 1 Proposed Development Code Revisions Article Chapter Section Code Amendment Affected Zones II 17.14 17.14.060.B “Multiple entitlements” subsection edited to reflect that all project permits shall be processed concurrently, and final action shall be taken by the highest-level designated approving authority. N/A II 17.16 17.16.150 New section for “Nonconforming lot development review” included to compliment N/A III 17.26 17.26.020 Table 17.26.020-1 (Rancho Cucamonga Zones and Subzones) amended to reflect the changes in Open Space zones. Open Space zone is now Open Space Conservation; Parks added as a new open space zone designation; Flood Control and Utility Corridor combined into a single open space zone. Zone Name/Descriptions amended to reflect zone updates. OSC, P, FC/UC III 17.30 17.30.030.C Section updated to acknowledge new/updated open space zones. N/A III 17.30 17.30.030 Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone): IP Zone removed; Two-Family Dwellings permitted in VL, L, and HR due to SB 9; New Parks zone column included with associated use changes; Flood Control and Utility Control combined into one “FC/UC” column – uses unchanged because zones were the same. VL, L, HR, P III 17.32 17.32.030.F,7 and 8 Electric Vehicle Showroom with Indoor Sales and Outdoor Sales definitions amended to match ordinance definition, allowing for minor auto repair within an enclosed building. N/A III 17.36 17.36.010 Table 17.36.010-1B updated superscript reference in “M” zone to reference correct footnote (previous typo); removed all “=” and replaced with “-.” N/A III 17.36 17.36.010.F.6 “Roofing Materials” section to reflect change in policy: roofing material must be consistent with architectural theme of the primary structure; exceptions can be made for sustainable roof designs such as green roofs. Removed all language referencing residential structures located on the same street and requiring structures to match materials. N/A III 17.36 17.36.010-3 Table 17.36.010-3 (Residential Streetscape Setback Standards) updated to reflect new street classifications from General Plan Update. All Single- Family and Multi-Family III 17.36 17.36.020 New section for Development standards for two units in single-family residential zones. Section added per SB 9 ordinance. VL, L, HR III 17.36 17.36.030 New section for “Urban lot splits in single-family residential zones.” Section added per SB 9 ordinance. VL, L, HR III 17.36 17.36.040 Table 17.36.040-2 updated to reflect new street classifications from the General Plan Update. N/A III 17.36 17.36.040 Table 17.36.040-2 updated to reflect new street classifications from the General Plan Update. NI and IE III 17.36 17.36.040.D.5.a Additional temporary use language included, allow for temporary uses that are by- right. All Zones III 17.36 17.36.050 Section updated to acknowledge new/updated open space zones. Hillside Residential development standards shall follow VL development standards. FC/UC standards reorganized. N/A III 17.38 17.38.050 New Section added to reflect recent Agricultural Overlay ordinance. N/A IV 17.42 17.42.040 Table 17.42.040-1 (Development Standards for Accessory Structures) updated per staff’s recommendations. New rows added for Garages and Accessory Dwelling Units. N/A Page 270 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR October 2022 Page 7 IV 17.60 17.60.020.E “Outdoor dining areas” section updated to reflect a policy change–Site development Reviews are required instead of Minor Use Permits. N/A IV 17.62 17.62.070 New section added for “Nonconforming Lots.” N/A IV 17.62 17.62.040 Updated nonconformity period from 180 days to 365 days. N/A IV 17.64 17.64.120 EV requirements for single-family, multifamily, office, and industrial updated per CAP language. N/A IV 17.66 17.66.110 Performance Standard classifications no longer associated with specific industrial zones. A/B will be for NI developments and B/C for IE developments. Discretion for type of development. NI and IE IV 17.77 N/A New Chapter added for Transfer of Development Rights consistent with the General Plan Update All Zones V 17.88 17.88.020 Table 17.88.020-1 updated to allow sheep, goats, swine, or similarly sized animals and poultry in the ME1 zone. Previously allowed in IP. IP zone references switched to ME1. ME1 V 17.88 17.88.030 Section updated to remove “L Zones” from zones that permit Beekeeping. Beekeeping is now limited to VL zone. L V 17.97 N/A New Chapter added for Live/Work Units. Zones that allow Live/Work V 17.100 17.100.040.A.2 Language added to clarify that ADUs must adhere to front yard setback of underlying zone and reference added to Table 17.42.010-1 (Development Standards for Accessory Structures). N/A V 17.100 17.100.050.I.2 Language added to “Setbacks” dictating that ADUs shall adhere to front yard setback of underlying zone. N/A VIII 17.130 17.130.050 Parking Setbacks updated to acknowledge Transit Priority Streets. All Form Based Zones VIII 17.136 17.136.020 Uses to be added to “Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses;” “Logistics/Distribution/Fulfillment Warehouse (N in all FBC Zones);” “Food Processing (CUP in ME2, N in all other FBC Zones);” “Membership Retail” (P in ME2, N in all other FBC Zones) ME2 Zone VIII 17.138 17.138.030 Thoroughfares standards added and frontage road standard modified All Form Based Zones IX 17.140 17.140.020 Definitions added: Based Density; EV Installed; EV Ready; Farm Stands; Gated Community; Green Roof; Lot Line, Rear; Policies and Procedures Manual; Receiving Site; Residential Development Credit; Residential Development Right; Sending Site; Stacking Area; Tasting Room; Transfer of Development Rights or TDR Authority. Deleted––“Household Unit;” “Single Household.” N/A IX 17.154 17.154.020 Definitions added: Built-to-Line. Amended Definitions: Frontage Area, Private; Height, Overall. N/A 1.4 ZONING MAP CLEANUP Additionally, the proposed project also includes changes to various parcels in the City that fall under specific zoning designations as shown on Figure 1, Prior to Zoning Amendment, and Figure 2, Post Zoning Amendment. The zone changes are described as follows: Page 271 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR Page 8 October 2022  Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor (OS/FC/UC) – Various Parcels Citywide: A technical clean-up that will include name changes to the open space zones, the creation of a new zone that will regulate parks and public facilities, and separation of the open space zones on the zoning map. Open space is currently regulated by four zones that are defined separately in Table 17.26.020-1 and listed separately on the Land Use Table 17.30.030-1. However, the zoning map identifies three of the zones as one zone on the map (OS/FC/UC), which has created conflict with applying proper zoning to the property, identifying land uses, among other things. This technical clean-up will address these conflicts. All affected parcels are currently zoned OS/FC/UC. Following the proposed amendments, the affected parcels will remain under the open space category and will remain consistent with their corresponding General Plan designation.  High Residential Zone amended to Low Medium Zone – Various Parcels (Victoria Arbors): This technical clean-up will rezone a single-family neighborhood within a Master Plan community from High Residential (H) back to Low Medium Residential (LM). The affected single-family neighborhood was inadvertently zoned H as a result of the General Plan consistency table that established the H zone as an implementing zone for the Suburban Moderate General Plan designation. The LM zone is consistent with the existing development intensity, the existing character of the single-family neighborhood, and addresses the substantial nonconformities that were created by the H zone designation. Additionally, the LM zoning remains consistent with the Suburban Moderate General Plan Designation as it is within the density maximum and promotes the development of single-family neighborhoods. The rezoning of these parcels will not constitute a net loss of potential housing units per State law. Senate Bill 330 allows for the rezoning of parcels as long as the new zoning designation is not reducing the intensity of land use below what was allowed under the General Plan or Specific Plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the City that was in effect on January 1, 2018. In 2018, these parcels were zoned Low Medium Residential at a density of 4-6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed zoning of Low Medium Residential per the updated Development Code allows for up to 8 dwelling units per acre.  High Residential Zone amended to Medium High Zone – Various Parcels (Candlewood): This technical clean-up will rezone five parcels from High Residential (H) to Medium High Residential (MH). The affected parcels were inadvertently zoned H as a result of the General Plan consistency table that established the H zone as an implementing zone for the Suburban Moderate General Plan designation. The affected parcels are vacant or underutilized, and suitable for medium-high density development up to 24 units per acre. MH zoning remains consistent with the Suburban Moderate General Plan Designation as it is within the density maximum and promotes the development of a range of medium intensity housing options, including multifamily residential that can be compatible with nearby lower density residential developments. The rezoning of these parcels will not constitute a net loss of potential housing units per State law. Senate Bill 330 allows for the rezoning of parcels if the new zoning designation is not reducing the intensity of land use below what was allowed under the General Plan or Specific Plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the City that was in effect on January 1, 2018. In 2018, four of these parcels were zoned “OP – Office Professional” which did not allow residential uses. One parcel was zoned Medium Low and is being rezoned to Medium High Residential. Page 272 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR October 2022 Page 9  Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor amended to Neo-Industrial – APN: 020-901-315: A technical clean-up that will rezone a 1-acre parcel from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor back to Neo-Industrial. The vacant parcel was inadvertently zoned to OS/FC/UC as it appeared to be part of the adjacent flood control channel and undevelopable due to its size, lot depth and width, and nearby property constraints. This zoning amendment also includes a General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Neo Industrial.  Center 2 Zone amended to Industrial Employment – APNs: 022-902-180, 022-902-191 (City): A technical clean-up that will rezone two vacant parcels totaling approximately seven acres from Center 2 to Industrial Employment. The parcels were rezoned along with a large development area as part of the 2022 Zoning Map amendment. However, the parcels contain a unique property configuration and are located adjacent to the Interstate-15 freeway, which doesn’t make them conducive for the development expectations of the Center 2 zone.  Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Very Low Residential – APN: 106-264-157 (SFR): A technical clean-up that will rezone a parcel from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to its previous zoning designation of Very Low Residential. The property is currently developed with a single- family residence and was mistakenly rezoned to OS/FC/UC. This zoning amendment will require a General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Semi-Rural Neighborhood.  Open Space/Flood Control/Utility to Medium Residential – APN: 108-947-125 (Montessori School near Windrows Park): A technical clean-up that will rezone an existing property from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to its previous zoning designation of Medium Residential. The property is currently developed with a private education use (Montessori School) and was mistakenly rezoned to OS/FC/UC. This zoning amendment will require a General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Suburban Neighborhood Low.  Open Space/Flood Control/Utility to Medium Residential – APN: 108-926-155, 108-928-157 (SFR): A technical clean-up that will rezone an existing property from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to its previous zoning designation of Medium Residential. The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and was mistakenly rezoned to OS/FC/UC. This zoning amendment will require a General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Suburban Neighborhood Low.  Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to Neo-Industrial – APN: 108-947-125: This technical clean-up will rezone an existing property from Open Space/Flood Control/Utility Corridor to its previous zoning designation of Neo-Industrial. The property is currently developed with a private education use and was mistakenly rezoned to OS/FC/UC. While this zoning amendment will require a General Plan amendment from General Open Space and Facilities to Traditional Town Center, the change reflects existing conditions of the property and therefore will not result in any environmental impact. Page 273 2. Findings The General Plan contains policies related to land use and community character, focus areas, open space, mobility and access, housing, public facilities and services, resource conservation, safety, and noise. The General Plan EIR included Standard Conditions of Approval (See Chapter 4 Implementation) for the following environmental topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The policies of the General Plan and the City’s existing development standards apply to all development in the General Plan Planning Area and would continue following adoption of the proposed project. As indicated above, the Development Code revisions are intended to improve alignment with the General Plan. As shown in Table 1, the text revisions constitute minor changes to existing Development Code intended to clarify and support implementation the rezoning of the General Plan. The proposed map revisions shown in Figure 2, correct mapping errors that were identified during the Development Code review or changes that reflect existing developed conditions of the land. The General Plan EIR considered land use designations and the general pattern of future development. While the Development Code is not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR, state law requires that land use and zoning be consistent. The General Plan EIR included policy changes as well as an update to the Development Code, which included zoning updates. Overall, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are minor in nature and are required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted General Plan, any physical impacts associated with the rezoning of parcels are addressed through the City’s General Plan Implementation Chapter, zoning, and development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR. The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project. 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan; therefore, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are consistent with the General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan EIR and adopted by the City. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of parcels in the City are a technical clean-up correcting errors in the zoning map that would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment different from those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Consequently, the changes to the Development Code and rezoning of parcels would not change the conclusions of the EIR. Page 274 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2. CEQA Analysis October 2022 Page 11 2. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. The General Plan Update anticipated the need to amend the Development Code to implement the goals and policies adopted by the City. The General Plan EIR relies upon the Implementation Measures included in the General Plan to regulate all future development. Thees Measures will continue to apply to all development in the City and will have the same mitigating effects as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Because these changes are a result of the Development Code review anticipated by the General Plan Update, there is no new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the General Plan EIR was certified. The impacts from the proposed project would be the same as those disclosed in the certified General Plan EIR. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The proposed project would have the same significant impacts as those disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development. These policies would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of parcels in the City are a technical clean-up and would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 4. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that 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. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. All policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development in the City and would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not change the assumptions described in the General Plan EIR and does not change the conclusions of the EIR or require new Standard Conditions of Approval or mitigation. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of parcels in the City are a technical clean-up and would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment. Future Page 275 ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2. CEQA Analysis Page 12 October 2022 development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 5. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that 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. The proposed project would not result in direct physical changes to the environment but would ensure that the Development Code is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of parcels in the City are a technical clean-up to reflect the proposed Development Code change or reflect existing developed conditions of property. As such, development in the City would continue to be consistent with the buildout projected in the General Plan EIR, and the resulting impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR would remain the same. Therefore, no new Standard Conditions of Approval, mitigation measures, or alternatives to the proposed project would be required. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or added information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. Page 276 Figure 1 Page 277 ---------------------------------------------------1 I ,----' ---lI' I' i------J ' I ' I Hillside Rd 'I 'I ' I 'I 'I ' I ' I ' Banyan St I ,---- ' \ ' I '\ '\ '\ ' 19th St '---, _ Base Line Rd ·� ' \ 'I'\ ' I ' I ' I '1 ' --\I ' ' ' I \ I , __ __ j \ Foothill Bl Arrow Rt 8th St r, ! / 1/ ' I i'I r­' I • I • -CJ) C (ll Q) C � (ll u - .,_ .. • .._ _________________________ -' > > <(<( Q) > "O � e (ll <., >-Q) C > ' \ ' I ' > <( C (ll E Q) I \\ --� 6th st')j I ' I' '_____ _, �.__Tl'� "O � .c 2 <( - --- I l I ' I ... 'I ' I' . . ' ' -------' • • - - ♦ ' I' I I I I I ' I I ' I I ■■-------• C " Q)-" :2': > <(� Q) (/) Q) .c (.) 0 0:: ) - ------------ 4th St '------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·,------------------ � C (ll E Q) I > <( "O (ll ..0 .c 2 <( (ll (/) 0 E � Q) I > <( C Q) > (ll I > <( C Q) -" :2': � 2 (/) Q) .c (.) 0 0:: ■ - Foothill Bl I • Jl,_.__ Arrow Rt ,-------------' >I <(-(/) (ll LJ.J ___ ..... > <( (ll "O C �-LJ.J -------------, I - Rancho Cucamonga Post Phase 1 Zoning Map Amendment SR-210 ---City Limits -Freeway Zoning Zones -OSC Open Space Conservation1111 P Parks FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor .. R-OS Open Space1111 R-H Hillside [=1 R-FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor -R-C Conservation VL Very Low Residential -LM Low Medium Residential -M Medium Residential -MH Medium High Residential -NI Neo Industrial -IE Industrial Employment N •-=::::11-==------====== Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 1 " = 2 , 3 3 3 f e e t The geographic information available by and through City of Rancho Cucamonga is presented as a public resource of general information. The information may include both map data and data provided by applications. While the City of Rancho Cucamonga strives to maintain the accuracy of the content of its data files, it makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of the files. The City of Rancho Cucamonga assumes no responsibility arising from use of the information provided. No warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purposes is made. It is the responsibility of the recipient of this data to determine that the level of accuracy meets the needs of their application prior to making any judgments or decisions based on this information. Do not make any business decisions based on this data before validating your decision with the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Figure 2 Page 278 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda December 13, 2022 DRAFT MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on December 13, 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. Absent: Vice Chair Williams and Commissioner Daniels. Staff Present: Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer; Sean McPherson, Acting Principal Planner; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, David Eoff, Senior Planner; Darleen Cervera, Executive Assistant II. 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 November 9th, 2022. Motion to adopt the minutes by Commissioner Boling; second by Commissioner Morales; Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Absent: Vice Chair Williams and Commissioner Daniels. D. Public Hearings D1. DESIGN REVIEW – WOOD PARTNERS - A request to allow a mixed-use development comprising of 328 apartment units and 7,650 square-feet of commercial space within the Corridor 2 (CO2) zone, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. APNs: 1090-601-04, -07, -08, -20 and -21 (DRC2022-00054). The project is statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. Chair Dopp announced the Applicant has requested to reschedule this item to be heard at a future date. Chair Dopp opened public hearing. No comments were made. Chair Dopp closed public hearing. D2. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW – PETE VOLBEDA – A request to construct a 3,999 square foot single-family residence with two separate attached garages totaling 901 square feet on a vacant property of 12,044 square feet (0.28-acre) within the Low (L) Residential Zone and Hillside Overlay located on the north side of Camino Predera – APN: 0207-641-12. The project qualifies as a Class exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (DRC2021-00297). Attachment 4 Page 279 HPC/PC MINUTES –December 13, 2022 Page 2 of 3 Draft 2 8 3 1 Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Pete Volbeda, Applicant, was available to answer questions from the Commissioners. Chair Dopp opened public hearing. Renee Massey, expressed support for the project. Chair Dopp closed public hearing. Commissioner Morales expressed pleasure with the design of the home and appreciated their work with the neighbors. Commissioner Boling thanked the applicant and architect for providing a design and layout that assimilates well in the neighborhood. Chair Dopp asked for motion to adopt Resolution 22-31 approving Hillside Design Review DRC2021-00297. Motion by Commissioner Boling; second by Commissioner Morales; Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Absent: Vice Chair Williams and Commissioner Daniels. D3. Consideration of a Recommendation to the City Council to Amend Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to Make Various Technical Text Amendments, Amend the Current General Plan Land Map with Various Technical Amendments, Amend the Current Zoning Map with Various Technical Amendments, and Adopt an Addendum to the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2021050261). This Item Will Be Forwarded to the City Council for Final Action. The City has Prepared an Addendum to the Certified EIR for the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan for the Project. David Eoff, Senior Planner and Sean McPherson, Acting Principal Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file). Chair Dopp opened public hearing. No comments were made. Chair Dopp closed public hearing. Commissioner Boling thanked staff for bringing this forward for consideration. He acknowledged that with a comprehensive update of the Development Code there is always small tweaks, recommendations as new needs are identified. He looks forward to seeing future amendments as needed. Commissioner Morales expressed support for staff working toward continuous improvement to the code. Chair Dopp stated he appreciates staff keeping up with the trends. Chair Dopp asked for motion to adopt Resolution 22-30. Motion by Commissioner Boling; second by Commissioner Morales; Motion carried unanimously 3-0. Absent: Vice Chair Williams and Commissioner Daniels. E. Director Announcements Jennifer Nakamura thanked all Planning Commissioners for their hard work this year and wished them a Happy Holiday. Page 280 HPC/PC MINUTES –December 13, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Draft 2 8 3 1 F. Commission Announcements Commissioner Boling thanked staff for their very hard work. Great developments have happened throughout the city. He wished everyone a safe and Happy Holiday. Chair Dopp concurred and wished everyone a Merry Christmas. G. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Boling, second by Commissioner Morales to adjourn the meeting to Tuesday, January 10, 2023. Hearing no objections, Chair Dopp adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ________________________ Elizabeth Thornhill Executive Assistant, Planning Department Approved: Page 281 Attachment 5 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-30 MCA DRC2022-00464, ZMA DRC2022-00466, GPA DRC2022-00465 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 13, 2022 Page 4 4.The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ,�9 Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: � JMattMaeecre ary I, Matt Marquez, 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 an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of December, 2022, by the following • vote-to-wit: AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, MORALES, BOLING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WILLIAMS, DANIELS RECUSE: COMMISSIONERS: Page 285 ORDINANCE NO. 1015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2022-00464 TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, A SUPPLEMENTAL UPDATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, ADOPTING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2022- 00466 APPLICABLE TO VARIOUS PROPERTIES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261) FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to amend existing development standards and create new development standards in order to better calibrate the Development Code to the vision of the General Plan and update the official Zoning Map to address technical zone changes. 2.The City is proposing to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code and the official Zoning Map for certain properties that will be subject to zone reclassifications. The City has prepared two amendments for this purpose consisting of Municipal Code Amendment DRC2022- 00464 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00466, as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereafter referred to as the “Amendments”). 3.As shown in Exhibits “A” and “B,” the Amendments propose to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to establish new and updated development standards for various Articles within Title 17 of the Municipal Code and to amend the official Zoning Map to incorporate the proposed zone reclassifications. 4.On December 13, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date. 5.On January 18, 2023, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendments, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date. 6.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B.Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1.Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 18, 2023, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: Attachment 6 Page 286 a. Per Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map “may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendment[s] are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” The proposed Amendments are consistent with the following Land Use Element and Housing Element policies: • Land Use 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.” • Land Use 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.” • Land Use LC-1.9: Infill Development. “Enable and encourage infill development within vacant and underutilized properties through flexible design requirements and potential incentives.” • Land 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.” • Housing 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.” • Housing H-5.1: Development Review Processes. “Consider new polices, 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.” • 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.” b. The Amendments identified herein have been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). c. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City has prepared an addendum to the certified Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) (SCH #2021050261) prepared for the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified FEIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan has been undertaken since the certification of the FEIR have occurred. The proposed Amendments would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified FEIR, nor would the proposed Amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Page 287 Department staff’s determination that the Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendments, along with the certified FEIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. d. The Amendments are consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including without limitation, the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. e. Subject to the approval of the related amendments (General Plan Amendment DRC2022-00465) the Amendments do not conflict with the policies and provisions of the General Plan, Planned Community, Specific Plan, and/or Master Plan identified herein. f. The City Council finds that the Amendments serve the important purpose of providing sufficient development standards that will apply to various development types throughout the City and to better calibrate the Development Code and the official Zoning Map to the vision of the General Plan. The City Council further finds that the proposed Amendments protect the public health, safety, and welfare. g. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. 3. Determination on Municipal Code Amendment DRC2022-00464. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Municipal Code Amendment DRC2022-00464 set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Determination on Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00466. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00466 as set forth in Exhibit “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City Council hereby amends the official Zoning Map reflecting the amendments set forth in Exhibit B. For reference purposes, the updated official Zoning Map for Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00466 is also attached as Exhibit “C”. 5. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within in the manner required by law. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 288 BY: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of January, 2023, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 289 Exhibit A Due to file size, this exhibit can be accessed through the following link: Municipal Code Amendment Article II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 RESOLUTION NO. 2023-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2022-00465 THAT WILL APPLY TO VARIOUS PROPERTIES LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2021050261), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared a set of amendments, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment are referred to as “the Amendments”. 2. On January 18, 2023, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Council 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 the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on January 18, 2023, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The Chapter of the General Plan subject to General Plan Amendment DRC2022- 00465 are as follows: Volume 2 – Chapter 1 (“Land Use & Community Character”) to amend Figure LC-3 (“Land Plan”) to update the associated map to reflect the Land Use designation changes for eight parcels, as shown in Exhibit “A”. b.The parcels that are subject to General Plan Amendment DRC2022-00465 are identified by APNs: 106264157, 108926155, 108928157, 108947125, 020901315, 020917115, 022902180, and 022902191. For reference purposes, a list of the parcels affected by General Plan Amendment DRC2022-00465 is also included in Exhibit “A”. c. The City prepared the Amendments, which are included as Exhibit “A” to this Resolution and are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full; d.General Plan Amendment DRC2022-00465 conform to and do not conflict with the General Plan, including without limitation, the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof (as amended), and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan; Attachment 7 Page 294 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 23-005 GPA DRC2022-00465 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 18, 2023 Page 2 e. The City Council finds that the Amendments provide options for facilitate new residential and mixed-use development opportunities; and f.Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to the General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2021050261) has been prepared. The addendum concludes that the proposed Amendments do not result in any new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan has been undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed amendment would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and an addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA. The City Council has considered the proposed addendum attached to the staff report accompanying the Amendments, along with the General Plan Program Final EIR, and hereby adopts the addendum. 3.Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2022-00465. 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED JANUARY 18, 2023. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of January 2023, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 295 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 23-005 GPA DRC2022-00465 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 18, 2023 Page 3 ATTACHMENT A GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT DRC2022-00465 Parcel Number (APN) Address Current General Plan Designation New General Plan Designation Special Planning Area 106264157 6488 Carol Avenue General Open Space and Facilities Semi-Rural Neighborhood N/A 020901315 8920 8th Street General Open Space and Facilities Neo-Industrial Employment District N/A 022902180 N/A City Center Industrial Employment District Victoria Community Plan 022902191 12401 Foothill Blvd City Center Industrial Employment District Victoria Community Plan 108947125 6880 Victoria Windrows General Open Space and Facilities Semi-Rural Neighborhood N/A 108926155 11422 Genova Road General Open Space and Facilities Suburban Neighborhood - Low N/A 108928157 11535 Ragusa Drive General Open Space and Facilities Suburban Neighborhood - Low N/A 020917115 8968 Archibald Avenue General Open Space and Facilities Traditional Town Center Etiwanda Specific Plan Page 296 ATTACHMENT A (cont.) Page 297 Development Code and General Plan Update City Council –January 18, 2023 PlanRC General Plan •Unanimously adopted by Council on December 15, 2021 •Establishes the City’s vision and priorities for the next 10-20 years •Guides future actions (policy choices + development applications) •Addresses changes in state law •Blueprint for future development •Enabled the community to come together to develop a shared vision for the future 2022 Development Code Update and Refinements Unanimously adopted by Council on May 18, 2022 Mapping changes to General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Following the adoption, staff has identified necessary changes to better calibrate the code to the General Plan The code is a Living Document General Plan Land Plan Amendments APN: 1062-641-57 APN: 0209-013-15 APN: 0209-171-15 APN: 0229-021-80, 0229-021-91 APN: 1089-261-55, 1089-281-57 APN: 1089-471-25 General Plan Land Plan Amendments 1 2 3, 4 5 6, 7 8 Current Zoning Map Zoning Map Amendments Zoning Map Amendments Zoning Map Amendments Zoning Map Amendments Vineyard Avenue8th Street Development Code Text Amendments The Development Code text amendments consist of various technical amendments to Articles II,III,IV,V,VI,VIII,and IX. New additions: •Development standards related to SB 9 •Inclusion of provisions to address Nonconforming Lots •Citywide Transfer of Development Rights Program •New standards for Drive-In and Drive-Through Uses •New standards for Live/Work Units •Descriptions for previously adopted Overlays Development Code Text AmendmentsContinued… The Development Code text amendments consist of various technical amendments to Articles II,III,IV,V,VI,VIII,and IX. Changes to existing language: •Minor text edits and clarifying language to Article VIII (Form-Based Code) •Revisions to the ADU standards per State Law (AB 345). •Reconfiguration of Open Space zones Development Code Text AmendmentsContinued… Land Use/Zoni ng District VL L LM M MH H NI IE OS OSC HR FC P FC/UC Residential Uses Accessor y Dwelling Unit P P P P P P N N P P N N Adult Day Care Home P P P P P P N N N P N N Caretake r Housing M M M M M M M M P M P P Environmental Review and Planning Commission Review An Environmental Impact Report was certified in conjunction with the adoption of the General Plan on December 15, 2021. Staff has prepared an EIR Addendum for the subject amendments to the Development Code, Zoning Map and General Plan Land Plan Map. On December 13, 2022, Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the EIR Addendum and approve the requested amendments, with certain changes and edits. Recommendation Planning Commission and Staff recommends that the City Council Conduct a First Reading of Ordinance No. 1015 and Adopt Resolution No. 2023-0005 for the Following: o Adoption of an addendum to the General Plan EIR o Adoption of the Development Code Text Amendments (DRC2022-00464) o Adoption of the Zoning Map Amendments (DRC2022-00466) o Adoption of the General Plan Land Map Amendments (DRC2022-00467) DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Julie A. Sowles, Deputy City Manager of Civic and Cultural Services Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director Patricia Bravo-Valdez, MMC, Deputy City Clerk Services Director SUBJECT:Review of Appointments to Standing Committees, Boards and Other Governmental Agencies. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council/Fire Board review the attached list of appointments to committees, boards and other governmental agencies and update it as necessary. BACKGROUND: Regularly, the City Council reviews the list of appointments to various standing committees and other governmental agencies and updates the list when needed. Pursuant to prior City Council action, there is an automatic designation of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, or remaining Council Members as automatic alternates to any Committee or Subcommittee when one or more of the appointees are unable to attend. This ensures that the Committee or Subcommittee can continue to hold a scheduled public meeting without interruption. In addition, the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District) Public Financing Authority Board has a vacancy for the alternate member representing the Fire Protection District Board due to the Council vacancy last year. The alternate member is appointed to represent the City Council/Fire Board in the absence of a regular member. The appointment needed is only for the alternate member position representing the Fire Board. Attached is a list of the committees and the current appointment(s). The listing is updated to reflect current active City Council Standing Subcommittees and Community Organizations and Regional Agencies. ANALYSIS: It is recommended that the City Council/Fire Board review the list of current committees and other governmental agency appointments and update it as necessary. Upon receipt of an updated list, City Staff will notify any outside agencies that might be affected. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Continue to work together and cooperatively with staff and all stakeholders to help ensure and advance the quality of life for the community. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Appointments Listing Page 298 1 City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council Subcommittees and Appointments to Local and Regional Agency Boards and Affiliations (Updated 12/15/2022) CITY COUNCIL STANDING SUBCOMMITTEES The Council has the following subcommittees on which two Council Members serve to consider assigned areas of City programs/functions, provide feedback to staff, and make recommendations to the full City Council on related policy matters and Commission/Foundation appointments. These committees meet on an as-needed basis throughout the year. Community Services Subcommittee Area of Responsibility: Park and Recreation matters, Quake Stadium usage, construction of park and recreation facilities, and programs. Committee member(s): Kristine Scott, Vacant Community Development/Historic Preservation Subcommittee Area of Responsibility: Planning/Historic Preservation Commission appointments. Committee members: L. Dennis Michael and Lynne Kennedy Library Subcommittee Area of Responsibility: Library programs and services as well as Library Board of Trustees appointments. Committee members: Kristine Scott and Lynne Kennedy Public Works Subcommittee Area of Responsibility: Transportation, traffic, parking, capital improvements, and public works projects. Committee members: Ryan Hutchison and Lynne Kennedy Economic Development Marketing Subcommittee Area of Responsibility: Marketing of the City. Committee members: Lynne Kennedy and Ryan Hutchison Technology & Communications Subcommittee Area of Responsibility: Technology and methods of communication. Committee members: Lynne Kennedy, Vacant Community Parks and Landscape Citizen’s Oversight Committee Area of Responsibility: The Committee has oversight of LMD’s 1, 2, 4-R, 6-R, and 7, SLD 2, PD-85. Conduct interviews and recommends appointments to the City Council. Committee members: Kristine Scott, Vacant ATTACHMENT 1 Page 299 3 1 1 3 APPOINTMENTS TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND REGIONAL AGENCIES These appointments involve Council Members representing the City to community organizations and regional agencies. Some organizations ask for the designation of a Delegate and an Alternate. City Selection Committee Area of Responsibility: The City Selection Committee is a committee, established by California Government Code 50275, which meets in even years to appoint Mayors and Council members to represent the city perspective on regional organizations, such as San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the CAL-ID Remote Access Network Board. The City Selection Committee consists of the Mayor of each City in the County. In San Bernardino County, the City Selection Committee meets every two years or more frequently if required to make a selection for one of the organizations. Required Delegate:L. Dennis Michael (Mayor) ConFire Board of Directors Area of Responsibility: Provide the items necessary and appropriate for a joint centralized public safety communications system and a cooperative program of fire- related functions (i.e. grants, emergency operations command) for the mutual benefit of the members. The board meets twice a year: May/June & Nov/Dec; and may schedule meetings as needed throughout the year. The time depends on the availability of the members. Delegate: Lynne Kennedy Alternate:Kristine Scott Omnitrans Area of Responsibility: Omnitrans is a Joint Powers Agency that coordinates the public transit services of the County of San Bernardino and its 15 member cities. A 20 member Board of Directors governs Omnitrans, which includes the five County Board of Supervisors and representatives from the member cities. There are no specific terms to serve on the Board; it is at the discretion of each City as to who represents the City on the Omnitrans Board of Directors as Delegate and Alternate. The board meets on the first Wednesday of every month at 8:00 a.m. Delegate:Lynne Kennedy Alternate:Kristine Scott Page 300 3 1 1 3 Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce Area of Responsibility: Provides liaison between the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce and the City of Rancho Cucamonga in coordinating projects and items of mutual interest. The board meetings take place the last Wednesday of every month at 8:00 a.m.; Quarterly City and Chamber meetings also take place between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. Delegate:L. Dennis Michael Alternate: Lynne Kennedy San Bernardino County Transportation Authority/San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG) Area of Responsibility: Serving more than 2.1 million residents of San Bernardino County, the SBCTA is responsible for cooperative regional planning and furthering an efficient multi-modal transportation system countywide. The purpose of San Bernardino Council of Governments (SBCOG) is to speak with a collective voice on important issues that affect its member agencies. Representatives from 24 cities and the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors have a seat on the SBCOG (SANBAG) Board of Directors. The Board meets on the first Wednesday of every month at 10:00 a.m. Delegate:L. Dennis Michael Alternate:Lynne Kennedy Solid Waste Advisory Task Force Area of Responsibility: Carry out the responsibilities mandated by the State of California through AB 939. SWAT may also consider and make recommendations to the County on such other solid waste related matters as they may deem appropriate. Meetings take place twice a year (April & Sept.) on the third Wednesday of the month at 1:30 p.m. Delegate: Ryan Hutchison Alternate:Linda Ceballos (staff) Maloof Foundation Area of Responsibility: The mission of the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Foundation for Arts and Crafts, a not-for-profit public benefit corporation, is to perpetuate excellence in craftmanship, encourage artists and make available to the public the treasure house the Maloofs lovingly created. The Maloof Foundation meets the 1st Monday of every other month from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Board Member: Kristine Scott Alternate: John Gillison (City Manager) Page 301 3 1 1 3 Rancho Cucamonga EIFD (Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District) Public Financing Authority Purpose. The Public Financing Authority is a body formed and operating under Government Code Section 53398.50 et seq. The primary purpose of the Authority is to accelerate the financing of authorized public improvements. The members and alternate members of the governing body of the Public Financing Authority shall be duly appointed by the taxing entities participating in the Public Financing Authority, which governing body shall be known as the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors is comprised of two members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council, one member of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Board of Directors, and two public members jointly selected by the City Council and Board. Board Members Representing the City: L. Dennis Michael Kristine Scott Linda Daniels Alternate: Ryan Hutchison Board Members Representing The Fire Board: Lynne Kennedy Francisco Oaxaca Alternate: Vacant Alternate Member. In the absence of a member’s attendance at a meeting of the Board of Directors, an alternate member appointed by a participating taxing entity shall have all of the rights and privileges as a member during such meeting. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors are held the first Tuesday of the month of February, May, August, and November at 6:00 pm. Page 302 DATE:January 18, 2023 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Elisa C. Cox, Assistant City Manager Michael Parmer, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT:Selection of a Delegate for the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) General Assembly. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council appoint a member to serve as Rancho Cucamonga’s delegate at the upcoming SCAG General Assembly. The Council may also wish to select an alternate delegate if desired, although it is not required. BACKGROUND: The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the nation's largest metropolitan planning organization, representing six counties and 191 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG undertakes a variety of planning and policy initiatives to encourage a more sustainable Southern California now and in the future. As the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization, SCAG is mandated by federal and state law to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous materials management, and air quality. SCAG is governed by the General Assembly which brings together the official representatives of SCAG's membership and helps set the agency's course for the coming year. The General Assembly serves as a forum where policy matters can be identified and addressed. Amendments to SCAG's Bylaws may also be considered at the General Assembly. In addition, members of the General Assembly also vote on SCAG's General Fund budget and SCAG's new President, Vice President, and Second Vice President are announced for the upcoming year at this annual event. ANALYSIS: This year's Regional Conference and General Assembly will be held in-person on May 4 and 5, 2023 in Palm Desert, CA. If a Member City wishes to select a Delegate to participate in the General Assembly, City Council action is required to appoint the Delegate. An Alternate may also be selected; however, it is not required. Each General Assembly Delegate (or Alternate) will be invited to the SCAG's Regional Conference and General Assembly event. If a City has a Council Member that serves as a Regional Council Member on the SCAG Board, that person is automatically the City's delegate, however, if an Alternate is also desired, they will need to be appointed by the City Council. Mayor L. Dennis Michael currently serves as a SCAG Regional Council Member; however, Council appointed Councilmember Kristine Scott as the delegate at last year’s SCAG General Assembly and Councilmember Ryan Hutchison as the Alternate. Delegates and Alternates are required to submit FPPC Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests to the SCAG office upon appointment. Page 303 Page 2 1 6 2 7 FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Participating in the SCAG General Assembly complements the City Council’s Core Values by intentionally embracing and anticipating the future. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 304