Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-13 - Agenda Packet Part 3 of 5 PC-HPCEmpire Lakes Proposed Specific Plan Community Meetings - Recap: December 10, 2015 Location: Hilton Garden Inn, Rancho Cucamonga Number of Community participants: 23 Number of City/Agency attendees: 11 Presentation Notes: This was the initial Community Outreach presentation. Presentations by the planner, WHA and Bryan Goodman (Lewis), focused on the proposed Specific Plan, planning concepts and some environmental related issues. Community comments included voiced concern over the closure of the course, EIR questions to the City and some questions regarding density and noticing of meetings. The presentation was interrupted several times by community comments to which both Lewis and the City provided responses. Lewis and the City acknowledged all comments and noted that the notification process exceeded the requirements (1,000 feet radius vs required 600' radius property owners and also noted that this was a private developer meeting, not a formal City sponsored meeting. January 14. 2016 Location: Four Points Sheraton, Rancho Cucamonga Number of Community Participants: 19 Number of City/Agency attendees: 3 Presentation Notes: The presentation addressed several questions and comments received at the prior meeting. Information was included on Lewis's company history in the Inland Empire / Rancho Cucamonga area; Median Income data on Lewis's customer base including both Rental Housing and Home Purchase potentials; and details on schools and densities. There we no interruptions to the presentation and community comments were limited to EIR comments (although Lewis reminded the audience that this was a Developer meeting and that the EIR was a City document and not a part of the meeting agenda), traffic concerns (that were addressed by Jason Pack, Fehr & Peers, the project's Traffic Consultant) density, and golf course closure. EXHIBIT O Item 0 —529 January 21, 2016 Location: Four Points Sheraton, Rancho Cucamonga Number of Community Participants: 12 Number of City/Agency attendees: 1 Presentation Notes: The Presentation included data on T-24 energy efficiency improvements on new housing, notes on schools, and estimated water usage data for the project proposal. One community participant interrupted the presentation commenting on his experience in Chicago and likened the proposed public spaces in the project proposal to "gang infested parks in Chicago full of undesirables, requiring constant police presence". After his comments, he left the room and the meeting resumed. Comments were made favorable to the proposal with one participant making comments about the increased traffic she has experienced on Haven. January 28, 2016 Location: Four Points Sheraton, Rancho Cucamonga Number of Community Participants: 11 Number of City/Agency attendees: 2 Presentation Notes: The Presentation mirrored January 21st's as there were several new community participants, in addition to several returning members. One new participating community member interrupted the presentation numerous times with heckling and was asked each time to hold her comments until the end of the presentation. As with the previous meetings, at the completion of the presentation, community attendees took the opportunity to ask general questions on the proposal by the presenters and also ask specific questions on Traffic, Site Planning, Schools and other matters of their interest. Attached: Sign -in Sheets from each meeting Item 0 —530 STAFF REPORT PLNNNING DEPARTNIENT 91 RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: June 10, 2015 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Mike Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2015-00118 —LEWIS OPERATING CORP.: An opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposal to amend the IASP Subarea 18 (Empire Lakes) Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development at the Empire Lakes Golf Course property located north of 4" Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 81" Street and the Metrolink rail line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in the Environmental Impact Report that is being prepared for General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Development Agreement DRC2015-00118. PURPOSE: In accordance with the applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Lead Agency for this project, and therefore responsible for the review and consideration of the proposed project as well as addressing potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the project. An Initial Study (Exhibit C) was prepared by the applicant's environmental consultant, BonTerra Psomas, as an initial step prior to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR is required in order to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of the project are fully evaluated and analyzed, and, if necessary, the applicable mitigations measures are implemented. In compliance with the EIR preparation process as outlined in CEQA, BonTerra Psomas, in consultation with staff from the Planning Department, prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Exhibit A). The NOP was circulated on April 27, 2015 to public agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project, i.e. "Responsible Agencies" and Native American Governments. Also, the NOP was made available for review at the Archibald and Biane Libraries and on the City's website. The NOP serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be. addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. All environmental documents are subject to a peer EXHIBIT P Item P-531 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LEWIS OPERATING CORP. June 10, 2015 Page 2 review by PlaceWorks, an independent, environmental consultant. PlaceWorks was contracted by the City to do the peer review following an evaluation of potential consultants that was conducted earlier this year. The Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between the City and PlaceWorks was approved and executed by the City Council on May 20, 2015. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The proposed project is to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Empire Lakes Specific Plan") to establish a mixed use development (Exhibit D) on a property of 160 acres that is currently a golf course - the Empire Lakes Golf Course. The proposed project consists of a specific plan amendment that would allow for the "redevelopment" of the golf course into a mixed use development comprised of a combination of high density residential, commercial, and office uses within close proximity to transit services and local regional activity centers. The project site, identified as Planning Area 1 (PA1) in the proposal, is proposed to have between 2,500 dwelling units (minimum) to 4,000 dwelling units (maximum). Open space would be included in PA1. Vehicular and non -vehicular circulation and utility infrastructure would be constructed, as necessary, to serve the proposed uses. The project site is being developed with the intent of maximizing the transit -oriented opportunities enabled by the existing east -west Metrolink rail line that parallels the north perimeter of the project site, and a Metrolink station located to the northeast of the project site. Similarly, the project will be designed to be compatible with the multi -family apartment complexes that border the project site to the east, and be complementary to the industrial office development located to the west, and, to the south, a large commercial development in the City of Ontario. The project site is currently designated as "Planning Area 1A" and "Planning Area 113" within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and "Open Space" in the City's General Plan. Based on available information, anticipated initial approvals that would be required from the City to implement the proposed project may include, but are not limited to, adoption of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment; approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from "Open Space" to "Mixed Use" and revise the associated General Plan language, maps and tables resulting from the land use change from Open Space to Mixed Use, and approval of a Zoning Amendment to update text related to the mixed use zone. A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning (relative to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan): North - Industrial Logistics and Manufacturing Buildings; Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) District South - Commercial Center; Ontario Center Specific Plan (2254-SP) (in the City of Ontario) East - Industrial Offices/Logistics Buildings, a Commercial Center, and Hotels; General Industrial (GI) District, Industrial Park (IP) District, and Industrial Park (IP) District, (Industrial Commercial Overlay District ([COD)) West - Industrial Offices/Logistics Buildings and Vacant Land; General Industrial (GI) District and Industrial Park (IP) District Item P —532 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT LEWIS OPERATING CORP. June 10, 2015 Page 3 B. General Plan Designations: North - Heavy Industrial South - Mixed Use — Ontario Mills (in the City of Ontario) East - General Industrial and Industrial Park West - General Industrial and Industrial Park ADVERTISING/CORRESPONDENCE: The notice for this scoping meeting appeared in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a large, 1/8t' page notice on May 26, 2015 and notices were mailed to the owners of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan boundary. The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study Part 2 were circulated to the attached list of CEQA agencies (Exhibit E) for the required review and comment period. Attached is correspondence (Exhibit F) received in response to the Notice of Preparation that was submitted by several "Responsible Agencies" and two Native American Tribal Government entities. The correspondences discusses the various recommendations and methodologies for areas of study related to the formulation of the Environmental Impact Report. PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has also received a -mails and written correspondence from several individuals expressing an interest in the proposed project. The correspondence (Exhibit G) discusses concern regarding potential environmental impacts relating to transportation/traffic and land use (specifically the loss of the golf course). Respectfully submitted, 1 Candyce rnett Planning Director CB/MS/Is Attachments: Exhibit A — Notice of Preparation (NOP) Exhibit B — Letter from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit (acknowledging receipt of the NOP) Exhibit C — Initial Study (IS) Part 2 prepared by Bonterra Psomas (without Appendices) Exhibit D — Conceptual Development Plan Exhibit E — Distribution Lists for the Notice of Preparation Exhibit F — Correspondence (received from Responsible Agencies and Native American Tribal Government entities) Exhibit G — Correspondence (received from the public) Item P —533 Y Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting ( , April 27, 2015 To: Reviewing Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report and Public Scoping Meeting for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project) From: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Contact: Mr. Michael Smith, Associate Planner Pursuant to Section 21165 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15050 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be the lead agency for an environmental impact report (EIR) that will be prepared to address potential impacts associated with the project identified below. The purpose of this notice is (1) to serve as a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR pursuant to the Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, (2) to advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the EIR to be prepared for the proposed project, and (3) to serve as a notice for the public scoping meeting. We need to know your agency's views regarding the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. An electronic copy of the Initial Study is attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date and should be received not later than 30 days after the date of this notice. However, a scoping meeting will be held on June 10, 2015 and your response will be accepted until that date. Project Title: Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (also referred to as the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project) Project Location — City: Rancho Cucamonga Project Location — County: San Bernardino The project site is located north of 41h Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 81h Street and the Metrolink rail line in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's southern boundary with the City of Ontario is formed by 4th Street. The project site is currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course (11015 61h Street, Rancho Cucamonga). Refer to Exhibit 1 in the Initial Study for the local and regional vicinity. Project Description: The proposed project involves an amendment to the IASP Sub -Area 18 (Empire Lakes) Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development on the existing Empire Lakes Golf Course property (new Planning Area [PA] 1). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would EXHIBIT A Item P-534 allow for high density and medium -high density residential, mixed use, open space, and transit - oriented land uses all within close proximity to transit services and local regional activity centers. The number of residential dwelling units in PA 1 would range from a minimum of 2,500 units to a maximum of up to 4,000 units. Additionally, a maximum of 220,000 square feet (sf) of non- residential uses would be allowed in PA 1. Vehicular and non -vehicular circulation and utility infrastructure would be installed, as necessary, to serve the proposed uses. Based on available information, anticipated initial approvals required from the City to implement the proposed project may include, but are not limited to, adoption of the proposed IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment; approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from "Open Space" to "Mixed Use"; and; approval of a Zoning Amendment to update text related to the Mixed Use zone. Approval of Parcel Maps(s) and a Development Agreement may also be considered. Potential Environmental Effects: The attached Initial Study indicates that there may be significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this project, for the following topical areas: Aesthetics and Visual, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, and' Utilities and Service Systems. These topics will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the EIR will also describe and evaluate project alternatives that may reduce or avoid any identified significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. Responding to this Notice: Pursuant to Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties, including members of the public, must submit any comments in response to this notice no later than 30 days after receipt. Comments and suggestions should, at a minimum, (1) identify the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures that should be explored in the EIR; (2) whether the responding agency will be a responsible or trustee agency for the proposed project; and (3) any related issues raised by organizations and/or interested parties other than potential responsible or trustee agencies, including interested or affected members of the public. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. The NOP and accompanying Initial Study are available for a 30-day public review period beginning April 27, 2015 and ending May 26, 2015, but the scoping meeting will occur on June 10, 2015 and your response will be accepted up until that date. Copies of the document are available for review at the following locations: Public Information and Services Counter City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (909)477-2700 Archibald Library 7368 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2720 Biane Library 12505 Cultural Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 477-2720 Item P —535 And can be accessed online at http://www.citvofrc.us/citvhall/planning/current projects/default.as in the folder titled "Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project". All comments and responses to this notice should be submitted in writing to Mr. Michael Smith, Associate Planner, at the address noted above. The City will also accept responses to this notice submitted via email received through the close of business on May 26, 2015. Email responses to this notice may be sent to Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us. For additional information or any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Michael Smith at (909) 477-2750 ext. 4317 or at the aforementioned email. Notice of Scoping Meeting: The proposed project is considered a project of statewide, regional, or area -wide significance. A scoping meeting will be held by the.City at the Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2015 at 7:00 PM at the Rancho Cucamonity Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. ��'��f��f//////������ Date Signature Item P -536 E,� o C�t�s Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor April 28, 2015 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit To: Reviewing Agencies Mop S djq�E OF cnLiFOF�`4 Ken Alex Director Notice of Preparation CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAY 0 7 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING Re: Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment SCHn 2015041083 Attached for your review and comment is the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Responsible agencies must transmit their comments on the scope and content of the NOP, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of the NOP from the Lead Agency. This is a courtesy notice provided by the State Clearinghouse with a reminder for you to comment in a timely manner. We encourage other agencies to also respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments to: Michael Smith City of Rancho Cucamonga 105000 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 with a copy to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer to the SCH number noted above in all correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the environmental document review process, please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613. Sincere Scott Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse Attachments cc: Lead Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SaCFLA ENTO. C.UHORNL4 95812-3044 TEL (916) 443-0613 FtLX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov EXHIBIT B Item P —537 Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2015041083 Project Title Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Lead Agency Rancho Cucamonga, City of Type NOP Notice of Preparation Description The proposed project involves an amendment to the ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development on the existing Empire Lakes Golf Course property (new Planning Area 1), which is adjacent to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station. The amendment would allow residential development within the new PA1 to range from a minimum of 2,500 units to a maximum of up to 4,000 units, along with a maximum of 220,000 sf of non-residential uses. Multi -modal transportation, parking and recreational facilities and infrastructure to serve the proposed development would be provided. Lead Agency Contact Name Michael Smith Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga Phone (909)477-2750 x4317 Fax email Address 105000 Civic Center Drive City Rancho Cucamonga State CA Zip 91730 Project Location County San Bernardino City Rancho Cucamonga Region Cross Streets 4th Street and 6th Street with Cleveland Avenue Iat/Long 34' 5' 2.01" N / 117' 33' S1.8" W Parcel No. 209-272-20&210-082-41, 49, and -52 Township 1S Range 7W Section 13 Base SBB&M Proximity to: Highways 1-15, 1-10 Airports Ontario Railways Metrolink Rail Line Waterways Schools Ontario Center Land Use Golf Course/Empire Lakes Specific Plan/Open Space Project Issues AestheticNisual; Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Landuse Reviewing Resources Agency; Cal Fire; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; Agencies Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6; Department of Housing and Community Development; Office of Emergency Services, California; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Date Received 04/2812015 Start of Review 04/28/2015 End of Review 05/27/2015 Item P —538 NOP Distribl in List esources Agency ® Resources Agency Nadell Gayou ❑ Dept. of Boating & Waterways Nicole Wong ❑ California Coastal Commission Elizabeth A. Fuchs ❑ Colorado River Board Lisa Johansen ❑ Dept. of Conservation Elizabeth Carpenter ❑ California Energy Commission Eric Knight ® Cal Fire Dan Foster n Central Valley Flood Protection Board James Herola Office of Historic Preservation w Ron Parsons 10 _, .t of Parks & Recreation Environmental Stewardship Section ❑ California Department of Resources, Recycling & Recovery Sue O'Leary ❑ S.F. Bay Conservation & Dev't. Comm. Steve McAdam ® Dept. of Water Resources Resources Agency Nadell Gayou Fish and Game ❑ Depart, of Fish & Wildlife Scott Flint Environmental Services Division ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 1 Donald Koch ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region I Laurie Harnsberger ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 2 Jeff Drongesen ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 3 Charles Armor ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 4 Julie Vance ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 5 Leslie Newton -Reed Habitat Conservation Program ® Fish & Wildlife Region 6 Tiffany Ellis Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Fish & Wildlife Region 6 I/M Heidi Sickler Inyo/Mono, Habitat Conservation Program ❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife M George Isaac Marine Region Other Departments ❑ Food & Agriculture Sandra Schubert Dept. of Food and Agriculture ❑ Depart. of General Services Public School Construction ❑ Dept. of General Services Anna Garbeff Environmental Services Section ❑ Delta Stewardship Council KevanSamsam ® Housing & Comm. Dev. CEQA Coordinator Housing Policy Division Independent Commissions Boards ❑ Delta Protection Commission Michael Machado ICounty: SGl„ r lk rV1a(' V1 W51 DES (Office of Emergency IN Caltrans, District 8 Services) Mark Roberts Dennis Caslrillo ❑ Caltrans, District 9 Native American Heritage Comm. Debbie Treadway WIfJ Public Utilities Commission Leo Wong ❑ Santa Monica Bay Restoration Guangyu Wang ❑ State Lands Commission Jennifer Deleong ❑ Tahoe Regional Planning Agency(TRPA) Cherry Jacques Cal State Transportation Agency CalSTA 1y811 Caltrans - Division of Aeronautics Philip Crimmins ❑ Caltrans—Planning HQ LD-IGR Terri Pencovic I111 California Highway Patrol Suzann Ikeuchi Office of Special Projects Dept. of Transoortation ❑ Caltrans, District 1 Rex Jackman ❑ Caltrans, District 2 Marcelino Gonzalez ❑ Caltrans, District 3 Eric Federicks — South Susan Zanchi - North ❑ Caltrans, District 4 Erik Alm ❑ Caltrans, District 5 Larry Newland ❑ Caltrans, District 6 Michael Navarro ❑ Caltrans, District 7 Dianna Watson Gayle Rosander ❑ Caltrans, District 10 Tom Dumas ❑ Caltrans, District 11 Jacob Armstrong ❑ Caltrans, District 12 Maureen El Harake Cal EPA SCH# 2015 0 0 8 3 Air Resources Board All Other Projects Calhi Slaminski ❑ Transportation Projects Nesamani Kalandiyur ndustrial/Energy Projects Mike Tollslrup ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Regional Programs Unit Division of Financial Assistance ❑ Stale Water Resources Control Board Jeffery Werth Division of Drinking Water ❑ State Water Resources Control Board Student Intern, 401 Water Quality Certification Unit Division of Water Quality ❑ State Water Resouces Control Board Phil Crader � Division of Water Rights fJt'dll Dept. of Toxic Substances Control CEQA Tracking Center ❑ Department of Pesticide Regulation CEQA Coordinator Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ❑ RWQCB 1 Cathleen Hudson North Coast Region (1) ❑ RWQCB2 Environmental Document Coordinator San Francisco Bay Region (2) ❑ RWQCB 3 Central Coast Region (3) ❑ RWQCB4 Teresa Rodgers Los Angeles Region (4) ❑ RWQCB 5S Central Valley Region (5) ❑ RWQCB5F Central Valley Region (5) Fresno Branch Office ❑ RWQCB 5R Central Valley Region (5) Redding Branch Office ❑ RWQCB6 Lahonlan Region (6) ❑ RWQCB 6V Lahonlan Region (6) Viclorville Branch Office ❑ RWQCB7 Colorado River Basin Region (7) M RWQCB8 Santa Ana Region (8) ❑ RWQCB9 San Diego Region (9) ❑ Other Conservancy Last Updated 10113/2014 Initial Study Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Lead Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 April 2015 EXHIBITC Item P-540 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Proiect TABLE OF CONTENTS Section page Section1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope................................................................................1-1 1.2 Findings of this Initial Study....................................................................1-1 1.3 Contact Person.......................................................................................1-2 Section 2.0 Project Description..........................................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Site Location and Setting............................................................2-1 2.2 Project Background................................................................................2-1 2.3 Project Description..................................................................................2-2 2.4 Anticipated Discretionary Approvals.......................................................2-3 2.5 Documents Incorporated by Reference..................................................2-4 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED...................................................2-5 DETERMINATION.....................................................................................................................2-5 Section3.0 Initial Study.......................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Environmental Checklist Form................................................................3-1 1. Aesthetics...............................................................................................3-3 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources.......................................................3-4 3. Air Quality...............................................................................................3-6 4. Biological Resources..............................................................................3-8 5. Cultural Resources...............................................................................3-11 6. Geology and Soils.................................................................................3-14 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................3-17 8. Hazards/Hazardous Materials..............................................................3-18 9. Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................3-21 10. Land Use and Planning........................................................................3-24 11. Mineral Resources................................................................................3-26 12. Noise....................................................................................................3-27 13. Population and Housing........................................................................3-29 14. Public Services ................. .................................................................... 3-30 15. Recreation............................................................................................3-31 16. Transportation/Traffic............................................................................3-32 17. Utilities and Service Systems...............................................................3-34 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance......................................................3-36 Section4.0 References........................................................................................................4-1 I Initial Study Item P -541 EXHIBITS Exhibit Regional and Local Vicinity .............................. Planning Area 1................................................ Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype... APPENDICES Appendix A Geotechnical Investigation B Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Follows Page .......................2-1 .......................2-1 .......................2-2 Initial Study Item P —542 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.) and the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared for the proposed project, which includes an amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 (also referred to as Empire Lakes) Specific Plan (Specific Plan Amendment), and associated applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment, and parcel map(s), as further described in Section 2.4, Anticipated Discretionary Approvals, of this IS. Information in this IS has been used to determine whether implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant environmental impacts that would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This IS has evaluated each of the issue areas contained in the checklist provided in Section 3.0 of this document. If an IS prepared for a proposed project determines that no significant effects on the environment would occur or that potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of specified mitigation measures, the Lead Agency can prepare a Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations, Sections 15070-15075). An ND or MND is a statement by the Lead Agency attesting that a project would produce less than significant impacts or that potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation. If an IS prepared for a proposed project determines it may produce significant effects on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. This further environmental review is required to address the potentially significant environmental effects of the project and to provide mitigation where necessary and feasible. Based on the results of this IS, preparation of an EIR is required. As further discussed in Section 2.2, Project Background, the proposed project site is within the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area. The IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga July 1994. The environmental impacts resulting from implementation of allowed development under the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan have been evaluated in the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Specific Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055) certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in July 1994. Two Addenda were subsequently prepared in February 2001 and July 2003 to address amendments to the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to allow multi -family residential within the Specific Plan area. Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and certified the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (2010 General Plan Update EIR) on May 19, 2010. These documents are incorporated by reference (refer to Section 2.4 of this IS). Pursuant to Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Lead Agency for the project. The Lead Agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, as Lead Agency, has the authority for project approval and certification of the accompanying environmental documentation. 1.2 FINDINGS OF THIS INITIAL STUDY This IS is based on an Environmental Checklist Form (Form), as suggested in Section 15063(d)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Form is found in Section 3.1 of this Initial Study. It contains a Initial Item P —543 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project series of questions about the proposed project for each of the listed environmental topics. The Form is used to evaluate whether or not there are any potentially significant environmental effects associated with implementation of the proposed project. The explanation for each answer is included in Section 3.1. The Form is used to review the potential environmental effects of the proposed project for each of the following areas: • Aesthetics • Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems • Mandatory Findings of Significance As identified through the analysis presented in this IS, the proposed project would have no impacts or less than significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, and mineral resources. Further analysis for the following environmental topics is required in the forthcoming Draft EIR due to the potential for significant impacts: • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality 1.3 CONTACT PERSON • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities and Service Systems The Lead Agency for the proposed project is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Any questions about the preparation of the IS, its assumptions, or its conclusions should be referred to the following: Mr. Michael Smith, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2750, ext. 4317 Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us 1-2 Initial Study Item P —544 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project SECTION 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND SETTING The project site is located north of 41h Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 81h Street and the Metrolink rail line in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's southern boundary with the City of Ontario is formed by 41h Street. Exhibit 1 depicts the regional location and local vicinity of the project site. The approximately 160.4-acre project site is located within the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area and consolidates IASP Sub -Area 18 Planning Areas 1A, 1B and a portion of Planning Area III and Planning Area IV in a single Planning Area 1 (PA1) (refer to Exhibit 2). The project site is zoned as IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan (SP-EL). The project site is designated in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan as Open Space and in the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan as Golf Course. As shown on Exhibit 1, the project site is currently developed with the 18-hole Empire Lakes Golf Course, which is bisected by 6'h Street. South of 6'h Street, development on the project site includes a portion of the public golf course, a clubhouse, a driving range, and a parking lot. North of 61h Street, development includes a portion of the golf course and a maintenance facility that serves the golf course. Utility infrastructure consisting primarily of water lines is located throughout the project site, and an east -west trending Metropolitan Water District water transmission line traverses the north portion of the property. The elevations on site range from 1,030 above mean sea level (msl) to 1,120 feet above msl with local drainage directed to the south through the use of fairways with berms and/or flow paths along their margins. Soils on and adjacent to the project site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand and Delhi Fine Sand. Non-structural fill soils up to eight feet in thickness cover the project site. As further discussed in the Biological Resources section of this Initial Study, ornamental landscaping, rude ra[/disturbed vegetation, and artificial ponds occur within the golf course. Wildlife adapted to a high degree of human presence and development is present on the project site and primarily includes avian species. No natural plant communities exist on or near the project site, and there is no suitable habitat to support the Delhi Sands flower -loving fly or any other special status plant or wildlife species. No drainage features or isolated wetland features were observed that would be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station is immediately adjacent to and east of the northern portion of the project site. Other surrounding development is characterized by residential apartment communities to the east; industrial and office uses to the west, north, and northeast; and vacant land and commercial/retail uses in the City of Ontario to the south (including the Ontario Mills shopping center to the southeast). It should also be noted that the project site is located within the LA/Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Area of Influence (refer to the discussion provided in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this Initial Study). 2.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the IASP in August 1981. The IASP included approximately 5,000 acres and was divided into 3 zones and 19 subareas. Each subarea represented specific land use characteristics and development constraints. The IASP established specific standards and guidelines for future development of the City's industrial base. 2-1 Initial Study Item P —545 zooCUCa Ra +x 10 t I ft{. Project Locath Yorba Linda Cal Ar as ol e �t 5 Y ...Y fir'-t �" t. O-s EF - •�!T P...- .-F.w R. �•nr rF� rt ..$'.�Y ,� it { xi3al ��d¢�.'. r rsFe Z60 v : MOW aei: yl awv w aaw ..WCd e r =;i .>,r. !�:,��:,■■�' �� : ice` No v Rar ry ` � u f ti if fA` { lI� am p t1.'l • 1 ` 1 p Nit' -a a. lima Z� J am ova I R1I 4p/.6 WN Metro L "$cation II sixth street Planning Atea U 28 ac. Plannirt Ar= 3 Y i 16 ac Planning Area V 29 ac PI -Angling Area X1 1 A ac. EM Planning Area 1 IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment !pea V1 28 ac. 1.10 Planning \Area Y -2�aC.. jr Planning Area JX 19 ac. Plactrting Area V1il 21 ac. �I I• 1,� � � v r 13 d �.!"�' Plaanniny. p I area V1in �+1 i _._ Fourth Strect r Source: William Hezmalhaich Amhltect5. Inc. 2011 Exhibit 2 $ova PSOMAS 112114 JA7.,R'Prolech L.EW 3LEWNC300 Grapmcs IS'ex2 Par- 0:-- Item P -547 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project In June 1994, the City Council adopted the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. This Specific Plan amended the IASP to create a new planning Sub -Area, referred to as Sub -Area 18. The purpose of the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is to provide for a broader mix of land uses than was originally permitted within the 1981 IASP. The Specific Plan was expanded to include such uses as recreational, hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant, and entertainment, as well as office, research and development, and light industrial uses. These uses were intended to surround and complement the then proposed 18-hole Empire Lakes Golf Course, which ultimately was constructed in 1995-1996. Subsequent to 1994, the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan has been amended. In November 2000, the City approved an amendment to the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in the mixed use Planning Area IX. In May 2001, the Council approved an amendment to permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in Planning Area VI. In September 2002, the Council approved an amendment to permit market rate senior housing in Planning Area VII as an additionally permitted use. In June 2003, the Council approved an amendment to the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to also permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in Mixed -Use Planning Area VII. In 2012, Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was amended by Ordinance No. 854. This amendment added language to the Specific Plan to address and require consistency with the LA/Ontario International Land Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP). Building height limits consistent with the LUCP were required for future development, as added into Section 5.3.2 of the Specific Plan. 2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves an amendment to the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development on the existing Empire Lakes Golf Course property (new PA1). All maps, development standards, and guidelines related to PA1 are provided in a proposed new section of the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan (Section 7). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment sets forth the Community Vision, Urban Design Standards, Architectural Guidelines, and Landscape Design for PA1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment establishes the comprehensive development plan for PA1 to ensure cohesive development with adequate infrastructure, open space, parks, and public facilities. It also serves as a tool for implementing the preferred development strategies within PA1 including high -density and medium -high density residential, mixed use, open space, and transit -oriented land uses all within close proximity to transit services and local regional activity centers. The conceptual development plan for PA1 is provided in Exhibit 3. The conceptual development plan strategically locates a range of Placetypes' to encourage variety within the built environment. Six proposed Placetype designations have been established within PA1 consistent with the guiding principles to create a vibrant built environment that integrates residential and destination services in a mixed use community. The Placetype designations are: Transit, Mixed Use, Urban Neighborhood, Core Living, Village Neighborhood, and Recreation. The proposed residential density range that would be allowed within PA1 for each Placetype is identified on Exhibit 3. The actual number of dwelling units to be developed in each area would be determined during future entitlements processes; however, it is expected that the number of residential dwelling units within PA1 would range from a minimum of 2,500 units to a maximum of up to 4,000 units. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also allow for a maximum of 220,000 square feet (sf) of non- Placetypes integrate development principles, built form guidelines, and design criteria to create holistic people - centric places instead of using traditional land use -centric regulations. 2-2 Initial Study Item P —548 Metrolink Red Line - Pocket ParkJRt� Trgn it Metrolin N 2k Station N-I UN.,. N-11 CL MU ••. I'n.0 3h eat �{JH[ f N-4 �,� 1 The Vine Cl- y N 5 N 10` UN MU IN CL. N-12 REC N-9 Cl s1> The Vine L ; � m a N-7 N-8 m VN C VN t eft•. North 5Gn Sweet : 7 -_ S-13 5-22 1 5-21 5-20 South CL REC REC CL- Pocket; Park 5-19 VN 14A itr gilF The Vine S-16 VN 8 — ;,:. vlocecy_ Tro,r (TI 1,1,ed Jse (M'J) (VN MU I j�,':. .,rbon Neighborhood IUN) Core Living (CUVillage Neighborhood (VNIRecreation (REC) �_ 4th Screec Source: William Hezmalhakh Architects. Inc 2015 Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Exhibit 3� IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment rw ' PSOMAS 112114JAZ`R. Pmoji LEW3LEW0003e0 Graphs ISa3 Coil �e:T)a =Pia^B,Pi -- Item P -549 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project residential uses. Recreation/open space areas and infrastructure to serve the proposed uses would also be provided. Development within PA1 would comply with all Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines. The maximum building height in the northern portion of PA1 (north of 61h Street) would be 70-feet and the maximum building height in the southern portion of PA1 would be 60-feet. Within the Placetypes, transitional spaces and pathways would connect enclaves and promote pedestrian circulation. A Mixed Use Overlay designation would allow for flexible development at key locations. The Mixed Use Overlay represents locations where commercial or mixed use, horizontal or vertical, development could be located, based on market conditions, to converge with primarily residential neighborhoods in unique configurations. To maintain flexibility for responding to changing community needs and market conditions over the build -out, parcels may be converted from one Placetype to another (density transfer). Where density transfers between parcels and Placetype conversions occur, in no case would development exceed the maximum development potential established in the Specific Plan. The proposed circulation concept emphasizes connectivity (vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle) emanating from the Metrolink station and major circulation corridors. Primary vehicular access to PA1 is provided from 7th Street, 6th Street, and 41h Street. Internal circulation would be provided via a network of public and/or private residential collector roadways and local streets designed with on -street parking, street frontages and shaded pedestrian links and open spaces. A continuous connection from 4th Street to the Metrolink Station, via the proposed "Parkway", the undercrossing at 61h Street, and the open space feature along the Parkway (referred to as the "Vine") allows seamless pedestrian and bicycle connections without crossing a major road. Sustainability is an integral design feature of PA1 with intensification of urban infill development adjacent to a transit station, resulting in reduced vehicle miles traveled. Other sustainable features which would be implemented as part of the project include, but are not limited to, use of recycled water for landscaping, storm water management, and energy efficiency. The proposed project would also include the installation of on -site storm drain, water quality, water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure systems to serve the proposed land uses. The on -site utility infrastructure would connect to existing utilities in the vicinity of the project site or new utility lines that would be installed in the roadways adjacent to the project site. It is expected that construction of the proposed project would be initiated in 2016. The project would be phased based on market demands, but it is expected that development would be complete by 2024. Construction activities would be initiated in the area south of 6th Street followed by the area north of 6th Street. The northern and southern areas would be graded separately; however, there may be overlap in the timing of building construction. 2.4 ANTICIPATED DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS The City of Rancho Cucamonga, as the Lead Agency, is responsible for preparing the EIR and will review and consider the EIR in its decision -making process. The EIR will serve as the primary environmental document for all future entitlements associated with implementing the proposed project, including all discretionary approvals requested or required to implement the project. Initial actions to be considered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the proposed project may include, but not be limited to: • Certification of the EIR with the determination that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. • Adoption of the proposed IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment. 2-3 initial Item P —550 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from "Open Space' to "Mixed Use". • Approval of a Zoning Amendment to update text related to the Mixed Use zone; includes text revisions to Section 17.36.020, Table 17.36.020-1 and Section 17.114.020. It should be noted that approval of Parcel Maps(s), and a Development Agreement executed between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the project applicant may also be considered. Subsequent approvals (which would require separate processing through the City of Rancho Cucamonga) would include, but may not be limited to demolition permits, grading permits, building permits, street and storm drain improvement plans, and encroachment permits. Approvals and permits that may be required by other agencies include: • Cucamonga Valley Water District. Approval of water and sewer improvement plans. • Metropolitan Water District. Encroachment and right-of-way permits for the transmission main that traverses east -west through the northern portion of the project site. • City of Ontario. Master Plan of Storm Drains, Fourth Street Storm Drain Hydraulics Study, and Street Improvement Plans for 4t" Street. 2.5 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE The following reports and/or studies are applicable to development of the project site and are hereby incorporated by reference. • Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2000061027) certified May 2010. • Rancho Cucamonga General Plan adopted May 19, 2010 (Housing Chapter adopted November 3, 2010) • /ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan approved in 1994 (revised through 2012). • Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055) approved in July 1994. These reports/studies are available for review at: Public Information and Services Counter City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (909) 477-2700 Hours: Monday —Thursday: 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. 2-4 Initial Study Item P —551 Rancho Cucamonga /ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: ® Aesthetic/Visual ® Biological Resources ❑ Agricultural Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Greenhouse Gas Emissions ® Hazards & Hazardous Materials ® Land Use/Planning ® Population/Housing ® Transportation/Traffic DETERMINATION ❑ Mineral Resources ® Public Services ® Utilities/Service Systems ® Air Quality ® Geology/Soils ® Hydrology/Water Quality ® Recreation ® Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION would be prepared. ® I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuan t that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation mea u that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. , % WZr f 5- Signature of Lead Agency Representative Date AK 9M 1114 O Y T f�XCuo C[ k Printed name Agency Initial Study Item P —552 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project This page intentionally left blank 2-6 Item P —553 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 SECTION 3.0 INITIAL STUDY 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This section contains the Environmental Checklist Form (Form) for the proposed project. The Form is marked with findings as to the environmental effects of the project. An "X" in column 1 requires preparation of additional environmental analysis in the form of an EIR. This analysis has been undertaken, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, to provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the factual basis for determining, based on the information available, the form of environmental documentation the project warrants. The basis for each of the findings listed in the attached Form is explained in the Explanation of Checklist Responses following the checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title Rancho Cucamonga [ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Lead Agency Name and City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive Address Rancho Cucamonga, California, 91730 Contact Person and Mr. Michael Smith Phone Number (909) 477-2750, ext. 4317 Project Location The project site is currently occupied by the Empire Lakes Golf Course and is located between 41h Street and 81h Street, west of Milliken Avenue and east of Cleveland Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County. Project Sponsor's Name SC Rancho Development Corp., 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, and Address California, 91786 General Plan Open Space Designation Zoning ]ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan (SP-EL) Description of Project The proposed project involves an amendment to the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development on the existing Empire Lakes Golf Course property (new PA1). The proposed Specific Plan Amendmentwould allow for high density, and medium -high density residential, mixed use, open space, and transit -oriented land uses all within close proximity to transit services and local regional activity centers. The number of residential dwelling units within PA1 would range from a minimum of 2,500 units to a maximum of up to 4,000 units. Additionally, a maximum of 220,000 square feet (sf) of non-residential uses would be allowed within the Specific Plan area. Vehicular and non -vehicular circulation would be provided within PA1. Utility infrastructure would be installed, as necessary to serve the proposed uses. 3-1 Initial Study Item P —554 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Boundary General Plan/Zoning Designation Existing Land Use Northern Heavy Industrial/Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (MINI) Railroad and Industrial Eastern Mixed Use/IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan (SP-EL) Residential, Office, and Transit Mixed Use, General Industrial/ Western IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Office and Industrial Plan (SP-EL) City of Ontario Southern Mixed Use (Ontario Undeveloped Center)/SP (Specific Plan) Other public agencies whose approval is • Cucamonga Valley Water District. Approval of water and sewer improvement plans. required • Metropolitan Water District. Encroachment and right-of-way permits for the transmission main that traverses east -west through the northern portion of the project site. • City of Ontario. Approval of Master Plan of Storm Drains, Fourth Street Storm Drain Hydraulics Study, and street improvement plans for 41" Street. Initial Study Item P —555 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 1. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: 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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ® El El El of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ® ❑ El El adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Explanation of Checklist Answers la. Less Than Significant Impact. As identified in the 2010 General Plan Update EIR, The City sits 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 the project site and provide a scenic backdrop for the area. According to Figure LU-6 of the Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, a portion of 6th Street is designated as a view corridor intended to preserve views of the San Gabriel Mountains. The City recognizes other scenic resources, including remaining stands of eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards and orchards, and natural vegetation in flood -control channels and utility corridors; however, none of these resources occur on the project site. The Draft EIR will evaluate the project to determine if it would have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. 1b. No Impact. According to the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no State scenic highways or highways eligible for Scenic highway designation in or near the City (Caltrans 2011). Further, the project site is not visible from any designated scenic highways. Thus, no impacts on State scenic highways would occur. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 1c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment would allow for redevelopment of the project site as a mixed -use development. The visual character of the project site, which currently exists as an 18-hole golf course with related amenities, would be altered. The Draft EIR will evaluate the project to determine if the proposed mixed -use development would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings and result in significant environmental impacts. 1d. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is currently subject to nighttime lighting associated with security lighting from the existing golf course development as well as surrounding residential, office, and industrial uses; light standards along surrounding roadways; and light from motor vehicles traveling along these roadways. The proposed project would introduce additional new lighting sources associated with the proposed development. The potential for the project to result in light and glare impacts will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-3 Initial Study Item P —556 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Less Than 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Potentially Significant Less Than RESOURCES Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ El 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 El ❑ to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion ❑ El Elof Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Explanation of Checklist Answers 2a. No Impact. Based on review of the 2010 Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP 2010), the project site is designated as Urban and Built -Up Land. Adjacent areas are designated Urban and Built -Up Land or Other Land. These categories are not considered "Farmland" under CEQA. Further, there are no on -going farmland or agricultural operations on the project site or immediately adjacent areas. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either directly and indirectly. No impact would occur related to this issue and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 2b. No Impact. As identified in the City's General Plan, there are no agricultural zones identified by the City for the project site or any of the surrounding properties. The project site's zoning designation is Empire Lakes Specific Plan (SP-EL), which implements the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, with an underlying General Plan land use designation of "Open Space". Neither the General Plan nor the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan envision future use of the project site as agricultural lands. Because the project site and surrounding areas are not zoned for agricultural uses, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. Also, the project site is not covered under a Williamson Act Contract; therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with any Williamson Act Contract. No impacts related to this issue would occur with implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-4 Initial Study Item P —557 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 2c-2d. No Impact. As identified in the 2010 General Plan Update EIR, there are no existing forest lands, nor is there zoning for forest lands or timberland in the City, including the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing forest zoning; cause rezoning of forest land; or result in the loss or conversion of forest lands to non -forest uses. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue would occur and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 2e. No Impact. Due to the lack of existing farmland, forest lands, or areas zoned for agriculture, or timberlands on the project site or in the immediately surrounding areas, development of the project site would not involve 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. The nearest designated farmland and active agricultural operations is located approximately 0.25 mile west of the project site. Components of the project, including construction and operation, would be limited to the project site and would not impact existing off -site agricultural operations. No impact would occur and no further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-5 Initial Study Item P —558 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 3. AIR QUALITY Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially ® El ❑ to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air ® ❑ ❑ ❑ quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ® El Cl ❑ concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ® Cl Exolanation of Checklist Answers 3a. Potentially Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) in which the project site is located. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). The SCAQMD's current AQMP (adopted in December 2012) is based on the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) population projections that are based on City and County General Plan land use designations. The two principal criteria for conformance to an AQMP are (1) whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards and (2) whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. The project was not assumed in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan; therefore the project has the potential to obstruct implementation of the AQMP. This issue will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3b. Potentially Significant Impact. A project may have a significant impact where project -related emissions would exceed federal, State, or regional standards or thresholds, or where project -related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. During the construction period, air pollutants would be emitted by off -road and on -road construction equipment and worker vehicles, and fugitive dust would be generated during earth moving and grading on site. During operation, air pollutants would be emitted by area and mobile sources. The potential for the proposed project to violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially 3-6 Initial Study Item P —559 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project to an existing or projected air quality violation will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3c. Potentially Significant Impact. The SoCAB is currently a nonattainment area for ozone (03), respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10), and fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). The proposed project and cumulative development, including development associated with buildout of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, may result in a potential cumulatively significant increase in 03 precursor, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions during construction and/or operation. This issue will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3d. Potentially Significant Impact. As previously discussed in Section 2.1, Project Location, the project site is located adjacent to residential land uses, which are considered to be sensitive receptors. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project have the potential to emit pollutants in concentrations that are potentially significant to sensitive receptors. Additionally, proposed residential uses would be located in proximity to industrial uses to the north and west of the project site. The type of industrial use and distance from the project site may pose a potential health risk to sensitive receptors from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions or other pollutants. This issue will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3e. Less Than Significant Impact. Odors would be emitted during construction and operation of the proposed project. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would have the potential to use equipment and perform activities that would generate odors. Potential construction odors include diesel equipment exhaust, roofing, painting, and paving. These odors would be temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. Therefore, the impacts would be short-term, would not affect a substantial number of people, and would be less than significant. During operation of the proposed project, some odors associated with residential uses would be expected to occur, such as from cooking and gardening. Similarly, common odors associated with mixed -use and commercial land uses would be expected to occur, such as from restaurants. However, these types of odors are not generally considered objectionable. Potential odors from the project site would be no different than in surroundings development and would not be considered significant. Furthermore, according to the SCAQMD's 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 (SCAQMD 1993). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not allow any such SCAQMD-identified uses; therefore, it would not produce objectionable odors. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the generation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and there would be a less than significant impact. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-7 Item P —560 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or ® El El El plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ® El❑ El 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? Explanation of Checklist Answers The information presented in this section is based on the Draft Habitat Assessment for the Empire Lakes Golf Course Project Located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (Habitat Assessment) prepared by RBF Consulting in September 2014 (RBF 2014). The following vegetation types and other areas occur in the survey area: landscaped, ruderalldisturbed, artificial ponds, and developed. Landscaped areas comprise a majority of the project site and include areas that are routinely maintained such as golf course fairways, greens, a driving range, and ornamental landscaping. Ruderal(disturbed areas occur along the margins between the fairways and greens. These areas are composed of compacted soils with early successional and non-native plant species. Four artificial ponds are located on the project site. The ponds were constructed in conjunction with the Empire Lakes Golf Course and are routinely maintained. The ponds do not contain any hydrophytic vegetation. Developed areas on the project site consist of parking lots, maintenance roads, golf cart paths, and structures associated with the Empire Lakes Golf Course (i.e., a clubhouse, restrooms, and maintenance buildings). Native plant communities no longer occur on the project site. 3-8 Initial Study Item P —561 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project The majority of the wildlife observed during the habitat assessment consisted of avian species. Mammalian sign and species observed during the survey. Based on the habitats present, the project site is not expected to support an extensive variety of reptilian species. No fish or amphibians were observed during the habitat assessment; however, non-native/exotic fish species could occur within the artificial ponds as introduced species. The artificial ponds have the potential to support a limited number of amphibian species. Sensitive amphibian species are not expected to occur within the artificial ponds due to the lack of native vegetation; continual on -site disturbances and surrounding development; and isolation from a natural waterways that support native amphibian populations. As further discussed under Threshold 4a below, the project site does not include habitat to support sensitive plant or wildlife species. 4a. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the draft Habitat Assessment, 8 sensitive plant species and 11 sensitive wildlife species are known to occur in the project area. Under existing conditions, the project site and surrounding properties do not support native plant communities, nor do they provide suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species. The majority of the project site has been developed and/or has been heavily disturbed by existing development and no longer supports native soils or naturally occurring habitats. No California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) sensitive habitats were identified as occurring within the project area. Based on habitat requirements for specific species and availability and quality of habitats needed by each sensitive plant or wildlife species, the project site does not provide suitable habitat that would support any of these special status plant or wildlife species. While it not expected that the project would result in significant to special status plant or wildlife species, this issue will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 4b-4c. Potentially Significant Impact. During the habitat assessment, no drainage features or isolated wetland features were observed within the project site that would be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW. As discussed previously, four artificial ponds are located on the project site. The ponds do not occur in a natural drainage course and have no upstream or downstream connectivity to jurisdictional waters. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would result in impacts to USAGE, RWQCB, or CDFW jurisdictional areas, or impact riparian habitat or wetlands. 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. While it not expected that the project would result in a significant impact to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, this issue will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 4d. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site does not provide any connectivity between natural open space areas. Additionally, and as noted in the 2010 General Plan Update EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, does not contain known native wildlife nursery sites. On -site development and surrounding land uses have removed the natural plant communities that once occurred on and in the vicinity of the project site. As a result, the project site does not possess or provide a corridor that would facilitate the moment of wildlife throughout the area. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would disrupt or have any adverse effects to migratory corridors or linkages that may occur in the general vicinity of the project site. However, this issue will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. Initial Study Item P —562 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Proiect 4e. Potentially Significant Impact. Chapter 17.80, Tree Preservation, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, provides for the protection and expansion of eucalyptus windrows in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Section 17.16.080, Tree Removal Permit, of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code outlines the review process and requirements for the removal of heritage trees that are considered to be a community resource. There are heritage trees, as defined in the City's Development Code, on the project site. Although impacts associated with tree removal are expected to be less than significant with adherence to City's requirements, potential impacts will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 4f. No Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, and specifically the project site, is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan; Natural Communities Conservation Plan; or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No impact would occur. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. Item P —563 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Less Than 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of El El Cl 0 a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ED El El El an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Explanation of Checklist Answers 5a. No Impact. On February 11, 2015, BonTerra Psomas staff conducted a records search/literature review at the Archaeological Information Center (AIC) at the San Bernardino County Museum in San Bernardino County, California. The AIC maintains a large collection of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, site records, and technical studies pertaining to cultural resources in San Bernardino County. The AIC is the designated branch of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), which is the primary source for obtaining and reviewing records and literature regarding cultural resources for a specific project. Additional resources available at the AIC include Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, USGS 15-minute historic plat maps, and the Historic Property Data File (HPDF) maintained by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The HPDF contains listings for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and/or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. For projects located on federal lands, various federal agencies maintain records in addition to those at the CHRIS locations. The AIC provided a USGS Guasti 7.5-minute quadrangle with accompanying overlays that depict the locations of recorded historic properties and recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites. Another set of overlays depict the location and boundaries for cultural resource technical studies. Following a review of the AIC topographic maps and overlays, it was determined that there are no historic properties recorded on the project site and that only four are within its one -mile radius. The first is the Burlington Northern and Santa Fee (BNSF) Railway, now a part of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) that runs east -west along the north side of 8'h Avenue. Three historic residences are recorded at the intersection of 8th Street and Haven Avenue. None of these resources are in the project site. Also, the review indicates that there have been 17 cultural resource studies conducted within a 1-mile radius of the project area, but only 2 included some portion of the project site; a third project was immediately adjacent to the project site within or next to paved roads abutting the site. Those three projects consisted of an architectural survey report (White 1994) for a Metrolink project in Rancho Cucamonga. That project appears to 3-11 Initial Study Item P —564 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project have included a very small portion of the proposed project site. The second was a very small survey for a communications project (Wlodarski 2010), not located in the project site. The third project, which may have included a portion of the Empire Lakes project site, was an archaeological survey conducted in 2004 by Hogan and Tang. The focus of the survey was at least two sections of water pipe: one along Milliken Avenue on the southeast corner of Section 13 and the other along Cleveland Avenue on the northwest boundary of the project. None of these projects resulted in the recordation of any historic properties on or adjacent to the project site. According to the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, the project site has historically been used as a vineyard prior to development of the Empire Lakes Golf Course. The project site is currently fully developed with uses related to the golf course. The south portion of the Empire Lakes Golf Course consists of seven golf holes with three ponds, practice facilities, and clubhouse/restaurant/cart barn building. The north portion of the Empire Lakes Golf Course consists of eleven golf holes a pond and the maintenance facility. The maintenance facility consists of three buildings. The golf course and associated uses were constructed in 1995-1996. The California Office of Historic Preservation recommends recording resources that are at least 45 years old and formally evaluating those that have reached 50 years of age; therefore, the on -site structures, which are 20 years old or less, would not warrant recordation or evaluation. Figure LU-8, Historic Resources, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's does not identify historic resources on the project site; however, consistent with the literature search, the BNSF railway is identified as a Historic Transportation Route north of the project site. No historical resources are present or would be impacted by project implementation. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 5b. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the project site and surrounding area have historically been used as a vineyard; however, the project site and surrounding areas were previously disturbed during grading and construction activities associated with development of the Empire Lakes Golf Course and adjacent uses. Construction activities for the proposed project would involve grading and excavation activities in soils that would have the potential to encounter previously undiscovered historic or archaeological resources. Potential impacts to historic and archaeological resources will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 5c. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's Resource Conservation Element, soils and geologic formations within the City, including the project site, have a low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. However, similar to archaeological resources, there is a potential that ground -disturbing activities associated with construction would encounter previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Potential impacts to paleontological resources will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 5d. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the project site has been historically used as a vineyard prior to development of the Empire Lakes Golf Course. Therefore, the project site is not expected to contain human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. However, there is a potential that ground - disturbing activities associated with construction would encounter previously undiscovered human remains. Should this occur, all activities in the vicinity of the remains shall cease and the contractor shall notify the County Coroner immediately 3-12 Initial Study Item P —565 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. Although impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable State requirements, potential impacts related to disturbing human remains will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-13 Item P —566 Initial Study Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Proiect Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on El El❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 123 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 ® El El potentially result in onsite or offsite 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 risks ® El El to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ El Elwhere sewers are not available for the disposal of waste 19 water? Explanation of Checklist Answers Information presented in this section is derived primarily from the Geotechnical Feasibility Study Proposed Mixed -Use Commercial and Residential Development Empire Lakes Golf Course Property Rancho Cucamonga, California (Geotechnical Investigation) prepared for the proposed project by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. and dated March 23, 2015 (LOR 2015). The Geotechnical Investigation is provided in its entirety in Appendix A of this Initial Study. The Geotechnical Investigation includes an aerial photograph analysis; a review of previous reports; geologic field reconnaissance; development of geotechnical recommendations; and preparation of the geotechnical report. 6a(i). No Impact. No active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the project site. Additionally, the project site is not within a current State of California Earthquake Fault Zone. As shown on Figure PS-2, Fault Hazards, of the Rancho Cucamonga General 3-14 Item P —567 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Plan's Public Health and Safety Element, the project site is located outside both existing and proposed Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones. Several known faults are located in the vicinity; the Red Hill Fault, located approximately four miles north of the project site, is the closest known active fault. Additionally, the Cucamonga Fault is located approximately 5.5 miles north at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains; the San Jacinto Fault is located approximately 12 miles to the northeast; and the San Bernardino segment of the San Andreas fault zone is located approximately 15 miles to the northeast. Based on historical seismicity of the project site and surrounding region, the site would be subject to moderate to large seismic events; however, the lack of active faults on the project site would preclude impacts related to surface fault rupture, and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 6a(ii). Potentially Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation and as discussed above under Threshold 6a(i), the project site is located in proximity to the Cucamonga and San Jacinto faults and the San Bernardino segment of the San Andreas fault zone. The historic seismicity of the site entails numerous small to medium magnitude earthquake events occurring around the project site, primarily associated with the presence of the San Jacinto Fault. Therefore, proposed uses at the project site may be subject to moderate to large seismic events, resulting in strong seismic ground shaking. Although impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and/or State requirements, potential impacts related to this issue will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 6a(iii). Less Than Significant. Liquefaction may occur during strong ground shaking events in areas with loose, geologically young, granular sediments where the groundwater depth is less than 50 feet. In the project area, groundwater depths are 350 feet or more below the ground surface; therefore, the potential for liquefaction is low. Additionally, according to Figure PS-3 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is located in an area that is not subject to liquefaction. Figure PS-3 also identifies other geotechnical hazards and identifies that the project site, along with the majority of the City, has the potential for regional seismic settlement. According to the site specific Geotechnical Investigation, settlement generally occurs within areas of loose, granular soils with relatively low density. The project site is underlain by relatively dense, alluvial materials; therefore, the potential for settlement is considered low (LOR 2015). There would be less than significant impacts related to liquefaction and other ground failure. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the Draft EIR. 6a(iv). No Impact. The Geotechnical Investigation concludes that there would be no impacts related to landslides due to the low relief of the site and surrounding region (LOR 2015). No large, exposed, loose or unrooted boulders are present above the site. Additionally, Figure PS-3 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan indicates that the project area is not located in an area that is susceptible to seismically induced landslides. There would be no impacts related to landslides. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the Draft EIR. 6b. Potentially Significant Impact. According to Exhibit 4.7-4 of the 2010 General Plan Update EIR, the project site is located within a soil erosion hazard area, where underlying soils have a moderate to high erosion hazard and soil blowing hazard. Grading and excavation activities for construction may lead to localized erosion, as 3-15 Initial Study Item P —568 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Proiect wind and water carry loose soils off site. Although impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and State requirements, this issue will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 6c. Potentially Significant Impact. As noted previously, the project site is relatively flat and the potential for mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows is low. Additionally, ground settlement generally occurs within areas of loose, granular soils with relatively low density. Because the site is underlain by relatively dense, alluvial materials, the potential for settlement is also considered low. However, this issue will be further analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 6d. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared pursuant to SC 4.7-9 of the 2010 General Plan Update EIR, the project site is underlain by materials with very low expansion potential, as determined in accordance with Uniform Building Code (Standard 18-2). No specific remediation or construction recommendations are anticipated; however, the Geotechnical Investigation identifies the need for additional evaluation of on -site soils and imported soils. Although impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and State requirements, potential impacts will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 6e. No Impact. The proposed project shall connect to existing sewer facilities; therefore, septic tanks or an alternative wastewater disposal system would not be permitted or utilized. The proposed project would also connect to existing sewer lines and treatment facilities, and there would be no impact. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. Car; Item P —569 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area IS Specific Plan Amendment Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 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 N ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation of Checklist Answers 7a-7b. Potentially Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed project, equipment and vehicles would be used that would generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Operation of the proposed project would have the potential to increase GHG emissions with an increase in traffic; increased demand for water and energy; and the generation of solid waste and wastewater. The potential for the proposed project to generate GHG emissions during construction and operation, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. Furthermore, the EIR will include an evaluation of the proposed project's consistency with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 3-17 Initial Study Item P —570 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Proiect Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 8. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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) Emil 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 El El ❑ Section 65962.6 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 safely hazard or people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or ❑ ❑ ❑ working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where El El wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Explanation of Checklist Answers 8a. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would involve the use of chemical substances (e.g., solvents, paints, fuel for equipment) and other potentially hazardous materials. These materials are common with typical construction activities and do not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As discussed previously, the project proposes development of residential uses with some mixed -use office and commercial development and limited transit uses. The nature of the proposed land uses is not expected to involve the use, handling, or storage of hazardous wastes. Standard household and cleaning products common to all urban development that are labeled hazardous (e.g., solvents and commercial cleansers, petroleum products), pesticides, fertilizers, and other landscape 3-18 Item P —571 Rancho Cucamonga /ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project maintenance materials may be used on site. Although impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and/or State requirements, potential impacts related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 8b. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed previously, the project site is currently developed as the 18-hole Empire Lakes Golf Course. Prior to development as a golf course in 1995, the project site existed as a vineyard with associated structures, including a small residence and barn. The potential for past and current uses to 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 will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 8c. No Impact. Several schools are located in the vicinity of the project site, including University of Redlands located approximately 0.50 mile west of the project site; Brandman University located 0.51 mile to the south; Cambridge College located 0.60 mile to the northwest; Ontario Center School located 0.83 mile to the southwest; and Rancho Cucamonga Middle School located 1.04 miles northwest of the project site. None of these schools are located within''% mile of the project site. Additionally, as noted above, the proposed land uses would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. There would be no impact related to emissions of hazardous materials within Y< mile of a school. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 8d. No Impact. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Site Characterization Empire Lakes Golf Course 11015 Sixth St. and 9097 Cleveland Ave. Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County, California (Phase I ESA) was prepared for the proposed project by LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. (February 26, 2014) (LOR 2014), and is provided in Appendix B. Based on a review of regulatory agency records conducted as part of the Phase I ESA, several listings of hazardous materials sites were identified within a one -mile radius of the project site; however, none of the listings would pose an adverse environmental impact to the project site. The project site is not included on and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. Be. Potentially Significant Impact. There is no airport in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest airport to the City is the LA/Ontario International Airport, located approximately 1.2 miles south of the City's southern boundary. According to the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT LUCP) (Ontario 2011), the southern section of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located within the airport influence area of the LA/Ontario International Airport. The ONT LUCP identifies the Airport Influence Area as areas around the LA/Ontario International Airport where current or future airport -related safety, noise, airspace protection or overflight factors may affect land uses or impose restrictions on land uses. The designated Safety Zones includes areas surrounding the runways where land use restrictions have been established to protect the safety of the public from potential aircraft accidents. The site is located outside these Safety Zones. The Noise Impact Zones are areas where future 2030 aircraft and airport operations are projected to lead to noise levels of 60 dB CNEL or higher. Noise criteria have been developed for these zones, identifying the acceptability of specific land uses and interior noise level 3-19 Initial Study Item P —572 Rancho Cucamonga /ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project requirements within each noise impact zone. The project site is located outside the Noise Impact Zones. The project's proposed heights are the following: northern portion of PA1 (north of 6th Street) is 70 feet and the southern portion (between 4th Street and 6th Street) of PA1 is 60 ft. The area between 4th Street and 6th Street (southern area of PA1) is within the High Terrain Zone of the ONT ALUCP (Map 2-4). Dedication of an aviation easement is required for development within PA1 that is within the High Terrain Zone in accordance with Airspace Protection Policy A2b and Special Compatibility Policy SP1 a of the ONT ALUCP (pages 2-28; 2-33; Map 2-5). The entire area of PA1 is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) and a Real Estate Transaction Disclosure is required in accordance with Overflight Policy 02 (page 2-32; Map 2-5). Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan requires compliance with the ONT ALUCP. This issue will be further analyzed in the Draft EIR. 8f. No Impact. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people to excessive noise levels. The nearest private airport is the Cable Airport, located approximately 6.7 miles northwest of the project site in the City of Upland. The RPZ for this airport does not extend into the City. Aircraft operations at this airport and other activities at this airport would not be adversely affected by development associated with the proposed project. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 8g. Less Than Significant Impact. In 2009, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Rancho Cucamonga Emergency Operations Plan, which addresses the City's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations (Rancho Cucamonga 2009). This document incorporates principles of both the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and provides an overview of operational concepts; details components of the City's emergency management organization; and delegates responsibilities and authorities for plan implementation. This City is currently updating the Emergency Operations Plan; however, the proposed project does not include any uses that would impede or interfere with implementation of this plan. Additionally, in January 2013, the City released the City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to assess natural and manmade hazards with the potential to impact the City and its inhabitants and to establish measures to mitigate or reduce future losses associated with these hazards (Rancho Cucamonga 2013). The Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the City in 2014. As discussed above, the project would not exacerbate existing hazardous conditions, nor would it expose people or structures to areas of known natural or manmade hazards. Therefore, the project would not interfere with implementation of the plan. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the Draft EIR. 8h. No Impact. As shown on Figure PS-1 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is located outside all designated fire hazard areas. The project site is largely surrounded by development, with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. The nearest designated fire hazard areas are located approximately three miles north of the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk associated with wildland fires. No impacts would result and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-20 Initial Study Item P —573 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Less Than 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ® ❑ El Elrequirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of ❑ ❑ IZI ❑ pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ® El❑ El or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount ® ❑ ❑ ❑ of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage ® ❑ ❑ ❑ systems or provide substantial additional sources of pollutant runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood El El El Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within 100-yearflood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a ❑ ❑ ❑ result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ Explanation of Checklist Answers 9a, 9f. Potentially Significant Impact. In 2002, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Storm Water Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) (Order No R8-2002-0012) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Porter -Cologne Act for discharges of storm water runoff, snowmelt runoff, surface runoff, and drainage within the Upper Santa Ana River Watershed in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. This permit expired on April 27, 2007, and was administratively extended. On January 3-21 Initial Study Item P —574 Rancho Cucamonga /ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 29, 2010, the RWQCB adopted Order No. 138-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS618036), which renewed the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit for San Bernardino County (SWRCB 2014). This permit expired on January 29, 2015. On August 1, 2014, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District submitted a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) on behalf of San Bernardino County and 16 incorporated cities within San Bernardino County, which serves as the permit renewal for the MS4 permit. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB and is subject to the waste discharge requirements of the MS4 Permit for San Bernardino County (Order No. R8-2010-0036, NPDES No. CAS618036). 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. The Draft EIR will describe current water quality conditions and will provide an analysis of potential short-term and long-term water quality impacts associated with the proposed uses. The Draft EIR will also address compliance with existing water quality regulations and appropriate mitigation will be identified as necessary. 9b. Less Than Significant Impact. Potable water service is provided to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), with the largest amount of water supply coming from the Chino Groundwater Basin. According to Figure RC-3 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is not in a recharge basin. Although implementation of the proposed project would reduce the pervious areas available for potential natural recharge (due to the construction of the residential and other mixed use buildings, parking areas, roadway improvements, and sidewalks), the area of the project site is relatively small (160.4 acres) in relation to the total size of the Chino Groundwater Basin, and the project site's only source of water is from direct precipitation, providing little opportunity to recharge under existing conditions. The proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 9c-9e. Potentially Significant Impact. Existing water bodies on the project site are limited to artificial ponds associated with the golf course. There are no drainage courses within the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river. However, as previously discussed, development of the proposed project would result in the conversion of on -site permeable surfaces to impermeable surfaces, which would alter the current drainage pattern of the project site. By increasing the amount of impervious surfaces on the site, more surface runoff would be generated and the rate and volume of runoff could increase. The project would include installation of a storm drain system that is of sufficient size to accommodate runoff from the project site. Although impacts associated with this issue are expected to be less than significant with adherence to applicable local, regional, and State requirements, potential impacts related to alterations in the site drainage patterns will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-22 Initial Item P —575 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 9g-9h. No Impact. As shown on Figure PS-5 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is located in a minimum flood hazard area, which is outside the 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard area. Additionally, the project site does not contain any drainages or large water bodies that would pose a flood hazard. Therefore, the project would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area or in areas that would redirect flood flows. No impacts would result and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of these thresholds will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 9L No Impact. As noted above, the project site is located outside the 0.2 percent annual change of flood hazard area. As shown on Figure PS-6 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is located outside all identified dam inundation areas. Therefore, the project would not expose people of structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 9j. No Impact. According to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project and included in Appendix A, there is no potential for the project site to be affected by a seiche or tsunami (earthquake generated wave) due to the absence of any large open bodies of water near the site. The small, on -site ponds could produce waves as a result of a large, nearby earthquake; however the impacts would be minor and would not represent a significant impact (LOR 2014). No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-23 Initial Study Item P —576 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ® ❑ ❑ ❑ local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ Elnatural community conservation plan? Explanation of Checklist Answers 10a. No Impact. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of this Initial Study, the project site is currently developed as the Empire Lakes Golf Course. Adjacent areas are developed with land uses unrelated to the golf course, including residential communities to the east; office and transit -related uses to the northeast; transit and industrial uses to the north; a variety of industrial and office uses to the west; vacant, undeveloped parcels and office uses to the south; and commercial and retail uses, including Ontario Mills, to the southwest. As part of the proposed project, mixed use residential and retail uses and transit uses would be constructed at the project site. Because the surrounding developments exist independent of each other and independent of the existing golf course development, implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur and no further analysis of this issue will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 10b. Potentially Significant Impact. This section is divided into discussions of Local Planning Programs and Regional Planning Programs. Local Planning Programs All activities undertaken by a planning agency must be consistent with the goals and policies of the agency's general plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's Managing Land Use, Community Design and Historic Resources Element, as adopted in 2010, plays a central planning role in correlating all City land use issues, goals, and objectives into one set of development policies. The project site is located within the ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is zoned as Empire Lakes Specific Plan (SP-EL). The proposed project involves the construction and operation of a residential development with some mixed -use residential and commercial areas and limited transit development. A requested action of the proposed project is an amendment to the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, which currently identifies the site as Golf Course. Additionally, the project site is designated in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan as Open Space and would require an amendment to the General Plan. The proposed project's consistency with General Plan goals and policies, the City's Development Code, and the provisions of the [ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-24 Item P —577 Initial Study Rancho Cucamonga /ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project The project's consistency with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan is discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Noise sections of this Initial Study. Regional Planning Programs With respect to regional planning, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties: Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial. As the designated MPO, the federal government mandates SCAG to research and draw up plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. Additionally, SCAG reviews EIRs for projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans (SCAG 2014). According to Section 15206(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance may include 500 or more residential dwelling units. The proposed project is located on an approximate 160.4-acre site and includes development of up to 4,000 residential dwelling units and 220,000 sf of non-residential uses; therefore, it is regionally significant. The policies and strategies of SCAG's regional planning programs, including the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (RTP/SCS) (adopted in April 2012), are applicable to the proposed project. An analysis of the proposed project's consistency with relevant SCAG and other regional planning programs will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 10c. No Impact. As previously discussed in the Biological Resources section of this Initial Study, the project site is not within an HCP or NCCP; therefore, no further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-25 Item P —578 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 11. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Would the project: 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? Explanation of Checklist Answers 11a-11b. No Impact. Figure 4.11-1, Mineral Land Classification, of the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update EIR shows that the proposed project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3), as classified by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB). MRZ-3 is classified as an area where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits exist or are likely to exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. However, Figure RC-2, Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan shows that the project site is not located in an aggregate resource area. Accordingly, no impact to availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site would occur. No impacts are anticipated. No further analysis of these thresholds will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-26 Item P —579 Initial Study Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Less Than 12. NOISE Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ® ❑ 11 El vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in ® ❑ El El project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ® ❑ ❑ ❑ without the project? 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project ❑ ❑ ❑ N area to excessive noise levels? Explanation of Checklist Answers 12a. Potentially Significant Impact. Established noise standards applicable to the proposed project are included in the following regulatory documents: the Public Health and Safety Element of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Section 17.66.050 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Proposed land uses would be exposed to noise from adjacent roadways; the railroad lines along the northern boundary of the project site; and stationary sources associated with surrounding land uses. This threshold will be evaluated in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 12b. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures, and soil type. Groundbourne vibration generated by construction is usually highest during rock blasting, pile driving, soil compacting, and demolition - related activities. Vibration impacts are also dependent on the presence of sensitive receptors in the area. Residential uses are located immediately east of the project site and may be subject to vibration impacts during construction of the proposed project. This threshold will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 12c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project could result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels from an increase in traffic on local roads and on -site uses. Therefore, this threshold will be analyzed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 12d. Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels in the project area due to 3-27 Initial Study Item P —580 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project construction activities and may potentially result in significant short-term noise impacts during construction. Therefore, this threshold will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 12e. Less than Significant Impact. According to the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT LUCP), adopted in April 2011, the 60 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour developed from forecasts of future operations in 2030 would not lie within the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Ontario 2011). The ONT ALUCP states that Rancho Cucamonga is not an affected jurisdiction for noise. Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to be exposed to excessive noise levels, and there would be a less than significant impact. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 12f. No Impact. The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would not expose people to excessive noise levels. The nearest private airport is the Cable Airport, located approximately 6.7 miles northwest of the project site in the City of Upland. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-28 Item P —581 Initial Study Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and ® ❑ ❑ El or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ❑ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the El El Elconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? Explanation of Checklist Answers 13a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the development of a mix of residential and commercial uses and would directly increase the population and employment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Additionally, the project would create short-term (construction -related) jobs. This threshold will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 13b-13c. No Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed as a golf course and does not include any residential uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the removal of existing housing; would not require the construction of replacement housing; and would not displace any existing residents. No impact related to displacement of existing housing or substantial numbers of people would occur and no further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-29 Initial Study Item P —582 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Proiect Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government 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: Fire protection? ® ❑ El ❑ Police protection? ® ❑ ❑ 1-1 Schools? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ® ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ® ❑ ❑ Explanation of Checklist Answers 14a. Potentially Significant Impact. Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; park and library services are provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga; police protection services are provided by the County of San Bernardino Sheriffs Department; and school services are provided by the Cucamonga School District for elementary and middle schools and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District for secondary public education. Implementation of the proposed project would involve construction of new residential uses resulting in an increase in the City's population and an increase in the demand for these public services. The project's potential impacts to public services related to the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities and including impacts to service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-30 Item P —583 Initial Study Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 15. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would/does the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational El El 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 El El L1 which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Explanation of Checklist Answers 15a-15b. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in previously in Section 2, Project Description, the proposed project would include open space and recreation areas. Implementation of the proposed project would involve construction of new residential uses resulting in an increase in the City's population and increase in the demand for these recreational facilities. The proposed project's anticipated demand for new or expanded recreational facilities will be evaluated. These thresholds will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 3-31 Item P —584 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- ® El❑ El travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ® ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or ® El El ❑ otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Explanation of Checklist Answers 16a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow for the development of a minimum of 2,500 and a maximum of up to 4,000 residential dwelling units as well as up to 220,000 sf of non-residential uses. These land uses would result in additional traffic generation beyond existing and forecasted conditions. The estimated trip generation, and potential project -specific short-term construction - related and long-term operational traffic -related impacts (including but not limited to intersections, streets, and freeways) will be analyzed in a project -specific Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) and will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. The TIA will also identify feasible mitigation measures for significantly impacted facilities, and will identify impacts for which there are no feasible mitigation measures, as appropriate. The Draft EIR and TIA will be transmitted to agencies with jurisdiction over intersections, streets and freeways within the traffic study area, including the City of Ontario and the California Department of Transportation. Non -vehicular modes of transportation —including pedestrian and bicycle paths and mass transit —are discussed under Threshold 16f, below. 3-32 Initial Study Item P —585 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 16b. Potentially Significant Impact. The San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is the applicable CMP for the proposed project and is developed and adopted by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). The CMP includes level of service (LOS) standards for freeway segments in the project study area. The potential for proposed project traffic to exceed the established standards in the CMP will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 16c. Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated increase in population and employment generated by the uses that would be allowed by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not be of a magnitude that would impact air traffic volumes. Further, the project would not include any uses that would change air traffic patterns. No substantial safety risks would result from the proposed project and no mitigation is required. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the Draft EIR. 16d. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, and shown on Exhibit 3, an internal circulation system of public and/or private facilities would be constructed as part of the project within the boundaries of the project site. The design of roadways must provide adequate sight distance and traffic -control measures. This provision is normally realized through roadway design to facilitate roadway traffic flows. Public roadway improvements in and around the project site would be designed and constructed to satisfy applicable City requirements for street widths, corner radii, and intersection control. This threshold will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 16e. Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in the 2010 General Plan Update EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. Interstate (1) 210 Freeway runs east -west through the City and 1-15 runs along its eastern edge. 1-10 is located south of the City and runs in an east -west direction through the region. 1-15 is located approximately 0.85 mile east of the project site, and 1-10 is located approximately 0.65 mile south of the project site. These freeways provide areawide evacuation routes, with major north -south and east -west roadways in the City connecting to the freeways and adjacent cities. The project site is located along two major divided arterial roadways: 41h Street and 6th Street. Direct access to 1-15 and I- 10 is provided by 4th Street. The potential for the project to impact these regional emergency access routes will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. Construction activities on public rights -of -way may temporarily block traffic and access near the construction zone. Therefore, there is a potential to create an impact related to emergency response and access in the vicinity of the project site during construction. This threshold will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 16f. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would promote a variety of alternate modes of transportation, including access to bus systems, the Metrolink, bicycle paths, and pedestrian walkways. The Draft EIR will provide an evaluation of the project's impacts to public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and will describe proposed project features which address the convergence of at -grade vehicular and non -vehicular facilities. Study Item P —586 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El El ® ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ® El El Elfacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ® El El El of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies availableto servethe project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ® ❑ ❑ ❑ expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected ® ❑ ❑ ❑ demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ® ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, stale, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? Explanation of Checklist Answers 17a. Less Than Significant Impact. The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) would provide sanitary sewer service to the proposed project. The Santa Ana RWQCB is the applicable Regional Quality Control Board for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and administers the City's MS4/NPDES permit. Waste Discharge Requirements are issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB under the provisions of the California Water Code (Division 7 Water Quality, Article 4 Waste Discharge Requirements). These requirements regulate the discharge of wastes that are not made to surface waters but which may impact the region's water quality by affecting underlying groundwater basins. New development within the City would be required to comply with all applicable wastewater discharge requirements of the NPDES program, as enforced by the Santa Ana RWQCB (Santa Ana RWQCB 2014, 2010). Therefore, implementation of the project would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements and would be less than significant. This threshold will not be analyzed further in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 17b. Potentially Significant Impact. The CVWD would provide water and wastewater treatment service for the proposed project. The proposed project would involve the installation of on -site water and sewer lines to connect to existing utility infrastructure. The water and sewer lines required to serve the proposed project and the ability of the 3-34 Initial Study Item P —587 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project planned facilities to accommodate the proposed project will be addressed in forthcoming Draft EIR. Potential construction -related environmental impacts from installation of the infrastructure will also be addressed in the respective sections of the forthcoming Draft EIR (e.g., air quality and noise). 17c. Potentially Significant Impact. The amount and rate of storm water runoff from the currently undeveloped project site would be altered with the implementation of proposed uses. The proposed project would require construction of a new on -site storm water drainage system to accommodate the additional runoff associated with the increase of impervious surfaces within the project site. This threshold will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 17d. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site is located within the C\/WD service area, which would supply water to the proposed project. In compliance with Sections 10910-10915 of the California Water Code (commonly referred to as "Senate Bill [SB] 610" according to the enacting legislation), a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) will be prepared for the proposed project to assess the impact of proposed development on existing and projected water supplies. This threshold will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 17e. Potentially Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the proposed project would be treated at one of four wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). The Draft EIR will determine the proposed project's anticipated wastewater flow and will evaluate potential impacts to the existing wastewater treatment facilities. This threshold will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR. 17f. Potentially Significant Impact. The City of Rancho Cucamonga contracts with Burrtec Waste Industries for commercial and residential waste collection. Solid waste is then disposed of at one of five regional landfills owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino Solid Waste Management Division (SWMD). The Draft EIR will calculate the proposed project's anticipated solid waste stream and will evaluate impacts related to landfill capacity. This threshold will be addressed in the Draft EIR. 17g. Less Than Significant Impact. Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste generation, transport, and disposal are intended to decrease solid waste generation through mandatory reductions in solid waste quantities (e.g., through recycling and composting of green waste) and the safe and efficient transport of solid waste. The proposed project would be required to coordinate with Burrtec Waste Industries to develop a collection program for recyclables (e.g., paper, plastics, glass and aluminum) in accordance with local and State programs, including the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991. Additionally, the proposed 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 local, State, and federal solid waste management regulations. AB 939 requires all counties to prepare a County Integrated Waste Management Plan. In summary, the proposed project would comply with all regulatory requirements regarding solid waste. No further analysis of this threshold will be provided in the Draft EIR. 3-35 Initial Study Item P —588 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Less Than potentially Significant Less Than Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated No Impact Does the project: a. Does the project have the potential to 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 community, reduce the number or restrict the range ® El El of 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 are considerable when viewed in connection with ® ❑ El 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 would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Explanation of Checklist Answers 18a. Potentially Significant Impact. The project site does not provide suitable habitat that would support any of special status plant or wildlife species and no sensitive natural communities occur in the survey area. Additionally, compliance with the requirements set forth in the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code would ensure that impacts related to nesting birds would be less than significant. There is the potential that ground -disturbing activities associated with construction would encounter previously undiscovered cultural resources. Potential impacts to biological resources and cultural resources will be addressed in the forthcoming Draft EIR and mitigation measures will be identified, as necessary. 18b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the redevelopment of the project site with a mix of residential, commercial, and transit uses. The project site is surrounded by development, which consists of residential, commercial, industrial, office, and transit uses. Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to existing traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. These impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the Draft EIR. In addition, the Draft EIR will examine cumulative impacts of concurrent development projects occurring in the project area. 18c. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project could have the potential to generate significant adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Draft EIR will provide analysis of the potential impacts with respect to aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and circulation, and utilities and service systems. Initial Study Item P —589 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project SECTION 4.0 REFERENCES BonTerra Consulting. 2000a (August). Addendum to Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR (SCH No. 9310255). Costa Mdsa, CA: BonTerra Consulting. 2000b (September). Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Planning Area IX Specific Plan Amendment. Costa Mesa, CA: BonTerra Consulting. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). 2010. San Bernardino County Important Farmland 2010. Sacramento, CA: FMMP. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011 (Septemeber 7, last udated). California Scenic Highway System (San Bernardino County). Sacramento, CA: Caltrans. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic—highways/index.htm Hogan, Michael and Bai Tang. 2004.Addendum to Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey: Fourth St. Recycled Water Pipeline in and Near the Cities of Ontario & Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County. Manuscript No. SB-04139 on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. LOR Geotechnical Group, Inc. 2015 (March). Geotechnical Feasibility Study Proposed Mixed Use Commercial and Residential Development Empire Lakes Golf Course Property Rancho Cucamonga, California. Riverside, CA: LOR. 2014 (February). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Limited Site Characterization Empire Lakes Golf Course 11015 Sixth St. and 9097 Cleveland Ave. Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino County, California. Riverside, CA: LOR. Ontario, City of. 2011 (April, adopted). LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Ontario, CA: the City. Rancho Cucamonga, City of. 2013 (January). City of Rancho Cucamonga Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA. http://www.cityofre. us/documents/CityofRanchoCucamongaHMPFINALDRAFT2013.pdf 2010a (February). Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft Program Environmental Impact Report. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. 2010b (May). Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. 2009. Rancho Cucamonga Emergency Operations Plan. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. http://www.cityofrc.us/civica/fiilebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=7824 1994a (July, as revised through 2003). IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. 1994b (July). Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055). Rancho Cucamonga, CA: the City. 2012. Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Tallahassee, FL: Municipal Code Corporation for the City. hftps://library.municode.com/index.aspx?ciientld=16570& state I d=5&stateNa me=California. 4-1 Initial Study Item P —590 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project RBF Consulting. 2014 (February). Draft Habitat Assessment for the Empire Lakes Golf Course Project Located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. Ontario, CA: RBF. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2014 (September, access date). San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit. Riverside, CA: Santa Ana RWQCB. www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/stormwater/san_ bernardino_permit.shtml 2010 (February). Waste Water Discharge Requirements for the County of San Bernardino and Unincorporated Cities of San Bernardino and Unincorporated Cities of San Bernardino County, Order No. R8-2010-0036. NPDES No. CAS618036. Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff. Riverside, CA: RWQCB. http://www.waterboards. ca.g ov/sa ntaana/board_decisions/adopted_orders/o rders/2010 10-0 36—S B C—M S 4_P e r m i t_01-2 9-10. p d f San Bernardino, County of. 2007 (March). San Bernardino County Land Use Plan General Plan Open Space Element Mao. San Bernardino, CA: the County. http://cros. sbcou nty. gov/porta Is/5/Plan ni ng/zon ingoverlayma ps/o penspaceco unty wide. pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2014 (September, access date). About SCAG. Los Angeles, CA: SCAG. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2014. San Bernardino County Municipal NPDES Storm Water Permit. Sacramento, CA: SWRCB. http://www.waterboards. ca.gov/santaana/wate r—issues/programs/sto rmwater/san—bernar dino_permit—supporting_documents.shtml White, Laura S. 1994. Historic Architectural Survey Report for the Proposed Metrolink Project, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County. Manuscript No. SB-02918 on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. Wlodarski, RobertJ. 2010. Cultural Resources Record Search and Archaeological Survey Results for the Proposed Royal Street Communications, California, LLC. Site LA2242B (Cucamonga Water District) Located at 9111 Cleveland Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California 91730. Manuscript No. SB-06910 on file at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center. 4-2 Initial Study Item P —591 EX Metrolink Red Line Pecker, Park OM .,410 �. -- N .)1 Met conk t Sation N7 N-1 UN N-11 CL " rr MU n. T L1 t Mb. N-4 CL N 5 N-tor MU w,r nau- RCC N-6 N9 J+CL ` North IE C CL 1. Fa rk VN vN S-16 VN J:A 1n.�r The Vine The Vine r a N-7 0 N-n VN VN Y 1„r t F— J6 N eur btn Sureec S-22 S-21 S-20 South NEC. REC CL L L S-I5 M Sig VN S-16 JSNIN 11 n� c Mu 14 Qd . nea. The Vine Racetype Legena _ Tronsit (TI Mixea Jae (MJ) M Urban Neighborhood WN) Care Living (CL) Village Ne�ghborhaaa (VN) Recraaaton(REC) 0 AU 96reed Source: William Hezmalhalch Architects. Inc 27 15, Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Exhibit 3 1ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment ­­1Iv1T — PS OMAS "a JPL R Prgeas LEYf3LEN•OCa300'Grephrcs ISea3 2fa a:z•,cz :n` Item P-592 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., ROOM 100 West SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 Fax(916) 373-5471 March 10, 2015 Michael Smith City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Cener Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIAR 16 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING RE: Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment, San Bernardino County. Dear Mr. Smith, Government Code §65352.3 requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places in creating or amending general plans, including specific plans. Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above project. As a part of consultation, the NAHC recommends that local governments conduct record searches through the NAHC and California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) to determine if any cultural places are located within the area(s) affected by the proposed action. A Sacred Lands File search was completed and no sites were found. Local governments should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a cultural place. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our consultation list contains current information. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address:. Katy. Sanchez@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Katy Sanchez Associate Government Program Analyst cc: State Clearinghouse EXHIBIT E Item P —593 Native American Tribal Government Consultation List San Bernardino County March 6, 2015 Sar 3nuel Band of Mission Indians Lynri ✓albuena, Chairwoman 26569 Community Center Serrano Highland I CA92346 (909)864-8933 San Fernando Band of Mission Indians John Valenzuela, Chairperson P.O. Box 221838 Fernandeno Newhall I CA 91322 Tataviam tsen2u@hotmail.com Serrano (661) 753-9833 Office Vanyume (760) 885-0955 Cell Kitanemuk GabrielenolTongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson P.O. Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva San Gabriel CA 91778 GTTribalcouncil@ao1.com (626) 483-3564 Cell Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Rroad Cahuilla Banning CA 92220 Serrano (951)849-8807 (951)755-5200 Serrano Nation of Mission Indians Goldie Walker, Chairwoman P.O. Box 343 Serrano Patton CA 92369 (909)528-9027 (909)528-9032 This P-1 Is current only as of the date of this document. Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizi Nation Andrew Salas, Chairperson P.O. Box 393 Covina CA 91723 gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com Gabrielino (626)926-4131 Gabrielino /Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap; Cultural Resources Director P.O.. Box 86908 Gabrielino Tongva Los Angeles , CA 90086 samdunlap@earthlink.net (909) 262-9351 Distr}`.nlon of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility, as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Section 65352.3 and 65362.4. at seq. Item P -594 { i RANCIio CUCAMOtiGA March 23, 2015 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Robert Martin, Chairperson 12700 Pumarra Road Banning, CA 92220 Dear Chairman Martin: iar l._ DENNB i\—. HAEI. - Ad�yo> P'ro 7cin SAM SPAGNOLO I J. AI.FxA,,DhR, LYNNE B. KENNEDY, DIANI WILLIAMS Chy'vanae••]UiiN F,. Glu.JSUN THE Crry OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT #:OCS[.. 9—'%q SUBJECT: TRIBAL CONSULTATION REQUEST FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00114 The City of Rancho Cucamonga is processing an application for a General Plan Amendment as described below. The purpose of this notice is to determine whether your tribe desires consultation regarding the proposed amendments. Native Americans are important to the planning process. PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114 - LEWIS OPERATING CORP.: A request to amend the General Plan to change the land use designation (from Open Space to Mixed Use) of a property of about 160 acres located north of 4th Street, south of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues that is currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the property for a mixed use, high density residential/commercial project; APN: 0209-272-20 and 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. RELATED PROJECTS/APPLICATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 - LEWIS OPERATING CORP.: A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan to delete the Empire Golf Course and insert text that will describe the design and technical standards/guidelines for a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development on a property of about 160 acres located north of 4th Street, south of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues.; APN: 0209-272-20 and 0210-082-41. -49, and -52. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 - LEWIS OPERATING CORP.: A request to amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation (from Open Space to Mixed Use) of a property of about 160 acres located north of 4th Street, south of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues that is currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the property for a mixed use, high density residential/commercial project; APN: 0209-272-20 and 0210-082-41, -49, and -52. [THE SUBMITTAL OF ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS IS PENDING] Item P —595 TRIBAL NOTIFICATION LETTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114 March 23, 2015 Page 2 PROJECT APPLICANT CONTACT PERSON: Lewis Operating Corp. Attn: Bryan Goodman 1156 N. Mountain Avenue PO Box 670 Upland, CA 91786 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project, as submitted by the applicant (and subject to change as the project description is finalized), involves an amendment to the City's General Plan in order to establish a mixed use, high density residential/commercial development on a property of 160 acres that is currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course. The proposed amendments would allow for about 225,000 square feet of non-residential uses and about 4,000 dwelling units within the project area. It is expected by the applicant that construction of the proposed project would be initiated in 2016. The project would be phased based on market demands, but it is expected that development would be complete by 2023. Construction activities would be initiated in the area south of 6th Street followed by the area north of 6th Street. The northern and southern areas would be graded separately; however, there may be overlap in the timing of building construction. The City is interested in receiving input from your community regarding any concerns related to the proposed Amendment. Please inform us of any areas of cultural significance in the project area that we should take into account. This letter may be followed shortly by a telephone call to discuss any issues/comments that you may have. The City requests to receive your comments by June 23, 2015. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (909) 477-2750 x4317 or in writing at the address below. Sincerely, PLANNI DEPARTMENT l� Mike Smith Associate Planner MS/Is Attachments: Vicinity Map/Aerial Photo of the Project Site Conceptual Land Use Plan Item P —596 p: a 7IaSan Getne as_a-L-c`aoaIr. 2tem. - W7 Cucamonga Ls cation 91 Corona toy 1 t ,y ,. Y .t �✓ // r �. 4..Wile, Is Ind °. TI p 1 MttlH.Lf• w �. a1. - �► I`1i ■ 1. �"i - 1 f .-� , /!� � TL`r ar. ]w WAR 11 15 �1 d JI A' �: I'Oa. � ." y �.� � w � � � Mks • � � j1 '� . �i+'.q•imi Ir, �_ r.Ynv ..�+i� iT: a ■I.•./ �lW- .. Y 11 -� saw r• t .1 ,pro. _ �•_•. ,- � I, City ofiRanctilCucamol'-14 t 1 �` % It�s +115.. r • nisi' � .. �/ ) ■f CTIlk ♦ i �� a �1 f nL n r an..0 � Y eta i � cA�+ lisp t � ' mom I i51i4l1::f� .1 it fI fr`re'il ..+ }. :_ -=r 'k'� ■ ' *_'Litood) Oil �y*:1� s!_;' `� ,: a-�1aj�y t,•aa g��1R Metrolink Red Line Pocket Park Met link Station awl N-2N --- pN-11eji U—. -1 CL CL "P1 6c mu reasauroc esss m a .e oc L .. ffss _ 3oec N-4 CL N-5 N.3s� i UN rt«y 040. CL IeS diiY eBO The MU Vine N-10' 14 10d c 63 oc CL W 35aW SFoc The Vine VN I^� VN 19 RA11F Ip�i 1i 1E N4 65OC 64¢ North 1, ` S413 S-72 NO 5-20 4 REC RC-C CL isas L os« Pocke 5-14 `- Park VN S-15 i..ze a�3u. VN S-19 6ra< i624d:4c VN w 63u1c sa a4a eeo. VN u3e 4ub 102 ac S-18 —� VN I ia-2s auec er« Conceptual Land Use Plan IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment A. wt PE South The Vine PlaceNpe Legend Transit (T) Mixed Use (MU) e Urban Neighborhood(UN) Core Living (CO Village Neighborhood NN) Recreation (REC) 40 Street Source: William Nezmalhalch AnchRedls, Inc. 2015 txnlnli Z Gy Is S o M A 5 15 JAZ)R.V Oft eLEW3LEW000300\Grath.6�WSAVr2_eOnceRxLa^dueeRim.pal Item P -598 FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Addressl Address2 city State PostalCode Steven L. Flower Richards, Watson & 355 South Grand Los Angeles CA 90071-3101 Gershon Avenue,40°i Floor Clerk of the County of San 395 North San CA 92415 Board of Bernardino Arrowhead, 2nd Bernardino Supervisors Floor Cucamonga Valley 10440 Ashford Rancho CA 91730-3057 Water District Street Cucamonga EMAIL SANTAANA California Reg. Water Santa Ana Region 3737 Main Riverside CA 92501 ONLY: @WArERBo ARDS.CA.GO Quality Control Board Q y Street, Suite v #8 500 Planning Southern California Gas 1981 Lugonia (SC8031) Redlands CA 92374 Supervisor Co. Avenue Local South Coast Air Quality 21865 East Diamond Bar CA 917654182 Government - Management District Copley Drive CEQA Program Supervisor Jennifer Shaw Region Edison Local Public 7951 Redwood Fontana CA 92336 Manager Affairs Avenue m en Cadavona Southern California 2244 Walnut Rosemead CA 91770 3 Edison Company Grove Ave, Quad v Third Party 4C 472A tit Environmental Review W Ryan Shaw Inland Empire Utilities P.O. Box 9020 Chino Hills CA 91709 Agency Kim I Bray Verizon P.O. Box 725 Chino CA 91708 Department of Development 464 W.Fourth San CA 92401-1400 Transportation Review, MS 722 Street Bernardino Daniel Kopulsky, Forecasting/IGR-CEQA Department of 464 West San CA 92401-1400 Office Review Transportation Fourth Street, Bernardino Chief 6th Floor; MS 722 Karin Cleary- U.S. Fish & Wildlife 777 E. Tahquitz Palm Springs CA 92262 Rose Service Canyon Way, Suite 208 Jeff Brandt California Department of 3602 Inland Ontario CA 91764 Fish and Wildlife Empire Boulevard, Suite C-220 Chief Mike Costello Rancho Cucamonga Fire 10500 Civic Rancho CA 91730 Protection District Center Drive Cucamonga Revised on: 4/7/15 FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Addressl Address2 city State PostalCode Steven L. Flower Richards, Watson & 355 South Grand Los Angeles CA 90071-3101 Gershon Avenue, 40" Floor Captain Boldt San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga 10510 Civic Rancho CA 91730 Danielle County Sheriff Substation Center Drive Cucamonga Native American 915 Capitol Mall, Sacramento CA 95814 Heritage Commission Room 288 Department of Forestry 1416 Ninth Street P.O. Box Sacramento CA 94244-2460 944246 California Energy 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento CA 95814 Commission MS-15 Division of P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento CA 94234-7320 Environmental Health Caltrans - Planning P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento CA 94274-0001 Caltrans - Division of P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento CA 94274-0001 Aeronautics Department of Health Public Water 714 P Street Sacramento CA 95814 Services Supply Branch '. m 3 Division of Water P.O. Box 100 Sacramento CA 95814 1 1a Quality Cl) Division of Water Rights 901 P Street Sacramento CA 95814 0 0 Division of Clean Water P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento CA 94244-2120 Programs State Water Resources P.O. Box 100 Sacramento CA 95812-0100 Control Board California Long Range Planning Planning and 2555 First Sacramento CA 95818 Highway Patrol Section Analysis Division Avenue Department of General 400 P Street, Suite Sacramento CA 95814 Services 5100 Office of Environmental 1001 1 Street Sacramento CA 95814 Health Hazard Assess. Department of Pesticide 1220 N. Street Sacramento CA 95814 Regulation Department of Water 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento CA 95914 Resources Room 449 Department of Toxic P.O. Box 806 Sacramento CA 95812-0806 Substances Control California Integrated 1 1001 I Street P.O. Box 4025 1 Sacramento CA 95812-4025 Revised on: 4/7/15 FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Addressl Address2 City State PostalCode Steven L. Flower Richards, Watson & 355 South Grand Los Angeles CA 90071-3101 Gershon Avenue, 40" Floor Captain Boldt San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga 10510 Civic Rancho CA 91730 Danielle County Sheriff Substation Center Drive Cucamonga Native American 915 Capitol Mall, Sacramento CA 95814 Heritage Commission Room 288 Department of Forestry 1416 Ninth Street P.O. Box Sacramento CA 94244-2460 944246 California Energy 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento CA 95814 Commission MS-15 Division of P.O. Box 942732 Sacramento CA 94234-7320 Environmental Health Caltrans - Planning P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento CA 94274-0001 Caltrans - Division of P.O. Box 942874 Sacramento CA 94274-0001 Aeronautics Department of Health Public Water 714 P Street Sacramento CA 95814 Services Supply Branch m Division of Water P.O. Box 100 Sacramento CA 95814 I Quality 0 Division of Water Rights 901 P Street Sacramento CA 95814 Division of Clean Water P.O. Box 944212 Sacramento CA 94244-2120 Programs State Water Resources P.O. Box 100 Sacramento CA 95812-0100 Control Board California Long Range Planning Planning and 2555 First Sacramento CA 95818 Highway Patrol Section Analysis Division Avenue Department of General 400 P Street, Suite Sacramento CA 95814 Services 5100 Office of Environmental 1001 1 Street Sacramento CA 95814 Health Hazard Assess. Department of Pesticide 1220 N. Street Sacramento CA 95814 Regulation Department of Water 1416Ninth Street, Sacramento CA 95814 Resources Room 449 Department of Toxic P.O. Box 806 Sacramento CA 95812-0806 Substances Control Califomia Integrated 1 10011 Street I P.O. Box 4025 1 Sacramento CA 95812-4025 Revised on: 4/7/15 FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Addressl Address2 City State PostalCode Steven L. Flower Richards, Watson & 355 South Grand Los Angeles CA 90671 101 Gershon Avenue, 40"' Floor Waste Management Board Air Resources Board 1001 1 Street Sacramento CA 95814 Registration of 555 Capitol Mall, Sacramento CA 95814 Environmental Assessors Suite 235 & Arbitration Panel Office of Environmental 555 Capitol Mall, Sacramento CA 95814 Information Suite 235 California Environmental 1001 I Street P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento CA 95812-2815 Protection Agency State Lands Commission 100 Howe Sacramento CA 95825 Avenue, Suite 100-S Reclamation Board 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento CA 95814 Room 706 m Public Utilities 505 Van Ness San Francisco CA 94102 3 Commission Avenue I v Department of Parks & P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento CA 94296-0001 0 Recreation Iv Office of Historic P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento CA 94296-0001 Preservation Mr. Jeff Zwack Community City of Upland 460 North Euclid Upland CA 91786 Development Avenue Director Department of Division of Mines 801 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 Conservation & Geology Mr. Davis Water Quality Metropolitan Water 700 North La Verne CA 91750 Marshall Lab Manager District Moreno Avenue State Clearinghouse 1400 10th Street, Sacramento CA 95814 Room 121 Mr. Don Williams Director of City of Fontana 8353 Sierra Fontana CA 92335 Community Avenue Development City Planner City of Ontario 303 East B Street Ontario CA 91764 Director of San Bernardino County 385 North San CA 92415-0182 Revised on: 4/7/ 15 FirstName LastName JobTitle Company Addressl Address2 city State PostalCode Steven L. Flower Richards, Watson & 355 South Grand Los Angeles CA 90071-3101 Gershon Avenue,40"' Floor Planning Planning Department Arrowhead Bernardino Avenue Eric Roth Southern California 818 West 7th Los Angeles CA 90017 Assoc. of Governments Street, 12th Floor Steven Smith Director of San Bernardino Co. 1170 West'3rd San CA 92410-1715 Comprehensive Associated Governments Street, 2nd Floor Bernardino Planning Kimberly Metrolink One Gateway Los Angeles CA 90012 Plaza 12"' FI. Director of Chaffey Joint Union 211 West 5th Ontario CA 91761 Business High School District Street Services Shawn Judson Superintendent Etiwanda School District 6061 East Avenue Etiwanda CA 91739 Superintendent Cucamonga School 8776 Archibald Rancho CA 91730 District Avenue Cucamonga Superintendent Alta Loma School 9390 Base Line Rancho CA 91701 District Road, Cucamonga Superintendent Central School District 10601 Church Rancho CA 91730 o Street, Suite 112 Cucamonga w my D. Shannon, Superintendent, Chaffey Community 5885 Haven Rancho 'CA 91737 Ph. D. President College District Avenue Cucamonga Ken Miller San Bernardino County 825 East 3rd San CA 92415-0835 Flood Control District Street Bernardino California Geological 801 K Street Mail Stop 12-30 Sacramento CA 95814 Survey Burrtec 9890 Cherry Fontana CA 92335 Avenue Charter 10768 Foothill Rancho CA 91730 Blvd., #170 Cucamonga Revised on: 4/7/15 South Coast CITY OF RANCHO CU!AMA1 Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov Michael Smith City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 MAY 0 4 2015 April30; pEIVED - Kit:: Notice of Preparation of a CEQA Document for the Rancho Cucamonea Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above -mentioned document. The SCAQMD staffs comments are recommendations regarding the analysis of potential air quality impacts from the proposed project that should be included in the draft CEQA document. Please send the SCAQMD a copy of the CEQA document upon its completion. Note that copies of the Draft EIR that are submitted to the State Clearinghouse are not forwarded to the SCAQMD. Please forward a copy of the Draft EIR directly to SCAQMD at the address in our letterhead. In addition, please send with the draft EIR all appendices or technical documents related to the air quality and greenhouse gas analyses and electronic versions of all air quality modeling and health risk assessment files. These include original emission calculation spreadsheets and modeling files (not Adobe PDF files). Without all riles and supporting air quality documentation, the SCAQMD will be unable to complete its review of the air quality analysis in a timely manner. Any delays in providing all supporting air quality documentation will require additional time for review beyond the end of the comment period. Air Quality Analysis The SCAQMD adopted its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook in 1993 to assist other public agencies with the preparation of air quality analyses. The SCAQMD recommends that the Lead Agency use this Handbook as guidance when preparing its air quality analysis. Copies of the Handbook are available from the SCAQMD's Subscription Services Department by calling (909) 396-3720. More recent guidance developed since this Handbook was published is also available on SCAQMD's website here: hgp://www.Agmd.eov/home/regulations/cetia/air- quality-analysis-handbook/cega-air-quality-handbook-(1993). SCAQMD staff also recommends that the lead agency use the CalEEMod land use emissions software. This software has recently been updated to incorporate up-to-date state and locally approved emission factors and methodologies for estimating pollutant emissions from typical land use development. CaIEEMod is the only software model maintained by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and replaces the now outdated URBEMIS.'I his model is available free of charge at: www.ealeemod.com. The Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of the project and all air pollutant sources related to the project. Air quality impacts from both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated. Construction -related air quality impacts typically include, but are not limited to. emissions from the use of heavy-duty equipment from grading, earth-loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, off -road mobile sources (e.g., heap} -duty construction equipment) and on -road mobile sources (e.g.. construction worker vehicle trips, material transport trips). Operation -related air quality impacts may include, but are not limited to. emissions from stationan sources (e.g.. boilers), area sources (e.g., solvents and coatings), and vehicular trips (e.g., on- and off -road tailpipe emissions and entrained dust). Air quality impacts from indirect sources, that is, sources that generate or attract vehicular trips should be included in the analysis. The SCAQMD has also developed both regional and localized significance thresholds. The SCAQMD staff requests that the lead agency quantify criteria pollutant emissions and compare the results to the recommended regional significance thresholds found here: http•//www arc andyov/does/default-source/cega/handbook/scoamd air -quality significance thresholds.p4t?sfvrsn--2. In addition to analyzing regional air quality impacts, the SCAQMD staff recommends calculating localized air quality impacts and comparing the results to localized significance thresholds (LSTs). LST's can EXHIBITF Item P-604 Michael Smith -2- April 30.2015 be used in addition to the recommended regional significance thresholds as a second indication of air quality impacts when preparing a CEQA document. Therefore, when preparing the air quality analysis for the proposed project, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a localized analysis by either using the LSTs developed by the SCAQMD or performing dispersion modeling as necessary. Guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis can be found at: In the event that the proposed project generates or attracts vehicular trips. especially heavy-duty diesel -fueled vehicles, it is recommended that the lead agency perform a mobile source health risk assessment. Guidance for performing a mobile source health risk assessment ("Health Risk Assessment Guidance fi)r Anulvzing Cancer Ri.skf om .ltohile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQAAir Quality Analysis") can be found at: http•//www agmd gov/home/rep-ulationgMa/air- quality-analysis-handbook/mobile-source-toxics-analysis. An analysis of all toxic air contaminant impacts due to the use of equipment potentially generating such air pollutants should also be included. In addition, guidance on siting incompatible land uses (such as placing homes near freeways) can be found in the California Air Resources Board's .4ir Qualih, andLand Use Handbook: A C'onununity Perspective, which can be found at the following internet address: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook2df. CARB's Land Use Handbook is a general reference guide for evaluating and reducing air pollution impacts associated with new projects that go through the land use decision -making process. Mitigation Measures In the event that the project generates significant adverse air quality impacts, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. Pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (a)(1)(D), any impacts resulting from mitigation measures must also be discussed. Several resources are available to assist the Lead Agency with identifying possible mitigation measures for the project, including: • Chapter I 1 of the SCAQMD CEQ.4 Air Quality Handbook • SCAQMD's CEQA web pages at: http•//www agmd gov/home/reg_ulations/cNa/air-quality-analysis handbook/mitieation-measures-and-control-efficiencies. • CAPCOA's Quanii6,ing Greenhouse Gas Mitigcuion Measures available here: http://www.cMNoa.org/wp:contentluploads/2010/I I/CAPCOA-Ouantification-Report-9-14-Final pddf. • SCAQMD's Rule 403 — Fugitive Dust, and the Implementation Handbook for controlling construction -related emissions • Other measures to reduce air quality impacts from land use projects can be found in the SCAQMD's Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning. This document can be found at the following internet address: http://www.ggmd.gov/does/default-sourcePolannin airAuali}X- guidance/complete-guidance-document pdf'tsfvrsn=4. Data Sources SCAQMD rules and relevant air quality reports and data are available by calling the SCAQMD's Public Information Center at (909) 396-2039. Much of the information available through the Public Information Center is also available via the SCAQMD's webpage (http://www.agmd.gov). The SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to ensure that project emissions are accurately evaluated and mitigated where feasible. If you have am questions regarding this letter, please contact me at Jworijxl@anmd.gov or call me at (909) 396-3176. SBC 150428-07 Control Number Sincerely, Jillian N ong, Ph.D. Program Supervisor Planning. Rule Development & Area Sources Item P -605 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUNDG BROWN Jr. Govemo DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 PLANNING (MS 722) 464 WEST 4" STREET, 6" Floor 3AN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PHONE (909) 383-4557 FAX (909) 383-5936 TTY (909) 383-6300 www.dot.ca.gov/dist8 May 4, 2015 Michael Smith City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAY 01 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING Serious drought Help save water! Initial Study for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project) Dear Mr. Smith: The California. Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has received an Initial Study for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project). The project site is located north of 4th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8th Street in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County. The project proposes Specific Plan Amendment to construct high density and medium -high density residential, mixed use, open space, and transit oriented land uses, which will include 2,500 units to a maximum of up to 4,000 units in addition to 220,000 square feet of non- residential uses. Our areas of concern, pertaining to State facilities, include transportation/traffic issues in which the initial study identifies as having potentially significant impacts. Due to these potentially significant impacts on Interstate 10 (I-10) and Interstate 15 (I-15), we recommend the following to be analyzed in the preceding DEIR: Caltrans endeavors that any direct and cumulative impacts to the State highway system be eliminated or reduced to a level of insignificance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) standards. Although the project is under the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Cucamonga due to the Project's potential impact to State facilities it is also subject to the policies and regulations that govern the SHS. To accurately evaluate the extent of potential impacts to the operational characteristics of the existing highway, a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) should be prepared for review. The TIS is necessary to determine this proposed project's near -term and long-term impacts to the State facilities — existing and proposed — and to propose appropriate mitigation measures. The study should use as a guideline the Caltrans Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, which is located at the following website: Minimum contents of the TIS are listed in Appendix "A of the TIS guide. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Item P —606 Mr. Smith May 4, 2015 Page 2 All state facilities, including intersections, impacted by the Project area, which include I-10 and I-15, should be analyzed in the TIS. Where applicable, such as signalized intersections and ramp interchanges, a synchro analysis, merge/diverge analysis, and a queuing analysis is recommended. Traffic Analysis Scenarios should clearly be exhibited as exiting, existing + project, existing + project + ambient growth, and existing + project + ambient growth + cumulative. The data used in the TIS should not be more than 2 years old. The geographic area examined in the TIS should include as a minimum all regionally significant arterial system segments and intersections, including State highway facilities where the project will add over 100 peak hour trips. State highway facilities that are experiencing noticeable delays should be analyzed in the scope of the TIS for projects that add 50 to 100 peak hour trips. Mitigation measures to State facilities should be included in the TIS. Mitigation identified in the TIS, subsequent environmental documents, and mitigation monitoring reports, should be coordinated with Caltrans to identify and implement the appropriate mitigation, as well as the appropriate timing of the mitigation. Mitigation improvements should be compatible with Caltrans concepts. The lead agency should monitor impacts to ensure that roadway segments and intersections remain at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). Should the LOS reach unacceptable levels, the lead agency should delay the issuance of building permits for any project until the appropriate impact mitigation is implemented. Clearly indicate LOS with and without improvements. Proposed improvements should be exhibited in preliminary drawings that indicate the LOS with improvements. Submit two hard copies of all TIS, three CDS of the TIS including the appendices, and an electronic Synchro Analysis file (if applicable). • This shall be based on the SCAG 2012 RTP Model. Thank you for providing us this opportunity to review the Initial Study for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project) and for your consideration of these and future comments. These recommendations are preliminary and summarize our review of materials provided for our evaluation. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Adrineh Melkonian (909) 806-3928. Sincerely, A� MARK ROBERTS Office Chief Intergovernmental Review, Community and Regional Planning "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Item P —607 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 21, 2015 MAY 2 1 2015 Michael Smith Associate Planner RECEIVED - PLANNING City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (FIR) - Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for the making available the Notice of Preparation of EIR and Scoping Meeting for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project. As a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and frequent golfer at Empire Lakes, I have heard discussions at the course since summer 2014 regarding a change to the land use at Empire Lakes. It was very helpful to review the infonnation in the Notice and Initial Study. Empire Lakes course is an exceptional, well -maintained facility used by golfers and families from the local community, surrounding southern California areas, and visitors from out -of -stale. It would seem that keeping an existing high -quality golf course in a prime southern California location and city like Rancho Cucamonga would be a high priority. In any event, please refer to my May 20°i letter to the Southern California Golf Association, attached here as copy to the city. The purpose of the SCGA letter is to inform the golf community of the Notice of Preparation posted on the city's web site, and to encourage them to participate in the public review and comment process. Comment on the Notice of Preparation Initial Study item No. 15. a) - Is removal of the golf course considered an impact'? If so, could a discussion of the type of impact and mitigation be included in the EIR? I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, and look forward to next steps in the process. And, thanks again to you and all the city staff for your time and effort to make Rancho a great place to live. Attachment Copy to: Mr. Kevin Fleaney, SCGA Respectfully yours, Corn Rheiner 11030 De Anza Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item P —608 825 East Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0835 1 Phone: 909.387.8109 Fax: 909.387.7876 SAN BERNARDINO Department of Public Works Environmental & Construction • Flood COUNTY Operations • Solid Waste Management Suneyor • Transportation May 26, 2015 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAY 16 2015 Michael Smith. Associate Planner City of Ranch Cucamonga RECEIVED - PLANNING Mlchael.SnllthRcityofrC us Gerry Newcombe Director File: 10(ENV)-4.01 RE: CEQA — NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUB -AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Mr. Smith: Thank you for giving the San Bernardino County Department of Public Works the opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project. We received this request on April 27, 2015 and pursuant to our review, the following comments are provided: Traffic Division (Eloy Ruvalcaba PWE lit 909 387 1869)• I. When the Traffic Impact Analysis becomes available, please submit it to the traffic Division foi review and comment. Environmental Management Division (Brandy Wood Ecological Resource Specialist 909 387 7931) The draining of Red Hill Park lake, also within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, has revealed artificial lakes can provide habitat for a variety of species. In particular, the Red Hill Park Lake produced over 500 individuals of turtles, fish, frogs and other aquatic invertebrates. As the proposed project has not only one lake, but several. it would be prudent to conduct biological surveys and include the loss of this habitat within the biological assessment. While the document indicates a habitat assessment was conducted, it did not involve a focused survey of the lake population. We have several concerns regarding the Initial Study, section 4d. "The project site does not provide any connecting between natural open space areas. Additionally, and as noted in the 2010 General Plan Update EIR, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, does not contain known wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project would disrupt or have any adverse effects to migratory corridors or linkages that may occur in the general vicinity of the project site." We respectfully disagree with the statement above. The State of California is experiencing a severe drought. waterfowl and other migratory bird species use these lakes as resting stops as Item P —609 M. Smith, City of Rancho Cucamonga CEQA Comments - NOP for Industrial area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Rancho Cucamonga May 26, 2015 Page 2 of 2 they continue along their migratory corridor. These lakes could provide an important stop over site for migrating birds and the elimination of these resources is not analyzed in this document. Additionally, the document denies in Section 4d that the area contains known wildlife nursery sites, however this is very doubtful when considering nesting ducks and other waterfowl. Furthermore, golf courses are known favorite nesting sites for western bluebirds, American robins, coots and killdeer. This document does not address impact to these nesting birds and other wildlife nursery sites. Environmental Management Division (Erma Hurse Senior Planner, 909-387-1864): The Draft EIR should identify future drainage and flood control facilities in reference to the City's Master Drainage Plan (MDP) to allow for development within the area. 2. It is assumed that the Draft EIR will address adequate provisions for intercepting and conducting accumulated drainage flows around and through future development sites in a manner that will not adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. 3. In meeting state mandated source reduction, recycling, and composting requirements, the Draft EIR should state specific programs that are in place to help reduce, recycle or divert waste from being landfilled. If you have any questions, please contact the individuals who provided the specific comment, as listed above. Sincerely, (~ NIDHAM ARAM ALRAYES, MSCE, PE, QSD/P Public Works Engineer III Environmental Management Item P -610 CITY 4C7i' 303 EAST'S" STREET, CIVIC CENTER OPrTARIC PAUL S. LEON MAWH ALAN D. WAPNER MAYOR M 1EM JIM W. BOWMAN DEBRA DOAST-PORAOA PAUL. VINCEdN1 AVILA COUNCIL M9.I9LN3 \lay 27, 2015 City ofRancho ncho Cucamonga Mr. Michael Smith. Associate Planner 10�00 ('ivic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 917?o "T%q VIAL R I O ,ALIFORNIA 91764 4105 (909) 395-2000 FAX (909) 395-2070 At C POLING ore IAANAGER MARY E. WIRTFS, MMC CII V CLERK JAMES R MILHISER IREASUFLH CITY OF RANCHO CIJCAMONGA MAY 1 11015 RECEIVED - piANNING RE: NOTICE: OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PUBLIC: SCOPING MEETING FOR THE: RANCHO Cl CAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUB - ARE ,A 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT (EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT) Mr. Smith. Chank you for allowing the City of Ontario an oppOrtunity to review and comment on the above referenced project. After reviewing the Notice of Preparation, the City requests that the following comment be addressed: • hhe FIR should complete a traffic impact analysis (TIA) in accordance with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program. All City of Ontario intersections anticipated to add at least 0 two-way peak hour trips over existing volumes should he analyzed. • 1 he project proposes a new traffic signal controlled street connection on 4'di street approximately 100 feet east of Cleveland ACCmte. An analysis was prepared by Fehr and Pecr; in June. 2014 demonstrated that the intersection Would work w ithout any traffic impacts. The Fehr d Peers study should be updated to reflect anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed land uses and the results of the study should he documented in the TIA to validate the earlier findings. • The EIR should complete a llydrolog} and hydraulic analysis to identity potential impacts from the proposed development. The EIR should diseuss the corresponding mitigation measures and identity the fair share of improvements- www.ci.onte rio.ca.0 s ® Panted on vacycled paper. Item P -611 Mr. Smith May 27, 2015 Page 2 We appreciate being involved in the environmental review of the project and look forward to continued communications regarding this project. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact me at (909) 395-2419, or Richard Ayala, Senior Planner, at (909) 395-2421. Sincerely. Item P —612 ` CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I May 26, 2015 ! Mr. Michael Smith, Associate Planner MAY 2 7 2015 City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, 91730 RECEIVED -PLANNING Phone: (909) 477-2750 x14317a Email: Mlchael.smith@cityofrc.us r e', E RNI lob of r,oSEer�ratritn RE: SCAG Comment on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact P P Report for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project [SCAG NO, IGR8456] Main Office 818 West Seventh Street Dear Mr. Smith, 12th Floor Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Los Angeles, California Report for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project ("proposed project'') to the Southern 90017-3,135 California Association of Governments (SCAG) for review and comment. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter -Governmental Review (IGR) of programs proposed t 1213123.3 1800 for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential IIz13;z3e lazy Executive Order 12372. Additionally, SCAG reviews the Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans pursuant to the ,.,rag C. gov California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.. SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency under state law, and is responsible for preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) including its Officers Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) component pursuant to SB 375. As the clearinghouse for regionally significant projects per Executive Order 12372, SCAG r. -sry' Jega; V:a sc: E' G•,!u reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans.' E,.s,'✓,c= Presdcnt Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project Ahch_Ie?,a•➢net 5an:a Ana sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of the regional goals and s ... o"Ic.rresd,,1 policies in the RTP/SCS. Na,ga-et'way. ouart. SCAG staff has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact irrrredaua,:;t,es�n-nt Car, M..:en^....ssr go nren: v, Report for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project. The proposed project involves Specific Plan Amendment which would allow for high density and medium -high density Executive/Administration residential, mixed -use, open space, and transit -oriented land uses in the area. The Committee Chair number of residential dwelling units would range from a minimum of 2,500 units to a o:r,,-uega:.wan•, e:-,,; , maximum of 4,000 units and a maximum of 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses. Policy Committee Chairs When available, please send environmental documentation to SCAG's office in Los F'o"o,'•, and Angeles or by email to sunf@scag.ca.gov providing, at a minimum, the full public N,.rnn De.elopmznr aal bar.5y 5c.r comment period for review. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Lijin Sun, Esq., Senior Regional Planner, at (213) 236-1882 or E,e•gv d Errwcn.•nent D_bcrah F;;benecn =a'm sunl(ai7scag.ca.00v. Thank you. y tues•Vru:mn R.a� f. tCner 5ar 3•r-adno Sincerely Ping Chang, Program Manager II, Land Use and Environmental Planning I SB 375 amends CEQA to add Chapter 4.2 Implementation of the Sustainable Communities Strategy. which allows for certain CEQA streamlining for projects consistent with the RTP%SCS. Lead agencies (including local jurisdictions) maintain the discretion and will be solely responsible for detemlining'consistency' of any future project with the SCS Any 'consistency' findirg by SCAG pursuant to the IGR process should not be construed as a finding of consistency under SB 375 for purposes of CEQA streamlining -hv Reyo iai Ccunsd:pn,.>ts of 8e eleucd nElaale n-pmsevtvlo 191 cit e. six counties. s:x Coanvy T•tn .x nation Con::niss: ons. one wprrvse:11abve trom the Tract sporatior _orrido• Agercies, enC Tribal E.nvernment representative and one representative for the Art Districts within Soutrern CGthfornia Item P —613 May 26, 2015 SCAG No. IGR8456 Mr. Smith Page 2 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT [SCAG NO. IGR84561 CONSISTENCY WITH RTPISCS SCAG reviews environmental documents for regionally significant projects for their consistency with the adopted RTP/SCS. 2012 RTPISCS Goals The SCAG Regional Council adopted the 2012 RTP/SCS in April 2012. The 2012 RTP/SCS links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation -friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations (see http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov). The goals included in the 2012 RTP/SCS may be pertinent to the proposed project. These goals are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of regional goals and policies. Among the relevant goals of the 2012 RTPISCS are the following: I SCAG 2012 RTPISCS GOALS I RTPISCS G 1:. Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness RTPISCS G2: Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region RTP/SCS 33: Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region RTPISCS G4: Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system RTP/SCS 35: Maximize the productivity of our transportation system RTP/SCS G6: Protect the environment and health for our residents by improving air quality and encouraging active transportation (non -motorized transportation, such as bicycling and walking) RTP/SCS G7: Activelyencourage and create incentives for energy efficiency, where possible RTP/SCS G8: Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and non -motorized transportation RTP/SCS G9: Maximize the security of the regional transportation system through improved system monitoring, rapid recovery planning, and coordination with other security agencies For ease of review, we encourage the use of a side -by -side comparison of SCAG goals with discussions of the consistency, non -consistency or non -applicability of the policy and supportive analysis in a table format. Suggested format is as follows: Item P —614 May 26, 2015 Mr. Smith SCAG No. IGR8456 Page 3 SCAG 2012 RTPISCS GOALS Goal Analysis RTP/SCS G1 Align the plan investments and policies with improving regional economic development and competitiveness Consistent: Statement as to why; Not -Consistent: Statement as to why; Or Not Applicable: Statement as to why; RTP/5CS G2: Maximize mobilify and accessibility for all people and goods in the region DEIR pagenumberreference Consistent: Statement as to why; Not -Consistent: Statement as to why; Or Not Applicable: Statement as to why; DEIR paqe number reference etc. etc. RTP/SCS Strategies To achieve the goals of the 2012 RTP/SCS, a wide range of strategies are included in SCS Chapter (starting on page 152) of the RTP/SCS focusing on four key areas: 1) Land Use Actions and Strategies; 2) Transportation Network Actions and Strategies; 3) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Actions and Strategies and; 4) Transportation System Management (TSM) Actions and Strategies. if applicable to the proposed project, please refer to these strategies as guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of regional goals and policies. To access a listing of the strategies, please visit http:/irtpscs.scac.ca.gov/Documentsl2Ol2lfinal/f2ol2RTPSCS.pdf (Tables 4.3 —4.7, beginning on page 152). --- Regional Growth Forecasts At the time of this letter, the most recently adopted SCAG forecasts consists of the 2020 and 2035 RTP/SCS population, household and employment forecasts. To view them, please visit http /lscao.ca.cov/Documents!2012AdootedGrowthForecastPDF Pdf. The forecasts for the region and applicable jurisdictions are below. Adopted SCAG Region Wide Forecasts Adopted City of Rosemead Forecasts _ 1 Year 2020 Year 2035 Year 2020 Year 2035 Population 1 19,663,000 K2 .6 167,100 167.100 I Households 1 6,458.000 I Employment 8,414,000 7,325,000 1_ _ 9,441,000 _ _1 56,300 63.900 57,600 68,300 MITIGATION SCAG staff recommends that you review the SCAG 2012 RTP/SCS Final Program EIR Mitigation Measures for guidance, as appropriate. See Chapter 6 (beginning on page 143) at: http.//rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/peir/2012/final/Final2Ol2PEIR pd` As referenced in Chapter 6, a comprehensive list of example mitigation measures that may be considered as appropriate is included in Appendix G: Examples of Measures that Could Reduce Impacts from Planning. Development and Transportation Projects. Appendix G can be accessed at: Item P —615 Date: March 30, 2015 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Cultural Heritage Program 12700 Pumarra Road, Banning, CA 92220 Phone (951)755-5025 Fax (951)572-6004 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Re: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTDRC2015-00114 APR 01 2015 Dear, Mike Smith RECEIVED - PLANNING Thank you for contactingthe Morongo Band of Mission Indians regarding the above referenced project(s). The tribe greatly appreciates the opportunity to comment on the project. After reviewing our records and consulting with our tribal elders and cultural experts, wewould like to respectfully offer the following comments and/or recommendations: X The project is outside of the Tribe'scurrent reservation boundaries and is not within an area considered to be a traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties (i.e. Cahuilla or Serrano Territory). We recommend contacting the appropriate tribes who have cultural affiliation to the project area. We have no further comments at this time. The project is outside of the Tribe's current reservation boundaries but within in an area considered to be a traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties (i.e. Cahuilla or Serrano Territory). At this time, we are not aware of any cultural resources on the property; however, that is not to say there is nothing present. At this time, we ask that you impose specific conditions regarding all cultural and/or archaeological resources and buried cultural materialson any development plans or entitlement applications (see Standard Development Conditions attachment). The project is outside of the Tribe's current reservation boundaries but within in an area considered to be a traditional use area or one in which the Tribe has cultural ties (i.e. Cahuilla or Serrano Territory). At this time we ask that you impose specific conditions regarding all cultural and/or archaeological resources and buried cultural materialson any development plans or entitlement applications (see Standard Development Conditions attachment). Furthermore, we would like to formally request the following: 1. A thorough records search be conducted by contacting one of the CHRIS (California Historical Resources Information System) Archaeological Information Centers and have a copy of the search results be provided to the tribe. A comprehensive cultural survey be conducted of the proposed project property and any APE'S (Areas of Potential Effect) within the property. We would also like to request that a tribal monitor be present during the cultural survey and that a copy of the results be provided to the tribe as soon as it can be made available. Item P —616 3. Morongo would like to request that our tribal monitors be present during any test excavations or subsequent ground disturbing activities during the construction phase of the project. The project is located with the current boundaries of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians Reservation. Please contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians planning department for further details. Once again, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please be aware that receipt of this letter does not constitute "meaningful" tribal consultation nor does it conclude the consultation process. This letter is merely intended to initiate consultation between the tribe and lead agency, which may be followed up with additional emails, phone calls or face-to-face consultation if deemed necessary. If you should have any further questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, Raymond Huaute Cultural Resource Specialist Morongo Band of Mission Indians Email: rhuaute@morongo-nsn.gov Phone: (951) 755-5025 Item P —617 MORON60 BAND OF MIS510N INDIANS n 10VE0.(I4N NATION Standard Development Conditions The Morongo Band of Mission Indians asks that you impose specific conditions regarding cultural and/or archaeological resources and buried cultural mate rialson any development plans or entitlement applications as follows: 1. If human remains are encountered during grading and other construction excavation, work in the immediate vicinity shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5. 2. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project development/construction, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the overall project may continue during this assessment period. If significant Native American cultural resources are discovered, for which a Treatment Plan must be prepared, the developer or his archaeologist shall contact the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. b. If requested by the Tribe', the developer or the project archaeologist shall, in good faith, consult on the discovery and its disposition (e.g. avoidance, preservation, return of artifacts to tribe, etc.). 'The Morongo Band of Mission Indians realizes that there may be additional tribes claiming cultural affiliation to the area; however. Morongo can only speak for itself. The Tribe has no objection if the archaeologist wishes to consult with other tribes and if the city wishes to revise the condition to recognize other tribes. Item P —618 Smith, Michael From: Andy <gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com> .ent: Sunday, May 10, 2015 8:49 PM To: Smith, Michael Cc: Christina Swindall Martinez. Kizh Gabrieleno; Tim Miguel.Kizh Gabrieleno; Matt Teutimez.Kizh Gabrieleno Subject: Notice of preparation of a draft environmental impact report and public scoping meeting for the Rancho Cucamonga industrial area ( Empire lakes specific plan project) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dear Michael Smith This email is in regards to your letter Dated April 27,2015 MAY 10 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING "The project locale "Cucamonga "lies in an area where the traditional territories of the Gabrielef:o villages adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Gabrieleiros , probably the most in/luential Native American group in aboriginal southern: California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), iras centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reached as far east as the San Bernardino -Riverside - Channel Islands and the inland costal areas. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/ base sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory_ in search ofspecilic plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs ofspecial use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources. Therefore in order to protect our Cultural resources we're requesting one of our experienced & certified Native American monitors to be on rite during any & all ground disturbances. In all cases, when the NAHC states there are "No" records of sacred sites" in the subject area; they always refer the contractors back to the Native American Tribes whose tribal territory the project area is in. This is due to the fact, that the NAHC is only aware of general information on each California NA Tribe they are "NOT " the "experts" on our Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians are the experts and is the reason why the NAHC will always refer contractors to the local tribes. Please contact our office regarding this project to coordinate a Native American Monitor to be present. Sincerely, Andy Salas Chainnan Of Gabrieleno Band Of Mission Indians/Kizh (Kit'c) Nation Of the Los Angeles Basin, Orange county and the Channel islands. NOTICE: PLEASE FILE OUR CONTACT INFORAIATIO1V FOR CONSULTATION ON ALL FUTURE PROJECTS WITMIN OUR TRIBAL TERRITORY........ Item P —619 May 26, 2015 To: Mr. Michael Smith, Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 michael.smith(a cityofrc us From: Leatha Elsdon 6035 Falling Tree Lane Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 jlwcelsdon@msn.com CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAY 0 5 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING Subject: Comments Submission regarding NOP Draft EIR, Initial Study, Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project) In response to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's request for community comments regarding the EIR Scoping Process for the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project, as a community member for over twenty years, and the parents of two current high school students I would like to submit the following comments. The city and/or Lewis Land Developers may not be aware that currently three of the four high schools within the city, Los Osos, Rancho Cucamonga, and Alta Loma use Empire Lakes for golf team practice. The Los Osos golf team also uses Empire Lakes for course practice and league tournaments. Chaffey High school uses the golf course for both team/course practice and league tournaments. The complete demolition of the Empire Lakes Golf Course would significantly impact the local high school teams, as well as all of the high school golf teams in the area, as there is very limited access to golf courses within the Inland Empire. The complete demolition of Empire Lakes would cause the high school golf teams to travel extensive distances to other courses; again if other courses are even available. The additional travel, which may not have been considered in the Initial Study, will cause financial hardship on the school districts, players and parents. Since Empire Lakes is a world class venue and an Arnold Palmer designed course, the Southern California Professional Golf Association Junior Tour (SCPGAJT) uses the golf course several times a year for junior tournaments. Most recently these tournaments have been qualifiers for the Toyota Tour Cup SCPGAJT series, with fields of one hundred juniors from the Inland Empire and surrounding communities. Empire Lakes is a challenging course that prepares local junior golfers for the Toyota Tour Cup series. Demolition of the course would negatively impact local junior golfers, residents and businesses since the challenge of Empire Lakes cannot be replaced; as well as the fact that there are limited golf courses within the area; again forcing additional travel and expense to local residents. The proposed project also impacts the community as a whole; the golf course provides much needed teaching/learning facilities, recreation and Open Space. The golf course offers numerous golf learning/teaching options, including very low cost junior clinics with free use of golf clubs. Complete demolition of the course would negatively impact everyone in the Rancho Cucamonga community by eliminating the ability to learn and practice a sport that teaches honesty, integrity and can be played for a lifetime. The demolition would also remove one of the last Open Spaces within the city and add a significant amount of residential units negatively impacting traffic, city services, education, recreation, utilities, etc., in an all already high density area of the city. Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT G Item P-620 A proposed project that would require such a major Amendment to the General Plan, changing the current land use designation from "Open Space" to "Mixed Use", the complete demolition of Empire Lakes Golf Course needs to be studied in great detail and all possible alternates assessed prior to issuance of any agency approvals. Therefore, in accordance with the NOP the following alternates are submitted: Executive Nine Hole Golf Course Alternates: 1 Retain the driving range, putting/chipping area and the seven holes on the south side of Sixth Street. Manage the course so that existing holes 1 and 2 can be replayed as new holes 8 and 9 thus providing a nine hole executive course with minimal, if any changes to the current course layout. This alternate would complement the required access to the south side driving range facilities. 2 Retain the driving range, putting/chipping area and the seven holes on the south side of Sixth Street. Convert existing holes 5 and 8, (PAR 5 holes), into four PAR 3 or PAR 4 holes. This would provide a total of nine holes on the south side; two tee boxes and two greens would need to be installed. 3. Retain the driving range, putting/chipping area and the seven holes on the south side of Sixth Street. Convert a portion of the south side driving range/practice area, which includes a putting green and sand trap, into a PAR 3 hole. Convert holes 5 or 8 (PAR 5) into a PAR 4 and PAR 3 hole, thus adding two holes to the south side for a total of nine holes. 4 Retain the driving range, putting/chipping area and a combination of nine holes on the south and north side of Sixth Street in a manner that would benefit the community and the proposed Lewis Land Development project. Eighteen Hole Golf Course Alternates: A Retain the majority of the driving range, putting/chipping area on the south side of Sixth Street Convert a portion of the south side driving range/practice area, which includes a putting green and sand trap, into a PAR 3 hole. Delete holes 4, 5 and 10, reconfigure holes 11 and 12, in a manner that would retain a PAR 70 course. This alternate could be coordinated with the proposed "The Parkway" east side project development. I am confident given the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission's and Lewis Group of Companies commitment to the community's, health, recreation, education and business, an alternate solution to the complete removal of Empire Lakes Golf Course can be achieved. Sincerely, S 2 S-✓-�"" Leatha Elsdon. Date Page 2 of 2 Item P -621 Smith, Michael From: ,ent: To: Subject: Dear Mike Smith - Donald Autrey <donald.autrey@gmail.com> Wednesday, May 20, 2015 7:41 PM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Smith, Michael Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project MAY 2 0 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING I just stumbled upon the proposed changes to the Empire Lakes zone and saw that you checked off that there would be significant effects on the environment from the project. It would be a shame to see one more open area swallowed up. I was astounded first that the change would even be proposed. Then I was amazed at the idea of an additional 4,000 residential units in the area. Milliken is already a headache. I hope that the City gives this a great deal of thought. Once open space is gone, well, it is gone. Sincerely Donald Autrey Item P —622 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 21, 2015 Michael Smith MAY 2 1 2015 Associate Planner RECEIVED - PLANNING City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - P,mpire Lakes Specific Plan Project Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for the making available the Notice ol' Preparation of EIR and Scoping Meeting for the Empire bakes Specific Plan Project. As a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and frequent golfer at Empire Lakes, I have heard discussions at the course since summer 2014 regarding a change to the land use at Empire Lakes. It was very helpful to review the information in the Notice and Initial Study. I'mpire Lakes course is an exceptional, well -maintained facility used by golfers and families from the local connnuutity. surrounding southern California areas, and visitors from out-oFstate. It would seem that keeping an existing high -quality golf course in a prime southern California location and city like Rancho Cucamonga would be a high priority. In any event, please refer to my May 20"' letter to the Southern California Golf Association, attached here as copy to the city. 'flee Purpose of the SCGA letter is to inform the golf community of the Notice of Preparation posted on the city's web site, and to encourage them to participate in the public review and continent process. Comment on the Notice of Preparation Initial Study item No. 15. a) - Is removal of the golf course considered an impact? If so, could a discussion of the type of impact and mitigation be included in the EIR? I appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study, and look forward to next steps in the process. And, thanks again to you and all the city staff for your time and effort to make Rancho a great place to live. Attachment Copy to: Mr. Kevin Heaney, SCOA Respect tulV} ours, fom Rheiner 11030 De Anza Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item P —623 May 20, 2015 Kevin Heaney Executive Director Southern California Golf Association 3740 Cahuenga Blvd. Studio City, CA 91604 Dear Mr. Heaney, As an avid golfer and resident of Rancho Cucamonga, I wanted to inform you and the SCGA membership of the enclosed Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report associated with a change the land use at Empire Lakes Golf Course, specifically to remove the golf course and replace it with mixed use development. The full document is at: htip://www.cityo fre.us/eitylial I/plane inecurrent_projects/empire_lakes_specific_plan_project/default.asp This 30-day public comment period (April 27-May 26, comments accepted until June W) is intended to solicit comments on potential environmental impacts related to the project. Other steps in the process and anticipated approvals are indicated on page two of the notice at the web site above. I have golfed regularly at Empire Lakes since 2002, and am a member of SCGA. Empire Lakes is a first-class facility built by General Dynamics in the mid- 1990s with an Arnold Palmer design. The course has hosted the Nationwide (now web.com) tour for several years until 2007. The course currently hosts many local high school, college, and amateur and professional (Pepsi tour) events, as well as lessons and clinics conducted by PGA professional instructors. While it is within the owner's discretion to transfer ownership of the property to a development company rather than continue as a golf course, I believe (along with many others) there is a valid case that the course has the potential to remain a going concern, given its high quality design and location. The course is well -maintained, has a unique 18-hole Palmer layout, and is situated at the 1-15/1-10 freeway interchange in the Inland Empire approximately three miles from Ontario airport. In addition to patronage by players from the local community, Empire Lakes is a frequent destination for golfers from other southern California areas and travelers arriving from out-of-state. I have frequently joined groups visiting from Orange County, Los Angeles, and beyond who make the trip for a quality golf round at reasonable cost and less crowded conditions. 1 have reviewed the documents on the city's web site and plan to submit a brief letter to communicate the value and significance of the golf course to the community and to the sport. Judging from the extensive site assessments and exhibits in the Specific Plan land use change documents on the city's web site at the link above, the next steps appear to be in the direction of redevelopment. Item P —624 Page 12 As a private citizen with no ownership interest in the golf course property, I realize I am merely a member of the public who uses a facility open to the public, and that my options are limited to communicating with others in the golf community and to city of Rancho Cucamonga decision makers at the appropriate time and within context of the public process. I also acknowledge that there are greater issues involved among the owners, the development company, and the city with regard to future development and land use goals, finances, and overall municipal platming considerations. The city of Rancho Cucamonga is an exemplary community in all aspects, and I feel very fortunate to be a resident here. The well -directed planning by city staff is reflected in the balanced, safe, and comfortable community we have here today. I trust their staff will continue to exercise solid judgement for the best interests of the citizens. I would like to suggest to SCGA staff to encourage, whenever possible, that golf course managers act responsibly and put forth a sincere effort to operate their courses in a competent and creative manner to keep their investments intact. I believe that Empire Lakes has all the qualities to be a successful golf course operation, and should not have to be redeveloped and lost. Specifically, during the public comment periods offered by the city of Rancho Cucamonga, prominent members of the golf community should express their interest to the city to consider the value and potential of Empire Lakes golf course in light of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. Development plans such as those now being proposed are certainly desirable in a community at the right place and time, however they should be in balance with other land uses and interests. Empire Lakes has been a success in the past, notably hosting the Nationwide professional tour events while attracting major spectator groups and supporting charities such as Loma Linda Children's Hospital, and others, and has tremendous potential for golf, dining services, and entertainment. Maintaining the course in operation would preserve a valuable golf venue in the local community, and protect a 162-acre open space asset in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. With a capable management team, this situation is entirely feasible. Respectfully yours, Tom Rheiner Enclosure: Empire Lakes Golf Course, Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting to change land use (excerpts) Copy to: PGA of America, 100 Avenue of the Champions, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33418 (Mr. Derek Sprague) Arnold Palmer Design Company, 9000 Bay Hill Boulevard, Suite 300, Orlando, Florida 32819 (Mr. Thad Layton) City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (Mr. Mike Smith, Associate Planner) Item P —625 RANCHO Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting (AUCAAIONGA April 27. 2015 To: Reviewing Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Reportand Public Scoping Meeting for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project) From: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Contact: Mr. Michael Smith, Associate Planner Pursuant to Section 21165 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15050 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be the lead agency for an environmental impact report (EIR) that will be prepared to address potential impacts associated with the project identified below. The purpose of this notice is (1) to serve as a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR pursuant to the Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (2) to advise and solicit comments and suggestions regarding the scope and content of the EIR to be prepared for the proposed project, and (3) to serve as a notice for the public scoping meeting. We need to know your agency's views regarding the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location. and potential environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. An electronic copy of the Initial Study is attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law. your response must be sent at the earliest possible date and should be received not later than 30 days after the date of this notice However, a scoping meeting will be held on June 10, 2015 and your response will be accepted until that date. Project Title: Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan ([ASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project (also referred to as the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project) Project Location — City: Rancho Cucamonga Project Location — County: San Bernardino The project site is located north of 4 h Street. west of Milliken Avenue. east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8'" Street and the Metrolink rail line in the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San Bernardino County The City of Rancho Cucamonga's southern boundary with the City of Ontario is formed by 4v Street. The project site is currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course (11015 61^ Street, Rancho Cucamonga). Refer to Exhibit 1 in the Initial Study for the local and regional vicinity. Project Description: The proposed project involves an amendment to the IASP Sub -Area 18 (Empire Lakes) Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development on the existing Empire Lakes Golf Course property (new Planning Area [PA] 1). The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would Item P —626 allow for high density and medium -high density residential, mixed use, open space, and transit - oriented land uses all within close proximity to transit services and local regional activity centers. The number of residential dwelling units in PA 1 would range from a minimum of 2,500 units to a maximum of up to 4,000 units. Additionally, a maximum of 220,000 square feet (sf) of non- residential uses would be allowed in PA 1. Vehicular and non -vehicular circulation and utility infrastructure would be installed, as necessary, to serve the proposed uses. Based on available information, anticipated initial approvals required from the City to implement the proposed project may include, but are not limited to, adoption of the proposed IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment; approval of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from "Open Space" to "Mixed Use"; and, approval of a Zoning Amendment to update text related to the Mixed Use zone. Approval of Parcel Maps(s) and a Development Agreement may also be considered. Potential Environmental Effects: The attached Initial Study indicates that there may be significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this project, for the following topical areas: Aesthetics and Visual, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning. Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. These topics will be addressed in the EIR. In addition, the EIR will also describe and evaluate project alternatives that may reduce or avoid any identified significant adverse impacts of the proposed project. Responding to this Notice; Pursuant to Section 15082 of the State CEQA Guidelines, responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties, including members of the public, must submit any comments in response to this notice no later than 30 days after receipt. Comments and suggestions should, at a minimum, (1) identify the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures that should be explored in the EIR. (2) whether the responding agency will be a responsible or trustee agency for the proposed project: and (3) any related issues raised by organizations and/or interested parties other than potential responsible or trustee agencies, including interested or affected members of the public. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency The NOP and accompanying Initial Study are available for a 30-day public review period beginning April 27, 2016 and ending May 26, 2016, but the scoping meeting will occur on June 10, 2015 and your response will he accepted up until that date. Copies of the document are available for review at the following locations: Public Information and Services Counter City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730 (909) 477-2700 Archibald Library 7368 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2720 Biane Library 12505 Cultural Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 477-2720 Item P —627 And can be accessed online at http://www.citvofrc.us/citvhall/plannina/current Proiectsfdefault asp in the folder titled "Empire Lakes Specific Plan Project'. All comments and responses to this notice should be submitted in writing to Mr. Michael Smith. Associate Planner, at the address noted above. The City will also accept responses to this notice submitted via email received through the close of business on May 26, 2015. Email responses to this notice may be sent to Michael.Smith@cityofrc.us. For additional information or any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Michael Smith at (909) 477-2750 ext. 4317 or at the aforementioned email. Notice of Scoping Meeting: The proposed project is considered a project of statewide, regional, or area -wide significance- A scoping meeting will be held by the ity at the Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2015 at 7:00 PM at the Rancho Cucamon ty Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. Date --- -- - Signature Item P -628 I n . „ 'ram ,�i ;i-+r., � ,• ,,,r � ct Location YOba Linda man 114nt , v ify v P T � i','' �►:?6�� Sit .I, �� ��.- ' {{ _ p�ry•- •+\. �I „ilcftK i1 f:. .i r r.< rr- d���:�,.�'�t.�•l �f' I i ESv -'�1 " .£L I���li- t • d ` T 1!� �• vo- •7 i C '+• Fl �ti w k vi .. City of Rancho Cucamonga ; o lu "I Rif 1pf Ito ww u :f -rr+�f+. rr�rlr Ire,-4 rlMi4+4r1,rnHr.,..r,+Met oRnk Red Line PockeG Park— — McGrollnk - SGOGIO❑ North S13 Ct .,, Poc S14 Pow® VN 9-16 VN is M rPeu N-02 WC , N9 Cl. � r •nr. N8 eVN The Pine The Vine nrb Sheen i l S-22 S•O a s.z„ ! South FEC' f7GC' (A 1 e 1. ler u-IS VN j 1V VN -- The Vino s 7 a 5-19 VN a m r.�: Pioacylw l egend i M%ed Uaa IMUI 'Jronr Na.ghbaor r.•:ctl (::b m rvny icr r rinhye Nr.�yM,orno :,t i'/N, nn:^enmon 6Wc' 3cnr:e Prlha•n Nei„anelcr 4rmActs cc ::; o Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype Exhibit 3_ 1A-(SPP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment PSOMAS 3,• L10It.i nr a" u:o',p :eY Item P —630 Smith, Michael From: .ent: To: Subject: Greg Walker 6001 Milliken Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA May 24, 2015 Gregory Walker <gregory_walker2726@yahoo.com> Monday, May 25, 2015 2:00 PM Smith, Michael CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Empire Lakes Development MAY252015 RECEIVED. PlANNING Dear members of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Planning Department, I am writing you this letter in regards to the proposed project currently under review on the land where Empire Lakes Golf Course is built. I am currently the Varsity Golf Coach at Los Osos High School. I am unable to attend the council meeting that is scheduled for June 10 to discuss the impact the development will have on the community. I am hoping you will take into consideration the following when forming the final development plans. For the past 13 years, I have had the privilege of coaching and hosting hundreds of high school golfers at Empire Lakes. Currently we play 12 home matches and conduct over 30 home practices at the course. Chaffey "sigh School uses the course on alternate days that we do not, so this development will effect them as well. The Claremont Colleges use the course so development will effect them negatively also. To lose the golf course completely, will have an extremely negative impact on the community. In a day and age where personal electronic devices and video games seem to dominate the lives of so many, especially young people, recreational opportunities should not be taken away. When a course is completely leveled and developed with condos or apartment buildings recreational opportunities are taken. Golf is a sport that requires a course, you cannot go to the local park to play as that is illegal. Over the past 13 seasons I have enjoyed seeing the personal development of so many young students. When the golfers are playing in a match, they have to evaluate situations, make sensible and correct rulings, and make decisions that effect the outcome of a match. As a high school teacher, I know based on conversations I have with community members that they want to see young members of the community become self sufficient problem solvers. I have witnessed many players use their golf experience as a contributing factor to solid personal development. The course should not be taken from them. Currently we have a few golfers who stand a solid chance of receiving a college golf scholarship. How will they be able to continue their development and pursuit of their goals without a golf course in their home town? Again opportunities will be taken from them. You might be thinking that our school should just go to another course outside the community. Easier said than done. We have very limited transportation funds which we currently exhaust each ,ear. There is not additional funding for us to travel to another course. Other surrounding courses are currently at capacity with regards to the number of teams they host. Again, without a course it will be the death of a program that has had a positive impact on so many young students. Item P —631 With all of that in mind, I would hope that the city would require the future developer to keep and manage the golf course as is. While I am under the impression that keeping the golf course as is, is probably not a possibility, I am asking that it be required of the developer to keep nine holes. A golf course architect will urely be able to reconfigure the south side of the course into a nine hole venue. Or, better yet, the North side already has 11 holes, 2 of which could be converted to a clubhouse and practice facility. This needs to be required of the developer. Our community desperately needs this to be done. The negative impact will be irreversible. Our community needs to have a golf course. I appreciate your time. I ask that you thoughtfully consider the students and the negative impact this development could have on the future of our great community. If I can be of further help in this matter, please contact me at (909)373-7640. Sincerely, Greg Walker Los Osos High School Golf Coach Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Item P —632 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 10, 2015 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Pledge of Allegiance 7 00 PM I.TeurvF711 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Howdyshell X Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission 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 Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, 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. 1►�5710 EXHIBIT Q Item Q —633 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES jjlNceo JUNE 109 2015 C.UCAMONGA Page 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration to adopt minutes dated May 27, 2015 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0 to adopt the minutes of May 27, 2015 IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2015-00118 — LEWIS OPERATING CORP: An opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposal to amend the IASP Subarea 18 (Empire Lakes) Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development at the Empire Lakes Golf Course property located north of 4ch Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 811 Street and the Metrolink rail line. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and the PowerPoint Presentation (copy on file). Tom Reiner, said he submitted two letters. He said his concern is the impact to recreation — He asked -what is the impact with the removal of the golf course; what type and to what groups is the impact; Students? Families? He asked what the mitigations might be. He said many instructional clinics occur regularly there with 5-10 students at a time. Gary Price, a longtime resident said he plays the course once a week. He said interscholastic tournaments are held there as well as practices. He said the City is becoming over built with high density housing, bringing an increase in crime and traffic. He said apartments bring impacts and costs for local infrastructure, services, water usage, utilities, sewers, police, fire and schools. He said the golf course could be revamped to be more water wise and open space preserved. He added that it is a timeless sport whereby they teach young 6-year olds and 85-year olds are still playing. It adds value to the community because not everyone can play soccer or tennis. Item Q —634 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JUNE 10, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 3 Leatha Elsden sent a letter to Mr. Smith which is included with the staff report. She said all 4 high schools use the facility for practice and tournaments; it is one of the last courses in the area; golf is a game that can be played into throughout one's lifetime. Frank Franiv said he is a volunteer at the golf course. He said they have 100 golfers per day, 36, 000 per year using it for recreation. Jeffrey Anderson, a resident of 39 years, a business owner, and former golf professional said Empire lakes is a jewel. He helps the high school golf team. He said the facility has been chosen for its status and quality; it is an opportunity for recreation. Seeing and hearing no further public comment, Chairman Wimberly closed the public hearing. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, said this is step 2, the Initial study was step 1. He said the EIR will be drafted, revised and put out for public comment, then public hearings will occur here and with the City Council. He said there will be ample time and opportunity to respond as it moves forward. Chairman Wimberly then asked the Commissioners for their comments. Commissioner Fletcher said he would like the EIR to comment on how the golf course serves our community within the master plan and with respect to Healthy RC; analyze the loss of the course and talk about how the new development of high density residential is a better use than the existing use. He said he wants to be confident that the new use is the higher use for our community. He said it should evaluate both positive and negative economic effects on the City in terms of supporting the new development. He said he wants to see a master plan of what will be built and a schedule for each segment. He said the retail portion is often not built for a long time. He asked if the initial developer plans on building the entire property. He asked for analysis on how the development would negatively affect our residents and serve our existing residents (traffic, pollution, services). He asked for analysis regarding the City's existing open space and the types and percent of reduction from the loss of the golf course. He said they should look at the existing open space with respect to the General Plan. He said the golf course has a different use than the other parks and we should have a balance in the community. He said it needs to be compelling that the change in the land use will be better than what we have now. Commissioner Howdyshell referred to Healthy RC with respect to recreation. She asked how and what recreation is the option if the course is lost. She said golf provides a sport and noted it is not a private (club) course. She said she does not want to see it lost and she sees it as a lifetime sport for many. She said she wants to see the highest and best use of the land. Item Q -635 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,CHO JUNE 10, 2015 Cuc,utoNce Page 4 Commissioner Munoz concurred with Commissioners Howdyshell and Fletcher; He said the study should talk about alternatives and see if we can keep some of the course. He reiterated that this is just step 2 and there is a long way to go. Vice Chairman Oaxaca agreed with Commissioner Munoz as the document is light on alternatives. He said he would expect more analysis for alternatives -what needs could those alternatives fulfill. He said 4000 units could have significant impacts to the City's infrastructure. He said he would like more opportunities for more community input such as a workshop with larger, detailed renderings. Chairman Wimberly agreed with all the other Commissioners and asked for the alternatives and the analysis should explain what we are trying to solve. He said he is hoping for more expansive analysis. The Secretary received and filed the comments to be incorporated into the development of the EIR. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION C. INTER -AGENCY UPDATES None D. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None VI. ADJOURNMENT 7:48 PM 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 4, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. 11 Item Q —636 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JUNE 10, 2015 CONOA Page 5 INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,533 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us. Item Q —637 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING DEP.4RTJIENT , DATE: November 10, 2015 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director By; Mike Smith, Senior Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP .FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) — A workshop to discuss a proposal to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan in order to allow a mixed use project on a property currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course, a private facility located north of 4'h Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 811 Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Development Agreement DRC2015-00118. PURPOSE: The purpose of this workshop is to give the Planning Commission and interested public an introduction and overview of the proposed amendment to the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (]ASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan to allow the reuse of the Empire Lakes Golf Course site as a mixed use project. The proposed project will be set for public hearing at a future date at which time public testimony will be taken and consideration of the proposed project will occur. At this workshop, the only action taken will be to receive and file the report presented. In that future public hearings will be required, the Commission is requested to refrain from commentary for or against the project but to ask for any clarification of the elements of the proposed project. ACTION: The Secretary will receive and file.the report. GENERAL: A. Site Description: The project site is the Empire Lakes Golf Course, currently a privately owned and operated 18-hole golf course with an area of 160 acres located in the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Empire Lakes Specific Plan" or "Specific Plan"). The physical limits of the "planning area" of the Speck Plan are 41h Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the west, and 8'h Street and the, BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north (Exhibit A). The golf course is generally located at the center of this planning area. Both the golf course and the planning area are bisected into north and south halves by 6th Street. To the east of the golf course are multi -family residences comprising four (4) apartment ,complexes (Village at the Green, Reserve at Empire Lakes, Ironwood at Empire Lakes, and AMLI at Empire Lakes). Adjacent to the northeast corner of the golf course are office buildings and a Metrolink station. To the west of the south and north halves of the golf course are office buildings and logistics/manufacturing buildings, respectively. To the north of the golf course are additional logistics/manufacturing buildings. To the south, on the opposite side of 4th Street, is vacant land within the City of Ontario. The Specific Plan is comprised of eleven (11) Planning Areas (IA/IB — X). The golf course is within "Planning Area IA", "Planning Area IB", and (partly) "Planning Area EXHIBIT R Item R —638 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SCRANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) November 10, 2015 Paget III" of the Specific Plan (Exhibit B). The land use designation of the golf course is "Open Space" in the City's General Plan. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning (relative to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan): North - Industrial Logistics and Manufacturing Buildings; Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) District South - Commercial Center; Ontario Center Specific Plan (2254-SP) (in the City of Ontario) East - Industrial Offices/Logistics Buildings, a Commercial Center, and Hotels; General Industrial (GI) District, Industrial Park (IP) District, and Industrial Park (IP) District, (Industrial Commercial Overlay District (ICOD)) West - Industrial Offices/Logistics Buildings and Vacant Land; General Industrial (GI) District and Industrial Park (IP) District C. General Plan Designations: North - Heavy Industrial South - Mixed Use — Ontario Mills (in the City of Ontario) East - General Industrial and Industrial, Park West - General Industrial and Industrial Park D. Proiect Description: The applicant, SC Rancho Development Corp., an entity of Lewis Operating Corp., is in the process of purchasing the privately owned land occupied by Empire Lakes Golf Course. The applicant proposes to amend the "Empire Lakes Specific Plan" In order allow the "redevelopment" of the golf course with a mixed use project ("Planning Area 1" or "Empire Lakes"). The amendment will 1) revise/delete existing text and graphics in the Specific Plan that are associated with the Empire Lakes Golf Course; 2) re -designate Planning Area IA, Planning Area IB, and part of Planning Area III as Planning Area 1 (PA1); and 3) incorporate design and technical standards/guidelines into the Specific Plan that will be used to govern the development of Empire Lakes. At this time, applications facilitating development (construction) within the project site, such as tentative tract/parcel maps and/or conceptual site and building plans, have not been submitted for review by the City — these applications will be submitted by the applicant, or other developers, at a future date. The applicant proposes a project currently titled Empire Lakes, that will be comprised of a combination of high density residential, commercial, and office uses in an "urban" setting. The physical arrangement of the project is intended to reduce reliance on automobiles, and encourage walking, bicycling, and use of mass transit including the Metrolink Station immediately north of the project site. Empire Lakes will be comprised of six (6) "Placetypes" — Transit (T), Mixed Use (MU), Urban Neighborhood (UN), Core Living (CL), Village Neighborhood (VN), and Recreation (REC) — that will function similarly to zoning districts (Exhibit B). There will be a range in the permitted density of residential units per acre for each Placetype. Generally, Piacetypes with the highest allowable density range will be located north of 6'" Street near the Metrolink station. Those Placetypes with the lowest allowable density range will be located south of 61 Street. The land uses regulations that will apply within each Placetype are flexible to allow for residential and non-residential uses in close proximity to each other. Other land,uses that will be allowed within Item R —639 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) November 10, 2015 Page 3 Empire Lakes include live/work units, "start-ups", and small-scale businesses. Automobile - related land uses such as gas stations, drive-thru facilities, car washes, etc. will not be permitted anywhere within Empire Lakes. There is intended to be both for rent and for sale housing types within the development. A defining characteristic of Empire Lakes will be a street called "The Vine" (Exhibit C). This public street will be aligned approximately along the north -south axis of Empire Lakes and will be continuous between 41' Street and the Metrolink station. The Vine will be two (2) lanes in width (one lane per direction) with a bicycle lane on both sides of the street. At various locations along The Vine there will be roundabouts, enhanced pedestrian crosswalks, and pedestrian -oriented, small-scale parks. To facilitate access and circulation for both pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles throughout Empire Lakes, and to maximize the efficient use of land, all streets will be designed to follow a "grid -iron" pattern (as practically possible). To further these objectives, curvilinear streets will not be permitted while cul-de-sacs will be permitted only in limited circumstances. Also, fences and gates that restrict access will not be permitted anywhere within Empire Lakes except where necessary to secure, some private spaces and private amenities, or features such as pools where safety fencing is required by the Building Code. A goal of the project is to create an open, walkable, and inviting urban environment. There will be between 2,650 — 3,450 dwelling units of various types within Empire Lakes including apartments, condominiums, and single-family residences. The net density range of Empire Lakes will be between 19.7 — 25.7 du/acre. Empire Lakes will have up to 220,000 square feet of non-residential, i.e, office, commercial, etc„ uses (Exhibit D). These types of uses will be generally concentrated within the Mixed Use (MU) Placetypes. Non-residential uses also will be permitted anywhere along the entire length of The Vine within the Mixed Use Overlay ("the Overlay"). The actual amount of floor area devoted to non-residential uses within the Overlay will vary due to market demand. The applicant proposes a maximum of 85,000 square feet - with no minimum requirement. In order to fulfill the intent of the project, Staff recommends a minimum requirement of 75,000 square feet. The amended Specific Plan includes design and technical guidelines/standards to encourage aesthetic variety and flexibility in design solutions that will minimize architectural monotony and large blocks of buildings with the same architecture (Exhibit E). The guidelines/standards will describe methods for scale, massing, and articulation to ensure that the the buildings "frame" the street with an emphasis on creating an interesting pedestrian experience and to provide opportunities for 'active" spaces such as small-scale "pocket parks" and "parklets", plazas, outdoor dining areas, etc, To further emphasize the "urban" nature of Empire Lakes, all buildings within the Mixed Use Overlay will be required to have a massing that is predominately three-story. Varying heights would be permitted in order to create articulation and points of visual interest. Single -story elements would be limited to, for example, pedestrian -level spaces and small-scale architectural elements such as porches. There will be no minimum building setback requirement along The Vine. Similarly, the minimum building setback requirements along the other streets (public and private) within Empire Lakes will be significantly less than what is required for similar streets in other areas of the City. These reduced street setbacks are consistent with the intent of the new standards for Mixed Use development that were adopted by the City Council on November 4, 2016. Item R —640 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) November 10, 2015 Page 4 Although the project is a mixed use development, it is recognized that automobile usage will continue to be the primary mode of transportation for many of the residents of, and visitors to, Empire Lakes. Thus, the parking calculations for all non-residential, and residential development that is comprised of 30 units (or less) per acre, will be based on the requirements established in the City's Development Code. For residential development that is comprised of 30 units (or more) per acre, and which most likely will be within the Placetypes located near the Metrolink station, the parking calculations will be based on the requirements in the Specific Plan (Exhibit F). These requirements are not has high as they are in the Development Code and have been created with the expectation that the residents within these Placetypes will use modes of transportation other than automobiles and, therefore, the demand for parking spaces for them will be reduced. For all proposals that are 1) within the Mixed Use Placetypes, 2) within the Mixed Use Overlay (that are mixed use, i.e. have a combination of residential and non-residential uses), and 3) are residential and have a density of 30 units (or more) per acre, a parking study will be required to verify that the parking that is proposed will fulfill the parking demand. Respectfully submitted, CandBurnett Y Planning Director CB:MS/Is Exhibit A: - Vicinity Map Exhibit B: - Conceptual Development Plan for Planning Area 1/Empire Lakes Exhibit C: - Conceptual Design for The Vine (Plan View and Section) Exhibit C: - Draft Development Program Exhibit C: - Draft Architecture Standards Exhibit C: - Draft Parking Requirements for Residential Development of 30+ du/acre Item R —641 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SPECIAL MEETING/WORKSHOP MINUTES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2015 - 4:30 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ***TRI-COMMUN[TIES ROOM*** 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California II I. CALL TO ORDER II Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call 4:30 PM Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias A Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Senior Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner; Flavin Nunez, Management Analyst ll; Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist Il; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Valerie Victorino, Planning Secretary; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner Chairman Wimberly announced at approximately 4:35 p.m. that to more easily accommodate the number of guests in attendance, the meeting would be moved to the Council Chambers. The Commission reconvened at 4:45 p.m. in the Chambers. The roll call remained the same. 11 II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 11 This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission 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 Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please EXHIBIT S Item S —642 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES CnxoHo NOVEMBER 10, 2015 4tI(:AMONCA Page 2 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. All public cornrnent followed the presentation of the discussion item. 11 III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) — A workshop to discuss a proposal to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan in order to allow a mixed use project on a property currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course, a private facility located north of 4th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Development Agreement DRC2015-00118. Mike Smith, Senior Planner, gave a PowerPoint Presentation (copy on file) Bryan Goodman, VP Regional Planned Communities (for Lewis) gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) Todd Larner with William Hezmalhach Architects continued with the presentation. Michael Schroct with Urban Arena continued regarding the landscaping and how it should feel safe and yet is all different to create energy offering new things and spaces. Todd Larner continued regarding the different land uses and circulation. Commissioner Fletcher asked where the reduced building setbacks would occur and where the parking is provided. Mike Smith, Senior Planner responded that it could occur in some places from the edge of the right-of-way; a range could be provided. Along The Vine it could be as low as 0 feet. He said it could occur at the Parklets provided the other streets are higher but not higher than 20 feet. He said the smallest curb to right-of-way may be 8-10 feet -he said the sidewalk becomes a place unto itself. With respect to parking, he said that if there are 30 dwelling units or less per acre they would have to follow the Code. For 30 or more per acre, there will be special parking provisions in the draft specific plan; and the applicant will be required to prepare a 3rd party parking study. Parking could be provided in wrap structures, garages or underground, it depends. Chairman Wimberly opened the floor for public comment. Brandon Brooke Said he is a business owner at Cleveland and 6f^ Street. His concerns Item 5 —643 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES C"O NOVEMBER 10, 2015 C MONGA Page 3 included the loss of a beautiful course, young people and the disabled use it, and lessons for the blind occur there, there will be a loss of walking opportunities, and he believes the project would use more water than the golf course. He did not believe this project caters to the Millennials. He said businesses will suffer from crime and traffic. He said the EIR should consider the future impacts of the future hotel, apartments, and the two new industrial buildings. Stuart Schwarz said we are in a rush to get it done. He said it is a game -changing project with many unknowns — "the great experiment". He said the noticing provided minimal communication with the public; it needs greater public review. He said we are losing a great recreation area. He said the Draft EIR is 6, 000 pages -too much to review in the allotted time period. Tessy Capps said it has too many people crammed in and the public needs more time to review. She said 3-story units must have elevators. She thought the Commissioners should have more questions. He said Millennials have cars and it is a pie in the sky idea to think people will bike that extensively. Craig Olsen said the golf course is a big draw. He did not believe young people will buy into this. He noted the course used to be vineyards. He said very few people use the Metrolink-you must have a car in Southern California. Jack Adams expressed concerns about parking for 4, 000 cars. He did not see a reason to lose the golf course. He had concerns about who maintains the development. He said people will not want to live therein the industrial area and people should have more say in the decision. He said it is terrible to introduce this just prior to the holidays; people are being bypassed. He said public services and schools and infrastructure need to be considered —slow down the process. Dr. John Hull, a sports performance psychologist, said he submitted a letter dated June 11. He said there is a large group of young girls and boys becoming golfers -a big surge. Every great city has a great public golf course; Sierra Lakes is a joke. He said the new owner of Empire Lakes is a poor manager. Mario Turran said the high school teams practice at Empire Lakes. He said to destroy the golf course would destroy a landmark. He said the teams would have to go to other cities to practice and play. He said there are other areas to develop this in Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Wimberly suggested the Commissioners could comment after the recess. He then called a 6:00pm recess. Item 5 —644 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES cPnCHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 Page 4 The Commission reconvened at 7:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present except Commissioner Macias. Chairman Wimberly confirmed with a show of hands that no new members of the public were in attendance with the expectation of hearing the workshop presentation at 7:00 pm. He then invited the public to continue their comment period that began before the recess. Tom Reiner, a golfer, complimented the City and staff for balanced development in the community. He said he spoke on June 10th at the Scoping meeting. He said he had asked staff to examine the impact of the loss of the golf course. His letter states his appreciation of the unpaved area of a golf course. He said the statistics presented by the developer are nationwide and general. He said they should consider that Empire Lakes hosts professional tournaments; it is a quality course. He noted his petition on line: saveempirelakes. com. He said they have over 600 names. He stated he is a civil engineer and is familiar with CEQA. Dean Madison objected because there are some vacancies in the existing apartment complexes. He said regarding Millennials - home ownership is better than apartments financially. He said he does not want this to turn into another LA - high density means more crime, traffic and road rage. He said we need balance. He cited the current water shortage and said we would need more police and resources. Lidia Dollet said Millennials are slammed with student loans -they can't afford golf or to buy homes -it sounds like a resort. She said there are no back yards for kids to safely play in. She said she is not interested in all these shared spaces as she has no time to participate in them. She feared this would be funded by a Mello Roos. She did not see that this would add anything to Rancho Cucamonga. Tammy Tapia said the traffic will be compounded. She said it is not pleasant anymore to live here and this is not what we want Rancho Cucamonga to be. Kim Earl said it looks beautiful but it is not good for Rancho as it does not fit the lifestyle. She was concerned about traffic, who will pay for schools, crime, an increase for police and fire and Mello Roos taxes. She said Upland did terrible job with The Colonies. She said she thinks open space is wise and she does not want 'stack n pack.' Fred Knifer said he employs 69 people in a business in Rancho. He said we now export our kids instead of fruit. He said we should pursue big businesses so our kids can stay and have jobs. He said we will lose out because they will have to make accommodation for this development. Lewis has been great but can we bring in other businesses for balance. He asked where all these people are going to work. Item 5 -645 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 COCAMONGA Page 5 Rebecca Reynolds stated she is in the target age group; she said the housing resembles a college dorm -like Peter Pan -he never grows up. She said all she can afford is an apartment with roommates. She said this new development will be expensive and would encourage her to be more in debt. She said you need a car to get anywhere; we need jobs, people want houses and space. Chairman Wimberly ended the public comment period at 7:35 p.m. and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Munoz noted we are at the beginning of the project and that the Commission may not have the questions yet, just a vision. He suggested we give the developer time to put something together. He said this is part of the process and new to the Commission as well. He said we know this project will change over time and the public will have opportunities to give more feedback. Our city is concerned about what the public thinks, we hear you and the developer appreciate the comments from the public. Commissioner Fletcher thanked the residents for their comments and also noted they are in the early stages. He said this is a developer driven application and not the City. He said he could see how it could be done and it could be beneficial. He said there is the land use issue - he said he asked staff and the applicant to demonstrate why open space was originally included in the Gen Plan and why this would be better than what exists in terms of allowed land use and how it would affect balance in the City. He asked why changing to Mixed Use is a better use for the city. He said open space is a quality of life issue for our residents. He asked how this affects our goals and if we checked into the costs of services; is it a positive, negative or neutral for City's budget. He asked what the balance would be of the new uses. He said this would be the V high density, mixed use project proposed without a commercial portion. He said if approved he wants the components built at the same time (commercial and residential). Vice Chairman Oaxaca agreed that this is the first part of an extensive process. He thanked the public for their participation. He encouraged everyone to look at the Draft EIR. He said CEQA is designed to benefit all parties including the public. He suggested they read, question, comment and look at the fundamentals re: land use. He noted he is a regular train user and this type of proposal is becoming more commonplace around the country. He said they are looking at new ways to use properties in different way. Chairman Wimberly thanked everyone for taking part in the process. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director said we heard the public comments and this is part of the public review. She said the DEIR was released today and is available for 45 days -the public is free to contact us and/or comment. She said there will be more Public Item 5 -646 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES ,—,iyj�� O„O NOVEMBER 10, 2015 (opUCAMON(M Page 6 hearings after the circulation period and more workshops to help provide information to you and the Planning Commission. IV. ADJOURNMENT The workshop adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The Commission recessed for 10 minutes and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. for their regular agenda items. /, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 5, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speakers podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for Item S —647 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES C CHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 Page 7 scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us Item S —648 P226 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPAR-MENT Date: February 17, 2016 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director By: Mike Smith, Senior Planner Subject Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040: Update on the timeline of the process and notification of meetings for the Empire Lakes Project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the update and file for reference. BACKGROUND: SC Rancho Development Corp., an entity of Lewis Operating Corp., submitted an application (and associated applications including a General Plan Amendment, and Development Code Amendment) for the "Empire Lakes Project' on January 8, 2015. The project is to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Specific Plan") in order to allow a mixed use redevelopment of the Empire Lakes Golf Course, a private property of approximately 160 acres located generally north of 61h Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 81h Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared. GENERAL: A. Required Legal Noticing - California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The legal noticing requirements for the environmental review of the project are described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Handbook. The sections of the Guidelines that apply include, but are not limited to: • Section 15082 — "Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR" • Section 15084 — "Preparing the Draft EIR" • Section 15087 — "Public Review of Draft EIR" • Section 15088 — "Evaluation of and Response to Comments' These various sections describe the process that the City must follow during the preparation of the environmental documents including obtaining public input preparing the documents, the circulation and review period of the documents, and how the City responds to comments. EXHIBIT T Item T —649 P227 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Page 2 Required Legal Noticing - Development Code: The legal noticing requirements for the public hearings and meetings for the project are described in the City's Development Code. The sections of the Code that apply include, but are not limited to: Section 17.14.050 — "Public Hearing and Public Notice." This section of the Code describes the minimum requirements for notifying the public of hearings conducted by the Planning Commission and City Council, including posting of a property, posting in the local newspaper, and mailing of notices to property owners. It also describes the process for notifying those who've made requests to be on mailing lists for notices. Section 17.14.060 — "Approving Authority." This section of the Code specifies who is authorized to review, provide recommendations, and render a decision on various applications for projects. Process and Notification Timeline: The following is a timeline of the process and notifications that have been completed (to date) for the required steps in the environmental review of the project, public meetings conducted by the City, and the Community Meetings conducted by the applicant for the Empire Lakes Project. A. Environmental Review Per Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and the associated Initial Study (IS), were available for a 30-day public review period beginning on April 27, 2015 and ending on May 26, 2015. As the Public Scoping meeting required by Section 15082 was scheduled to occur on June 10, 2015, responses were accepted up until that date. The NOP included a statement that identified this 'revised' due date. a. Notices were mailed to all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Specific Plan planning area, and all owners of property within the Specific Plan planning area itself. State law (Government Code 65090) and the City's Development Code (Section 17.14.050) require notices to be mailed to owners of property within a minimum radius of 300 feet and 660 feet, respectively, of the project boundary (the 'Empire Lakes Golf Course). Due to the scope and size of the project, Staff expanded the minimum radius to include owners of property within 1,000 feet of the Specific Plan planning area. This minimum radius was applied to all mailed notifications for this project including the notifications for the Community Meetings that were conducted by the applicant. This radius will continue to be applied to future notifications including those for the public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. Item T —650 P228 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Page 3 b. Notice was provided in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a large, 1/8th page ad; c. Staff created a project -specific webpage on the City's website to ensure all documents related to the Empire Lakes Project were readily accessible. This webpage contained links to the Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study. All documents posted could be downloaded for review. d. Notice was given via email to all recipients who had previously contacted Staff and requested to be informed about the project and/or anyone who emailed general comments about the project. A link to the City's webpage with links to the Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study was included in the email. 2. June 10 2015 - Public Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report: 3. Per Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Public Scoping meeting was conducted by the Planning Commission during which Commission, various public agencies, and interested members of the public could provide comments. These comments assisted in determining the scope and content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). a. Notices were mailed to all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Specific Plan planning area, and all owners of property within the Specific Plan planning area itself. b. Notice was provided in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a large, 1/8th page ad; c. Notice was provided via email to anyone who had previously contacted Staff and requested to be informed of the project's status, and/or anyone who had emailed general comments about the project. Per Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was circulated for a minimum 45-day review period on November 10, 2015. Although the closing date for comments was December 24, 2015, due to the annual closure of City offices during the holiday period, the City accepted comments until the date the City reopened on January 4, 2016. a. Notices were mailed to all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Specific Plan planning area, and all owners of property within the Specific Plan planning area itself. b. Notice was provided in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a large, 1/8th page ad; c. The NOA and draft EIR were uploaded to the Empire Lakes Project webpage on the City's website and text within the webpage was updated accordingly. At around this time, an updated, enhanced webpage ("Empire Lakes Project" webpage) was Item T —651 P229 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040—SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Page 4 created that included information such as a detailed project description, maps, and a fact sheet to supplement the links to downloadable documents. d. Notice was provided via email to anyone who had previously contacted Staff and requested to be informed of the project's status, and/or anyone who had emailed general comments about the project. A link to the City's webpage, with links to the NOA and draft EIR, was included in the email. e. Notice of the NOA and draft EIR were posted on social media including the City's Facebook page. B. November 10,'2015 - Planning Commission Workshop Staff conducted a public workshop to provide the Planning Commission and the public an overview of the project and its progress. The workshop was also intended to familiarize the Commission and the public with the project prior to the release of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). During the workshop, the Commission and the public provided comments and asked questions. Both Staff and the applicant prepared presentations for the workshop. a. Notices were mailed to all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Specific Plan planning area, and all owners of property within the Specific Plan planning area itself. b. The Agenda Packet (that included the Staff Report and associated exhibits) was uploaded to the Empire Lakes Project webpage on the City's website and text within the webpage was updated accordingly, After the Workshop, Staff also uploaded the applicant's presentation. c. Notice was provided via email to anyone who had previously contacted Staff and requested to be informed of the project's status, and/or anyone who had emailed general comments about the project. A link to the City's webpage, with links to the Agenda Packet, was included in the email. d. Notice of the Planning Commission Workshop was posted on social media including the City's Facebook page and Next Door. C. December 2015/January 2016 - Community Meetings (conducted by the Applicant): For projects that are in -fill, are of sufficient size and scope, and/or have the potential to have significant effects on the surrounding community, the City requires project applicants to conduct neighborhood/community meetings to gather input from the public. As the meeting is conducted by the applicant, the time, location, and duration of the meeting, and the issues/topics that are discussed are at the applicant's discretion. To ensure that the public has sufficient opportunities to attend, the City may require the Item T —652 P230 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Page 5 applicant to conduct multiple meetings. For this project, Staff directed the applicant to conduct four (4) meetings. The Community Meetings were conducted on December 10, 2015 and January 14, 21, and 28, 2016. The first meeting was conducted at the Courtyard Marriot (see note below) while the other three meetings were conducted at the Four Points by Sheraton. Mike Smith, Senior Planner, attended all the meetings as an observer. 1. December 10, 2015 - Community Meeting #1: a. The Applicant mailed notices to all owners of property within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Specific Plan planning area, and all owners of property within the Specific Plan planning area itself. The list of property owners was provided by the City. b. Staff uploaded the applicant's invitation for the Community Meeting to the Empire Lakes Project webpage on the City's website and updated text within the webpage accordingly. Staff uploaded a copy of the applicant's presentation shortly after the Community Meeting. c. Staff provided notice via email to anyone who had previously contacted the City and requested to be informed of the project's status, and/or anyone who had emailed general comments about the project. A link to the City's webpage and a link to the applicant's invitation for the Community Meeting was included in the email. A reminder for the meeting was also sent via email during the week of the meeting. d. Notice of the meeting was posted on social media including the City's Facebook page and Next Door. NOTE: On December 9, 2015, the applicant informed Staff that this meeting was incorrectly scheduled to occur at a location that differed from that stated in the invitation. The applicant was directed to prepare an updated invitation for this new location. This updated invitation was subsequently emailed to the recipients identified above and uploaded it to the City's webpage and social media sites. As the error was discovered on the day before the Community Meeting, no updated mailings were sent. 2. January 14, 2015 - Community Meeting #2 The notification process was the same as that for the first Community Meeting. 3. January 21, 2015 - Community Meeting #3 Item T —653 P231 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) FEBRUARY 17, 2016 Page 6 The notification process was the same as that for the previous Community Meetings. For this meeting, the applicant expanded their notification to include the tenants of the apartment complexes located adjacent to the project site. 4. January 28 2015 - Community Meeting #4 The notification process was the same as that for the third Community Meeting. D. General Public Notification: August/September 2015 — Installation of the Notice of Filing Signs Staff directed the applicant to install fifteen (15) Notice of Filing signs along the perimeter of the Empire Lakes Golf Course. These signs are spaced about 300 feet as required by the Development Code. As no public hearings have been scheduled to date, no public notices were posted on to these signs. However, Staff has received periodic inquiries about the project because of the signs. Ongoing — Webpage and Social Media Staff has posted updates on the City's webpage and social media including the City's Facebook page and Next Door. To date, the City's webpage dedicated to the project had about 1,100 "views", and there are about 6,500 followers on the Facebook page and about 7,000 subscribers on Next Door. The social media postings have also been "shared" for others to view. Next Steps The City is preparing the Responses to Comments (RTC). The purpose of the RTC is to address the comments that were submitted to the City by public agencies and the public following the public review of the Draft EIR. The preparation of the Final EIR is pending. Public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council have not been set but are anticipated to occur during the 2n1 Quarter of 2016. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB:MS/Is Attachment: Mailing List Item T —654 rr m I 01 Ln Ln APN `t OWNER NAME 021020428 4240 FOURTH STREET LLC 022020424 4TH STREET RETAIL LLC 020914327 8885 WHITE OAK AVENUE LLC 022934119 9625 MILLIKEN HOSPITALITY LLC 022911122 A T AND S F RAI LROAD CO 022926226 ABULAFIA, HAYIM &JULIE FAM PARTNERSH 020941117 ABUNDANT LIVING FAMILY CHURCH 020940106 ALTA INTERNATIONAL LLC 02380145E ARCP RL PORTFOLIO VIII LLC 020914324 ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RR CO 021008113 AVNISH LLC 023801445 BARNES, JANE & FRANKLIN FAM TR 9/22 020941134 BCI COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO 021020432 BMADDX2 LLC 022926394 BROAD REALTY INVESTMENTS LP 021008269 BUTTERFIELD VILLAS LLC 022934126 CA H P CREDIT UNION 022926390 CALLA LILY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LL 021053103 CAMDEN LANDMARK LLC 020940123 CARSON ESTATE TRUST 021008268 CHUMO FAMILY 1992 LIVING TRUST 12-8- 021008267 CITY OF ONTARIO 020927211 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 022911151 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 022911150 CLOVER RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORP 021008264 CLPF- VILLAGE ONTHE GREEN LP 020927225 CPT/GTH &CLEVELAND LLC 021008125 CPT/6TH & UTICA LLC 021059113 CRA INVESTMENTS LLC 022934114 CUCAMONGA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURC 020927226 CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 022934115 DAHSCO PROPERTIES RANCHO COMMERCIAL 020914308 DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC OWNER_ADDR OWNER ZONE 11726 SAN VICENTE SLVD STE235 LOS ANGELES CA 901149 515 5 FIGUEROA ST 16TH FL LOS ANGELES CA 90071 5321 FRANKLIN AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90027-1612 191 N TULLY RD TURLOCK CA 9S380 740 E CARNEGIE DR SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 315 S BEVERLY DR STE 301 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 10900 CIVIC CENTER OR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 10888 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 232S E CAM LEBACK RD STE 1100 PHOENIX AZ 85016 740 E CARNEGIE DR SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 42 CORPORATE PARK STE 200 IRVINE CA 92606 P 0 BOX 1S70 JULIAN CA PO BOX 1734 ATLANTA GA PENTHOUSE 16 CTR TOWER S 4314 MARINA CITY DR MARINA DEL REY CA 2201 E CAMELBACK SUITE 650 PHOENIX AZ 24155 LODGE POLE RD DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 2843 MANLOVE RD SACRAMENTO CA 9S825 11450 4TH ST #104 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PO BOX 27329 HOUSTON TX 18710SWILMINGTONAVE STE 200 RANCHO DOMINGUEZ CA 90220-5912 14425 JOANBRIDGE ST BALDWIN PARK CA 91706 303 E °B' ST ONTARIO CA 91764 PO BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 2201 DUPONT DR STE 100 IRVINE CA 92715 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 800 GLENDALE CA 91203 6015 FIGUEROA ST STE 3400 LOS ANGELES CA 90017 601 S FIGUEROA ST SUITE 2150 LOS ANGELES CA 601 S FIGUEROA ST STE 2150 LOS ANGELES CA 90017-3405 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW Pl. #306 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 11376 STH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 10440 ASHFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-2799 1655 PUDDINGSTONE DR LAVERNE CA 91750 1430 S EASTMAN AVE LOS ANGELES CA 90023 f \ / 020941124 OUR HOLDINGS 1 U-C 1425 W FOOTHILL BLVD 020941119 ECOFF, STEVEN TR 1357 MADRONE LN 022934124 ELLEN CAPITAL GROUP LLC 556 N DIAMOND BAR BLVD N200 021008265 EQR-FANWELL2007 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 87407 (29121) 021053117 EQR-VINTAGE I LP PO BOX 87407 021008130 EXECUTIVE SUITE AT HAVEN LLC 9431 HAVEN AVE N100 022934112 FAIRMONT HOSPITALITY INC 26912 GRIDLEY PL 020927224 FAIRWAY BUSINESS CENTER LP 711 IMPERIAL HWY #200 020927223 FAIRWAY BUSINESS CENTRE LLC 190 NEW PORT CENTER DR 4 220 020914326 FINLAY FAMILY TRUST"B" 13353 CHANDLER BLVD 020940104 FLAM FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC 1 PALERMO WALK 021058106 FOURTH & MILLIKEN OWNERS ASSN 23 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 247 021008276 FOURTH AND UTICA LP 515 S FIGUEROA ST STE 1600 071008118 FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK 2032 LA COUNA DR 022934127 G AND C SWAN INC 9491 PITTSBURGH AVE 022926234 GARDNER, A 1 FAMILY TRUST 3/5181(T 432 S BENTLEY AVE 021059105 GAUHAR, MOHAMMAD A 4186 CROWN RANCH RD 023801456 GMRI INC PO BOX 695019 021008135 GROSSUGHT LIVING TRUST 1-2-68 AMD 6 418 EL CAMINO 020941118 GT 94 LP 9171 WILSHIRE BLVD U400 022934116 GTE CALIFORNIA INC 19845 N U S 31 021005202 HAVEN BUILDING INCORPORATED 5525 PINE AVE 021COS215 HAVENS GATE PROPERTIES LLC 9471 HAVEN AVE 021008250 INLAND EMPIRE HEALTH PLAN 108016TH ST 021059108 INLAND MEDICAL BUILDING PROPERTIES L 31190 SUTHERLAND DR 021059109 INLAND MEDICAL BUILDING PROPERTIES L 31190 SUTHERLAND DR 022934110 J & M PROPERTY ENTERPRISES LLC 9531 MILLIKEN AVE 022926370 JOS PROPERTIES INC 2641 MEADOWBROOK RD P 0 BOX 800 020914334 JERSEY-KARUBIAN II 1801 S MOUNTAIN AVE 022926217 JONATKIM ENTERPRISES 627 S MANCHESTER AVE 020914333 KARUBIAN, RALPH 5321 FRANKUN AVE 020914311 KARUBIAN, RALPH TRUST (2005) 1304 SCHUYLER RD 020914313 KARUBIAN, RALPH TRUST 8-17-05 1304 SCHUYLER RD 021020431 KIM, MEE KYOUNG 21028 E QUAIL RUN DR UPLAND CA 91786 SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 DIAMOND BAR CA CHICAGO IL CHICAGO IL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CERRITOS CA 90703 BREACA 92821 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91401-5325 LONG BEACH CA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 LOS ANGELES CA 9GO71 SANTAANACA 92705 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 CORONA CA 92881 ORLAN0O FL BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 WESTFIELD IN 46074 CHINO HILLS CA 91709 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5977 REDLANDS CA 92373 REDLANDSCA 92373 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ROCKY MOUNT, NC MONROVIA CA 91016 ANAHEIM CA 92802 LOS ANGELES CA 9G027 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90Z10 WALNUTCA 91789 10 C 021020429 KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES INC PO BOX 2148 MILWAUKEE WI 022926233 LAMATRIX INDUSTRIES CORP 2313 E PHILADELPHIA ST # H ONTARIO CA 91761 022926218 LBA/PPF INDUSTRIAL - RCDC LLC P 0 BOX 847 CARLSBAD CA 021008127 LEDESMA & MEYER DEVELOPMENT INC 9441 HAVEN AVE STE 0100 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 021005209 LEE, JIA Y 13859 OAKLEAF WY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 021059112 LEE, JOHNNY YOUNG 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL #310 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 021005217 MAR MEDICAL ENTERPRISE LLC 9473 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 021059107 MARICIC, GEORGE PO BOX 4815 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 020940105 MARK LP 13901 CARMEN ITA RD SANTA FE SPRINGS CA 90670 022934121 MARKETPLACE COVINA L P 1174 N GROVE ST ANAHEIM CA 92806 020927227 MILLIKEN &GREYSTONEPROPERTIES, LLC 190 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE 220 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 021059114 MILLIKEN LLC 3419 VIA LIDO 11438 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 021008261 MILLIKEN POINT LLC PO BOX 2742 NEWPORT BEACH CA 020914319 MOSCATEL, HARRY 1704 ALLISON WAY REDLANDS, CA 021008128 MPND HOLDINGS LLC 9411 HAVEN AVE STE 100 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 021059102 MYERS, DAVID 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL #100&10 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 021059103 MYERS, DAVID 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL #100&SO RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 023801454 N & 0 RESTAURANTS INC P 0 BOX 695019 ORLANDO FL 021059104 NAKAI ASSOCIATES LLC 8250 WHITE OAKS #102 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 021008129 NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE OF CA 9421 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5886 022934129 NATVIN LLC 3825 ELMIRA AVE CLAREMONTCA 91711 022934130 NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP HOUSING SVC 9551 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 020927220 OAK CREEK RANCH GOLF CLUB INC 11015 SIXTH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 0210OB275 OMNINET EMPIRE LP 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 021008273 OMNINET EMPIRE LP 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 021008274 OMNINET EMPIRE LP 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 023801442 ONTARIO MILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PO BOX 6120 INDIANAPOLIS IN 022926395 OZEL DEVELOPING INC 12200 AMARGOSA RD VICiORVILLE CA 92392 021059110 PARKER, MICHAEL D 7585 KENWOOD PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 021058102 PASADENA WINTER GARDENS INC 1754 GRAND AVE SANTA BARBARA CA 93103 021020409 PIEMONTE BUSINESS PARK LLC 34 TESLA STE 200 IRVINE CA 92618 022934133 PITTSBURGH OFFICE PARK COMM MAINT CO 4 PARK PLAZA STE 840 IRVINE CA 92614 021008134 PITTSBURGH PROPERTY PARK LLC 10387 SICILIAN DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 022934117 POMONA FIRST FEDERAL SA ASSN 2800 E LAKE ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406 m N W A 020927217 PPF MF 9200 MILLIKEN AVENUE LP 020914328 PRECISION AEROSPACE CORP 021020417 PRII PIEMONTE ONTARIO CA LLC 020914305 PROLOGIS CALIFORNIA I LLC 021008121 PROPERTY RESERVE INC 022926336 PROULX, RAYMOND E & LORRAINE M TRS 021008138 PV ROCK HAVEN LLC 022911134 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DIS 021059111 REDEMPTION RELIANCE LLC 021008137 REDGATE PARTNERS LLC 021020426 REBUS PIEMONTE LLC 021020430 RICHARDS, DANIEL W & JUDY FAM TR 2-2 020941129 RIF III - EMPIRE LAKES LLC 022934123 RMALAND LLC 022926224 ROBERT WELLS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 021008139 ROCK -HAVEN LLC 023801449 ROSHAN LLC 020914321 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT 022911120 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT 021058104 SCP RANCHO 1 LLC 022934120 SHARON INVESTMENTS LLC 022934103 SIX HUNDRED PITTSBURGH LLC 022934101 SIXTH AND PITTSBURGH LLC 020914323 SMITS FAMILY TRUST (6-1-94) 020927215 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 021008136 SPINE SURGICAL IMPLANTS INC 022934109 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 021005219 STONE HAVEN EXECUTIVE PARK MAINT ASS U22926374 TAA ENTERPRISES LLC 021020427 TARGET CORPORATION 021005214 UMANSKY FAMILY TRUST 9-28-03 021008251 UTAH STATE RETIREMENT INVESTMENT FUN 021008133 VCB INVESTMENTS CORPORATION 021020434 VILLAGE AT ONTARIO CENTER LLC 200W MONROE STE 2200 CHICAGOIL 60606 11155 JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 1800 E IMPERIAL HIGHWAY STE 100 BREACA 92821 4545 AIRPORT WY DENVER CO 80239 PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE CITY UT 11433 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 4350 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR N110 SAN DIEGO CA 92122 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 P 0 BOX 1159 FOLSOM, CA 2429 PECK RD WHITTIER CA 90601 1 INDEPENDENT DR STE#615 MAC Z3094-065 JACKSONVILLE FL 3595-1 INLAND EMPIRE BLVD STE 1200 ONTARIO CA 11620 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1000 LOS ANGELES CA 9002S 1139 E OCEAN BLVD #302 LONG BEACH CA 90802 506 VIA UDO NORD STE 120 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 1221 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NY 402 19TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 1170 W THIRD ST 2ND FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO CA 472 N ARROWHEAD STE 101 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 23 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 247 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 28492 CHAT DR LAGUNA NIGUELCA 92677 190 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE#100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 190 NEWPORT CENTER OR STE 220 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-6906 10478 VIVIENDA ST ALTA LOMA CA 91701 P 0 BOX 800 ROSEMEAD, CA 3400 INLAND EMPIRE BLVD U101 ONTARIO CA 91764 400 R ST STE 500D SACRAMENTO CA 95814 19762 MACARTHUR BLVD STE 300 IRVINE CA 92612 7495 HENBANE ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 P 0 BOX 9456 MINNEAPOLIS 3296 E GUASTI RD STE 110 ONTARIO CA 91761 1389 CENTER DR STE 360 PARK CITY UT 84121 10803 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 109 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 P 0 BOX 670 UPLAND, CA 022934128 WCL PROPERTIES LLC 022934125 WESTERN WONDER WELL ESTATE LLC 021062366 WNG RANCHO CUCAMONGA 496 LLC 022934111 WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY INC 021059106 WOOLEN GROUP LLC 020941112 YIHUA TIMBER INDUSTRY (USA) INC 021020433 ZHU, PEI SHENG & SHAD FENG HUANG REV r+ m 3 --I rn to 3401 CENTRE LAKE OR U600 19372 WATERFALL WAY 8 EXECUTIVE CIR 16912 GRIDLEY PL 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PLACE #200 10808 6TH ST 3483 VIEWFIELD AVE ONTARIO CA 91761 ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748 IRVINE CA 92614 CERRITOS CA 90703 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA N W NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION WHEN IS 7:00 P.M. on April 13, 2016 MEETING? WHERE IS The Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga will be holding a public MEETING? hearing at 7:00 p.m. on April 13, 2016, at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, Council Chambers, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, to consider the following described projects. WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- PROPOSED? 00114 - SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to amend the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga by revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the General Plan, and change the land use designations of parcels that are currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing, private golf course of 160 acres that is located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, from Open Space to Mixed Use, in conjunction with a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, -22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -61, -64, -65, -67 through -69, -71 through -74, -78, -79, -88 through -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210- 591-02 through -14, and 0210-623-66. Related files: Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00040 - SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, a Specific Plan that applies to properties located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, to delete text, graphics, and exhibits relating to the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing private golf course of 160 acres that is located within the subject Specific Plan area, and insert text, graphics, and exhibits that will describe the design and technical standards/guidelines for a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, - 20, -22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -61, -64, -65, -67 through -69, -71 through -74, -78, -79, -88 through -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210- 591-02 through -14, and 0210-623-66. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00114 and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. EXHIBIT U Item U -660 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to amend the Development Code of the City Rancho Cucamonga by revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the Development Code that applies to properties, including the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing, private golf course of 160 acres, within the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, a Specific Plan that applies to properties located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, and insert text and graphics in conjunction with a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, -22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -61, -64, -65, -67 through —69, -71 through -74, -78, -79, -88 through -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210-591-02 through -14, and 0210-623-66. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. INFORMATION The proposed plans and other information can be reviewed at the City Planning AVAILABLE: Department. ENVIRONMENTAL: A complete environmental assessment has been prepared. Comments will be received and the environmental assessment may be reviewed any time prior to final action. Prior to making a recommendation at its meeting of April 13, 2016, the Planning Commission will be considering the assessment, staffs recommendations, and public input. The environmental assessment will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. WHO TO Anyone having concerns or questions or wishing to review or comment on these items is CONTACT: welcome to contact the City Planning Department at (909) 477-2750 or visit the offices located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Monday through Thursday from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The Planner most familiar with this proposal is Mike Smith. WHAT CAN I DO? All interested parties are invited to attend the public hearing and express opinions for or against the proposal or may submit their concerns in writing to the City prior to said meeting. Written comments should be addressed to the Planning Department, City of Rancho Cucamonga, P. O. Box 807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729. IF YOU CHALLENGE THE FOREGOING ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FINAL ACTION DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. DATE NOTICE March 29, 2016 MAILED: Item U —661 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1101 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1102 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1103 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1104 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1107 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1110 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1113 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1116 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1119 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1122 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1125 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1128 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1105 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1108 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1111 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1114 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1117 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1120 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1123 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1126 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1129 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1106 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1109 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1115 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1118 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1121 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1124 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1127 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1201 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —662 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1202 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1203 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1204 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1205 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1208 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1211 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1214 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1217 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1220 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1223 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1226 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1229 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1206 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1209 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1212 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1215 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1218 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1221 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1224 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1227 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1301 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1207 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1210 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1213 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1216 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1219 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1222 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1225 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1228 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1302 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —663 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1303 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1304 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1306 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1309 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1312 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1315 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1318 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1321 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1324 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1327 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2101 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1307 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1310 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1313 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1316 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1319 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1322 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1325 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1328 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1308 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1311 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1314 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1317 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1320 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1323 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1326 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 1329 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2103 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —664 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2104 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2105 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2106 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2107 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2110 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2113 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2116 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2119 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2122 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2125 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2202 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2205 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2108 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2111 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2114 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2117 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2120 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2123 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2126 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2203 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2206 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2109 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2115 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2118 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2121 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2124 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2201 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2204 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2207 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —665 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2208 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2209 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2210 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2211 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2214 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2217 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2220 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2223 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2226 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2303 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2306 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2309 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2212 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2215 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2218 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2221 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2224 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2301 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2304 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2307 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2310 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2213 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2216 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2219 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2222 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2225 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2302 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2308 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2311 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —666 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2312 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2313 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2314 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2315 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2318 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2321 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2324 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3101 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3104 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3107 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3110 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3201 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2316 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2319 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2322 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2325 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3102 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3105 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3108 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3111 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3202 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2317 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2320 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2323 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 2326 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3103 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3106 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3109 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3203 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —667 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3204 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3205 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3206 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3207 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3208 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3209 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3210 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3211 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3212 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3301 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3302 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3303 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3304 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3305 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3306 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3307 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3308 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3309 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3310 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3311 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 3312 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4101 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4102 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4103 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4104 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4105 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4106 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4107 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4108 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4109 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —668 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4110 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4111 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4113 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4116 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4119 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4201 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4204 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4207 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4210 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4213 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4216 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4114 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4117 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4120 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4202 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4205 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4208 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4211 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4214 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4217 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4115 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4118 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4121 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4203 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4206 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4209 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4212 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4215 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4218 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —669 Resident Resident Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4219 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4220 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4221 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4301 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4304 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4307 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4310 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4313 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4316 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4319 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4302 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4305 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4308 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4311 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4314 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4317 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4320 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4303 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4306 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4309 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4312 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4315 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4318 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Resident 9400 Fairway View Place Unit 4321 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Item U —670 Resident Resident Resident Resid nth Street B101 11201 5th Street B102 11201 5th Street B103 11201 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga 1 . Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street B104 11201 5th Street B105 11201 5th Street B106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street B107 11201 5th Street B108 112015th Street B201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street B202 11201 5th Street B203 11201 5th Street B204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street B205 11201 5th Street B206 11201 5th Street B207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street B208 11201 5th Street B301 11201 5th Street B302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street B303 11201 5th Street B304 11201 5th Street B305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street B306 11201 Sth Street B307 11201 5th Street B308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street C101 11201 5th Street C102 11201 5th Street C103 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street C104 11201 5th Street C105 11201 5th Street C106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —671 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street C107 ' 11201 5th Street C108 11201 5th Street C201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 Sth Street C307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street C308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 Sth Street D202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —672 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street D301' 11201 5th Street D302 11201 5th Street D303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 112015th Street E105 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 Sth Street E108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E103 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street D306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E101 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E107 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street E306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —673 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street E307 ' 11201 5th Street E308 11201 5th Street F102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street F104 11201 5th Street F106 11201 5th Street F108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street F201 11201 5th Street F202 11201 5th Street F203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho CucamongaCA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street F204 11201 5th Street F205 11201 5th Street F206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street F207 11201 5th Street F208 11201 5th Street F301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street F302 11201 5th Street F303 11201 5th Street F304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street F305 11201 5th Street F306 112015th Street F307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street F308 11201 5th Street G101 11201 5th Street G102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street G103 11201 5th Street G104 11201 5th Street G105 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street G106 11201 5th Street G107 11201 5th Street G108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —674 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street G201 11201 5th Street G202 11201 5th Street G203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 Sth Street H2O2 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 Sth Street H2O5 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H2O8 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 Sth Street G205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 Sth Street H108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H2O3 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H2O6 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street G307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H2O1 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H2O4 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H2O7 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street H302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —675 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street H303' 11201 5th Street H304 11201 5th Street H305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street H306 11201 5th Street H307 11201 5th Street H308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street 1102 11201 5th Street 1104 11201 5th Street 1106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street 1108 11201 5th Street 1201 11201 5th Street 1202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street 1203 11201 5th Street 1204 11201 5th Street 1205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street 1206 11201 5th Street 1207 11201 5th Street 1208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street 1301 11201 Sth Street 1302 11201 5th Street 1303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street 1304 11201 5th Street 1305 11201 5th Street 1306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street 1307 11201 5th Street 1308 11201 5th Street J102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street J104 11201 5th Street J106 11201 5th Street J108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —676 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street J201 11201 5th Street J202 11201 Sth Street J203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street J204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th StreetJ207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street J302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th StreetJ305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street J308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street J205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th StreetJ208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street J303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street1306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street J206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th StreetJ301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th StreetJ304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th StreetJ307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11201 5th Street K302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —677 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street K303 ' 11201 5th Street K304 11201 5th Street K305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street K306 11201 5th Street K307 11201 5th Street K308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street L102 11201 5th Street L104 11201 5th Street L106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident - 11201 5th Street L108 11201 5th Street L201 11201 5th Street L202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street L203 11201 5th Street L204 11201 5th Street L205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street L206 11201 5th Street L207 11201 5th Street L208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street L301 11201 5th Street L302 11201 5th Street L303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street L304 11201 5th Street L305 11201 5th Street L306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11201 5th Street L307 11201 5th Street L308 11100 4th Street B101 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street B102 11100 4th Street B103 11100 4th Street B104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —678 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street B105 11100 4th Street B106 11100 4th Street B107 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street B306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street C206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —679 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street C207' 11100 4th Street C208 11100 4th Street C301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street C302 11100 4th Street C303 11100 4th Street C304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street C305 11100 4th Street C306 11100 4th Street C307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street C308 11100 4th Street D102 11100 4th Street D104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street D106 11100 4th Street D108 11100 4th Street D201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street D202 11100 4th Street D203 11100 4th Street D204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street D205 11100 4th Street D206 11100 4th Street D207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street D208 11100 4th Street D301 11100 4th Street D302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street D303 11100 4th Street D304 11100 4th Street D305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street D306 11100 4th Street D307 11100 4th Street D308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —680 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street E101 11100 4th Street E102 11100 4th Street E103 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E107 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E105 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F105 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street E308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —681 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street F203' 11100 4th Street F204 11100 4th Street F205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11'100 4th Street F301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G105 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G103 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street F306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G101 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G107 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street G208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —682 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street G301 11100 4th Street G302 11100 4th Street G303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street G304 11100 4th Street G305 11100 4th Street G306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street G307 11100 4th Street G308 11100 4th Street H101 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H102 11100 4th Street H103 11100 4th Street H104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H105 11100 4th Street H106 11100 4th Street H107 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H108 11100 4th Street H2O1 11100 4th Street H2O2 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H2O3 11100 4th Street H2O4 11100 4th Street H2O5 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H2O6 11100 4th Street H2O7 11100 4th Street H2O8 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H301 11100 4th Street H303 11100 4th Street H303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H304 11100 4th Street H305 11100 4th Street H306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —683 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street H307' 11100 4th Street H308 11100 4th Street 1102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street 1104 11100 4th Street 1106 11100 4th Street 1108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street 1201 11100 4th Street 1202 11100 4th Street 1203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street 1204 11100 4th Street 1205 11100 4th Street 1206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street 1207 11100 4th Street 1208 11100 4th Street 1301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street 1302 11100 4th Street 1303 11100 4th Street 1304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street 1305 11100 4th Street 1306 11100 4th Street 1307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street 1308 11100 4th Street J102 11100 4th Street J104 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street J106 11100 4th Street J108 11100 4th Street J201 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street J202 11100 4th Street J203 11100 4th Street J204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —684 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street J205 11100 4th Street J206 11100 4th Street J207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street J208 11100 4th Street J301 11100 4th Street J302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street J303 11100 4th Street J304 11100 4th Street J305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street J306 11100 4th Street J307 11100 4th Street J308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street K102 11100 4th Street K104 11100 4th Street K106 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street K108 11100 4th Street K201 11100 4th Street K202 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street K203 11100 4th Street K204 11100 4th Street K205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street K206 11100 4th Street K207 11100 4th Street K208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street K301 11100 4th Street K302 11100 4th Street K303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street K304 11100 4th Street K305 11100 4th Street K306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —685 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street K307' 11100 4th Street K308 11100 4th Street L102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street L104 11100 4th Street L106 11100 4th Street L108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street L201 11100 4th Street L202 11100 4th Street L203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street L204 11100 4th Street L205 11100 4th Street L206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street L207 11100 4th Street L208 11100 4th Street L301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street L302 11100 4th Street L303 11100 4th Street L304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street L305 11100 4th Street L306 11100 4th Street L307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street L308 11100 4th Street M101 11100 4th Street M102 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street M103 11100 4th Street M104 11100 4th Street M105 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street M106 11100 4th Street M107 11100 4th Street M108 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —686 Resident Resident Resident 11100 4th Street M201 11100 4th Street M202 11100 4th Street M203 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M204 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M207 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M302 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M305 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M308 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M205 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M208 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M303 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M306 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M206 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M301 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M304 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Resident 11100 4th Street M307 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Item U —687 4TH & MILL. BAR.GRILL..PIZZARIA 7-ELEVEN t#34287A A CHILD'S DREAM OF CALIFORNIA 112604TH ST 9638 MILLIKEN AVE 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91729 A D P TOTAL SOURCE CO X X II, INC 9445 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 A R S NATIONAL SERVICES,INC. 10801 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ABOVE THE REST, DOCUMENT SVS. 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5881 ALLIANCE CAPITAL LENDING, INC. 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 AMICA MIA 9640 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9001 AQUAMAR, INC. 10888 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 BASKIN-ROBBINS 9659 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 B I O N E W U S A WEST COAST CORP 8866 WHITE OAK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CDM 9220 CLEVELAND AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 A M L I AT EMPIRE LAKES 9200 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 A T M SOLUTIONS, L L C 9400 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ACCENTS CAFE 9500 CLEVELAND AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ALLIANCE HUMAN SERVICES, INC. 9166 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 AMICA MIA 9640 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9001 ASSETT LIQUIDITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. 8885 WHITE OAK AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 BEST DELIVERY, L L C 9108 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 BRITE CLEANERS 9640 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 C H P-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 9530 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 A M S CONSULTING COMPANY 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 AARONS LOGISTICS L L C 9199 CLEVELAND AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ACCRAPLY, INC. 10860 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5902 ALTA INTERNATIONAL, LLC 10888 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ANNIE'S NAILS 11400 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ASSOCIATES DIRECT SERVICE, ADS LLC 9650 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6086 BIG WOK RESTAURANT INC. 11334 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9015 BUSINESS QUEST BROKERS, INC. 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5882 C P T/6TH & UTICA 10621 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5900 Item U —688 CA MENTOR FAMILY HOME AGENCY LLC 9166 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CALTROP CORPORATION 9337 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CAREER STRATEGIES TEMPORARY, INC. 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5882 CALIFORNIA BOX II 8949 TORONTO AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5412 CAMBRIDGE HOSPICE 9229 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5435 CASH DOUGH STUDIOS & ENTERTAINMENT, LLC 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 CALIFORNIA MENTOR 9166 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CAPITAL PROTECTION 9229 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5435 CENTURION POST PLUS, L L C 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5881 CHAMPION AWARDS & SPECIALTIES CHINA NANTONG XINLE GROUP (USA), CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 9269 UTICA AVE INC. 11334 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 10825 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5422 CHIROSPORT CHRISTOPHER HUYNH,M.D.INC. A CHRISTOPHER R. ABERNATHY, A P C 16606 TRADEMARK PKWY MEDICAL CORPORATION 9353 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 9200 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-8534 COCA COLA BOTTLING CO. OF L.A./RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10670 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS A MEDICAL CORPORATION 9405 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CORVEL ENTERPRISE COMP 10750 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CRO W NTO N KA WALK-INS AND THERMALRITE 8886 WHITE OAK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5106 DAILY FRESH BURGER & HOT WINGS 11226 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9003 COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED 10801 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CONTINENTAL DATAGRAPHICS 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CREATIVE HOME PROGRAMS 9166 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CUCAMONGA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP 11376 5TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 DAN SHE 9090 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 COMMERCIAL REALTY ADVISORS, INC 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CORE SUPPORT SYSTEMS 9047 BRIDGEPORT PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CROSSROADS EQUIPMENT LEASE AND FINANCE, L L C 9385 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5830 D F S 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5882 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 8970 TO RO NTO AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 Item U -689 DENTISTRY AT EMPIRE LAKES DERRICK YAZZIE PHOTOGRAPHY DIGITAL CHECK CORP. 9640 MILLIKEN AVE 11201 5TH ST 10825 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5422 DUROFIX, INC EL PATRON AUTHENTIC MEXICAN ELLEN CAPITAL GROUP 9168 PITTSBURGH AVE FOOD 9337 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 9269 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5476 EMPIRE DISTRIBUTORS 11383 NEWPORT DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 EMPIRE LAKES GOLF COURSE 11015 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 EVRIHOLDER PRODUCTS, LLC FAIRWAY BUSINESS CENTRE ON 9220 CLEVELAND AVE STE 102 MILLIKEN RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-8561 9445 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FAST TRACK FUNDING CORP. 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5882 FIRST STEP INDEPENDENT LIVING, INC. 9166 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FOR YOUR PLEASURE 9200 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 GT94LP 10825 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FED EX OFFICE #1447 11334 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FLAMINGO PALMS CUBAN CAFE 11400 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FOX & STEPHENS 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 GABRIELLE M. ROSSI 9640 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9001 ENCHANTER NAILS & SPA 9635 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9004 FAITH CHURCH 9239 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FIRST EQUITY FINANCE, INC. 9431 HAVEN AVE 120 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5880 FOOTHILL COURT REPORTERS 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0969 G AND C SWAN INC. 9531 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6008 GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC. 9130 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 GANDOLFO'S NEW YORK DELI GENTLEMEN'S BARBER CLUB GEORGE MARICIC, A PROFESSIONAL 9090 MILLIKEN AVE 9635 MILLIKEN AVE LAW CORPORATION RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9004 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91729 GIA MONAE 9200 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 GLOBAL MEDICAL INTERPRETING & TRANSLATION SERVICES 9445 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 GOLDEN SMILES DENTAL 9635 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9004 Item U —690 GOOD STEWARD DAY CARE GOSPEL VISION 9229 UTICA AVE 9259 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5462 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HANNAH'S CHILDRENS HOMES 9229 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HENRYTRANSPORT 11201 5TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5975 HONEYVILLE FARMS 9175 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES 9445 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HICKS, WILLIAMS, CRAWFORD & LYNCH, L L P 9541 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6008 HORIZONS DENTAL PRACTICE 9353 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 GREEN MANGO THAI BISTRO 11226 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HAVENPARK BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS HOTEL & SUITES 9589 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 HORRIGAN COLE ENTERPRISES, INC. 9166 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 I P C - INTERIM PSYCHIATRIC MEDICAL I T F CONSULTING, LLC IMHOF AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CORPORATION 10825 7TH ST 9431 HAVEN AVE 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5422 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5879 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 INLAND EMPIRE HEALTH PLAN INLAND EMPIRE LOVE WEDDINGS, L L C INLAND INTERVENTIONAL MEDICAL 10801 6TH ST 9650 MILLIKEN AVE ASSO., INC. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5987 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6090 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 INTERIOR & HOLIDAY(CREATIONS BY RICKJORDAN) 11201 5TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 J& M PROPERTY ENTERPRISES, L L C 9531 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 IONIC SUITE, INC. 9200 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 1ACAR TAX SERVICES 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 JAVA BISTRO, L L C JEFF ROBLES & ASSOCIATES,INC. 9090 MILLIKEN AVE 10604 TRADEMARK PKWY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 JIA Y. LEE, D.D.S.,INC. 9477 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 JIANG, QIAN QIAN 9090 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 IRONWOOD AT EMPIRE LAKES 11100 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 JADE NAILS SPA SALON 9640 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 JERSEY MIKE'S SUBS 9659 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9005 JONES LEGAL 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5879 Item U —691 JUICE IT UP KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, KEMET INVESTMENTS REALTY 9668 MILLIKEN AVE INC 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 10740 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 KULA REVOLVING SUSHI BAR 9659 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 LAW OFFICE OF LEE W. GALE 9333 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0933 LEDESMA ARMS 8885 WHITE OAK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5156 LUCKY FEET SHOES 9635 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 L W A INSURANCE AGENCY 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 LAW OFFICES OF PRISCILLA C. SOLARIO 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 LORBEL INC. 9047 BRIDGEPORT PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 MADISON ELECTRIC 11211JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 LAURIE FERRARO 10600 TRADEMARK PKWY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 LEARNING PLUS ASSOCIATES 10604 TRADEMARK PKWY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 LOURDES PERALES 11400 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 MAGNIFY SHOE DESIGNS MASON MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE METRO EXPRESS, INC. 9431 HAVEN AVE CORPORATION 11241 JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 9431 HAVEN AVE STE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5879 MILLIKEN LIQUOR MIN PENG MISS D'S SALON 9635 MILLIKEN AVE 9090 MILLIKEN AVE 9400 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91729 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0935 MORGAN & FRANZ 10606 TRADEMARK PKWY NORTH RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 NATHANIEL HOME,INC. 8885 WHITE OAK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5156 NATIONWIDE GUARD SERVICES, INC. 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 MY DIEU GEYER/MISS SAIGON 9400 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0935 NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP. 9421 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5844 NEW CLASSIC HOME FURNISHING, INC. 10808 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 NA CHEN 9090 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 NATIONAL CORPORATE HOUSING, INC. 11210 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 NEW ERA CONSTRUCTION 11201 5TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5975 Item U —692 NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION NINA FOOTWEAR CORP NORTH AMERICAN MEDICAL MGMT. 11231 JERSEY BLVD 10750 7TH ST CAL., INC. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5147 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 9130 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 NOTARY SEVICES OF MARLENE TRUJILLO 9650 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 OUTDOOR CAP CO., INC. 11211JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PACIFIC CYCLE, INC. 9282 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PARAMOUNT PLASTIC FABRICATORS 11251JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PEAK MANAGEMENT, INC. 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PNEUMATIC SCALE CORPORATION 10860 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5902 PRETTY F00 FOO 11400 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 NYCOLE NAVARRO 11400 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 OZEL FINE JEWELERS,INC. 11400 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PANDA EXPRESS #2093 9659 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PARSONS ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP,INC. 10801 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PHO BAMBU NOODLE & GRILL 9668 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 POLYONE CORPORATION 11400 NEWPORT DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PRIDE INDUSTRIAL, L L C 10825 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ORTHO SURG CARE, INC 9401 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5844 PACER TECHNOLOGY 11201JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PAR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. 11276 5TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0922 PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC. 10801 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PIXIOR, L L C 10621 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5900 PRECISION AEROSPACE CORPORATION 11155JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PRIORITY ONE MEDICAL TRANSPORT, INC. 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0970 PRIORITY ONE TOWING & RECOVERY PROMED HEALTH CARE PURPLE JOYSTICK INC. ADMINISTRATORS 11201 5TH ST 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0970 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5564 QI LING ZHAO QUALITY HOME PRODUCTS, L L C RAMSOFT U S A, INC 9090 MILLIKEN AVE 8885 WHITE OAK AVE 9480 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5156 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 Item U —693 RANCHO CUCAMONGA GARDEN INN RANCHO CUCAMONGA HOMEWOOD RANCHO PHYSICAL THERAPY 11433 MISSION VISTA DR SUITES 11276 5TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6056 11433 MISSION VISTA DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6056 REAL PROPERTY INVESTMENTS REHRIG PACIFIC COMPANY RENAISSANCE DENTAL CARE 9269 UTICA AVE 8950 TORONTO AVE 9080 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5411 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ROAD DOG DRIVERS 9269 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5476 S TV INCORPORATED 9130 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SCANFILES,INC. 9108 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SEXY BY TY 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 ROLLING RICE 9668 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SAMIR BATNIJI D D S, INC. 9353 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC. 11400 NEWPORT DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SINOGUARDS SECURITY LLC 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5879 SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. SNYDER, WALKER & MANN L L P 11031 JERSEY BLVD 9421 HAVEN AVE (2ND FLOOR) RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5135 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SOLUTIONS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS, SONIC DRIVE-IN LLC 11370 4TH ST 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SURVEYORS J A SOUTHWIRE T 9199 CLEVELAND AVE 9480 UITCA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 STORETRIEVE, L L C 10750 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-8545 STRATAFORCE, LLC 9269 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5456 S & N INDUSTRIES 9650 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6076 SANCO BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 SEVYN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 9269 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5480 SLEEP TRAIN 11400 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SOCCO PLASTIC COATING COMPANY 11251JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9500 CLEVELAND AVE 3RD FL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SPINE SURGICAL IMPLANTS, INC. 9445 FAIRWAY VIEW RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 STRATASYS, INC 9480 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 Item U —694 SUMMER SAUCEDA SWENSON ACCOUNTANCY T D A MOTORSPORTS 11400 4TH ST ' CORPORATION 8885 WHITE OAK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 10606 TRADEMARK PKWY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 T R L SYSTEMS, INC. 9531 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 TECHTITE INDUSTRIES 9650 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 THE FAB SCHOOL 9571 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6008 THE LUNCH BOX 10801 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5987 THE RESERVE AT EMPIRE LAKES 11210 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 TOTAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9229 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 TRISHA GONZALES 9640 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9001 TAURAN CONSULTING & PRODUCTIN,INC. 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 THE BARBERSHOP 9090 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 THE GOCHEZ COMPANY, LLC 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 THE MALONE GROUP 9090 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5565 THE U P S STORE 9668 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 TOWN CENTER REALTY 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5883 U S BANK 9467 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 UTAH STATE RETIREMENT INVESTMENT VALENTA, INC. FUND CORPORATION 9473 HAVEN AVE 9500 CLEVELAND AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 VIBRANTA WELLNESS, LLC 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5879 VICTORIA E. DIXON-SPENCER 9640 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-9001 TAWNY TSANG CALLIGRAPHY 11210 4TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6061 THE EXECUTIVE SUITE AT HAVEN, L.L.C. 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5879 THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIE W. WILLIAMS 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-0969 THE MYERS LAW GROUP 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 TIFFANY D. CARDOZA, ATTORNEY AT LAW 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 TRINITY CAPITAL REALTY, INC. 9229 UTICA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5435 UNLIMITED QUEST, INC. 9166 ANAHEIM PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 VEHICLE ACCESSORY CENTER 10863JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5113 VIRTUE FINANCIAL, L L C 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5882 Item U —695 VISIONS TUTORIAL WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES WEST COAST RETAILER 9400 FAIRWAY'VIEW PL 10740 4TH ST 9431 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 WOLF WAREHOUSING AND LOGISTICS WOOD SMITH HENNING & BERMAN L L WORLDWIDE EXPRESS 11231 JERSEY BLVD P 9302 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 9333 FAIRWAY VIEW PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 XIANG LIN CHEN XTEND BARRE YIHUA TIMBER INDUSTRY(U S A) INC. 9090 MILLIKEN AVE 9090 MILLIKEN AVE 10808 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 YING HAN YOUTH EXPERIENCES ABROAD YUEE HE 9090 MILLIKEN AVE 9650 MILLIKEN AVE 9090 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-6077 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5561 ZIPP TRANSPORTATION & WAREHOUSING L L C 10825 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5422 Item U —696 4TH STREET RETAIL LLC 8885 WHITE OAK AVENUE LLC 9625 MILLIKEN HOSPITALITY LLC 515 S FIGUEROA ST 16TH FL 5321 FRANKLIN AVE 191 N TULLY RD LOS ANGELES CA 90071 LOS ANGELES CA 90027-1612 TURLOCK CA 95380 A T AND S F RAILROAD CO 740 E CARNEGIE DR SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 ALTA INTERNATIONAL LLC 10888 7TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 AVNISH LLC 42 CORPORATE PARK STE 200 IRVINE CA 92606 BMADDX2 LLC PENTHOUSE 16 CTR TOWER S 4314 MARINA CITY DR MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 C A H P CREDIT UNION 2843 MANLOVE RD SACRAMENTO CA 95825 ABULAFIA, HAYIM &JULIE FAM PARTNERSH 315 S BEVERLY DR STE 301 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 ARCP RL PORTFOLIO VIII LLC 2325 E CAMLEBACK RD STE 1100 PHOENIX AZ 85016 BARNES, JANE & FRANKLIN FAM TR 9/22 P 0 BOX 1570 JULIAN CA 92036 BROAD REALTY INVESTMENTS LP 2201 E CAMELBACK SUITE 650 PHOENIX AZ 85016 CABOT IV-CA1W06 LLC ONE BEACON ST STE 1700 BOSTON MA 02108 ABUNDANT LIVING FAMILY CHURCH 10900 CIVIC CENTER DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ATCHISON TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RR CO 740 E CARNEGIE DR SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408 BCI COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO PO BOX 1734 ATLANTA GA 30305 BUTTERFIELD VILLAS LLC 24155 LODGE POLE RD DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 CALLA LILY REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT LLC 11450 4TH ST #104 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CAMDEN LANDMARK LLC CARSON ESTATE TRUST CHUMO FAMILY 1992 LIVING TRUST PO BOX 27329 18710 S WILMINGTON AVE STE 200 12-8- HOUSTON TX 77227 RANCHO DOMINGUEZ CA 90220-5912 14425 JOANBRIDGE ST BALDWIN PARK CA 91706 CITY OF ONTARIO 303 E B ST ONTARIO CA 91764 CLOVER RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORP 801 N BRAND BLVD STE 800 GLENDALE CA 91203 CRA INVESTMENTS LLC 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL#306 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 2201 DUPONT DR STE 100 IRVINE CA 92715 CPT/6TH & CLEVELAND LLC 601 S FIGUEROA ST SUITE 2150 LOS ANGELES CA 90017 CRP OAKMONT 6TH & UTICA LP 3520 PIEDMONT RD STE 100 ATLANTA GA 30305 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA P O BOX 807 RANCHO CUCAMONGA; CA 91730 CPT/6TH & UTICA LLC 601 S FIGUEROA ST STE 2150 LOS ANGELES CA 90017-3405 CUCAMONGA CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP CHURC 11376 5TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 Item U —697 CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC DISTRICT 1430 S EASTMAN AVE 10440 ASHFORD ST LOS ANGELES CA 90023 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-2799 DH 8865 UTICA LLC 1121 E PHILADELPHIA ST ONTARIO CA 91761 ELLEN CAPITAL GROUP LLC 9337 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FAIRMONT HOSPITALITY INC 16912 GRIDLEY PL CERRITOS CA 90703 FINLAY FAMILY TRUST "B" - EST OF 13353 CHANDLER BLVD SHERMAN OAKS CA 91401 FOURTH AND UTICA LP 515 S FIGUEROA ST STE 1600 LOS ANGELES CA 90071 DLR HOLDINGS 1 LLC 1425 W FOOTHILL BLVD UPLAND CA 91786 EQR-VINTAGE I LP PO BOX 87407 CHICAGO IL 60606 FAIRWAY BUSINESS CENTER LP 711 IMPERIAL HWY #200 BREA CA 92821 FLAM FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC 1 PALERMO WALK LONG BEACH CA 90802 FREEWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK 2032 LA COLINA DR SANTA ANA CA 92705 GARDNER,A1 FAMILY TRUST 3/5/81 (T GAUHAR, MOHAMMAD A 432 S BENTLEY AVE 4186 CROWN RANCH RD LOS ANGELES CA 90049 CORONA CA 92881 GROSSLIGHT LIVING TRUST 1-2-68 AMD GTE CALIFORNIA INC 6 19845 N U S 31 418 EL CAMINO WESTFIELD IN 46074 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 HAVENS GATE PROPERTIES LLC 9471 HAVEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 INL FAIRWAY VIEW 2012 LLC 1015 ELLSWORTH AVE STE 300 SAN MATEO CA 94401-3911 INLAND EMPIRE LAND DEVELOPMENT 1 INLAND MEDICAL BUILDING LLC PROPERTIES L 5480 SCHAEFER AVE 31190 SUTHERLAND DR CHINO CA 91710 REDLANDS CA 92373 DEKALB PROPERTIES LLC 4533 MACARTHUR BLVD STE 926 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ECOFF,STEVEN TR 1357 MADRONE LN SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401 EXECUTIVE SUITE AT HAVEN LLC 9431 HAVEN AVE #100 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 FAIRWAY BUSINESS CENTRE LLC 190 NEWPORT CENTER DR # 220 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 FOURTH & MILLIKEN OWNERS ASSN 23 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 247 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 G AND C SWAN INC 9491 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 GMRI INC PO BOX 695019 ORLANDO FL 32869 HAVEN BUILDING INCORPORATED 5525 PINE AVE CHINO HILLS CA 91709 INLAND EMPIRE HEALTH PLAN 10801 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5977 1 & M PROPERTY ENTERPRISES LLC 9531 MILLIKEN AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 Item U —698 IDS PROPERTIES INC JERSEY-KARUBIAN II 2641 MEADOWBROOK RD P 0 BOX 800 1801 S MOUNTAIN AVE ROCKY MOUNT, NC 27801 MONROVIA CA 91016 KARUBIAN, RALPH KARUBIAN, RALPH TRUST (2005) 5321 FRANKLIN AVE 1304 SCHUYLER RD LOS ANGELES CA 90027 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90210 KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES INC LAMATRIX INDUSTRIES CORP PO BOX 2148 2313 E PHILADELPHIA ST # H MILWAUKEE WI 53201 ONTARIO CA 91761 LEDESMA & MEYER DEVELOPMENT INC LEE, JIA Y 9441 HAVEN AVE STE #100 13859 OAKLEAF WY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 LUCAS LAND CO MAR MEDICAL ENTERPRISE LLC 1 Government Center #580 9479 HAVEN AVE Toledo, OH 43604 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 MARK LP MARKETPLACE COVINA L P 13901 CARMENITA RD 195 S C ST SUITE250 SANTA FE SPRINGS CA 90670 TUSTIN CA 92780 JONATKIM ENTERPRISES 627 S MANCHESTER AVE ANAHEIM CA 92802 KIM, MEE KYOUNG 21028 E QUAIL RUN DR WALNUT CA 91789 LBA/PPF INDUSTRIAL - RCDC LLC P O BOX 847 CARLSBAD CA 92018 LEE, JOHNNY YOUNG 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL #310 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 MARICIC, GEORGE PO BOX 4815 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 MILLIKEN & GREYSTONE PROPERTIES, LLC 190 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE 220 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 MILLIKEN LLC MILLIKEN POINT LLC MOSCATEL, HARRY 3419 VIA LIDO #438 PO BOX 2742 1704 ALLISON WAY NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 REDLANDS, CA 92373 MPND HOLDINGS LLC MYERS, DAVID N & D RESTAURANTS INC 3401 CENTRE LAKE DR STE 410 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PL #100&10 P 0 BOX 695019 ONTARIO CA 91761 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 ORLANDO FL 32869 NAKAI ASSOCIATES LLC NATIONAL COMMUNITY RENAISSANCE NATVIN LLC 8250 WHITE OAKS #102 OF CA 3825 ELMIRA AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 9421 HAVEN AVE CLAREMONT CA 91711 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730-5886 NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP HOUSING SVC 9551 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 OAK CREEK RANCH GOLF CLUB INC 11015 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 OMNINET EMPIRE LLC 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 400 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212 Item U —699 ONTARIO MILLS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OZEL DEVELOPING INC PO BOX 6120 * 1 12200 AMARGOSA RD INDIANAPOLIS IN 46206 VICTORVILLE CA 92392 PASADENA WINTER GARDENS INC 1754 GRAND AVE SANTA BARBARA CA 93103 POMONA FIRST FEDERAL S/L ASSN 2800 E LAKE ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55406 PRII PIEMONTE ONTARIO CA LLC 1800 E IMPERIAL HIGHWAY STE 100 BREA CA 92821 PV ROCK HAVEN LLC 4350 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DR #110 SAN DIEGO CA 92122 REDUS PIEMONTE LLC 1 INDEPENDENT DR STE#615 MAC Z3094-065 JACKSONVILLE FL 32202 RMA LAND LLC 1139 E OCEAN BLVD #810 LONG BEACH CA 90802 ROCK -HAVEN LLC 1221 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK, NY 10020 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT 472 N ARROWHEAD STE 101 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 SIX HUNDRED PITTSBURGH LLC 190 NEWPORT CENTER DR STE#100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PITTSBURGH OFFICE PARK COMM MAINT CO 4 PARK PLAZA STE 840 IRVINE CA 92614 PPF MF 9200 MILLIKEN AVENUE LP 200 W MONROE STE 2200 CHICAGO IL 60606 PROPERTY RESERVE INC PO BOX 511196 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DIS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PARKER, MICHAEL D 7585 KENWOOD PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 PITTSBURGH PROPERTY PARK LLC 10387 SICILIAN DR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PRECISION AEROSPACE CORP 11155 JERSEY BLVD RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 PROULX, RAYMOND E & LORRAINE M TRS 11433 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 REDGATE PARTNERS LLC 2429 PECK RD WHITTIER CA 90601 RICHARDS, DANIEL W & JUDY FAM TR RIF III - EMPIRE LAKES LLC 2-2 11620 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 1000 3595-1 INLAND EMPIRE BLVD STE 1200 LOS ANGELES CA 90025 ONTARIO CA 91761 RMA LAND LLC 1139 E OCEAN BLVD #302 LONG BEACH CA 90802 ROSHAN LLC 402 19TH ST SANTA MONICA CA SCP RANCHO I LLC 23 CORPORATE PLAZA STE 247 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 SMITS FAMILY TRUST (6-1-94) 10478 VIVIENDA ST ALTA LOMA CA 91701 ROBERT WELLS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 506 VIA LIDO NORD STE 120 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 SAN BERNARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENT 1170 W THIRD ST 2ND FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 SHARON INVESTMENTS LLC 28492 CHAT DR LAGUNA NIGUEL CA 92677 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO P 0 BOX 800 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 Item U -700 SPINE SURGICAL IMPLANTS INC STATE OF CALIFORNIA STONE HAVEN EXECUTIVE PARK MAINT 3400 INLAND EMPIRE BLVD #101 400 R ST STE 5000 ASS ONTARIO CA 91764 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 19762 MACARTHUR BLVD STE 300 IRVINECA 92612 TAA ENTERPRISES LLC 7495 HENBANE ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91739 TARGET CORPORATION P 0 BOX 9456 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 U S SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 801 R ST STE 101 FRESNO CA 93721 UMANSKY FAMILY TRUST9-28-03 UTAH STATE RETIREMENT INVESTMENT VCB INVESTMENTS CORPORATION 3296 E GUASTI RD STE 110 FUN 10803 FOOTHILL BLVD STE 109 ONTARIO CA 91761 2750 E COTTONWOOD PKWY STE 560 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121 VILLAGE AT ONTARIO CENTER LLC P 0 BOX 670 UPLAND CA 91786 WNG RANCHO CUCAMONGA 496 LLC 8 EXECUTIVE OR IRVINECA 92614 YIHUA TIMBER INDUSTRY (USA) INC 10808 6TH ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 WCL PROPERTIES LLC 9541 PITTSBURGH AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY INC 16912 GRIDLEY PL CERRITOS CA 90703 ZHU, PEI SHENG & SHAD FENG HUANG REV 3483 VIEWFIELD AVE HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA WESTERN WONDER WELL ESTATE LLC 19372 WATERFALL WAY ROWLAND HEIGHTS CA 91748 WOOLEN GROUP LLC 9327 FAIRWAY VIEW PLACE #200 RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730 Item U —701 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PLANNING DIVISION I, IV tV mail clerk for the City of Rancho Cucamonga do hereby swear that on March 28, 2016 at approximately 3 o'clock p.m. a.m./p.m., I deposited in the United States Mail, a letter addressed to and regarding: Notice of Public Hearing Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 500 Notices Mailed/ Jennifer Palacios Planner: Mike Smith Signed: / Date: (PLEASE RETURN AFTER SIGNATURE) CITY OFl'ilrABfirA.lr.:n MAR 2 9 2016 RECEIVED Item U —702 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING PLANNING DIVISION I, � V e I 6" �"fTSa:il clerk for the City of Rancho Cucamonga do hereby swear that on March 29, 2016 at approximately 3 o'clock p.m. a.m./p.m., I deposited in the United States Mail, a letter addressed to and regarding: Notice of Public Hearing Environmental Impact Report and General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 (PLEASE RETURN AFTER SIGNATURE) ,rr1rFj'0CUCAP'''N0A MAR 3 0 2010 �;r`:'oVED - ! LDAN�NING Item U —703 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTAIE DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM ADVISORSEN: Real Estate To: Jeffrey A. Bloom, Deputy City Manager Redevelopment Economic & Community Development Affordable Housing y p Economic Development City of Rancho Cucamonga SAN FRANCISCO A. Jerry Keyser From: James Rabe, CRE Timothy C. Kelly Kate Earle Funk Date: March 31, 2016 Debbie M. Kern Reed T. Kawahara David Doezema Subject: Fiscal Analysis — Empire Lakes Project Los ANGELES Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Gregory D. Soo-Hoo Kevin E. Engstrom At your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has prepared a fiscal analysis Julie L. Romey of the proposed development at the Empire Lakes golf course (Project) and three SAN DIEGO alternatives considered in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The fiscal analysis Paul C. Marra has been prepared to provide the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) a comparison of the likely impacts on the City's General Fund from the development of the proposed project, two alternative developments and the existing golf course. The four alternatives evaluated are: Proposed Project — 3,450 residential units and 220,000 square feet of non- residential uses 2. Lower Density Alternative — 2,650 residential units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses 3. Higher Density Alternative — 4,000 residential units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses 4. No Project/No Development — continued operation of the existing golf course The fiscal analysis only considers the ongoing incremental effects on the General Fund. Initial capital requirements and obligations are usually addressed through development impact fees or other project mitigations. This analysis is organized as a memorandum supported by five detailed attachments with the supporting computations: EXHIBIT V 480 , LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 - PHONE 213.622.8095 1603013.RC.JAR.emm 18000.004.001 Item V —704 Jeffrey A. Bloom, City of Rancho Cucamonga March 31, 2016 Fiscal Analysis — Empire Lakes Project Page 2 I. Proposed Project II. Lower Density Alternative III. Higher Density Alternative IV. No Project Alternative — Existing Golf Course V. Methodology and Assumptions Within the four development alternative attachments the tables are organized: Table 1 — Fiscal Impact Summary Table 2 — Recurring Revenues Table 3 — Fiscal Costs Table 4 — Assessed Value Table 5 — Estimated Taxable Retail Expenditures METHODOLOGY The approach used in the fiscal analysis is to estimate public revenues based on specific parameters of the alternatives where appropriate (i.e. number and value of residential units, commercial square footage, value and sales per square foot for commercial uses), or based on the projected number of residents or employees for revenues that generally vary by population and/or employment. Expenditures for police services are estimated based upon service calls for the various land uses. Other City service costs are estimated based on the number of persons served (a combination of residents and employees). The City's approved budget for 2015 — 2016 was the primary source of information for this analysis, as well as the Development Impact Fee Study Report prepared in 2014. KMA also reviewed the developer's proposed pricing and rents for the residential units, and compared those prices and rents to the current market. The proposed pricing and rents are reasonable in terms of the current market. KMA also consulted with City staff regarding specific revenue and expense items: • If the Project or either of the alternative developments go forward, it will be incorporated into several assessment -type districts (e.g. LMD 3B, 85-PD-R). Discussions with Staff indicate that current assessments are sufficient to cover 1803013.RC.JARemm 18000.004.001 Item V —705 Jeffrey A. Bloom, City of Rancho Cucamonga March 31, 2016 Fiscal Analysis — Empire Lakes Project Page 3 operating expenses but do not cover reserves for replacement. In the future the General Fund will be obligated to fund any shortfalls associated with operations or capital expenditures for these districts. Payments made by residential units and commercial space will be incremental to existing payments and will offset future General Fund obligations. Discussions with City Staff regarding the Police Department budget indicate that a significant portion of the annual budget is allocated to items that are not related to changes in service calls as a result of the development (e.g. pension obligations). It is assumed that approximately 10% of the police department budget represents a fixed expense, and 90% is a variable expense that is affected by the number of calls for service. Most residential projects in the City include homeowners associations and assessment -type districts that undertake and pay for street maintenance and park maintenance. Based on discussions with City staff, it is estimated that 75% of the Public Works budget represent services that are provided by Public Works for areas that are not covered by homeowners associations and assessment districts. It is assumed that the remaining 25% of the Public Works budget represents costs incurred at the general city level that will be affected by the development of the Project or alternative developments. Fire services are provided through a separate fire district that is funded by a separate allocation of property tax revenues. FISCAL ANALYSIS The results of the fiscal analysis are shown in the attached Summary Table and are discussed below. As discussed above the detailed information and calculations are provided in Attachments I thru V. Proposed Project The Proposed Project is expected to consist of 3,450 residential units and 220,000 square feet of commercial space. The primary revenue sources are property taxes in - lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF) ($656,747), sales tax revenues ($572,499) and incremental assessment payments ($433,936). The VLF payments come from the State to replace vehicle license fees that are no longer collected by the State. The sales tax revenues include incremental purchases made at the commercial portion of the Project, and resident's taxable purchases made in the City. 1503013.RC.JAR:emm 18000.004,001 Item V —706 Jeffrey A. Bloom, City of Rancho Cucamonga March 31, 2016 Fiscal Analysis — Empire Lakes Project Page 4 Property taxes are not a significant revenue source because the City only receives approximately 4.95% of base property tax revenues and that amount is split approximately 65% to the General Fund and 35% to cover library operations. Total public revenues are estimated at over $2.4 million annually. Police department expenses amount to more than 50% of the costs associated with the project ($1,191,774). The expenses would be significantly higher if Public Works costs were not expected to be covered by the homeowners associations and assessment -type districts. Total General Fund expenses are estimated at $1,966,184. The Proposed Project shows a net surplus of $473,833. Nearly all of the surplus is associated with the incremental assessment payments that will be levied on the residential units and commercial square footage. Lower Density Alternative The Lower Density project is assumed to consist of 2,650 residential units and 220,000 square feet of commercial space. This alternative has a similar number of for -sale units as the Proposed Project and significantly fewer apartment units. As with the Proposed Project, the primary revenue sources are property taxes in -lieu of vehicle license fees ($605,209), sales tax revenues ($539,029) and incremental assessment payments ($317,352). Total public revenues are estimated at more than $2.1 million annually. As with the Proposed Project, police department expenses are the greatest cost to the City. Police expenditures represent 60% of incremental costs. Overall expenses amount to $1, 552,117. This alternative has a net surplus of $584,282, the largest surplus of any of the alternatives evaluated. The surplus is driven by the incremental assessment district payments and fewer residents in this alternative. Higher Density Alternative The Higher Density project is assumed to consist of 4,000 residential units and 220,000 square feet of commercial space. This alternative has both more for -sale units and more apartment units. However, there are no detached single family units. All of the residential units are multi -family units. As with the Proposed Project, the primary revenue sources are property taxes in -lieu of vehicle license fees ($713,653), sales tax revenues ($599,709) and incremental assessment payments ($514,087). 1803013.RG.JAR:emm 18000.004.001 Item V —707 Jeffrey A. Bloom, City of Rancho Cucamonga March 31, 2016 Fiscal Analysis — Empire Lakes Project Page 5 Total public revenues are estimated at nearly $2.7 million annually. As with the Proposed Project, police department expenses are the greatest cost to the City. Police expenditures represent 61 % of incremental costs. Overall expenses amount to $2.24 million. This alternative has a net surplus of $436,703. The incremental assessment revenues are greater than the surplus. No Project Alternative — Existing Golf Course The existing golf course has a minimal impact on the City's General Fund The existing golf course has an assessed valuation of approximately $4,170,000. Including an allowance for unsecured property, it might have an overall assessed value of $4.3 million, which generates approximately $1,000 to the General Fund. Likewise, sales tax revenues from the site are limited, estimated at approximately $3,500. Overall it is estimated that the existing golf course provides slightly more than $9,300 in revenues to the General Fund. By the same token, the existing golf course does not generate significant costs to the City. Total expenses are approximately $4,200. The golf course is estimated to provide a small annual surplus of approximately $5,100. CONCLUSIONS All three of the development alternatives are estimated to have a positive impact on the City's General Fund. The net benefit ranges from approximately $437,000 for the Higher Density Alternative to approximately $584,000 for the Lower Density Alternative. The Proposed Project is in between these alternatives. The primary reason for the surplus is the incremental revenues that the development will provide to the existing assessment -type districts that serve the area. As discussed above, these districts do not (or will not) generate sufficient revenues to cover both operations costs and capital replacement. Any deficiencies will become an obligation of the General Fund. The revenues received from the development will reduce the General Fund obligation. The existing golf course provides a very small net annual benefit to the General Fund of approximately $5,100. 1603013.RC.JAR:emm 18000.004.001 Item V —708 SUMMARY TABLE FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY - DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA Proposed Lower Density Higher Density No Project Project Alternative Alternative Alternative Housing Units 3,450 2,650 4,000 Nonresidential Square Footage 220,000 220,000 220,000 3,000 Estimate of Development Value $917,500,000 $883,209,300 $1,041,466,200 $4,170,000 Estimated Population 8,328 6,558 9,400 Employment 732 732 732 25 Persons Served 8;693 6,923 9,766 13 Revenues City Property Tax Revenue $306,000 $282,000 $333,000 $1,000 Real Property Transfer Tax 25,231 23,251 27,418 115 Property Tax in -lieu of VLF 656,747 605,209 713,653 2,985 Sales Tax 572,499 539,029 599,709 3,456 Use Tax 65,437 61,611 68,547 395 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 14,987 14,111 15,699 90 Franchise Fees 256,503 203,505 290,256 514 Busines License 19,036 19,036 19,036 650 Fines & Forfeitures 26,072 20,764 29,289 37 Municipal Utility Transfer 49,663 39,552 55,790 71 Incremental Assessment Revenues 433,936 317,352 514,087 Other General Revenues 13,907 10,981 15,680 5 Total Revenues $2,440,017 $2,136,399 $2,682,162 $9,319 Costs Police Department $1,191,774 $936,766 $1,371.773 $2,575 Animal Care 100,800 80,300 113,200 100 Community Services 195,900 156,100 220,100 300 Economic& community Development 29,000 23,100 32,600 0 Building & Safety 61,300 48,800 68,800 100 Engineering 71,400 56,800 80,200 100 Planning 6,600 5,300 7,400 0 Public Works 104,000 82,800 116,800 600 General Government 205,410 162,152 234,586 440 Total Costs $1.966,184 $1,552,117 $2,245,459 $4,215 Net Benefit (Cost) $473,833 $584,282 $436,703 $5,104 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15 Overall Summary; 3/31/2016; j... Item V -709 Attachment I Proposed Project Item V —710 TABLE 1-1 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY - PROPOSED PROJECT EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Housing Units Nonresidential Square Footage Estimate of Development Value Estimated Population Employment Persons Served Revenues City Property Tax Revenue Real Property Transfer Tax Property Tax in -lieu of VLF Sales Tax Use Tax Proposition 172 Sales Tax Franchise Fees Busines License See Table 1-2 Fines & Forfeitures Municipal Utility Transfer Incremental Assessment Revenues Other General Revenues Total Revenues Costs See Table 1-3 Police Department Animal Care Community Services Economic & community Development Building & Safety Engineering Planning Public Works General Government Total Costs Net Benefit (Cost) 3,450 220,000 $917,500,000 8,328 732 8,693 $306,000 25,231 656.747 572,499 65,437 14,987 256,503 19,036 26,072 49,663 433,936 13,907 $2,440,017 $1,191,774 100,800 196,900 29,000 61,300 71,400 6,600 104.000 205,410 $1,966,184 $473,833 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc, Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Summary-Proposed; 3/3112010; Ic Item V —711 TABLET-2 RECURRING REVENUE FACTORS - PROPOSED PROJECT EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA Population 8,328 Employees 732 Persons Served 8,693 Housing Units 2,200 PAMF Category Rate 3 Total Local Taxes Local Property Taxes Paid See Table 1-4 $9,584,000 City Share of Property Tax Rate See Table 1-4 $306,000 Real Property Transfer Tax See Table 1-4 25,231 Property Tax In -lieu of VLF $715.80 per $million AV 656,747 Retail Sales Tax See Table 1-5 572,499 Use Tax 65,437 Prop 172 14,987 Franchise Fees See Table V-3 256,503 Busines License See Table V-3 19,036 Fines & Forfeitures See Table V-3 26,072 Municipal Utility Transfer See Table V-3 49,663 Incremental Assessment Revenues See Table V-6 433,936 Other General Revenues See Table V-3 13,907 Total $2,440,017 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Revenues-Proposed; 3/31/2016; in Item V —712 TABLET-3 FISCAL COST - PROPOSED PROJECT EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Population 8,328 Employment 732 Persons Served 8,693 Alternative Cost Factor Description Cost Police Department $222.91 1 Per Service Call $1,191,774 Animal Care $11.59 2 Per person served $100,800 Community Services $22.54 2 Per person served $195,900 Economic & community Development $3.34 2 Per person served $29,000 Building & Safety $7.05 2 Per person served $61,300 Engineering $8.21 2 Per person served $71,400 Planning $0.76 2 Per person served $6,600 Public Works $11.96 2 Per person served $104,000 General Government 11.7% 2 Overhead Allowance $205,410 Total $1,966,184 ' See Table V-4 2 See Table V-5 Prepared by; Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Expenses-Proposed; 3/3112016;.Ic Item V —713 TABLE I-4 ASSESSED VALUE - PROPOSED PROJECT EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Residential Units For Sale - Detached For Sale - Attached Apartments Total Non -Residential (square feet) Transit Retail Office Total Total Secured Value Unsecured Valuation Total Assessed Valuation Property Tax Local Property Tax Rate City Share of Property Tax Revenues Property Transfer Tax Residential Assessed Valuation Annual turnover Value of Annual Turnover Tax Rate Residential Transfer Tax Non -Residential Assessed Valuation Annual turnover Value of Annual Turnover Tax Rate Non-residential Transfer Tax Total Property Transfer Tax Total Units, 200 1,050 2,200 3,450 Total SF 25,000 115,000 80,000 220,000 1.0000% 3.1933% Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Prop Tax -Proposed; 313112016; jc Assessed Value per / Unit $375,000 $310,000 $215,000 Assessed Value per SF Total Assessed Value $75,000,000 $325,600,000 $473,000,000 $873,500,000 Total Assessed Value $200.00 5,000,000 $200.00 23,000,000 $200.00 16,000,000 $44,000,000 $917,500,000 4.46% $40,920,500 $958,420,500 $9,584,000 $306,000 $873,500,000 5.00% $43,675,000 0.0550% $24.021 $44,000, 000 5.00% $2,200,000 0.0550% $1,210 $26,231 Item V —714 TABLE 1-5 ESTIMATED TAXABLE RETAIL EXPENDITURES EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Resident local taxable sales See Table V-2 $33,662.000 Employee local taxable sales See Table V-1 $1,097,857 Total Sales Non -Residential (square feet) SF per SF Transfers Transit 25,000 $200 $5,000,000 Retail 115,000 $200 30% $16,100,000 Office 80,000 $25 30% $1,400,000 Total $22,500,000 Total Taxable Sales $57.249,857 Local Sales Tax 1.00% $572,499 Use Tax as a % of point of Sales Tax 11.43% $65.437 Total Sales and Use Tax $637,935 Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax Budgeted Proposition 172 sales tax (FY2015 -16) $500,920 Budgeted Sales and Use Tax (2015 - 16) $21,322,650 Proposition 172 sales tax per $1,000 sales and use tax $23.49 Projected Sales and Use Tax to City $637,935 Projected Proposition 172 Sales Tax to City $14,987 Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Sales tax•Propcsed; V3112016; Ic Item V —715 Attachment II Lower Density Alternative Item V -716 TABLE II-1 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY - LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Housing Units 2,650 Nonresidential Square Footage 220,000 Estimate of Development Value 883,209,300 Estimated Population 6,658 Employment 732 Persons Served 6,923 Revenues See Table II - 2 City Property Tax Revenue $282,000 Real Property Transfer Tax 23,251 Property Tax in -lieu of VLF 605,209 Sales Tax 539.029 Use Tax 61,611 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 14,111 Franchise Fees 203,505 Busines License 19,036 Fines & Forfeitures 20,764 Municipal Utility Transfer 39,552 Incremental Assessment Revenues 317,352 Other General Revenues 10.981 Total Revenues $2,136,399 Costs See Table 11- 3 Police Department $936,766 Animal Care 80,300 Community Services 156,100 Economic & community Development 23,100 Building & Safety 48,800 Engineering 56,800 Planning 5,300 Public Works 82,800 General Government 162,152 Total Costs $1,552,117 Net Benefit (Cost) $584,282 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Summary-Lower; 3/31/2016; jc Item V —717 TABLE 1I-2 RECURRING REVENUE FACTORS - LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Population 6,558 Employees 732 Persons Served 6,923 Housing Units 2,650 Retail Category Rate Total Local Taxes Local Property Taxes See Table 11,4 $8,832.000 City Share of Property Tax Rate See Table II-4 $282,000 Real Property Transfer Tax See Table II-4 23,251 Property Tax In -lieu of VLF $715.80 per $million AV 605,209 Retail Sales Tax See Table 11-5 539,029 Use Tax See Table II-5 61,611 Prop 172 See Table II-5 14,111 Franchise Fees See Table V-3 203,505 Busines License See Table V-3 19,036 Fines & Forfeitures See Table V-3 20,764 Municipal Utility Transfer See Table V-3 39,552 Incremental Assessment Revenues See Table V-6 317,352 Other General Revenues See Table V-3 10,981 Total $2,136,399 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Revenues-Lower; 3/3112016: is Item V —718 TABLE II-3 FISCAL COST - LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Population Employment Persons Served Police Department Animal Care Community Services Economic & community Development Building & Safety Engineering Planning Public Works General Government Total ' See Table V-5 2 See Table V-4 6,558 732 6,923 Population plus 50% of employment Retail Cost Factor Description Cost $222.91 1 Per Service Call $936,766 $11.59 2 Per person served $80,300 $22.54 2 Per person served $156,100 $3.34 2 Per person served $23,100 $7.05 2 Per person served $48,800 $8.21 2 Per person served $56,800 $0.76 2 Per person served $6,300 $11.96 2 Per person served $82,800 11.7% 2 Overhead allowance $162,152 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Expenses-Lower; 3/3112016: is Item V -719 $1,552,117 TABLE II-4 ASSESSED VALUE - LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Total Assessed Value per Total Residential Units Units / Unit Assessed Value For Sale - Detached 300 $420,000 $126,000,000 For Sale - Attached 800 $360,000 $288,000,000 Apartments 1,550 $250,000 $387,500,000 Total 2.650 $801,500,000 Total Assessed Value per Total Non -Residential (square feet) SF SF Assessed Value Transit 26,000 $200.00 5,000,000 Retail 115,000 $200.00 23,000,000 Office 80,000 $200.00 16,000,000 Total 220,000 $44,000,000 Total Secured Value Unsecured Valuation Total Assessed Valuation Property Tax Property Tax Rate City Share of Property Tax Revenues Property Transfer Tax Residential Assessed Valuation Annual turnover Value of Annual Turnover Tax Rate Residential Transfer Tax Non -Residential Assessed Valuation Annual turnover Value of Annual Turnover Tax Rate Non-residential Transfer Tax Total Property Transfer Tax $845,500,000 4.46% $37,709,300 $883,209,300 1.0000% $8,832,000 3.1933% $282,000 $801,500,000 5.00% $40,075,000 0.0550% $22,041 $44,000,000 5.00% $2,200,000 0.0550% $1,210 $23,251 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Prop Tax -Lower; 3/3112016; Ic Item V —720 TABLE II-5 ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES - LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Resident local taxable sales Employee local taxable sales Total Non -Residential (square t SF Transit 25,000 Retail 115,000 Office 80,000 Total Total Taxable Sales Local Sales Tax Use Tax as a % of point of Sales Tax Total Sales and Use Tax Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax See Table V-2 See Table V-1 Sales per SF Transfers $200 $200 $25 Budgeted Proposition 172 sales tax (FY2015 - 16) Budgeted Sales and Use Tax (2015 - 16) Proposition 172 sales tax per $1,000 sales and use tax Projected Sales and Use Tax to City Projected Proposition 172 Sales Tax to City Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Sales tax -Lower; 3/31/2016; jc Item V —721 30% 30% 1.00% $30,305,000 $1,097,857 $5,000,000 $16,100,000 $1,400,000 $22,500,000 $53,902,857 $539,029 11.43% $61,611 $600,640 $500,920 $21,322,550 $23.49 $600,640 $14,111 Attachment III Higher Density Alternative Item V -722 TABLE III - 1 FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY - HIGHER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Housing Units 4,000 Nonresidential Square Footage 220,000 Estimate of Development Value $1,041,466,200 Estimated Population 9,400 Employment 732 Persons Served 9,766 Revenues See Table III - 2 City Property Tax Revenue $333,000 Real Property Transfer Tax 27,418 Property Tax in -lieu of VLF 713,653 Sales Tax 599,709 Use Tax 68,547 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 15,699 Franchise Fees 290,256 Busines License 19,036 Fines & Forfeitures 29,289 Municipal Utility Transfer 65,790 Incremental Assessment Revenues 514,087 Other General Revenues 15,680 Total Revenues $2.682,162 Costs See Table III - 3 Police Department Animal Care Community Services Economic & community Development Building & Safety Engineering Planning Public Works General Government Total Costs Net Benefit (Cost) $1,371,773 $113,200 220,100 32,600 68,800 80,200 7,400 116,800 234.586 $2,245,459 $436,703 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Summary-Higher; 313112016; is Item V —723 TABLE III - 2 RECURRING REVENUE FACTORS - HIGHER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA Population 9,400 Employees 732 Persons Served 9,766 Housing Units 4,000 Auto Center Cateoory Rate Total Local Taxes City Property Tax Rate See Table III - 4 $10,415,000 City Share of Property Tax Rate See Table III - 4 333,000 Real Property Transfer Tax See Table III - 4 27,418 Property Tax In -lieu of VLF $715.80 per $million AV 713,653 Retail Sales Tax See Table III - 5 599,709 Use Tax See Table III - 5 68,547 Prop 172 See Table III - 5 15,699 Franchise Fees See Table V - 3 290,256 Busines License See Table V - 3 19,036 Fines & Forfeitures See Table V - 3 29,289 Municipal Utility Transfer See Table V - 3 55,790 Incremental Assessment Revenues See Table V - 6 514,087 Other General Revenues See Table V - 3 15.680 Total $2,682,162 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Revenues-Higher; 3/3112016; is Item V —724 TABLE III - 3 FISCAL COST - LOWER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Population 9,400 Employment 732 Persons Served 9,766 Auto Center Cost Factor Description Cost Police Department $222,91 1 Per Service Call $1,371,773 Animal Care $11.59 2 Per person served $113,200 Community Services $22.54 2 Per person served $220,100 Economic & community Development $3.34 2 Per person served $32,600 Building & Safety $7.05 2 Per person served $68,800 Engineering $8.21 2 Per person served $80,200 Planning $0.76 2 Per person served $7.400 Public Works $11.96 2 Per person served $116,800 General Government 11.7% 2 Overhead Allowance $234,586 Total $2,245,459 ' See Table V - 5 P See Table V - 4 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Expenses-Higher; 3t3112016; jc Item V —725 TABLE III - 4 ASSESSED VALUE - HIGHER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Total Assessed Value per Total Residential Units Units / Unit Assessed Value For Sale - Detached 0 $375,000 $0 ForSale- Attached 1,400 $300,000 $420,000,000 Apartments 2,600 $205,000 $533,000,000 Total 4,000 $953,000,000 Total Assessed Value per Total Non -Residential (square feet) SF SF Assessed Value Transit 25,000 $200.00 5,000,000 Retail 115,000 $200.00 23,000,000 Office 80,000 $200.00 16,000,000 Total 220,000 $44,000,000 Total Secured Value $997,000,000 Unsecured Valuation 4.46% $44,466,200 Total Assessed Valuation $1,041,466,200 Property Tax Property Tax Rate 1.0000% $10,415,000 City Share of Property Tax Revenues 3.1933% $333,000 Property Transfer Tax Residential Assessed Valuation $953,000,000 Annual turnover 5.00% Value of Annual Turnover $47,650,000 Tax Rate 0.0550% Residential Transfer Tax $26,208 Non -Residential Assessed Valuation $44,000,000 Annual turnover 5.00% Value of Annual Turnover $2,200,000 Tax Rate 0.0550% Non-residential Transfer Tax $1,210 Total Property Transfer Tax $27,418 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Assoclates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Prop Tax -Higher; 3/31/2016; Ic Item V —726 Yyr1MMAIIElki ESTIMATED TAXABLE SALES - HIGHER DENSITY ALTERNATIVE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Resident local taxable sales See Table V-2 Employee local taxable sales See Table V-1 Total Sales Non -Residential (square fe SF per SF Transit Retail Office Total Total Taxable Sales Local Sales Tax 26,000 $200 115,000 $200 80,000 $25 Use Tax as a % of point of Sales Tax Total Sales and Use Tax Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax Budgeted Proposition 172 sales tax (FY2015 - 16) Budgeted Sales and Use Tax (2015 - 16) Proposition 172 sales tax per $1,000 sales and use tax Projected Sales and Use Tax to City Projected Proposition 172 Sales Tax to City $36,373,000 $1,097,857 Transfers $5,000,000 30% $16,100,000 30% $1,400,000 $22,500,000 $59,970,857 1.00% $599,709 11.43% $68,547 $668,255 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15;Sales tax -Higher; 3/3112016; is Item V —727 $500,920 $21,322,650 $23.49 $668,255 $15,699 Attachment IV No Project Alternative Existing Golf Course Item V -728 TABLE IVA FISCAL IMPACT SUMMARY - EXISTING GOLF COURSE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Housing Units 0 Nonresidential Square Footage 3,000 Existing Development Value $4,170,000 Estimated Population 0 Employment 25 Persons Served 13 Revenues See Table IV-2 City Property Tax Revenue $1,000 Real Property Transfer Tax 115 Property Tax in -lieu of VLF 2,985 Sales Tax 3,456 Use Tax 395 Proposition 172 Sales Tax 90 Franchise Fees 514 Busines License 650 Fines & Forfeitures 37 Municipal Utility Transfer 71 Other General Revenues 5 Total Revenues $9,319 Costs See Table IV-3 Police Department $2,575 Animal Care 100 Community Services 300 Economic & community Development 0 Building & Safety 100 Engineering 100 Planning 0 Public Works 600 General Government 440 Total Costs $4,215 Net Benefit (Cost) $5,104 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal - golf course 3.9;Summary-Golf Course; 3/31/2016; Ic Item V —729 TABLE IV-2 RECURRING REVENUE FACTORS - EXISTING GOLF COURSE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Population 0 Employees 25 Persons Served 13 Housing Units 0 PAMF Cateaory Rate a Total Local Taxes Local Property Taxes Paid See Table IV-4 $44,000 City Share of Property Tax Rate See Table IV-4 $1,000 Real Property Transfer Tax See Table IV-4 115 Property Tax In -lieu of VLF $715.80 per $million AV 2,985 Retail Sales Tax See Table IV-5 3,456 Use Tax 395 Prop 172 90 Franchise Fees See Table V-3 514 Busines License See Table V-3 650 Fines & Forfeitures See Table V-3 37 Municipal Utility Transfer See Table V-3 $71 Other General Revenues See Table V-3 5 Total $9,319 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal - golf course 3-9;Revenues-Golf Course; 3/31/2016; Ic Item V —730 TABLE IV - 3 FISCAL COST - EXISTING GOLF COURSE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Population Golf Course Employment Persons Served Police Department Animal Care Community Services Economic & community Development Building & Satety Engineering Planning Public Works General Government Total See Table V-5 2 See Table V-4 0 25 13 Alternative Cost Factor Description Cost $222.91 1 Per Service Call $2,575 $11.59 2 Per person served $100 $22.54 2 Per person served $300 $3.34 2 Per person served $0 $7.05 2 Per person served $100 $8.21 2 Per person served $100 $0.76 2 Per person served $0 $47.83 2 Per person served $600 11.7% 2 Overhead Allowance 440 $4,215 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal - golf course 3-9;Expenses-Golf Course; 3/3112016; fc Item V —731 TABLE IV-4 ASSESSED VALUE - EXISTING GOLF COURSE EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Total Assessed Value per Total Residential Units Units / Unit Assessed Value For Sale - Detached 0 $375,000 $0 For Sale - Attached 0 $310,000 $0 Apartments 0 $215,000 $0 Total 0 $0 Total Assessed Value per Total Non -Residential (square feet) SF SF Assessed Value Existing Golf Course 3,000 $1,390.00 4,170,000 Retail 0 $200.00 0 Office 0 $200.00 0 Total 3,000 $4,170,000 Total Secured Value $4,170,000 Unsecured Valuation 4.46% $185,982 Total Assessed Valuation $4,355,982 Property Tax Local Property Tax Rate 1.0000% $44,000 City Share of Property Tax Revenues 3.1933% $1,000 Property Transfer Tax Residential Assessed Valuation $0 Annual turnover 5.00% Value of Annual Turnover $0 Tax Rate 0.0550% Residential Transfer Tax $0 Non -Residential Assessed Valuation $4,170,000 Annual turnover 5.00% Value of Annual Turnover $208,500 Tax Rate 0.0550% Non-residential Transfer Tax $115 Total Property Transfer Tax $115 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fllename: Empire Lakes Fiscal - golf course 3-9;Prop Tax -Golf Course; 3/3112016: is Item V —732 TABLE IV-5 ESTIMATED TAXABLE RETAIL EXPENDITURES EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Resident local taxable sales $0 Employee local taxable spending See Table V-1 $45,625 Total Sales Non -Residential (souare feet) SF per SF Transfers Golf Course 3,000 $100 $300,000 Retail 0 $200 30% $0 Office 0 $25 30% Total $300.000 Total Taxable Sales $345,625 Local Sales Tax 1.00% $3,456 Use Tax as a % of point of Sales Tax 11.43% $395 Total Sales and Use Tax $3,851 Proposition 172 - Half Cent Sales Tax Budgeted Proposition 172 sales tax (FY2015 - 16) $500,920 Budgeted Sales and Use Tax (2015 -16) $21,322,550 Proposition 172 sales tax per $1,000 sales and use tax $23.49 Projected Sales and Use Tax to City $3,851 Projected Proposition 172 Sales Tax to City $90 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal - golf course 3-9;Safes tax -Golf Course; 313112016; jc Item V -733 Attachment V Methodology and Assumptions Item V —734 TABLE V-1 ASSUMPTIONS ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED PROJECT TOW Manuel Valve ReeWenle Household Residential Units lynil5 pert Unk reumr E2204LR-I, Income For Sala -Detached 20D $375,000 3.45 690 S92,20D For Sale-Armclred 1,050 53ID,D00 2.35 2.468 $76.200 Apa,4nents 2.200 S215.000 225 'EM $54.900 Monthly Rent S1,600 Total 3,450 8,328 Total SF Per Employee y2b&,,ldenlfi I u;p�or1r U) JSF. yaloJal, EF Employee 9f2lR veer Tarabl gnlir Transit 25,000 S200.00 300 83 Retail 115.000 S200.00 350 329 Office BD,000 $200.00 250 W. Total 220.00D 732 S1,097,857 LOWER DENSITY T.W Mandl Vahre Residents Household Rosld; 1.01l Units Units par Unll per Unit popalallon Income For Sale-Oetached 300 S420.000 3.45 11035 S1D3.300 For8ale-AKached 800 S360,000 2.35 1.880 S89.500 Apartments 1.550 S250,000 2.35 3.643 $61,700 Monthly Rent $1.800 Tole) 2,650 6.658 Talal SF per Employee Nrnn-Resdaneallseuare fe 1 SF V.+ Employee Emd:oyess Vita Snanep Transit 25.001) S200.00 300 83 Retail 116.000 S200.00 350 329 ORNe 80,000 S200.00 250 320 Total 220,000 732 $1,097,857 HIGHER DENSITY Total Mallet Value Residents Household ResWan&I0-WIs Units Pat Unit per Unit Evillp1pil income For Sale- Deptnaed 0 $375,000 3.45 0 SSZ200 For Sale -Attached 1,400 $200.000 2.35 3"0 S73,800 Apartments 2,600 S205,000 2.35 Put S51,400 Monthly Rent S1,500 Total 4.000 9.400 Total Sep., Employee NpnAesldenlfal(souare feel) SF Vale Do, SF Employee Empl;oyees Tax le ERMdin Transit 25,000 $20D.00 300 63 Recoil 115,000 $200.00 w 329 Office W.000 $200.00 250 320 Total 220,000 732 $1,097.857 Pmpeay Taxh,I!auofVLF F)r4004.0 FY2015.16 n)=.i a� Property lax vehicle 0cense fees 9.209,981.00 16,474.380A0 7.264,399.00 Assessed Valumi nIS roffa s) 12.641.601,225 2200,238,812 10.148,637,58T VLF Increase per Assessed Valuation 0.0007168 VLF Increase per$1,000,0001nersase in AV S715.80 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS I Residents per unit based an 2014 Development IM30 Fee Study Propeny Tee Property Tax Rape 1.0000% Gen Fund Share of PmPedY Tax 3.1933% City allocation is split between General Fund and Library Unsecured Tax as% of Secured 4.46% Adopted Budget 2DI5-16 Use Tax Pat of Point of Sale 11.43% Amrage, 2D13. 2015 per H& sports Housing dawn payment 15% KMAasfumpli.n Housing Mortgage 640% 30 Veals Housing payments as% of income 33% Dedved from Cansummer Ewndane Su1W. September 2011 Taxes& Insurance 2. KMA assumption Taxable Sales as%of Income 30.7% CA DOE, Economl.P..p.doa, August 2010 for higher familylncomes Resident sales spent locally 50% KMA assumption Rent as a Ti of income 35% Derived fmm Consummer Expenditure Survey, September 2011 % rele0 sales transferred 30% KMA summation Employee taxable spending (day) S5.00 De,Ned(mm ICSC worker spending study Residential Tumow Rale, 6.00% HdL review of m5W.nUal sags for 2016. rounded to nearest whop. peraset. Noniealdemal lumover Rate 5.00% KMAassumpV.n P,.P,., d ay. xeye. No,.-Avxbop fine. Fiemme: EmP2el se Fivos SU: Ammptiin: 3131410m. to Item V -735 TABLE V-2 DERIVATION OF RESIDENT SPENDING EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA PROPOSED PROJECT Annual Total Taxable Units Income Income Spending Residential Units For Sale - Detached 200 $92,200 $18,440,000 $5,661,080 For Sale - Attached 1,050 $76,200 $80,010,000 $24,563,070 Apartments 2,200 $54,900 $120,780,000 $37,079,460 Total 3,450 $67,303,610 Percentage Spent Locally 50% Local Taxable spending $33,652,000 LOWER DENSITY PROJECT Annual Total Taxable Units Income Income Spending Residential Units For Sale - Detached 300 $103,300 $30,990,000 $9,513,930 For Sale - Attached 800 $88,500 $70,800,000 $21,735,600 Apartments 1,550 $61,700 $95,635.000 $29,359,945 Total 2,650 $60,609,475 Percentage Spent Locally 50% Local Taxable spending $30,305,000 LOWER DENSITY PROJECT Annual Total Taxable Units Income Income Spending Residential Units For Sale - Detached 0 $92,200 $0 $0 ForSale- Attached 1,400 $73,800 $103,320,000 $31,719,240 Apartments 22,600 $51,400 $133,640,000 $41,027,480 Total 4,000 $72,746,720 Percentage Spent Locally 50% Local Taxable spending $36,373,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15 Resident Spending; 3/3112016; jc Item V —736 (D I V W V TABLE V-3 FISCAL REVENUE FACTORS EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Population 8,328 6,558 9,400 0 Employment 732 732 732 25 Persons Served 8.693 6,923 9.766 13 Housing Units 3,450 2,650 4,000 0 Revenue Lower Higher Existing Revenue Item Allocation Factor Proposed Densit Density Golf Course 4130 Franchise Fee -Gas & Electric person served $12.90 $112,112 $89,286 $125,943 $161 4131 Franchise Fee-Resid. Refuse per capita $5.69 47.404 37.328 53,509 0 4132 Franchise Fee -Comm. Refuse per employee $14.10 10,320 10,320 10.320 353 4133 Franchise Fee -Cable per unit $25.12 86,666 66,571 100,485 0 4201 Business Licenses per employee $25.12 18,388 16,388 18,388 628 4231 Business Licenses-PN per employee $0.15 113 113 113 4 4232 Business Licenses -Penalties - per employee $0.73 535 535 535 18 4301 Vehicle Code Fines person served $0.38 3,343 2,663 3,756 5 4302 Parking Citations person served $1.07 9.331 7,431 10,482 13 4306 Vehicle Release Fees person served $0.82 7,095 5,650 7,970 10 4307 Citation Proof of Corr Fees person served $0.01 45 36 51 0 4308 General Ordinance Fines person served $0.20 1,753 1,396 1,969 3 4309 False Alarm Fees person served $0.18 1,532 1.220 1,721 2 4310 Loud Party Ordinance Fines person served _ $0.00 4 3 4 0 4313 Other Fines & Forfeitures person served $0.34 2.970 2,366 3,337 4 4419 Other Rental/Lease Income per capita $0.14 1,146 902 1,293 0 4560 Fingerprint Fees per capita $0.24 2,011 1,584 2,270 0 4564 Returned Item Charge person served $0.00 20 16 23 0 4570 Sale of Printed Materials person served $0.07 591 471 664 1 4701 Motor Vehicle In -Lieu Fees Per capita $0.42 3.510 2,764 3,962 0 4710 Homeowners Property Tax Relief Per capita $0.46 3,860 3,039 4,357 0 4905 Contdbutions/Fundraising person served $0.32 2,769 2,205 3,111 4 8705 Transfer In -Municipal Utility person served $5.71 $49,663 $39,552 $55,790 $71 Sources: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adopted Budget 2015-2016 Budget. Prepared by: Kayser Marston Asaoclates, Inc. Rename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 345;Appendix II; 313112016; jc TABLE V-4 METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF CITY SERVICES EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA Rancho Cucamonga Less: Fees, Average Average Cost Adopted Budget Permits, Licenses Net Cost Allocable Allocable Per Budget Categories 2015.16 And Other Funds Expenditures r Allocation z Expenses Person Served' [A) [B] [C=A-B] ID] [E=CXD] [F=E 1219,747) GENERAL GOVERNMENT City Council 129.070 City Clerk 1.960 City Treasurer 12,130 City Management 1.554,230 Records Management 482,910 Administrative Services 6.680.580 Finance 1,512.520 Human Resources 752,770 Information Technology 2,924,800 Total $ 14.050,970 Police 33.432,190 $ - Case study, See Table V-5 Animal Care 3,038,880 $ 491,000 $ 2.547.880 100% $ 2,547.880 $ 11.59 Community Services 4.952,990 - 4.952.990 100°% 4,952,990 $ 22.54 Econ & Comm Development 732,940 $ - $ 732.940 100% 732,940 $ 3.34 Building S Safety 2,717,600 $ 1,169,270 $ 1,548,330 100% $ 1,548,330 $ 7.05 Engineering 2,554,350 $ 750,000 $ 1,804,350 100% $ 1,804,350 $ 821 Planning 2,283.290 2.116.320 166,970 100% 166,970 $ 0.76 Public Works 10,510,310 - 10,510,310 25% 2,627,578 $ 11.96 Subtotal Departments 60,222,550 - 60,222,550 - General Government as Pcl of Departments 23.3% Estimated marginal cost at 50 % 11.7% TOTAL S 74,273,520 $ 4,626,590 $ 82,486,320 $ 14,381,038 $ 65 Sources: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Adopted Budget 2015-2016 BudgeL ' Expenditures paid by the General Fund after deducting specific revenue sources. 2 Discussions with Public Works indicates that approximately 750/6of street and park maintenance costs are project specific costs that are borne by the project. Remaining costs are spread citywide. ' KMA estimate based on City budget and demographic information. Prepared by. Keyser Marston Ass..iates, Inc. Rename: Empire Lakes FIsw134SlAppendd I; 3411Re15: iar ,+ N 3 V W t0 TABLE V-5 POLICE SERVICE COST ALLOCATIONS EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Police Budget FY 2012 -13 $25,942,919 90% of actual cost per 2014-15 adopted budget to adusl for fixed portion of police budget Service Calls 2012 121.958 Development Impact Fee Study, 2014 Estimated Cost per Call (2012) $212.72 CPI Adjustment Jul 2012 to Jul 2015 4.79% 2015-16 Adjusted cost per call $222.91 Calls by Use from Development Impact Fee Study Residential - Detached 1.25 per unit Residelnial- Attached 1.41 perunit Commercial / Retail 3.85 per 1,000 SF Office 0.89 per 1,000 SF Lower Higher Proposed Density Density For Sale - Detached 200 300 0 For Sale - Attached 1.050 800 1,400 Apartments 2,200 1,550 2,600 Retail 115,000 115,000 115.000 Office 80,000 80,000 80,000 Calls by use For Sale - Detached 250 375 0 For Sale -Attached 1,481 1.128 1,974 Apartments 3.102 2,186 3,666 Retail 443 443 443 Office 71 71 71 Total Calls 5,346 4,202 6,154 Total Cost $1,191.774 $936.766 $1,371,773 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Rename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 3-15:AppeOtlix II; 313112016; jc N 3 G I V A 0 TABLE V-6 INCREMENTAL ASSESSMENT REVENUES EMPIRE LAKES SITE DEVELOPMENTALTERNATIVES RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Lower Higher Proposed Density Density Residential Units 3.450 2,650 4.000 Fee per Unit $145.73 $145.73 $145.73 Residential Revenues $502,769 $386.185 $582,920 Commercial Acreage 8.50 8.50 8150 Fee per Acre $673.96 $673.96 $673.96 Commercial Revenues $5,729 $5,729 5 729 Total New Revenues $508,497 $391.913 $588.649 Current Revenues from Site $74,562 $74,562 $74,562 Net New Assessment Revenues $433.936 $317,352 $514.087 Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Special Districts Divisiion Prepared by; Keyser Marston Associates, Ix. Filename: Empire Lakes Fiscal 345:Appendu II: 313112016; Ic Table LU-8: Mixed Uset Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue Acreage Range Estimated "Most E1pe Density, Wacre) Case" Aces/Oweflueg ge Units (du) Commercial 409/,80% 19.1-28.7 acres 28.7 acres OfFlce- professional 6%-10% 2.9-4.8 acres 4.8 acres Publiclquasi-Public- 4% 1.9 acres 1.9 acres parksipublic plazas 12.4-23.9 acres i-' 12.4 acres rr Residential 26%-50% 24 - 30 dulacre 30 dulacre 298 to 717 du 372 du Totals 100 % 47.8 acres 47.8 acres Note: 1. Indicates target density, not a range. Actual density may increase up to 30 du/ac as long as the total of 717 dwelling units is not exceeded. The residential component will provide connections in the form of small interior streets and pedestrian paseos to the commercial and office components of the development. Residential development should also include an active street front instead of blank walls along Mayten Avenue and Malaga Drive, and interior streets to connect the various parts of the development. Isolated and gated residential development that is walled off from adjoining uses would be prohibited. Nearly two acres of public space in the form of public plazas and fountains will provide people with gathering areas in the commercial component of the development. Additional recreational amenities are also encouraged for the residential component of the development. Mixed Use: Industrial Area Specific Plan (Sub -Area 18) This area is bounded on the south by 4" Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the railroad, and on the west by Utica Street (#8 on Figure LU-3). The . It 6UFFSUAdS aR 18 hole golf GauFse and includes the Metrolink Station off Milliken Avenue. The Industrial Area Specific Plan (Empire Lakes) Mixed Use area reflects the mixed land use approved under the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The intent of the Mixed Use designation is to: Promote planning flexibility to achieve more creative and imaginative employment -generating designs • Integrate a wider range of retail commercial, service commercial, recreation, and office uses within this industrial area of the City • Allow for the sensitive inclusion of high -density residential development that offers high -quality multi -unit condominiums and apartments for employees desiring housing close to work and transit Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LU-31 A-53 EXHIBIT W Item W-741 LU-32 Tahlc LU 9: itfixed Use: industrial Arca SLlccifia Plan/Sukarca 1S P n...,. -...C1La,• �� UndUsa a , L' fine , ___ it g n tr foils (du, Commercial - relail, service cormercal; tourist commercial, 160; 26% 34457-awes 40 acres office (commercial and professional) Office - professional, medical corporato offices ,;y Residential ROW - Metrolink Parking Totals 40V6W% 99436-awes 7,Fi% 46�as 440basres 46:b acres 25-5"Gres-oft 60acres@ *"-22-% 27a6-duleere- 27-.76-dulacrr 694-taA,388-du 4;388-du 4.,6% 10.3-as 40.3-acres 480% 227-acres 227-acres Note' 4--MdKctes2;L. P6 do'be as Mixed Use: Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek Channel This site, located at Foothill Boulevard along Deer Creek Channel (#9 on Figure LU- 3), provides an excellent opportunity to integrate commercial and residential uses into a cohesive development. Commercial development will be sited along the Foothill Boulevard frontage, while residential development will be located toward the southern area of the property. Development should provide pedestrian access between uses and direct pedestrian connections to Foothill Boulevard and transit stops. High -density development should step down to detached residential development along the western boundary providing a transition to the adjacent low - density residential development. Public street connections to Hampshire Street and Devon Street in the adjacent residential neighborhood will be discouraged, except for emergency vehicles. Table LU-10 specifies the uses and range of development allowed. Foothill BOLliCb'fl Acreage Range I- Estimated "Most Case"' ernge Density (dulacr l Dwelling Unit Range yl4creslDwetling Units (du) 25%-30% 4.4 S.J acres 5 3 acres 12.4-13.3 acres@ ar:-s 70%-75% 10-14 dulacre' 14 d_j,>,,., 124 to 186 du 174 d.i 100% 17.7 acres 7 x,I,%= Note: 1. Indicates target density, not a range. Actual density may increase up to 14 du/ac as long as the total of 186 dwelling units is not exceeded. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Item W -742 INSERT the following text in place of Table LU-9: The Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (ASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan is located north of 4th Street, south of a commuter and freight railway, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of'Utica/Cleveland Avenues (#8 on Figure LU-3). The plan provides a more urban, medium -to -high density development pattern with a mix of attached and detached residences, non-residential (office, commercial, etc.) uses, and private and common open space areas. Characteristic of the plan will be its pedestrian -oriented setting and access to various transit options including the Metrolink San Bernardino Line via the Rancho Cucamonga Station located at the northeast corner of the specific plan area. he plan is intended to provide a unique and engaging experience that offers to residents convenient access to areas for work, service/commerce, recreational activities, and public spaces. The plan reflects the mixed land use approved under the Rancho Cucamonga [ASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The intent of the Mixed Use designation is to: • Promote planning flexibility to achieve more creative and imaginative employment -generating designs; • Integrate a wider range of retail commercial, service commercial, recreation, and office uses within this industrial area of the City; • Allow for the sensitive inclusion of high -density residential development that offers high -quality multi -unit condominiums and apartments for employees desiring housing close to work and transit. r_a.4.7 Item W —743 A-56 Note: Table to be ]� LU-15: Build -Out Summary updated by City Dideliind Units 55,608 91 55,W99 62,1965 1 Population 179,200 300 17%600 200,400 J 3 Non - Residential 80,030,000 0 80,03 0" 99,797,000 Square Feet Employment 77,350 0 77, 0 103, Notes I. 2009 Baseline data is based on Existing Land Use Geographical 2. 501: Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. 63,253 7,554 13.6% 203,800 24,300 13.5% 99,797,000 19,767.000 24.7% 103,040 25,690 33.2% Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources LU-36 RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Item W -744 (DD 3 v A lJl D irr 4 C Z a O tl + O � ATFOSTile N p UseDesignaU .� ■�---- m signation = _, Hillside (0.1.2.O du/ac) 1.29 133 13 to 268 151 695 70.1,400 831 828 83-1,668 982 Very Low (0.10-2.0 du/ac) 1.29 4,007 401 to 8,029 7,394 - - - 4,007 401-8,029 7,394 Low (2.0-4.0 du/ac) 3.25 4,371 9,194 to 18,080 18,050 - - - 4,371 9,194-18,080 18,050 Low Medium 6.50 1,852 7,739tol5,100 13,320 - - - 7,739-15,100 13,320 (4.0-8 0 dulac) 1,852 Medium (8.0-14.0 du/ac) 11.75 790 6,270 to 10,837 9,283 - - - 790 6,270-10,837 9,283 Medium High 20.25 367 5,237to B,915 7,432 - - - 5,237-8,915 7,432 (14.0-24.0 du/ac) 367 High (24.0-30.0 du/ac) 44 1,376, to 1.713 1.221 - - - 7 - 3 L Mixed Use4 `Y Varies 276 3,701 to 6, it 5,3 - - - 278 3,711-6,511 5,345 Open Space r 0.10 483 Oto 46 -' 2,498 0-250 22 2,979 0-298 228 (0.0-0.1 du/ac) r Notes: 1. The Density Factor is based upon actual development that has occurred in the City and represents a level midway between SO% and 75% of the range. It is used to calculate the target number of dwelling units. This factor is only applied to vacant developable lands. A different Density Factor was applied to existing development to obtain on accurate baseline number. 2. The range of dwelling units is derived by multiplying the lower and upper threshold of density/intensity range by the number of acres, and rounded to the nearest whole number. This range represents the theoretical potential. Some development will produce densities at or near the top of the range, however, most will not. 3. Target dwelling units is the probable level of development based on historical development patterns, except for Mixed Use Residential, which is based primarily on a target density. 4. Mixed Use allows both residential and non-residential uses. 5. Open Space is generally a non-residential category that permits a very limited number of residential units on privately owned properties. Within the City, Open Space applies to the golf courses and the Pacific Electric Trod. In the northwest quadrant of the City, a few properties are designated Open Space and could yield residential units. However, any such development would be limited to a density of 0.1 units per acre (or one unit per parcel on lots less than 10 acres in size) and would be subject to the slope, drainage, food zones, and fault zone analysis at a minimum under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance, further limiting any residential development potential. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LU-37 a in W K ra I J A `a Z z° ble LU-1 is Land Use P ummaiv-Non-Residential Designations T� 0 m o �- rr _ Square Feet _ Probable Squ Io Land Use Desi natl ' - p �=VP All g pn thousands) (in thousands) ,tv Only) Cl O Non-Residential'-�- -- M Office (0.40-1.0 FAR) 86 - 1,497 to 3,746 1.497 3.180 86 Neighborhood Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) 164 - 1,785 to 2,500 1.785 3.030 164 Community Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) 119 - 1,292 to 1,810 1,292 1,970 119 General Commercial (025-0.35 FAR) 470 - 8,555 to 7,165 6.555 10,020 474700 Subtotel`-YY 9 18L'Otr ._.- Mixed Use (0.25-1.0 FAR)' 626 - 6,498 to 25,996 11.973 20, 270 828 Subtotal 626 - 6,498 to 25,996 11,973 20,270 826 Industrial Park(0.40-0.60 FAR) 5 - 9,739 to 14,610 9,739 6,610 559 - Haven Overlay (0.40-1.0 FAR) 215 - 3,745 to 9,365 3,745 7,950 215 General Industrial (0.50-0.60 FAR) 1.974 - 42,993 to 51,592 42,993 29,220 1,974 Heavy Industrial (0.40-0.50 FAR) 891 - 15,523 to 19,405 15,523 15,820 891 Subtotal 9 000 89808 3,639 Open Space (0.0-0.10 du/ac) 483 2,496 - - - 2, 79 Conservation - - 1,. 36 Flood Control/Utility, Corridor Subtotal 7,779 CiviclRegional (0.40-1.0 FAR) 130 - 2.26510 5,662 2,265 1,05 1 Schools (0.10-0.20 FAR) 558 - 2.430 to 4,861 2,430 3,920 558 Parks 445 - - - - 445 LU-38 1. The range ofsquarefootoge is derived by multiplying the probable lower and upper threshold of intensity range by the number of acres, and rounded to the nearest hundred. 2. Non-residential FAR Range: lower number is the probable FAR on average, but in some cases it may be lower. Higher number is the maximum FAR allowed for any specific project. 3. Employment is calculated by using the Probable Square Feet and employment factors for each non-residential land use designations. 4. Mixed Use allows both residential and non-residential use. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources R A N C H O CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN rT I J A J D �n $ Table LU-181 Build Out Summary by Land Use ilk~ 3 O n O land Use Desi9nati ant- ? Q oral , m Hillside Residential (0.1-2.0 oWac) 133 695 828 3.1% 151 831 982 - - Very Low Residential (0.1-2.0 du/ac) 4,007 - 4,007 15.1% 7,394 - 7,394 - - Low Residential (204,0dulac) 4,371 - 4,371 16.5% 18,050 - 18,050 - - Low Medium Residential (4.0-8.0 du/ac) 1,852 - 1,852 7.0% 13,320 - 13,320 - - Medium Residential (8.0-14.0 dulac) 790 - 790 3.0% 9,283 - 9,283 - - Medium High Residential (14.0-24.0 dulac) 367 - 367 1.4% 7,432 - 7,432 - - High Residential(24.0-30.0 du/ac) Mixed Use` 902 - 902 3.4% 5,345 5,345 11 973 20 27 Office (0.40-1.0 FAR) Neighborhood Commercial (0.2&0.35 FAR) 164 - 164 0.6% - - - 1,785 3,030 Community Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) 119 - 119 0.4% - - - 1,292 1,970 General Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) 470 - 470 1.8% - - - 6,555 10,020 Industrial Park (0.40-0.60 FAR) 559 - 559 2.1% - - - 9,739 6,610 - Haven Ave Office Overlay (0.40-1.0 FAR) 215 - 215 0.8% - - - 3,745 7,950 General Industrial (0.50-0.60 FAR) 1,974 -1,974 7-4fo - - - 42,993 29,220 Heavy Industrial (0.40-0.50 FAR) `y' 353 ` 6 _ 3.4% _ _ _ 15.523 15,820 Open Space (0.0-0.1 tlu/ac) 483 2,496t/ 2,979 11.2% - 226 226 - - Conservation 983 5.0% - - - - Flood ControllUlility Corridor 1,711 1,753 3,464 13.0% - - - - - CividRegional 0.40-1.0 FAR) 130 - 130 0.5% - - - 2,265 1.050 Schools (0.10-0.20 FAR) 558 - 558 2.1% - - - 2A30 3.920 1. Acres include existing development and undeveloped vacant properties. 2. Mixed Use allows both residential and non-residential uses. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LU-39 A-60 An additional purpose is to capture and reflect the historic significance of this route as part of the legendary Route 66 that linked Los Angeles and Chicago for several critical decades during the twentieth century. Such landmarks as the Sycamore Inn and the Magic Lamp Restaurant symbolize that memorable period in the emergence of Southern California as a mecca for families seeking a better life. The combination of use patterns, development standards, and design guidelines of the plan testify to the area's complex planning issues and the need for creative regulatory devices. Ultimately, the goal of the Specific Plan is to give this critical centerpiece of the City the prominence it deserves. Industrial Area Specific Plan The Industrial Area Specific Plan is a particularly significant specific plan due to its successful role in the development of the City's industrial base (which is a critical component of an overall long-term balance of uses). Part of this success can be attributed to the quality standards incorporated into the Specific Plan and the protection those standards afford to business investors in this area. The Specific Plan, encompassing nearly 5,000 acres, has been divided into three zones and 19 subareas. The subareas represent specific land use characteristics and development constraints which can be dealt with on a subarea basis rather than through the application of broadly applied development standards. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to establish specific standards and guidelines that will be used for development throughout the City's industrial area. Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Plan (Empire Lakes) The purpose of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is to provide for a broader mix of land uses than was originally permitted within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The plan was expanded to include such uses as recreational, hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant, and entertainment, as well as office, research and development, and light industrial uses. These -uses -are-intended-te-sa A subsequent amendment to further expand the use list included limited -multiunit residential development to maximize potential use of the Metrolink Station near Milliken Avenue, Adopted Planned Communities Caryn Planned Community Development Plan The Caryn Planned Community Development Plan, now completed, lies north of the Victoria planned community. The community's special identity is provided by an elementary school, single -unit residential development, and walking trails that tie the community together. Terra Vista Community Plan The Terra Vista Community Plan area is centrally located in Rancho Cucamonga and encompasses 1,321 acres. It is comprised of four distinct neighborhoods, with a greenway serving as the backbone connector. The area is planned for a mix of residential and commercial uses, with a large concentration of commercial and office uses along Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue that serves as a community -wide activity center. Victoria Community Plan The Victoria Community Plan area encompasses 2,150 acres and provides for a series of residential villages and related support uses, designed around a central spine called Victoria Park Lane. Victoria Community Plan includes the Victoria Arbors Master Plan and the Victoria Gardens Master Plan. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLA LU-53 Item W -748 Open Space Resources Open space is defined as any parcel or area of land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to uses such as natural resource preservation, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety. Open spaces can be found throughout the City. Natural open spaces are primarily located in the hillsides and Sphere of Influence areas of the City, while urban open spaces, such as developed parks and open plazas can be found in the built areas of the City. Preservation of open space benefits environmental sustainability and promotes the Healthy RC Initiative. Open space allows the recharge of groundwater basins, which provide a clean source of water for everyday use to the Rancho Cucamonga community. Open space provides plentiful opportunities for recreational activities such as hiking and bird watching as well as areas of scientific and educational value. Preservation of open space serves to protect views and retain a connection to our environmental and cultural history. Open space also provides protection from natural hazards such as flooding and wildland fires. And finally, open space is not just limited to the hillsides; within the urban area, open space provides softening and contrast to the built environment, active and passive recreational opportunities, view corridors, and general enhancement of the overall visual quality of the City. E eas Approximately 31 percent, or 8,224 acres, of t Planning Area is devoted to open ace, including parks, undeveloped r conservation areas, and flood t c r' ure RC-1: Open Space and Conservation Plan. Hillside Residential and Very Low -density Residential areas (two dwelling units or less per acre) also contribute to the rural character within the northern portion of the City and Sphere of Influence area (see Chapter 2, Figure LU-1: Land Use Plan). Open space in Rancho Cucamonga provides the following benefits: Open Space: Preservation of Natural Resources. In an effort to protect wildlife and biological resources within Rancho Cucamonga, conservation areas have been established in Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Area. These conservation areas are intended to protect the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat and the wildlife it supports by preserving open space land in its natural state. See the Wildlife Resources section (page RC-26) in this Chapter for more information regarding conservation areas and protection of wildlife resources. Open Space: Managed Protection of Natural Resources. Open space areas and expansive spreading grounds allow the recharge of groundwater basins, which are a critical resource for the Cucamonga Valley Water District. These areas need to be protected because the Cucamonga Valley Water District obtains a large portion of its water supply from the groundwater basins. Rancho Cucamonga's Sphere of Influence also has limited aggregate resources (sand and gravel), which are found in alluvial fans at the opening of canyons. These are important resources to the construction industry from which Rancho Cucamonga and the region have greatly benefited. However, this resource must be properly managed so that we can protect important habitat areas, allow for appropriate redevelopment, and avoid future land use conflicts. See the Mineral Resources section (page RC-8) in this Chapter for more information. Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN RC-3 A-61 Item W —749 Section 17.38.070 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Table 17.38.070-1 Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetype provides the correlation of land use by Placetype to the Base Zoning District in the City's Development Code. Land use classifications/categories, descriptions, and entitlement/permit requirements are per the City's Development Code unless otherwise defined in this section. Uses Not Specifically Listed Uses not specifically listed as permitted or conditionally permitted, but deemed by the Planning Director to be similar to a listed permitted or conditionally permitted use, may be allowed subject to a use determination made by the Planning Director. A. Shopkeeper and Live/Work Units In order to encourage businesses that create new jobs while ensuring compatibility with residential units, the following requirements have been established. Shopkeeper Units Shopkeeper units are units that include both residential (R-2 occupancy) and non-residential (B-occupancy) mixed occupancy types as defined by the California Building Code. Shopkeeper allows individual occupancy of the non-residential space with separate entries from residence. The non-residential portion of the unit may be leased separately from the residential portion of the unit. Live/Work Units Live/Work homes provide non -residence space within the home and are defined by the California Building Code and shall be consistentwith the City's Development Code'Live-Work Facility' allowed use description. EXHIBIT X Item X —750 Shopkeeper and Live/Work Homes Permitted Uses The general types of businesses identified below are allowed within Shopkeeper and Live/Work units: • Artisan shop. • General office, business and professional. • General retail/commercial. • Restaurant, cafe, or bakery. • Service commercial. • Other similar uses as permitted by the master development association and Planning Director, other than those prohibited below. Persons who do not reside in the unit may be employed at the unit provided that an employee parking space has been approved by the master development association. Characteristics of Shopkeeper and Live/Work Units Within the Shopkeeper and Live/Work units, the following operational characteristics shall apply: • Outside storage of materials or stock in trade is prohibited. • Signage for the business shall comply with the approved sign program. Manufacturing, Custom Small Scale Small scale independent craftsman manufacturing or fabrication of custom-made products. These types of business establishments do not utilize raw materials for their finished products, but rather may utilize semi -finished type of manufactured materials for their custom made - to -order products. Activities can be completed wholly on -site and do not include outdoor storage, wholesale distribution, or similar intensive uses. The uses do not produce odors, noise, vibration, or particulates that would adversely affect uses in the same structure or on a same site. A-77 Item X —751 Table 17.38.070-1. Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetype A-78 Land Use/Zoning District MH MH H MU MU MU MU Placetype VN CL UN T MU Rec MU Overlay* Residential l'Isess -` � � ._ - f Adult day care home P P P P P P P Caretaker housing C C C C C C C Dwelling, multi -family P P P P P P P Dwelling, second unit(') N N N N N N N Dwelling, single-family P P N N N N N Dwelling, two-family P P P P P P P Emergency shelter N N N N N N N Family day care home, large(") C C C C C C C Family day care home, small P P P P P P P Guest house N N N N N N N Group residential C C C C C C C Home occupation(2) P P P P P P P Live -work facility C C C N P P P Shopkeeper(*) P P P N P P P Manufactured home(3) N N N N N N N Mobile home ark(3) N N N N N N N Residential care facility C C C C C C C Residential care home P P P N N N N Single -room occupancy facility P P P P P P P Transitional housing P P P P P P P A" �'iculture and'AriimahRelated Uses Agricultural uses N N N N N N N Animal keeping, domestic pets(4) P P P P P P P Animal keeping, exoticanimals(4) C C C C C C C Animal keeping, insects(4) N N N N N N N Animal keeping, livestock animals(4) N N N N N N N Animal keeping, oult (4) N N N N N N N Equestrian facility, commercial N N N N N N N Equestrian facility, hobby N N N N N N N Recreation; Resource Preservation, Q'en' patej,Education, andIP'Oblic,Assernbl rises Assembly use C I C I C I C I C C C P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Permit N= Not Permitted LWC= Live/Workwith a Conditional Use Permit*** Table notes: (`) Uses Permitted in the MU -Overlay Zone override the underlying Placetype where there is a conflict (") Leasing and New Homes Sales Centers (•••) Shopkeeper units are those that include both residential (R-2 occupancy) and non-residential (B-occupancy) mixed occupancy types as defined by the California Building Code. The non-residential portion of the unit may be leased separately from the residential portion of the unit. (1) See additional second dwelling unit regulations in Chapter 17.100. (2) See additional home occupation regulations in Chapter 17.92. (3) See additional mobile home regulations in Chapter 17.96. (4) See additional animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a CUP. (6) See additional adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86. Adult -oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in the Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive -In and drive -through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in alternative energy systems and facilities in Chapter 17.76. It 1) Family Day Care Home —Large requires approval of A Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. (12) "Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution — Medium" is not permitted on any parcel that is located within, or partly within, five hundred (500) feet of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. (13) Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed in conjunction with "Commercial (Repurposing) — Industrial". (14) Maximum square footage for a single user shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. 15 The maximum number or rooms for hotels/motels is 200 rooms. Item X —752 Table 17.38.070-1. Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetype Land Use/Zoning District MH MH H MU MU MU MU Placetype VN CL UN T MU Rec MU Overlay` Cemetery/mausoleum N N N N N N N Community center/civic use C C C C C P C Community garden C C C N N N N Convention center N N N N N N N Golf course/clubhouse N N N N N N N Indoor amusementlentertainment facility N N N C C C C Indoor fitness and sports facility - large N N N C C P C Indoor fitness andsports facility - small N N N P P P P Library and museum C C C P P P P Outdoor commercial recreation N N N C C C C Park and public plaza P P P P P P P Public safety facility C C C C C P C Resource -related recreation P P P P P P P School, academic(private) C C C C C C C School, academic(public) P P P P P P P School, college/university (private) N N N N N P N School, collegeluniversit(public) N N N N N P N Schools, specialized education and training/studio N N N C C C C Theaters and auditoriums N N N C C C C Tutoring center -lar el'ZI N N N C C C C Tutoring center - small N N N P P P P _: .r,Utlh 1c:Trans oitahon,,Publ(cFaclli' ands`Cornmunlcatlon _ Broadcasting and recording studios N N N N N N N Park and ride facility N N N P N N N Parking facility N N N P P P P Transit facility N N N P N N N Utility facility and infrastructure - fixed based structures N N N N N N N Utility facility and infrastructure- pipelines(5) P P P P P P P Wind energysystem - smali(10/ N N N N N N N `RetailsServl�and,Office}Uses- _a5 _:F r '°' ;;... _� ,. Adult day care facility N N' N C C C C Adult -oriented business(B) N N N N N N N P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Permit N= Not Permitted LWC= Live/Work with a Conditional Use Permit"' Table notes: (•) Uses Permitted in the MU -Overlay Zone override the underlying Placetype where there is a conflict C*) Leasing and New Homes Sales Centers ("') Shopkeeper units are those that include both residential (R-2 occupancy) and non-residential (B-occupancy) mixed occupancy types as defined by the California Building Code. The non-residential portion of the unit may be leased separately from the residential portion of the unit. (1) See additional second dwelling unit regulations in Chapter 17.100. (2) See additional home occupation regulations in Chapter 17.92. (3) See additional mobile home regulations in Chapter 17.96. (4) See additional animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a CUP. (6) See additional adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86. Adult -oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in the Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive -In and drive -through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in alternative energy systems and facilities in Chapter 17.76. (11) Family Day Care Home —Large requires approval of A Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. (12) "Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution — Medium" is not permitted on any parcel that is located within, or partly within, five hundred (500) feet of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. (13) Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed In conjunction with "Commercial (Repurposing) — Industrial". (14) Maximum square footage for a single user shall not exceed 10.000 square feet. 15 The maximum number or rooms.for hotels/motels is 200 rooms. A-79 Item X —753 Table 17.38.070-1. Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetype IMI Land Use/Zoning District MH MH H MU MU MU MU Placetype VN CL UN T MU Rec MU Overlay* Alcoholic beverage sales N N N C C C C Ambulance service N N N N N N N Animal sales and grooming N N N P P P P Art, antique, collectable shop LWC LWC LWC LWC P P P P Artisan shop('a) LWC LWC LWC P P P P Bail bonds N N N N N N N Banks and financial services N N N C C C C Bar/nightclub N N N C C C C Bed and breakfast inn N N N N N N N Building materials store and yard N N N N N N N Business support services N N N P P P P Call center N N N N N N N Card room N N N N N N N Check cashing business(l) N N N P P P P Child day care facility/center N N N C C C C Consignment store N N N C C C C Convenience store N N N P P P P Crematory services(') N N N N N N N Drive-in and drive -through sales and service(8) N N N N N N N Equipment sales and rental N N N N N N N Feed and tack store N N N N N N N Furniture, furnishing, and appliance store(14) N N N C P N P Garden center/plant nursery(14) C C C C C C C Grocery store/su ermarket(74) N N N P P P P Gun sales N N N N N N N Hookah shop N N N C C C C Home improvement supply store(14) N N N C C N C Hotel and motel(15) N N N C C C C Internet cafe N N N P P P P Kennel, commercial N N N N N N N Liquor store N N N C C C C Maintenance and repair, small equipment N N N P P P P P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Permit N= Not Permitted LWC= Live/Work with a Conditional Use Permit*** Table notes: (`) Uses Permitted in the MU -Overlay Zone override the underlying Placetype where there is a conflict (") Leasing and New Homes Sales Centers Shopkeeper units are those that include bath residential (R-2 occupancy) and non-residential (B-occupancy) mixed occupancy types as defined by the California Building Code. The non-residential portion of the unit may be leased separately from the residential portion of the unit. (1) See additional second dwelling unit regulations in Chapter 17.100. (2) See additional home occupation regulations in Chapter 17.92. (3) See additional mobile home regulations in Chapter 17.96. (4) See additional animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a CUP. (6) See additional adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86. Adult -oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in the Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive -In and drive -through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in alternative energy systems and facilities in Chapter 17.76. (11) Family Day Care Home —Large requires approval ofA Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. (12)'Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution — Medium" is not permitted on any parcel that is located within, or partly within, five hundred (500) feet of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. (13) Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed in conjunction with "Commercial (Repurposing) — Industdal". (14) Maximum square footage for a single user shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. 15 The maximum number or rooms for hotels/motels is 200 rooms. Item X -754 Table 17.38.070-1. Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetype Land Use/Zoning District MH MH H MU MU MU MU Placetype VN CL UN T MU Rec MU Overlay* Massage establishment N N N C C C C Medical marijuana dispensary N N N N N N N Medical services, extended care C C C C C C C Medical services, general N N N P P P P Medical services, hospitals N N N N N N N Mobile hot food truck N N N N N N N Mortuary/funeral home N N N N N N N Office, business and professional(**) LWC LWC LWC P P P P Office, accessory N N N P P P P Pawnshop(') N N N N N N N Personal services N N N P P P P Restaurant, no liquor service N N N P P P P Restaurant, beer and wine N N N P P P P Restaurant, full liquor service N N N C C C C Retail, accessory N N N P P P P Retail, general LWC LWC LWC P P P P Retail, warehouse club N N N N N N N Secondhand dealer N N N P P P P Shooting range N N N N N N N Smoke shop (7) N N N N N N N Specialty food store(13) N N N P P P P Tattoo shop (7) N N N N C N C Thrift store(') N N N N N N N Veterinary facility N N N C C C C 'Automoblle'arfd'aVehtcle,Uses7 � ;'' s ^ •:vr� . �-` �' �. �.>�?.., ._ r..<�,,, _� v�z.�,..°' Auto vehicle dismantling N N N N N N N Auto and vehicle sales and rental N N N N N N N Auto and vehicle sales, auto broker N N N N N N N Auto and vehicle sales, wholesale N N N N N N N Auto and vehicle storage N N N N N N N Auto parts sales N N N N N N N Car washing and detailing N N N N N N N P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Permit N= Not Permitted LWC= LiveM/ork with a Conditional Use Permit*** Table notes: (`) Uses Permitted in the MU -Overlay Zone override the underlying Placetype where there is a conflict (") Leasing and New Homes Sales Centers Shopkeeper units are those that include both residential (R-2 occupancy) and non-residential (B-occupancy) mixed occupancy types as defined by the California Building Code. The non-residential portion of the unit may be leased separately from the residential portion of the unit. (1) See additional second dwelling unit regulations in Chapter 17.100. (2) See additional home occupation regulations in Chapter 17.92. (3) See additional mobile home regulations in Chapter 17.96. (4) See additional animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a CUP. (6) See additional adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86. Adult -oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in the Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive -In and drive -through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in alternative energy systems and facilities in Chapter 17.76. (11) Family Day Care Home —Large requires approval of A Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. (12) 'Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution — Medium" is not permitted on any parcel that is located within, or partly within, five hundred (500) feet of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. (13) Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed in conjunction with "Commercial (Repurposing) — Industrial". (14) Maximum square footage for a single user shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. 15 The maximum number or rooms for hotels/motels is 200 rooms. A-81 Item X —755 Ogg Table 17.38.070-1. Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetvpe Land Use/Zoning District MH MH H MU MU MU MU Placetype VN CL UN T MU Rec MU Overlay* Recreational vehicle storage N N N N N N N Service stations N N N N N N N Vehicle services, major N N N N N N N Vehicle services, minor N N N N N N N Iridiistrial, Manufactunn ;,antl/Processtn ,Usesi'. - •- Fuel storage and distribution N N N N N N N Manufacturing, custom small-scale LWC LWC LWC P P N P Manufacturing, heavy N N N N N N N Manufacturing, heavy -minimum impact N N N N N N N Manufacturing, light N N N N N N N Manufacturing, medium(9) N N N N N N N Microbrewery LWC LWC LWC P P N P Printing and publishing N N N P P P P Recycling facility, collection N N N N N N N Recycling facility, processing N N N N N N N Recycling facility, scrap and dismantling facility N N N N N N N Research and development N N N N N N N Storage, personal storage facility N N N N N N N Storage warehouse N N N N N N N Storage yard N N N N N N N Wholesale, storage, and distribution - heavy N I N N N N N N Wholesale, storage, and distribution - light N N N N N N N Wholesale, storage, and distribution-mediumt9tl12/ N N N N N N N P= Permitted C= Conditional Use Permit N= Not Permitted LWC= Live/Work with a Conditional Use Permit' Table notes: (') Uses Permitted in the MU -Overlay Zone override the underlying Placetype where there is a conflict (") Leasing and New Homes Sales Centers Shopkeeper units are those that include both residential (R-2 occupancy) and non-residential (B-occupancy) mixed occupancy types as defined by the California Building Code. The non-residential portion of the unit may be leased separately from the residential portion of the unit. (1) See additional second dwelling unit regulations in Chapter 17.100. (2) See additional home occupation regulations in Chapter 17.92. (3) See additional mobile home regulations in Chapter 17.96. (4) See additional animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a CUP. (6) See additional adult entertainment businesses In Chapter 17.86. Adult -oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in the Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive -In and drive -through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in alternative energy systems and facilities in Chapter 17.76. (11) Family Day Care Home —Large requires approval of A Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. (12)'Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution — Medium" is not permitted on any parcel that is located within, or partly within, five hundred (500) feet of the Foothill Boulevard right-of-way. (13) Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed in conjunction with "Commercial (Repurposing) — Industdal". (14) Maximum square footage for a single user shall not exceed 10,000 square feet. Item X -756 Article VI, Chapter 17.114 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Plan. A full copy of all adopted Specific Plan documents (and any adopted amendments thereto) shall be kept in the Planning Department and in the City Clerk's office. A. Etiwanda Specific Plan (ESP). The Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1983. It encompasses over 3,000 acres located in the northeast corner of the city and is roughly bounded by the I-15 to the southeast, the City's Sphere of Influence to the north, the Victoria Planned Community to the west, and the city's industrial area to the south. Etiwanda can be described as a rural community, characterized by large land parcels, eucalyptus tree rows, remnants of citrus groves and vineyards, stone curbs, and other elements that convey its unique and historic sense of place. The primary purpose of the Specific Plan is to ensure the continued rural character of this portion of the city. Please refer to the adopted Etiwanda Specific Plan maintained by the Planning Department and City Clerk for comprehensive details. B. North Etiwanda Specific Plan (NESP). The North Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1992. It includes 6,850 acres located just north of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. A portion of the Specific Plan area lies outside the city and outside the Sphere of Influence. Open space is the most prominent feature of the North Etiwanda area, which comprises a gently sloping alluvial fan and chaparral habitat situated on the lower slopes of the foothills. Drainage courses throughout the North Etiwanda area support a variety of tree species, including oak, sycamore, and walnut, among others. A unique feature of the area is a freshwater marsh, approximately 11 acres in size, located in the northwestern portion of the area. Open space is expected to remain a prominent feature even after development occurs. The Specific Plan builds upon the unique character and charm of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area by providing a land use pattern that extends the low -density character of Old Etiwanda into the North Etiwanda area. The primary purpose of the Specific Plan is to preserve rural area with large parcels, dense landscape, and historic properties. Please refer to the adopted North Etiwanda Specific Plan maintained by the Planning Department and City Clerk for comprehensive details. C. Empire Lakes Specific Plan (ELSP). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan was adopted in 1994. It includes 380 acres within the previously adopted Industrial Specific Plan Area as Sub -Area 18. The primary purpose of this subsequent Specific Plan is to provide fora broader mix of land uses than was originally permitted within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The plan was expanded to include such uses as recreational, hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant, and entertainment, as well as office, research and development, and light industrial uses. Theseosc ^ '� me ded to SUFFOund the existing 48 `^'^ ^^" ^^ -c^ A subsequent amendment to further expand the use list included kaited-multi-unit residential development to maximize potential use of the Metrolink Station near Milliken Avenue. Section 17.114.030 Planned Community Descriptions The Planned Communities listed below have been adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and designated on the Zoning Map as Planned Community (PD) with a specific reference number to each adopted plan. This Section provides a reference to each adopted Planned Community, along with a summary of the unique land use and development standards applicable to each individual Planned Community. A full copy of all adopted Planned Community documents (and any adopted amendments thereto) shall be kept in the Planning Department and in the City Clerk's office. 17.114-2 Item X —757 Article III, Chapter 17.36 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code TABLE 17.36.020-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE SITES Land Use Mix y .y t0 N � N Gr Mixed Use Sites m y p v m p a s v U a Q Victoria GardensNictoria Arbors 21-36% 20-41% 5-12% 4-14 du/ac Town Center (Foothill Boulevard and 25-35% 10-15% 30-50% 0-10% 14 du/ac Haven Avenue) Terra Vista 12-15% 85-87% 30 du/ac Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa 0-62% 0-100% 20 du/ac Avenue and Center Avenue Foothill Boulevard between Archibald 67-70% 30 33% 15-30 Avenue and Hellman Avenue du/ac Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and 30-40°% 60-70% 30 du/ac Hampshire Street Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 26-50°% 40-60% 6-10% 4% 24-30 du/ac Rancho Cucamonga IASP PA4-11 11-22°% 15-25% 40-60% 7.5% 28 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek 70-75°% 25-30% 14 du/ac Channel Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 0-100°% 0-100°% 8-14 du/ac Western Gateway (Bear Gulch Area) 30-50% 50-70°% 14 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga 0-100°% 0-100% B-14 Channel Site du/ac Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) 0-100% 0-100 16.3-20.0% 114 1 du/ac Rancho Cucamonga IASP PA1 72.6-77.5% 0.1-7.4% 119.7-25.7 Section 17.36.030 Development Standards for Commercial and Office Zoning Districts A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. Development standards in this Section apply to all land designated on the Zoning Map within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. B. Commercial and Office Districts Described. As identified in Chapter 17.26 (Establishment of Zoning Districts), the city includes six (6) Commercial and Office Zoning Districts: 17.36-14 Item X —758