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