Rancho Cucamonga City Council
May 18, 2022

Brian Jacobson
March 29, 2022

 Resident guests shall park on site, on a first come first serve basis in the open spaces  Residents and guests may have their vehicle towed at their own expense if they do not have the appropriate parking permit displayed
 Residents may be non-renewed if parking rules and regulations are repeatedly violated.  If a resident’s vehicle information changes, it is his/her responsibility to notify management in writing in accordance with the lease agreem e n t . F a i l u r e t o d o s o c o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e vehicle being towed at the owner’s expense.

TABLE 1

PARKING SUPPLY FOR

HAVEST AT TERRA VISTA COMMERICAL USES
Location Supply
Parking Structure Lower Level 85 spaces
Surface Parking 35 spaces
Shared Surface Parking 37 spaces
Total 157 spaces

TABLE 2

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PARKING RATES

FOR PROJECT AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Parking Rate [a]
Use
Number of
Spaces Per Unit Total Size Unit
Parking Spaces
Required Per Code
Project
Retail [b] 4 1,000 sqft 8,590 sqft 34.36
Restaurant [c] 10 1,000 sqft 12,251 sqft 122.51
Total 157
Existing Commercial Development
Retail [b] 4 1,000 sqft 7,100 sqft 28.4
Restaurant [c] 10 1,000 sqft 2,790 sqft 27.9
Fast Food Restaurant [c] 10 1,000 sqft 3,500 sqft 35
Total 91
Notes
a: Source - Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.60.050 c: Identified as restaurants and lounges in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code b: As retail space is less than 25,000 sf, the space has been identified as offices, financial institutions, retail stores in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code

TABLE 3

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PARKING RATES FOR PROJECT

WITH URBAN LAND INSTITUTE CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE RATIOS
Use Customers Employee Total Size Unit
Parking Spaces
Required Per Code
Project Weekday Ratios
Retail 3.22 0.78 8,590 sqft 34.36
Restaurant 8.76 1.24 12,251 sqft 122.51
Total 157
Project Weekend Ratios
Retail 3.20 0.80 8,590 sqft 34.36
Restaurant 8.77 1.23 12,251 sqft 122.51
Total 157
Existing Commercial Development Weekday Ratios
Retail 3.22 0.78 7,100 sqft 28.4
Restaurant 8.76 1.24 2,790 sqft 27.9
Fast Food Restaurant 8.61 1.39 3,500 sqft 35
Total 91
Existing Commercial Development Weekend Ratios
Retail 3.20 0.80 7,100 sqft 28.4
Restaurant 8.77 1.23 2,790 sqft 27.9
Fast Food Restaurant 8.64 1.36 3,500 sqft 35
Total 91

TABLE 4

SHARED PARKING MODEL REDUCTION ASSUMPTIONS
Mode Adjustment Noncaptive Ratio
Weekday Weekend Weekda y Weekend
Use ULI Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Daytime Evening Retail Shopping Center
- Customer 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 5% 3% 5%
- Employee 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Restaurant Family Restauran t
- Customer 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
- Employee 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fast Food Fast Food Restaurant
- Customer 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 19% 19% 18%
- Employee 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TABLE 5

SHARED PARKING MODEL MONTH AND WEEKDAY TIME OF DAY DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS Peak Month Time-of-Day Factors
Use ULI Land Use December 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Retail Shopping Center
- Customer 100% 1% 5% 15% 30% 55% 75% 90% 100% 100% 95% 80% 85% 90% 90% 85% 50% 30% 10% 0% - Employee 100% 10% 15% 25% 45% 75% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 60% 40% 20% 0% Restaurant Family Restaurant
- Customer 100% 25% 50% 60% 75% 85% 90% 100% 90% 50% 45% 45% 75% 80% 80% 80% 60% 55% 50% 25% - Employee 100% 50% 75% 90% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 75% 95% 95% 95% 95% 80% 65% 65% 35% Fast Food Fast Food Restaurant
- Customer 96% 5% 10% 20% 30% 55% 85% 100% 100% 90% 60% 55% 60% 85% 80% 50% 30% 20% 10% 5% - Employee 100% 20% 20% 30% 40% 75% 100% 100% 100% 95% 70% 60% 70% 90% 90% 60% 40% 30% 20% 20%  
 

TABLE 6

SHARED PARKING MODEL MONTH AND WEEKEND TIME OF DAY DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS Peak Month Time-of-Day Factors
Use ULI Land Use December 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Retail Shopping Center
- Customer 100% 1% 5% 10% 35% 60% 85% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 80% 65% 60% 55% 50% 35% 15% 1% - Employee 100% 10% 15% 40% 75% 85% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 85% 80% 75% 65% 45% 15% 0% Restaurant Family Restaurant
- Customer 100% 10% 25% 45% 70% 90% 90% 100% 85% 65% 40% 45% 60% 70% 70% 65% 30% 25% 15% 10% - Employee 100% 50% 75% 90% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 75% 95% 95% 95% 95% 80% 65% 65% 35% Fast Food Fast Food Restaurant
- Customer 96% 5% 10% 20% 30% 55% 85% 100% 100% 90% 60% 55% 60% 85% 80% 50% 30% 20% 10% 5% - Employee 100% 15% 20% 30% 40% 75% 100% 100% 100% 95% 70% 60% 70% 90% 90% 60% 40% 30% 20% 20%  
 

TABLE 7

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY - EXISTING COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT

ULI SHARED PARKING RATES
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 12 PM, WEEKEND Quantity Unit 1 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 7,100 sf GLA 3.22 100% 99% 3.20 ksf GLA 3.20 100% 99% 3.18 ksf GLA 100% 100% 21 100% 100% 23 Employee 0.78 100% 100% 0.78 0.80 100% 100% 0.80 100% 100% 6 100% 100% 6 Family Restaurant 2,790 sf GLA 8.76 100% 98% 8.58 ksf GLA 8.77 100% 98% 8.63 ksf GLA 90% 100% 25 100% 100% 25 Employee 1.24 100% 100% 1.24 1.23 100% 100% 1.23 100% 100% 4 100% 100% 4 Fast Food Restaurant 3,500 sf GLA 8.61 100% 91% 7.84 ksf GLA 8.64 100% 91% 7.87 ksf GLA 100% 96% 26 100% 96% 26 Employee 1.39 100% 100% 1.39 1.36 100% 100% 1.36 100% 100% 5 100% 100% 5 71 74
15 15
86 89
8% 6%
Shared Parking
Reduction
Customer Customer
Employee Employee
Retail
Food and Beverage
Total Total
Project
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Non-
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Non-
Captive
Ratio
Land Use Project Data
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Estimated
Parking
Demand
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

TABLE 8

SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY - PROJECT AND EXISTING COMMERICAL DEVELOPMENT

ULI SHARED PARKING RATES
PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 12 PM, WEEKEND Quantity Unit 1 PM December 12 PM December
Retail (<400 ksf) 15,690 sf GLA 3.22 100% 98% 3.17 ksf GLA 3.20 100% 98% 3.14 ksf GLA 90% 100% 45 100% 100% 50 Employee 0.78 100% 100% 0.78 0.80 100% 100% 0.80 100% 100% 13 100% 100% 13 Family Restaurant 15,041 sf GLA 8.76 100% 99% 8.71 ksf GLA 8.77 100% 100% 8.73 ksf GLA 100% 100% 131 100% 100% 131 Employee 1.24 100% 100% 1.24 1.23 100% 100% 1.23 100% 100% 19 100% 100% 19 Fast Food Restaurant 3,500 sf GLA 8.61 100% 78% 6.73 ksf GLA 8.64 100% 79% 6.80 ksf GLA 100% 96% 21 100% 96% 21 Employee 1.39 100% 100% 1.39 1.36 100% 100% 1.36 100% 100% 5 100% 100% 5 198 203
37 37
235 240
7% 5%
Total Total
Shared Parking
Reduction
Customer Customer
Employee Employee
Retail
Food and Beverage
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj
Estimated
Parking
Demand
Unit For
Ratio
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Non-
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
Unit For
Ratio
Land Use Project Data
Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
Non-
Captive
Ratio
Project
Ratio
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Total
Development
(Sqft or Rooms) Land-Use 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Peak Hour
Parking
Demand
15,690 Retail 2 4 11 21 37 50 58 63 63 61 53 55 58 58 54 33 20 8 0 58 13,791 Restaurant 42 80 96 116 131 137 150 137 85 73 73 117 123 123 123 94 85 78 40 138 4,750 Fast Food 2368 1 5 2 3 2 6 2 6 2 4 1 6 1 5 1 6 2 2 2 1 1 3 8632 3 8 Total 44 82 107 139 179 209 234 227 175 152 142 186 204 203 187 132 106 84 39 TABLE 9

ULI SHARED PARKING RATES

PEAK PARKING DEMAND DISTRIBUTION (WEEKDAY)
44 82
107
139
179
209
234 227
175
152
142
186
204 203
187
132
106
84 39
0 50
100
150
200
250
6 AM 7  AM 8  AM 9  AM 10  AM 11  AM 12  PM 1  PM 2  PM 3  PM 4  PM 5  PM 6  PM 7  PM 8  PM 9  PM 10  PM 11  PM 12  AM Peak Parking Demand Distribution ‐ Weekday
Retail Restaurant Fast Food Total
Retail, 58
Restaurant, 138
Fast Food, 38
Peak Hour Parking Demand ‐ Weekday
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Total
Development
(Sqft or Rooms) Land-Use 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Peak Hour
Parking
Demand
15,690 Retail 2 4 10 27 41 55 63 63 63 63 58 52 43 40 37 33 23 9 0 63 13,791 Restaurant 23 47 76 109 137 137 150 131 104 67 73 97 110 110 104 55 45 32 20 137 4,750 Fast Food 2368 1 5 2 3 2 6 2 6 2 4 1 6 1 5 1 7 2 3 2 2 1 4 9632 3 9 Total 26 52 87 139 189 214 239 221 193 148 147 164 178 173 151 95 73 43 21 TABLE 10

ULI SHARED PARKING RATES

PEAK PARKING DEMAND DISTRIBUTION (WEEKEND)
26 52
87 139
189
214
239
221
193
148 147
164
178 173
151
95 73
43 21
0 50
100
150
200
250
6 AM 7  AM 8  AM 9  AM 10  AM 11  AM 12  PM 1  PM 2  PM 3  PM 4  PM 5  PM 6  PM 7  PM 8  PM 9  PM 10  PM 11  PM 12  AM Peak Parking Demand Distribution ‐ Weekend
Retail Restaurant Fast Food Total
Retail, 63
Restaurant, 137
Fast Food, 39
Peak Hour Parking Demand ‐ Weekend
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

197 197
219 212
222 216 217 219
204 212 211
235
220
0 50
100
150
200
250
January February March April May June July August September October November December Late December
Peak Parking Demand
Weekday Parking Demand
Figure 1
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

195 195
218 210
220 215 216 217
202
210 209
240
216
0 50
100
150
200
250
January February March April May June July August September October November December Late December
Peak Parking Demand
Weekend Parking Demand
Figure 2
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

CHURCH STREET

FOOTHILL BOULEVARD

ELM STREET

MILLIKEN
AVENUE
24'
26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
33'26'
24'
26'
26'
24'
26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
26'
44'
44'
67'
65'
26'
26'
24'
26'
24'
26'
26'
24'
26'
26'
118'
R=185' L=36'
N0°08'55"W 252'
N89°51'05"E 250'
R=2934'
L=176'
N0°14'48"W
97' 13'
6 =2
R=24' L=36'
214'
N89°51'05"E 126'
N89°51'05"E
55'
N0°08'55"W 247'
=2
29 R3
L=14'
N58°48'01"W
26'
R=3050'R
'
R=2938'L=39'
N04°57'42"E4'
=
R
1 96
L=218'
R=1044' L=34'
N0°08'55"W 279'
N05°43'09"E
5'
R=24' L=38'
R=2936' L=21'
N5°33'50"W 196'
=0'L='
N77°43'56"E
4'
'
4 R=1516'
L=159'
R=192' L=37'
R = 2931'
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
AA
A
A
A

GAS STATION
(N.A.P.)LOT 4P.M. 15424
(N.A.P.)
PARCEL 3
LOT 3
LOT 2
N89°51'05"E
26'
L=57'
R=161'
L=30'
R=85'
N89°51'05"E
71'
N01°41'24"E N00°08'55"W
32'
N41°00'06"E
N11°56'39"W 6'
N78°03'21"E
880'
L=41'
N83°58'58"W 136'
L
N85°35'40"E 5'
8 4
LOT 1
N89°51'05"E 145'
N89°51'05"E
32'
L=52'
R=214' L=73'
R=143'
N89°09'59"E
32'
N87°15'01"E
50'
N89°01'22"E
91'
L=3'
R=50'
N0°00'15"E 211'
R=20' L=11'
R=47' L=61'
N08°56'36"W 137'
N78°03'21"E
1052'
N00°25'08"W
17'
L=30'
L=156'
526'
526'

INGRESS / EGRESS
(TYPICAL)

INGRESS / EGRESS
(TYPICAL)

INGRESS / EGRESS(TYPICAL)
60'
N12°33'31"W

29.80'
EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

EXIST. R.O.W.

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

LINEPROPERTY
(5.69 AC)
R=2938'
(1.71 AC)
(1.69 AC)
(9.47 AC)
50'
94'
60'
127'
116'
50'
94'
79' 69'
148'
66'
126'
64'
66'
130'
44'
50'
94'
44'
44'
88'
PROP. STORM DRAIN
PROP.SEWER
PROP.WATER
PROP. STORM DRAIN
PROP.SEWER
PROP.WATER
PROP.SEWER
PROP.WATER
PROP.SEWER
PROP.WATER
PROP.SEWER
PROP.WATER
PROP.SEWER
PROP.WATER
PROP.SEWER
PROP.WATER
PROP. STORM DRAIN
PROP. STORM DRAIN
PROP. STORM DRAIN
PROP. STORM DRAIN
PROP.SEWER
PROP.SEWER
D
C
ULTIMATE R.O.W.

ADDITIONAL5'

DEDICATION
ULTIMATE R.O.W.

L=39'
ULTIMATE R.O.W.
(0.10 AC)
EXIST. R.O.W.

ADD'L
DEDIC.

VARIES
5'
49'
93'
26'
24'
26'
26'
CL
60'60'
120'
70'60'
130'
147.5'
125'
60' 65'

22.5'
60'
142.5'

DEDICATIONADDITIONAL
B

VACATION
EXIST. R / W
(0.10 AC)DEDICATIONADDITIONAL
B
49'
(0.01 AC)
E

SEE DETAIL
"A" ABOVE
50' 66'

26.5'
117'
50'
67'
VARIES
139'
70'
69'
(0.32 AC)DEDICATIONADDITIONAL
B
(0.01 AC)
E
EXIST. R.O.W.
6'
5'
1'
R=3050'
L=218'
R=3049'
L=217'
N78°03'21"E
N11°56'39"W
N78°03'21"E

ULTIMATE R / W
EXIST. R / W VACATION
32'
N41°00'06"E
33'
N41°00'06"E

AO ARCHITECTS
144 NORTH ORANGE ST.

ORANGE, CA 92866
CONTACT:
(714) 639-9860
Email: @aoarchitects.com

ARCHITECT

IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JANUARY, 2022 18.99 AC. GROSS
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 20120
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 1, 2, 4 AND 5 OF PARCEL MAP No. 15424, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 191, PAGES 46 THROUGH 48 AND OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 15455, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 191, PAGES 33 THROUGH 35, BOTH OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

18.56 AC. NET
APN: 1077-422-51,52,54,55 AND 1090-121-28
(198 UNITS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES)

1. PRESENT ZONING: PC-TV

2. LAND USE PROPOSED - MIXED USE

3. THIS SITE CONTAINS 18.99 GROSS ACRES.

4. THIS SITE CONTAINS 18.62 NET ACRES.

5. THIS SITE CONSISTS OF (3) NUMBERED LOTS

6. THIS SITE CONTAINS 2 LETTERED LOTS

7. CONTOURS FROM MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

DATED: 03/27/2020

8. SEWAGE DISPOSAL CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT.

9. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA TBD ACRES.

10. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA TBD ACRES.

NTS

VICINITY MAP

MILLIKEN
CHURCH
MAYTEN

PROJECT LOCATION
ELM

FOOTHILL
STREET
AVENUE
AVENUE

EUCALYPTUS
STREET
AVENUE

BOULEVARD
SPRUCE
AVENUE

VERIZON
1400 E. PHILLIPS BLVD.

POMONA, CA 91766
ATTN: JERRY PAUBEL
PHONE: (909) 469-6354
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO.
13525 12th STREET
CHINO, CA 91719
PHONE: (909) 613-1531
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 811
SET 2" BRASS DISK IN CONC. CURB
STAMPED "CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA BM 10054 1987" AT N/E
COR. OF BASELINE ROAD & MILLIKEN
AVE., AT WEST END OF CATCH BASIN.

NO. 10054
ELEV.=1328.075

UTILITY COMPANIES

CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER

DISTRICT
10440 ASHFORD STREET P.O. BOX 638
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91729
PHONE: (909) 987-2591
SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
7951 REDWOOD AVENUE
FONTANA, CA. 92336
PHONE: (909) 820-5598 UNDERGROUND
PHONE: (909) 875-5100 TRANSMISSIONS
PHONE: (213) 637-1233 PIPELINES
PHONE: (909) 357-6233 DISTRIBUTION
CONTACT: ISAAC DOMINGUEZ
PHONE (909) 930-8576 EMAIL:
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

OWNER/DEVELOPER
MADOLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.

CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS,

PLANNERS AND SURVEYORS
9302 PITTSBURGH AVENUE, SUITE 230
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
CONTACT: MARK BERTONE
(909) 481-6322 ext. 120
Email: [email protected]

WDC COMMONS, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE
UPLAND, CA. 91786
CONTACT: BRIAN JACOBSON
(909)579-1214 OFFICE
Email: [email protected]
SITESCAPES, INC.
3190 B-2 AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE
COSTA MESA, CA. 92626
CONTACT: RICK POLHAMUS
(949) 644-9370
Email: [email protected]

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
MADOLE&ASSOCIATES, INC.

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA HARVEST AT TERRA VISTADATE: JANUARY 10, 2022 JOB NO. 126-2647
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TTM-1
HALF MEDIAN ---------------- 6'
#1 EASTBOUND LANE ------ 11'
#2 EASTBOUND LANE ------ 11'
BUFFER ------------------------- 3'
RAISED CYCLE TRACK ---- 7'
URBAN SIDEWALK --------- 11'
TOTAL LANE WIDTH -------- 49'
CHURCH STREET 49' R / W DIMENSION STRING:

DETAIL "A"
SCALE: 1" = 20'
4 NUMBERED LOTS
J:\126-2647\tentative\TTM01.dwg, 1/10/2022 3:20:20 PM, gbarron Exhibit K
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Design Review Committee Meeting
Rains Conference Room
AGENDA
March 15, 2022

MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.

A. Call to Order
The m
eeting of the Design Review Committee was held on March 15, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Mike Smith, Staff Coordinator, at 7:00 p.m.

D
esign Review Committee members present: Diane Williams, Tony Morales S
taff Present: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
B
. P
ublic Communications
S
taff Coordinator opened the public communication and, after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications.

C
. C
onsent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2022.

M
otion carried 2-0 vote to adopt the minutes as presented.

D. P
roject Review Items
D1
. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND MILLIKEN AVENUE - WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC - A request to establish a Master Plan and construct a mixed- use development comprising of 671 apartments and 20,841 square feet of commercial space within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, APNs: 1077-422-51, -55, -98, -99, 1090- 121-38, and -39. (Design Review DRC2021- 00120, Tentative Tract Map 2012 0 (
SUBTT00024), and Master Plan DRC2022-00074).

The Committee took the following action:

Recommend approval to PC/PD. 2-0 V ote
Staff made a presentation to the Design Review Committee, followed by a brief presentation by the applicant highlighting project amenities and operations. Both Design Review Committee members were very pleased with the project design, the number of amenities, provided, and the project layout.

Committee Member Morales asked about the visibility of the parking structure over the residential wrap building, and if this is a concern for staff. Staff noted that the parking structure protruding beyond the roofline of the residential “wrap” portion of the building is a known issue. Staff requested that the applicant provide a 3D view depicting the parking structure. Based on these renderings, the parking structure visibility will be very minimal. Staff noted that light standards will not be installed on the top level of the parking structure in order to reduce its visibility. Additionally, a Condition of Approval will be added to screen a portion of the Exhibit L

Design Review Committee Regular Meeting Minutes – March 15, 2022

Draft
parking structure in the event that the Planning Director determines that screening is required while the wrap building is under construction.

Both Committee members remarked that the proposed project architecture is refreshing and unique for this area. They both liked that the project was broken down into smaller blocks for easy pedestrian access, and the fact that the project is publicly accessible. The Design Review Committee moved to recommend that project as proposed to the full Planning Commission for consideration.

E. Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill
Executive Assistant, Planning Department

Approved:

Exhibit M – CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/py8i3sb3fkd1uty/AABXm-kCUfZV- FIJGAW8xk27a/WDCC%20Milliken%20West%20Residential%20LLC%20- %20Section%2015183%20Compliance%20Memo?dl=0&subfolder_nav_tracking=1 Exhibit M

Exhibit N

Exhibit O

Exhibit P

Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
All off-site advertisement for the project is prohibited Citywide unless approval is granted by the Planning Director.

1. Occupancy for the walk-up product shall be limited to 65% (212 units) until a building permit has been obtained by the developer and construction has commenced on the wrap building. Subsequently, occupancy for the walk-up product shall be limited to 80% (294 units) until at least 50% of the non-residential portion of the wrap building has been issued a building permit and is under construction.

2. The project shall remain in compliance with the parking management plan at all times. In the event of any observed
parking violations to the parking management plan, the City reserves the right to require the preparation of off-site, on-street parking restrictions such as, but not limited to, no parking signage, time-limit parking signage, red curb, any necessary street repairs/improvements, or the establishment of the parking district at the cost of the property owner/developer.

3. Developer shall include photometric plans on the building plan check set, for Planning Department review
and approval. Please be aware that pedestrian level lighting along the project perimeter may be required by the Planning Department during this time.

4. The developer/contractor shall schedule a Planning Inspection when construction of the 4-story residential wrap building reaches the roof sheathing stage to allow the Planning Department to verify adequate screening of the parking structure has been achieved. The developer /contractor. shall also conduct a height survey to verify the height of the parking structure and four -story wrap building is consistent with the approved plans. As a result of the inspection and/or height survey, the Planning Department may require additional screening and/or enhancements to minimize or reduce the visibility of the parking structure from the public view, including, but not limited to structural additions, painting, and/or installation of veneers along the edge of the parking structure, among others, in a manner that is acceptable to the Planning Director or designee.

5. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the four-story wrap building, the developer shall provide the Planning Department a recorded document that memorializes a shared parking agreement between the project and the Terra Vista Commons shopping center located at the Northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue. The shared parking agreement shall specifically note the number of stalls shared between the Terra Vista Commons shopping center and the project, per the project ’s parking management plan, and the parking plan sheet included in the approved plans.

6. Standard Conditions of Approval
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 4/28/2022
Exhibit Q

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and /or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and /or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and /or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans.

7. The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and /or commencement of the approved activity.

8. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet (s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction /grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.

9. Crime Free Multi -Family Housing Program - The owner shall cause the manager and any resident manager to complete the training for and enroll the project in the San Bernardino County Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program.

10. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. In the event such a legal action is filed, the City shall estimate its expenses for litigation. The applicant shall deposit such amount with the City or enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.

11. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.

12. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code .

Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction ), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in -lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D.

If the project developer chooses to pay the in -lieu fee, the in -lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance.

If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124.

If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council.

No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi -phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department.

13. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval.

14. For multi -family residential and non -residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on -site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right -of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.

15. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department.

16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species.

17. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building.

18. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.

19. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82.

20. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet.21.

All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards.

22. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs.

23. Unless exempt, directory monument sign (s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or town homes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department and the RCFPD prior to issuance of Building Permits for the signs in question. ( Chapter

17.74.040 B-4)

24. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and /or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.

25. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards.

26. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.

27. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, and the Harvest at Terra Vista Master Plan.

28. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and /or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line -of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services /Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building.

29. For multiple -family development, provide exterior lockable storage space as required by the California Green Building Code.

30. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc ., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and /or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single -family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.

31. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc ., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

32. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

33. For multiple -family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the Development Code.

34. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits .

Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties.

35. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy.

36. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.

37. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

38. Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The existing ramps located at the street intersections shall be evaluated for conformance to current ADA regulations . If the ramp does not meet ADA regulations then the developer shall be responsible for providing design and reconstruction of the ramp for compliance . Design shall be completed and improvements secured for prior to issuance of Building permit or approval of final subdivision map whichever occurs first . The reconstruction along with all public improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy.

1. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights.

2. (DIF Fees):

Development impact fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy per the Engineering Fee schedule, Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and local ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d), the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest these fees will begin at the date the fees are invoiced. Protests must be made in writing and be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the close of business on the 90th day of the 90-day approval period. *Note that fees are subject to change annually.

3. RCMU Electric:

The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development. The Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and RCMU requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. RCMU’s underground electric system is located off of the NEC of Milliken Ave and Foothill Blvd of the proposed development.

4. RCMU Fiber:

Fiber Optics
- Place 1-4” conduit structure (Mainline) with high -density polyethylene (HDPE) at 18” depth from demarcation location in the public right of way or utility easement dedicated specifically to the Rancho Fiber project. This conduit system will be required to follow the joint trench distribution system within the project where the conduit bank can be installed alongside the Telco and CATV conduits at the proper communication depth.
- Place 1-2” conduit structure (Service) with high -density polyethylene (HDPE) directly from mainline pullbox to an 8” round plastic “flower pot” type telecom access box flush mounted to finish grade to serve as a drop access point to city network directly at each individual residence. This drop conduit shall be dedicated for City fiber drop installation only.
- An Optical network demarcation enclosure /panel shall be mounted on the side of the home, garage or utility closet for the placement of a Fiber Optic Network Interface Device. Place a # 6 solid ground wire placed from network demarcation enclosure to power ground. If no power ground exists a 5/8” x 8” copper clad ground rod is to be installed for ground wire to be connected.

RCMU’s underground fiber optic system is located off of the NEC of Milliken Ave and Foothill Blvd of the proposed development. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and /or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first.

5. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
(In-Lieu Fees for Required Ultimate Improvements):

An in -lieu fee as contribution, along the project frontage of Foothill Blvd, shall be required for ultimate public improvements per General Plan that are not constructed at this time. The fee shall be the construction cost of the ultimate improvement items that are not built and subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.

6. (Traffic Signal Modifications):

Traffic signal equipment shall be relocated in accordance to City and Caltrans standard plans and latest ADA requirements. Location of proposed equipment shall be determined during the plan check process. A traffic signal modification plan and signing and striping plan shall be submitted for review and approval.

7. (Proposed Interim Vs. Ultimate Improvements):

The developer shall provide a Site Plan showing the proposed interim public improvements and a Site Plan showing the ultimate public improvements.

The developer shall also provide design plans for the constructions of the ultimate street improvements along Foothill Blvd, from the centerline of Milliken Blvd to the centerline of Elm Avenue. All public improvement plans shall be provided for review and approval to the Engineering Services Department prior to building permitting or final map approval, whichever comes first.

8. The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved prior to issuance of Building Permits.

9. Standard Conditions of Approval
Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map.

10. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.11. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Dedications, street designs, and roadway typologies shall be made per new General Plan as follows and on the following perimeter streets.

Foothill Blvd as a Boulevard,
Milliken Ave as an Arterial Roadway,
Elm Ave as a Collector Street, and
Church Street as a Bicycle (Class IV) Corridor.

Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline):

87.5 total feet on Foothill Blvd,
Varying total feet on Milliken Blvd,
44 total feet on Elm Ave, and
56 total feet on Church Street.

12. All existing easements lying within future rights -of-way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on the final map.

13. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.14.

Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved.

15. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map.

16. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.

17. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.

18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $ 100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project.

Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information.

Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www .cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program.

19. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.

20. A signed consent and waiver form to join and /or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.

21. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right -of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans .” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern.

22. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:

Street Name: Foothill Blvd, Milliken Ave, Church St, Elm Streets Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.

Street Lights
Street Trees
Median Island
Bike Lanes
Cycle Track (Class IV)
Etc.

Notes: (a) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check.

23. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval.

24. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring .

Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.

Notes:
1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots.

25. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans.

Street Name: Foothill, Milliken, Church, and Elm
Botanical Name: To Be Determined during Plan Check
Common Name: To Be Determined during Plan Check
Min. Grow Space: To Be Determined during Plan Check
Spacing: To Be Determined during Plan Check
Size: To Be Determined during Plan Check
Qty.: To Be Determined during Plan Check
Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.

Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.

26. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.

27. All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the issuance of Building Permits: Foothill Blvd; Milliken Ave; Church St; Elm Street.

28. All public improvements (streets, drainage facilities, interior streets, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and /or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.

29. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program.

30. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.31. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.

32. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first, for:

33. Developer shall execute a Line Extension Agreement for electric service and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and shall construct electrical distribution facilities in accordance with such agreement and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility requirements and dedicate such facilities to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility shall be the electrical service provider for all project related development.

34. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

1. Plans for the alarm and /or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

2. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

3. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

4. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District.

5. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building (s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (ISD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and /or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd .sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site.

Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code.

6. Designated and conforming aerial apparatus access is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. Show aerial apparatus access on the fire access plan. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

7. Fire apparatus access (fire lane) design, construction, and identification are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

8. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation locations.

9. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD).

CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or [email protected].

10. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months.

11. Fire sprinklers are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

12. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection.

13. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees.

14. One or more of the systems, operations, processes, or pieces of equipment associated with this project or the proposed business requires a Fire Code Construction Permit to be issued in accordance with the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 1-2. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

15. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

16. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4qdxhs4tp13c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?dl=0

17. Due to the type of construction, construction materials, the floor area of the project, and known risks associated with projects of this nature, a Fire Protection and Site Safety plan is required to be implemented when combustible construction materials are delivered to the site, with the exception of foundation form materials. The Fire Prevention and Site Safety plan is required to be in compliance with Fire District Standard 33-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. Review and approval of the fire prevention and site safety plan is a condition of construction permit approval. The fire prevention and site safety plan is required to be approved by the Fire District prior to construction permits being approved and issued.

18. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

19. Street address and unit /suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

20. Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section.

21. A standpipe system is required to be installed in accordance with Section 905 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

In addition to the standpipe installations required by Section 905.3, standpipes are required to be installed in the courtyards such that the entire ground floor of all buildings can be reached by a 150-foot hose pull from the standpipes.

22. Street address and unit /suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

23. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

24. Street address and building identification signage for multi -family residential buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-7. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

25. www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section.

26. Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road (s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road (s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings.

27. Fire apparatus access roads (fire lanes) can be included in an engineered onsite storm water retention plan. The ponding of storm water shall not exceed a designed depth of four (4) inches in the designated fire apparatus access road (s) and the area between the fire apparatus access road (s) and the exterior walls of all normally occupied buildings.

28. A new public hydrant is required to be installed within 15-50 feet of the Fire Department Connection (FDC) and in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10.

29. The new connection to the public water main requires the submittal of public, off -site fire underground plans that conform to the standards of the water purveyor and Fire District Standard 5-10.

30. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

31. Building and Safety Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal.

The proposed structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC /CRC NFPA 13, 13D, 13R and the Current RCFPD Ordinance.

Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance to the State of California and ADA regulations.

A two hour fire rated tunnel is required where the enclosed courtyard exits through the building at the wrap building.

Baby changing tables are required in the Clubhouse restrooms as compliant with California State Assembly Bill AB-1127 and the California Building Code.

1. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to issuance of a grading permit for residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station /parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 4.106.4.

1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.

2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.

3. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits.

4. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

5. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way.

6. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.

7. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code.

8. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.

9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code.

10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department.

11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary.

12. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code.

13. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations, the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.

14. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan ) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC 2304.11.2.2/CRC R 317.1(2) and CBC 2512.1.2/CRC R 703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.

15. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site.

16. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on -site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan and report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices.

17. Roof water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit.

18. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.

19. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).

20. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval.

21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.

22. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga ’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office.

23. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document.

24. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Engineering Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and /or approval of the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan.

25. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person /company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells /underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.

26. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.

27. The land /property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.

28. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga ’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.

29. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The Site and Drainage Plan in the final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan shall show the locations of all roof downspout drains. if required for storm water quality purposes, the downspouts shall include filters.

30. The final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement (s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document.

31. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan.

32. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer ’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII .3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”.

33. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.

34. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As -Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.

35. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Project #: DRC2021-00120 DRC2022-00074, SUBTT00024
Project Name: EDR - Harvest at Terra Vista (Design Review) Location: 11220 FOOTHILL BLVD - 109012139-0000
Project Type: Design Review Master Plan, Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
As the use of drywells are proposed for the structural storm water treatment device, to meet the infiltration requirements of the current Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, adequate source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre -treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration shall be evaluated prior to infiltration and discussed in the final project -specific Water Quality Management Plan document.

36. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non -residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station /parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3.

37. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and the permitted grading plan set for non -residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2.

38. Prior to the issuance of a grading plan for multi -family projects, the private streets and drive aisles within multi-family developments shall include street plans as part of the Grading and Drainage Plan set. The private street plan view shall show typical street sections. The private street profile view shall show the private street/drive aisle centerline.

39. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural /treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project ’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC&R ’s or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC&R ’s and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan.

40. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 20Printed: 4/28/2022

Planning Department
S
tatement of Agreement and Acceptance
of Conditions of Approval for Design Review DRC2021-00120, Tentative Tract Map 20120 (SUBTT00024), and Master Plan DRC2022- 00074
I
, Brian Jacobson, as applicant for Design Review DRC2021-00120, Tentative Tract Map 20120 (SUBTT00024), and Master Plan DRC2022-00074 hereby state that I am in agreement with and accept the conditions of approval for Design Review DRC2021-00120, Tentative Tract Map 20120 (SUBTT00024), and Master Plan DRC2022-00074, for property located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, APNs: 1077-422-51, -55, -98, -99, 1090-121-38, and - 39, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on April 27, 2022 and as listed below and attached.

A
pplicant Signature____________________________
D
ate ______________________________
Conditions of Approval

1. The appl
icant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior t o t
he submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.

2. A
ll conditions of approval attached to Resolution of Approval No. 22- 10 for Master Pla n DRC2
022-00074, 22-11 for Design Review DRC2021-00120, and 22-12 for Tentative Tract Map 20120 (SUBTT00024)
Exhibit R

Attachment 2

KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP 18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP 18R
UP 18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KPKP
UP18R
KP

KP KP KP
UP
18R
KP KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
222
PRINTER 2 2 2

PRINTER
22 PRINTER
2 2

PRINTER
22 KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KPKP

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)
KP

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
UP
5' DIA.
5' DIA.

END OF

LOWER LEV
GATE
UP
30"
24 49
30"
24 4930"
24 49
30"24
49 30"24
49 OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
30"
24 49
30"
24 49
30"
24 49
30"
24 49

4.8%

7.2%
30"24
49 30"
24 49
F O O T H I L L B L V D .

M I L L I K E N A V E .

E L M A V E .

C H U R C H S T .

C H U R C H S T .

M I L L I K E N A V E .

F O O T H I L L B L V D .
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 12
11 10
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-1
G-6
G-5
G-7
B-12
37-PLEX
B-11
23-PLEX
B-10
37-PLEX
B-7
20-PLEX
B-6
23-PLEX
B-3
20-PLEX
B-4
23-PLEX
B-8
37-PLEX
B-9
23-PLEX
B-1
37-PLEX
B-2
23-PLEX
B-5
20-PLEX
A4.0 3-STORY WALK-UP - PERSPECTIVE

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-19-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283

CORNER OF CHURCH AND ELM

ELM AVENUE
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP 18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP 18R
UP 18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KPKP
UP18R
KP

KP KP KP
UP
18R
KP KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
2 22
PRINTER 2 2 2

PRINTER
22 PRINTER
2 2

PRINTER
22 KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KPKP

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)
KP

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
UP
5' DIA.
5' DIA.

END OF

LOWER LEV
GATE
UP
30"
24 49
30"
24 4930"
24 49
30"24
49 30"24
49 OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
30"
24 49
30"
24 49
30"
24 49
30"
24 49

4.8%

7.2%
30"24
49 30"
24 49
F O O T H I L L B L V D .

M I L L I K E N A V E .

E L M A V E .

C H U R C H S T .

C H U R C H S T .

M I L L I K E N A V E .

F O O T H I L L B L V D .
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 12
11 10
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-1
G-6
G-5
G-7
B-12
37-PLEX
B-11
23-PLEX
B-10
37-PLEX
B-7
20-PLEX
B-6
23-PLEX
B-3
20-PLEX
B-4
23-PLEX
B-8
37-PLEX
B-9
23-PLEX
B-1
37-PLEX
B-2
23-PLEX
B-5
20-PLEX
A4.1 3-STORY WALK-UP - PERSPECTIVE

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-19-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283

CHURCH STREET ENTRY

CHURCH STREET
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP 18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP 18R
UP 18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KPKP
UP18R
KP

KP KP KP
UP
18R
KP KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
KP
KP
KP
2 22
PRINTER 2 2 2

PRINTER
22 PRINTER
2 2

PRINTER
22 KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP18R
S
S/C
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
18R
KPKP

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)
KP

DUMPSTERBY OTHERS

A(TRASH)
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
KP
UP
UP
5' DIA.
5' DIA.

END OF

LOWER LEV
GATE
UP
30"
24 49
30"
24 4930"
24 49
30"24
49 30"24
49 OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
30"
24 49
30"
24 49
30"
24 49
30"
24 49

4.8%

7.2%
30"24
49 30"
24 49
F O O T H I L L B L V D .

M I L L I K E N A V E .

E L M A V E .

C H U R C H S T .

C H U R C H S T .

M I L L I K E N A V E .

F O O T H I L L B L V D .
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 12
11 10
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-1
G-6
G-5
G-7
B-12
37-PLEX
B-11
23-PLEX
B-10
37-PLEX
B-7
20-PLEX
B-6
23-PLEX
B-3
20-PLEX
B-4
23-PLEX
B-8
37-PLEX
B-9
23-PLEX
B-1
37-PLEX
B-2
23-PLEX
B-5
20-PLEX
A4.2 3-STORY WALK-UP - PERSPECTIVE

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-19-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283

CORNER OF MILLIKEN AND CHURCH

MILLIKEN AVENUE
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

48"
22"

BREEZWAY

FITNESS
30'-0" X 58'-6"
YOGA
30'-0" X 17'-0"

CO-WORK
20'-6" X 27'-4"

MPOE/IT

JANITOR

LEASING
25'-0" X 32'-0"

MAINTENANCE/

STORAGE RESTROOM OFFICE
11'-0" X 11'-0"
OFFICE
11'-0" X 11'-0"
OFFICE
11'-0" X 11'-0"
OFFICE
11'-0" X 11'-0"
BREAK RM.
11'-0" X 16'-0"

ENTERTAINMENT
44'-0" X 23'-0"
CONF.
17'-0" X 13'-6"
CONF.
10'-0" X 13'-6"
MEN
WOMEN
5'-0"
PORCH
19'-0" X 22'-0"
ELEC.
2,515 SQ. FT.
3,018 SQ. FT.
1,532 SQ. FT.
1,000 SQ. FT.

A1.1 CLUBHOUSE - RENDERINGS

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-12-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283
3 FITNESS CORNER 4 LEASING CORNER
2 COVERED WALKWAY
P4
1 ENTRYP3
P2
P1
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 6
3RD STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
2ND STORY
T.O. PLATE
2ND STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
1ST STORY
T.O. PLATE
9'-1" 9'-1"
4TH STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
3RD STORY
T.O. PLATE
15'-0" 9'-1"
4TH STORY
T.O. PLATE
± 54'-2"

TOP OF ROOF
± 57'-3" TO
T.O. FIN

1. CONCRETE FLAT TILE

2. STUCCO

3. STUCCO TRIM

4. VINYL WINDOW

5. METAL GUARDRAIL

6. METAL AWNING

7. BOARD AND BATTEN

8. COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING

9. WALL SCONCE
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
2 SW CORNER PERSPECTIVE
3 SE CORNER PERSPECTIVE

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-19-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283
1 WRAP
B2.0 ELEVATION - SOUTH
1/16"=1'-0"
16' 32' 48' 0 8'
23 &nbsp;
&nbsp;

ROOF LOUNGE

ROOF LOUNGE
123 456 7 89
3RD STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
2ND STORY
T.O. PLATE
2ND STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
1ST STORY
T.O. PLATE
9'-1" 10'-1"
4TH STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
3RD STORY
T.O. PLATE
9'-1" 12'-1"
LOUNGE
T.O. PLATE
± 51'-10"

TOP OF ROOF

1. CONCRETE FLAT TILE

2. STUCCO

3. STUCCO TRIM

4. VINYL WINDOW

5. METAL GUARDRAIL

6. METAL AWNING

7. BOARD AND BATTEN

8. COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING

9. WALL SCONCE
1 EAST ELEVATION
1 3
2 2 NE CORNER PERSPECTIVE
3 EAST PERSPECTIVE

ROOF LOUNGE

ROOF LOUNGE

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-12-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283
WRAP
B2.2 ELEVATION - EAST
1/16"=1'-0"
16' 32' 48' 0 8'
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

123 4 567 8 9
3RD STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
2ND STORY
T.O. PLATE
2ND STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
1ST STORY
T.O. PLATE
9'-1"
4TH STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
3RD STORY
T.O. PLATE
± 51'-0"
TOP OF ROOF9'-1" 9'-1"10'-11"
4TH STORY
T.O. PLATE
± 53'-4"

TOP OF PARAPET

1. CONCRETE FLAT TILE

2. STUCCO

3. STUCCO TRIM

4. VINYL WINDOW

5. METAL GUARDRAIL

6. METAL AWNING

7. BOARD AND BATTEN

8. COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING

9. WALL SCONCE
1 NORTH ELEVATION
2 NE CORNER PERSPECTIVE
3 NW CORNER PERSPECTIVE
1 32

ROOF LOUNGE

GARAGE ENTRY

GARAGE ENTRY

RESIDENT'S LOBBY

RESIDENT'S LOBBY

GARAGE ENTRYRESIDENT'S LOUNGE

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-12-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283
WRAP
B2.4 ELEVATION - NORTH
1/16"=1'-0"
16' 32' 48' 0 8'
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

123 456 7 89
3RD STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
2ND STORY
T.O. PLATE
2ND STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
1ST STORY
T.O. PLATE
9'-1"
4TH STORY
T.O. SHT'G.
3RD STORY
T.O. PLATE
± 52'-3"
TOP OF ROOF9'-1" 9'-1"15'-0"
4TH STORY
T.O. PLATE
± 57'-3"

TOP OF PARAPET

1. CONCRETE FLAT TILE

2. STUCCO

3. STUCCO TRIM

4. VINYL WINDOW

5. METAL GUARDRAIL

6. METAL AWNING

7. BOARD AND BATTEN

8. COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING

9. WALL SCONCE
B2.6 ELEVATIONS - WEST
1 WEST ELEVATION
2 NW CORNER PERSPECTIVE
3 SW CORNER PERSPECTIVE1
3 2

RESIDENT'S LOUNGEGARAGE ENTRY

GARAGE ENTRY

GARAGE ENTRY RESIDENT'S LOUNGERESIDENT'S LOBBY

RESIDENT'S LOBBY

WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC
1156 N. MOUNTAIN AVE. UPLAND, CA 91786
(909) 985-0971
144 NORTH ORANGE ST., ORANGE, CA 92866
(714) 639-9860

ARCHITECTS ORANGE
HARVEST AT TERRA VISTAN/W CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD. & MILLIKEN AVE. RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 01-12-22
JOB NO.: 2019-283
WRAP
1/16"=1'-0"
16' 32' 48' 0 8'
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

HARVEST AT TERRA VISTA
Master Plan
04/27/2022
Attachment 3

SITE PLAN

N

DETAILED SITE PLAN

N

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PLAN

Land Use Mix

N

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION PLAN

N

SUMMARY TABLES

SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Standard Proposed
(Master Plan)
Density 36 DU/AC
Front Setback - Foothill Boulevard Public ROW 0’ to 23’ Front Setback – Milliken Avenue Public ROW 12’ to 20’
Front Setback – Church Street Public ROW 15’ to 23’
Front Setback – Elm Avenue Public ROW 10’ to 15’
Front Setback - Interior Streets
(Applicable to all building frontages facing interior streets) 5’ to 7’ Interior Setback – West property line facing adjacent shopping center 124’ Interior Setback - South property line facing adjacent shopping center 56’ Distance Between Buildings Per Building
Code
Building Height – Walk-Ups 3 Stories
Building Height – Wrap Building 4 Stories
Landscape Area
(Overall net area) Min. 10%
Open Space Min. 150 SF/unit
(100,650 SF)
Parking RCMC Chapter

17.64 1 – Measured from Property Line. For interior streets, property line is considered to be the back of sidewalk.

PARKING
Number of
Units
Square
Footage Parking Ratio Required
Parking
Multi-Family unit (studio) 117 N/A 1.3 per unit (1 in garage or carport) 152 Multi-family unit (One bedroom) 347 N/A 1.5 per unit (1 in garage or carport) 521 Multi-family unit (Two bedrooms) 207 N/A 2 per unit (1 in garage or carport) 414 Visitor parking 671 N/A 1 per 3 units 224
Commercial (Retail) N/A 8,590 4 per 1000 square feet 34 Commercial (Restaurant) N/A 12,251 10 per 1000 square feet 123

Total Parking Spaces Required 1,468
Total Parking Spaces Provided 1,468
Total Covered Parking Spaces Required/Provided 671/942

LAND USE MIX / UNIT BREAKDOWN
Residential
Unit Type 3-Story Walk-Up 4-Story Wrap Total
Studio 84 33 117
1 Bedroom 153 194 347
2 Bedroom 86 121 207
TOTAL 323 348 671
Commercial
Commercial (SF) N/A 20,841 20,841

Attachment 4
Resolution No. 2022-049 - Page 1 of 5

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-049

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MASTER PLAN DRC2022-00074, ESTABLISHING A MASTER
PLAN ON A 17. -2-ACRE SITE WITHIN THE MIXED- USE

URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCR) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE

NORTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND
MILLIKEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APNs: 1077-422-51, -55, -98, -99, 1090-121-38, and -39

A. Recitals.

1. The applicant, WDCC Milliken West Residential, LLC filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2021-00120 and Tentative Tract Map 20120, related to a Site Plan and Architectural Review for the construction of a mixed-use development comprising of 671 apartments and 20,841 square feet of commercial space at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue. The applicant also applied for the approval of Master Plan DRC2022-00074 as described in the title of this resolution.

Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Master Plan is referred to as "the application."

2. On April 27, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution Nos. 22- 10, 22-11, and 22- 12 recommending that the City Council approve the Master Plan DRC2022- 00074, and approving Design Review DRC2021- 00120, and Tentative Tract Map 20120 respectively, and making findings in support of its decision.

3. On May 18, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing for the application, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution approving Master Plan DRC2022 - 00074 and making findings in support thereof.

4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

A. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 18, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, this City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:

Resolution No. 2022-049 - Page 2 of 5
a. The application applies to a vacant site located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue; and

b. The project site has an area of approximately 17.2 acres. The project site covers approximately three-fourths of the city block bordered by Elm Avenue to the west, Milliken Avenue to the east, Church Street to the north, and Foothill Boulevard to the south; and

c. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above - noted site) are as follows:

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Corridor High Mixed Use - Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District

North Multifamily
Residential
Suburban
Neighborhood
Moderate

Medium High (MH) Residential 1

South
Shopping
Center (north
and south of
Foothill)

City Corridor High
Financial, Restaurants, Residential
(MFC)1 north of Foothill and Industrial
Park (IP) south of Foothill

East
Hospital/
Partially
Vacant

City Corridor High Hospital and Related Facilities, Office (MHO)1

West Shopping
Center

City Corridor High

Community Commercial (CC) District 1
1 – Terra Vista Planned Community

d. The application consists of establishing a Master Plan to regulate development within the project site; and

e. This application is in conjunction with Design Review DRC2021-00120 and Tentative Tract Map 20120 related to the construction of a mixed- use development comprising of 671 apartments and 20,841 square feet of commercial space; and

3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this City Council hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:

a. The proposed Master Plan is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. The Master plan will enable the construction of a mixed-

Resolution No. 2022-049 - Page 3 of 5
use project that has been well-designed to align with the Corridor High designation. The development proposes a density of 39 units per acre, which falls within the expected range of the Corridor High designation of 36 -60 units per acre. The site plan includes proper building placement near the sidewalks with proper orientation to exterior or interior streets to accommodate active frontages and ground floor uses. The strategic placement of the buildings forms strong circulation patterns and streetscapes, helping create the desired urban character of the Corridor. The project site also has the benefit of street frontage on four sides and has taken advantage of those frontages to provide easy access and strong connectivity. The site is divided into quadrants, using privately owned streets to create walkable blocks in and throughout the project site. While the streets are privately owned, they will be public accessible and designed to look, feel, and function like public streets, as envisioned by the General Plan.

b. The proposed Master Plan meets the applicable requirements set forth in Chapter 17.22.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. The Master Plan allows for the coordinated comprehensive planning of a subarea of the city in order to allow the development of an exceptional project design that cannot be built under an existing zoning district or due to constraints of existing development standards. The application complies with all applicable requirements set forth by the development code related to the establishment of a Master Plan.

4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows:

a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City Corridor – High” land uses, which allows for residential development at densities ranging from 36 to 60 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and non- residential development at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) r anging from 0.6 to 1.5. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project -specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale.

b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 17.2 -acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “City Corridor – High” land uses. The GPU EIR assumed the Project site would be developed with 722 multi -family residential dwelling units and 337,154 square feet of commercial retail land uses. The proposed Project is fully consistent with the site’s GPU land use designation of “City Corridor – High” and would

Resolution No. 2022-049 - Page 4 of 5
be consistent with all applicable GPU policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated March 22, 2022, was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City’s GPU on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GPU EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant.

5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby approves Master Plan DRC2022- 00074 subject to each and every c ondition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 22-10, 22-11, and 22-12.

6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Resolution No. 2022-049 - Page 5 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2022.

L. Dennis Michael, Mayor

ATTEST:

Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of May, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Executed this 18th day of May, 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.

Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon

BY E-MAIL
May 18, 2022
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
Lynne B. Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem
Ryan A. Hutchison, Member
Kristine D. Scott, Member
City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
David F. Eoff, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on Master Plan for Harvest at Terra Vista Project (DRC2021-00120; SUBTT00024; DRC2022-00074)
May 18, 2022 City Council Meeting, Agenda item G.3.

Dear Mayor Michael, Honorable Members of the City Council and Mr. Eoff:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, regarding the proposed mixed-use development at the Northwest Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, also known as the Harvest at Terra Vista Project (“Project”). City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) staff have determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). However, after reviewing the Section 15183 Compliance Memo prepared for the Project, and the General Plan Update EIR that the Project relies upon, we conclude that the Project does not meet the requirements for an exemption under CEQA Section 15183.

On April 27, 2022, the Planning Commission for the City considered the Project.

SAFER submitted comments to the Planning Commission in writing and in person arguing that the use of an exemption was improper. The Planning Commission ultimately approved the Tentative Tract Map and Design Review for the Project, and recommended approval of the Master Plan. SAFER timely appealed the Tentative Tract Map and Design Review approvals and is awaiting a hearing date. As the City Council ADDITIONAL MATERIAL RECEIVED: ITEM G3 - 5/18/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga May 18, 2022 City Council Hearing considers approving the Master Plan, SAFER reiterates its comments to the Planning Commission and respectfully requests that the City Council deny the Master Plan for the Project and instead prepares necessary environmental documents under CEQA. In support of its position, SAFER has attached its comments to the Planning Commission on April 27, 2022 as Exhibit A and incorporates those comments herein by reference. Sincerely, Amalia Bowley Fuentes LOZEAU DRURY LLP

EXHIBIT A

BY E-MAIL April 27, 2022 Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 [email protected] David F. Eoff, Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 [email protected] Re: Comment on Design Review, Tentative Tract Map, and Master Plan for Harvest at Terra Vista Project (DRC2021-00120; SUBTT00024; DRC2022-00074) Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission and Mr. Eoff: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), a California nonprofit benefit corporation, regarding the proposed mixed-use development at the Northwest Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, also known as the Harvest at Terra Vista Project (“Project”). The Planning Commission staff have determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). However, after reviewing the Section 15183 Compliance Memo prepared for the Project, and the General Plan Update EIR that the Project relies upon, we conclude that the Project does not meet the requirements for an exemption under CEQA Section 15183. SAFER respectfully requests that the Planning Commission deny the applications for Design Review, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Master Plan, and instead prepares necessary environmental documents under CEQA. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a mixed-use development with 671 apartment units and 20,841 square feet of commercial space. It is bordered by multifamily residential uses to the north, commercial uses to the south, a hospital and vacant land to the east, and a shopping center to the west.

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing II. LEGAL STANDARD The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927 (Pocket Protectors). The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220. The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927. In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. PRC §§ 21100, 21064. Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440. To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. 14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 (“Hollywoodland”). First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further agency evaluation is required. Id. Second, if there is a possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency must perform an initial threshold study. Id.; 14 CCR § 15063(a). If the study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment the agency may issue a negative declaration. Id.; 14 CCR §§ 15063(b)(2), 15070. Finally, if the project will have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required. Id. Here, since the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies.

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing CEQA identifies certain classes of projects which are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. These are called categorical exemptions. 14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354. “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.” Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125. The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 (“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’”) Here, the City has issued a notice of exemption alleging that the proposed Project is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15183. However, as discussed below, this exemption is improper, and instead, a full CEQA analysis, such as an EIR, must be prepared for this Project. III. DISCUSSION a. The City Incorrectly Applied CEQA’s Section 15183 Categorical Exemption to the Project and Thus a Full CEQA Analysis is Required. Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act allows a project to avoid environmental review if it is “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified . . . except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” 14 CCR 15183 (emphasis added). The intention of this section is to “streamline[]” CEQA review for projects and avoid the preparation of repetitive documents. While this section is considered an exemption from CEQA, environmental review is still required for various types of impacts, including those “peculiar to the project or parcel on which the project would be located,” those which “were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR,” “are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR,” or “[a]re previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR.” Section (f) of the exemption states that a Project’s environmental effects are not peculiar to a project if “uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted” which serve to mitigate environmental impacts, “unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect.” (Emphasis added). The standard set forth by the statute for this analysis is substantial evidence.

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing Here, there is substantial evidence demonstrating that the Project will have significant impacts which were not addressed in EIR prepared for the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update (“GPU EIR”). The Section 15183 Exemption therefore does not apply, and the City must prepare appropriate CEQA documents for this Project. b. The City Must Prepare a CEQA Document or Adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations With Regard to This Project. The GPU EIR concluded that several of the impacts identified as a result of the General Plan Update project were significant and unavoidable. These impacts included air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts. In the Section 15183 Compliance Memo prepared for the Project (“Compliance Memo”), the City acknowledges these significant and unavoidable impacts, but states that “because the proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed as part of the GPU EIR, no additional environmental review is required for the proposed Project beyond the analysis and conclusions provided in Subsection 4.2 [of the Compliance Memo].” Compliance Memo, p. 17. This conclusion is incorrect. In the case of Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125, the court of appeal held that when a “first tier” EIR admits a significant, unavoidable environmental impact, then the agency must prepare second tier EIRs for later projects to ensure that those unmitigated impacts are “mitigated or avoided.” Id. citing CEQA Guidelines §15152(f)). The court reasoned that the unmitigated impacts were not “adequately addressed” in the first tier EIR since they were not “mitigated or avoided.” Id. Thus, significant effects disclosed in first tier EIRs will trigger second tier EIRs unless such effects have been “adequately addressed,” in a way that ensures the effects will be “mitigated or avoided.” Id. Such a second tier EIR is required, even if the impact still cannot be fully mitigated and a statement of overriding considerations will be required. The court explained, “The requirement of a statement of overriding considerations is central to CEQA’s role as a public accountability statute; it requires public officials, in approving environmentally detrimental projects, to justify their decisions based on counterbalancing social, economic or other benefits, and to point to substantial evidence in support.” Id. at 124-125. Thus, since the GPU EIR admitted numerous significant, unmitigated impacts, a second tier EIR is now required to determine if mitigation measures can now be imposed to reduce or eliminate those impacts. If the impacts still remain significant and unavoidable, a statement of overriding considerations will be required.

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing c. The Project Will Have Project-Specific Significant Effects Which Were Not Addressed in the GPU EIR. The City prepared a Program EIR for the General Plan Update, which is allowed under CEQA Guidelines § 15168(a). However, “[t]hat CEQA contains provisions for subsequent and supplemental EIRs reflects the Legislature's recognition that the need for environmental review may arise after the certification of a final EIR and the adoption of the [] plan to which it relates.” Eller Media Co. v. Community Redevelopment Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 25, 43. This possibility of further review is made more certain if “the final EIR for the Project explicitly state[s] that future review would be required.” Id. The GPU EIR states on numerous occasions that further review is warranted or necessary to evaluate impacts specific to individual projects. The City may not now avoid the consideration of the current Project’s impacts by claiming they were adequately assessed in the GPU EIR. The City must prepare an EIR to assess those project-specific impacts which were not evaluated in the GPU EIR. i. Air Quality The GPU EIR’s Air Quality section states that “[i]ndividual projects may require project-specific mitigation measures to ensure compliance with regulations governing air quality” and that “the extent of construction activities is unknown at this time.” GPU EIR, p. 5.3-1. Later on in that section, the GPU EIR states that “[a]s discussed previously, specific construction phasing and intensity are unknown. The levels of emissions generated through these activities would depend on the characteristics of individual future development projects under the General Plan Update, including the size and type of land uses being developed, which would determine the length and intensity of construction activity.” Id. at 5.3-52. The GPU EIR ultimately concludes that certain air quality impacts will be significant and unavoidable. Id. at 5.3-65-66. For the currently proposed Project, the Compliance Memo states that because the Project will result in a net reduction of 8,390 vehicle trips per day compared to what was evaluated for the site in the GPU EIR, the Project will have reduced air quality emissions. Compliance Memo, p. 25-26. Additionally, the Compliance Memo states that construction activities will adhere to SCAQMD strategies and emissions control strategies in the GPU EIR and the City’s Climate Action Plan, and will therefore also be less than significant. Id. at 26. The City has avoided full evaluation of Project air quality impacts at both stages. Emissions for the proposed Project must be modeled using a program such as CalEEMod, and project-specific input parameters must be measured against applicable thresholds. Further, a screening-level HRA must be prepared to determine the risk posed to nearby residential receptors, as well as propose mitigation as necessary. If the Project’s criteria air pollutant and/or toxic air contaminant emissions exceed the relevant

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing SCAQMD thresholds, the Project’s greenhouse gas emissions must also be modeled using a program such as CalEEMod and mitigation must be implemented if necessary. These considerations all represent potential project-specific significant effects that were not addressed in a GPU EIR, therefore the City must prepare an EIR for the Project. ii. Biological Resources With regard to biological resources, the GPU EIR states that “. . . future development projects could require more detailed evaluations of biological resources and formulation of mitigation measures by a qualified biologist.” GPU EIR, p. 5.4-61. It ultimately concludes that biological resource impacts are significant and unavoidable, and are considered cumulatively considerable. Id. at 5.4-65-66. As part of its Compliance Memo, the City commissioned a Habitat Assessment (“HA”), which was conducted in January 2022. Compliance Memo, Attachment A, Habitat Assessment Update. The HA concludes that the findings from a previous Habitat Assessment of the site remain the same and that no changes to onsite habitats have occurred. HA, p. 4. However, the Compliance Memo states that “the field investigation was not conducted during the blooming season for the majority of the special-status plant species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site.” Compliance Memo, p. 30. Although the Compliance Memo states that the species are “presumed to be absent from the Project site” based on habitat requirements for species, the timing of the HA field survey is inappropriate. Id. The Compliance Memo’s conclusion that impacts to biological resources are less than significant is therefore unfounded, and an EIR must be prepared in which these impacts are adequately analyzed. iii. Energy The GPU EIR’s analysis of Energy impacts states that “compliance with the Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen and implementation of proposed energy-related policies to guide development of land uses accommodated under the General Plan Update would help minimize nonrenewable energy demands by increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy use.” GPU EIR, p. 5.6-10. The GPU EIR therefore concludes that energy impacts would be less than significant. Id. at 5.6-12. The Compliance Memo relies on these same standards to conclude that the Project’s energy impacts would be less than significant. Compliance Memo, p. 44. The standard under CEQA is whether the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Failing to undertake “an investigation into renewable energy options that might be available or appropriate for a project” violates CEQA. California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 213. Energy conservation under CEQA is defined as the "wise and efficient use of energy.” CEQA Guidelines, app. F, § I. The “wise and efficient use

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing of energy” is achieved by “(1) decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, (2) decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, and (3) increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.” Id. Noting compliance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 24, part 6 (Title 24) does not constitute an adequate analysis of energy. Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 264-65. Similarly, the court in City of Woodland held unlawful an energy analysis that relied on compliance with Title 24, that failed to assess transportation energy impacts, and that failed to address renewable energy impacts. California Clean Energy Committee v. City of Woodland, 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 209-13. As such, the Compliance Memo’s reliance on Title 24 compliance does not satisfy the requirements for an adequate discussion of the Project’s energy impacts. As for the “energy-related policies” referred to by the GPU EIR, they consist of vague statements which do not commit the specific Project to implement anything. Indeed, at the beginning of the Compliance Memo’s section on energy, it states that “[t]he GPU EIR did not identify any standard COAs to reduce energy consumption.” Compliance Memo, p. 42. This further demonstrates that the City has not proposed anything beyond Title 24 adherence to render energy impacts less than significant. The Compliance Memo states that the Project’s energy demands would be less than those assumed in the GPU EIR, and would therefore be less than significant. Compliance Memo, p.42-44. However, there is no discussion of the project's cost effectiveness in terms of energy requirements. There is no discussion of energy consuming equipment and processes that will be used during the construction or operation of the project. The project's energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction and operation were not identified. The effect of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity has not been addressed. As such, the Compliance Memo’s conclusions are unsupported by the necessary discussions of the Project’s energy impacts under CEQA. An EIR must be prepared to assess these impacts. iv. Greenhouse Gases The GPU EIR states that the GPU project would not meet the City’s and State’s long-term GHG reduction goals. GPU EIR, p. 5.8-42. Specifically, it states that “. . . the strategies in the CAP, if fully implemented, would achieve a total reduction of 199,709 MTCO2e by 2040. These reductions place the City’s post-2030 communitywide emissions on a downward trajectory that makes substantial progress toward the City’s and the State’s long-term GHG reduction goals, but they are not sufficient to achieve the 339,478 MTCO2e of reductions needed to achieve the City’s 2040 emissions reduction target.” Id. Greenhouse gas impacts are therefore considered significant and unavoidable, and the GPU EIR says there are no feasible mitigation measures.

Comment re: Harvest at Terra Vista Project City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Hearing The Compliance Memo fails to address this failure of the GPU EIR to meet the State’s long-term GHG emission reduction goals beyond listing it as a GPU EIR finding. Compliance Memo, p. 52. As part of its assessment, the City completes a Climate Action Plan Consistency Review Checklist, but the GPU EIR itself stated that even compliance with this was insufficient to meet City and State GHG reduction goals. Compliance Memo, Attachment E, CAP Consistency Checklist. There are numerous measures beyond those included in the CAP which would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the City must consider all feasible measures before simply concluding that impacts are significant and unavoidable. The City must prepare an EIR which adequately assesses greenhouse gas impacts and mitigation measures. IV. CONCLUSION In light of the above comments, the City must prepare an EIR for the Project and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Amalia Bowley Fuentes LOZEAU DRURY LLP

May 18, 2022
Via email
Hon. Mayor Michael and Hon. City Councilmembers
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
David Eoff
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Hon. Mayor Michael, Hon. Members of the City Council, and Mr. Eoff:

We represent WDCC Milliken West Residential LLC, the applicant of the Harvest at Terra Vista project (Project). We are in receipt of Lozeau Drury’s letter, dated today, forwarding the letter they submitted to the Planning Commission on April 27, 2022. The April 27 letter challenges the City’s determination that the Project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15183. Section 15183 applies to projects that are consistent with existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. The materials for tonight’s meeting include the Harvest at Terra Vista – CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance memo (“Compliance Memo”), prepared by T&B Planning, including several reports, that analyzes the project’s impacts and compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. A second memo is in the materials from the City’s consultant Placeworks, Harvest at Terra Vista Section 15183 Compliance Review memo which peer reviewed the Compliance Memo. Placeworks’ peer review concluded:

The Compliance document, and supporting materials, provide a thorough review of the General Plan EIR (SCH#2021050261) and accurately depict the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City. The Compliance analysis also demonstrates that the proposed project complies with the provisions of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines that direct when the City should require additional environmental analysis.

Nothing in the provided materials or the supporting technical studies, suggests that additional analysis is warranted, and supports the contention that there is nothing peculiar to the project or the site that would preclude the City from considering the project consistent with the General Plan EIR.

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ITEM G3 - 05/18/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING

City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
May 18, 2022

I have attached hereto the letter we submitted to the Planning Commission on April 27 that explains the City’s analysis under Guidelines Section 15183 and responds to each of the four substantive issues raised in Lozeau Drury’s April 27 letter.

I will attend tonight’s hearing as part of the WDCC Milliken West Residential LLC team and am happy to address any questions you may have.

Sincerely,

Amanda Monchamp

Attachment:

Monchamp Meldrum LLP, Response to Lozeau Drury April 27 Letter

April 27, 2022 Via email Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 David Eoff Senior Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission and Mr. Eoff: We represent WDCC Milliken West Residential LLC, the applicant of the Harvest at Terra Vista project (Project). We are in receipt of Lozeau Drury’s letter, dated today, challenging the City’s determination that the Project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15183. Section 15183 applies to projects that are consistent with existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was previously certified. The materials for tonight’s meeting include the Harvest at Terra Vista – CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance memo (“Compliance Memo”), prepared by T&B Planning, including several reports, that analyzes the project’s impacts and compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. A second memo is in the materials from the City’s consultant Placeworks, Harvest at Terra Vista Section 15183 Compliance Review memo which peer reviewed the Compliance Memo. Placeworks’ peer review concluded: The Compliance document, and supporting materials, provide a thorough review of the General Plan EIR (SCH#2021050261) and accurately depict the assumptions made in the General Plan EIR for this area of the City. The Compliance analysis also demonstrates that the proposed project complies with the provisions of Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines that direct when the City should require additional environmental analysis. Nothing in the provided materials or the supporting technical studies, suggests that additional analysis is warranted, and supports the contention that there is nothing peculiar to the project or the site that would preclude the City from considering the project consistent with the General Plan EIR.

Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022

This letter responds to the allegations made in Lozeau Drury’s letter, which are inaccurate and inconsistent with the analysis in the peer-reviewed Compliance Memo. Notably, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 is not a categorical exemption thus Lozeau Drury’s citations (at page 3) to case law regarding categorical exemptions being narrowly construed are inapplicable. Moreover, the statement the City has issued a Notice of Exemption is incorrect. Lozeau Drury’s letter is correct that CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 streamlines the environmental review of projects that are “zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development and an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action.” The purpose of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 is to reduce the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. For projects that meet the requirements of Section 15183, the Lead Agency is required to limit its examination of environmental effects to those effects which the Lead Agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis: (1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located; (2) Were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan with which the project is consistent; (3) Are potentially significant off-site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action; or (4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. CEQA Guidelines section 15183 was promulgated on the authority of Public Resources Code section 21083.3, which provides that “[i]f a parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development or has been designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development and an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, the application of this division to the approval of any subdivision map or other project that is consistent with the zoning or community plan shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.3(a); see Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 389. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(c), then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section

Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022

15183(h), an environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. Section 15183(e) allows for the analysis to be limited for those significant environmental effects which were previously identified in the prior EIR, and for which all applicable mitigation measures identified by the prior EIR are found to be feasible. For such effects, the Lead Agency is required to make a finding at a public hearing as to whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f), an effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. The Lozeau Drury letter cites to Communities for a Better Environment v. Cal. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 122-125, which invalidated certain CEQA Guidelines, notably not CEQA Guidelines 15183. The letter also cites Eller Media Co. v. Community Redevelopment Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 25, 43, quoting that the need for environmental review may arise after certification of an EIR. The letter claims because the GP EIR found some impacts to be significant and unavoidable and that because the GP EIR contemplated that some projects would require further review that a second tier EIR is required for this Project. However, neither of those cases addressed CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 in any way. The fact that the GP EIR found some impacts to be significant and unavoidable and said some additional CEQA review would occur for some individual projects does not necessitate this Project to be reviewed in a second tier EIR. Air Quality As described in the Compliance Memo, the Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) and will comply with all Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The General Plan EIR estimated potential construction-related impacts using the CAlEEMod based on an assumed constant rate of construction activities during implementation of the General Plan. Contrary to commenter’s claims, there is no specific method of analysis required for air quality under Guidelines Section 15183. Nonetheless, further contrary to commenter’s claims, the GPU EIR did utilize CalEEMod to model emissions for the GPU. As noted in the GPU EIR Air Quality analysis, “[m]aximum daily emissions were generated using CalEEMod default outputs for the first possible year of construction, which would be 2022.” GPU EIR, p. 5.3-46. “Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were also estimated using CalEEMod.” GPU EIR, p. 5.3-47. The Project was anticipated in the General Plan and is well within the daily construction assumptions anticipated in the General Plan EIR analysis for typical construction activities.

Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022

As indicated in Table 3 of the Compliance Memo, Trip Generation Comparison, the Project would result in a reduction in the amount of traffic generated by development of the site as compared to what was evaluated by the GPU EIR. Specifically, the Project would result in a net reduction of 8,390 vehicular trips per day as compared to what was evaluated for the Project site in the GPU EIR. A majority of the Project’s air quality emissions would result from vehicular traffic. Thus, because the Project would result in a reduction in the amount of traffic generated by the development of the Project site as comprised to what was assumed by the GPU EIR, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would result in a reduction in air quality emissions as compared to what was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR for the Project site. In addition, construction activities associated with the Project would adhere to emissions control strategies established by the SCAQMD and assumed in the AQMP, as well as the emission control strategies included in the GPU and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Further, the General Plan EIR addressed construction near sensitive receptors and determined that the temporary exposure to diesel PM would be less than significant. The Project would implement the required mitigation measures and would comply with applicable regulations addressing reduction of pollutants during construction. The Project would not involve any construction activities peculiar to the project site or the Project that would require additional Project-specific analysis. As for operations, the GPU EIR addresses health risk impacts by specifying that “[t]he City would avoid locating new development with sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a freeway or roadway with over 100,000 AADT. If avoidance is not feasible, development with sensitive receptors may be located within 500 feet of a major roadway only if the applicant first prepares a project-specific HRA addressing potential health risks to sensitive receptors from exposure to TAC emissions.” Here, the largest roadway within 500 feet is Foothill Boulevard, which only has 30,000-40,000 ADT. GP EIR, Table 5.17-2. Therefore, the GP EIR evaluated this impact and the Project is sited such that an HRA is not required. Biological Resources The potential for the Project site to support sensitive plant species was addressed in the February 2018 Habitat Assessment, and again in the February 2022 Habitat Assessment. Each of the Habitat Assessments determined that the project site does not provide suitable habitat for any of the special-status plant species known to occur in the area. As noted in the 2018 Habitat Assessment and 2022 Habitat Assessment Update, the project site has been subject to a variety of anthropogenic disturbances including on-going disking/weed abatement activities, stockpiling of soils, and activities associated with the surrounding developments. A stockpile of undocumented fill is present on the western and central portion of the site that was derived during grading of nearby residential properties, and the southeast corner of the project site is used as a seasonal pumpkin patch and Christmas tree farm that has covered portions of this area in loose gravel. Historic agricultural activities (dating back to the 1930s) and the aforementioned dirt stockpiling activities have eliminated the natural seed base from the project site. Further, surrounding development has eliminated the potential for seed dispersal from upwind “native

Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022

plant communities” onto the project site. Due to the lack of suitable habitat, focused surveys during the blooming period are not required. The determination that the project site does not have the potential to support special-status plant species is a valid conclusion. Energy Consistent with the General Plan EIR conclusions, Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Further, the energy demands of the Project can be accommodated within the context of available resources and energy delivery systems. The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California. The Project would be less intense than the land uses assumed by the GPU EIR for the Project site, indicating the Project’s overall energy demand would be less than was evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. Further, the Project has been designed to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Notably, as identified in the required Climate Action Plan (CAP) Consistency Checklist in Attachment E of the Compliance Memo, the Project Applicant has committed to Zero Net electricity through the purchase of electricity that is generated from 100% renewable energy from RCMU, as available. There are also no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities, or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Therefore, construction-related energy demand would not exceed that anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, there are no impacts that are peculiar to the Project site; there are no direct or cumulatively-considerable impacts of the proposed Project that were not already evaluated by the GPU EIR; and there are no new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the GPU EIR. GHG Emissions The City’s CAP was prepared consistent with the standards of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and is a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(3), 15130(d), and 15183(b), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative GHG emissions effect may be determined not to be cumulatively considerable if it complies with the requirements of a “qualified” CAP. Projects that comply with the CAP, as determined through completion of the CAP Consistent Review Checklist, may rely on the CAP for the analysis of cumulative GHG emissions impacts as part of the CEQA process. The CAP Consistency Checklist contains measures that are required to be implemented on a project-by-project basis to achieve the City’s 2030 reduction target, established to align with the State legislative 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction below 1990 levels, set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by Senate Bill (SB) 32. The Project has been reviewed for consistency with CAP through completion of the CAP Consistency Review Checklist, which is included in

Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga April 27, 2022

Attachment E of the Compliance Memo. Therefore, the Project’s GHG emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. In addition, the Compliance Memo analyzes the Project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, which reflects the State 2030 reduction target. As summarized therein, the Project would not conflict with any of the provisions of the Scoping Plan Update and would be subject to any regulations adopted. Further, as noted in the Compliance Memo recent studies show that the State’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the State to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. As such, the Project would be consistent with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan Update, and therefore also would be considered consistent with the GHG reduction mandates specified by SB 32. The failure of the General Plan to meet the State’s long-term GHG emissions reduction goals in 2050 is the basis for the significant and unavoidable impact conclusion presented in the GPU EIR and associated statement of overriding considerations. With respect to the Project, no further analysis is necessary or required by CEQA as it pertains to future year GHG reduction targets because the Project’s horizon (buildout) year is anticipated to occur in 2024. Pursuant to guidance from the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP), GHG emissions “…should be identified for the project horizon year and lead agencies should consider the project horizon year when applying a threshold of significance” (AEP, 2016, p. 32)1. Because the Project’s opening year would be 2024, the Project’s GHG emissions are instead evaluated against the 2030 reduction requirements set forth by Executive Order S-3-05 and SB 32, which the City’s General Plan and CAP achieves. Conclusion As explained above, the allegations raised in the Lozeau Drury letter are inaccurate and without merit. If you have any questions, please reach out to discuss. Sincerely, Amanda Monchamp 1 https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf

DATE:May 18, 2022
TO:President and Members of the Board of Directors
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Fire Chief
Noah Daniels, Finance Director
Darci Vogel, Fire Business Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Resolution Making Determinations Regarding the Proposed Annexation of Territory (Annexation No. 22-1) Located at 7878 East Avenue into an Existing Community Facilities District, Calling a Special Election, and Authorizing Submittal of Levy of Special Taxes to the Qualified Electors. (RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022-010) (FIRE)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Fire Protection District Board adopt a resolution making determinations and authorizing the submittal of the levy of special taxes to the qualified electors of territory proposed to be annexed (APN: 1100-191-04, Annexation No. 22-1) to existing Community Facilities District No. 85-1 (“CFD No. 85-1”) and calling a special election for such purpose.

BACKGROUND:

SC Westbury Limited Partnership, property owner, has submitted a proposal to develop property located at 7878 East Avenue (APN 1100-191-04, the “Annexation Area”) and is conditioned by the City and Fire Protection District to annex such property into the existing Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 85-1 to satisfy fire protection service mitigation impacts.

On April 6, 2022, the Board initiated formal annexation proceedings pursuant to the provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Mello-Roos Act”) by adopting Resolution No. FD 2022-006 approving an Annexation Map (Exhibit “A”) of the territory proposed to be annexed and Resolution No. FD 2022-007 approving the Intention to Annex APN 1100-191-04 in the existing CFD 85-1. This Resolution, among other things, declared the intention of the Board of Directors to levy a special tax within the Annexation Area to finance fire protection and suppression services and setting a public hearing regarding the proposed annexation to be held on May 18, 2022.

Through adoption of this resolution before the Board this evening, the Board will accomplish the following:
Make certain determinations as set forth in the Resolution; Call for a special election to be conducted on May 18, 2022; Authorize submittal of the levy of the special tax to qualified electors of the Annexation Area at such Special election.

1 2
7 4
ANALYSIS:

The annexation of the Annexation Area into CFD No. 85-1 will satisfy the conditions of development relating to mitigating impacts upon fire protection services. SC Westbury Limited Partnership, property owner, is in full support of the annexation of the property being annexed. Pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act, whenever there have been less than 12 persons registered to vote within the Annexation Area for each of the 90 days preceding the public hearing pertaining to such annexation, the vote shall be by the landowners within the Annexation Area. Therefore, in the current circumstances, the election will be a landowner’s vote, the landowner having one vote per acre or portion thereof of land within the Annexation Area.

SC Westbury Limited Partnership, owner of the property within the Annexation Area, has executed a “Consent and Waiver” of time frames relating to the election. Exhibit “A” of the Resolution sets forth the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax proposed to be levied within the Annexation Area which is consistent with the special tax levied upon all territory currently within CFD No. 85-1.

At the special election to be held on May 18, 2022, the landowner(s) will be entitled to cast its ballot. The Board Secretary will then canvas the ballot, if received. At the next Fire Board meeting, the Board will consider adopting the resolution declaring the election results and the annexation of the Annexation Area to CFD 85-1. If 2/3 of the votes are cast in favor of the levy of the special tax, the Board may declare the property to be annexed.

The Public Notice regarding the Public Hearing has been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The special tax revenues that are collected of the CFD No. 85-1 are used to pay for public facilities and services in the District area. Costs related to the administering of the District are the responsibility of the property owners within the District. Annexation of the property located at 7878 East Avenue will ensure the property owner covers the cost of increased demand for fire services resulting from new development within the Territory.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

This item brings together portions of the Council’s vision and core value by providing a sustainable City and promoting a safe and healthy community for all. Annexation of the property into CFD 85-1 ensures the delivery of vital fire and life safety services to all residents while satisfying fire protection service mitigation impacts.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. FD 2022-010, Call for Special Election Annexation 22-1 Attachment 2 - Annexation No. 22-1 Recorded Map
Attachment 3 - CFD No. 85-1 Boundary Map

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 1 of 11
RESOLUTION NO. FD 2022-010

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE RANCHO

CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,

CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY (ANNEXATION NO. 22 -1) TO AN EXISTING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT (CFD 8 5-1) AND

CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION AND AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF

THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF SUCH

TERRITORY
W
HEREAS, the B oard Of Directors (the “Board of Directors”) of the R ancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (the “Fire Protection District”), Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously declared its intention and held and conducted proceedings relating to the annexation of territory to an existing community facilities district pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982”, being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California, and specifically Article 3.5 thereof (the “Act”). The existing Community Facilities District has been designated as Community Facilities District No. 85-1 (the “District”); and, W
HEREAS, notice of a public hearing relating to the annexation of territory to the District, the extent of the territory to be annexed (the “Annexation Area”), the furnishing of certain public services and all other related matters has been given; and,
W
HEREAS, it has now been determined that written protests have not been received by 50% or more of the registered voters residing either within the Annexation Area or the District and/or property owners representing more than one-half (1/2) or more of the area of land within the Annexed Area or within District; and,
W
HEREAS, inasmuch as there have been less than twelve (12) persons registered to vote within the Annexation Area for each of the 90 preceding days, this legislative body desires to submit the levy of the required special tax to the landowners of the Annexation Area, said landowners being the qualified electors as authorized by law.

N
OW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District does hereby resolve as follows:

1. Recitals. The above recitals are all true and correct.

2. Determinations. It is determined by this Board of Directors that:

A. al
l proceedings prior hereto were valid and taken in conformity with the requirements of law, and specifically the provisions of the Act;
B. l
ess than twelve (12) registered voters have resided within the Annexation Area for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public hearing and, consequently, the qualified electors shall be the landowners of the Annexation Area and each landowner who is t he ow
ner of record as of the close of the public hearing, or the authorized representative thereof, shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land that she or he owns within the A
nnexation Area;
C. t
he time limit specified by the Act for conducting an election to submit the levy of the special taxes to the qualified electors of the Annexation Area and the requirements for impartial Attachment 1

anal
ysis and ballot arguments have been waived with the unanimous consent of the qualified electors of the Annexation Area;
D. t
he Secretary, acting as the election official, has consented to conducting any required election on a date which is less than 125 days following the adoption of this resolution; and E. t
he public services proposed to be financed from the proceeds of special taxes to be levied within the Annexation Area are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon the Fire Protection District as a result of development and/or rehabilitation occurring in the Annexation A
rea.

3. Boundaries of Annexed Area. The boundaries and parcels of land in the Annexation Area and on which special taxes are proposed to be levied in order to pay the costs and expenses for the public services described in Section 4 below are generally described as follows:

A
ll that property and territory proposed to be annexed to the District, as said property is shown on a map as previously approved by this legislative body, said map entitled “Annexation Map No. 22-1 of Community Facilities District No. 8 5-1 of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, County Of San Bernardino, State Of California” reference is made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit “A” (the “Annexation Map”), and a copy of which is on file in the Office of the Secretary and shall remain open for public inspection.

4. Services and Facilities Authorized to be Financed by the District. The services that are authorized to be financed by the District from the proceeds of special taxes levied within the existing District are generally described in Exhibit “B” (the “Services and Facilities”) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and all costs associated the District, administration of the District, the determination of the amount of special taxes to be levied, the costs of collection any special taxes, and costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the District.

If and t o the extent feasible the S ervices and Facilities shall be provided i n common withi n the existing District and the Territory.

5. Special Tax. Except where funds are otherwise available and subject to the approval of the qualified electors of the Annexation Area, a special tax sufficient to pay for the services described in Section 4 that are required for the Annexation Area, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non -exempt real property in the Annexation Area will be levied annually within the boundaries of the Annexation Area. For particulars as to the rate and method of apportionment of the proposed special tax, reference is made to the attached and incorporated Exhibit “C” which sets forth in sufficient detail the method of apportionment to allow each landowner or resident within the Annexation Area to clearly estimate the maximum amount of the special tax that such person will have to pay.

The special taxes shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency, as applicable for ad valorem taxes; however, as applicable, this Board of Directors may, by resolution, establish and adopt an alternate or supplemental procedure as necessary. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected through a direct billing procedure by the Treasurer of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, acting for and on behalf of the District.

6. Special Tax Accountability Measures. Pursuant to and in compliance with the provisions of Government Code Section 50075.1, this Board of Directors hereby establishes the following accountability measures pertaining to the levy by the District of the special taxes within the Annexation Area as described in Section 5 above:

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 2 of 11

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 3 of 11
A. E
ach such special tax shall be levied for the specific purposes section in Section 5. above.

B. The pr
oceeds of the levy of each such special tax shall be applied only to the specific applicable purposes set forth in Section 5. above.

C. The D
istrict shall establish a separate account into which the proceeds of the special taxes levied within the District shall be deposited.

D. The Fi
re Chief or his or her designee, acting for and on behalf of the District, shall annually file a report with the Board of Directors as required pursuant to Government Code Section 50075.3.

7. E lection. The proposition related to the levy of the special tax shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the Annexation Area, said electors being the landowners, with each landowner having one (1) vote for each acre or portion thereof of land which he or she owns within said annexed territory. The special election shall be held on the 18th of May 2022, and said election shall be a special election to be conducted by
the Secretary (hereinafter “Election Official”). If the proposition for the levy of the special tax receives the appr
oval of more than two-thirds (2/3) of the votes cast on the proposition, the special tax may be levied as provided for in this Resolution and the Board of Directors may determine that the Annexation Area is added to and part of the District.

8. Ballot. The ballot proposal to be submitted to the qualified voters at the election shall generally be as follows:

PRO

POSITION A
RANCHO

CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1,

AUTHORIZATION FOR SPECIAL TAX LEVY
S
hall Community Facilities District No. 85-1 of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District be authorized to levy special taxes within the territory shown on “Annexation Map No. 22-1 of Community Facilities District No. 8 5-1 of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, County Of San Bernardino, State Of California” (the “Annexation Map”) pursuant to the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes (the “Special Tax Formula”) set forth in Resolution No. FD 2021-023 to finance fire suppression and protection services and administrative expenses?

9. Vote. The appropriate mark placed in the voting square after the word “YES” shall be counted in favor of the adoption of the proposition, and the appropriate mark placed in the voting square after the word “NO” in the manner as authorized, shall be counted against the adoption of said proposition.

10. Election Procedure. The Election Official is hereby authorized to take any and all steps necessary for the holding of said election. Said Election Official shall perform and render all services and proceedings incidental to and connected with the conduct of said election, and said services shall include, but not be limited to the following:

A. P
repare and furnish to the election officers necessary election supplies for the conduct of the el
ection.

B. C
ause to be printed the requisite number of official ballots, tally sheets and other necessary forms.

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 4 of 11
C. Fur
nish and address official ballots for the qualified electors of the Annexation Area.

D. C
ause the official ballots to be mailed and/or delivered, as required by law.

E. R
eceive the returns of the election.

F
. Sort and assemble the election material and supplies in preparation for the canvassing of the returns.

G. C
anvass the returns of the election.

H. Fur
nish a tabulation of the number of votes given in the election.

I. M
ake all arrangements and take the necessary steps to pay all costs of the election incurred as
a result of services performed for the District and pay costs and expenses of all election officials.

J
. Conduct and handle all other matters relating to the proceedings and conduct of the election in the manner and form as required by law.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 2022.

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 5 of 11
EXHI
BIT “A”
CO
MMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1

ANNEXATION MAP

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 6 of 11
CO
MMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1

BOUNDARY MAP

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 7 of 11
EXHI
BIT “B”
CO
MMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85-1

DESCRIPTION OF THE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The Services.

It
is the intention of the Board of Directors to finance certain types of fire services (the “Services”) that are in addition to those currently provided in or required for the Territory and are necessary to meet the increased demand for such fire services resulting from new development within the Territory and will not be replacing services already available to the Territory. A general description of the Services to be financed is as follows:

The per
formance of functions, operations, maintenance, and repair activities in order to provide fire protection and suppression services to the Territory.

The Facilities.

I
t is the intention of this Board of Directors to finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of certain types of fire facilities (the “Facilities”) that are in addition to those currently provided to serve the Territory and are necessary to meet the increased demand for such fire services resulting from new development within the Territory and will not be replacing facilities already available to serve the Territory. A general description of the types of the Facilities to be financed is as follows:

Fi
re protection and suppression facilities and equipment, rescue equipment, with a useful life of five (5) years or more, including collection and accumulation of funds to pay for anticipated facilities cost shortfalls and reserves for repair and replacement to the extent that such facilities are necessary to meet the increased demand for such facilities resulting from new development within the Territory.

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 8 of 11
EXHI
BIT “C”
F

OOTHILL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 85 -1
RAT

E AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES
The r
ate and method of apportionment, limitations on and adjustments to the Special Tax authorized to be levied within Community Facilities District No. 85-1 (the “CFD No. 85-1 Rate and Method”) as originally established for and as applied to the taxable properties within such community facilities district is as follows:

SPECI
AL TAX

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
To pay
for fire suppression services and to finance fire suppression facilities, the maximum Special Tax in the Community Facilities District shall be:

Structures Maximum Annual Special Tax
R
esidential 1 DU $75.00
M
ulti-Family 2 DU: 1.75 ($75.00)
3 DU: 2.25 ($75.00)
4 DU: 2.65 ($75.00)
5-14 DU: 2.65 ($75.00) + [0.35 (TU-4) ($75.00)]
15-30 DU: 6.15 ($75.00) + [0.30 (TU-14) ($75.00)]
31-80 DU: 10.65 ($75.00) + [0.25 (TU-30) ($75.00)]

81 – up DU: 23.15 ($75.00) + [0.20 (TU-80) ($75.00)]
C
ommercial ($75.00) per acre + $0.04 per SF
I
ndustrial ($75.00) per acre + $0.05 per SF
N
ote: DU = Dwelling Units
TU = Total Units
SF = Square Foot

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL TAX
The m
aximum Special Tax shall be annually adjusted for (a) changes in cost of living or (b) changes in cost of living and changes in population as defined in Section 7901 of the Government Code, as amended, whichever is lesser.

REDUCTION IN SPECIAL TAX
C
ommercial and industrial structures shall be granted a reduction in the Special Tax for the installation of complete sprinkler systems. In addition, multi-floor commercial and industrial structures shall be granted a reduction in Special Tax for each separate floor above or below the main ground floor of the structure.

LIMITATIONS ON TAX LEVY
The S
pecial Tax shall only be levied on developed property; provided that the Special Tax shall not be levied until a “Certification of Occupancy” or “Utility Release” has been issued by the appropriate governmental agencies.

D
eveloped property is defined to be property:
• W
hich is not owned by a public or governmental agency
• W
hich is not vacant
• W
here a certificate of occupancy or utility release from the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the C
ounty of San Bernardino has been issued
• W
hich has an existing building or structure onsite
• W
hich does not have as its sole use power transmission towers, railroad tracks, and flood control facilities – these properties are exempt. Areas granted as easements to power transmission towers, railroad tracks, and flood control facilities shall be subtracted from t he t
otal acreage of the underlying lot and shall be exempt.

The annual levy of the Special Tax shall be based upon an annual determination by the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District of the amount of other revenues available to meet budget requirements. As used in this formula, "available revenue" shall include ad valorem taxes, State of California augmentation, tax increment revenues received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and any other source of revenue except the Special Tax. The Board of Directors shall take all responsible steps to retain maximum Redevelopment Agency funding to which, by agreement, they may lawfully receive. To the extent available revenues are insufficient to meet budget requirements, the Board of Directors may levy the Spec
ial Tax.

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 9 of 11

*
* *
A
pplication of the CFD No. 85-1 Rate and Method to Annexation No. 22 -1 To pay
for fire suppression services and to finance fire suppression facilities, the Maximum Special Tax in Community Facilities District No. 85-1, Annexation No. 22-1 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 shall be:

Structures Maximum Annual Special Tax
R
esidential 1 DU $185.21
M
ulti-Family 2 DU: 1.75 ($185.21)
3 DU: 2.25 ($185.21)
4 DU: 2.65 ($185.21)
5-14 DU: 2.65 ($185.21) + [0.35 (TU-4) ($185.21)]
15-30 DU: 6.15 ($185.21) + [0.30 (TU-14) ($185.21)]
31-80 DU: 10.65 ($185.21) + [0.25 (TU-30) ($185.21)]

81 – up DU: 23.15 ($185.21) + [0.20 (TU-80) ($185.21)]
C
ommercial ($185.21) per acre + $0.096 per SF
I
ndustrial ($185.21) per acre + $0.119 per SF
N
ote: DU = Dwelling Units
TU = Total Units
SF = Square Foot

ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT
The maximum Special Tax shall be annually adjusted commencing on July 1, 2021, and each July 1st thereafter for (a) changes in the cost of living or (b) changes in cost of living and changes in population as defined in Section 7901 of the Government Code, as amended, whichever is lesser.

REDUCTION IN SPECIAL TAX
Commercial and industrial structures shall be granted a .01 cent reduction in the Special Tax for the installation of complete sprinkler systems. In addition, multi-floor commercial and industrial structures shall also be granted a .01 cent reduction (not cumulative) in Special Tax for each separate floor above or below the main ground floor of the structure.

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 10 of 11

Resolution No. FD 2022-010 - Page 11 of 11

LIMITATION ON SPECIAL TAX LEVY
The S
pecial Tax shall only be levied on developed property; provided that the Special Tax shall not be levied until a “Certification of Occupancy” or “Utility Release” has been issued by the appropriate governmental agencies.

D
eveloped property is defined to be property:
• W
hich is not owned by a public or governmental agency
• W
hich is not vacant
• W
here a certificate of occupancy or utility release from the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the C
ounty of San Bernardino has been issued
• W
hich has an existing building or structure onsite
• W
hich does not have as its sole use power transmission towers, railroad tracks, and flood control facilities – these properties are exempt. Areas granted as easements to power transmission towers, railroad tracks, and flood control facilities shall be subtracted from the t
otal acreage of the underlying lot and shall be exempt.

The annual
levy of the Special Tax shall be based upon an annual determination by the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District of the amount of other revenues available to meet budget requirements. As used in this formula, "available revenue" shall include ad valorem taxes, State of California augmentation, tax increment revenues received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and any other source of revenue except the Special Tax. The Board of Directors shall take all responsible steps to retain maximum Redevelopment Agency funding to which, by agreement, they may lawfully receive. To the extent available revenues are insufficient to meet budget requirements, the Board of Directors may levy the Special Tax.

F
or further particulars regarding the rate and method of apportionment of the Special Tax, reference is made to the Final Report Mello- Roos Community Facilities District No. 85- 1 for Fire Suppression Facilities/Services – Foothill Fire Protection District, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Fire Chief of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

DATE:May 18, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Baldwin Ngai, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Consideration to Accept as Complete, File a Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention, and Bonds for the Advanced Traffic Management Systems Phase I Project (Contract No. 2020-060). (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Accept the Advanced Traffic Management System Phase I Project, Contract No. 2020- 060 (Project), as complete;

2. Approve the final contract amount of $1,166,627;

3. Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion and accept a Maintenance Guarantee Bond;

4. Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $1,169,745, six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received;

5. Authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and release of the project retention, 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion; and

6. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship.

BACKGROUND:

On June 25, 2020, the City Council awarded a construction contract to Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., in the amount of $1,169,745, plus 10% contingency in the amount of $116,975 to address unforeseen construction related incidentals. A copy of the June 25, 2020, City Council Staff Report is on file with the City Clerk. A vicinity map is included as Attachment 1.

The scope of work for this construction contract consisted of the installation of traffic signal communication equipment, including fiber optic cabling, conduit, switches, pullboxes; as well as video detection systems, uninterrupted power supply systems, close circuit television cameras,

9 4
2 and removal of unused communication equipment to complete the integration of the traffic signals along Haven Avenue from 4th Street to Wilson Avenue, Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to East Avenue, and Vineyard Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to Red Hill Country Club Drive into the City’s Traffic Management Center per the approved plans. Further, under a separate contract with Iteris, Inc., the City has retimed and coordinated the traffic signals along the Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard corridors to improve the efficiency and operation of these vital corridors.

ANALYSIS:

The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

The net decrease in the total cost of the project is a result of three (3) Contract Change Orders, including the final Balancing Statement (which conforms the final contract quantities to the actual quantities placed or constructed during construction), summarized below:

CCO Description Amount
1 Upgrade traffic signal pullboxes and install additional conduit needed for new fiber optic cables to connect existing traffic signals to the fiber network.
$13,413
2 Removal of existing brick pavers with median islands and re- installing said brick pavers along Foothill Boulevard not included in the project plans.
$19,758
3 Removal, disposal, installation of new conduit, pullboxes, and related equipment and paver/concrete/asphalt restorations at various locations.
$33,301
4 Balancing Statement ($69,591)
Total Change Orders (Net Decrease): ($3,118)
The completion of the ATMS Phase I project, along with the recent Freeway and Arterial Signal Synchronization Project, connected communication paths to 51 signalized intersections across the City. The ability to communicate with traffic signals and CCTV cameras remotely makes it possible for staff to monitor, retime, and coordinate traffic signals without the need to drive to each location, saving staff time and resources. A 10-gigabit fiber optic ring has also been completed to provide redundancy and reliability to the new network and creates a framework for future expansion. With the work completed by Iteris to retime and coordinate the traffic signals along Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard, the public has experienced significant reductions in travel time, total delay, and the number of stops during key times of the day.

Finally, at the end of the one-year maintenance period, if the improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship, the City Clerk will release the Maintenance Bond upon approval by the City Engineer.

9 4
2 FISCAL IMPACT:

A total of $1,368,120 was budgeted in Fiscal Year 2019/20 from the Transportation Fund (Fund 124) in Account No. 11243035650/1982124-0 for this project.

The final project construction cost is $1,250,667 as shown below:
e final project c
A total of $117,453 remains in the budget for this project and will be returned to the Transportation Fund (Fund 124) fund balances to be used for future capital improvement projects.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

The construction of ATMS Phase I provides the infrastructure necessary to address the City Council's goal of reducing delays for north/south traffic flow on the Haven Avenue corridor.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map
Expenditure Amount
Final Construction Contract $1,166,627
Construction Inspection Services $84,040
Total Project Cost $1,250,667

ATTACHMENT 1

ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM (ATMS) PHASE 1 PROJECT

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

Project Site

DATE: May 18, 2022

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Board of Directors

FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager

INITIATED BY: Noah Daniels, Finance Director

SUBJECT: Consideration of Resolutions Approving the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) and Allocating a Portion of the City's and Fire District's Incremental Property Tax R evenue for the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) and Author izing Other Actions Related Thereto . (RESOLUTION NOS. 2022 -050 AND FD2022-011) (CITY/FIRE)

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-050, approving the IFP and allocating a portion of the City's incremental property tax revenue for the EIFD and authorizing other actions related thereto.

It is recommended that the Fire District Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. FD2022- 011, approving the IFP and allocating a portion of the Fire District's incremental property tax revenue for the EIFD and authorizing other actions related thereto.

BACKGROUND:

On February 16, 2022, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (ROI) to initiate the establishment of the EIFD and establish the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority (PFA) as the governing body . Additionally, on the same date, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Board of Directors adopted a Resolution to Participate in the EIFD and have membership in the PFA.

Subsequently, on March 8, 2022, the PFA ordered the preparation of the IFP as required by California Government Code Section regarding Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (Government Code Section 53398.50-53398.88). The IFP is the legal document describing the EIFD, and it is to be adopted by the City Council, Fire Protection Board, and PFA to guide the use of incremental tax revenues over the life of the EIFD. Public notices were mailed, information was posted on a dedicated website, and notices were also published in the newspaper , as required by law, to inform property owners and residents.

On April 5, 2022, the PFA received a presentation of the IFP, taking no action at that time.

Following that public meeting, the PFA must hold three public hearings before considering the approval of the IFP. The first public hearing was scheduled for and held on May 10, 2022, and a notice for the public hearing was published for four consecutive weeks beginning on

April 11, 2022. As of this writing, n o written or oral comments have been provided by the public or affected taxing entities on the IFP or EIFD.

On May 10, 2022, the PFA received a revised IFP with certain modifications made by staff .

Additionally, there were minor administrative edits.

ANALYSIS:

The current IFP is included in the Resolutions as Exhibit A. It contains all items required by the California Government Code Section regarding Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts . A summary of the key requirements contained in the IFP is provided below.

Map and Legal Description: The proposed EIFD consists of approximately 1,500 acres of largely undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels. The parcels are not a contiguous boundary and were selected to capture the growth in assessed value from expected future development. This strategy supports the ability of the EIFD to finance public facilities by optimizing the potential for incremental tax growth after forming the EIFD.

Public Facilities and Development Proposed to be Financed: The public capital facilities proposed to be financed through the EIFD include:

1. Parking infrastructure and related improvements between Haven Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard along Foothill Boulevard; and

2. Transportation connectivity improvements linking Cucamonga Station and the area of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route.

The improvements are of communitywide significance and benefit the area of the proposed EIFD and the surrounding community. A list of the public improvements and development that the EIFD may finance is provided in the IFP for reference.

Use of Incremental Tax Revenue: The EIFD will use incremental property tax revenue to finance public facilities, maintenance and operations of those public facilities, and administration of the EIFD. The maximum incremental tax revenue the City and Fire District could allocate is $500 million. Based on the projected growth of assessed value, the incremental tax revenue that the City and Fire District will allocate over the lifetime of the EIFD is approximately $256 million, which is adequate to fulfill estimated debt service and other obligations related to the development of identified projects. Although the limit establishes the maximum allocation possibl e, the IFP will not allocate more tax revenue to the EIFD than is required to finance the cost of public facilities and other improvements and pay for administration.

Necessity and Goals of the EIFD: The formation of the EIFD is necessary to finance th e construction of public facilities that serve the EIFD boundary and surrounding community while providing significant communitywide benefits. These public facilities will catalyze significant private sector investment and development to support the City 's General Plan, facilitate implementation of regional connectivity through various modes of transportation, and provide the infrastructure foundation for the development of critically needed housing in the community and greater region.

Economic and Fiscal Impacts: Establishing the EIFD is a necessary step towards the successful development of the public facilities and other projects of communitywide significance, which will generate significant economic benefits to the City and Fire District. A Fiscal Impact Analysis (Analysis) prepared by Kosmont Companies in March 2022 estimates that the EIFD would add approximately $146 million and $57 million of assessed value on a present value basis for the

City and Fire District. In nominal dollars, this is $363 million and $175 million for the City and Fire District over the lifetime of the EIFD.

The Analysis estimates the net fiscal impacts for the City and Fire District to provide facilities and services to the EIFD boundary and the taxes, fees, and other revenues expected to be received due to expected development. Based on the Analysis, in Year 20 of the EIFD, the EIFD area will generate an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $5.3 million for the City and approximately $1.2 million for the Fire District.

Additionally, the Analysis highlights the wide- ranging job opportunities generated by the EIFD, including 10,015 direct, indirect, and induced job creation in the City and County.

Allocation of Incremental Property Tax Revenue: As part of adopting Resolutions to approve the IFP, the City Council and Fire Board are also taking action to commit a portion of their future property tax increment growth to the EIFD. Table 3 in the IFP provides an overview of the projected growth of assessed value, property tax increment, and City and Fire District allocations over the District's lifetime. Respectively, the maximum portion of the City’s and Fire District’s property tax increment is 100% and 80% for initial years , decreasing in a gradual manner to approximately 9% and 5% until the EIFD’s termination. Based on financial projections, i t is expected that a total of approximately $255,688,000 of incremental tax revenues will be allocated to the EIFD over its lifetime, consisting of approximately $97,757,000 from the City and approximately $157,931,000 from the Fire District.

These projections are based on research and analysis of available data at the time of IFP preparation. As such, a ctual results may differ, and the PFA may increase or decrease those allocations during the annual review of the IFP. The $255,688,000 is estimated to fulfill the estimated debt service and other obligations anticipated for the EIFD.

Next Steps:

The PFA must hold two more public hearings before the approval of the final IFP . These public meetings and hearings are scheduled to occur in June and July. The PFA may adopt the IFP at the third public hearing to form the EIFD.

A summary of the key actions for establishing the EIFD, as well as estimated dates of completion, is as follows:

Task Target Date Notes
PFA holds Public Hearing #2 June 14, 2022 Additional comments taken; PFA takes action to approve, modify, or
reject IFP
PFA holds Public Hearing #3 and
protest proceeding
July 19, 2022 If majority protest exists – takes action to terminate EIFD. If no majority
protest, PFA can propose adoption of
the IFP and form the EIFD
Staff files EIFD with BOE per guidelines
for Change of Jurisdictional Boundaries
Late 2022

In the event of a majority protest by property owners or residents within the boundaries, the formation proceedings would be discontinued.

CEQA REVIEW:

The City Council's and Fire Protection Board's adoption of the Resolution Nos. 2022- 050 and FD2022-011 are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") as actions solely related to the administrative or organizational activities of the City and creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities. Therefore, these actions do not constitute a "project" pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4) and 15378(b)(5). This action could result in a physical change in the environment because the City has not committed itself to any specific project(s) that the EIFD could fund. As a separate and independent ground, these actions are exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that they will have a significant effect on the environment. However, future actions (such as the approval of infrastructure improvements using funding from the EIFD) will be subject to environmental review in accordance with CEQA. For the same reasons, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Board's decision to approve the IFP is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4), 15378(b)(5), and 15061(b)(3).

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact from the adoption of the IFP. If the PFA establishes the EIFD in July 2022 , the EIFD would create the opportunity to use incremental tax revenue to finance infrastructure investments in the City. If the EIFD is formed, future budget actions will be required to budget the allocation of incremental tax revenues to the EIFD.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

The establishment of an EIFD is in keeping with the Council's core values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future, and providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – City Council Resolution No. 2022-050
Attachment 2 – Fire Board Resolution No. FD2022-011

11232-0001\2659908v1.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-050

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INFRASTRUCTURE

FINANCING PLAN FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENHANCED

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT AND THE ALLOCATION OF THE CITY’S INCREMENT AL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE WITHIN THE RANCHO

CUCAMONGA ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 53398.68 AND 53398.75 WHE
REAS, the California Legislature enacted California Government Code sections 53398.50 through 53398.88 ( “EIFD Law ”) authorizing cities and counties to form enhanced infrastructure financing districts within defined areas and use incremental property tax revenue generated from the growth in property taxes collected from within such districts to finance certain infrastructure and community benefit projects; and
WHE
REAS, in enacting the EIFD Law, the California Legislature found and determined that with the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, public benefits will accrue if local agencies are provided a means to finance certain public infrastructure and community benefit projects authorized under the EIFD Law; and
WHE
REAS, on February 16, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City Council”) adopted Resolution No. 2022- 029 (“Resolution of Intention”), which initiated the process to establish the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“Rancho Cucamonga EIFD”) pursuant to EIFD Law; and
WHE
REAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the City Council found that the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD is necessary for the area within the boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD and the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) and declared that, pursuant to the EIFD Law, if approved by resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68, incremental property tax revenue from the City within the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD may be used to finance the activities described in the Resolution of Intention; and WHE
REAS, pursuant to the Resolution of Intention, the City Council established the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority (“PFA”) to serve as the governing board of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD; and
WH
EREAS, on March 8, 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.63, the PFA directed the Executive Director of the PFA to prepare a draft Infrastructure Financing Plan (“IFP”) for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, which IFP is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and is available for inspection at Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91730; and
ATTACHMENT 1

-2-
11232-0001\2659908v1.doc
W HEREAS , the IFP, among other things, includes a description of the public facilities to be financed by the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD and a financing section that includes, among other things, a specification of the maximum portion of the incremental tax revenue of the City and of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (“District”) proposed to be committed to the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD for each year during which the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD will receive incremental tax revenue, and a projection of the amount of tax revenues expected to be received by the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD in each year during which the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD will receive tax revenues, including an estimate of the amount of tax revenues attributable to the City and to the District for each year; and
W
HEREAS, on April 13, 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.63, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22-08, finding that the facilities to be financed pursuant to the IFP are consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan; and
W
HEREAS, on April 5, 2022, the PFA held a public meeting to present the IFP and on May 10, 2022, the PFA held a public hearing to consider oral and written com ments to the IFP; and
W
HEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt this Resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 53398.68 to approve the IFP, substantially in the form prepared by the Executive Director of the PFA, including the allocation of incremental tax revenue of the City in accordance with Government Code Section 53398.75 as set forth in the IFP; NO
W, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find, determine, conclude and resolve as follows:

S
ection 1. The facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct.

S
ection 2. The City Council hereby approves the IFP for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD substantially in the form presented to the City Council and attached hereto as “Exhibit A” , including, but not lim ited to, the specification of the maximum portion of the incremental tax revenue of the City to be committed to the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD for each year during which the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD will receive incremental tax revenue.

S
ection 3. The City Manager, or designee, are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions contemplated by this Resolution.

S
ection 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council and the City Clerk shall cause a copy thereof to be forwarded to the PFA.

S
ection 5. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

-3-
11232-0001\2659908v1.doc

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of MAY, 2022, by the following vote:

________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 18th day of May 2022.

ATTEST:
____________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

11232-0001\2659908v1.doc
Exhibit A
Infrastructure Financing Plan of the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENHANCED

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT

INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN

APRIL 2022

Prepared By:

Prepared For:

The City of Rancho Cucamonga

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

Table of Contents

S e c t i o n Page

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................. ............ 3

2.0 Description of the Proposed District ..................................................................................... 7

3.0 Description of Proposed Facilities and Development ........................................................... 8

4.0 Finding of Communitywide Significance ............................................................................ 12

5.0 Financing Section ............................................................................................................... 13

6.0 Removal of Dwelling Units and Replacement Housing Plan .............................................. 18

7.0 Goals of the District ..................................................................................................... ....... 19

8.0 Appendices ................................................................................................................ ........ 20

Index of Appendices
Appendix A: Map of Boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD (draft / placeholder) Appendix B: Legal Description of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD (draft / placeholder) Appendix C: Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis
Appendix D: Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix E: City General Plan Environmental Impact Report

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background & Purpose
Background. Pursuant to its Resolution No. 2022-029, which was adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on February 16, 2022 (the “Resolution of Intention”) and Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code (the “EIFD Law”), the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “City”) declared its intention to establish the Rancho Cucamonga Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“Rancho Cucamonga EIFD” or “District”).

Pursuant to the same Resolution No. 2022-029, which was adopted by the City Council on February 16, 2022, the City Council of the City established the “Rancho Cucamonga EIFD Public Financing Authority” (“PFA”) as the governing body of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD.

Pursuant to its Resolution No. FD 2022-003, which was adopted by the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District on February 16, 2022 and the EIFD Law, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (“Fire Distri ct”) declared its intention to participate in the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD and newly formed PFA.

At its inaugural meeting on March 8, 2022, the PFA directed its Executive Director, who is the City Manager of the City, to prepare an infrastructure financing plan (“IFP”) for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD.

Purpose of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD. The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD is intended to serve as a catalyst for private sector investment and critical public infrastructure with transformative potential for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD area and the City as a whole. The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD encompasses approximately 1,500 acres of land, representing approximately 6.0% of the total approximately 25,677 acres in the City limits. The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD includes various non-contiguous, largely undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels with significant potential for new development and/or rehabilitation. These areas were chosen based on their capacity to benefit from catalytic infrastructure improvements with communitywide significance and regional benefit.

1.2 Contents and Overview of this Infrastructure Financing Plan (“IFP”) Pursuant to Government Code Sections 53398.59 through 53398.74, this IFP includes the following information:
a) A map and legal description of the District, included herein as Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

b) A description of the public facilities and other forms of development or financial assistance that is proposed in the area of the District, including those to be provided by the private sector, those to be provided by governmental entities without assistance from the District, those public improvements and facilities to be financed with assistance from the proposed District, and those to be provided jointly. The description includes the proposed location, timing, and costs of the development and financial assistance. This information is included in Section 3 of this IFP.
c) A finding that the development and financial assistance are of communitywide significance and provide significant benefits to an area larger than the area of the District.

This information is included in Section 4 of this IFP.
d) A financing section (included in Section 5 of this IFP) , which contains all of the following information:
1) A specification of the maximum portion of the incremental tax revenue of the City and Fire District proposed to be committed to the District for each year during which the District will receive incremental tax revenue. The portion may change over time. Section 5.1 and Table 3 of this IFP details the maximum portion of the incremental property tax revenue of the City and Fire District proposed to be committed to the District throughout the duration of the District lifetime, which is projected to be forty-five (45) years
from the date on which the issuance of bonds
is approved by the PFA. In summary, the maximum portion of the City’s property tax increment is 100% for initial years following formation of the District, decreasing in a gradual manner to approximately 9% at District termination. The maximum portion of the Fire District’s property tax increment is 80% for initial years following formation of the District, decreasing in a gradual manner to approximately 5% at District termination. The proposed contribution scenario is intended to focus on funding debt service for bonds issued approximately four to six years following District formation, as well as maintenance of funded infrastructure improvements.
2) A projection of the amount of tax revenues expected to be received by the District in each year during which the District will receive tax revenues. Section 5.2 and Table 3 of this IFP includes a projection of tax revenues to be received by the District by year over the course of the District’s lifetime, as described in the previous paragraph. These projections are based on research and analysis of available data at the time of IFP preparation for purposes of illustration. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this document. Appendix C provides additional detail for the projected revenue analysis. See paragraph 5 below for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD termination date.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

3) A plan for financing the public facilities to be assisted by the District, including a detailed description of any intention to incur debt. Section 5.4 of this IFP includes a plan for financing the public facilities to be assisted by the District. The PFA intends to incur debt only when it is financially prudent to do so. It is estimated at this time that the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD will provide funding for approximately $100 million (in present value dollars) of public improvement costs from a combination of tax increment bond or loan proceeds (multiple issuances may be necessary) and pay-as-you-go tax increment funding over the District lifetime.

4) A limit on the total number of dollars of taxes that may be allocated to the District pursuant to the plan. The total number of dollars of taxes that may be allocated to the District shall not exceed $500,000,000 in nominal dollars. 5) A date on which the District will cease to exist, by which time all tax allocation to the district will end. The date shall not be more than 45 years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 53398.81, or the issuance of a loan is approved by the governing board of a local agency pursuant to Section 53398.87. The District will cease to exist on the earlier of: (i) forty-five (45) years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved by the PFA, or (ii) June 30, 2072. This IFP assumes that the District will be formed in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and will begin receiving tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.
6) An analysis of the costs to the City of providing facilities and services to the area of the District while the area is being developed and after the area is developed.

The plan shall also include an analysis of the tax, fee, charge, and other revenues expected to be received by the City as a result of expected development in the area of the District. Appendix D to this IFP includes, as part of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, an analysis of the costs to the City for providing facilities and services to the area of the District. Appendix D also includes an analysis of the tax, fee, charge, and other revenues expected to be received by the City as a result of expected development in the area of the District. It is estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime (assumed stabilized buildout of the District area), annual costs to the City will be approximately $20.2 million and annual revenues are approximately $25.5 million. Additionally, annual costs to the Fire District at Year 20 are estimated at $4.6 million and annual revenues are approximately $5.8 million.
7) An analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the District and the associated development upon the City and the Fire District. Appendix D to this IFP includes an analysis of the projected fiscal impac t of the District and the associated development upon the City and the Fire District, as the only affected taxing entities that are contributing tax increment revenues to the District at this time. It is

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime, the District area will generate an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $5.3 million to the City and an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.2 million to the Fire District. 8) A plan for financing any potential costs that may be incurred by reimbursing a developer of a project that is both located entirely within the boundaries of that District and qualifies for the Transit Priority Project Program, pursuant to Section 65470, including any permit and affordable housing expenses related to the project. At this time, the PFA does not intend to finance any potential costs that may be incurred by reimbursing a developer of a project that is both located entirely within the boundaries of the District and qualifies for the Transit Priority Project Program, pursuant to Section 65470.
e) If any dwelling units within the territory of the District are proposed to be removed or destroyed in the course of public works construction within the area of the district or private development within the area of the district that is subject to a written agreement with the District or that is financed in whole or in part by the District, a plan providing for replacement of those units and relocation of those persons or families consistent with the requirements of Section 53398.56. The PFA does not anticipate that any housing units will be removed as a result of any project identified in this IFP. However, if any relocation of dwelling units is deemed to be required in the future for a project financed by the District, the PFA will comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 53398.56.
f) The goals the District proposes to achieve for each project financed pursuant to Section 53398.52. Section 7 of this IFP summarizes the goals of each project to be financed by the District.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

2.0 Description of the Proposed District

The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD encompasses approx imately 1,500 acres of land, representing approximately 6.0% of the total approximately 25,677 acres within the City limits. The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD includes various non-contiguous, largely undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels with significant potential for new development and/or rehabilitation. These areas were chosen based on their capacity to benefit from ca talytic infrastructure improvements with communitywide significance and regional benefit.

Land use designations in the District primarily include residential, commercial / hotel / retail / office, industrial, and several public use parcels. Appendix A includes a map of the proposed District, and Appendix B is a legal description of the District.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

3.0 Description of Proposed Facilities
and Development

3.1 Anticipated Future Private Development
Anticipated future private development within the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD is summarized in Table 1 below, with greater detail provided in Appendix C. Buildout and absorption of these land uses are forecasted in the first 20 years of the District lifetime.

Table 1: Anticipated Future Private Development
Development Type SF / Units AV Per SF / Unit
Estimated AV at
Buildout
(2022 Nominal
Value)
For-sale Residential 1,514 units $618,074 per unit $936 million Rental Residential 10,253 units $317,440 per unit $3.255 billion Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF $274 PSF $253 million
Office 222,000 SF $211 PSF $47 million
Industrial 6,272,400 SF $172 PSF $1.079 billion
Hotel 171 rooms $162,000 per room $28 million
Estimated Total

$5.597 billion
Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning and Economic Development Staff, CoStar Property (2022)

3.2 Public Facilities to be Financed with Assistance from the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD The EIFD Law authorizes the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD to finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of 15 years or longer, if they are of communitywide significance and provide significant benefits to the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD or the surrounding community.

The PFA intends to utilize the District to fund infrastructure projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the region over the District lifetime. Table 2 identifies the targeted infrastructure improvements to receive EIFD funding over the District’s lifetime.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

Table 2: Potential Priority Projects for Receipt of EIFD Funding # PROJECT ESTIMATED
COST

ESTIMATED
TIMING
1 Parking infrastructure and related improvements
between Haven Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard
along Foothill Corridor
$20-40 million 2028-2032
2 Transportation Connectivity Improvements linking
Cucamonga Station and Haven / Arrow focus area $40-60 million 2028-2032 Estimated Total Priority Projects $60-100 million

Additional expenditures by the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, including any use of potential future EIFD bond proceeds, will be subject to approval by the PFA. Eligible expenditures in accordance with Government Code sections 53398.52 and 53398.56 include the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of 15 years or longer and are projects of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits to the district or the surrounding community. The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD may also finance the ongoing or capitalized costs to maintain public capital facilities financed in whole or in part by the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD. Facilities funded may be located outside the boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, as long as they have a tangible connection to the work of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD. The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD will also finance planning and design activities that are directly related to the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of these projects. Projects financed by the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD may include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
 Highways, interchanges, and ramps;
 Bridges;
 Arterial streets;
 Parking facilities;
 Transit facilities;
 Parks, recreational facilities, and open space;
 Sewage treatment and water reclamation plants and interceptor pipes;  Facilities for the collection and treatment of water for urban uses;  Facilities for the transfer and disposal of solid waste, including transfer stations and vehicles;
 Storm water conveyance and collection facilities;
 Flood control levees and dams, retention basins, and drainage channels;  Child care facilities;
 Libraries;
 Broadband and telecommunications infrastructure;
 Sidewalks and streetscape improvements;
 Bicycle lanes and paths;
 Public art;

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

 Corporation yards;
 Police facilities;
 Brownfield restoration and other environmental mitigation;  Affordable housing as authorized under the EIFD Law;
 Projects that implement a sustainable communities strategy and transit priority projects;  Acquisition, construction, or repair of industrial structures for private use;  Acquisition, construction, or repair of commercial structures by the small business occupant of such structures, if such acquisition, construction, or repair is for purposes of fostering economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and of ensuring the long-term economic sustainability of small businesses;
 Projects that enable communities to adapt to the impacts of climate change, including, but not limited to, higher average temperatures, decreased air and water quality, the spread of infectious and vector-borne diseases, other public health impacts, extreme weather events, sea level rise, flooding, heat waves, wildfires, and drought;  Facilities in which nonprofit community organizations provide health, youth, homeless, and social services.

Other Expenses: In addition to the direct costs of the above facilities, the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD may finance the costs of planning and design work that is directly related to the purchase, construction, expansion or rehabilitation of property, including, but not limited to, the cost of environmental evaluation and engineering and surveying costs; environmental remediation costs; construction staking costs; utility relocation and demolition costs incidental to the construction of the facilities; costs of legal services; and costs of project/construction management.

In addition, the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD may finance any other expenses incidental to the formation, administration
1 and implementation of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD and to the construction, completion, inspection and acquisition of the authorized facilities, including, but not limited to, the costs of creation and administration of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD; costs of issuance of bonds or other debt of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD or of any other public agency (including a community facilities district) that finances authorized facilities, and payment of debt service thereon; financing costs of improvements incurred by developers until reimbursement for the costs of the improvements from the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD; costs incurred by the City,

1 Administration costs refer to the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing annual tax increment revenues and preparing the required annual reporting; the costs of allocation tax increment revenues (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs to the City, Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, or any designee thereof in complying with disclosure requirements; the costs associated with preparing required disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD; and the costs of the City, Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, or any designee thereof related to any appeal of the implementation of the Ranc ho Cucamonga EIFD. Administration costs shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees or any other expenses incidental to the implementation of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

Fire District, or the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD in connection with the division of taxes pursuant to Government Code section 53398.75; and legal costs.

Targeted improvements would conform to established guidelines in adopted planning documentation, such as the City General Plan.

The PFA intends to continue to identify, evaluate, and pursue additional funding sources and financing mechanisms aside from District tax increment to implement the improvements identified above, potentially including grant sources, complementary district formation (e.g., Mello-Roos Community Facilities District), impact fees, private sector investment incentivized by the formation of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD itself, and/or other sources.

Private sector developers will be responsible for funding project-specific / fair-share / in-tract infrastructure. Some public facilities included in the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD area are anticipated to be provided by governmental entities without assistance from the District. There are no public facilities anticipated to be provided jointly by the private sector and governmental entities; however, it is possible that private sector developers may advance funding for improvements, and those advances may be partially reimbursed with EIFD proceeds. Such case- specific agreements would come before the PFA for approval at the appropriate time.

In accordance with Government Code Section 53398.69, the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD may expend up to 10 percent of any accrued tax increment in the first two years of the effective date of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD on planning and dissemination of information to the residents within the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD boundaries about the IFP and planned activities to be funded by the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, including reimbursement of the City’s advanced funding of such eligible costs.

In addition, in accordance with Government Code Section 53398.76, costs incurred by the County of San Bernardino in connection with the division of taxes for the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD are eligible to be paid by the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

4.0 Finding of Communitywide
Significance

Implementation of the District promotes the goals of and is consistent with the City’s General Plan, facilitates implementation of regional connectivity through various modes of transportation, and provides the infrastructure foundation for the development of critically needed housing in the community and greater region.

The District supports job creation, housing production, improvement of quality of life, and promotion of environmental sustainability.

Specific communitywide and regional benefits anticipated to be generated by the District include:
 Approx. $146 million in net fiscal impact to the City over 50 years (on a present-value basis)
 Approx. $57 million in net fiscal impact to the Fire District over 50 years (on a present- value basis)
 Approx. 11,767 housing units within the District upon buildout and stabilization  69,452 direct, indirect, and induced temporary, construction-related job-years 2 in the City
and County
 7,440 direct, permanent jobs in the City upon buildout and stabilization  2,575 additional indirect and induced permanent jobs in the City and County (total of 10,015 direct, indirect, and induced jobs) upon buildout and stabilization  $8.115 billion in economic output from construction in the City and County  $1.136 billion in annual ongoing economic output in the City and County upon buildout and stabilization.

2 A job-year is defined as one year of employment for one employee. Over a 20-year construction period, 69,452 job-years translates into approximately 3,473 annual average jobs.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

5.0 Financing Section

Projections included in this IFP are based on research and analysis of available data at the time of IFP for purposes of planning and illustration. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this document.

Aside from the City and Fire District, no other taxing entity is allocating property tax increment to the District at this time. It is anticipated that property tax increment will be utilized on both a “pay- as-you-go” basis as well as security for tax increment bond issuance or loan acquisition.

Definition of Tax Increment. For purposes of clarity, the phrases “tax increment,” “incremental property tax” and “incremental tax revenue”, as used in this IFP and the EIFD Law, refer to the portion of future property tax revenue described in Section 53398.75(a)(2) of the EIFD Law, i.e., the difference between (A) and (B) in the following formula:

(A) the taxes that would be produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year during the term of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD upon the total sum of the assessed value of the taxable property in the EIFD in each such year minus

(B) the taxes that would be produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied upon the total sum of the assessed value of the taxable property in the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD as shown upon the last equalized roll prior to the effective date of the resolution adopted pursuant to Section 53398.69 of the EIFD Law to create the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD.

In the case of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD, the resolution adopted pursuant to Section 53398.69 was [is expected to be] adopted on July 19, 2022, and the last equalized roll prior to the effective date of that resolution is the roll for Fiscal Year 2021-2022. Fiscal Year 2021-22 is referred to as the “base year.” The assessed value of the taxable property shown in such last equalized roll is approximately $729 million. This value is referred to as the “base year value”.

Overlap with Boundaries of former Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency. The Rancho Cucamonga EIFD includes overlap with former Redevelopment Project Area boundaries of the former Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and so property tax revenues generated by the properties within the overlapping area will flow according to the Redevelopment Agency dissolution statutes until all of the Successor Agency’s obligations are retired and the Successor Agency is dissolved (currently anticipated by 2034). The City and Fire District anticipate allocating Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”) residual revenues to the District as part of the maximum allocations outlined in the following sections. As such, the exhibits included in this plan reflect such allocations.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

Where the District boundaries overlap with the boundaries of the former Redevelopment Project Area, any debt or obligation of a District shall be subordinate to any and all enforceable obligations of the former Redevelopment Agency, as approved by the Oversight Board and the Department of Finance.

5.1 Maximum Portion of Incremental Tax Revenue Dedicated to the District Table 3 details the maximum portion of the incremental property tax revenue of the City and Fire District proposed to be committed to the District throughout the duration of the District lifetime. In summary, the maximum portion of the City’s property tax increment is 100% for initial years following formation of the District, decreasing in a gradual manner to approximately 9% at District termination. The maximum portion of the Fire District’s property tax increment is 80% for initial years following formation of the District, decreasing in a gradual manner to approximately 5% at District termination. The proposed contribution scenario is intended to focus on funding debt service for bonds issued approximately four to six years following District formation, as well as maintenance of funded infrastructure improvements.

5.2 Projection of District Tax Revenues by Year
Table 3 provides an overview of the projected growth of assessed value, property tax increment, and City and Fire District allocations to the District over the District lifetime. It is expected that a total of approximately $255,688,000 of incremental tax revenues will be allocated to the District over the District lifetime (approximately $97,757,000 from the City and approximately $157,931,000 from the Fire District). These projections are based on research and analysis of available data at the time of IFP preparation for purposes of illustration. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this document. Appendix C provides additional detail for the projected revenue analysis.

5.3 Plan for Financing Public Facilities
The PFA intends to utilize numerous funding so urces and financing mechanisms to implement the improvements identified in Section 3.2, potentially including District tax increment, grant sources, complementary district formation (e.g ., Community Facilities District), impact fees, private sector investment incentivized by the formation of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD itself, and/or other sources.

As it pertains to the use of District tax increment, the PFA intends to incur debt only when it is financially prudent to do so. It is estimated at this time that the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD will provide funding for approximately $100 million (in present value dollars) of public improvement costs from a combination of tax increment bond or loan proceeds (multiple issuances may be necessary) and pay-as-you-go tax increment funding over the District lifetime

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

5.4 Limit on Total Dollars Allocated to the District
The total number of dollars of taxes that may be allocated to the District shall not exceed $500,000,000 in nominal dollars over the District lifetime.

The City hereby irrevocably allocates all of the City’s share of tax increment as characterized herein to the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD to the extent that: (i) the City’s share of increment is necessary to repay bonds, notes or related agreements or to meet contractual obligations that the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD is obligated to satisfy with Rancho Cucamonga EIFD tax increment, and (ii) prior to the PFA incurring an obligation under subsection (i), such bonds, notes, agreements or obligations shall be approved by the City Council.

5.5 District Termination Date
The District will cease to exist the earlier of: (i) forty five (45) years from the date on which the issuance of bonds is approved by the PFA, or (ii) June 30, 2072. This IFP assumes that the District will be formed in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 and will begin receiving tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2022- 2023.

5.6 Analysis of Costs to Provide Facilities and Services Appendix D to this IFP includes, as part of the Fiscal Impact Analysis, an analysis of the costs to the City for providing facilities and services to the area of the District while the area is being developed and after the area is developed. It is estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime (assumed stabilized buildout of District area), annual costs to the City will be approximately $20.2 million to service the area of the District. Additionally, annual costs to the Fire District at Year 20 are estimated at $4.6 million.

5.7 Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix D to this IFP includes an analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the District and the associated development upon the City and the Fire District, as the only affected taxing entities that are allocating tax increment revenues to the District. Table 4 presents an overview of fiscal impacts to the City and Fire District. It is estimated that, at Year 20 of the District lifetime, the District area will generate an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $5.3 million to the City and an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.2 million to the Fire District. Over 50 years, it is estimated that District activity will generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $146 million for the City and approximately $57 million for the Fire District on a present-value basis.

This is in addition to the Community economic benefits outlined in Section 4 of this IFP (e.g., housing, jobs, mobility and connectivity, quality of life, environmental sustainability).

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

Table 3: Projection of District Revenues by Year

Incremental
Assessed Value
Property  Tax
Increment @
1% General
Levy
Average City
Share
Available
City
Increment
Available
Portion  of
City Share
Allocated
City
Increment
Allocated
Average Fire
District Share
Available
Fire District
Increment
Available
Portion  of
Fire Share
Allocated
Fire
Increment
Allocated
Total Taxes
Allocated  to
EIFD
0 2021 / 2022 $0 $0 5.20% $0 100% $0 12.4% $0 80% $0 $0 1 2022 / 2023 $79,994,178 $799,942 5.20% $41,565 100% $41,565 12.4% $98,820 80% $79,056 $120,622 2 2023 / 2024 $1,460,958,382 $14,609,584 5.20% $759,118 100% $759,118 12.4% $1,804,788 80% $1,443,830 $2,202,948 3 2024 / 2025 $2,629,495,495 $26,294,955 5.20% $1,366,293 100% $1,366,293 12.4% $3,248,334 80% $2,598,667 $3,964,961 4 2025 / 2026 $3,843,897,932 $38,438,979 5.20% $1,997,300 100% $1,997,300 12.4% $4,748,540 80% $3,798,832 $5,796,133 5 20
26 / 2027 $5,123,419,002 $51,234,190 5.20% $2,662,143 100% $2,662,143 12.4% $6,329,190 80% $5,063,352 $7,725,495 6 2027 / 2028 $5,471,300,778 $54,713,008 5.20% $2,842,904 90% $2,558,613 12.4% $6,758,944 70% $4,731,261 $7,289,874 7 2028 / 2029 $5,830,756,681 $58,307,567 5.20% $3,029,678 90% $2,726,710 12.4% $7,202,996 70% $5,042,097 $7,768,808 8 2029 / 2030 $6,202,110,524 $62,021,105 5.20% $3,222,634 90% $2,900,371 12.4% $7,661,746 70% $5,363,222 $8,263,593 9 2030 / 2031 $6,585,694,440 $65,856,944 5.20% $3,421,946 90% $3,079,751 12.4% $8,135,605 70% $5,694,923 $8,774,675 10 2031 / 2032 $6,981,849,092 $69,818,491 5.20% $3,627,789 90% $3,265,010 12.4% $8,624,993 70% $6,037,495 $9,302,505 11 2032 / 2033 $7,136,074,915 $71,360,749 5.20% $3,707,925 80% $2,966,340 12.4% $8,815,515 60% $5,289,309 $8,255,649 12 2033 / 2034 $7,293,385,254 $72,933,853 5.20% $3,789,664 80% $3,031,731 12.4% $9,009,847 60% $5,405,908 $8,437,639 13 2034 / 2035 $7,453,841,799 $74,538,418 5.20% $3,873,038 80% $3,098,430 12.4% $9,208,066 60% $5,524,840 $8,623,270 14 2035 / 2036 $7,617,507,476 $76,175,075 5.20% $3,958,079 80% $3,166,463 12.4% $9,410,250 60% $5,646,150 $8,812,613 15 2036 / 2037 $7,784,446,466 $77,844,465 5.20% $4,044,821 80% $3,235,857 12.4% $9,616,477 60% $5,769,886 $9,005,743 16 2037 / 2038 $7,954,724,236 $79,547,242 5.20% $4,133,298 70% $2,893,308 12.4% $9,826,829 50% $4,913,414 $7,806,723 17 2038 / 2039 $8,128,407,561 $81,284,076 5.20% $4,223,544 70% $2,956,481 12.4% $10,041,388 50% $5,020,694 $7,977,175 18 2039 / 2040 $8,305,564,553 $83,055,646 5.20% $4,315,595 70% $3,020,917 12.4% $10,260,238 50% $5,130,119 $8,151,036 19 2040 / 2041 $8,486,264,685 $84,862,647 5.20% $4,409,488 70% $3,086,641 12.4% $10,483,465 50% $5,241,732 $8,328,374 20 2041 / 2042 $8,670,578,819 $86,705,788 5.20% $4,505,258 70% $3,153,680 12.4% $10,711,156 50% $5,355,578 $8,509,259 21 2042 / 2043 $8,858,579,236 $88,585,792 5.20% $4,602,943 60% $2,761,766 12.4% $10,943,402 40% $4,377,361 $7,139,127 22 2043 / 2044 $9,050,339,661 $90,503,397 5.20% $4,702,583 60% $2,821,550 12.4% $11,180,292 40% $4,472,117 $7,293,666 23 2044 / 2045 $9,245,935,295 $92,459,353 5.20% $4,804,215 60% $2,882,529 12.4% $11,421,920 40% $4,568,768 $7,451,297 24 2045 / 2046 $9,445,442,842 $94,454,428 5.20% $4,907,879 60% $2,944,728 12.4% $11,668,381 40% $4,667,352 $7,612,080 25 2046 / 2047 $9,648,940,539 $96,489,405 5.20% $5,013,617 60% $3,008,170 12.4% $11,919,771 40% $4,767,908 $7,776,079 26 2047 / 2048 $9,856,508,190 $98,565,082 5.20% $5,121,470 50% $2,560,735 12.4% $12,176,188 30% $3,652,856 $6,213,592 27 2048 / 2049 $10,068,227,195 $100,682,272 5.20% $5,231,480 50% $2,615,740 12.4% $12,437,734 30% $3,731,320 $6,347,060 28 2049 / 2050 $10,284,180,579 $102,841,806 5.20% $5,343,690 50% $2,671,845 12.4% $12,704,511 30% $3,811,353 $6,483,198 29 2050 / 2051 $10,504,453,032 $105,044,530 5.20% $5,458,144 50% $2,729,072 12.4% $12,976,624 30% $3,892,987 $6,622,059 30 2051 /
2052 $10,729,130,933 $107,291,309 5.20% $5,574,887 50% $2,787,444 12.4% $13,254,178 30% $3,976,254 $6,763,697 31 2052 / 2053 $10,958,302,392 $109,583,024 5.20% $5,693,965 40% $2,277,586 12.4% $13,537,284 20% $2,707,457 $4,985,043 32 2053 / 2054 $11,192,057,280 $111,920,573 5.20% $5,815,425 40% $2,326,170 12.4% $13,826,052 20% $2,765,210 $5,091,381 33 2054 / 2055 $11,430,487,267 $114,304,873 5.20% $5,939,314 40% $2,375,726 12.4% $14,120,596 20% $2,824,119 $5,199,845 34 2055 / 2056 $11,673,685,853 $116,736,859 5.20% $6,065,681 9% $545,911 12.4% $14,421,030 5% $721,051 $1,266,963 35 2056 / 2057 $11,921,748,410 $119,217,484 5.20% $6,194,575 9% $557,512 12.4% $14,727,473 5% $736,374 $1,293,885 36 2057 / 2058 $12,174,772,219 $121,747,722 5.20% $6,326,047 9% $569,344 12.4% $15,040,044 5% $752,002 $1,321,346 37 2058 / 2059 $12,432,856,504 $124,328,565 5.20% $6,460,148 9% $581,413 12.4% $15,358,867 5% $767,943 $1,349,357 38 2059 / 2060 $12,696,102,475 $126,961,025 5.20% $6,596,931 9% $593,724 12.4% $15,684,067 5% $784,203 $1,377,927 39 2060 / 2061 $12,964,613,365 $129,646,134 5.20% $6,736,450 9% $606,281 12.4% $16,015,771 5% $800,789 $1,407,069 40 2061 / 2062 $13,238,494,473 $132,384,945 5.20% $6,878,760 9% $619,088 12.4% $16,354,108 5% $817,705 $1,436,794 41 2062 / 2063 $13,517,853,203 $135,178,532 5.20% $7,023,915 9% $632,152 12.4% $16,699,213 5% $834,961 $1,467,113 42 2063 / 2064 $13,802,799,107 $138,027,991 5.20% $7,171,974 9% $645,478 12.4% $17,051,219 5% $852,561 $1,498,039 43 2064 / 2065 $14,093,443,930 $140,934,439 5.20% $7,322,994 9% $659,069 12.4% $17,410,266 5% $870,513 $1,529,583 44 2065 / 2066 $14,389,901,649 $143,899,016 5.20% $7,477,034 9% $672,933 12.4% $17,776,493 5% $888,825 $1,561,758 45 2066 / 2067 $14,692,288,523 $146,922,885 5.20% $7,634,155 9% $687,074 12.4% $18,150,045 5% $907,502 $1,594,576 46 2067 / 2068 $15,000,723,134 $150,007,231 5.20% $7,794,419 9% $701,498 12.4% $18,531,069 5% $926,553 $1,628,051 47 2068 / 2069 $15,315,326,437 $153,153,264 5.20% $7,957,888 9% $716,210 12.4% $18,919,712 5% $945,986 $1,662,196 48 2069 / 2070 $15,636,221,807 $156,362,218 5.20% $8,124,626 9% $731,216 12.4% $19,316,129 5% $965,806 $1,697,023 49 2070 / 2071 $15,963,535,083 $159,635,351 5.20% $8,294,699 9% $746,523 12.4% $19,720,474 5% $986,024 $1,732,547 50 2071 / 2072 $16,297,394,626 $162,973,946 5.20% $8,468,173 9% $762,136 12.4% $20,132,905 5% $1,006,645 $1,768,781 $4,901,246,175 $254,670,163 38% $97,757,347 $605,473,006 26% $157,930,876 $255,688,223 $2,127,176,505 $110,528,704 51% $55,963,836 $262,779,691 36% $93,907,319 $149,871,155 City Contribution Fire District Contribution
Fiscal Year
Total
Present Value @ 3%

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

Table 4: Overview of Fiscal Impacts to City and Fire District

5.8 Developer Reimbursement for Transit Priority Project The PFA does not intend to finance any potential costs that may be incurred by reimbursing a developer of a project that is both located entirely within the boundaries of the District and qualifies for the Transit Priority Project Program, pursuant to Section 65470. To the extent that a developer is willing to fund Transit Priority Project infrastructure expenditures beyond and in advance of said developer’s fair share (not contemplated at this time), the PFA may consider and evaluate such reimbursement at the appropriate time.

Annual
(Stablized
Year 20)
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Pres ent Value
@ 3.0%
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation of TI to EIFD) $25,486,770 $1,622,088,000 $651,158,500 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $20,218,100 $1,257,660,100 $505,229,600 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $5,268,670 $364,427,900 $145,928,900 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation of TI to EIFD) $5,795,350 $463,975,600 $172,055,900 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $4,613,300 $286,979,900 $115,294,800 Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to Fire District $1,182,050 $176,995,700 $56,761,100

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

6.0 Removal of Dwelling Units and
Replacement Housing Plan

The PFA does not anticipate that any housing units will be removed as a result of any public works construction within the area of the District or private development within the area of the District that is subject to a written agreement with the District or that is financed in whole or in part by the District. However, if any relocation of dwelling units is deemed to be required in the future for a project financed by the District, the PFA will comply with the requirements of Government Code Section 53398.56.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

7.0 Goals of the District

As stated in the Resolution of Intention, the goal of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD is to assist in the provision of public facilities of communitywide significance that provide significant benefits and promote economic development within the boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD or the surrounding community and, for those facilities located outside the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD boundaries which also have a tangible connection to the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD.

More specifically, the goals of the District’s implementation of the public facilities outlined in Section 3.2 are to support the City’s General Plan, facilitate implementation of regional connectivity through various modes of transportation, and to provide the infrastructure foundation for the development of critically-needed housing in the community and greater region. The District additionally aims to implement Statewide policy goals of housing supply and sustainable infrastructure investment.

Additional objectives include economic development in the form of fiscal revenue generation for the City and other taxing entities, job creation, housing production, improvement of quality of life, and promotion of environmental sustainability. The District will be utilized to address critical infrastructure funding needs, which are are critical to catalyze private sector investment and development.

Rancho Cucamonga EIFD
Proposed Infrastructure Financing Plan
April 2022

8.0 Appendices

Appendix A: Map of Boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD (draft / placeholder) Appendix B: Legal Description of the Rancho Cucamonga EIFD (draft / placeholder) Appendix C: Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis
Appendix D: Fiscal Impact Analysis
Appendix E: City General Plan Envionmental Impact Report

APPENDIX C: Rancho Cucamonta EIFD - Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis DRAFT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Total 2021-2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
New Development
Rental Residential 10,253 units 202 units 236 units 2,583 units 2,583 units 2,583 units 413 units 413 units $317,440 per unit $3,575,048,904 $65,405,338 $77,942,440 $870,022,578 $887,423,029 $905,171,490 $147,785,952 $150,741,671 For Sale Residential 1,514 units 832 units 67 units 67 units 67 units 96 units 96 units $618,074 per unit $1,017,912,094 $535,012,766 $44,164,275 $45,047,560 $45,948,512 $66,820,964 $68,157,384 Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF 22,000 SF 284,667 SF 284,667 SF 284,667 SF 9,200 SF 9,200 SF $274 PSF $274,362,823 $6,271,531 $82,772,809 $84,428,265 $86,116,831 $2,838,830 $2,895,607 Office 222,000 SF 22,000 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 SF
$211 PSF $54,292,954 $4,829,537 $9,504,811 $9,694,907
Hotel 171 units 71 units 100 units
$162,000 per unit $29,852,790 $11,966,681 $17,886,109
Industrial 6,272,408 SF 4,072,408 SF 700,000 SF 700,000 SF 700,000 SF 20,000 SF 20,000 SF $172 PSF $1,139,938,574 $728,752,525 $127,769,443 $130,324,832 $132,931,329 $3,873,999 $3,951,479 Subtotal Value Add $6,091,408,138 $65,405,338 $1,364,775,479 $1,124,729,105 $1,147,223,687 $1,188,054,270 $230,824,556 $235,441,047 Total Assessed Value $729,442,030 $809,436,208 $2,190,400,412 $3,358,937,525 $4,573,339,962 $5,852,861,032 $6,200,742,808 $6,560,198,711 Incremental AV $79,994,178 $1,460,958,382 $2,629,495,495 $3,843,897,932 $5,123,419,002 $5,471,300,778 $5,830,756,681 Total tax increment @ 1% $799,942 $14,609,584 $26,294,955 $38,438,979 $51,234,190 $54,713,008 $58,307,567 City Share Available 5.20% $254,670,163 $41,565 $759,118 $1,366,293 $1,997,300 $2,662,143 $2,842,904 $3,029,678 Percent Allocated to EIFD 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% Amount Allocated to EIFD $97,757,347 $41,565 $759,118 $1,366,293 $1,997,300 $2,662,143 $2,558,613 $2,726,710 Fire District Share Equivalent Available 12.35% $605,473,006 $98,820 $1,804,788 $3,248,334 $4,748,540 $6,329,190 $6,758,944 $7,202,996 Percent Allocated to EIFD 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 70% 70%
Amount Allocated to EIFD $157,930,876 $79,056 $1,443,830 $2,598,667 $3,798,832 $5,063,352 $4,731,261 $5,042,097 Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $255,688,223 $120,622 $2,202,948 $3,964,961 $5,796,133 $7,725,495 $7,289,874 $7,768,808 3/21/2022

APPENDIX C: Rancho Cucamonta EIFD - Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 10,253 units
$317,440 per unit $3,575,048,904
For Sale Residential 1,514 units
$618,074 per unit $1,017,912,094
Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF
$274 PSF $274,362,823
Office 222,000 SF
$211 PSF $54,292,954
Hotel 171 units
$162,000 per unit $29,852,790
Industrial 6,272,408 SF
$172 PSF $1,139,938,574
Subtotal Value Add $6,091,408,138
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Share Available 5.20% $254,670,163
Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $97,757,347
Fire District Share Equivalent Available 12.35% $605,473,006 Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $157,930,876
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $255,688,223
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
413 units 413 units 413 units
$153,756,504 $156,831,634 $159,968,267
96 units 96 units 96 units
$69,520,531 $70,910,942 $72,329,161
9,200 SF 9,200 SF 9,200 SF
$2,953,519 $3,012,589 $3,072,841
40,000 SF 40,000 SF 40,000 SF
$9,888,805 $10,086,581 $10,288,313
20,000 SF 20,000 SF 20,000 SF
$4,030,508 $4,111,118 $4,193,341
$240,149,868 $244,952,865 $249,851,923 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$6,931,552,554 $7,315,136,470 $7,711,291,122 $7,865,516,945 $8,022,827,284 $8,183,283,829 $8,346,949,506 $8,513,888,496 $6,202,110,524 $6,585,694,440 $6,981,849,092 $7,136,074,915 $7,293,385,254 $7,453,841,799 $7,617,507,476 $7,784,446,466 $62,021,105 $65,856,944 $69,818,491 $71,360,749 $72,933,853 $74,538,418 $76,175,075 $77,844,465 $3,222,634 $3,421,946 $3,627,789 $3,707,925 $3,789,664 $3,873,038 $3,958,079 $4,044,821 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80%
$2,900,371 $3,079,751 $3,265,010 $2,966,340 $3,031,731 $3,098,430 $3,166,463 $3,235,857 $7,661,746 $8,135,605 $8,624,993 $8,815,515 $9,009,847 $9,208,066 $9,410,250 $9,616,477 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60% 60% 60%
$5,363,222 $5,694,923 $6,037,495 $5,289,309 $5,405,908 $5,524,840 $5,646,150 $5,769,886 $8,263,593 $8,774,675 $9,302,505 $8,255,649 $8,437,639 $8,623,270 $8,812,613 $9,005,743 3/21/2022

APPENDIX C: Rancho Cucamonta EIFD - Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 10,253 units
$317,440 per unit $3,575,048,904
For Sale Residential 1,514 units
$618,074 per unit $1,017,912,094
Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF
$274 PSF $274,362,823
Office 222,000 SF
$211 PSF $54,292,954
Hotel 171 units
$162,000 per unit $29,852,790
Industrial 6,272,408 SF
$172 PSF $1,139,938,574
Subtotal Value Add $6,091,408,138
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Share Available 5.20% $254,670,163
Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $97,757,347
Fire District Share Equivalent Available 12.35% $605,473,006 Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $157,930,876
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $255,688,223
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$8,684,166,266 $8,857,849,591 $9,035,006,583 $9,215,706,715 $9,400,020,849 $9,588,021,266 $9,779,781,691 $9,975,377,325 $7,954,724,236 $8,128,407,561 $8,305,564,553 $8,486,264,685 $8,670,578,819 $8,858,579,236 $9,050,339,661 $9,245,935,295 $79,547,242 $81,284,076 $83,055,646 $84,862,647 $86,705,788 $88,585,792 $90,503,397 $92,459,353 $4,133,298 $4,223,544 $4,315,595 $4,409,488 $4,505,258 $4,602,943 $4,702,583 $4,804,215 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 60% 60% 60%
$2,893,308 $2,956,481 $3,020,917 $3,086,641 $3,153,680 $2,761,766 $2,821,550 $2,882,529 $9,826,829 $10,041,388 $10,260,238 $10,483,465 $10,711,156 $10,943,402 $11,180,292 $11,421,920 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 40%
$4,913,414 $5,020,694 $5,130,119 $5,241,732 $5,355,578 $4,377,361 $4,472,117 $4,568,768 $7,806,723 $7,977,175 $8,151,036 $8,328,374 $8,509,259 $7,139,127 $7,293,666 $7,451,297 3/21/2022

APPENDIX C: Rancho Cucamonta EIFD - Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 10,253 units
$317,440 per unit $3,575,048,904
For Sale Residential 1,514 units
$618,074 per unit $1,017,912,094
Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF
$274 PSF $274,362,823
Office 222,000 SF
$211 PSF $54,292,954
Hotel 171 units
$162,000 per unit $29,852,790
Industrial 6,272,408 SF
$172 PSF $1,139,938,574
Subtotal Value Add $6,091,408,138
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Share Available 5.20% $254,670,163
Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $97,757,347
Fire District Share Equivalent Available 12.35% $605,473,006 Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $157,930,876
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $255,688,223
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$10,174,884,872 $10,378,382,569 $10,585,950,220 $10,797,669,225 $11,013,622,609 $11,233,895,062 $11,458,572,963 $11,687,744,422 $9,445,442,842 $9,648,940,539 $9,856,508,190 $10,068,227,195 $10,284,180,579 $10,504,453,032 $10,729,130,933 $10,958,302,392 $94,454,428 $96,489,405 $98,565,082 $100,682,272 $102,841,806 $105,044,530 $107,291,309 $109,583,024 $4,907,879 $5,013,617 $5,121,470 $5,231,480 $5,343,690 $5,458,144 $5,574,887 $5,693,965 60% 60% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40%
$2,944,728 $3,008,170 $2,560,735 $2,615,740 $2,671,845 $2,729,072 $2,787,444 $2,277,586 $11,668,381 $11,919,771 $12,176,188 $12,437,734 $12,704,511 $12,976,624 $13,254,178 $13,537,284 40% 40% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 20%
$4,667,352 $4,767,908 $3,652,856 $3,731,320 $3,811,353 $3,892,987 $3,976,254 $2,707,457 $7,612,080 $7,776,079 $6,213,592 $6,347,060 $6,483,198 $6,622,059 $6,763,697 $4,985,043 3/21/2022

APPENDIX C: Rancho Cucamonta EIFD - Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 10,253 units
$317,440 per unit $3,575,048,904
For Sale Residential 1,514 units
$618,074 per unit $1,017,912,094
Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF
$274 PSF $274,362,823
Office 222,000 SF
$211 PSF $54,292,954
Hotel 171 units
$162,000 per unit $29,852,790
Industrial 6,272,408 SF
$172 PSF $1,139,938,574
Subtotal Value Add $6,091,408,138
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Share Available 5.20% $254,670,163
Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $97,757,347
Fire District Share Equivalent Available 12.35% $605,473,006 Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $157,930,876
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $255,688,223
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$11,921,499,310 $12,159,929,297 $12,403,127,883 $12,651,190,440 $12,904,214,249 $13,162,298,534 $13,425,544,505 $13,694,055,395 $11,192,057,280 $11,430,487,267 $11,673,685,853 $11,921,748,410 $12,174,772,219 $12,432,856,504 $12,696,102,475 $12,964,613,365 $111,920,573 $114,304,873 $116,736,859 $119,217,484 $121,747,722 $124,328,565 $126,961,025 $129,646,134 $5,815,425 $5,939,314 $6,065,681 $6,194,575 $6,326,047 $6,460,148 $6,596,931 $6,736,450 40% 40% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
$2,326,170 $2,375,726 $545,911 $557,512 $569,344 $581,413 $593,724 $606,281 $13,826,052 $14,120,596 $14,421,030 $14,727,473 $15,040,044 $15,358,867 $15,684,067 $16,015,771 20% 20% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
$2,765,210 $2,824,119 $721,051 $736,374 $752,002 $767,943 $784,203 $800,789 $5,091,381 $5,199,845 $1,266,963 $1,293,885 $1,321,346 $1,349,357 $1,377,927 $1,407,069 3/21/2022

APPENDIX C: Rancho Cucamonta EIFD - Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 10,253 units
$317,440 per unit $3,575,048,904
For Sale Residential 1,514 units
$618,074 per unit $1,017,912,094
Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF
$274 PSF $274,362,823
Office 222,000 SF
$211 PSF $54,292,954
Hotel 171 units
$162,000 per unit $29,852,790
Industrial 6,272,408 SF
$172 PSF $1,139,938,574
Subtotal Value Add $6,091,408,138
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Share Available 5.20% $254,670,163
Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $97,757,347
Fire District Share Equivalent Available 12.35% $605,473,006 Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $157,930,876
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $255,688,223
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$13,967,936,503 $14,247,295,233 $14,532,241,137 $14,822,885,960 $15,119,343,679 $15,421,730,553 $15,730,165,164 $16,044,768,467 $13,238,494,473 $13,517,853,203 $13,802,799,107 $14,093,443,930 $14,389,901,649 $14,692,288,523 $15,000,723,134 $15,315,326,437 $132,384,945 $135,178,532 $138,027,991 $140,934,439 $143,899,016 $146,922,885 $150,007,231 $153,153,264 $6,878,760 $7,023,915 $7,171,974 $7,322,994 $7,477,034 $7,634,155 $7,794,419 $7,957,888 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
$619,088 $632,152 $645,478 $659,069 $672,933 $687,074 $701,498 $716,210 $16,354,108 $16,699,213 $17,051,219 $17,410,266 $17,776,493 $18,150,045 $18,531,069 $18,919,712 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
$817,705 $834,961 $852,561 $870,513 $888,825 $907,502 $926,553 $945,986 $1,436,794 $1,467,113 $1,498,039 $1,529,583 $1,561,758 $1,594,576 $1,628,051 $1,662,196 3/21/2022

APPENDIX C: Rancho Cucamonta EIFD - Projected Tax Increment Revenue Analysis DRAFT Total
New Development
Rental Residential 10,253 units
$317,440 per unit $3,575,048,904
For Sale Residential 1,514 units
$618,074 per unit $1,017,912,094
Commercial / Retail 922,000 SF
$274 PSF $274,362,823
Office 222,000 SF
$211 PSF $54,292,954
Hotel 171 units
$162,000 per unit $29,852,790
Industrial 6,272,408 SF
$172 PSF $1,139,938,574
Subtotal Value Add $6,091,408,138
Total Assessed Value
Incremental AV
Total tax increment @ 1%
City Share Available 5.20% $254,670,163
Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $97,757,347
Fire District Share Equivalent Available 12.35% $605,473,006 Percent Allocated to EIFD
Amount Allocated to EIFD $157,930,876
Total Revenues Allocated to EIFD $255,688,223
48 49 50
2070 2071 2072
$0 $0 $0
$16,365,663,837 $16,692,977,113 $17,026,836,656
$15,636,221,807 $15,963,535,083 $16,297,394,626
$156,362,218 $159,635,351 $162,973,946
$8,124,626 $8,294,699 $8,468,173
9% 9% 9%
$731,216 $746,523 $762,136
$19,316,129 $19,720,474 $20,132,905
5% 5% 5%
$965,806 $986,024 $1,006,645
$1,697,023 $1,732,547 $1,768,781
3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Overview of Fiscal Impacts Key Land Use Assumptions (Stabilized Year 25) Annual
(Stablized
Year 20)
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value
@ 3.0%
City of Rancho Cucamonga For-Sale Residential 1,514 DU
Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation of TI to EIFD) $25,486,770 $1,620,569,600 $650,817,300 Rental Residential 10,253 DU Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $20,218,100 $1,257,660,100 $505,229,600 Comm ercial / Retail 922,000 SF Estimated Net Fiscal Impact to City $5,268,670 $362,909,500 $145,587,700 Office 222,000 SF Industrial 6,272,408 SF
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Hotel 171 rooms Estimated Fiscal Revenues (Net of Allocation of TI to EIFD) $5,795,350 $462,129,400 $171,640,900 Estimated Fiscal Expenditures $4,613,300 $286,979,900 $115,294,800 Esti
mated Net Fiscal Impact to Fire District $1,182,050 $175,149,500 $56,346,100 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Values in 2022 dollars
Project Component
3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Summary of Estimated Fiscal Impacts to City and Fire Fund Stablized Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052 2062 2072
Stabilized
Escalation
Rate
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value @

3.0%
City of Rancho Cucamonga Revenues
Property Tax $2,865,700 $3,858,000 $4,259,500 $4,702,900 $5,192,400 $5,732,800 $6,988,200 $8,518,600 2.0% $262,298,600 $111,401,900 Property Tax Allocation to EIFD ($2,865,700) ($3,472,200) ($3,407,600) ($3,292,030) ($3,115,440) ($2,866,400) ($628,938) ($766,674) 2.0% ($102,186,800) ($57,115,000) Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF $3,687,300 $4,983,700 $5,502,400 $6,075,100 $6,707,400 $7,405,512 $9,027,277 $11,004,201 2.0% $338,719,400 $143,809,700 Property Transfer Tax $177,600 $250,300 $276,400 $305,200 $336,900 $371,965 $453,423 $552,720 2.0% $17,015,400 $7,227,400 Sales and Use Tax - Direct / On-Site $4,210,900 $5,091,700 $5,902,700 $6,842,900 $7,932,700 $9,196,173 $12,358,888 $16,609,312 3.0% $428,828,800 $173,618,900 Sales and Use Tax - Indirect / Off-Site $2,113,600 $3,082,000 $3,572,800 $4,141,900 $4,801,600 $5,566,370 $7,480,736 $10,053,484 3.0% $257,590,400 $103,455,900 Transient Occupancy Tax $792,300 $918,500 $1,064,800 $1,234,400 $1,431,000 $1,658,921 $2,229,451 $2,996,196 3.0% $77,389,300 $31,349,600 Prop 172 Half Cent Sales Tax $145,500 $188,000 $218,000 $252,700 $293,000 $339,667 $456,484 $613,477 3.0% $15,792,700 $6,374,600 Franchise Fees $940,200 $1,366,300 $1,584,000 $1,836,300 $2,128,700 $2,467,747 $3,316,445 $4,457,025 3.0% $114,228,600 $45,891,600 Business Licenses (incl. penalties) $260,400 $338,000 $391,800 $454,200 $526,500 $610,358 $820,270 $1,102,374 3.0% $28,494,100 $11,558,100 Animal Licenses $35,200 $52,100 $60,400 $70,000 $81,200 $94,133 $126,507 $170,015 3.0% $4,351,500 $1,745,700 Fines and Forfeitures $124,700 $181,300 $210,200 $243,600 $282,400 $327,379 $439,970 $591,283 3.0% $15,154,400 $6,088,400 Use of Money and Property $192,900 $280,400 $325,000 $376,800 $436,800 $506,371 $680,520 $914,562 3.0% $23,439,600 $9,417,000 Charges for Services $453,000 $670,200 $776,900 $900,600 $1,044,100 $1,210,398 $1,626,674 $2,186,114 3.0% $55,956,600 $22,448,300 Intergovernmental $26,600 $38,700 $44,900 $52,000 $60,300 $69,904 $93,945 $126,255 3.0% $3,235,900 $1,300,100 Other Revenue $446,700 $649,200 $752,600 $872,400 $1,011,400 $1,172,490 $1,575,728 $2,117,647 3.0% $54,272,800 $21,804,200 Transfers In $213,900 $310,900 $360,400 $417,800 $484,300 $561,436 $754,524 $1,014,017 3.0% $25,988,300 $10,440,900 Estimated Total Revenues $13,820,800 $18,787,100 $21,895,200 $25,486,770 $29,635,260 $34,425,225 $47,800,106 $62,260,607 $1,620,569,600 $650,817,300 City of Rancho Cucamonga Expenditures
Police $5,829,900 $8,472,700 $9,822,200 $11,386,600 $13,200,200 $15,302,650 $20,565,481 $27,638,287 3.0% $708,336,100 $284,575,200 Non-departmental $546,000 $793,400 $919,800 $1,066,300 $1,236,200 $1,433,095 $1,925,959 $2,588,328 3.0% $66,335,200 $26,650,100 City Council $12,800 $18,600 $21,600 $25,000 $29,000 $33,619 $45,181 $60,720 3.0% $1,556,200 $625,200 City Management $100,500 $146,000 $169,300 $196,200 $227,500 $263,735 $354,438 $476,334 3.0% $12,207,800 $4,904,500 City Clerk $200 $300 $300 $400 $400 $464 $623 $838 3.0% $21,600 $8,700 Animal Care and Services $312,100 $461,700 $535,200 $620,500 $719,300 $833,866 $1,120,646 $1,506,054 3.0% $38,549,700 $15,465,100 Records Management $48,400 $70,300 $81,600 $94,500 $109,600 $127,056 $170,753 $229,478 3.0% $5,881,200 $2,362,800 Healthy RC Program $60,700 $89,800 $104,100 $120,700 $139,900 $162,182 $217,960 $292,920 3.0% $7,497,500 $3,007,700 Community Affairs $51,100 $74,200 $86,100 $99,800 $115,700 $134,128 $180,257 $242,250 3.0% $6,208,300 $2,494,100 Admin. Services - Admin $17,800 $25,800 $29,900 $34,700 $40,200 $46,603 $62,630 $84,170 3.0% $2,157,300 $866,800 Business Licensing $27,400 $35,500 $41,200 $47,800 $55,400 $64,224 $86,311 $115,995 3.0% $2,997,700 $1,215,900 City Facilities $94,000 $136,600 $158,300 $183,500 $212,800 $246,694 $331,535 $445,556 3.0% $11,418,700 $4,587,400 Finance $148,900 $216,400 $250,800 $290,800 $337,100 $390,791 $525,191 $705,813 3.0% $18,089,000 $7,267,300 Innovation and Tech Services $364,800 $530,100 $614,600 $712,500 $825,900 $957,444 $1,286,725 $1,729,251 3.0% $44,319,300 $17,805,500 Human Resources $55,600 $80,700 $93,600 $108,500 $125,800 $145,837 $195,992 $263,397 3.0% $6,750,200 $2,711,800 Procurement $24,800 $36,100 $41,800 $48,500 $56,200 $65,151 $87,558 $117,670 3.0% $3,016,200 $1,211,800 Risk Management $27,800 $40,400 $46,800 $54,300 $63,000 $73,034 $98,152 $131,908 3.0% $3,379,800 $1,357,700 Treasury Management $600 $800 $1,000 $1,100 $1,300 $1,507 $2,025 $2,722 3.0% $69,800 $28,000 City Telecommunications $22,500 $32,700 $37,900 $43,900 $50,900 $59,007 $79,301 $106,573 3.0% $2,731,400 $1,097,400 Economic and Comm. Development $82,500 $120,000 $139,100 $161,200 $186,900 $216,668 $291,184 $391,327 3.0% $10,029,300 $4,029,300 Building and Safety $178,000 $258,600 $299,800 $347,600 $403,000 $467,187 $627,861 $843,793 3.0% $21,624,700 $8,687,600 Engineering $239,300 $347,700 $403,100 $467,300 $541,800 $628,095 $844,107 $1,134,409 3.0% $29,072,800 $11,679,900 Fire Facilities Maintenance $34,700 $50,400 $58,400 $67,700 $78,500 $91,003 $122,300 $164,362 3.0% $4,212,200 $1,692,200 City Facilities Maintenance $348,900 $507,100 $587,800 $681,400 $790,000 $915,827 $1,230,794 $1,654,085 3.0% $42,391,900 $17,031,000 Planning $184,000 $267,500 $310,100 $359,500 $416,700 $483,070 $649,205 $872,477 3.0% $22,361,000 $8,983,600 Planning Commission $1,900 $2,800 $3,200 $3,700 $4,300 $4,985 $6,699 $9,003 3.0% $230,700 $92,600 Vehicle and Equip. Maintenance $110,100 $159,900 $185,400 $215,000 $249,200 $288,891 $388,245 $521,769 3.0% $13,372,100 $5,372,200 Street Maintenance $238,700 $346,900 $402,200 $466,200 $540,500 $626,588 $842,081 $1,131,687 3.0% $29,003,100 $11,651,900 Park Maintenance $295,200 $436,700 $506,300 $586,900 $680,400 $788,770 $1,060,041 $1,424,607 3.0% $36,464,900 $14,628,700 Community Improvement $79,100 $115,000 $133,300 $154,500 $179,200 $207,742 $279,188 $375,205 3.0% $9,615,300 $3,862,800 Community Services $804,600 $1,169,300 $1,355,600 $1,571,500 $1,821,800 $2,111,966 $2,838,305 $3,814,445 3.0% $97,759,100 $39,274,800 Estimated Total Expenditures $10,342,900 $15,044,000 $17,440,400 $20,218,100 $23,438,700 $27,171,877 $36,516,731 $49,075,433 $1,257,660,100 $505,229,600 Estimated Annual Net Fiscal Impact $3,477,900 $3,743,100 $4,454,800 $5,268,670 $6,196,560 $7,253,348 $11,283,375 $13,185,174 $362,909,500 $145,587,700 Revenue / Expenditure Ratio 1.34 1.25 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.27 1.31 1.27 1.29 1.29 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Values in 2022 dollars
Select years shown for illustration
3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Summary of Estimated Fiscal Impacts to City and Fire Fund Stablized Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 25 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50 2027 2032 2037 2042 2047 2052 2062 2072
Stabilized
Escalation
Rate
Year 0-50
Nominal
Total
Year 0-50
Present Value @

3.0%
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Revenues
Property Tax $6,272,400 $8,444,300 $9,323,200 $10,293,500 $11,364,900 $12,547,700 $15,295,600 $18,645,300 2.0% $574,110,900 $243,832,800 Property Tax Allocation to EIFD ($5,017,920) ($5,911,010) ($5,593,920) ($5,146,750) ($4,545,960) ($3,764,310) ($764,780) ($932,265) 2.0% ($152,329,600) ($88,401,900) Fire Fund - Other Revenues $332,100 $482,600 $559,500 $648,600 $751,900 $871,658 $1,171,436 $1,574,312 3.0% $40,348,100 $16,210,000 Estimated Total Revenues $1,586,580 $3,015,890 $4,288,780 $5,795,350 $7,570,840 $9,655,048 $15,702,256 $19,287,347 $462,129,400 $171,640,900 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Expenditures
Fire Fund (Non-General Fund) $2,362,000 $3,432,700 $3,979,400 $4,613,300 $5,348,000 $6,199,798 $8,332,010 $11,197,524 3.0% $286,979,900 $115,294,800 Estimated Total Expenditures $2,362,000 $3,432,700 $3,979,400 $4,613,300 $5,348,000 $6,199,798 $8,332,010 $11,197,524 $286,979,900 $115,294,800 Estimated Annual Net Fiscal Impact ($775,420) ($416,810) $309,380 $1,182,050 $2,222,840 $3,455,250 $7,370,246 $8,089,822 $175,149,500 $56,346,100 Revenue / Expenditure Ratio 0.67 0.88 1.08 1.26 1.42 1.56 1.88 1.72 1.61 1.49 Notes:

Assumes installation of necessary public infrastructure Values in 2022 dollars
Select years shown for illustration
3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Project Description
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Project Component 2027 2032 2037 2042
For-Sale Residential 1,034 DU 1,514 DU 1,514 DU 1,514 DU Rental Residential 8,186 DU 10,253 DU 10,253 DU 10,253 DU Total Residential 9,220 DU 11,767 DU 11,767 DU 11,767 DU Hotel 171 rooms 171 rooms 171 rooms 171 rooms
Commercial / Retail 876,000 SF 922,000 SF 922,000 SF 922,000 SF Office 22,000 SF 222,000 SF 222,000 SF 222,000 SF
Industrial 6,172,408 SF 6,272,408 SF 6,272,408 SF 6,272,408 SF Annual Escalation Factor 2.0% 1.10 1.22 1.35 1.49
Estimated A/V - SF Residential $618K Per Unit $705,605,362 $1,140,691,138 $1,259,415,188 $1,390,496,133 Estimated A/V - MF Residential $317K Per Unit $2,869,024,452 $3,967,476,157 $4,380,414,262 $4,836,331,297 Estimated A/V - Hotel $162K Per Room $30,585,246 $33,768,583 $37,283,245 $41,163,715 Estimated A/V - Retail $274 PSF $265,005,891 $307,952,122 $340,004,027 $375,391,919 Estimated A/V - Office $211 PSF $5,125,143 $57,100,137 $63,043,165 $69,604,748 Estimated A/V - Industrial $172 PSF $1,172,151,995 $1,315,117,221 $1,451,995,677 $1,603,120,553 Total Estimated Assessed Value $5,047,498,089 $6,822,105,358 $7,532,155,563 $8,316,108,364 Notes:

Adjusted for value appreciation assuming 2% annual escalation rate (statuatory maximum).

Conservatively assuming no mark-to-market valuations above 2% growth to account for property transfers Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2022 dollars
3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Project Employment and Occupants
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Project Component 2027 2032 2037 2042
Industrial 6,172,408 SF 6,272,408 SF 6,272,408 SF 6,272,408 SF Commercial / Retail 876,000 SF 922,000 SF 922,000 SF 922,000 SF Office 22,000 SF 222,000 SF 222,000 SF 222,000 SF
Hotel 171 Rooms 171 Rooms 171 Rooms 171 Rooms
For-sale Residential 1,034 DU 1,514 DU 1,514 DU 1,514 DU Rental Residential 8,186 DU 10,253 DU 10,253 DU 10,253 DU Estimated # Employees (FTE)
Industrial 1,500 SF / emp 4,115 4,182 4,182 4,182
Commercial / Retail 400 SF / emp 2,190 2,305 2,305 2,305 Office 350 SF / emp 63 634 634 634
Hotel 1.5 room / emp 114 114 114 114
For-sale Residential 0 DU / emp 0 0 0 0
Rental Residential 50 DU / emp 164 205 205 205
Total Estimated # Employees (FTE) 6,646 7,440 7,440 7,440 Occupied Dwelling Units 95% 8,759 DU 11,179 DU 11,179 DU 11,179 DU Residents 2.25 per DU 19,708 25,152 25,152 25,152
Employees Weighted at 50% 50% 3,323 3,720 3,720 3,720
Total Service Population (Residents + Empl.) 23,031 28,872 28,872 28,872 Occupied Hotel Rooms 75% 128 rooms 128 rooms 128 rooms 128 rooms Hotel Guests 1.5 per room 192 192 192 192
Notes:

Average household size reflects City average household size and product mix of multifamily units Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2022 dollars
3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Property Tax
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20 Year 30 Year 40 Year 50
2027 2032 2037 2042 2052 2062 2072
Estimated Assessed Value - Residential $3,574,629,814 $5,108,167,295 $5,639,829,450 $6,226,827,429 $7,590,467,890 $9,252,738,003 $11,279,035,996 Estimated Assessed Value - Non-Residential $1,472,868,276 $1,713,938,063 $1,892,326,113 $2,089,280,935 $2,546,821,801 $3,104,561,565 $3,784,443,224 Total Estimated Assessed Value $5,047,498,089 $6,822,105,358 $7,532,155,563 $8,316,108,364 $10,137,289,692 $12,357,299,568 $15,063,479,220 Total Secured Property Tax General Levy 1.00% $50,474,981 $68,221,054 $75,321,556 $83,161,084 $101,372,897 $123,572,996 $150,634,792 Estimated Unsecured Property Tax as % of Secured Non-Residential Value 10.00% $1,472,868 $1,713,938 $1,892,326 $2,089,281 $2,546,822 $3,104,562 $3,784,443 Total Estimated Secured + Unsecured Property Tax $51,947,849 $69,934,992 $77,213,882 $85,250,365 $103,919,719 $126,677,557 $154,419,235 Distributions to Taxing Entities
City of Rancho Cucamonga 5.52% $2,865,700 $3,858,000 $4,259,500 $4,702,900 $5,732,800 $6,988,200 $8,518,600 City Allocation to EIFD - Percent 100% 90% 80% 70% 50% 9% 9% City Allocation to EIFD - Dollar Amount ($2,865,700) ($3,472,200) ($3,407,600) ($3,292,030) ($2,866,400) ($628,938) ($766,674) Net Property Tax to City $0 $385,800 $851,900 $1,410,870 $2,866,400 $6,359,262 $7,751,926 Rancho Cucamonga Fire District 12.07% $6,272,400 $8,444,300 $9,323,200 $10,293,500 $12,547,700 $15,295,600 $18,645,300 Fire District Allocation to EIFD - Percent 80% 70% 60% 50% 30% 5% 5% Fire District Allocation to EIFD - Dollar Amount ($5,017,920) ($5,911,010) ($5,593,920) ($5,146,750) ($3,764,310) ($764,780) ($932,265) Net Property Tax to Fire District $1,254,480 $2,533,290 $3,729,280 $5,146,750 $8,783,390 $14,530,820 $17,713,035 Notes:

General levy distributions represent primary tax rate areas (TRAs) 4000, 4002, 4004, 4058, 4083, 4085, 4008, 4080 Does not include property tax overrides above 1% general levy Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2022 dollars
Source: San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller (2022) 3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Property Tax In-Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees (MVLF) Total AV within CITY (FY 2019-20) $27,642,340,160
Current Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF (2019-2020) $20,193,480 Prop Tax In-Lieu of MVLF per $1M of AV $731
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2023 2027 2032 2037 2042
Estimated Project Assessed Value $65,405,338 $5,047,498,089 $6,822,105,358 $7,532,155,563 $8,316,108,364 Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $47,800 $3,687,300 $4,983,700 $5,502,400 $6,075,100 Net Incremental Property Tax In-Lieu of MVLF to City $47,800 $3,687,300 $4,983,700 $5,502,400 $6,075,100 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2022 dollars
Source: San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller (2022) 3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Property Transfer Tax
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
2027 2032 2037 2042
Estimated Assessed Value - SF Residential $705,605,362 $1,140,691,138 $1,259,415,188 $1,390,496,133 Estimated Property Turnover Rate 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Estimated Value of Property Transferred - SF Residential $105,840,804 $171,103,671 $188,912,278 $208,574,420 Estimated Assessed Value - Other $4,341,892,727 $5,681,414,220 $6,272,740,375 $6,925,612,231 Estimated Property Turnover Rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Estimated Value of Property Transferred - Other $217,094,636 $284,070,711 $313,637,019 $346,280,612 Estimated Value of Property Transferred - Total $322,935,441 $455,174,382 $502,549,297 $554,855,031 Total Transfer Tax $1.10 per $1,000 $35,522,900 $50,069,200 $55,280,400 $61,034,100 Transfer Tax to City $0.55 per $1,000 $177,600 $250,300 $276,400 $305,200 Notes:

Select years shown for illustration
Values in 2022 dollars
Source: San Bernardino County Auditor-Controller (2022) 3/21/2022

Appendix D: Rancho Cucamonga EIFD - Fiscal Impact Analysis DRAFT Sales Tax - Direct / On-Site
Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Year 20
Project Component 2027 2032 2037 2042
Retail SF 876,000 SF 922,000 SF 922,000 SF 922,000 S F
Industrial SF Assumed to Generate Local Sales Tax Allocation 308,620 SF 313,620 SF 313,620 SF 313,620 SF Total Sales-Generating SF 1,184,620 SF 1,235,620 SF 1,235,620 SF 1,235,620 SF Estimated Taxable Sales $275 PSF $377,657,422 $456,656,886 $529,390,489 $613,708,669 Sales Tax to City 1.00% $3,776,574 $4,566,569 $5,293,905 $6,137,087 Use Tax as % of Sales Tax 11.50% $434,306 $525,155 $608,799 $705,765 Sales and Use Tax to City - Direct $4,210,900 $5,091,700 $5,902,700 $6,842,900 Notes:

Analysis assumes approximately 10% of industrial uses will generate locally allocated sales tax. Based on Kosmont research, local allocation varies widely according to various factors, such as location of seller's registered office of business, location of goods at time of sale, and method of delivery to the customer. Sales may be allocated to the jurisdiction of the fulfillment center, the jurisdiction of the seller's registered office, or the Countywide pool.

County sales tax for transportation based on Measure I (0.5%), Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7203.1 (0.25%) Does not include additional sales tax allocation for public safety from Proposition 172 (collected by State BOE and apportioned to counties based on proportionate share of taxable sales) Taxable sales PSF factor escalated 3% annually
Select years shown for illustration.

Values in 2022 dollars.
3/21/2022