Rancho Cucamonga City Council
June 15, 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22- 11
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2021- 00120 — WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC April 27, 2022

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2022.

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:

Bryan Dopp, Chairman
ATTEST:

Matthe R. Bur , ecretary, AICP, LEED AP
I, Matthew R. Burri , Secretary, AICP, LEED AP, of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of April 2022, by the following vote- to- wit:

AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, WILLIAMS, MORALES, BOLING, DANIELS NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

RESOLUTION NO. 22- 12

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20120, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A VACANT SITE OF
APPROXIMATELY 17. 2 ACRES INTO 4 NUMBERED LOTS FOR

CONDOMINIMUM 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. WDCC Milliken West Residential, LLC. filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract Map 20120 ( SUBTT00024), as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."

2. On the 27th day of April 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.

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

B. Resolution.

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

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

2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on April 27, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to applies to a vacant site located at thea 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) are as follows:

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Cit Corridor Hi h Mixed Use - Urban Corridor ( MU- UCR) y 9 District

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22- 12
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20120 ( SUBTT00024)- WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC April 27, 2022

Multifamily
Suburban
North
Residential
Neighborhood Medium High ( MH) Residential
Moderate
Shopping Center Financial, Restaurants, Residential ( MFC) 1 South ( north and south City Corridor High north of Foothill and Industrial Park ( IP) of Foothill) south of Foothill
if
Hospital/
City Corridor High
Hospital and Related Facilities, Office
Partially Vacant MH0) 1
West Shopping Center City Corridor High Community Commercial ( CC) District 1- Terra Vista Planned Community
d. The proposal is to subdivide a site of approximately 17-2 acres into 4 numbered lots for condominium purposes, in relation to the construction of a mixed- use development comprising of 671 apartment units and 20, 841 square feet of commercial space; and e. The project site will have four points of vehicular access from driveways coming from Church Street, Milliken Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, and Elm Avenue. The Engineering Department has included conditions that require the construction of right- of way improvements; and
f. This application is in conjunction with Design Review 2021- 00120 to construct a mixed- use development comprising of 671 apartment units and 20,841 square feet of commercial space and Master Plan DRC2022- 00074 to establish a Master Plan on the project site; and g. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on March 15, 2022.

The committee was very supportive of the project architecture, layout, and amenities. The committee voted to move the project forward as presented to the Design Review Committee to the full Planning Commission for consideration; and

3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referencedpublic hearingand upon the specificfindings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The design and layout of the subject Tentative Tract Map will be consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project site is being subdivided to facilitate the development of a mixed-use project which will be consistent with the Mixed- Use zoning of the project site; and
b. The site is physically suitable for the subdivision which will create four ( 4) numbered lots for condominium purposes; and
c. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated March 22, 2022, was prepared by T & B Planning that demonstrates that the subject project is fully consistent with the site' s General Plan land use

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22- 12
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20120 ( SUBTT00024)— WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC April 27, 2022

designation of" City Corridor— High", consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, and is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City' s General Plan update on December 15, 2021.
d. The tentative tract map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The tentative map is proposed in conjunction with a mixed- use development comprising of 671 apartment units and 20, 841 square feet of commercial space. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated March 22, 2022, was prepared by T & B Planning that demonstrates that the subject project is fully consistent with the site's General Plan land use designation of" City Corridor— High", consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, and is within the scope of the EIR certified as part of the City' s General Plan update on December 15, 2021.
e. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Access to the property will be from existing public streets surrounding the project site and access to the individual future development will be from private streets to be constructed on the subject property.

4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows:
a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City's General Plan ( GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) ( SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for City 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) ranging 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 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

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22- 12
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20120 ( SUBTT00024)— WDCC MILLIKEN WEST RESIDENTIAL, LLC April 27, 2022

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, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval.

6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:

Bryan Dopp, Chairman
ATTEST:

Matthew R. Burr ecretary, AICP, LEED AP
I, Matthew R. Burri , Secretary, AICP, LEED AP, of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of April 2022, by the following vote- to- wit:

AYES:

COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, WILLIAMS, MORALES, BOLINGDANIELS NOES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:

Vi
a Email and Overnight Mail
May
6, 2022
Chair Oaxaca
Vice Chair Dopp
Commissioner Guglielmo
Commissioner Morales
Commissioner Williams
Planning Commission
Attn: Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Janice Reynolds, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re
: Appeal of Decision of the Planning Commission to Approve the Harvest at Terra Vista Project (DRC2021-00120; SUBTT00024; DRC2022-00074) D
ear Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, and Ms. Thornhill:

I
am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding the Planning Commission’s decisions of April 27, 2022 to approve Design Review DRC2021-00120 and Tentative Tract Map 20120 (SUBTT00024) for the Harvest at Terra Vista Project, a proposed mixed-use development with 671 apartment units and 20,841 square feet of commerce space located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue (“Project”).

T
his appeal is filed pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.14.070, is timely filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, and is accompanied by the required filing fee of $3,279. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in the attached letter, which was submitted to the Planning Commission prior to its decision.

Sincerely,
A
malia Bowley Fuentes

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
Attachment 3

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

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.

Attachment 4

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

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O F THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE

APPEAL OF AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2021-00120 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 20120,

WHICH IS A SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND

LOT SUBDIVISION RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF 671
APARTMENTS AND 20,841 SQUARE -FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR 2 (CO2)

ZONE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN
AVENUE AND FOO THILL BOULEVARD; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APNS: 1077-422-51, -
55, -98, -99, 1090-121-38, AND -39.

A. Re
citals.

1. The applicant, WDCC Milliken West Residential, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2021 -00120 and Tentative Map 20120, as described in the title of this Resolution. The applicant also filed an application to establish a master plan for the project site, Master Plan DRC2022-00074.

2. On April 27, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 22- 11 and 22- 12 approving Design Review DRC2021-00120 and Tentative Tract Map 20120 and making findings in support of its decision. On the same date, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga also adopted Resolution No 22- 10 recommending that the City Council approve Master Plan DRC2022-00074, which is a request to establish a master plan on the project site.

3. On May 6, 2022, Lozeau Drury, LLP (“Appellant”), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving Design Review DRC2021 -00120 and Tentative Map 20120.

4. On May 18, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 2022-049 approving Master Plan DRC2022-00074.

5. On June 15 , 2022 the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Design Review DRC2021- 00120 and Tentative Map 20120 and making findings in support thereof.

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

B. R esolution.

Attachment 5

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 2 of 5
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

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

2. Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 15, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Design Review DRC2021- 00120 and Tentative Map 20120 applies to property located within the City; and
b. Design Review DRC2021- 00120 and Tentative Map 20120 applies to an approximately 17.2-acre site within the Corridor 2 (CO2) zone, located at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; and c. The land use, General Plan land use designation, and Zoning classification for the subject property are as follows:

d. The project consists of the construction of a mixed-use development comprising of 671 apartments and 20,841 square-feet of commercial space and ancillary on-site improvements; and

e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, site coverage, front/rear setbacks and parking as prescribed in Master Plan DRC2022-00074; and

f. The project complies with the landscaping requirements as prescribed in Master Plan DRC2022-00074.

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2)
North Multifamily
Residential
Suburban
Neighborhood
Moderate
Medium High Residential – Terra Vista
(MH-TV)
South
Shopping
Center (north
and south of
Foothill)
City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2)
East Hospital/
Partially Vacant City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2)
West Shopping
Center City Corridor High Corridor 2 (CO2)

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 3 of 5

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

a. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan Designation for the project site is City Corridor High, which envisions high development intensities along Foothill Boulevard, particularly adjacent to city centers. The project proposes a total of 671 apartments and 20,841 square feet of commercial space with a density of 36 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and

b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Corridor 2 (CO2) zone, which is an area for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses of medium to high intensity, and where a vibrant pedestrian environment and transition in scale to surrounding neighborhoods are achieved. The project provides for a proper mix of residential and commercial uses, concentrating pedestrian activity and intensity along Foothill Boulevard while transitioning building scale appropriately to the surrounding area; and

c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. As allowed in the Development Code, a Master Plan has been approved in conjunction with the project. A Master Plan allows for a coordinated, comprehensive planning of a subarea of the city, in order to develop an exceptional project design that cannot be built due to constraints in existing development standards; and

d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applic able thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothil l Boulevard and the expectations of the community.

4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows:
a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GPU) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated for “City 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) ranging 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

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 4 of 5
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 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 , evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of Planning Commission Decision DRC2022-00184 and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2021 -00120 and Tentative Map 20120 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-xxx.

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

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 2022.

__________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor

ATTEST:

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-0__- Page 5 of 5

__________________________________
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 15th day of June, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

Executed this 15th day of June, 2022, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

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

V
ia Email
J
une 10, 2022
Janice Reynolds, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re
: Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal
Harvest at Terra Vista Project (Design Review DRC2021­00120; Tentative Tract Map 20120)
D
ear Ms. Reynolds:

On
May 6, 2022, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2021­00120 and Tentative Tract Map 20120 for the Harvest at Terra Vista Project, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Milliken Avenue (“Project”).

SA
FER hereby withdraws its appeal of the Project. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please call our office if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
A
malia Bowley Fuentes

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
June 15, 2022 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ITEM G3 - WIDRAWAL LETTER

DATE:June 15, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Deputy City Manager – Community Development/Interim Planning Director
David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. 1007 to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164 to Amend The Resort Specific Plan by Separating the Document into Two Sections to Regulate the North Planning Area and the South Planning Area of The Resort, Modifying the Circulation Network for the North Planning Area of The Resort, Relocation/Shifting of Land Uses, and Miscellaneous Text Edits to Address References, Graphics, or Exhibits that are No Longer Applicable.

A CEQA Compliance Memorandum has been Prepared for this Project.

APN: 0209-272-20 and All APNs Included in Parcel Map PM14647 and Tract Map TR20240. (ORDINANCE NO. 1007) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Commission and staff recommends the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1007 approving Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164, amending The Resort Specific Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The Resort Specific Plan (formerly the Empire Lakes Specific Plan), originally adopted in 1994, covers the area bounded on the south by 4
th
street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue. The 394-acre specific plan was divided into 11 planning areas intended for a variety of uses ranging from commercial office and light industrial to multifamily residential. The specific plan also included the development of a 160- acre golf course. The golf course was located in the center of the specific plan area, bisected into a north half and a south half by 6th Street.

Since November of 2000, the specific plan has been amended numerous times, most of which contributed to the development of the various planning areas. The most recent major amendment occurred in 2016 after the purchase of the golf course property in 2015 by the applicant, Lewis Operating Corp. (dba SC Rancho Development Corporation). Following the purchase of the property SC Rancho Development Corp. submitted applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan, the City’s Development Code, and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan proposing to develop a new mixed-use, transit-oriented development on the golf course property. The City Council approved the proposed amendments in June of 2016.

1 3
1 6
The golf course was originally developed across 4 of the 11 planning areas - Planning Area IA, Planning Area IB, a portion of Planning Area III, and a portion of Planning Area VI (Exhibit A). The 2016 amendment consolidated these four planning areas and established Planning Area 1 (PA1) as the new mixed-use infill area within the specific plan. The 2016 amendment also created a new chapter (Section 7) of the specific plan, which provides the land use and development criteria, development standards, and regulations for PA1. Additionally, to help distinguish the bisected specific plan area, the amendment separated PA1 further into PA1A to identify the property south of 6th Street (south) and PA1B to identify the property north of 6th Street (north).

PA1A has been underway with development following the 2016 amendment. Three residential developments consisting of attached and detached for-sale condominiums and townhomes are complete, and one for-rent apartment development is currently under construction. PA1A also includes several amenities that are complete, including two club houses, swimming pool areas, and a variety of parks and open space. Completion of the apartment project will result in PA1A being nearly built out with only a commercial pad and a mixed-use planning area remaining. PA1B is currently vacant and is the subject area for the proposed amendment.

In addition to those amendments/entitlements mentioned above, the City Council also adopted a Development Agreement (DA). The DA included several major terms related to the duration of the agreement, requirements to dedicate land for a joint use public facility, among other obligations, and served as an accompanying regulatory document for the development of the future mixed-use community. The DA was adopted in September of 2018 and became effective in October of 2018. Shortly after its adoption, an amendment to the DA was presented to the City Council for consideration. The proposed DA amendment included revisions to the construction schedule for the joint use public facility, revisions to requirements to construct an interim access road in the north planning area, and the integration of a new street framework that would be processed through a separate specific plan amendment. The DA amendment was approved by the City Council in September of 2020.

The current proposed specific plan amendment is intended to implement the new terms and agreements approved through the September 2020 DA amendment, specifically with the integration of the new street framework for PA1B (north). In late 2019 and early 2020, the City in collaboration with the SC Rancho Corp., began developing a comprehensive conceptual street framework for the PA1B area of the specific plan. Through this effort, an updated street framework was established, and the initiation of the specific plan amendment commenced as agreed upon through the DA. The proposed amendment seeks to incorporate the updated street framework, while also ensuring the specific plan remains consistent with the DA and continues to implement the changes that were adopted by the City Council.

While the last major amendment was in 2016, the most recent amendment occurred on May 18, 2022 with the adoption of Ordinance 1002. This amendment included reducing the boundaries of the Specific Plan to that of PA1 only and renaming the plan to The Resort Specific Plan. The Specific Plan encompasses a large area of roughly 394 acres, most of which has been built out except for PA1. In circumstances such as these there becomes less of a need for specialized zoning or development standards through the Specific Plan once the area is fully developed. As a result, the Specific Plan was amended as part of the City’s comprehensive Development Code Update that included repeals to other older, built out specific plans and planned communities in the City. The repeal/modification to the Specific Plan through Ordinance 1002 does not impact the subject proposed specific plan amendment.

1 3
1 6
On May 25, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed Specific Plan Amendment for the Specific Plan. During this meeting, Staff presented the details of the amendment and recommended the Planning Commission approve the amendment with one minor change related to a footnote on an exhibit. The new circulation plan proposed to be incorporated into the Specific Plan included a footnote identifying the construction of particular future streets to be completed “by others”.

At this time there is no certainty on who will be responsible for the construction of future streets without the benefit of a development proposal to review. As such, Staff recommended the text “by others” be deleted from all exhibits. The Planning Commission was generally supportive of the Specific Plan Amendment, including Staff’s recommendation to remove the text, and recommended approval to the City Council for consideration.

ANALYSIS:

SC Rancho Development Corp. is requesting approval of a specific plan amendment to PA1 of the Resort Specific Plan. The proposed amendment includes modifications to the circulation network, modifications to the updated street-types, relocation of land uses, and the separation of the specific plan document into two sections regulating PA1A and PA1B for the south and north, respectively. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will also include miscellaneous text edits to address any references, graphics, or exhibits that may no longer be applicable or require minor revisions to remain consistent with other amendments throughout the document. The remainder of specific plan contents will not change. This includes the minimum and maximum buildout for residential and non-residential uses, as well as the placetypes and the allowable land uses throughout PA1A and PA1B. The revisions are summarized as follows:
Circulation. The current street network for PA1 consists of a combination of public and private streets in a grid pattern layout. The grid pattern circulation provides efficient movement throughout the community for vehicles and pedestrians, creating opportunity for a strong, walkable environment with appropriate block sizes while still maintaining adequate vehicle movement. The grid pattern also improves connectivity between developments within the PA, creating greater opportunities for access and greater potential for reducing vehicle trips. These concepts apply to true streets and drive aisles throughout planning areas. Although the drive aisles are not formal streets, they serve the same purpose of providing and extending the circulation network throughout the neighborhoods.

The proposed amendment to the circulation will occur in PA1B. The current vehicle circulation diagram in the Specific Plan identifies one primary access point from 6 th Street that essentially functions as a continuation of the primary “spine road” from PA1A. This spine road, now known as Resort Parkway, is expected to continue through PA1B as a primary north/south connector, provide a connection to 7 th Street to create a secondary access in the community, and ultimately provide a connection point to the Metrolink Station at the northern area of PA1B. The modified circulation network builds on this concept and advances the expectation of a grid pattern with the addition of several north south streets and east west streets throughout PA1B.

The circulation pattern occurs in more of a linear form, establishing straight line travel routes and direct access points for vehicles and pedestrians throughout the community. Two additional connections are proposed at 6th Street that extend north into the community, while the additional east/west streets build connections to the adjacent properties and help form the grid pattern. The proposed amendment also identifies potential future connections that could result from new development or redevelopment on adjacent properties. These future connections are identified on the circulation plan to ensure adequate vehicle and pedestrian connections are maintained with future adjacent development.

1 3
1 6
Street Types. To correspond with the revised circulation pattern, the specific plan amendment will also include minor changes to the street types. These proposed street types build from the existing street types provided for PA1A with adjustments to the overall street width and including design features that will be applicable to the development types and intensities they’ll serve. PA1B will include 6 main street types that provide a right-of-way width ranging from 90 feet for primary streets serving mixed use areas with active ground floors to 42 feet for neighborhood streets serving primarily residential uses. The new street types will also include a new concept known as “woonerf”. The woonerf concept is a curbless street, similar to an alleyway, that is designed with decorative paving and other features that encourage and prioritize pedestrian activity while still allowing vehicle access at low speeds. The woonerf concept in PA1B will provide additional connections between developments and continue to advance the improved circulation throughout the neighborhood. Relocation of Land Uses/Placetypes. Implementing a true grid system helps create adequate block networks, more opportunities for street frontage, and improves access to a variety uses from nearly any starting point. This presented an opportunity to shift around land uses to take advantage of a revised street pattern that is suitable for a wider range of development types due to improved access, increase frontage areas, and more. The notable shift occurs with the Mixed Use (MU) placetype. The existing land use plan for PA1B included roughly 6 acres of mixed-use designation at the northern area of PA1B adjacent to the Metrolink property. A portion of the MU areas have been relocated along 6th Street on the east and west sides of the Resort Parkway. Placing the MU areas in this location provides strong presence along 6th Street and Resort Parkway, creates a focal point along the street, and activates the entry to the PA1B.

Furthermore, with the additional north/south streets at 6th Street, the MU placetype has the benefit of at least three street frontage opportunities. This can allow for greater activation along the ground floor, incorporation of on-street parking to serve the commercial uses and encourage pedestrian activity at the entrance of the community. A third MU placetype was relocated at the east side PA1B along 7th street. The new location is adjacent to an office complex and in proximity to the Metrolink Station.

The relocation of this MU placetype is expected to benefit from the current office development or potential redevelopment of the adjacent property, which will include future street connections and improved access to provide another MU anchor area with the community. Relocation of the MU uses subsequently required their replacement with residential placetypes. However, these land use shifts do not result in an increase or decrease to the required minimum and maximum number of residential units (2,650 – 3,450 units) or the minimum and maximum amount of non- residential area (220,000 square feet maximum). PA1B is still subject to these build-out requirements, which can still be accommodated with the relocated land uses.
Document Reformat. PA1 covers the entire specific plan area, which includes PA1A in the south and PA1B in the north. As noted earlier, PA1A is nearly built out and has been developed under the current specific plan requirements. PA1B is vacant, and with the amendments to the specific plan will implement a more robust development pattern than the south. To ensure clarity between the PAs and proper implementation of the development requirements, the specific plan document is proposed to be reformatted into two sections that will provide regulations and requirements for the south and the north independently. With the exception of the proposed amendments discussed above, the contents of the current document will remain the same.

1 3
1 6
Where details or standards are applicable to the north and south, such as parking, design standards, architectural guidelines, etc., such details will be provided in both sections. Any differences in details or standards between the north and the south, such as the amendments listed above, will be provided in their applicable sections only. The proposed reformat of the document will allow easier application of development standards, easier implementation, and easier monitoring of development activity in the future. Both sections are formatted in way that mirrors one another, with the table of contents, sections, and more are generally in the same order.
Miscellaneous Text Edits. The main amendments noted above will subsequently require minor text edits to delete references that may not apply, adjustments to planning area numbering/labeling resulting from relocation, and changes or deletion of exhibits that also may not apply. The text edits are inconsequential and only occur where necessary to further clarify or ensure consistency with the amendments noted above.

As noted previously, the amendments are limited to those noted above and do not include any changes to the development intensity. The 6 placetypes will remain the same and noted in their appropriate sections of the document plan. The intent and purpose of each placetype, along with their density ranges will also remain the same. The descriptions and expectations of each placetype will be provided in their appropriate sections and will remain applicable through all future development. The parking requirements will remain the same, continuing to require a parking study for high density development and mixed-use development to ensure proper parking demands are met. A range of parking options through garage, parking structures, on street parking, etc., will continue to be available and will be determined based on the development of the placetype. The specific plan also provides criteria for architectural guidelines, urban design standards, and more that will also remain as is and applicable to both sections.

CEQA DETERMINATION:

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 associated with the approval and establishment of Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, which has now become The Resort Specific Plan.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, an Environmental Compliance Memorandum dated May 17, 2022, was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and the analysis included in the Final EIR identified above and therefore no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City’s consideration of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164.

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information of substantial importance was found that would create new significant effects, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, or introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR.

1 3
1 6
In accordance with CEQA Section 21166, and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the information provided above, Staff has concluded that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would modify the circulation and development pattern for PA1B, but will not result in an increase to the amount or type of development allowed within the specific plan, will not result in environmental effects that were not previously analyzed under the certified EIR for the Specific Plan Amendment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A fiscal impact analysis was prepared as part of the 2016 Specific Plan Amendment. The annual revenues and expenses determined through the analysis were based on the project at full build out, which originally was anticipated to occur over an 8-year time frame. The analysis indicated the proposed project will have a net economic benefit to the City, exceeding the net benefit of the golf course at the time. This net benefit was determined based on revenue generated from property tax, sales tax, fees, and assessments, and expenses generated from police services, animal care services, and other government functions. Assuming the non-residential requirements are met throughout the entire specific plan area, then the City can expect to see a net benefit is expected to remain. However, in the event the non- residential development is not constructed and operational, or continues to be delayed/deferred, then there is a possibility of less of a net benefit, and potentially no net benefit, resulting from primarily residential uses throughout the specific plan.

The proposed amendment to the specific plan does not affect the analysis of the previous fiscal impact for the project.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

The Resort Specific Plan, along with the proposed amendments, will continue to meet the City Council core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and relentless pursuit of improvement. The Specific Plan provides opportunities for the development of a mixed-use community that offers a variety of housing options within close access to goods and services, and public transportation. The Specific Plan prioritizes the pedestrian environment with a focus on creating a walkable community and provides a variety of amenities and services that can serve the immediate community and surrounding communities of Rancho Cucamonga.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - 2016 Empire Lakes Specific Plan (prior to the name change) Attachment 2 - Link_ 2022 The Resort Specific Plan PA1A Section Attachment 3 - Link_ 2022 The Resort Specific Plan PA1B Section Attachment 4 - 2016 Land Use-Circulation Plan Resort
Attachment 5 - 2021 Land Use Plan
Attachment 6 - City Council Ordinance No. 1007
Attachment 7 - Conditions of Approval
Attachment 8 - Environmental Memorandum

Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment June 2016 Development Framework
4-7
INSERT FIGURE 4-3
Boundary of New PAI
Attachment 1

Attachment 2 – The Resort Specific Plan Section 8
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

The Resort Specific Plan Section 8

Attachment 2

Attachment 3 – The Resort Specific Plan Section 9
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

The Resort Specific Plan Section 9
Attachment 3

Empire Lakes
Empire Lakes
7-16
Figure 7.6: Conceptual
Development Plan by
Placetype
Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype
Empire Lakes
Empire Lakes
2013425 • 10-00-15
Rancho cucamonga, ca
Lewis opeRating coRp
Metrolink
Rancho
Cucamonga
Station
6th Street
7th Street
7th Street
South
North
4th Street
Pocket Park
Metrolink San Bernardino Line
Pocket
Park
Urban Plaza
The Vine
The Vine
Milliken Ave
Secondary entry
Secondary entry
Secondary entry
Placetype Legend
Village Neighborhood (VN)
Recreation (REC)
MU Overlay
Core Living (CL)
Urban Neighborhood (UN)
Mixed Use (MU)
Transit (T)
Note: Figure not to scale.

Attachment 4

9- 16
The Resort
Figure 9.6: Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype
Metrolink
Rancho Cucamonga
Station
6th Street
Milliken Avenue
Cleveland Avenue
Metrolink - San Bernardino Line
Legend
UN Urban Neighborhood
CL Core Living
VN Village Neighborhood
MU Mixed Use
MU Overlay
REC Recreation
Transit
Focus Area 3: Hart District - General Plan
Recommendation Streets by Others
Tunnel Connection
NTS
Approximate Location.

Final location to be
determined by owner
during final mapping.

N-2 N-1N-3
N-5
N-4 N-6 N-7 N-8
N-9
N-9 N-14
N-14
N-15
N-13
N-11
N-11
N-12
N-12
N-10
N-16 N-17
N-18
N-19
7th Street
Note: Figure not to scale.

Attachment 5

ORDI
NANCE NO. ____
A O

RDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020 -00164 FOR THE RESORT

SPECIFIC PLAN CONSISTING OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CIRCULATION NETWORK FOR PLANNING AREA 1B,

INCLUSION OF NEW STREET TYPES FOR PLANNING AREA
1B, RELOCATION OF LAND USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1B,

REFORMATING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT INTO TWO
SECTIONS REGULATING PLANNING AREA 1A AND PLANNING
AREA 1B RESPECTIVELY, AND MISCELLANEOUS TEXT EDITS

FOR THE DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE REFERENCES,

DELETION OF INAPPLICABLE EXHIBITS, AND INCLUSION OF

NEW EXHIBITS REFLECTIVE OF THE AMENDMENTS LISTED
ABOVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF –
APNS: 0209 -272-20; AND ALL APNS INCLUDED IN PARCEL
MAP PM14647, TRACT MAP TR20240,
A. Recitals.

1. SC Rancho Development Corp., an entity of Lewis Operating Corp., filed an application for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020- 00164 as described in the title of this Ordinance.

2. On May 25, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and adopted Resolution No. 22- 17 recommending the City Council approve Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164, an amendment to the Resort Specific Plan as described in the title of this Ordinance.

3. On June 15, 2022, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164, conducted the public hearing, and concluded the hearing on that date, and initiated the first reading of Ordinance No. __, approving the Specific Plan Amendment and making the findings in support thereof.

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

B. Ordinance.

The Ci ty Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:

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

SECTION 2: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 15, 2 022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The appli cation applies to the property that is currently regulated by The Resort Specific Plan, which is identified as Planning Area 1 and further noted as Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 1B in the Resort Specific Plan, which allows for an infill mixed - use development on the former 160-acre golf course.
b. The applicant has applied for a Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020- 00164, requesting an amendment to The Resort Specific Plan to allow modifications to the Attachment 6

ORDINANCE NO. ____
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164
June 15, 2022

circulation network, inclusion of the modified street types, shifting location of current land uses/placetypes to accommodate the new circulation network, the separation of the document into two sections regulating Planning Area 1A and Planning Area 1B, respectively, and miscellaneous text and graphic edits involving revision and/or removal of text, graphics, and other exhibits that are no longer applicable with the proposed amendments SECTION 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 finds and concludes as follows:
a. The pr oposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs. The Resort Specific Plan is within the City Center land use designation of the General Plan. The City Center designation is intended to provide for intense concentrations of retail and civic activity, multifamily housing, and employment in a pedestrian-oriented, transit-ready environment. The Resort Specific Plan was amended in 2016 to create Planning Area 1 for the development of a high density walkable mixed -use transit -oriented community.

The Specific Plan provides standards and guidelines that regulate various placetypes, offering a variety of housing options at densities that range from 17 units per acre up to 80 units per acre. The proposed amendment includes changes to the circulation network that will improve access into and throughout the subject area using well- deigned streetscapes that provide safe and comfortabl e
env
ironments for bicyclist and pedestrians. The current specific plan coupled with the proposed amendments demonstrates consistency with General Plan policy LC-4.2, which strives to ensure that all new neighborhoods and infill development within or adjacent to existing neighborhoods are complete and well-structured such that the physical layout and land use mix promote walking, biking, and transit uses; LC-4.3, which requires each new increment of residential development to make all possible street and pedestrian connections to adjoining developments; and LC -

4.4, requiring a density ranges and housing types that promote range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood. The current Resort Specific Plan is consistent with these General Plan policies. The proposed amendment will not alter the intent or purpose of The Resort Specific Plan, nor will it change th e
dens
ities, placetypes, or development program. The amendment will create a stronger consistency to the General Plan with the modified street network and continued use of design standards and guidelines.
b. The
land use and development regulations of The Resort Specific Plan are comparable to similar zoning regulations within the Development Code. The Resort Specific Plan provides development opportunities through 6 placetypes that offer mixed-use development and residential development in a range of densities and intensities, and a variety of non -residential uses distributed throughout the specific plan area. The placetypes function in the same manner as zones, offeri ng
a
purpose and intent and development standards to meet the purpose and intent.

The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is City Center. Absent the specific plan, the current zoning for the site would likely be Center 2 based on adjacent zoning under the same land use designation. Center 2 encourages mixed-use urban development and infill development that promotes walkabili ty ,
pedes
trian-friendly commercial and residential areas, and adequate scal e and

ORDINANCE NO. ____
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164
June 15, 2022

intensity of buildings in context of its surroundings. Based on this information the similarities are comparable between the The Resort Specific Plan and the Center 2 zone. The proposed specific plan amendment will not alter the placetypes or modify the purpose and intent of the specific plan.
c. The adm
inistration and permit processes within The Resort Specific Plan are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the zoning code. All development within the specific plan is required to complete design review process in the same manner as described in the Development Code. All projects must demonstrate compliance with the regulations and standards outlined in the specific plan, all projects must demonstrate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and all projects must receive approval from the appropriate review authority identified in the development code. The Specific Plan includes various references back to the Development code for procedural requirements and administration processes. The proposed specific plan amendment will not alter these procedures or introduce new administration and permit processes.

S
ECTION 4: California Environmental Quality Act
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an E
nvironmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, i n c
onnection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 associated with the approval and establishment of Section 7 of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, which has now become The Resort Specific Plan. b. P
ursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, an Environmental Compliance Memorandum dated May 17, 2022 was prepared by T & B Planning. Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the approved overall project and the analysis included in the Final EIR identified above, and therefore no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City Council’s consideration of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164. c. The
proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the 2016 specific plan amendment’s Final EIR due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. No new information of substantial importance was found that would create new significant effects, increase the severity of previously examined effects, determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would i n f
act be feasible, or introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR. d. I
n accordance with CEQA Section 21166, and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the information provided above, Staff has concluded that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would modify the

ORDINANCE NO. ____
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00164
June 15, 2022

circulation and development pattern for PAIB but will not result in an increase to the amount or type of development allowed within the specific plan, will not result in environmental effects that were not previously analyzed under the certified EIR for the Specific Plan Amendment.

e. The City Council has independently reviewed City staff’s determination, and based upon the whole record before it, and its independent review and judgement, finds that the Specific Plan amendment is not subject to further environmental review.

SECTION 5: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby approves DRC2020-00164, a request to amend The Resort Specific Plan as described above and in the City Council staff report dated June 15, 2022.

S ECTION 6 : The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause its publication in accordance with applicable law.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15th DAY OF JUNE 2022.

PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA

L. Dennis Michael, Mayor

ATTEST:

Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 15th day of June 2022, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on ________, 2022 by the following vote-to-wit:

AYES: C OUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: C OUNCILMEMBERS:

Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2020-00164
Project Name: EDR - EMPIRE LAKES PROJECT /// SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT Location: -
Project Type: Specific Plan Amendment
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
All conditions of approval associated with the approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific
Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20073, including all environmental requirements and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting requirements associated with the Final certified EIR (SCH No. 2015041083), allowing the 2016 amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan shall remain in effect and complied with where applicable as part of the approval of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-000164.

1. All
final technical, graphical, and text edits to the specific plan document for Section 8 and Section 9 shall be completed prior to scheduling the application on a City Council agenda

2. Upon final approval of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00164, the applicant shall provide: two (2) bound print versions of the final specific plan, a PDF version of the final specific plan, and all electronic source files of the final specific plan within 30 days of adoption by the City Council. The final versions shall include any and all final edits, revisions, etc., as required by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.

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

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

5. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 5/19/2022
Attachment 7

J N 1076-002
May 17, 2022
Mr. David F. Eoff, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE: IASP SUBAREA 18 – PAIB SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

1.0 Introduction and Background
Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC is requesting an amendment to the approved Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Project ( herein “ Approved Specific Plan” ) (DRC2020-00164). The proposed IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan Planning Area IB Amendment – Mixed Use Infill Area (herein Specific Plan Amendment”) would modify the circulation and development pattern for Planning Area (PA) IB (herein “Project site”), which represents the northern portion of the Specific Plan area (approximately 82 acres).

The Approved Specific Plan and associated Final Program Environmental Impact Repo rt (EIR) ( herein “Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR ” or “Final EIR ”), State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2015041083) were approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in May 2016. The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR addressed the construction- related and operational environmental impacts that would result from redevelopment of the 160 -acre Empire Lakes Golf Course with a proposed mixed -use, high -density residential/commercial development. A maximum of 3,450 residential units and 220,000 square feet (sf) of non - residential uses is allowed by the Approved Specific Plan in PAI (includes PAIA and PAIB), with a maximum of 2,000 residential units and 100,000 sf of non-residential uses in PAIB.

T
he Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.). The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all entitlements associated with implementation of the Approved Specific Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR may be required for a project unless the City determines, on the basis of substantial evidence, that one or more of the following conditions are met:

A
. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1
) S
ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; Attachment 8

IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significan t effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Consistent with this requirement, fu ture actions related to implementation of the Approved Specific Plan, including the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, will be reviewed to determine if they are within the scope of the development anticipated and evaluated in the Final EIR. If the implementing project is within the scope of the development and analysis included in the Final EIR, no additional environmental review is required. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the analysis presented in this document evaluates the proposed Specific Plan Amendment in comparison to the Approved Specific Plan and the analysis in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR to determine if the previous analysis adequately addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Project.

2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Setting
As shown on Figure 1, Aerial Photograph, the 82.0-acre Project site is located north of 6th Street, east of Cleveland Avenue), south of the Metrolink rail line, and west of Milliken Avenue, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in San Bernardino County. The Project site is currently undeveloped and a portion of the site was previously mass graded.

An approximately 500-foot segment of The Resort Parkway has been installed north of 6th Street, but is not open to the public.

The area east of the Project site is developed with the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station , residential uses, office and commercial uses . Existing industrial and office uses , Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) water reservoir tanks, and a Southern California Edison (SCE) substation are located west of the Project site. Approved Specific Plan PAIA is located south of 6th Street and includes existing residential and recreational uses east of The Resort Parkway; the area west of The Resort Parkway is under construction.

IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022

The Project site is zoned Specific Plan (Empire Lakes Specific Plan) . The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopted a comprehe nsive update to the City’s General Plan (herein, “GPU”) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (herein, “GPU EIR”; SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. As part of the GPU, the Project site was designated “City Center”, which allows for residential development at densities ranging from 40 to 100 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) , and non -residential development at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) ranging from 1.0 to 2.0. The Project site is also within the GPU- designated Focus Area 3: Hart District, which is intended to become an intense, mixed-use transit hub of regional significance, well-connected by various modes of travel (refer to Figure 2).

3.0 Project Description
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment ( DRC2020-00164) involves the introduction of a new Section 8.0 to the IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, which consolidates all land use and development plan details for PAIB, and includes all modified maps, development standards, and guidelines related to PA IB. T he proposed Specific Pla n Amendment evaluated herein would modify the circulation and development pattern for PAIB . The existing and proposed conceptual land use plans for PAIB are shown on Figure 2. Future projects implementing allowed development in PAIB would be required to adhere to the development standards and guidelines identified in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment . The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is fully consistent with and implements the Project site’s GPU land use designation and circulation and development patterns anticipated for the HART District.

As shown, the proposed conceptual land use plan would introduce a grid network of residential roadways and private drive aisles consistent with the grid system anticipated by the GPU for the Hart District. The pr oposed circulation system would allow for connectivity with existing and planned land uses surrounding the Project site as envisioned by the GPU , with emphasis on pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connectivity emanating from the Metrolink station and major circulation corridors . Off-site roadways and associated connections to roadways within the Specific Plan area would be implemented by others in conjunction with future development in the area consistent with that anticipated by the GPU.

While the land use plan configuration has been modified to accommodate the revised roadway network , t he proposed Specific Plan Amendment maintains the Mixed Use (MU), Urban Neighborhood (UN), Core Living (CL), Village Neighborhood (VN), and Recreation (REC) Placetypes 1 established in the Approved Specific Plan for PAIB,
and the Mixed Use Overlay designation. Th
ese uses are distributed throughout PAIB under the Approved Specific plan and proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The relocated MU Placetypes are within areas previously identified within the designated Mixed Use Overlay areas. Consistent with the Approved Specific Plan, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow a maximum of 2,000 residential units, with a minimum requirement of 1,594 units, in PAIB. There would be a maximum of 75,000 sf of non -residential development in the MU Placetype, with an additional 25,000 sf of non-residential development for public access allowed in the REC Placetype.

4.0 Environmental Assessment
The Empire Lakes Specific Plan Final EIR concluded that implementation of the Approved Specific Plan would result in no impact s, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with implementation of identified Project Design Features (PDFs), Regulatory Requirements (RRs), and Mitigation Measures (MMs) for the following

1 Placetypes integrate development principles, built form guidelines, and design criteria to create holistic people-centric places instead of using traditional land use-centric regulations.

IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022

environmental topics issues: Aesthetics, Air Quality (construction -related), Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise (operational), Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities and Services Systems. Impacts related to the following environmental topics were determined to be significant and unavoidable: Air Quality ( project and cumulative operations and consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan ), Noise (construction -related), Population and Housing Growth, and Traffic (project and cumulative).

The proposed Specific Plan Amendment described above does not include any actions that would involve implementation of development projects in PAIB. In addition to adherence with the development standards and guidelines identified in the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, future development projects within PAIB would be required to incorporate applicable PDFs, RRs, and MMs from the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR, and would be subject to the implementation process outlined in the Approved Specific Plan Section 7.7.

A portion of the Project site was previously mass graded and all uses associated with the previous golf course use have been removed. Potential impacts associated with initial mass grading activities (e.g., potential impacts to biological, cultural/tribal cultural, and pale ontological resources) have occurred. Further, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not involve any construction activities, and future development in PAIB implementing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in the same post-mass grading construction impacts as evaluated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR for the northern portion of the Specific Plan area. This includes potential impacts related to air quality emissions, ge ology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise.

With respect to operations, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would not involve any changes to the type of land uses, the maximum num ber of dwelling units, or the maximum amount of non -residential development allowed in PAIB. Therefore, the estimated population and employment generation, trip generation, etc. also would remain the same and would not exceed that evaluated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR, or what is currently anticipated in local and regional planning programs, including population and employment projections . While the internal roadway network would be modified to provide a grid system consistent with that anticipated in the GPU, and to improve and facilitate multi-modal transportation, the primary roadway connections between the Project site and existing roadways ( i.e., at 6th Street, 7th Street, and at the Metrolink Station) would remain the same as that identified in the Approved Specific Plan. Development standards and guidelines for PAIB would ensure that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not result in conflicts with existing and planned land uses, and is consistent with goals and policies outlined in the GPU. F urther, the Empire
Lakes Specific Plan Amendment evaluated potential impacts from onsite operations within PAIB, including operations within the residential, REC, and MU Placetypes and Mixed Use Overlay areas to offsite adjacent land uses, including residential uses to the east. Future development in PAIB implementing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, including the modified Placetype configuration and relocation of MU Plac etypes to other areas within the designated Mixed Use Overlay areas, would result in the same operational impacts as evaluated in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR for the northern portion of the Specific Plan area (PAIB).

This
includes operational impacts related to aesthetics and visual character, air quality, GHG Emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems.

IASP Subarea 18 – PAIB Specific Plan Amendment – Environmental Review May 17, 2022

Project-specific construction-related and operational impacts resulting from future development implementing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would be addressed as part of the subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA that will be completed when individual development applications are submitted to the City.

5.0 Environmental Review Conclusion
Pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, “If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” With regard to CEQA Section 21166, and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines:

1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment does not propose substantial changes which will require major revisions to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which development is undertaken in PAIB based on the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will require major revisions to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and

3. No new information of substantial importance was found that would: (a) create ne w significant effects; (b) increase the severity of previously examined effects; (c) determine that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible; or (d) introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR that would reduce significant impacts.

In accordance with CEQA Section 21166, and Sections 15162 and 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and based on the preceding information, it is concluded that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, which would modify the circulation and development pattern for PA IB, but would not change the amount or type of development allowed by the Approved Specific Plan, and will not result in environmental effects that were not examined in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR. The proposed development anticipated by the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with that evaluated in the Empire La kes Specific Plan Amendment Final EIR , and was adequately covered by the evaluation and mitigation measures in the Final EIR. There have been no changes with respect to the circumstances under which development in PAIB will be undertaken that will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Further, no new information of substantial importance shows that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; that mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible will now be feasible; or that there are mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR that will reduce significant impacts. No additional CEQA documentation is required.

Attachment A:

Supporting Graphics

Aerial Photograph
#
Planning Area IB
k
Metrolink
Rancho Cucamonga
Station
6TH ST

MILLIKEN AVE

CLEVELAND AVE

AZUSA CT

VINCENT AVE

ANAHIEM
PL
7TH ST
FAIRW

AY VIEW
PL

THE RESORT PKWY
Source(s): Esri, Nearmap (2022), SB County (2022)
0 250 500125
Feet
JN: 1076-002
Figure 1

DATE:June 15, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Albert Espinoza, Public Works Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the State Water Board Emergency Water Conservation Regulations and Accepting a Cease on Irrigating Certain Non-functional Turf in LMDs 2, 4R, 6, & 7 and City Owned Facilities and Approve the Single Source Procurement of HydroPoint WeatherTrak Smart Irrigation Controllers from SiteOne Landscape Supply. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-078) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that City Council adopt Resolution 2022-078 to approve the state water mandates that adopt emergency water conservation regulations and implement a ban on irrigating certain non-functional turf in Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs) 2, 4R, 6, & 7 and City owned facilities and approve the single source procurement of HydroPoint WeatherTrak smart irrigation controllers from SiteOne Landscape Supply.

BACKGROUND:

The State of California is enduring a severe multi-year drought. To protect the limited water supply, the State and water agencies have enacted several water conservation policies. On October 19, 2021, Governor Newsom proclaimed a drought emergency due to worsening drought conditions. This was preceded by drought proclamations on April 12, 2021, May 10, 2021, and on July 8, 2021. On March 28, 2022, the governor signed Executive Order N-7-22 directing the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to consider adopting drought emergency water conservation regulations to prepare for and mitigate the effects of the drought conditions in the state. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Board of Directors followed with a declaration on April 26, 2022, declaring a water shortage emergency condition and implemented an emergency water conservation program for water users in portions of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties. On May 24, 2022, the SWRCB Board adopted an emergency water conservation regulation and implemented a water shortage contingency plan to ensure more aggressive conservation for local water agencies across the state. Also on May 24, 2022, the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2022-5-7 declaring a stage 3 water shortage per its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. This plan implements a 20% reduction in potable water consumption and established specific water days and time frame for outdoor watering. As part of the Governor’s Executive Order and the SWRCB regulation the irrigation of “non-functional” turf is banned. Non-functional turf is defined as turf that is ornamental and not otherwise used for human recreation purposes such as school fields, sports fields, and parks. There are specific exclusions to ensure the health of trees and other perennial non-turf plantings.

1 3
2 8
ANALYSIS:

As one of the largest water customers for CVWD, the City will take the appropriate measures and commit to making water conservation a priority to reach the 20% reduction in potable water consumption. Public Works staff has determined 98% of the City’s water usage is from outdoor irrigation for landscaping and parks. Staff has identified solutions which can be implemented to achieve the goals set by CVWD to conserve water which include:

Ensuring the central command communication system is operational and effectively communicating with the irrigation sites throughout the City. Adjusting water schedules at parks and LMDs and reduce water application by 20% percent.
Identifying locations with high water pressure and installing pressure regulating valves to protect the irrigation system from pressure breaks.
Replacing older irrigation controllers with new WeatherTrak irrigation controllers. The new system allows staff to remotely connect to the irrigation controllers, adjust water use, and receive notifications if systems are malfunctioning. Automatic notifications of issues in the field, mean staff can act quickly and mitigate any excess water runoff.

One of the projects Public Works recently implemented to manage the amount of water use in the City are the new irrigation controllers installed throughout LMD-9. In 2021, a capital project removed and installed 16 new irrigation controllers in this district. With these new controllers, the City has been able to reduce water consumption by 18% and saved approximately 800,000 gallons of water within a 9-month period when comparing water consumption between the previous irrigation controllers and the new WeatherTrak controllers. Due to the success of these irrigation controllers, staff is seeking approval from the Council to single source and procure the HydroPoint WeatherTrak Smart Irrigation Controllers from SiteOne Landscape Supply. These new controllers will be initially purchased by the City for LMDs 2 and 4R to secure the product while it is still available. Once these irrigation controllers are in the City’s possession, the Water Management Team will identify locations which staff can switch out and groupings of sites that make more sense to have a contractor perform the installation. The team will be strategic and incrementally make the changes throughout these two LMDs.

The City will abide by SWRCB regulations and the Governor’s executive order and cease irrigating non-functional turf to meet state water conservation efforts. To meet the requirements set by the State and CVWD, Public Works staff has identified certain non-functional turf in Landscape Maintenance Districts 2, 4R, 6, & 7 and City owned facilities to stop irrigating. The following table is provided for reference and details the square footage of curb adjacent turf, identified as non-functional turf per district. Please note, not all the turf listed below will be impacted by the non-irrigation requirements. Staff will be using a deliberate and measured approach when selecting sites that will no longer be irrigated.

Identified “Non-functional” Curb Adjacent Parkway Turf by District Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Square Footage (SF) of Parkway Turf LMD-2 533,050 SF
LMD-4R 109,020 SF
LMD-6 35,303 SF
LMD-7 83,570 SF

1 3
2 8
A key factor in the reduction of irrigation for non-functional turf will be the preservation of the urban forest in parkway areas with trees. From a water savings perspective, mature trees in the parkway do not require as much watering which will assist with the water reduction efforts. City owned facilities which have been identified having non-functional turf include the Civic Center Campus and the Adult Sports Complex. Staff will shut off the water to these non-functional turf locations and initiate drought tolerant conversion projects seeking turf rebates through MWD.

Taking all these measures will position the City to reach the 20% reduction as outlined by CVWD.

Staff will continue to monitor future mandates and regulations by the State and water districts as requirements to conserve water fluctuate.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost to purchase the irrigation controllers in LMDs 2 and 4R will be approximately $900,000.

While initially costly, over time savings in water utility costs will result in overall cost reductions.

The targeted 20% reduction in water consumption will conserve approximately 163 million gallons of water per year and reduce the City’s overall water utility costs by $500,000.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

This resolution will meet the Council’s Core Values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future need for water conservation.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 2022-078
Attachment 2 - Single Source Agreement

Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, IMPLEMENTING THE

STATE WATER MANDATES ADOPTING EMERGENCY WATER

CONSERVATION REGULATIONS AND ACCEPTING A CEASE
ON IRRIGATING CERTAIN NON-FUNCTIONAL TURF IN LMD 2,
4R, 6, & 7 AND CITY OWNED FACILITIES.

A.Recitals.

1.WHEREAS, On October 19, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom proclaimed a drought emergency impacting all of California due to worsening drought conditions which was preceded by drought proclamations on April, 12, 2021, on May 10, 2021, and on July 8, 2021.

2.WHEREAS, On March 28, 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-7-22, directing the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to consider adopting drought emergency water conservation regulations to prepare for and mitigate the effects of the drought conditions.

3.WHEREAS, On April 26, 2022, The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Board of Directors declared a water shortage emergency condition and implemented an emergency water conservation program for water users in portions of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Bernardino Counties.

4.WHEREAS, On May 24, 2022, The SWRCB adopted an emergency water conservation regulation and implemented a water shortage contingency plan that will ensure more aggressive conservation by local water agencies across the state.

5.WHEREAS, On May 24, 2022, The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 2022-5-7 declaring a Stage 3 water shortage per its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. This plan implements a 20% reduction in potable water consumption to meet the requirements set by MWD and SWRCB.

6.WHEREAS, The Governor’s Executive Order bans irrigating “non-functional” turf.

Non-functional turf is defined as turf that is ornamental and not otherwise used for human recreation purposes such as school fields, sports fields, and parks. The ban is specific of non- functional turf in the commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors except as it may be required to ensure the health of trees and other perennial non-turf plantings.

B. Resolution.

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

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

2.Based upon these mandates, the City will take the appropriate measures to conserve water and achieve the 20% reduction in potable water use by accepting a cease on irrigating certain non-functional turf in Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs) 2, 4R, 6, 7 and City owned facilities.

Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 2 of 3
a.The City has determined a feasible way to achieve the 20% reduction is to eliminate the watering use of certain non-functional turf. b.Staff will identify certain parkway landscaping which is non-functional in these identified districts as well as City owned facilities and stop irrigating these areas. c.Staff will identify parkway areas with trees and preserve them to the best of their ability.

3.Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby approves the cease of irrigating non-functional turf in LMDs 2, 4R, 6, 7 and City owned facilities while balancing the preservation of the urban forest in these areas.

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

Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 3 of 3
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 15th day of June, 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 15th day of June, 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

ATTACHMENT 2
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

DATE:June 15, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director SUBJECT: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Business Meeting and Consideration to Reschedule the Regular Meetings of the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council from September 7, 2022 to September 6, 2022. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council designate a voting Delegate and an Alternate(s) for the Annual Business Meeting of the 2022 League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Annual Conference and reschedule the Regular Meetings from September 7, 2022 to September 6, 2022.

BACKGROUND:

Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022, in Long Beach. An essential part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting during the General Assembly on Friday, September 9. At this meeting, the Cal Cities membership considers and takes action on various resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy on municipal issues of statewide importance.

In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must designate one (1) voting delegate and appoint up to two (2) alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote in the event the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. According to the League bylaws, the voting delegate and the two alternate delegates must be designated by an official vote of the City Council.

ANALYSIS:

The designated voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. Only one (1) voting card will be provided for use by either the voting delegate or the alternates. The task of voting at the Annual Business Meeting cannot be transferred to any other city official beyond the designated voting delegate and alternates. The voting delegate and alternates can be Council Members or City Staff scheduled to participate in the conference.

Since this important conference conflicts with the September 7, 2022, City Council meetings, it is recommended the City Council reschedule the September 7, 2022 meetings to Tuesday, September 6, 2022.

The City Clerk’s Office will provide the appropriate legal notification of the change.

1 3
6 0
FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

Actively participating in the policy-making process during the General Assembly supports the City Council’s Core Values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future and continuous improvement.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Voting Delegate Letter and Form

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: June 1, 2022
TO: Ci
ty Managers and City Clerks
RE: D

ESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference & Expo – September 7-9, 2022 Cal Ci
ties 2022 Annual Conference & Expo is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022 in Long Beach. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly) on Friday, September 9. At this meeting, Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy.

In o
rder to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.

Pl
ease complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to Cal Cities office no later than Friday, September 2. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council.

When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Con
ference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration will open by June 1 on the Cal Cities
website. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter
must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting.

Council Action Advised by August 31, 2022
ATTACHMENT 1

• Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

• Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges.

The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 7, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 8, 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, September 9, 7:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2. If you have questions, please call Darla Yacub at (916) 658-8254.

Attachments:
• Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

Annual Conference Voting Procedures

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.

6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting.

CITY:________________________________________

2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM

Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2, 2022. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.

To vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.

Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.

1. VOTING DELEGATE

Name:

Title:

2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE

Name: Name:

Title: Title:

ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR

ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).

Name: ____________________________________ Email_________________________________

Mayor or City Clerk_________________________ Date____________ Phone________________ (circle one) (signature)

Please complete and return by Friday, September 2, 2022 to:

Darla Yacub, Assistant to the Administrative Services Director E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: (916) 658-8254