1 4
0 2
B. The Project is Planned and Located in the Manner that will be Most Compatible with the Greatest Public Good and the Least Private Injury
The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity, and requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation and related purposes. The Project will widen the portion of Etiwanda Avenue from Napa Street to Whittram Avenue to a four-lane grade-separated roadway over the SCRR/BNSF San Gabriel subdivision, which is currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right-of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project includes the addition of a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side, and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will result in improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. Accordingly, the Project will benefit local residents and businesses and the community as a whole. The Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference.
The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties.
Because of its scope, the Project requires the acquisition of numerous permanent easements and temporary construction easements over portions of several larger parcels, as well as fee interests in two parcels, owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will require some business/residential relocations. The City will coordinate the construction with the owners of the Subject Property Interests to minimize the impact of the Project on the parcels and to assist those persons and businesses displaced by the Project. Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the required Subject Property Interests.
Further, the public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use for which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650, than the uses to which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located on or within the area of the Subject Property Interests. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650.
C. The Subject Property Interests Described in the Resolution of Necessity are Necessary for the Project
The City seeks to construct the Project, as planned and designed, to improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the rail crossing. The Project will widen the portion of Etiwanda Avenue from Napa Street to Whittram Avenue to a four-lane grade-separated roadway over the SCRR/BNSF San Gabriel subdivision, which is currently a two-lane at-
1 4
0 2
grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right- of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project includes the addition of a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side, and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will result in improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians.
The City cannot construct the Project without the acquisition of the following Subject Property Interests, which are described more particularly in the Resolution of Necessity:
9333 Etiwanda Avenue, APN 0229-291-23 (SCE Parcel)
An approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, for grade separation purposes, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto from the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in unincorporated San Bernardino County and further identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor’s Parcel Number 0229-291-23, which is owned by Southern California Edison Company.
As stated above, the public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use for which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the new right-of-way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650, than the uses for which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located on or within the area of the Subject Property Interests. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650.
D. The City has made an offer as required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to each owner of record of the Subject Property Interests
The City, pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., obtained a fair market value appraisal of the Subject Property Interests, set just compensation in accordance with the fair market value, and extended a written offer to the owner of record of the Subject Property Interests. As detailed above, the City extended to the owner of record a written offer, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2, to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto. Specifically, the City extended a written offer to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests:
1 4
0 2
The City extended a written offer to Southern California Edison Company to purchase an approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, for grade separation purposes, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto from the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in unincorporated San Bernardino County and further identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor’s Parcel Number 0229-291-23.
Incorporation of Above-Referenced Documents:
The following documents on file with the City Clerk’s Office and/or the Engineering Services Department, which are referenced in this report, are incorporated herein by this reference:
Resolution of Necessity (attached hereto)
City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
Offer letter to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests Notice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests
Plans for Project
Environmental Documents relating to Project
Notice of Exemption
Joint Powers Agreement Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Etiwanda Grade Separation Project is funded by SB-1 Trade Corridor Enhancement Program (TCEP) grant funds which require construction to begin between July and December 2022. The acquisition of the right-of-way for the project is a critical step in meeting the funding deadlines.
Anticipated funds needed for acquisition of right-of-way for the Project, including legal fees, will be funded through the TCEP grant funding allocation for the Project COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The Etiwanda Grade Separation Project will enhance the City Council’s vision of creating a world class community in our region by improving safety, traffic flow, and access to the southeast area of the City
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – Resolution of Necessity No. 2022-112
Attachment 3 – Notice of Hearing for Resolution of Necessity
ATTACHMENT 1
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Legend:
= Project Location
Etiwanda Avenue Grade Separation
Southern California Edison Parcel
APN 0229-291-23
Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 1 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF T HE CIT Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
INTERESTS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION THEREOF IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA GRADE
SEPARATION PROJECT (PERMANENT EASEMENT AND TWO TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS OVER PORTIONS OF APN 0229-291-23) WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) is a municipal corpor ation in the County of San Bernardino, State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to construct the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project (“Project”).
The Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation. The Project involves the widening and construction of Etiwanda Avenue as a four -lane grade separated roadway over the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (“SCRRA”)/B urlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad (“BNSF”) San Gabriel subdivision, currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right-of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project will widen Etiwanda Avenue to four traffic lanes including a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains.
Furthermore, the Project will provide improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. All work is consistent with the City’s General Plan of Circulation. The Plans for the Project are on file with the Engineering Services Department and are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Project were studied and analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”).
City Staff determined that the Project was statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Article 18.
Statutory Exemptions, Section 15282. Other Statutory Exemptions, paragraph (g) as a railroad grade separation project which eliminates and existing grade crossing or reconstructs an existing grade separation. The City Council approved the Notice of Exemption and authorized Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research and the County clerk as specified in Section 21080.13(2) of the Public Resources Code. Said Notice of Exemption was filed with the Office of Planning and Research and with the County of San Bernardino on or about June 11, 2018 in accordance with the statutory requirements; and WHEREAS, in connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on July 20, 2022, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project.
Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City Staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 2 of 6
would require further environmental analysis. These environmental findings are the appropria te findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cit y Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council adopts Resolution No. 2022-XXX, A Resolution of the Cit y Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Declaring Certain Real Property Interests Necessary for Public Purposes and Authorizing the Acquisition Thereof in Connection with the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project ( permanent easement and two temporary construction easements over portions of APN 0229-291-23).
SECTION 2. The City seeks to acquire by eminent domain the real property interest s described below in Section 3 of this Resolution for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Etiwanda Grade Separation Project pursuant to the authority conferred on the City of Rancho Cucamonga to acquire real property by eminent domain by Section 19 of Article 1 of the California Constitution, Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 40401, and 40404, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), including but not limited to Sections 1240.010, 1240.020, 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650 , and by other provisions of law.
SECTION 3.
The City seeks to acquire an approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, for grade separation purposes, and all uses necessary and convenient thereto from the real property located at 9333 Etiwanda Avenue in unincorporat ed San Bernardino County and further identified as San Bernardino County Tax Assessor’s Parcel Number 0229 -291-23 in connection with the Project. The permanent easement and two temporary construction easements are collectively referred to herein as “Subject Propert y Interests,” and APN 0229- 291-23 is referred to herein as “SCE Parcel.” The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly in Exhibits “A-1” through “A-3” and depicted on Exhibits “B-1” through “B-3”, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 4. O n May 4, 2022 the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino entered into an agreement allowing for the exercise of joint powers for the purpose of acquiring the Subject Property Interests located in unincorporated San Bernardino County for Project (“Joint Powers Agreement”). The Joint Powers Agreement authorizes the City to take all necessary and convenient steps to acquire the Subject Property Interests for the Project, including, without limitation, by purchase, lease, gift, devise, or the exercise of eminent domain.
SECTION 5.
The environmental effects of the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests were studied as an integral part of the environmental review for the Project. In connection with the proposed Resolution of Necessity, on July 20, 2022, City Staff reviewed the environmental documentation prepared in connection with the Project. Pursuant to the criteria of Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code, City staff concluded that no substantial changes have occurred in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken, and that the City has obtained no new information of substantial importance that would require further environmental
Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 3 of 6
analysis. These environmental findings are the appropriate findings with respect to the proposed acquisition of the Subject Property Interests.
SECTION 6. The Project, as planned and designed, is in the public interest and necessity and is needed to improve vehicle and rail safety, traffic mobility, and surface transportation, as more fully explained below:
A. The Project requires the acquisition of additional right of way for grade separation. The Project involves the widening and construction of Etiwanda Avenue as a four - lane grade separated roadway over the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (“SCRRA”)/Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad (“BNSF”) San Gabriel subdivision, currently a two-lane at-grade crossing. The Project will construct an overhead crossing, utilizing walls and embankments to support the raised approaching roadway. It will span the railroad right- of-way and provide access to adjacent properties. The Project will widen Etiwanda Avenue to four traffic lanes including a painted median/left turn lane with bike lanes and sidewalks on each side and a northbound right turn lane onto Whittram Avenue. When completed in 2025, the Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, as well as queuing. It will improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing, and it will provide for safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Furthermore, the Project will provide improved response times in the area for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. All work is consistent with the City’s General Plan of Circulation.
B. The Project will reduce vehicle and truck delays, improve safety and level of service at the crossing, and provide for the safe transit of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, trucks, and trains. Additionally, the Project will provide for improved response times in the area for first res ponders such as police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. Accordingly, the Project will benefit the residents and businesses of the City and the community as a whole.
C. The Project, as planned and designed, is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which designated Etiwanda Avenue as a four -lane major arterial road. Anticipating the future growth of the SCRRA/BNSF corridor, the City’s General Plan identified this area to be grade separated. The City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto in connection with the Project. The City seeks to construct the Project to improve mobility, safety, and level of service at the crossing.
D. The Project was planned and located to minimize the impact on adjacent properties. Because of its scope, the Project requires the acquisition of several permanent easements and temporary construction easements over portions of several larger parcels, as well as fee interests in two parcels, owned by private property owners. The construction of the Project will require some business/residential relocations. The City will coordinate the construction with the owner of the Subject Property Interest s to minimize the impact of the Project on the parcel.
Based on the timing of the Project, it is necessary that the City consider the acquisition by eminent domain of the required Subject Property Interests.
SECTION 7.
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7260 et seq., the City of Rancho Cucamonga obtained a fair market value appraisal of the SCE Parcel, the approximate 45 square
Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 4 of 6
foot permanent easement, the approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and the approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months the City seeks to acquire for public use, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto.
B. The City set just comp ensation in accordance with the appraised fair market value, and extended a written offer on February 28, 2022 to Southern California Edison Company, the owner of record. The fair market value appraisal us ed a date of value of July 16, 2021.
C. The City’s written offer included an informational pamphlet describing the eminent domain process and the record owner’s rights under the Eminent Domain Law. In accordance with Government Code Section 7267.2, the City’s written offer contained a written statement of, and summary of the basis for, the amount it established as just compensation. The offer set forth the date of value utilized by the appraiser and explained the appraiser’s opinion of the highest and best use of the larger parcel. It explained the applicable zoning designation of the larger parcel. The City’s offer also summarized the principal transactions relied on by the appraiser to arrive at the appraiser’s opinion of value. In addition, the written offer explained the appraiser’s valuation analysis, including property improvements and severance damages. It also included the City’s comparable market data relied on by the appraiser. Further, the City offered, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1263.025, to pay the record owner the reasonable costs, up to $5,000.00, for an independent appraisal of the Subject Property Interests.
SECTION 8. The City provided written notice to the owner of record, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235 of the City Council’s intent to consider the adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests by eminent domain.
SECTION 9. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interests, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, will not unreasonably interfere with or impair the continuance of the public use for which any easement holders may have appropriated the area (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510). Further, the Project may require the relocation of several utilities to the new right-of- way area. The public use for which the City seeks to acquire the Subject Property Interest s, namely grade separation and related purposes, and all uses necessary or convenient thereto, is a more necessary public use, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.650 , than the uses for which public utility easement holders have appropriated any utility easements located on or within the area of the Subject Property Interests. Accordingly, the City is authorized to acquire the Subject Property Interests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.510, 1240.610, and 1240.650.
SECTION 10.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing regarding the Project, including the Agenda Report and documents referenced therein and any oral and written testimony at the hearing, the City Council hereby finds and determines that:
A. The public interest and necessity require the Project; B. The Project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;
Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 5 of 6
C. The Subject Property Interests described more particularly in Exhibits “A1” through “A-3” and depicted on Exhibits “B-1” through “B-3” hereto, are necessary for the Project; and
D. The City has made the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 to the record owner of the Subject Property Interests the City seeks to acquire.
SECTION 11. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are based upon the record before the City Council, including the Agenda Report and all documents referenced therein, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference, and any testimony and/or comments submitted to the City by the record owner and/or the owner’s representative(s). These documents include, but are not limited to the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s General Plan, the offer letter sent to the owner pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2, the notice to the record owner pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 of the City’s intent to consider the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity, Grade Separation Plans for the Project, the Notice of Exemption for the Project, and the Joint Powers Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino executed on May 4, 2022.
SECTION 12.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes and directs the City Attorney’ s Office to take all steps necessary to commence and prosecute legal proceedings in a court of co mpetent jurisdiction to acquire an approximate 45 square foot permanent easement, an approximate 686 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months, and an approximate 11 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of twelve (12) months for the Project. The Subject Property Interests are described more particularly on Exhibits “A-1” through “A-3” and depicted on Exhibits “B-1” through “B-3” hereto.
SECTION 13. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute all necessary documents in connection with the eminent domain proceeding.
SECTION 14. T
he City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2022.
________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ATTEST:
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Resolution No. 2022-XXX - Page 6 of 6
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Nicholas R. Ghirelli, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
CERTIFICATION:
I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-XXX, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of July, 2022, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
___________________________
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN: 0229-291-23
SERIAL NO. ______
PERMANENT ROAD EASEMENT
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE -HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVEN UE AND NAPA STR EET AS SHOWN O N RECORD OF SURV EY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS , IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLIN E OF ETIWANDA AVENUE NORTH 00°17'46" EAST,
76.07 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE SOUTH 89°42'14" EAST,
40.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDE D JANUARY 23, 1997 AS INSTR UMENT NO. 19970023100, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 620.58 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 16;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 NORTH 88°57'20" EAST, 10.00 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 SOUTH 00°07 '00" WES T,
32.29 FEET TO T HE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS SOUTH 82°07'25" WEST;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°43'27" AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.76 FEET;
THENCE SO UTH 17°36'02" EAST, 7.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°43'31" AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.42 FEET;
EXHIBIT "A1"
SERIAL NO. ______
THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 75°52'32" EAST, 4.60 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 14°07'28" EAST, 55.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 75°52'32" WEST, 5.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVIN G A RADI US OF 283.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS NORTH 81°31'15" EAST;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°35'45" AN ARC LENGTH OF 42.46 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°07'00" WEST, 82.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING O F A TANG ENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°49'09" AN ARC LENGTH OF 142.08 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 29°42'09" EAST, 181.81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TAN GENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 77.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°00'00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.32 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°17'51" WEST, 43.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 38.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANG LE OF 71°56'07" AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.71 FEET TO THE CITY
BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE AND CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°37'01" AN ARC LENGTH OF 9.69 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH
ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO TH E COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDE D AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2001036816 7, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID CO UNTY,
SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 852 .95 FEET , A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEARS NORTH 03°44'41" EAST;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID NO RTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 AND ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03°26'50" AN ARC LENGTH OF 51.32 FEET;
EXHIBIT "A1"
SERIAL NO. ______
THENCE CONTINUING AL ONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 89°42'09" WEST, 110.00 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 00°17'47" EAST, 0.09 FEET TO SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE;
THENCE ALONG S AID CITY BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH 89°46'08" EAST, 0.04 FEET TO
THE INTERSECTION OF SAID GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100;
THENCE LEAVING SAID GENERALLY NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE SOUTH 89°46'08" EAST, 151.75 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A GRID AREA 45 SQUARE FEET OR 0.001 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION S ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), Z ONE 5 GRID , CSRS E POCH 2017.50 (NAD83 20 11), ALL D ISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID , TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964.
ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT IN TENDED FOR U SE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR’S ACT.
PRELIMINARY
__________________________________________________ ________________________ TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE
7/7/21
EXHIBIT "A1"
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN: 0229-291-23
SERIAL NO. ______
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE -HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTER SECTION OF ETIWANDA AVEN UE AND NAPA STREET AS SHOWN O N RECORD OF SURV EY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS , IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF NAPA STREET SOUTH 89°42'09" EAST,
90.00 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF NAPA STREET SOUTH 00°17'51" WEST,
33.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO P ER THE DOCU MENT R ECORDED AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO . 20010368167, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF
THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 SOUTH 89°42'09" EAST, 88.48 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 SOUTH 81°40'20" WEST, 103.37 FEET TO SAID GENERALLY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167;
THENCE ALONG SAID GENERALLY SOUT HEASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 20010368167 NORTH 41°48'30" EAST, 20.70 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A GRID AREA 686 SQUARE FEET OR 0.016 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTIO NS ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), Z ONE 5 GRID , CSRS EPOCH 2017.50 (NAD83 20 11), ALL D ISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID , TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964.
ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
EXHIBIT "A2"
SERIAL NO. ______
THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT INTENDED FOR U SE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS DOCUMEN T HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR’S ACT.
PRELIMINARY
__________________________________________________ ________________________ TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE
7/7/21
EXHIBIT "A2"
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APN: 0229-291-23
SERIAL NO. ______
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST ONE -HALF OF SECTION 16 IN TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 6 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED
TERRITORY OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, SAID PORTION BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF ETIWANDA AVEN UE AND NAPA STR EET AS SHOWN O N RECORD OF SURV EY 19-0109, FILED IN BOOK 168, PAGES 53 THROUGH 63, OF RECORDS OF SURVEYS , IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLIN E OF ETIWANDA AVENUE NORTH 00°17'46" EAST,
76.07 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE SOUTH 89°42'14" EAST,
40.00 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE AND THE GENERALLY
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDE D JANUARY 23, 1997 AS INSTR UMENT NO. 19970023100, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 NORTH 00°17'46" EAST, 620.58 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 16;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 19970023100 AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 NORTH 88°57'20" EAST, 10.00 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SECTION 16 SOUTH 00°07 '00" WES T,
32.29 FEET TO T HE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 193.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS SOUTH 82°07'25" WEST;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°43'27" AN ARC LENGTH OF 32.76 FEET;
THENCE SO UTH 17°36'02" EAST, 7.64 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 5.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 27°43'31" AN ARC LENGTH OF 2.42 FEET;
EXHIBIT "A3"
SERIAL NO. ______
THENCE NON-TANGENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 75°52'32" EAST, 4.60 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 14°07'28" EAST, 55.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 75°52'32" WEST, 5.37 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVIN G A RADI US OF 283.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING OF CURVE BEARS NORTH 81°31'15" EAST;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SA ID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08°35'45" AN ARC LENGTH OF 42.46 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°07'00" WEST, 82.77 FEET TO THE BEGINNING O F A TANG ENT CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°49'09" AN ARC LENGTH OF 142.08 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 29°42'09" EAST, 181.81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TAN GENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 77.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 30°00'00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 40.32 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00°17'51" WEST, 43.19 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 38.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANG LE OF 71°56'07" AN ARC LENGTH OF 47.71 FEET TO THE CITY
BOUNDARY LINE OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY 19-0109, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE LEAVING SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE AND CONTINUING SOUTHEASTERLY AND EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°37'01" AN ARC LENGTH OF 9.69 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE VARIABLE WIDTH
ROAD EASEMENT GRANTED TO TH E COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO PER THE DOCUMENT RECORDE D AUGUST 14, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2001 0368167, OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID CO UNTY,
SAID POINT BEING ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 852 .95 FEET , A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT ON CURVE BEARS NORTH 03°44'41" EAST;
EXHIBIT "A3"
SERIAL NO. ______
THENCE LEAVING SAID NO RTHERLY LINE OF INSTRUMENT NO. 2001036816 7 AND ALONG A LINE RADIAL TO SAID 38.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE NORTH 03°44'43" EAST,
1.82 FEET TO SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE;
THENCE ALONG SAID CITY BOUNDARY LINE NORTH 89°46'08" WEST, 9.61 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING A GRID AREA 11 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS.
THE BEARINGS AND DISTANCES USED IN THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION S ARE CALIFORNIA COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (CCS83), Z ONE 5 GRID , CSRS E POCH 2017.50 (NAD83 20 11), ALL D ISTANCES SHOWN ARE GRID , TO OBTAIN GROUND DISTANCES DIVIDE BY 0.99993964.
ALL FOUND MONUMENT DESCRIPTIONS AND BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT “B” ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
THIS DESCRIPTION IS NOT IN TENDED FOR U SE IN THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND IN VIOLATION OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME, OR UNDER MY DIRECTION, IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR’S ACT.
PRELIMINARY
__________________________________________________ ________________________ TIMOTHY S. FETTIG P.L.S. 7542 DATE
7/7/21
EXHIBIT "A3"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B1"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B1
SURVEYOR'S NOTE:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
EASEMENT NOTES
LEGEND
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B1"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B-2"
SURVEYOR'S NOTE:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
EXHIBIT "B"
EASEMENT NOTE
LEGEND
EXHIBIT "B-2"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B-3"
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B-3"
SURVEYOR'S NOTE:
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
EASEMENT NOTES
LEGEND
EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "B-3"
ATTACHMENT 3
DATE:July 20, 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: Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of the Following:
ORDINANCE NO. 1007
A ORDINANCE 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
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1007.
BACKGROUND:
The introduction and first reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was conducted at the Regular Council meeting of June 15, 2022.
Votes at first reading: AYES: Scott, Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael. ABSENT: None ANALYSIS:
Please refer to the June 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Please refer to the June 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
Please refer to the June 15, 2022 City Council Staff Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 1007
Attachment 2 – Link_The Resort Specific Plan – PA 1A
Attachment 3 – Link_The Resort Specific Plan – PA 1B
ORDINANCE NO. 1007
A ORDINANCE 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 TH E 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 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 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, concluded the hearing on that date, and initiated the first reading of Ordinance No. 1007 and making the findings in support thereof.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City 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, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application 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.
Attachment 1
b. The applicant has appli ed for a Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020 00164, requesting an amendment to The Resort Specific Plan to allow modifications to the 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 proposed 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 comfortable environments 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 i nfill 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 the densities, 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, offering 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 walkability, pedestrian- friendly commercial and residential areas, and adequate scale and intensity of buildings in context of its surroundings. Based on this information, the similarities are comparable between 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 administration 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 pla n, 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 t o 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.
SECTION 4: California Environmental Quality Act
a. 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.
b. 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 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 in fact be feasible, or introduce mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR.
d. 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 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.
SECTION 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 20th day of July 2022.
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 the 20th day of July 2022.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
Attachment 2 – The Resort Specific Plan – Planning Area 1A Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
The Resort Specific Plan PA 1A
Attachment 2
Attachment 3 – The Resort Specific Plan – Planning Area 1B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
The Resort Specific Plan PA 1B
Attachment 3
DATE:July 20, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matthew R. Burris, AICP, Deputy City Manager/Interim Planning Director Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2020-00440 – WOOD PARTNERS, APPLICANT. The
project is a site plan/architectural review for a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. APNs:
0229-311-14 and -15. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration (RESOLUTION 2022-113) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440.
BACKGROUND:
On April 13, 2022, Design Review DRC2020-00440 for the site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space went before the Planning Commission for consideration (Attachment 1). On the date of the meeting, correspondence was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) raising concerns related to the adequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the correspondence from Lozeau Drury, LLP, determined that the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project was adequate, and approved Design Review DRC2020-00440. (Attachment 2). On April 20, 2022, an appeal of the Planning Commission approval was received from Lozeau Drury, LLP on behalf of SAFER within the 10-day appeal period.
The project site is located on a vacant 5.2-acre site on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. The project is comprised of two 4-story buildings, oriented toward the site’s Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue frontages. Both buildings contain an interior courtyard and are separated by a central paseo running north to south along the site.
A surface parking lot is situated along the site’s southern and eastern boundary, as well as a subterranean parking structure beneath both buildings. The project will have a density of 50
1 3
1 3
dwelling units per acre, which is within the residential density range permitted within the City Corridor High General Plan Designation of 36 to 60 units per acre.
ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project.
Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal and cultural resources, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment.
Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period which started on September 1, 2021 and ended on October 1, 2021, and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The City received a letter from Lozeau Drury LLP, Mitchell Tsai Attorney at Law, and the Inland Empire Biking Alliance during the public comment period.
Responses to these comments were incorporated in a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was recirculated from February 8, 2022, through February 28, 2022. Letters were received from the Cucamonga Valley Water District and Mitchel Tsai, Attorney at Law during the recirculation period. Responses to these comments have been prepared and included in the response to comments section of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration shows the applicant’s commitment to ensuring the environmental impacts are addressed. Staff believes the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses all potential environmental impacts and has incorporated the necessary mitigations to minimize such impacts.
The appellant’s (Lozeau Drury, LLP) appeal letter (Attachment 3) contains the same information as the correspondence received during the public comment period of the projects first circulation of the MND. The appeal letter asserts that the prepared MND was inadequate. The applicant has provided a response letter (Attachment 4) to address the comments discussed in the appeal. The appellant’s comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized below.
A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
Response: The comment ignores the current 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24) which regulates formaldehyde in new construction, which all new construction must adhere to. The appellant cites an outdated study of indoor air quality within single family homes, not multi-family apartments (“HENGH Study”). Formaldehyde emissions are already addressed by the Project’s compliance with current residential building standards.
SAFER claims that the Final MND failed to consider the increased cancer risk due to the Project’s location adjacent to certain roadways and uses. The Final MND and associated technical studies consider whether the Project would exacerbate air emissions from mobile sources in the Project vicinity, including the roadways. The Project’s daily fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations would be far below the Southcoast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) applicable regional and local significance thresholds.
The Final MND’s technical analyses and prevailing regulatory guidance indicate that no further risk analysis is warranted for those roadways and uses beyond what was already
1 3
1 3
analyzed in the MND.
B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife.
Response: The appellant claims that there is a possibility of special status species in the Project site. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which commented on the draft MND, did not criticize how the reconnaissance field survey was conducted or its conclusion that the Project has no potentially adverse impacts to wildlife. The Final MND concluded that special-status species were unlikely to occur onsite because no such habitat was observed during the survey. Additionally, ongoing intrusive human activity such as traffic and domestic animals occur within the project vicinity.
SAFER also claims that the Final MND fails to address the Project’s capacity to cause to habitat fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation cannot occur without the presence of wildlife migration corridors, and no such corridors exist within the Project site or vicinity. Potentially significant effects on wildlife as a result of collisions cannot occur unless the species are present. The Project site is located in a highly urbanized environment with heavy traffic, and thus the Project will not change already existing conditions.
The applicant will be required to conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats per the Final MND. Pre-construction surveys are industry standard mitigation measures that California courts and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife have found adequately protect against impacts to wildlife resources, particularly where there is a very low likelihood, but not an impossibility, that a resource may be present.
C. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantiated Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.
Response: The Final MND’s modeling used Project-specific information for the above categories based on the Project’s design or required compliance with regulatory requirements, which is more logical than SAFER’s proposal so that the Project’s impacts, if any, can be addressed. SAFER’s air quality and GHG consultant does not provide any justification or facts supporting why the default inputs would better further CEQA’s goal of reducing environmental impacts than Project-specific data.
D. An Updated Air Model Analysis Is Needed to Determine Whether the Project Will Have a Significant Air Quality Impact.
Response: The appellant claims that the Draft MND’s air model analysis needs to be redone because it initially only reported winter daily emissions. The difference between summer and winter emissions is nominal and does not change the Final MND’s conclusion that the Project’s emissions are far below the regional SCAQMD thresholds for all pollutants.
E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
Response: SAFER asserts that the Final MND should have included an operational health risk analysis (“HRA”) to assess the Project’s potential to emit diesel particulate matter (“DPM”). The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency that regulates air quality
1 3
1 3
in the Project’s air basin, does not require residential land use projects to prepare operational HRAs because such projects do not involve mobile or stationary sources of substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. Because an operational HRA is inapplicable to the Project, the Final MND was not required to perform or discuss one.
F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact.
Response: Regarding health impacts during construction, the Final MND includes an inhalation-pathway HRA to analyze exposures to DPM during construction in accordance with 2015 OEHHA HRA guidelines and utilizing the Project’s specific construction schedule and equipment inventory. The HRA found that the Project would not cause DPM emissions during construction which pose TAC-related health concerns for nearby sensitive receptors.
G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Response: SAFER claims that the Final MND’s GHG quantitative analysis should have used the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2035 efficiency target for its significance threshold rather than SCAQMD’s recommended screening threshold which the Final MND used. The screening threshold used for the Final MND’s GHG analysis is the current threshold recommended by SCAQMD, the expert agency in charge of permitting and enforcement related to air pollution.
The appellant also claims the Final MND should have included analysis of the Project’s consistency with the performance standards in CARB’s Scoping Plan and Southern California Association of Government’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Reliance on SCAQMD’s screening threshold, however, which showed the Project will not cause significant GHG impacts, precludes the need for further GHG analysis.
H. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact.
Response: The appellant does not provide any explanation or support or point to any specific information in the Final MND or Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment that it believes shows a significant noise impact or the insufficiency of the proposed mitigation.
SAFER’s failure to support their argument with any evidentiary basis or citation to the record is fatal to their claim.
Staff has reviewed the appellant’s comments and the applicant’s responses and determined that the Final MND adopted by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2022 adequately addresses all potential environmental impacts and has incorporated the necessary mitigations to minimize such impacts. No further environmental review for the project is necessary. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has submitted a Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by AECOM, dated July 8, 2021.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis concluded that the project would produce an annual recurring surplus
1 3
1 3
to the General Fund, which gradually increases over a 20-year span.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The proposed mixed-use development will help achieve the City Council Core Values of providing and nurturing a high-quality life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and a continuous pursuit of improvement. It is the City Council’s vision to make Foothill Boulevard the City’s mixed-use corridor, featuring a variety of urban developments that will enable a vibrant, walkable neighborhood that residents, workers, and visitors can enjoy. The proposed mixed-use project fits in this vision.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Resolution 22-09
Attachment 3 – Lozeau Drury, LLP Appeal Letter dated April 20, 2022 Attachment 4 – Applicant Response Letter dated May 31, 2022 Attachment 5 – City Council Resolution 2022-113
DAT
E: April 13, 2022
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FRO
M:
Matthew R. Burris, AICP, Deputy City Manager – Community and Economic Development/Interim Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
SUBJECT
: LOCAT
ED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE – WOOD PARTNERS – A
request to construct a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space within the Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District. APNs: 0229-311-14 and -
15. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration. Desi
gn Review DRC2020-00440.
RECO
MMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action:
x Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and approve Design Review DRC2020-00440.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A request to construct a 260-unit mixed use development with a total of 3,339 square feet of commercial space at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
The 5.2-acre project site is located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue (Exhibit A – Aerial). The dimensions of the rectangular-shaped property are approximately 330 feet north to south and 690 feet east to west. The site gently slopes from north to south and is covered by low vegetation. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
A. General: The project is comprised of two 4-story buildings. Building 1 is located at the westerly half of the site and is oriented towards the corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Building 2 is on t he La nd Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant City Corridor High
Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District
1 North Vacant City Corridor High Mixed-Us e Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District 1 South Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low (L) Residential District East Single-Family Residences Low Residential Low (L) Residential District West Shopping Center General Commercial Regional Related Commercial (RRC) District 1 1 – Foothill Boulevard Overlay District, Subarea 4
Attachment 1
site’s easterly half and is oriented towards Foothill Boulevard. Both buildings contain an interior courtyard and are separated by a central paseo running north to south (Exhibit B – Site Plan).
A surface parking lot is proposed along the site’s southern and eastern boundary, as well as a subterranean parking structure beneath both buildings . The project will have a density of 50 dwelling units per acre, which is within the residential density range permitted within the City Corridor High General Plan Designation of 36 to 60 units per acre.
B. Architecture: The two buildings are inspired by the Spanish architectural style. Design features such as arches, towers, pergolas, fabric awnings, and S-tile roofs consistent with the Spanish architectural vernacular are applied throughout the two buildings. Building materials include stucco, fabric, and a fiber cement board material that is meant to evoke t he appearance of wood. These building materials are applied throughout all building elevations, resulting in “360-degree architecture” (Exhibit C – Elevations and Renderings).
The buildings also incorporate large tower elements at the northwest and northeast corners that outset from the rest of the building plane and feature pitched roofs and arched windows to enhance the visual interest. These towers emphasize verticality and provide a sense of architectural importance, especially at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue. Horizontal articulation along the building plane as well as vertical articulation along the building’s roofline breaks down the building massing and creates architectural interest.
C. Unit Composition and Floor Plans: There are 259 re sidential units proposed (184 one-bedroom units, 55 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units), as well as 1 live-work unit. The live-work apartment is a one-bedroom, two-story unit, with a total of 816 square feet of commercial-ready space. Additionally, the project also proposes two true-commercial units. These two commercial units and the live-work unit are located on the project’s first-story frontage along Foothill Boulevard, at the northeast corner of Building 1 and the northwest corner of Building 2. The total commercial square footage for the project including the live-work unit is 3,339 square feet. Floor to ceiling storefront glass is incorporated along the entire façade of the two commercial units and the live work unit in order to emphasize the non-residential nature of these spaces.
D. Recreation Amenities:
Resident amenities include a business center, gym, a pool/spa, an open grass recreation area, a children’s play area, a common fireplace, and a fenced dog run. A central pedestrian paseo running north to south is also proposed between the two buildings. This pedestrian paseo features various seating and patio furniture. A publicly accessible pocket park is also proposed between the two buildings, towards the northerly portion of the project site (Exhibit D – Amenities Exhibit)
E. Fencing and Access:
One of the key focal points emphasized throughout th e General Plan emphasizes is connectivity and creating complete neighborhoods with each new increment of residential development. The proposed project has managed to implement these characteristics to the best extent possible, giving the current site conditions and constraints. The most notable is the ungated circulation throughout the project. The surface parking lot, which extends from Etiwanda Avenue along the south property to Foothill Boulevard along the east property line is ungated. Additionally, the central paseo between the two buildings will also be ungated. The only exceptions will occur at the entrance to the subterranean parking structure, and at the private resident courtyards. Aside from these areas, the project will include an open circulation design for pedestrians and vehicles that will help facilitate strong connectivity and permeability throughout the site. The open circulation will also assist with improving emergency access to the site to better serve the safety needs of the community.
The project will also include two new 6-foot-high decorative perimeter block walls along the south and the east property lines between the project site and the existing single-family neighborhoods. Along the south and east property lines there are es currently a variety of wood fences and chain link fences.
Insome instances there are gaps where no fencing exists. Replacing this fencing with new block walls will provide an improvement along the rear yards of the adjacent residential properties (Exhibit E – Wall and Fence Plan).
F. Compliance with Technical Development Standards: The project was deemed complete on May 12, 2021. This occurred prior to the City Council’s adoption on September 1, 2021of interim development standards for Mixed Use zoning districts. These interim standards ultimately became effective on October 15, 2021. Therefore, the development standards in effect for Mixed Use zoning districts prior to October 15, 2021, are applied to this project. As demonstrated in the table below, the project complies with all Development Code requirements effective at the time the project was deemed Complete.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
Development Standard Required Proposed Complies
Building Setback – Foothill (Major) 11’-3” min. 29’-6” YES Parking Setback – Foothill (Major) 7’-6” min. 32’-9” YES Landscape and Wall Setback – Foothill
(Major)
11’-3” min. avg.
7’-6” min.
34’-7” avg.
26’-6” Min YES
Building Setback – Etiwanda (Tertiary) 8’-9” 17’ YES
Parking Setback – Etiwanda (Tertiary) 6’-3” 35’ YES
Landscape and Wall Setback – Etiwanda
(Tertiary)
8’-9” min. avg.
6’-3” min.
17’ avg.
17’ min. YES
Interior Side Setback 20’ 102’ YES
Interior Rear Setback 25’ 77’ – 3” YES
Building Height 75’ max., 25’ within 100’ of
residential
59’-8” max, 25’ within
100’ of residential YES
Landscape Area 10% 14.2% YES
Open Space 150 sf/unit
(39,000 sf) 48,350 sf YES
G. Parking: Per the Development Code, the project is required to provide 528 parking spaces with 280 of the spaces required to be covered (i.e., in a garage or carport). Previous iterations of the project, including the version that was presented to the Design Review Committee (see Section I of this report) and at neighborhood meetings (see Section J of this report) included a request for a 12% reduction in the on- site parking requirement subject to the review and approval of a Minor Exception application.
A 12% reduction would result in the project providing 465 parking spaces. Of this number of parking spaces, 265 would have been provided in an underground garage. The outcome of this reduction would have been a parking deficiency of 63 spaces.
Following the Design Review Committee and neighborhood meetings, the applicant in coordination with City staff, responded to the concerns about the parking by revising the proposal and expanding the capacity of the underground parking structure by 63 spaces. This revision results in the project now complying with all parking requirements described in the Development Code. The project now provides all 528 parking spaces with 328 of the spaces being co vered. As the reduction in the on-site parking requirement is no longer proposed, the associated application for the Minor Exception has been withdrawn from consideration. The table below summarizes the parking calculation for the project.
PARKING ANALYSIS
Number
of Units
Square
Footage
Parking Ratio
Required Parking
Multi-family unit
(one bedroom) 184 N/A 1.5 per unit
(1 in garage or carport) 276
Multi-family unit
(two bedrooms) 55 N/A 2 per unit
(1 in garage or carport) 110
Multi-family unit
(three bedrooms) 20 N/A 2 per unit
(2 in garage or carport) 40
Live-Work
(1-bedroom units) 1 816 1.5 per unit
(1 in garage or carport) 2
Visitor parking 260 N/A 1 per 3 units 87
Commercial (including
Live-Work portion) 2 3,339 4 per 1,000 13
Total Parking Spaces Required/Provided 528/528
Total Garage Parking Spaces Required/Provided 280/328
The project has adequate parking for all proposed uses, as it meets all parking required by the Development Code. In order to ensure that on-site parking is properly managed, the applicant has provided a Parking Management Plan (Exhibit F – Parking Management Plan). This Parking Management Plan outlines how residential, guest, and commercial parking spaces are assigned, and details enforcement actions that apartment management can take in response to any potential parking violations.
Furthermore, in the event that there are problems or concerns with parking, a Condition of Approval has been added to the project which allows the City to reserve the right to require the preparation of off-site, on-street parking restrictions such as, but not limited to, signs indicating no parking, signs indicating time- restricted parking, red curbing the adjacent streets, any necessary street repairs/improvements, or the establishment of a parking district at the cost of the property owner/developer.
Staff believes the applicant has been diligent in addressing the parking concerns by meeting the parking requirements, additionally, with the inclusion of the parking management plan, Staff believes there are adequate tools to address any parking related concerns in the future. The Parking Management Plan and parking study have been reviewed by the Planning Department and Engineering Services Department.
H. Public Art: This project is required to provide public art as outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Based on the number of residential units and commercial square footage for this project, the total art value required per Section 17.124.020.C. is $198,339. A condition has been included pursuant to the Development Code that requires the public art requirement to be fulfilled prior to occupancy.
I. Design Review Committee: The project was firs t reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC – Williams and Guglielmo) on June 1, 2021. During this meeting, the committee expressed concerns regarding the project’s recreational amenities, the amount of commercial square footage (floor area), building articulation, the reduction in parking, and community outreach (Exhibit G – DRC minutes 06/01/2021). The Committee voted to require the project to go through a second round of Committee review to ensure that the applicant had addressed the concerns expressed by the Committee.
On July 20, 2021, the project returned for the requested follow-up review by the Committee. Revised project plans which included a modified color palate to break up the building massing, a revised amenities list which incorporates a dog park and a tot lot, and an increase in the square footage for commercial space were presented to the Committee. The Committee was pleased with the applicant’s
responsiveness to the Committee’s comments and voted to move the project forward as proposed to the full Planning Commission for consideration (Exhibit H – DRC minutes 07/20/2021).
J. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was c onducted for the project via teleconference on March 30, 2021. The meeting was held virtually in compliance with State and San Bernardino County Health Department’s restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting had 11 attendees.
Attendees asked questions about the project’s entitlement process and potential parking impacts to the surrounding single-family neighborhood. One attendee expressed their opposition to the development due to the parking overflow that the project may c ause to the single-family neighborhood directly south of the project site.
With the lifting of pandemic restrictions on physical gathering, a second neighborhood meeting was conducted at the project site on August 9, 2021. This neighborhood meeting occurred in-person to provide nearby residents a better understanding of the project in relation to the project site. This was also another opportunity for the residents to expres s their opinion on the development prior to the Planning Commission hearing. There was a total of 13 participants in attendance at this meeting. Several residents expressed concerns regarding the potential overflow parking issues from the project that may arise in the surrounding single-family neighborhood. There were also discussions regarding the potential loss of views and privacy on the single-family lots immediately adjacent to the development. Additionally, a few residents expressed the need for the project to provide publicly accessible amenities that serve not only the renters of the apartment complex, but also the surrounding community.
In response to residents’ concerns regarding publicly accessible amenities, the applicant agreed remove the gate immediately south of the proposed pocket park along Foothill Boulevard, making the pedestrian paseo between Buildings 1 and 2 publicly accessible. A publicly accessible bocce ball court along the parkway adjacent to Foothill Boulevard has also been incorporated.
As discussed in the parking section of the staff report (see Section G of this report), in response to the comments received during these meetings, the applicant also expanded the capacity of the underground parking garage by enlarging it to allow for an additional 63 parking spaces. These modifications enabled the project to meet the parking requirements of the Development Code. Additionally, the applicant also reiterated their commitment to strictly enforcing the Parking Management Plan, which includes requiring all residents to list the exact number of cars in their possession and advising guests to not park off-site, in an effort to mitigate any adverse parking impacts to the surrounding neighborhood.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and tribal and cultural resources, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment.
Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period which started on September 1, 2021 and ended on October 1, 2021, and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City received a letter from Lozeau Drury LLP, Mitchell Tsai Attorney at Law, and the Inland Empire Biking Alliance during the public comment period.
Responses to these comments were incorporated in a revised Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was recirculated from February 8, 2022, through February 28, 2022. Letters were received from the Cucamonga Valley Water District and Mitchel Tsai, Attorney at Law representing the Southwest Regional Council of
Carpenters during the recirculation period. Responses to these comments have also been prepared and included in the final response to comments section of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff believes the Mitigated Negative Declaration adequately addresses all potential environmental impacts and has incorporated the necessary mitigations to minimize such impacts.
The recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration further shows the applicant’s commitment to ensuring the environmental impacts are addressed. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. To date, no written correspondence, phone calls, or in person inquiries have been received regarding the project notifications.
As required by Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), the City submit ted Tribal Consultation Requests to the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indian following a completeness determination for the project. The notices were mailed out on January 20, 2021 and provided for a 30-day comment period ending on February 20, 2021.
On June 15, 2021, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded to the notice and requested that mitigation measures related to archeological/cultural resources be incorporated into the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. These mitigation measures were incorporat ed in the attached Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. On the same day, the City also received correspondence from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requesting for consultation. The City responded to the consultation request but received no response from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Therefore, standard Mitigation Measures provided by Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation that were incorporated on previous developments within the City were incorporated into the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
This project supports the City Council goal related to the completion of the General Plan and Housing Element by implementing a project that incorporates the vision and many goals and objectives of the General Plan.
Additionally, the project meets several City Council core values by providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. The General Plan anticipates the Foothill Boulevard becoming a vibrant, walkable environment including a variety of uses and activities for all to enjoy. The proposed project fits this vision of the General Plan..
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Aerial
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Elevations and Renderings
Exhibit D - Amenities Exhibit
Exhibit E - Wall and Fence Plan
Exhibit F - Parking Management Plan
Exhibit G - DRC minutes 06/01/2021
Exhibit H - DRC minutes 07/20/2021
Exhibit I - Draft Resolution 22-07 of Approval
Exhibit J - Conditions of Approval
Exhibit K - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program
AERIAL
Exhibit A
&YIJCJU#
$8*867-$18$5<
([KLELW&
Note: All signage, including monument signs, are under a separate sign permit Note: All signage, including monument signs, are under a separate sign permit
$8*867
$8*867-$18$5<
$8*867
$8*867-$18$5<
AMENITIES EXHIBIT
Exhibit D
AMENITIES EXHIBIT
Exhibit E
WALL AND FENCE PLAN
L4
([KLELW(
Alta Cuvee – Parking Management Plan
This document outlines Wood Partners’ Parking Management Plan for Alta Cuvee, located on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga, CA. The policies and requirements set forth in this Parking Management Plan are aimed to provide an organized and systematic parking plan for residents and guests of Alta Cuvee while mitigating parking congestion in the site’s surrounding neighborhoods. Wood Partners is committed to being good neighbors with the community and managing parking on-site to ensure that the policies below are continually reviewed/updated as needed to maximize the efficiency of our parking facilities.
Resident Parking
All resident parking will be located within the gated portion of the site, either on the surface level or within the 1 subterranean level parking garage, as outlined in red in the two site plans below. An access management system will be installed, where only residents with be granted access to the resident parking areas. All parking spaces will be specifically numbered and assigned to registered vehicles as part of a tenant’s lease agreement. Tandem spaces will be assigned to the same multi-bedroom units consistent with tandem parking best management practices.
Site Plan: Surface Level – Resident Parking
Resident Parking
Resident Parking
([KLELW)
2 Site Plan: Subterranean Parking Structure – Resident Parking Resident Parking
Commercial / Guest Parking
All commercial and guest parking will be required to park on site in designated spots reserved for non- resident parking, as outlined in purple on the below site plan. These non-reserved parking spaces will be utilized on a first come first serve basis. Commercial users and guests are not allowed to park in resident reserved park spaces and shall not park in nearby neighborhoods. Even if a reserved tenant parking space is unassigned, commercial users and guests are neither allowed to utilize the unassigned resident parking spaces nor will have access to the gated resident parking area.
Site Plan: Commercial / Guest Parking
Commercial / Guest Parking
3 Register Vehicles with Management
All resident vehicles will be required to be registered with building management as part of their lease agreement. Only those registered vehicles will be allowed to park in the reserved spaces for residents.
Management staff will monitor the amount of resident parking spaces that are available. Units will not be leased to tenants if a potential tenant has more vehicles than spaces available.
Assigned Vehicle Parking
All resident vehicles will be assigned a specific parking spot that is numbered and reserved for the specific vehicles use only. Parking spaces are assigned to one (1) specific resident vehicle only and are not able to be shared with other resident or guest vehicles. If a tenant’s vehicle information should change, it is the responsibility of the tenant to notify management in writing within 3 days of the change.
Security / Monitoring
Management staff and security personnel will be on site 24 hours per day to monitor and enforce compliance with the requirements of the Parking Management Plan and the requirements set for in the tenants’ lease agreements. Cameras will be also be utilized to monitor the parking areas. Any violation of the parking requirements set forth in the tenants’ lease agreements will be subject to towing, revoked parking privileges, and/or eviction.
Management staff will conduct quarterly occupancy surveys to ensure that parking is being managed appropriately and verify that parking occupancy is consistent with parking permitting. Management staff will also review potential parking spill-over into adjacent areas through review of security footage and/or site observations.
Maximum Number of Vehicles & Monitoring
A maximum total number of vehicles will be allowed per apartment, with the below requirements:
x Maximum of 2 parking spaces for a 1-bedroom apartments x Maximum of 2 parking spaces for a 2-bedroom apartment x Maximum of 3 parking spaces for a 3-bedroom apartment
The number of remaining parking spaces available at the property will be monitored during lease up and stabilization. If there is not a sufficient number of available spaces as requested by a potential resident for his/her vehicles, a lease will not be executed for that prospective tenant.
Additional Parking Language
An Addendum to the resident’s leases will include the below requirements related to parking:
x You agree to register all vehicles with management and all such vehicles shall be parked onsite pursuant to the terms of this Addendum and any parking rules and regulations promulgated by management from time to time.
x You shall not park any unregistered vehicles on site. x Assigned parking shall be on a first come first serve basis. You are not entitled to a parking space unless one is assigned to you.
4 x If a parking space is available and assigned to you, you shall only park in the parking space assigned to you.
x Your guests shall park onsite, on a first come first serve basis, in the spaces specifically designated for guests.
x You understand that your vehicle will be towed at your expense if you park in a space that is not assigned to you.
x You understand that your parking space(s) are for the ASSIGNED Vehicle only and that it is not be shared with anyone.
x Resident understands that parking privileges may be revoked if this addendum or any of the parking rules and regulations are violated.
x If your vehicle information changes, it is your responsibility to notify management in writing within 3 days of the change. Failure to do so could result in your vehicle being towed from the property.
Any violation of these lease agreement requirements will be subject to towing, revoked parking privileges, and/or eviction.
Alta Cuvee Apartments
Parking Management Plan
Drawings
Ground Level
• Guest/Visitor – 87 spaces
• Assigned Residential - Building 1 – 50 spaces
• Assigned Residential - Building 2 – 50 spaces
• Commercial – 13 spaces
•
•
•
12 7
14 •
Building 1 Building 2
6 1
0 28
14 9
14 Unit Mix
Building 1
• Live/Work – 0 apartments
• 1 Bedroom – 83 apartments
• 2 Bedroom – 33 apartments
• 3 Bedroom – 6 apartments
Building 2
• Live/Work – 1 apartments
• 1 Bedroom – 101 apartments
• 2 Bedroom – 22 apartments
• 3 Bedroom – 14 apartments
61 4
12 9
Alta Cuvee Apartments
Parking Management Plan
Drawings
Basement Level
• Guest/Visitor – 0 spaces
• Assigned Residential - Building 1 – 153 spaces
• Assigned Residential - Building 2 – 175 spaces
• Commercial – 0 spaces
•
•
•
•
20 21
4 36
10 24
34 Unit Mix
Building 1
• Live/Work – 0 apartments
• 1 Bedroom – 83 apartments
• 2 Bedroom – 33 apartments
• 3 Bedroom – 6 apartments
Building 2
• Live/Work – 1 apartments
• 1 Bedroom – 101 apartments
• 2 Bedroom – 22 apartments
• 3 Bedroom – 14 apartments
1 2
1 34
57 45
3 1
35
A 077A=:A$;34;
+82M>22E9?7M@3ME82M!2D97?M)2I92JM @>>9EE22MJ.DM82;1M@?M$H?2MM M+82M>22E9?7MJ.DM0.;;21ME@M@C12CM/LM
%9:2M*>9E8M*E.6M @@C19?.E@CM.EM
A>M
!2D97?M)2I92JM @>>9GE22M>2>/2CDMAC2D2?E
M #C.?09D0@M'.K.0.M!9.?2M-9;;9.>DM
*E.35M(C2D2?E
M,9?02?EM 0H?.M [email protected](;.??2C
M
&>1752A :88>9520=5:9<
*E.6M @@C19?.E@CM@A2?21ME82MAH/;90M0@>>H?90.E9@?M.?1M.4F2CM?@E9?7ME82C2MJ2C2M?@MAH/<90M0@>>2?EDM0;@D21M AH/<90M0@>>H?90.E9@?DM
:9<49=A 074930;
A @?D912C.E9@[email protected]@AEM)27H;.CM%22E9?7M%9?HE2DM@3M%.LMMM
EW1EC^'$JN)(^ ^YEW)^WE^$(EHW^W0)^@1CXW)U^$U^HK)U)CW)( ^
&;:642=A(4?54@A =48<
A "%,
A,A+%-,
+,A %(#
(A
%%, !""A %-"
.(A #A
,!/#A.
#-
A
A
%%, !""A %-"
.(A /%%A '(,#
)+A [email protected]!2D97?M )2I92JME@M
0@?DECH0EM.M>9K21
HD2M12I2;@A>2?EM0@>AC9D9?7M@4MMC2D912?E9.<MH?9EDM.?1MM;9I2J@C:MH?9EDM.?1M.M %9?@CM"K02AE9@?M E@MC21H02ME82M?H>/2CM@3M C2BH9C21MA.C:9?7MDE.;;D M/LMMMJ9E89?M E82M @>>H?9ELM @>>2C09.=M M!9DEC90E
M (&D
M
M .?1M
M !2D97?M)2I92J M.?1M%9?@CM"K02AE9@?M
*
A
*
A
W$.^HK)V)DW)(^W0)^HQ6)'W^[W0^K)'EAA)D($W1ED^W0$W^W0)^)V1/D^ )Y1)Z^EAA1WW))^AEY)^ W0)^HQ6)'W^+EKZ%K(^WE^W0)^
9$CC1D/^EAA1UU1ED^HKEY1()(^W0$W^W0)^$HH91'$CW^1D'EKHEK$W)^$W^9)$UW^ ^VIX$K*
+))W^E+^'EAA)K'1$9^UH$')^$9EC/^W0)^EEW01;^,RDW$/)^1C^EK()K^WE^&)WW)K^7XVW1+]^W0)^ A1\)(^XU)^'EAHED)DW^E+^W0)^HQ6)'W
^ !2=91$AV^U$1(^W0$W^W0)^HKG6)'W^V0EX9(^1C'EKHEK$W)^$^WEW^ EW^$V^H$KW^E+^W0)^HKG6)'WU^$A)C1W1)U^U1C')^^$D(^
&)(QEA^XD1WV^A$]^0$Y)^'019(K)C^91Y1C/^1C^
W0)A^ 0)^ $9VE^UX//)UW)(^W0$W^$^(E/^ KXD^&)^ 1D'9X()( ^ EAA1WW))^A)A&)K^ "3=-^1$AV^$9UE^
)\HK)UU)(^'ED')PV^$&EXW^W0)^H$O1D/^K)(X'W1EC^UEX/0W^+EK^&]^W0)^HQ6)'W^UW$W1C/^W0$W^K)(X')(^ H$O1D/^A$]^9)$(^WE^H$K81D/^EY)M:EZ^WE^W0)^ VXSFXD(1D/^D)1/0&EK0EE(^ "4>1$AV^$9VE^VW$W)(^ W0$W^U0)^$/K))V^ Z1W0^VW$.U^K)'EAA)D($W1ED^W0$W^'EAA)K'1$9^ UH$')^&)^$(()(^WE^W0)^HLE6)'W^ $D(^CEW)(^W0$W^W0)^HQ6)'W^$V^'XKK)CW9]^HQHEU)(^9EE8V^AEK)^918)^$C^$H$TB)DW^HKG6)'W^ K$W0)K^ W0$D^WKX)^A1\)(
XU)^()Y)9EHA)CW
^
EAA1WW))^A)A&)K^
$\$'$^ V$1(^W0$W^W0)^$K'01W)'WXK$9^()V1/D^E+^W 0)^HKG6)'W^EY )K$9^Z$V^ 0$D(9)(^Z)<^&XW^VX//)VW)(^W0$W^W0)^&X19(1D/^1D'EKHEK$W)^AEK)^Y)T1'$9^$T1'X9$W1ED^WE^&K)$8^XH^ A$VV1D/^)^$9VE^$/K))(^Z1W0^'EAA1WW))^A)A&)K^#4?1$AV^K)/$K(1D/^$((5D/^WEW^9EW^$D(^(E/^ H$K8^WE^W0)^HQ6)'W^1C^EK()K^WE^1D'K)$V)^ W0)^DXA&)K^E+^$'W1Y)^$ A)D1W1)U^ $\$'$^$9UE^$/K))(^
DRC MINUTES 06/01/2021
Exhibit G
Design Review Committee Meeting
Rains Conference Room
AGENDA
July 20, 2021
MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
The meeting of the Design Review Committee was held on June 20, 2021. The meeting was called to order by Mike Smith, Staff Coordinator, at 7:00pm.
Design Review Committee members present: Diane Williams, Bryan Dopp - Alternate Francisco Oaxaca - Absent
Staff Present: Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner.
B. Public Communications
Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and, after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2021. (No meetings on June 15th and July 6th.)
Motion carried 2-0 vote to adopt the minutes as presented.
D. Project Review Items
LOCATED AT 10943 STALLION WAY – STEVE HACKETT- Site plan and architectural review of a 6,519 square-foot two-story single-family residence with an attached 1,413 square-foot 4- car garage, a 289 square-foot gazebo, a 1,824 square-foot tennis court and a swimming pool, on a 34,314 square-foot lot within the Very Low (VL) Residential District within the Hillside Overlay District and Equestrian Overlay Distr ict - APN: 1074-541-03. Hillside Design Review (DRC2020-00248).
DRC Committee Member Williams and Alternate Committee Member Dopp reviewed the subject item. Dopp complimented the design of the structure and inquired about structures for equestrian use, as this project is located within both the Hillside and Equestrian Overlays. Staff Senior Planner McPherson responded that the subject project did not, at this time, propose any structures relative to the keeping of horses but pointed out that any future construction of equestrian facilities would have to meet applicable standards. Committee Member Williams complimented the design, appreciated that the project had received preliminary HOA approval.
The Committee took the following action:
Recommend approval to PC/PD. 2-0 Vote
Exhibit H
DRC MINUTES 07/20/2021
Design Review Committee Regular Meeting Minutes – July 20, 2021
Draft
LOCATED AT 12939 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD – WOOD PARTNERS – A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising of 257 residential units, 2 commercial units, and 1 live/work unit and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 12% within the Community Commercial (CC) District. APNs: 0229-311-14 and -15. Design Review and Minor Exception (DRC2020-00440, DRC2020-00441).
Staff presented the project as revised, which addressed the Design Review Committee’s concerns from the DRC meeting on 06/01/2021. Notably, the applicant added a tot lot and dog run as part of the project amenities, as requested by Design Review Committee. The project also had a revised color scheme and added architectural articulation to break up the building massing. Commercial square footage was also increased as a result of converting previously proposed live-work units to true commercial spaces. The applicant’s project team presented the proposed programming for the project, which includes numerous community events featuring local talent such as teachers, sing er-songwriters, chefs, etc. Committee member Williams was pleased with the applicant’s responsiveness to the Design Review Committee’s comments from the previous meeting. Committee Member Dopp appreciated the architectural changes and the modified color scheme for the buildings.
The Committee took the following action:
Recommend approval to PC/PD. 2-0 Vote
E. Adjournment
Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill
Executive Assistant, Planning Department
Approved:
RESOLUTION NO. 22-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2020-00440, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF 259 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 2
COMMERCIAL UNITS TOTALING 2,253 SQUARE-FEET, AND 1
LIVE/WORK UNIT WITH 816 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL
SPACE WITHIN THE MIXED-USE URBAN CORRIDOR (MU-UCR)
DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND ETIWANDA AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0229-311-14 AND -15
A. Recitals.
1. Wood Partners filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2020- 00440, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th 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.
A. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, de termined, 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 pres ented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 13, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a vacant parcel located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Etiwanda Avenue; and
b. The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 5.2 acres. The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 690 feet (east to west) by approximately 330 feet (north to south); and
c. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted site) are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zonin
g
Site Vacant City Corridor High
Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR)
District
1 North Vacant City Corridor High Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District
1 ([KLELW,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-07
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 – WOOD PARTNERS
April 13, 2022
d. The proposed project consists of the construction of a mixed-use development comprising of 259 residential units, 2 commercial units totaling 2,253 square-feet, and 1 live/work unit with 816 square feet of non-residential space; and e. The project complies with all pertinent development standards related to building height, density, front/rear setbacks, and landscaping as prescribed in the Mixed-Use (MU) District at the time it was deemed complete (now Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District); and f. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) on June 1, 2021, and returned to the DRC on July 20, 2021 . The Design Review Committee’s input are discussed in the staff report; and
g. A neighborhood meeting was conducted for the project via teleconference on March 30, 2021. With the lifting of pandemic rest rictions on gathering, a second neighborhood meeting was conducted on the project site on August 9, 2021. This neighborhood meeting occurred in-person, to give the surrounding community another opportunity to voice their opinion on the development prior to the Planning Commission hearing. The community’s input and the applicant’s response to both neighborhood meetings are discussed in the staff report; and
h. On January 20, 2021, per AB 52, the City s ent Tribal Consultation Requests to the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, San Man uel Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, and the Morongo Band of Mission Indian following a completeness determination for the project. Correspondence in response to AB52 noticing are discussed in the staff report; and
i. The Planning Department prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration which incorporates all comments resulting from tribal notifications pursuant to AB 52. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence pr esented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby specifically 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 Co rridor High, which envisions high development intensities along Foothill Boulevard, particularly adjacent to city centers. The project proposes a total of 259 apartment units, 1 live-work unit, and 2,253 square feet of commercial space, which is consistent with the General Plan’s vision; and
b. The proposed development is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the South Single-Family
Residences Low Residential Low (L) Residential District East Single-Family
Residences Low Residential Low (L) Residential District West Shopping
Center General Commercial Regional Related Commercial (RRC) District
1 1 – Foothill Boulevard Overlay District, Subarea 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-07
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 – WOOD PARTNERS
April 13, 2022
Mixed-Use Urban Corridor (MU-UCR) District, 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. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code at the time it was deem ed complete, and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City.
d. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boulevard and the expectations of the community; and
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on th e environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed th e Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
c. The Planning Commission has also revi ewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
d. The custodian of records for the Init ial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission’s decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 22-07
DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00440 – WOOD PARTNERS
April 13, 2022
Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750.
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 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2022.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Bryan Dopp, Chairman
ATTEST:
Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary
I, Matthew R. Burris, AICP, LEED AP, Secretary 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 13th day of April 2022, by the following vote-to- wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
*-
+
(
* *+
+ . -/
+ )
012 0 /) *0 *- 3+
+))
.,
/))-(0
+
)
4
4 %/
+)
**0/
*0
*
. 5.0 +0/-1,
+0*0
/*
))(
*.0*2.
+
)
,
/))4
4
/*))
**-/.%/
+)
01*0
).
0-,
0)1
)1
/0/,1,(-,
0,-/
+*
/67*-(.0*
+0
+*)4
'4
" 0 +* 6
.*-2 0 ))
8/) *0 * 0 , +
/ .
*)*
0 ) **8-*
*** 0
+ )-
/
/
4 9** 0
+)-
/
/
/2-
/
.*2*
*2-1*2
*
/,0 *0)*2 4 9** 0 /
0 -( 0 )-
/ 0 )-
*)
.
.0-/
+/*+/4"0***
/2-
/
--*0)*2
*
*2/
..*2
*24
4
"0)*0
)
,00)1
+
+
)
*4$
0
.
(
-*/ )1
+
* 0 )1
+
+
)
2 0
( ** 0 +0 : 0
))
. ..*2
* )1
+ *
* *0 *2 -
/ 2
)1
+ *+
+2
)1
+ *+
+2 / -2
(
**( * )*8)
*2 0 *-*0
.0)1
+/*0*.0))(,
8/)4
4
. ))
*2
/
+
/
*
/ 0 .
/ :)
/8 )
*
*0-*
/.*/*
/0*
/*0--.././
))*
/***
:/ -( 0
+
)
4 30 *
+ *0 - 0(
+/ ,0 0
-/
+ /*+
/
*/ 0 **.
. 0
+
4
( .
/
0
:)
/8 /,12 0 )* ( 0
;
0* - 0 .
. ))2 *0 - *
/ -(
0( /*+
/
* ,00 60-* )
,0 0 -/
+ /*+
/ * //
**
,0 0 -/
+4
( .
/
0
:)
/8 /,12 0 )* ( ** 0
;
0* - 0 .
.))*0-)
/
**
,00*0.0-/
+4
**0-
//
-/
+)
*4
54 ,,,4
(.
4*
/
88
([KLELW-
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
"0 ))
*0 *+
0 3
. +
/ )
.
/
* . ))
)// -( 0
+
)
4 "0 *+
/ 3
. +
/ )
.
/
* . )) *0 -
/ 0
+
)
) 0 *- .
+/
+8
*
)
* . )
012 :* . -*
**
*2
/8
. 0
))/(4
<4
)* . 0 *+
/
+
**
*
. )) )) 2
/
* .
))2
/
+
**0-
//
0)
* =.*7>4"0*0=*>.
.
( )*
/
0
*
8+/
+ *
/
:/ -
,*/8*)/-(
*/
+
804
;4
"0 ))
*0 - :/ )(
.
)
. *0
/ ?/. . 6)
/@+/+
.
0
.A2 '4 401*-/)(-
0
1 . 0 %/ 3)**
/ *-/ 0
+
**
3( )
)-0
+4
4
())*06).%/
+*
**/))/*0*
/,0
(*.0/.))6
*
0*-
+
/4
4
"0* ) * *- )- :
/
0)
<4
. 0
)
/4
0 **
. -/
+ )* =. +/
+
*
>2 0 ))
*0
. 0
+
)
.00
*)-2/
*0
)
*
/
<4
44
4
$.0)/)0**)(0
.20
.,-
/
0-/
+
)-(0
(
/*0-)/-(0))
)-/
+)**
4
$. 0 ) /) 0**
* 2 0( *0 *-2 /
+ 0 )
01 )**2
))
.0,10,-
*/
0)*0
*
.
))-
0,1
//
(0
.
*(-:/-(0
(/:(
0))*/0,1
/
,00:
*.
0)
<4
4
$. 0 ) /) 0** /
2 ))
* . ,1 /
/ 0
( *0 -
*- , -( 0 -
,00 *0 1
/
,00 0
))*//
*
**
,0
0)
<4
/.
)
-(0
(
4
.
))2 *0 * .
*)
0 **
.
. . !)
(2 .
(
/)
) = . )0*/ )2 0 . )0* . /)
)> 0 *
*- 0* :
*0
** 0 )- :
0* -
../ 0
**.
.0
+
)
4
4 ,,,4
(.
4*
+.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
.( */
/
*/
/)
2 ))( ,
* *)
*- . 0
.
/*)/ *
*2 * , *
+* )
/ * ,0
0
)- +0.,(4
/*)/ * *0 - 1) . . ,/*
/ /-*
/
/
00(
/ 0
+
/
2
/ *0 + )
+2 .7
+2 ,
+2
/
+4
(
/+/2//2/**/2/(
+)
*0-)/,0
'/(*.0/
.
/+4
4
"0 .
/*+
. 0 ) )1,(*2 ,*2
/*)
+2
/ */,1* *0 -
//
0
:/
/*) )
*
/ *0 - *-
+
,
/ ))
/
/
/ .
**
( ,0
( )1,(
/*)
+ )
,00 ( - :/ -( 0
+
+3*
)
4
'4
"
*0 - /)/
/ *-/ .
+
,
/ ))
) **
. %/
+ *4 "0* *0
+ 0
+,0 0**
.0*/*)*4
4
"**0-)
/
*.)-,/
/
+**.
)
'
..-/
+4
4 ,**0-)//,0/
4$./
)-
*20/*+
*0-/
/,00
+
+3*
)
4
54
/*)
+
/ +
*0 - /*+
/
* , 0+0 0 )
)* . , ..
/*)
+)
)
/
0)
<4;4
<4
)1
+ *)* *0 - /- *)/ )
( *
//*
/ /,( **2
*2
/
6**0-*)/)
(*
//*4
;4
"6/ )/*
)0,(*
/ 6/ )
**
** *0 - )//
0+0 0 /)
/,
+*8
*8-/
+* ,0 )
*)*8)7*8
**4
4 )).0*:**0
,)
,0*
*.0
)
/20
))-
( !/
*2
/ ))-
(2 3).
*
/8 @*
*
..
0.%/
+**
4
4
-/
+
-*
/
//
* *0 - /
./
/
*
2
/
+
))
/
.
,0 %/
+
/ 3.( 3*
)
*
//*2 0
@
)
/
/0
0
+
)
=
>3
//*4
4 "0/)*0*-
*
**)
/*0/.0/)
.*.
+
/
+
+ 3*
)
))B
/
+2 -
/ 2 )-
:
*2 *) * )*
+2 )0
*
+ .
(
*2 0* .
*
(2/*
**2
/*(.
+4
4
"0 * *0 - /)/
/
/
/
,0 0 ))/ )
* ,00
/ 3
*2 0
*2 6 *
/ *2
/*)
+2 *+
)+2
/ +/
+
.
0
+
)
2 0
/
*
/ 0
/ 0
)
/
+
*4
'4
,,,4
(.
4*
+'.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
-
01* =
>
/
)
* =
> :/
/8 ))*/
*0 -
*/
* 0
,0
/ ,
.*+0 . 0
4 "0
*).
* . 0
/
*0 : 0 ,
/ )) . 0
+
)
/
*
3*8
)
4
-
01* =
>
/
)
* =
> *0 - *
/ -0
/ . 0+0 -1 ,4 "0* ,*
*0-
*/.**/
*00-/
+4
4
).( /)
2 )/ 6 1- *+ *) * :/ -( 0 .
C
%/
+
/4
4
+
/
/ ( ))
* *0 *
*.*2
/
**2 42 *0 - /
. )- ,
/ /:( *
/ 0+0 0 * . -
.
*
(
,*2 -
+2
/8
/*)
+ 0 **.
. 0
+
4 *
+.(
*/
/)
*2
*.**0-)/
/+
/*4
54
. 0/*)
/ * .
/*+
/
+ *
+ -
0*2 *0 )*2
.*
/
+ )/ )
*2 -1 1*2 +0 -/*2 42 *0 - 7/ / - )- ,0 0
0 *(4
/ /*+
* *0 - *-/ .
+
)
,
/ ))
)0**
.%/
+*4
<4
)1,(*2 )
*2
/
/*)
+ *0 - )
(
/ -( 0 ))( ,
2
0,
*D **
2 0
* )- 0
(4 . . 0*
/*)
*0 - *-/ .
+
/
+
+ 3*
)
,
/ ))/
)0**
.%/
+*4
;4
//
*+0
+)
2
/
+)0/+2*0-,/
/))/-(0
+
/
)
=
<<;> ) 0 **
. %/
+ *4
30 )
*0
/ *(2
2
2 0+02
/ 0/ . *0/
+ * *
/*(../
))*4
4 !)
(.0.**0
*0*
.
%/
+
/
/3
@*0+
*0-
)/,04)
(2)
**0-*-/0
0
+
*
/ 0 %/
+
/ 3.( 3*
)
*0,
)
4 "0 -/
+* *0 -
*)/ . )
/ .
)
+
/ )
)
(4
'4
*2 +/
+2
/*)2 +
2
/ * )
)
* *0 - /
/ .
**
( ) **
.
( )* =*0 * +/
+2 2
0
2 -/
+2
4> ) .
) ))
0 * . * *-/*
2 ))/ * 0*
/2,00*.*4
'
4
( * . 0 ) * -*
** ( -
+
/ 0
2
/
* .
))*0-)/0**.
.0
+
4
'4
36. / -1 ,* *0 -
*/
+ 0) )4 $. /- ,
/
,/ *2 0 /) *0 1 +/ .0 .. ,1 ,0 0 /
+ ))(
,
*)/*
+,4
)*0
.(2-(2
+*))(,
**
'/(*)0.
(6*
+,*8.
*
+0))4
''4
,,,4
(.
4*
+.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
"0))
*0+/.
/0**6)
*
(
-+0+
*0
(2*+
*2
..*2)(*2-*.0**
.*0))2
0
2
:*0*0
))4"0))
*0-*0
(2*+
*2 ..*2)(*2.
(
**
/
(D*.*,000
(2*+
*2..*2)(*(-:/-()( **.*0
4"0
((2**/*
2))
0/.
*.
(*0
- *0 ))
*0
))
. 0* -+
*
/ 0*
/
4 $
0
*0+
*./20
(*0**6)
** . +
4 "0 ))
*0
/)**0
,00
(
+
,00
()(*06)
***0(
-/4
'4
,,,4
(.
4*
+ .
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
@9:
*
>
"0
0
+ @
) 9( =
@9> *0 - 0 * )/
.)//)
4"0
)*06
6
*
+
.
*
/ *0
* /*-
.*
/
,0 *0 +
/
@9 :
*
/ // *0 .* 0
0
+ @
) 9(4
@9E*
6*
+
/+
/ *(* , - / .. . ,
/ 30 . 0 ))*/
/)
4
> -
"0))*//)
**/-
//
0
(E* -!)@*
0
,/)/
(,
/ -0*= "">
.*4
"0
(,:0/)
*
F9C - !)/1
/
0.
+.0
/)
=**/.,
/
/030*/. 0%/>
+0)-
/(
+,0'E6E6'E)-6
0
/.0
/
0)-
/(4"0*72)
/
. 0
/
/ * *0 - *0,
0 3 $)
/8 -
$)
*
/ *- 0
+
+ 3*
)
D* ,
/ )) )
0**
.-/
+)*.
)))2,00*.*4
!
*20
(,:
F9C#
:.-)
/-)/
/+
/,0
/
/**(*-
*/
0-(0
))3
//
,
+
'
'<
/
/
0
(D* G.-)
/4"0*72)
/
.0
/
/8**0
0.0/)
E*
//
/-*0,
0 .
/( (
* *-* )
*
/ *- 0
+
+ 3*
)
D*
,
/ )) ) 0 **
. -/
+ )* .
) ))2 ,00 *
.*4
'> 3+0*
,*+0*,
/-
*/
+0.
+.0)-
/(
,
/ 0
(E* *+0 3
//
,
+
/
( 3+0 3
// < . 0
3+0*
0%/4
@9,-0()/0*+0*4
4 "0 * +0* *0 - ,
/ -( 0
(4
) *0 - *)
*- /
/ )(
**.*+0*
/)/),
(,
/*+0*4
4
,,,4
(.
4*
+5.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
G
*
4;<
5 /)
*2 6) 0*
/
*
<
/ 0* *).( ,/ -( 0
+
**
2 *0 - *)
*- .
/+
/
+ 6*
+ 0/ (
*
/
+ 0
0/*))
+)*/
/,0
0*./)
*.,*
4
*
0)*/.0*4
43/
**0-
/+
//0/)*6)
*4
-4 $
0* *
* ,0 0
+
**
//* 0
/+
/
+ * )
)*
. *0 *
* * *0
+0 .
/+
/
+ =** 0
'.
/
/+
// /
>2 0(
. ** 0 **2 /*)
6*
+
)
*2420
)*0)(
..0.
)3
54
4"0/)*0-+-.-*
.
0.0*.
/+
/
+..
/)
**0(
))**/*.0*4
4
*
0 ))* . 0 * . 0 )
"0
) *0 )( . 0
( .
0.0
)3
54
'4
*
-0*/*.0*
"0
)*0) (,03
-
/-+-.
-*
)( //
.* * 0 0 -* 6)
* :
0. 0
*.
/+
/
+0
*
-0*/*.0*4G
'4
G
)
$) *
%/
+$**
=3-
0
+8/$
**
.
.*0//
*>
+$)
"
*)
$)
-($)
$)
$)
1$
81$)
1$)
$)
(H
$) G
4
3H/ 4
//
* +0.,( *0 - ///
+ +0
*2 )/
. <.
*/.0..-*4
54
))(
..**0-///)
(3
//*4<4
,,,4
(.
4*
+<.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
/
*0 - / . 0 .,
+ +0*.,(
0) ** =*/ . *
>
.
0%/ .
,
/
;4
*
*.)-*/,1*)/*/0)-+0.,(*0-///0 (4
4 .
/
+ */( *0 - *-/
/ ))/ -( 0
(
+
) .
)
)) 0 **
. %/
+ *2 ,00 * .*4 /
+ .* *0 -
*/*:/-(0
(
+
4
4
"*)0-/,0
..0*//.
()-*/
))*/.
0/+.
14 4
"0 *) )*
/ ,0
0 ) -
/* *0 - +( -
/
)
)**
.%/
+*4
4
II
$
.
:/3+
!...%/
+
0 **
. -/
+ )*2 .
* + : A
22
*
)*
/ / /
* . *0 - )/ . 0
*
/
*
+4"0/)**.(.
/-.* 5 J. ,**+
//
+
*
/
/
// .
/.*2
/ ))) /
* )// 0
(4 ))
*/
.(.0(*.0
+7
+%)**
.-/
+)4..
/*
* - *-/ 0
+
+
*
,0
5/(* .,
+ 0
)
.0
*
/8/
)4
@**!**2
+
+2=
><<5.
.
4 $
*
*
/.*-0
(D*,-*2,,,4(.4*2
/
(#8
+
+8
+*8
*
H
*
+4
'4
* *0 - -
/ . 0 .,
+ +
* . ,1,0
0 +0 . ,(
@?
B 3
B
")0
)
(4
4
.
7
.
( /)
)0*2 *..
)
)
* *0 - )/ -(
/
0 )0* -
/* ** *
/( **
/ /
+ )
0 **.
. 0
(
+
40*-
/**0*)
/
**0,
0))/
)4
4 *+
/
*
/, .
/8 . 0 )))
/*)
/ +0
+
**
*0 - ./ ,0 0
+
+ 3*
)
) .
) )) **
.
%/
+*,00*.*4
***0--
-(0/)4
54 //0.,
+
()
/*))
*0*0,**
K)
*,0
0 )- +0.,(2
/
+ * *2 *0 -
*/ ) 0 )- )
)
*4F $.
0*/*)
(-,
0)-
/))
*20*)
)
*,+
4 <4
,,,4
(.
4*
+;.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
*0.,
+)*)
*
/
+2-
/
3
0%/
-HC
4
4
3/,1
))4
3+0*
3"*
"
@/
$*
/
%1"
!0
3
,
/
-HC
4
4
3/,1
))4
3+0*
3"*
"
@/
$*
/
%1"
!0
*
=> @/
*
/
/*
/*)
+
/ +
4 =->
*
/(*,-/
//
+)
014=>$.* 1/2 */,1 *0 - )
3
//
4=/>$.*1/2
.
*
.*0-)//.0*4
;4
*
@
)
/ 3
54'<4
2
)*
*0 1
* . * .
+(2.),
(-/
+*,00*+/-(0
/*
/.,00
) * :/
**2
//
(
/ 0 /*2 +
*
/ /
*2
)
* :/ -( 0*
/
* . /)
)) 0 -
)/
/
)/-(0
(
26)
0
/)
*
+0
-/
+2*
2 0 /)
( 0
+(
* /
: ))
0 )
+ .
)
. )
* :/ -( 0*
/
* . /)
))2 * /
/
-(0
(
+
2)//0*
-2*.
/
-**0))(6**4 $
**00
)
.0-/
+*2**
*-
/
+(**
) )
/ )
. )
* :/ -( 0*
/
* . /)
))4
4 ,,,4
(.
4*
+
.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
$)
*
/
*
4 3 )
)
*2
/
+ * *2 * +0*2
/
*
*.( +0*
.
*+
)*2
/ .. *+
)
* *0 - ))/ -( +*/
+
/ *0 -
*-/
/))/-(0
(
+
43(*0-)*/
/
+
6/
0 **.
. 0
(
+
/ 0
(
( +
+ )
. 0 )-
/8 ) * )
*2 ) .
) )) 0 **
. %/
+ *2
,00*.*4
-4
(,1-
+)./
)-+0.,(2.**0-)/
/
*
)
*0--
/.0
+
+3*
)
//
(0)*:/4
4
*)
+2 1
+2 .. *+
+2 *
*+
+2 .. *+
/2
/
/*0-
*/0**.
.0
(
+
4
/4 3+
/ ,0 ) -6* *0 -
*/ ,0
(
,
*
*
)
+ *
/( **
/
*
* . . .. *+
*
/
,
+4
-6* *0 - )/
-0 */* . 0 * '. */ . %
2
2
( 0
*))/-(0
(
+
4
*
> -6* *0 - 4 5
*
*
/ 4
+ **2 6 . . )2
**0,**)./-(0
(
+
4
>
/*0-'
0),0))**)./4
4 ** )* . 0 /*-/ *0 -
*/
* .
*
* ) *
*
//**//-(0
(
+
4
.4 6*
+
( /* :
+
*
*0
)
.. * ,0 /:
/* /
+
*
4 3
* )* :/4 *0 /)* *0 - )// 0 * . +/
+
/ )
+2 ,00 *0 - .
// )
)
. 0
*
0**.
.0
(
+
4
+4
/ /
+ .,* *0
** */,1*4 9
/ */,1 /
* *0 -
*/
(3
//*26).*
+.(*/
*4
043
**0-))/-(0
+@
+)*-..*)
014
4
,,,4
(.
4*
+
.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
$
* * * )
( * /*+
+/
*
/ *
//* * .,*4 "0 )/
+
/ =-6 -,>
/
*
* *0 ))
0 )+ . 0 * )
)
*43)
)
**0
/
,0
0
*
+
/*
+
K3
* *0 -
*/ ) 0
*
/ +
/
30 LLL=()( 30
>4F ?0 )-
/*) )
* :/2
*
0* * *0 - ) 0 )-
/*)
)
)
*4
3
,
/
%
"*
.
"*
2%*-
%6
@
4C,3)
3)
+
37
+
M(4
-/
//
+/*+
3
0%/
%
+*
/
)@(*
@
4C,3)
3)
+
37
+
M(4
-/
//
+/*+
*
*.3"*
>**-)
/
/
,0
(*
//)
*4
>0
.
()
+2
+
**)*0-.
*0/0
(
*)4
(
* 6*
/.
* ( : -1. *
/
*2 *
/
/-(0
(
*)4
'>***-
*)
/)
-(0
+
+3*
)
4
3*-)
/))-)
)
*
(4
4 $
*
. *+0 /*+
* *0 - ,/ -( 0
(
+
.
.
,0 /)/
)(4!
+**2
*.*+0*0-)/.)
*
*2
/
+
/,(*4 */
*
*
*
/
/* /,(* ( 0
*
.*+0)/*:/4
4
)-)
*
0.,
+***0-)
())0**
.
%/
+*
'4
)- )
* =
**2 /
+ .*2
( *2 )**2
/*)/
*2 4> *0,
0 )
*
/8
) *0 -
*/
( 3
//*4 $
* )
* *0
/2 -
/ 2 -
/ +2
)
2 /
))0*2*/,1*2*+0*2
/**4
4
,,,4
(.
4*
+
.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
3*2
.
+
*7+2*0-
*/)
(3
//*
/
,00
(D**)+4
4
"0/)*0-*)
*-.0
.6*
+**
**(454
?
/*,)
**0-/*+
/
/
*/0:
*.0
+
&( ?
* =
&?
>2
0
+
*2
/ 0
#0
)
.0
(.3
%
/
4.)
.0
&?
*:/
).
)))**
.)*2,00*.*430*0-
**/-(0,/*,0
/(*).
)))
0*.*-/*
)
0**
.)*
0*.0*/
)*4
<4
?0
0
, * ))/ *- )
*
/,
+*
/
+ *
*2
+(
*
/ ** ) %/
+
/ 3.( . )
,
/
,0 0
/
. 0
.
%/
+
/
/*
/
+ /
*
/
*
//*,00..0.
013-4"0
,**:/-
:))/,0.*)
1*)0
%
8
' 2
'
2
'
/0
!/
4
*-/**.0*
/-/
+**-
/
03.
.
/
+
*4
**0-*7//*08+ (4
$
.*.**-&0+
+*
**:/4
4
**
. +/
+ ) . */
)* 0 ))
*0 *0,
0
)
*
/0)/+/
+)
*0
..
*
.
&0 =&>
0+
+ *
8)1
+ ) 0
/)/
.
C
%/
+ 3
//*
/2
*
4
544
4 C/
+ . 0 *- ))( *0 -
/
,0
/)/
.
%/
+
/
/8 0
.
*/
/2
( C/
+ 3
//*2
/ )/ +/
+ )*4 "0
C/
+
/
+
=*> *0 -
*-*
.
,0 0 ))/
)
C/
+
/
+
4 4
** ) *0 - ))/ -( :./ +
*/ -( 0 3 .
.
).
*0,14",)*,-)//+/
+
//
+)
*-.,4
**0
)
/*+
/
*)*/)4
'4
,,,4
(.
4*
+
.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
"0 .
C/
+
/
+
2 ))) .
*
/ )
)* *0 -
)/2 *-/2
/ ))/ -( 0
(
+
2 0* /*+
2 ) 0 **
.
-/
+)*4
4
*)C/
+
/
+
01*-*:/.
,
*
)*
/
. 6*
+ -/
+* ,0 )
* -
+ ))*/ , +
- (/* .
-
/
/.4"0C/
+
/
+
*0-))/2*)/2
/,*+
/-(
.
*/
+
)0**
.+/
+-/
+)4
4 "0))
*0)(,00
(.
0
+
*
@**
/)/*
*+
0)*)0**
.+ /
+)4/*
*+
=*>*0-
/*/.0)-+0.,(4
54 $.
+0 C/
+
/
+
8 *-/ 0
+
+ 3*
)
. ,2 0 +0 +/
+ )
*0 - *) )
*-
/ ) . * C/
+
/
+
84
<4
0**
.+/
+)0))
*0-
,
)**
.0/
))( ,
=*>
* ,=*>
))(
=*> )/ /=*> *0,
+ 0 )
,=*>-
*/..*.0))(
4
;4
**
. +/
+ ) 0
C/
+
/
+
*0 *0, 0 **-(
)0.0)-+0.,(
/0**-()1
+**0-/
+/*
.
,0 0
/)/
.
%/
+
/4 **-( )* *0 *0, *.. /
/
+ +/
*2
*2
/ /
*
*
/ )( ,0 0
/)/
.
%/
+
/4
4 "0C/
+
/
+
*0)
(3
//*.
*
*
,0)**-2
/*0)//*.,1
/-(
(3
//
,
+*4
4
**
.+/
+)0+/
+)
*0*0,0
./*)**0-
. ..* . 0 )- +0 . ,(2 )/ 2 0 /
) ))(4
*)..***00:
*.0
/)/
.
%/
+
/4
4 **
. +/
+ )2 0 +/
+
/ /
+ )
*0 *0, 0 6 )1
+
* +/
<)
4 **-( )1
+ * +/* *0 -
*/ ) 02
/)/
.
%/
+
/4
4
"0 ))
*0 )/ +/
+ +
/ +/
+ -
/ .
/ . -
/
6/
+ 2- (/* ) **
. +/
+ )4 "0 +/
+ +
/ -
/
*0-))/-(0
(
+
20*/*+
4
'4
"0 .
+/
+
/ /
+ )
*0 *0, 6*
+ )+)0(
.
. -(
/
)-
/(4
4
"0* ) *0 )( ,0 0 **-( : * . 0
/)/
.
%/
+
/4
4 ,,,4
(.
4*
+
'.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
C/
+$
*)
*
>0*.+/
+)
*0,
/+/
+
*0:*)+/
+
+4"0
+*0-
//-(0),
8)*
20+/
+
/
0 %/
+ $
*) /*** - +/
+ :
*
/ )
**2 4 $.
)+/
+
+*
0/,0
0*.0*.+/
+)
*20+/
+)
(-*-**)
*
-(0%/
+$
*)B
->"0+/
+
*0
0
(.
0
+%/
+
/3.(
)
*
,1
+ /(
/
:* 0 .,
+ +/
+
*)
* )
+
+/
+)
*
> "0-.06
B
>
)
.
+0C/
+2)**
.0-/
+)B
> 0 )
.
+0 C/
+2 0 +/
+
,
*0 *- 0
"0
* =
+
+ 3*
)
>
+
/ )( . 0 /
.
* - ))/ -(
/ ))( , *+
/
/ */ -( 0
+
/ 3*
+
.
/B
> "0 +0 +/
+ .*
/ 0 )
)* , - ,/ -( 0 **
+
/*+
/)*
/))/)0**
.-/
+)4
54 ./
+.,
+0)-+0.,( =66
>*/
/0*/,10+0
)1,())/-(0
+
+
)
4"0**0 -*0,
-00+/
+
/
/
+)
/
+
+3*
)
:/)
*4
<4
**
. +/
+ -/
+ )2 0 )/ +/
+ )
= 0 * )
>
**0*0,
0.0()*
*
/0)
,*0,0,0*)
*-,
0
-/
+ 6
/ 6 +
/ *. 0 :
* . 3
*
%
;4'8
4'2
%
'4
448
'
<4
=>
/
%
4
48
<'45 44
. 0
/)/
.
%/
+
/8
*/
/4
;4
)).0)*).*,:( +
)
20))
*0*-
02
(
+
2 0* /*+
2 )* +/
+ )
*0,
+ 0
/
* .
6*
+ )+)0 .*2
/ *0,
+ 0
/ ))*/
* . ))*/
**
//
+.0*4
4 /
+ */( *0,
+
(2 @
'/*+
*
.
* /
+ *0 -
))/
/ *-/ 0
+
+ 3*
)
. ,
/ )) .
*
* , /
+ ) **
. +/
+ )4 "0 ) *0
, *.
). +/
* . * /
))*
0*
/ +
/4 )* *0
- , *+
/
/ */ -( 0
+
.
/4 $
//
2 0 ) *). /
+ */(
*0 )/
* *0,
+ 0 )) *7
+ . 0 , :(
+
)
*
,.,*
0))*/**,
/*4
4
$*0-0*)
*-(.0))
:
(:/..*/
+*
*)
0**
.+/
+)4
4 ,,,4
(.
4*
+
.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
3$C $339
"0
) +/
+
/ /
+ )
*0,*
,0
0 )1
+
/
.
,0*,,-)
/
+40**
.+/
+)0
+
. / *0 *- * . +/
+ )
* 0
( .
0
+ %/
+
/ 3.(
)
*
3* , 0 )
*
/ )/ 6 )
/
+ /)0 .
0*,
4"0**0*,)
*=
*>0+00)4
4
*,2 ,2
/ * /
)
* , - /*+
/ ) 0 * /)/
.
-
+
/4*/
)
**0-*0,
0+/
+
//
+)
4 '4
@)
?
* =@?
> *0 )) )
* 0 ) 0 *
2
/
+ *2
*/
2*)*2
/**
/
/*)
+)**
.+/
+)4
*0
-
//
)
)
* :
+ @)
?
* !)
* @
%
0
-
./,,1
+/(*)*
+
(,1
0
(.0*
4
4
)*0--
/.@)
?
* =@?
>.
(,1,0
0+0.,(2
/
++/
+)**
.+/
+)4
4
**
. +/
+ ) 0 ))
*0 -
,
* . @?
+/
+
*/*+
*
*,0
0*
/)/)(.*/
*0%/
+
/
3.(!...,4
54
0 **
. 0
. . !)
( .
*+
.. -( 0 %/
+ $
*) 0
+
. / *0 .( 0 .
( . 0 * , :(
+
)
=?M@>
*,
/*
/-*
+
)*=%@>4
<4
)) . 0 ? M( @
+
=?M@>2 0 ?M@ *0
/ )( .
0)
/
*.))4
;4
**
.+/
+)0))
*0*0,
0*)
/0)/+/
+
)
* .
*/
)* 0 /*+
/ )1
+ .
0* ) 0
/)/
.
C
%/
+3
//*
/2*
4
54 44
4 "0*-+/.0)-)*, /**00*-+/4
**
. 0 +/
+ )
/ )) . 0 .
)*). , :(
+
)
=?M@>0
+
./*0)/)/
.0)-)*-+/
0+/
+)
/*0)//
0?M@*
//
+)
*0,
+0)-
)*-+/*4
'4
**
. +/
+ ) 0 )* +/
+
/ /
+ )
*0 ., 0 .
)//
0
(.
0
+0
/K$
.
.C/
+
*
/F4
'
4 0 **
. C/
+ 0
( .
0
+E* K@
/
.
+
.3?M(@
+
F*0-*-/.,
/))-(0
(
+
20*/*+
2
///,00
(
/E*!..4
'4
**
. C/
+ 0 ))
*0 -
?*
*0+ $/
.
- =?
$
>4 "0 ?
$
- *0 * - *0,
0 ?M@ 3
/
+
/
4
''4
,,,4
(.
4*
+
.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
"0))
*0 )/ )( . )/ < 5=$
( . $
?*> .
0
/+
/
.
/2 ,0 0 ( $
- **+
/2 0
+
+ 3*
)
!.. ) **
. 0 C/
+
/8 )) . 0 )*).
? M( @
+
4 )( . <
5*0 - *
/
/ )*/
0
)/ +/
+ )
*2
/ )( . */ . *0 -
//
0 )*). ?
M(@
+
4!"
$
.0.2)(. 0.0(-*
/
/)*/
0-.
/)
**4
'4
"0
/,
*0)/
*)
)-(:./)*
8)
(
-
-**.
0
** & $
?*8
/+
/
.
0-* 0
( .
0
+
+ @
+4 "0
/ ,
*0
+ -** -*
+
)* =%@F*> * /*-/
0 3 ? M( @
+
=?M@>
))/.0*-)4****/,00 /+
/
.
0-0
*)
*-(.0
/,
4
' 4
"0
/ ,
*0 )/
*)
)
-
-** . 0 * * ,
/*2
( ./ * %@*2 0
( .
0
+
+ @
+4 "0
/ ,
*0
+ -** * /*-/
0 3 ?
M( @
+
))/ . 0 *- )4 ** **/ ,0 0 /+
/
.
0-0*)
*-(.0
/,
4
'54
"0
/8))( ,
*0 ., 0
*)
/
:
* . 0 ))/
)*).?M(@
+
/*0)/)(.0
*)
)*
-
-**0
(.
0
+
+@
+4
'<4
"03
/
+
0.
)*).?M(@
+
*0*0,0
*../,
*)/
*4.:/.*,:())**20/, *)**0
/.*4
';4
"0 .
)*). , :(
+
)
=?M@> *0
/ 6/
+
*
+ ,0 0
+/
* . ))( * * ,
/* =%@E*>4 $
0
0 ))
+ 0 ))( /
+
*
6/)**
.+/
+)20))
*:/*--
//
,0
0 ?M@ /
2
/ *
/
/ )*/
0 3
/
+
,00 **
0 ) **
. . . )
( ,0 ))
*0
. 0
. 0 ))( * ,
/4 $. 0 ))( * ,
/ * ) . */
*-/*
2 ) 0 * . 0 */
2 0 /) *0
/
+
=*>*).0*.0* /
0-(4)(.0
+
*-
//
0*.0))(*0-
//,0
0?M@
/
4
'
4 ,,,4
(.
4*
+
5.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
**
. +/
+ )
/ )) . 0 ) *). , :( +
)
) * , 0 -*
* *0
/
* .* ) 0* )
* .
* //**/
0
0 .
)*). , :(
+
)
=?M@>4
0-*
*.*)*0
/0.
+/-*40-*
*.*
*0 -
/
+ -** * /*-/
0 K$
*)
/ @
*)
*-(
.*
*
%@F*
.0.
)*).,:(
+
)
4 4
**
. +/
+ ) 0
3). ? M( @
+
*0
/ )/ )( . K?1*0 #
. 3.(
/
*+
$
.
?1*0F /
))
/6
K3
&$$ N $
.
/ . 3.(
/
*2 OF . 0 3
%
/
( "0
C/
. ? M(
@
+
*4 "0
.
*/( *0
/ 0 3
+
E*
/
* .
))
/6
2 "- &$$4'
3-( ****
/
*/
* . $
.
( 3.(
*F4
4 )) . 0 .
)*). , :(
+
)
0 ))
*0 0
**
+
)))*).
.
*/(. 0).0))**.*, :(
4 "0
.
*/(
/
/
* *0 ., 0 +/
*
0
/)/K3
%
/
("0
C/
.?M(@
+
*F4
4
0 **
. . . )
( -( 0 %/
+ !..2 0* /*+
2 0
+
./*0.?M(@
+
=?M@>*
*
3?
"
* *%
. ,0 0
+*
/
2
( .
0
+
+
+3*
)
4
'4
* 0 * . /(,* ))*/ . 0 * * , /2 0
.
:
* . 0
@
) 3) 3 3,* 3(** =@3> 2 /: *
/ )
)
%@* *0 - )
/ )
+
/, :(4 "0
/ . )
%@* *0 * */
.
*0 -
/ )
.
/ /***/
0 .
)*). ? M( @
+
/
4
4
,,,4
(.
4*
+
<.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
C
!9
?"
!"
"$!
)) . 0 .
) *). , :(
+
)
=?M@>2 0 ?M@
/
*0 0 :
* . 0 3 ?
**
%/ !/ 4
;
'5=
3 4
3 5
;'5>2 0 3
%
/
( @
) 3) 3
3,*3)
=@3>/*
3
P$4
=?M(@
+
:
*>4;=C
/,
>
"
%@*7
+
.
Q6*.
/
.
/%@*
/*+
/
)( .
*
.
/* =*0 * +**( *,*2 /
-*
*2 +/ -..
*)*2
*/ ,
/*2 4>R * )( ,0 0 .,
+
:
* )
+
/,
4 9* . *
.
%@* *0
*
-
6/
.
+
/,:(-*4
-4 3
/ )
)
%@* *0 - )
/ ) +
/,
:(4 "0
/ . )
%@* *0 * */
.
*0/ - / )
.
4 4 /: )
.
.. )
.
*0 - :/
+* *
*
/ +
)1
+ *4 =!"
"0 3 ? M(
%/ /.
* +
)1
+ * S
2 *:4 .4 . /)
/ )1
+ =,0
0 ..*>2 !
2 -(
* . 2*:. . ,- *) /*+ / . )1
+
))**E>4
/4 9
** /: )
.
.. * )// )
.
*
.
%@* *
- */ . * .
/* +0
/* (T<<U2 * *- 0+0
0 .. = 2 /( ..>B ,*0*B . *+ *B **B
( 0
0+00,:(
/***4
4
** &
,* /( ,* *
- )/
* *- 0T<;U )
*T<
U2 *0 *
-/( ) *0)2 ) *0)2 ,
/ */
/*0)2*)()*0) =4+42
***
/..)*0)>
(.(0/*
(0),14
.4 3
.
%@
*0
- */ ** 0 1
,
0 *
/
+
/,
4 +4 3
.
%@* *0 - / *
. 07
( .
( ,
*))(,*4
04 "0/*
.0-.
(
.
*
%@00*0+0
+
/, 1 *0 - *
.4 ?0 0 +
/, -*
* /
*)) -
.
**20*/*
(-//2)//+
/,:(*
/4
4 3
.
%@* *0
*
*
)
* /.
/
?
/3
' 4
4
**
. +/
+ ) .
*/
)* 0 ))
*0 *0,
0
)
*
/ 0 )/ +/
+ )
* 0
. .
*
.
&0 =&> 0+
+ *
8)1
+ ) 0
/)/
.
C
%/
+
3
//*
/2*
4
54 4'4
54
,,,4
(.
4*
+
;.
/
88
!!"#$%&
'
"()
*+
,
,,,4
(.
4*
+
.
/
88
Exhibit M – CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/CEQA%20Documents%20Available%20for%20Review/WDCC%20M illiken%20West%20Residential%20LLC%20-%20Section%2015183%20Compliance%20Memo
Exhibit K
Attachment 2
Via Email and Overnight Mail
April 20, 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 Design Review DRC2020-00440 for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
Dear Chair Oaxaca, Vice Chair Dopp, Honorable Commissioners, Ms. Reynolds, and Ms. Thornhill:
I am writing on behalf of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) regarding the Planning Commission’s decisions of April 13, 2022 to approve Design Review DRC2020-00440 for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, a proposed 260-unit apartment community located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard (“Project”), and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the Project.
This appeal is filed pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.14.070, is timely filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, and is accompanied by the required filing fee of $3,279. The reasons for the appeal are set forth in the attached letters dated October 1, 2021 and April 13, 2022, which were submitted to the Planning Commission prior to its decision.
Sincerely,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 1
Via E-mail and US Mail
October 1, 2021
Vincent Acuna, Associate Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-00440)
Dear Mr. Acuna and Planning Commissioners:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) prepared for the proposed Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project (DRC2020-0440), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction, use, and maintenance of a 260-unit apartment community, located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“Project”).
After reviewing the IS/MND, we conclude the IS/MND fails as an informational document, and that there is a fair argument that the Project may have adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, we request that the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code (“PRC”) section 21000, et seq.
This comment has been prepared with the assistance of expert reviews by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, wildlife biologist Dr.
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., and environmental consulting firm Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”). Mr. Offerman’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Mr. Smallwood’s comment and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit B hereto and is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. SWAPE’s comment and the consultants’ curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit C hereto and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project would involve the construction of a 260-unit apartment complex on 5.2 acres. Applicant is requesting to construct a mixed-use development comprising 259 residential units, 2 commercial units, and 1 live-work unit, and a Minor Exception to reduce the number of required parking stalls by 12% within the Community Commercial (CC) District. More specifically, the proposed Project would include the following elements:
● Two four-story buildings, with a maximum height of 60 feet; ● 259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet; ● 1 live-work unit, consisting of two stories and 1,570 square feet; ● 3,339 square feet of commercial space (816 square feet in 1 live-work unit and 2,523 square feet of stand-alone commercial space); ● 465 parking spaces, with 265 parking spaces located in a below-grade parking garage and the remaining 200 parking spaces located on a surface parking lot on the southern and eastern portions of the Project site; ● Approximately 26 bicycle parking spaces;
● Approximately 5,500 square feet of ind oor amenity space, which includes a 1,600 square-foot lobby/leasing office, a 1,400 square-foot fitness center, and a 1,400 square-foot Club Room in the west building, and a 1,500 square-foot Business Center in the east building;
● Two courtyards and a paseo, offering a pool and additional outdoor amenities;
● Landscaping surrounding both buildings;
● Sidewalks along Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; ● Intersection improvements at Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard including lane modifications and restriping;
● Creation of a bus stop in front of the Project on Foothill Boulevard; and ● Undergrounding of existing Souther n California Edison (SCE) overhead 12 kilovolt (kV) power lines along Etiwanda Avenue.
IS/MND, p. 1-13.
The Project site is located at 12901-12939 Foothill Boulevard in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project site is bound by Foothill Boulevard, a vacant lot, and condominiums to the north; Etiwanda Avenue and a shopping center to the west; and residential single-family homes to the south and east. The 5.56-acre site comprises two parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 0229-311-14 and 0229-311-15), which are currently vacant and undeveloped.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505). “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382. An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83. “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).
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. 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.
However, mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA if such a mischaracterization is significant. See Lotus vs. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645. A “mitigation measure” is a measure designed to minimize a project’s significant environmental impacts, PRC § 21002.1(a), while a “project” is defined as including “the
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a). Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically “mitigation” under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize “significant” impacts. PRC § 21100(b)(3).
To ensure that the project’s potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project’s design should not be treated as part of the project description. Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8.
Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is “significant,” and therefore amounts to a material error, “when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.” Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC §§ 21064.5 and 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331. In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment.
PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. 14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.
City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602. The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.
The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:
This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in making administrative determinations.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record before them and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citations]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact. The lead agency’s decision is thus largely legal rather than factual; it does not resolve conflicts in the evidence but determines only whether substantial evidence exists in the record to support the prescribed fair argument.
Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under CEQA, §6.29, pp. 273-274. The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).
CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2). The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321. CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the phy sical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124–25 (“Save Our Peninsula”). As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. Id. at 121-23.
III. DISCUSSION
A. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Health Risk Impact from its Indoor Air Quality Impacts.
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis “Bud” Offermann, PE, CIH, has conducted a review of the proposed Project and relevant documents regarding the Project’s indoor air emissions. Indoor Environmental Engineering Comments (September 24, 2021) (Exhibit A). Mr. Offermann concludes that it is likely that the Project will expose
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr. Offermann’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached as Exhibit A.
Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. He states, “The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” Ex. A, pp. 2-3.
Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Mr. Offermann states that there is a fair argument that future residents and employees of the commercial spaces will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, assuming all materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board’s formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. Id., pp. 4-5. This exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (“SCAQMD”) CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. Id., p. 4.
Mr. Offermann also notes that the high cancer risk that may be posed by the Project’s indoor air emissions likely will be exacerbated by the additional cancer risk that exists as a result of the Project’s location near roadways with moderate to high traffic (i.e. Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, Interstate 15 freeway, Auto Club Speedway, etc.) and the high levels of PM 2.5 already present in the ambient air. Id., pp. 10-12. No analysis has been conducted of the significant cumulative health impacts that will result to future employees of the Project.
Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant environmental impacts should be analyzed in an EIR and mitigation measures should be imposed to reduce the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Id., p. 5. Mr. Offermann identifies mitigation measures that are available to reduce these significant health risks, including the installation of air filters and a requirement that the applicant use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins in the buildings’ interiors. Ex. A, pp. 12-13.
The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project’s potential environmental impacts, especially those issues raised by an expert’s comments. See Cty. Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Cty. of Kern, (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597–98 (“under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts”). In addition to assessing the Project’s potential health impacts to residents
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
and employees, Mr. Offermann identifies the investigatory path that the City should be following in developing an EIR to more precisely evaluate the Projects’ future formaldehyde emissions and establishing mitigation measures that reduce the cancer risk below the BAAQMD level. Ex. A, pp. 6-10. Such an analysis would be similar in form to the air quality modeling and traffic modeling typically conducted as part of a CEQA review.
The failure to address the Project’s formaldehyde emissions is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 (“CBIA”). At issue in CBIA was whether the Air District could enact CEQA guidelines that advised lead agencies that they must analyze the impacts of adjacent environmental conditions on a project. The Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider the environment’s effects on a project. CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800-801. However, to the extent a project may exacerbate existing adverse environmental conditions at or near a project site, those would still have to be considered pursuant to CEQA. Id. at 801 (“CEQA calls upon an agency to evaluate existing conditions in order to assess whether a project could exacerbate hazards that are already present”). In so holding, the Court expressly held that CEQA’s statutory language required lead agencies to disclose and analyze “impacts on a project’s users or residents that arise from the project’s effects on the environment.” Id. at 800 (emphasis added).
The carcinogenic formaldehyde emissions identified by Mr. Offermann are not an existing environmental condition. Those emissions to the air will be from the Project.
Residents and commercial/industrial employees will be users of the Project. Currently, there is presumably little if any formaldehyde emissions at the site. Once the project is built, emissions will begin at levels that pose significant health risks. Rather than excusing the City from addressing the impacts of carcinogens emitted into the indoor air from the project, the Supreme Court in CBIA expressly finds that this type of effect by the project on the environment and a “project’s users and residents” must be addressed in the CEQA process.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is well-grounded in CEQA’s statutory language.
CEQA expressly includes a project’s effects on human beings as an effect on the environment that must be addressed in an environmental review. “Section 21083(b)(3)’s express language, for example, requires a finding of a ‘significant effect on the environment’ (§ 21083(b)) whenever the ‘environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.’” CBIA, 62 Cal.4th at 800 (emphasis in original). Likewise, “the Legislature has made clear—in declarations accompanying CEQA’s enactment—that public health and safety are of great importance in the statutory scheme.” Id., citing e.g., §§ 21000, subds. (b), (c), (d), (g), 21001, subds. (b), (d). It goes without saying that the future residents and commercial/industrial employees of the Project are human beings and the health and safety of those residents and workers is as important to CEQA’s safeguards as nearby residents currently living near the project site.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
Because Mr. Offermann’s expert review is substantial evidence of a fair argument of a significant environmental impact to future users of the Project, an EIR must be prepared to disclose and mitigate those impacts.
B. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Mi tigate the Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Wildlife.
Wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., concludes that the Project may have significant impacts on several special status species. An EIR is required to mitigate these impacts. Dr. Smallwood’s conclusions were informed by wildlife biologist Noriko Smallwood’s site visit in September 2021. Ms. Smallwood visited the site of the proposed Project on Dr. Smallwood’s behalf for nearly 2 hours from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on September 4, 2021. Dr. Smallwood’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
i. The wildlife baseline relied upon by the IS/MND is woefully inadequate.
Wildlife biologist Dr. Smallwood’s review of the impacts to wildlife from the Project concluded that the Project may have significant impacts on several special- status species. An EIR is required to analyze these impacts.
According to the IS/MND and Biological Resources Assessment (“BRA”), at least 49 special-status plant species and 52 special-status wildlife species have been documented within the Guasti and surrounding eight quadrangles. IS/MND, p. 4-14. A California Natural Diversity Database (“CNDDB”) search also yielded four special-status species with occurrences that overlapped with the biological survey area (“BSA”) used for the Project, which includes the entire Project site plus a surrounding 500-foot buffer.
These special status species included the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi). Id. While no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the BSA during the reconnaissance field survey for the Project site, “marginal habitat” for two special-status wildlife species, the Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) and western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), were identified during the database review is present in the biological survey area. Id. However, as Dr.
Smallwood points out, the IS/MND fails to adequately address and mitigate Project impacts to special-status species.
The IS/MND’s baseline for biological impacts is inadequate, incomplete, and understates the biological values at the Project site for several reasons. See Ex. B, pp. 6-7. First, the IS/MND improperly relies on a single reconnaissance field survey that was insufficient and conducted using minimal effort at the most inappropriate time of the day. According to the IS/MND and BRA, a reconnaissance field survey was conducted by AECOM (2021) on September 24, 2020. See IS/MND, App. B, pp. 5-6. A botanist
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
visited the site for 90 minutes in the middle of the afternoon (14:00 to 15:30 hours), at a time when, as Dr. Smallwood points out, wildlife was least likely to be detected. Ex. B, p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). In fact, temperatures were reportedly 96° to 99° F, which Dr. Smallwood explains is “too hot for a wildlife survey.” Id., p. 5 (citing IS/MND, App. B, p. 6). The IS/MND reports that “no special-status plant or wildlife species were observed within the biological survey area during the reconnaissance field survey.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, Dr. Smallwood notes that “this report follows from a survey of insufficient effort at the most inappropriate time of day,” and as a result, “there should be no surprise that special-status species were undetected.” Ex. B, p. 5. Because the IS/MND fails to report which, if any, species of wildlife were detected by the botanist, Dr.
Smallwood finds this lack of reporting suggests that “the botanist likely saw no wildlife in the heat of the middle of the afternoon.” Id. Consequently, whether the BRA is substantial evidence is not apparent from the face of the document or the IS/MND.
Second, the IS/MND misuses the CNDDB. Ex. B, p. 6. When discussing that the CNDDB search yielded four special-status species—i.e. coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry’s spineflower—with occurrences that overlapped the BSA, the IS/MND states that “the CNDDB records of these four species had non-specific locations which were not mapped precisely to the locations where the species were observed and each individual observation is a square mile or greater in size; so it is not known whether the observation was actually made precisely within the biological survey area.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. However, this statement is flawed. As Dr. Smallwood explains, “CNDDB records are mapped accurately, but exact locations are often not shared publicly as a means to protect the species.” Ex. B, p. 6.
According to Dr. Smallwood:
CNDDB records are intended to indicate the likelihood of occurrence of a special-status species in the project area, but not the species’ exact locations. Nor is CNDDB intended to support determinations of species’ absence, as the IS/MND implies. CNDDB is intended to flag the occurrences of species in the area, not to provide an exact accounting of where the species is located at the moment.
Id. Additionally, the IS/MND further misrepresents CNDDB by implying that the older records are dismissible. See id. The IS/MND states that “...CNDDB records that overlap with the biological survey area are 19 years old or more and since that time, the area has been developed substantially. As a result, it is possible many locations no longer exist. Current site conditions do not provide suitable habitat for these species and none are known to occur or expected to occur within the Project site or vicinity.” IS/MND, p. 4-
14. Dr. Smallwood explains that this statement is a misrepresentation of CNDDB because:
CNDDB does not imply that species are static, or that locations where they were mapped previously are the only locations where the species would be found later. Wildlife populations are spatially dynamic, shifting
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
centers of activity every generation or so (Taylor and Taylor 1979), so it would be inappropriate of CNDDB to assert that locations of past occupancy should still be locations of current occupancy. For this reason, users of CNDDB typically determine whether CNDDB records exist within a 5-mile radius of a proposed project. Occurrences within 5 miles serve as indicators that the species could also occur at the project site, and if so, then protocol-level detection surveys should be performed.
Ex. B, p. 6. Given the paucity of the coast horned lizard, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Los Angeles pocket mouse, and Parry’s spineflower in San Bernardino County, the Project’s baseline should be informed by protocol level surveys that can determine the presence or absence of these species at the Project site.
Third, the surveys conducted for the Project do not provide substantial evidence of the presence or absence of special-status species that are known in the vicinity. The IS/MND asserts that “the BSA generally does not provide suitable habitat for special- status wildlife species.” IS/MND, p. 4-14. Dr. Smallwood states that “[t]his assertion, however, lacks evidence in the form of detection survey results.” Ex. B, p. 6. According to Dr. Smallwood, detection surveys are designed by species’ experts to provide “the best chance for detecting the targeted species by applying the methods and survey effort most likely to detect the species if it is indeed present.” Id. Here, the botanist that was charged with surveying the Project site for 90 minutes in the middle of the hot afternoon failed “to come anywhere close to having performed a detection survey for any species of wildlife.” Id. As a result, neither the IS/MND nor the BRA was justified in asserting that the Project site lacks special-status species of wildlife. Hence, Dr.
Smallwood recommends that detection surveys should be performed, and subsequently assessed and reported in an EIR. Id., p. 22.
Furthermore, due to the absence of detection surveys, the IS/MND only speculates that habitat is marginal and occurrence likelihoods low. Ex. B, pp. 6-7. Dr.
Smallwood states that the “IS/MND repeatedly speculates that for this or that species, anthropogenic disturbances prevent their occurrences,” such as the IS/MND exemplifying one such disturbance as routine mowing of the site. Ex. B, p. 6 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-14–4-15). However, as Dr. Smallwood points out, “[t]he IS/MND offers no evidence in defense of its premise that routine mowing precludes special-status species of wildlife.” Id., pp. 6-7. As evidence, Dr. Smallwood calls attention to the IS/MND’s failure “to identify the Crotch bumble bee host plants that allegedly occur in low density,” as well as “make the case that the host plants in question are the only plants useable by Crotch bumble bee.” Id., p. 7 (citing IS/MND, p. 4-14). Such failures indicate that the IS/MND “relies on generalities rather than specifics, and on speculation rather than evidence.” Id. Additionally, the IS/MND suggests that special-status species, such as the western yellow bat, were killed off by house cats, driven away by traffic noise, and inhibited by the low supply of insect prey. IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, p. 7. But as Dr.
Smallwood notes, “[n]one of these suggestions are backed by evidence, and no effort has been made to actually look for special-status species on the site.” Ex. B, p. 7. Dr.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
Smallwood refers to the IS/MND’s discussion of the Crotch bumble bee as a prime example:
In the case of the Crotch bumble bee, the IS/MND reports, “No bumble bee species were observed during the field survey.” (There is only one species of Crotch bumble bee.) This reporting ignores the fact that Crotch bumble bees are unlikely to be out and about in the middle of the afternoon when temperatures range 96° to 99° F, as was reportedly the conditions during the one survey performed – a survey performed not by a wildlife ecologist or an entomologist, but by a botanist. The report of having not detected Crotch bumble bee was a meaningless report, and serves only to misrepresent how wildlife ecologists determine whether a species is present or likely absent from a site.
Id., p. 7. As a result, the conclusion that the Project will not significantly impact the Crutch bumble bee and western yellow bat is not supported by substantial evidence and a fair argument exists that the Project may have significant impacts on the special- status species. Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys for multiple special- status species of wildlife be implemented to inform an EIR. Id., pp. 6, 22. Only with an accurate baseline could the IS/MND purport to assess the impacts on these special- status species.
Fourth, in addition to these inadequate survey methods and unidentified baselines, the IS/MND and its BRA understate the range of animal species that are likely present on the Project site. While the IS/MND’s BRA determines occurrence likelihood to be low for the western yellow bat and Crotch bumble bee, its determinations for all other species is unreported. IS/MND, App. B, pp. 8-9. The BRA refers the reader to Appendix D for determination of all species to be considered, but Appendix D is empty on the copy of the BRA report downloaded from City of Rancho Cucamonga’s website. See id., p. 8 & Appendix D. Contrary to the IS/MND and BRA reports, Dr. Smallwood’s review of eBird and iNaturalist identified no less than 60 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife and the Crotch bumble bee as having been seen very close to the project site, seen nearby, seen within the region, or whose geographic range overlaps the project site. Ex. B, pp. 7, 8-10 (Table 2) (listing species that Dr. Smallwood considers potentially occurring on the project site at one time or another or periodically).
Ms. Smallwood also detected 24 species of vertebrate wildlife during her 108- minute site visit on September 4, 2021. See Ex. B, p. 3 (Table 1) (listing species of wildlife Noriko Smallwood observed from 06:54 to 08:42 hours on 4 September 2021 at the proposed Project site). She saw Cooper’s hawk and American kestrel (Photos 2 and 3, p. 3), California scrub-jays and American crows (Photos 4 and 5, p. 4), Say’s phoebe and a great blue heron (Photos 6 and 7, p. 4), and side-blotched lizard and California ground squirrel (Photos 8 and 9, p. 5), among other species. Id., pp. 2-5. Based on Ms.
Smallwood’s observations, Dr. Smallwood writes:
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
[Ms. Smallwood’s] survey outcome indicates that the site of the proposed project continues to serve as valuable habitat to at least 24 species of vertebrate wildlife, and it likely serves as habitat to many more species. It also holds the potential to produce many new birds, mammals and reptiles for years to come. A fair argument can be made for the need to more rigorously survey the site for wildlife, and for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze potential project impacts to wildlife
Id., p. 2. Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood points out the significance of Ms. Smallwood’s observance of California ground squirrels on the adjacent property across the street from the Project site. Dr. Smallwood states:
Ms. Smallwood’s detection of California ground squirrels on the open field across the street indicates that ground squirrels likely also occur on the project site. The occurrence of ground squirrels in the project area is significant because many special-status species are found in association with ground squirrels and their burrow complexes. Ground squirrels are prey of large raptors such as bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk and Swainson’s hawk. Ground squirrels are also prey of terrestrial carnivores such as American badger, which specialize on ground squirrels. Ground squirrels also construct subterranean habitat used by many species such as burrowing owl. The occurrence of ground squirrel warrants detection surveys for multiple special-status species that associate with this species.
Id., p. 5. Moreover, “[b]ecause ground squirrels occur in the project area,” Dr.
Smallwood also recommends that “breeding-season burrowing owl surveys need to be implemented (CDFW 2012),” but only “implemented prior to the circulation of an EIR to more appropriately address potential impacts to burrowing owls and mitigation of those impacts.” Id. p. 22. Thus, given the close proximity of these special-status species, the IS/MND fails as a matter of law to analyze the impacts to these species and their habitat.
In conclusion, the IS/MND’s failure to adequately evaluate the significance of the impacts to special-status species of wildlife violates CEQA. Thus, the Project requires an EIR to properly mitigate wildlife impacts of the Project.
ii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impact on loss of breeding capacity.
Neither the IS/MND nor the BRA assess th e lost breeding capacity of birds that would result from the Project. See Ex. B, pp. 7, 11. In so doing, the IS/MND fails to analyze the impact of habitat loss, or the loss of productive capacity on bird species likely to nest on the ground and in trees within the BSA. Id., p. 7. While habitat loss
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
results in the immediate numerical decline of birds and other animals, it also results in a permanent loss of productive capacity. Id. Dr. Smallwood cites a recent study that documented a “29% decline in overall bird abundance across North America over the last 48 years,” a decline which he says was “driven by multiple factors, but principally attributed to habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.” Id. (citing Rosenberg et al. 2019).
Here, the IS/MND and BRA identify only mourning dove as a bird species likely to nest on the ground, and only house finch, northern mockingbird, and California scrub- jay as species likely to nest in trees in the area. IS/MND, p. 4-15; IS/MND, App. B, p. 9.
In reality, however, Dr. Smallwood reports that “many more species of birds are capable of nesting on and around the project site,” especially since a lot of bird species are considered ground-nesters. Ex. B, p. 7. Dr. Smallwood cites two studies that show bird nesting densities that were between 32.8 and 35.8 bird nests per acre, for an average of
34.3 bird nests per acre. Id. (citing Young (1948) and Yahner (1982), respectively).
Assuming nesting density at the Project site is a fifth of the 34.3 average reported, then
6.8 bird nests per acre multiplied by the Project’s 5.2 acres of habit, Dr. Smallwood predicts that 35 bird nests produce new birds at the site annually. Id., p. 11. Based on an average of 2.9 fledglings per nest, the Project would prevent the production of 102 new birds per year. Id. (citing Young (1948)). Based on Dr. Smallwood’s calculations, “[a]fter 100 years and further assuming an average bird generation time of 5 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production would total 11,600 birds.” Id. (emphasis added).
The potential loss of 11,600 birds in California over the first century following construction of this Project easily qualifies as a significant and substantial impact that has not been analyzed. An EIR is required to fully analyze the Project’s impact on lost breeding capacity, and to mitigate that impact. Dr. Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from habitat loss, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22.
iii. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on habitat fragmentation.
The IS/MND does not assess the likelihood of cumulative impacts on wildlife, especially from habitat fragmentation in the vicinity. Ex. B, p. 11. In addition to habit loss, habitat fragmentation, known as the reduction of connectivity of remaining habitat patches on a landscape, can also further diminish the productive capacity of the Project site. Id. (citing Smallwood 2015). Habitat fragmentation has progressed rapidly around the Project site, which has led to a diminishing number of patches of open space in the area. Id. As a result, each of these patches of open space, including the Project’s 5.2 acres, “is increasingly critical to the continued existence of many wildlife species.” Id.
Because a fair argument exists that developing a currently undeveloped site that is likely suitable habitat for many species of wildlife will further fragment wildlife habitat in this area, there is a fair argument that the Project may contribute to habitat
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
fragmentation. Thus, habitat fragmentation is a cumulative effect of this Project that should be analyzed in an EIR, and mitigated accordingly. See Ex. B, p. 22.
iv. The IS/MND f ails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife movement.
The IS/MND fails to address impacts to wildlife movement, and instead looks for impacts to a wildlife corridor. See IS/MND, pp. 4-16–4-17; Ex. B, p. 11. In doing so, the IS/MND improperly dismisses the Project’s potential to significantly impact wildlife movement reasoning that the BSA “occurs within an industrial center of the Los Angeles Basin and does not occur within a recognized/established regional wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site,” and “as a result, direct impacts to a regional wildlife movement corridor would not occur.” IS/MND, App. B, pp. 10-11; Ex. B, p. 11.
These conclusions rely on a false CEQA standard. Ex. B, p. 11. As Dr.
Smallwood states, “[t]he primary phrase of the CEQA standard goes to wildlife movement regardless of whether the movement is channeled by a corridor.” Id.; see also CEQA Guidelines, App. G, pp. 333-34 (stating that the CEQA significance threshold is whether, among other things, a project will “[i]nterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species….”). Impacts to wildlife movement may occur with or without the presence of a wildlife corridor. Ex. B, p.
11. Dr. Smallwood writes:
A site such as the proposed project site is critically important for wildlife movement because it composes one of the last of a diminishing suite of open space patches within a growing expanse of anthropogenic uses, forcing more species of birds to use the site for stopover and staging during migration, dispersal, and home range patrol (Warnock 2010, Taylor et al. 2011, Runge et al. 2014).
Id., p. 11. Hence, the Project “would cut birds and bats off from stopover, roosting and staging opportunities, forcing them to travel even farther between remaining stopover areas along migration routes.” Id. Because the Project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region, Dr. Smallwood agrees that an EIR needs to be prepared to address the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement in the region.
Moreover, the Project site is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is one of four major North American migration routes for birds. While migratory birds travel the flyway on their annual north-south migration, they stopover at areas with suitable habitat and food supplies. As the IS/MND’s BRA notes, many birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (“MBTA”) and California Fish and Game Code (“CFGC”) §§ 3503–3503.5 “are likely to use the BSA for breeding, migratory stopovers, and local dispersal.” IS/MND, App. B, p. 9 (emphasis added). However, no analysis of any direct impacts to wildlife movement, including birds’ stop-over habitat, is included in the IS/MND and its appendix.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
Lastly, the IS/MND and BRA acknowledge that construction from the Project would have indirect impacts on wildlife movement, stating that the Project’s “construction activities (i.e., increased noise, human presence, vibration) would likely result in wildlife avoidance of the area during the construction time frame.” Id. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Such indirect and direct impacts could significantly affect wildlife movement, and should be addressed in an EIR and mitigated accordingly. Dr.
Smallwood recommends, at a minimum, substantial compensatory mitigation is needed in response to the Project’s impacts from interference with wildlife movement, including impacts to birds and bats using the site as stop-over or staging during migration. Ex. B, p. 22.
v. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife by window collisions.
Dr. Smallwood’s report concludes that the Project will have significant impact on birds as a result of window collisions. See Ex. B, pp. 12-18. But neither the IS/MND nor the BRA express any concern about bird-window collision impacts, nor do they propose any mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for such impacts to special- status species of bird. Id., p. 12. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to window collisions is especially important because “[w]indow collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality.” Id.
According to Dr. Smallwood, the Project’s buildings, at 60 feet tall, would extend into much of the bird traffic observed by Ms. Smallwood at the Project site on September 4, 2021. Id. The IS/MND’s rendering of the project shows façades composed of extensive structural glass, which Dr. Smallwood notes, “would introduce substantial collision hazards to an aerosphere that currently provides critically important habitat to birds, and which would act as lethal traps to flying birds.” Id. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyaway, and Ms. Smallwood’s observations at the time of her site visit further confirmed that birds fly through the Project’s airspace, even during the nonmigratory season. Id. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s review, at least 47 special-status species of bird are known to the Project area, see id. pp. 8-10 (Table 2), most of which “have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations.” Id., p. 12 (citing Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review).
Dr. Smallwood reviewed a number of studies in order to calculate the number of bird collisions that would occur annually as a result of the Project. Ex. B, p. 13.
According to his calculations, each m
2 of glass would result in an average of 0.073 bird
deaths per year. Id. Dr. Smallwood then looked at the building design for the Project and estimated the Project would include at least 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades.
Based on the estimated 3,196 m2 of glass on its façades and the 0.073 bird deaths per year, Dr. Smallwood estimates that the Project would result in at least 234 bird deaths
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
per year. Id. Even more significant is the 100-year toll from this average annual fatality rate, which would be at least 23,363 bird deaths. Id. As Dr. Smallwood correctly points out, “[i]f the project moves forward as proposed, and annually kills 234 birds protected by state and federal laws, then the project would cause significant unmitigated impacts.” Id.
Considering the list of bird-window collis ion factors that Dr. Smallwood stressed should be used to formulate a bird-safe plan for the proposed Project, Ex. B, pp. 13-17, 22-23, he has suggested a number of mitigation measures. Id., pp. 17-18. As a starting point, before construction, [a]ny new project should be informed by preconstruction surveys of daytime and nocturnal flight activity.” Id., p. 17. Dr. Smallwood explains:
[Preconstruction] surveys can reveal the one or more façades facing the prevailing approach direction of birds, and these revelations can help prioritize where certain types of mitigation can be targeted. It is critical to formulate effective measures prior to construction, because post- construction options will be limited, likely more expensive, and probably less effective.
Id., p. 17. However, with regard to most of the known or suspected collision risk factors that Dr. Smallwood lists, he warns that “the proposed project’s design remains insufficiently described to determine the degree to which the project would contribute to relative collision risk.” Id. Therefore, Dr. Smallwood suggests the following:
Focused study of birds in the area could reduce the uncertainty of potential project impacts. Such studies could make use of radar (Gauthreaux et al. 2008) or visual scan surveys (Smallwood 2017). Key information useful for impacts assessment and mitigation would include intensity and timing of bird traffic, heights above ground, travel trajectories, and specific behaviors of birds in flight.
Id. Dr. Smallwood also notes the importance of post-construction fatality monitoring, which he says “should be an essential feature of any new building project.” Id.
In addition, for mitigation measures involv ing the siting and design of the Project, Dr. Smallwood suggests: (1) retrofitting to reduce impacts by marking windows, managing outdoor landscape vegetation, managing indoor landscape vegetation, and managing nocturnal lighting; (2) siting and designing to minimize impacts by deciding on location of structure, deciding on façade and orientation, selecting type and sizes of windows, designing to minimize transparency through two parallel façades, designing to minimize views of interior plants, and landscaping to increase distances between windows and trees and shrubs; and (3) monitoring for adaptive management to reduce impacts by systematic monitoring for fatalities to identify seasonal and spatial patterns, and adjusting light management, window marking, and other measures as needed. Ex.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
B, pp. 17-18. Dr. Smallwood also recommends that the use of compensatory mitigation be incorporated at any new building project. Id., p. 23.
Thus, because many birds can be expected to be killed by windows of the Proposed project, a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to adequately address and mitigate this potential impact.
vi. The IS/MND fails to address the Project’s potential significant impacts on wildlife from additional traffic generated by the Project.
Dr. Smallwood identifies the serious impacts that increased traffic has on wildlife.
Ex. B, pp. 18-20. Analyzing the potential impact on wildlife due to vehicle collisions is especially important because “traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife,” across North America. Id., p. 18 (citing Forman et al. 2003). In the United States alone, estimates for “avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year.” Id. (citing Loss et al. 2014). As Dr. Smallwood explains:
Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of reptile, amphibian, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).
Increased use of existing roads will increase wildlife fatalities (see Figure 7 in Kobylarz 2001). It is possible that project-related traffic impacts will far exceed the impacts of land conversion to residential use for a warehouse.
Id., pp. 18-19. Furthermore, a recent study conducted on traffic-caused wildlife mortality found “1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches along a 2.5 mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California.” Id., p. 18 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). Hence, as Dr. Smallwood points out, an analysis is needed to determine whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in impacts to local wildlife. Id., p. 19.
The IS/MND anticipates that the proposed Project would generate an average of 16,382 daily miles traveled, which translates to 5,979,430 annual vehicle miles traveled.
IS/MND, pp. 4-9, 4-23; Ex. B, p. 18. The additional 16,382 daily miles traveled that is expected from the Project will undoubtedly result in collisions with wildlife. Ex. B, p. 19.
As Dr. Smallwood explains, this additional 16,382 daily miles driven as a result of the Project is “a lot of mileage to be driven at great peril to wildlife that must cross roads to go about their business of foraging, patrolling home ranges, dispersing and migrating.” Id. (citing Photos 10 and 11, Ex. B, pp. 19-20).
However, “[d]espite the obvious risk to
wildlife, and despite the multiple papers and books written about this type of impact and how to mitigate them, the IS/MND does not address impacts to wildlife caused by vehicles traveling to and from the Project site.” Ex. B, p. 19.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
To predict the road mortality of wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, Dr. Smallwood analyzed the data from the study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality in Contra Costa County. Id., p. 20 (citing Mendelsohn et al. 2009). By inputting estimates of vehicle miles per wildlife fatalities calculated using the Contra Costa County study, i.e. 1,825 vehicle miles per fatality, Dr. Smallwood predicts:
Based on the daily VMT predicted by the IS/MND, the project would generate 5,979,430 vehicle miles per year, which divided by the 1,825 miles per fatality, would predict 3,276 wildlife fatalities per year.
Operations over 50 years would accumulate 163,820 wildlife fatalities.
Ex. B, p. 20. Based on Dr. Smallwood’s assumptions and calculations, the traffic generated by the Project would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. Id. Dr.
Smallwood also notes that “mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible,” and therefore, “need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.” Id. Specifically, Dr. Smallwood suggests compensatory mitigation in the form of “funding research to
identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures,” and “donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities.” Id., p. 23.
Moreover, wildlife that will be run over by the Project’s additional traffic may include special-status species of wildlife such as the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus).
Although these two special-status species were not observed on the Project site during the reconnaissance field survey or Ms. Smallwood’s site visit, the CNDDB search yielded occurrences for both the coast horned lizard and Los Angeles pocket mouse that overlapped with the Project’s biological survey area. IS/MND, p. 4-14. Regardless of whether these special-status species appear on the Project site, they do cross roads over which traffic from the Project will travel.
The IS/MND fails to recognize at all this potential significant impact of the Project.
Because a fair argument exists that the Project may have a significant impact on wildlife in the vicinity, an EIR must be prepared to assess this impact and identify appropriate mitigation.
vii. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project’s potential cumulative impacts on wildlife.
The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the cumulative impacts to wildlife from the Project by improperly implying that cumulative impacts are in reality only residual impacts as a result of incomplete mitigation from project-level impacts. Ex. B, p. 21. For example, the IS/MND states:
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
As previously discussed, impacts related to the proposed Project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The proposed Project’s contribution to any significant cumulative impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
IS/MND, p. 4-78. However, the IS/MND’s implied standard is not the standard of cumulative effects required under CEQA. Ex. B, p. 21. CEQA defines cumulative impacts, and it outlines two general approaches for performing the required cumulative analysis. See 14 CCR § 15130; PRC § 21083(b)(2). According to Dr. Smallwood, cumulative effects for wildlife “can often be interpreted as effects on the numerical capacity (Smallwood 2015), breeding success, genetic diversity, or other population performance metrics expressed at the regional scale.” Ex. B, p. 21.
Here, the IS/MND’s cumulative “analysis” is based on flawed logic. The conclusion that the Project will have no cumulative impact because each individual impact has been reduced to a less-than-significant level relies on the exact argument CEQA’s cumulative impact analysis is meant to protect against. The entire purpose of the cumulative impact analysis is to prevent the situation where mitigation occurs to address project-specific impacts, without looking at the bigger picture. This argument, applied over and over again, has resulted in major environmental damage, and is a major reason why CEQA was enacted. As the Court stated in CBE v. CRA:
Cumulative impact analysis is necessary because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. One of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually, but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact.
CBE v. CRA, 103 Cal.App.4th at 114 (citations omitted). Even if the IS/MND was applying the accurate CEQA standard, which would mean that the cumulative effects analysis would be nothing more than an analysis of mitigation efficiency, Dr. Smallwood points out “that none of the project-level impacts would be offset to any degree by the proposed preconstruction surveys to be performed for nesting birds.” Ex. B, p. 21.
Notwithstanding, the IS/MND misrepresented the standard and failed to perform an appropriate analysis. An EIR must be prepared to include an adequate, serious analysis of the Project’s cumulative impacts on wildlife.
viii. The pre-construction surveys identified in the IS/MND are not sufficient to address potential impacts to birds and bats that may be present at the site.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
Dr. Smallwood has reviewed the proposed wildlife impact mitigation identified in the IS/MND related to pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and roosting bats (i.e.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1). See IS/MND, p. 4-15; Ex. B, pp. 21-22. Although Dr.
Smallwood agrees with the need for pre-construction surveys for birds and bats at the Project site, he notes that pre-construction surveys will come too late either to disclose the Project’s anticipated impacts or to fully mitigate impacts to birds and bats. Ex. B, p.
21. As Dr. Smallwood explains:
Preconstruction surveys are not designed or intended to reduce project impacts, let alone to reduce impacts to less than significant levels; they are not even designed to assess impacts. Preconstruction surveys are only intended as last-minute, one-time salvage and rescue operations targeting readily detectable nests or individuals before they are crushed under heavy construction machinery. Because most special-status species are rare and cryptic, and because most species are expert at hiding their nests lest they get predated, most of them will not be detected by preconstruction surveys.
Id., p. 21. By failing to determine the actual baseline of bird’s and bat’s reliance on the site for roosting, nesting, and foraging and instead waiting within seven days prior to the start of construction to determine what roosts, nests, birds, and bats may suffer impacts from the Project, the IS/MND fails to evaluate and mitigate the Project’s potential significant impacts to nesting birds and bats.
Dr. Smallwood recommends that detection surveys be implemented for the Project before pre-construction surveys are performed. Id., pp. 21-22. In addition to detection surveys and preconstruction surveys being performed, an EIR should be prepared detailing how the results of preconstruction surveys will be reported. Id., p. 22.
C. The IS/MND Relied on Unsubstantia ted Input Parameters to Estimate Project Emissions and Thus Failed to Adequately Analyze the Project’s Air Quality Impacts.
The IS/MND for the Project relies on emissions calculated from CalEEMod.2016.3.2. IS/MND, p. 4-8; Ex. C, pp. 1-2. This model relies on recommended default values, or on site-specific information related to a number of factors. When more specific project information is known, the user may change the default values and input project-specific values, but CEQA requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence. The model is used to generate a project’s construction and operational emissions. SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files and found that the values input into the model were inconsistent with information provided in the IS/MND, resulting in an underestimation of the Project’s emissions. Ex. C, p. 2. Because the IS/MND uses incorrect estimates for emissions, its air quality analysis and GHG emissions analysis cannot be relied upon to determine the Project’s emissions. The particular errors identified by SWAPE are discussed below. These errors should be
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
corrected in a subsequent CEQA document prior to approval of the Project. SWAPE’s expert comments and curriculum vitae are attached hereto as Exhibit C.
i. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction of land use size.
Based on the IS/MND, the Project proposes to build “259 apartment units, ranging from 715 square feet to 1,367 square feet.” IS/MND, p. 1-13. Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model includes the correct number of residential units (i.e. 259 apartments), but the incorrect square footage associated with the residential land use floor surface area (i.e. reduction of the default value of 259,000- to 228,000-SF). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 25, 29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 27; Ex. C, pp. 4-5.
Further review of the model’s output files indicates that the land use size was reduced from the CalEEMod default value without adequate explanation or justification.
IS/MND, App. A, p. 29; IS/MND, App. F, p. 27; Ex. C, p. 5. The CalEEMod User’s Guide requires that any changes to the default models be justified. Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, pp. 2, 9). According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Site Plan; Project population.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App.
F, p. 23. Given that the IS/MND states that the apartment units will range from 715-SF to 1,367-SF, the total square footage of the residential space will range from 185,185- SF to 354,053-SF. Ex. C, p. 5. However, the IS/MND fails to explicitly state the total square footage of the residential land use, and therefore, the reduction to the default floor surface area is unsubstantiated. Id. This change also is not mentioned or justified in the IS/MND and associated appendices. SWAPE explains:
This unsubstantiated reduction presents an issue, as the land use size feature is used throughout CalEEMod to determine default variable and emission factors that go into the model’s calculations. The square footage of a land use is used for certain calculations such as determining the wall space to be painted (i.e., VOC emissions from architectural coatings) and volume that is heated or cooled (i.e., energy impacts).
Ex. C, p. 5 (citing CalEEMod User Guide, p. 28). By including an unsubstantiated reduction to the floor surface area of the Project’s residential units, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., p. 5.
ii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to architectural and area coating emission factors.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the “Alt Cuvee Mixed- Use Project” model includes several reductions to the default architectural coating emission factors. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
nonresidential exterior and interior architectural area coating emission factors were each reduced from the default 100 g/L to 50 g/L. IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App.
F, p. 25; Ex. C, pp. 5-6. The explanation provided in the file is: “SCAQMD Building Envelope 50 g/L.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 6. But neither the IS/MND nor the associated appendices mention or justify these changes. According to SWAPE, these changes are unsupported for two reasons:
First, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to mention the building envelope category of paint, and its associated VOC content limit of 50 g/L as required by SCAQMD Rule 1113, whatsoever. Second, the IS/MND and associated documents fail to explicitly require the Project to use only building envelope coatings during Project construction and operation of the proposed nonresidential land uses whatsoever. As such, we cannot verify that the revised values are accurate.
Ex. C, p. 6.
Such unsubstantiated reductions cause an issue because the model uses the architectural and area coating emission factors to calculate the Project’s reactive organic gas/volatile organic compound (“ROG/VOC”) emissions. Id. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model could underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions. Id. Thus, the IS/MND’s emissions for architectural and area coating should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
iii. The IS/MND relies on an unsubstantiated reduction to gas fireplace values.
Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” model demonstrates a reduction to gas fireplaces values were manually altered to include no gas fireplaces. IS/MND, App. A, p. 28; IS/MND, App. F, p. 26; Ex. C, pp. 6-7.
Neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values. Ex. C, p. 6. However, the IS/MND indicates that the east building would include a courtyard with an outdoor fireplace, meaning that at least one fireplace would be installed on the Project site. IS/MND, p. 1-13; Ex. C, p. 7. By including unsubstantiated reductions to the number of gas fireplaces, the model could underestimate the Project’s area-source operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Ex. C, p. 7.
iv. The IS/MND relies on incorrect CO
2 intensity factors.
Review of the CalEEMod output files demonstrates that the CO2 intensity factors for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” and “Alta Cuvee Bus Bay” were officially reduced from 702.44- to 531.98- and 471.24-pounds per megawatt hour (“lbs/MWhr”), respectively. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 30, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 28, 87; Ex. C, p. 2.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justifications for these changes are:
● Electricity supplied by Rancho Cucam onga Municipal Utility, which is not available as input selection. SCE used as surrogate
● SB 100 mandates 44% renewable by end of 2024. SCE CO2 factor assumes 40% renewables when operations begin. SCE 2019 power mix = 36% renewables
IS/MND, App. A, pp. 26, 91; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 23, 86.
These justifications are insufficient. Ex. C, p. 2. Based on SWAPE’s review of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2020 Power Content Label, the City’s CO2 intensity factor is 630 lbs/MWhr, which means that the CO2 intensity factor is underestimated by approximately 98- and 159-lbs/MWhr, respectively. Id., pp. 2-3.
Neither the IS/MND nor its associated appendices provide a citation or further justification for the updated carbon intensity factors. Such inconsistencies pose an issue because the model uses the CO
2 intensity factor to calculate the Project’s GHG
emissions associated with electricity use. Id., p. 3. By including an underestimated carbon intensity factor, the models underestimate the Project’s potential GHG emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id.
v. The IS/MND fails to model all required parking.
Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates that the required parking is underestimated in the model. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, pp. 3-4. According to the IS/MND, the Project is pending approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the amount of required parking by 12%, from 526 to 465 spaces. IS/MND, p. 1-15, Table 1-2. However, this request is yet to be approved. Id., p. 1-15; Ex. C, p. 4.
As SWAPE points out, “the model should have included the entire amount of required parking in order to conduct the most conservative analysis.” Ex. C, p. 4. But review of the output files indicates that the Project’s model only includes 465 parking spaces, rather than the 526 spaces required by the City. IS/MND, App. A, p. 25; IS/MND, App. F, p. 23; Ex. C, p. 4. Hence, the total amount of parking is underestimated by 61 spaces. Ex. C, p. 4. But this underestimation is incorrect since there is no way to verify whether the City will approve or deny the Project’s requested parking exception. Id. As such, the potential underestimation affects CalEEMod calculations for the model’s VOC emissions from architectural coatings and energy impacts. Id. By failing to include the entire amount of required parking spaces, the model underestimates the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions, and thus, should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
vi. The IS/MND relies on incorrect solid waste generation rates.
Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates that the solid waste generation rates for that of the proposed Project were reduced in the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project’s emissions.
IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 7-8. The total solid waste generation rate was cumulatively decreased by 23.71 tons per year. Ex. C, p. 7.
According to the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table, the justification provided for these changes is: “Remove duplicate waste generation.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24. But the IS/MND estimates that the proposed Project’s “operational activities would generate approximately 1.6 tons per day of solid waste during Project operation.” IS/MND, p. 4-73 & n.99. Based on the solid waste generation rate that the IS/MND uses, the Project’s operational activities would generate approximately 584 tons per year of solid waste. Ex. C, p. 8.
However, the model’s output files indicate that its emissions estimates for the Project’s total solid waste generation of 123.6 tons per year, which includes 119.6 tons per year for 259 mid-rise apartments, 0.46 tons per year of solid waste for 1 live-work unit (referred to as a condo/townhouse by the model), 0.03 tons per year of solid waste for outdoor amenity space (referred to as a city park), and 3.51 tons per year of solid waste for the commercial space (referred to as a strip mall). IS/MND, App. A, p. 85; IS/MND, App. F, p. 82; Ex. C, p. 8. As SWAPE points out, the model’s solid waste is underestimated by 460.4 tons per year, and therefore, inconsistent with information included in the IS/MND. Ex. C, p. 8. Compared to the solid waste generation rate used by the IS/MND, the Project’s model relies on solid waste generation rates that are grossly underestimated, and as a result, the model underestimates the Project’s GHG emissions from operational activities. Id. Thus, the IS/MND’s emissions for solid waste should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id.
vii. The IS/MND relies on the use of underestimated operational vehicle fleet mix percentages.
Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates that the operational vehicle fleet mix percentages were underestimated within the model, and as a result, may underestimate the Project’s mobile-source operational emissions. IS/MND, App. A, pp. 28-29; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 26-27; Ex. C, pp. 9-10. According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification for these changes is: “Residential Trips.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 9. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, pp. 9-10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default operational vehicle fleet mix percentages, the model could underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Id., p. 10.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
viii. The IS/MND relies on unsubstantiated reductions to off-road equipment horsepower values.
Review of the CalEEMod output files for the “Alta Cuvee Mixed-Use Project” demonstrates several reductions to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values. IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 10-11.
According to the “User Entered Comments and Non-Default Data” table, the justification for these changes is: “Project Inventory.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 26; IS/MND, App. F, p. 24; Ex. C, p. 10. However, neither the file nor the IS/MND and the associated appendices mention or justify these changes to the default values with substantial evidence. Ex. C, p. 10. By including unsubstantiated changes to the default off-road construction equipment horsepower values, the model could underestimate the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. Id., pp. 10-11.
ix. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of construction-related mitigation measures.
Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model relies on an incorrect application of the construction mitigation measure of “Water Exposed Area.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 30; IS/MND, App. F, p. 28; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. No adequate justification is provided in the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table for the inclusion of this specific mitigation measure. Ex. C, p. 11. Instead, the file mentions “SCAQMD Rule 403” as a “Construction Off-Road Equipment Mitigation.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 24; IS/MND, App. F, p. 22; Ex. C, p. 11. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, which means they are project design features making it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1–5-4; Ex. C, pp. 11-12. By the IS/MND using the construction-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex. C, p. 12. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p.
25. x. The IS/MND relies on the incorrect application of operational mitigation measures.
Review of the CalEEMod output files reveals that the model also relies on an incorrect application of several operational mitigation measures related to energy (i.e.
Exceed Title 24, Install High Efficiency Lighting, Install Energy Efficient Appliances), area (i.e. No Hearths Installed, Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies), and water (i.e. Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet, Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet, Use Water Efficient Irrigation System). IS/MND, App. A, pp. 72, 77, 79; IS/MND, App. F, pp. 70, 75, 77; Ex.
C, pp. 12-14. The file provided no adequate justification for any of these operational mitigation measures used to reduce operational-related emissions as a result of the
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
Project, but includes a justification in the “User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data” table for area-related operational mitigation measures, which is “SCAQMD Rule 1113.” IS/MND, App. A, p. 27; IS/MND, App. F, p. 25; Ex. C, p. 13. However, neither the IS/MND nor the appendices include these as formal mitigation measures, meaning they are considered project design features, which makes it impossible to guarantee whether the measures used in the model would be implemented, monitored, or enforced. See IS/MND, pp. 5-1–5-4; Ex. C, pp. 13-14. By the IS/MND using the operational-related mitigation measures in the model, it is artificially reducing its emissions measures. Ex.
C, pp. 13-14. As a result, the model may underestimate the Project’s operational emissions and the mitigation cannot be relied upon. Id., p. 14. Thus, the design features should be included as mitigation measures. Id., p. 25.
In conclusion, as a result of these errors in the IS/MND, the Project’s construction-related and operational emissions were underestimated and cannot be relied upon to determine the significance of the Project’s air quality impacts.
D. An Updated Air Model Analysis Is Needed to Determine Whether the Project Will Have a Significant Air Quality Impact.
Review of the IS/MND’s air model analysis demonstrates that the IS/MND fails to provide summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, pp. 14-15. To calculate the Project’s air quality analysis, the IS/MND uses the CalEEMod.2016.3.2 to calculate construction-related and operational emissions. IS/MND, p. 4-8. According to SWAPE, the CalEEMod is required to provide three types of output files: annual, summer, and winter. Ex. C, p. 14 (citing CalEEMod User’s Guide, p. 61). SWAPE further explains:
As demonstrated above, the CalEEMod summer and winter output files provide peak daily emissions estimates in pounds per day (“lbs/day”).
Furthermore, the IS/MND quantifies the Project’s construction-related and operational maximum daily criteria air pollutant emissions and compares them to the applicable SCAQMD thresholds.
Id., pp. 14-15 (citing IS/MND, pp. 4-8, Table 4.3-1; 4-9, Table 4.3-2).
However, SWAPE’s review of the IS/MND’s air quality assessment and GHG assessment demonstrates that the IS/MND failed to disclose the summer and winter CalEEMod output files. Ex. C, p. 15. Because the IS/MND fails to provide the summer and winter output files, the IS/MND’s air quality analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance. An EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment, and properly disclose all CalEEMod output files.
E. The IS/MND Fails to Adequately Evaluate Health Risks from Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
One of the primary emissions of concern regarding health effects for land development projects is diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), which can be released during Project construction and operation. DPM consists of fine particles with a diameter less than 2.5 micrometers including a subgroup of ultrafine particles (with a diameter less than 0.1 micrometers). Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and cancer-causing substances. Exposure to DPM is a recognized health hazard, particularly to children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who may have other serious health problems. According to the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), DPM exposure may lead to the following adverse health effects: aggravated asthma; chronic bronchitis; increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations; decreased lung function in children; lung cancer; and premature deaths for those with heart or lung disease.
The IS/MND concludes that the proposed Project would have a less-than- significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). Specifically, regarding potential health risk impacts associated with Project construction, the IS/MND justifies its “less-than-significant” health risk impact conclusion by stating that “low magnitude of diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment combined with the brevity of the construction period and local meteorological characteristics indicate that the proposed Project would not generate substantial emissions over an extended period of time that could cause a health risk to adjacent land uses.” IS/MND, p. 4-11. Additionally, the IS/MND claims that “the size of the Project site indicates that only during a limited portion of construction activities would heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment be operating within 100 feet of sensitive receptors, and all construction equipment would be maintained in accordance with the CARB Portable Engine Air Toxics Control Measure and the Off-Road Diesel Regulation to control emissions to the maximum extent feasible.” Id.
In addition, with regard to potential health risk impacts associated with Project operation, the IS/MND’s justification is that “[o]peration of the proposed Project would not create a new substantial permanent source of air pollutant emissions to the Project area,” because the Project “would be consistent with existing surrounding land use developments,” and “does not involve large boilers, generators, or any other equipment or facilities that would warrant special permitting under SCAQMD regulations.” Id., p. 4-
12. According to the IS/MND this means that operation of the Project “would not produce emissions capable of resulting in substantial pollutant concentrations at sensitive receptor locations.” Id.
However, SWAPE’s review of the IS/MND and its evaluation of potential health risk impacts for the Project found that the IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact on nearby receptors, and completely failed to conduct a quantified construction or operational HRA. Ex. C, pp. 15-
17. SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND’s evaluation of the Project’s potential health impacts, as well as the less-than-significant health impact conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Id.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
First, the IS/ND fails to quantitatively evaluate construction-related and operational toxic air contaminants (“TACs”), or make a reasonable effort to connect emissions to health impacts posed to nearby existing sensitive receptors. Ex. C, p. 16.
SWAPE identifies potential emissions from both the exhaust stacks of construction equipment and daily vehicle trips. Id. In failing to connect TAC emissions to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors, the Project fails to meet the CEQA requirement that projects correlate increases in project-generated emissions to adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, p. 16. See Sierra Club v.
County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510.
Second, by failing to prepare a quantified construction and operational HRA, the Project is inconsistent with CEQA’s requirement to correlate the increase in emissions that the Project would generate to the adverse impacts on human health caused by those emissions. Ex. C, pp. 16-17. The IS/MND’s conclusion is also inconsistent with recommendations set forth by the Office of Health Hazard Assessment’s (“OEHHA”) most recent Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, which was formally adopted in March of 2015. See “Risk Assessment Guidelines Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.” OEHHA, February 2015, available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. OEHHA recommends that projects lasting at least 2 months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors, a time period which this Project easily exceeds. Ex. C, p. 17.
The OEHHA document also recommends that if a project is expected to last over 6 months, the exposure should be evaluated throughout the project using a 30-year exposure duration to estimate individual cancer risks. Id. Based on its extensive experience, SWAPE reasonably assumes that the Project will last at least 30 years, and therefore recommends that health risk impacts from the project be evaluated. Id. An EIR is therefore required to analyze these impacts. Id.
Third, by claiming a less than significant impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational HRA for nearby, existing sensitive receptors, SWAPE found that the IS/MND fails to compare the excess health risk impact to the SCAQMD’s specific numeric threshold of 10 in one million. Ex. C, p. 17. Thus, in accordance with the most relevant guidance, an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors from Project construction and operation should have been conducted.
F. There is Substantial Evidence that the Project May have a Significant Health Risk Impact.
Correcting the above errors, SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. Ex. C., pp. 17-21. SWAPE prepared a screening-level HRA to evaluate potential impacts from Project construction. SWAPE used AERSCREEN, the leading screening-level air quality dispersion model. SWAPE applied a sensitive receptor distance of 100 meters and
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
analyzed impacts to individuals at different stages of life based on OEHHA and SCAQMD guidance utilizing age sensitivity factors. Id.
SWAPE found that the excess cancer risks at a sensitive receptor located approximately 100 meters away over the course of Project construction are approximately 27.1 in one million for infants and 23.7 in one million for children. Id., p.
20. Moreover, the excess lifetime cancer risk over the course of a Project operation of 30 years is approximately 60 in one million. Id. The risks to infants, children, and lifetime residents appreciably exceed SCAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.
SWAPE’s analysis constitutes substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant health impact as a result of diesel particulate emissions. A health risk assessment must be prepared disclosing the health risk impacts from toxic air contaminants.
G. The IS/MND Failed to Adequately Analyze Greenhouse Gas Impacts and Thus the Project May Result in Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 2,668 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (“MT CO
2E/year”), which would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e/year.
IS/MND, p. 4-31, Table 4.8-1. Furthermore, the IS/MND relies upon the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, SCAG’s 2020–2045 RTP/SCS, the San Bernardino Regional GHG Reduction Plan, and the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan (“CAP”) in order to conclude that the Project would result in a less-than-significant GHG impact. IS/MND, pp. 4-31–4-32.
However, SWAPE concludes that the IS/MND’s GHG analysis, as well as its subsequent less-than-significant conclusion, is incorrect for several reasons. Ex. C, pp. 21-25.
First, as SWAPE points out, the IS/MND’s GHG analysis relies upon a flawed air model, as discussed above. Id., pp. 21-22. As a result, GHG emissions are underestimated and the IS/MND’s quantitative GHG analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.
Second, the IS/MND utilizes an outdated GHG threshold. SWAPE notes that when compared to the correct quantitative threshold, the Project’s GHG impacts are demonstrably significant. Id., p. 22.
Third, SWAPE’s updated analysis indicates a potential significant impact in GHG emissions. Id., pp. 22-23. As such, SWAPE recommends, “an updated GHG analysis using the SCAQMD 2035 efficiency target should be prepared in an EIR and additional mitigation should be incorporated accordingly, per CEQA Guidelines.” Id., p. 23.
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
Fourth, the IS/MND fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying CARB’s Scoping Plan. Ex. C, pp. 23-24. Based on SWAPE’s quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards, SWAPE concluded that the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination regarding the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 24.
Fifth, the IS/MND also fails to consider the performance-based standards underlying SCAG’s RTP/SCS. Id., pp. 24-25. SWAPE’s quantitative consistency evaluation utilizing these standards concludes that the IS/MND’s GHG significance determination concerning the Project’s consistency with applicable plans and policies should not be relied upon. Id., p. 25.
SWAPE’s analysis demonstrated a potentially significant health risk impact from the project that necessitates mitigation, and it proposes that the project design features that are incorrectly applied as mitigation measures by the model be implemented formally as mitigation measures in order to adequately reduce construction and operational emissions. In addition to implementing these measures, an EIR should be included with updated air quality, health risk, and GHG analysis.
H. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have Significant Noise Impact.
Review of the proposed Project and relevant appendices regarding the Project’s noise impacts from construction activities provides substantial evidence that the IS/MND improperly analyzed construction noise levels and failed to adequately mitigate significant construction noise impacts.
Based on the noise levels presented in the IS/MND, “the equipment is expected to generate noise levels ranging from approximately 70.3 dBA to 82.6 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet.” IS/MND, p. 4-46– 4-47. The IS/MND notes that “construction noise levels would exceed the residential and commercial construction noise standards at the majority of nearby sensitive receptors,” and as result, impacts related to on-site construction noise would be significant without mitigation. Id. at 4-47. Although the IS/MND concludes that mitigation measures included in the IS/MD will place noise impacts under significant thresholds, substantial evidence exists in the IS/MND and related appendix that demonstrates there still could be significant noise impacts despite the IS/MND’s noise mitigation measures.
As the court in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency stated, the application of an established regulatory standard cannot be applied in a way that forecloses the consideration of any other substantial evidence showing there may be a significant effect. Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 114. The court in Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara also held that an EIR is required if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant unmitigated noise
Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project
October 1, 2021
impacts, even if other evidence shows that the project will not generate noise in excess of a noise ordinance. See Keep Out Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732. Thus, an EIR to analyze potentially unmitigated noise impacts is required.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the IS/MND for the Project should be withdrawn, an EIR should be prepared, and the draft EIR should be circulated for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria Ann Yundt
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
Exhibit A
IEE INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING IEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: September 24, 2021
To: Victoria A. Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: Alta Cuvee Mixed Use Project, Rancho Cucamonga, CA (IEE File Reference: P-4499)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ is addressed by major high- performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor IAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.
Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.
The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain
2 of 19
and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.
Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact
. In the California New Home Study
(CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m 3, assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m 3, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m
3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3 NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.
Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m
3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde
alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).
Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m
3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.
The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and