Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-11 - Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS October 11, 2023 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chair Dopp Vice Chair Morales Commissioner Williams Commissioner Boling Commissioner Daniels B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONSThis is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting. C. CONSENT CALENDAR C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2023. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS D1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION & TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – MANNING HOMES - A request to subdivide 9.14 acres of land into 22 lots including the Design Review of 22 single-family residences, a Minor Exception for increased wall heights, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove onsite trees for a project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues in the Low (L) Residential Zone (2 - 4 Dwelling Units per Acre); APN: 0227- 151-03. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, Design Review DRC2022-00348, Minor Exception DRC2022- 00349, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350. D2. DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE - Consideration to Recommend Approval to the City Council of Zoning Text Amendments to Articles II, III, V, VIII, and IX of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code that will Include the Addition of a New Section for Major Exceptions, the Addition of New Subzone to the Summary Table and Land Use, Clarifications to Various Development Standards including updates to Drive-Thru Use and Service Station Standards, New Standards for Subdivisions in the Form Based Code, Adjustments to Open Space Requirements, and Additional Typographic and Formatting Amendments, and Recommendation of Zoning Map Amendments to Specific Parcels for Consistency with the General Plan (“PlanRC”). An Addendum to the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan FEIR has been prepared for this project (Zoning Map Amendment DRC2023-00317; Municipal Code Amendment DRC2023-00318). E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS G. ADJOURNMENT TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 3 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.” As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,365 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session. I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted at least Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 23, 2023 Page 1 of 6 Draft Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda August 23, 2023 DRAFT MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on August 23, 2023. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Vice Chair Morales, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Boling, and Commissioner Daniels. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Bond Mendez, Assistant Planner; David Eoff, Senior Planner; Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer; Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Tanya Spiegel, Economic Development Manager; Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst; Carina Campos, Management Analyst; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chair Dopp opened the public communications. Ruben Martinez, Resident, spoke about the vines and wine production in Rancho Cucamonga and asked Commissioners to keep in mind and preserve the history when seeing proposals for new buildings. Hearing no other comments, Chair Dopp closed public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2023. Motion to adopt Meeting Minutes as presented by Commissioner Boling; second by Commissioner Williams; Motion carried 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – LEGION FITNESS - A request to establish a large indoor fitness and sports facility within an existing 7,977 square foot tenant space within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone, located east of Archibald Avenue and north of 4th Street within the Archibald Center at 9785 Crescent Center Drive Suite 301; APN: 0210-071-56. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities (Conditional Use Permit DRC2023-00169). HPC/PC MINUTES – August 23, 2023 Page 2 of 6 Draft Bond Mendez, Assistant Planner, provided Commissioners with Staff Report and PowerPoint presentation. (Copy on file). Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing. Darin Hogarty, Applicant, expressed his excitement to bring his business to Rancho Cucamonga, thanked the Commission and staff and was available to answer questions. Commissioner Daniels asked if there were peak hours in the business. Darin Hogarty stated that peak hours in the morning are 4am-7am and 4:30pm-7pm in the evening. Commissioner Boling asked about the expected occupancy of the building during these peak hours. Darin Hogarty answered he expects to see 15-20 trainers during peak hours and each trainer would operate with one to two clients. Chair Dopp asked if these are one-on-one relationships between client and trainers. Darin Hogarty answered yes. No other comments from the public, Chair Dopp Closed Public Hearing. Commissioner Boling asked what businesses operated that building in the past. Bond Mendez answered it was previously a warehousing distribution use. Commissioner Boling asked staff where the next closest gym would be to this location. Bond Mendez replied there is another facility within the same complex at the opposite end of the site called The Camp. It operates similar to Legion Fitness as far as specific hours of operation with limited users. It is not a commercial gym where drop in use is allowed. They have classes/sessions that are scheduled. Commissioner Boling clarified that they offer classes with multiple participants, as opposed to the private one- on-one/two instruction that is being proposed at subject property. Bond Mendez answered yes. Chair Dopp mentioned in the Neo Industrial units, we are looking for a variety of business types and land use structure to create more synergy. Expressed support of this business to utilize space properly. Motion by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 23-18, Conditional Use Permit DRC2023-00169 second by Commissioner Boling. Motion carried 5-0. E. General Business E1. Presentation from Empire Economics Inc. on the City’s Annual Employment and Housing Trends Study and Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Warehouse and Distribution Facilities. This item is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is therefore exempt from CEQA review. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 23, 2023 Page 3 of 6 Draft Dr. Joseph Janczyk, PH.D., Empire Economics Inc., presented a PowerPoint presentation. (Copy on file) He presented analysis study on the residential market and commercial industrial and how it will impact the city over time. Commissioner Boling asked regarding the Annual Single Housing Payments by Month, the $38K does not include school bonds, HOA’s, etc. Dr. Janczyk answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Morales expressed it was a great presentation. Asked staff to talk about the updated General Plan and how we surveyed the city residents and received feedback that they wanted us to preserve the vineyard history, along with high density in certain areas. Explain how it was implemented in the updated General Plan. Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning, provided background information on the General Plan outreach process and historic preservation efforts initiated by the City requested by the Vice Chair. Vice Chair Morales stated he is glad the General Plan is what it is. It will strengthen our city for the future 20- 30 years from now. Dr. Janczyk mentioned since his involvement with the city since the late 80’s, he commended the vision that was formulated and how it was implemented by the Council and Planning Commission. He is impressed by the quality of development. Chair Dopp asked is there a market for attached condo/housing that maybe buffer some of the numbers that we are seeing with the high-price points for single family housing. Dr. Janczyk responded with respect to the theme of development the city has formulated and implemented, if we are looking at standard single-family homes, then move up luxury. He said that is what fits the city best. The next step would be the attached product is a strong alternate to the for sale single family. There is a demand for it, but the city also expects product be a level of standards that is fulfilled. That is what comes together. Chair Dopp stated that what we have been seeing as a Commission is a fair number of mixed-use projects within the city. He said one topic that comes up by developers is an option to use a live work unit. He asked to what extent do live work units accomplish the goal of what we are looking for when it comes to non-residential development components of these projects. Dr. Janczyk responded his experience is limited to that but he has seen more and more of it and indicated it’s a good idea. Chair Dopp announced this is not a Public Hearing but asked if anyone who like to comment on this item. Rubin Martinez, Resident, commented that the idea of multi generation homes is a good idea but not sure how that will work with our city, but it’s something to consider. He stated individuals are moving to Rancho Cucamonga because they see the incentive of coming here. With no other comments, Commission received and filed report. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 23, 2023 Page 4 of 6 Draft E2. Introduction to the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Economic Development Strategy. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15061 (b)(3) – Common Sense Exemption. Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development and Tanya Spiegel, Economic Development Manager, presented a PowerPoint presentation. (Copy on file.) Looking for comments and feedback from Commissioners. After completion with Commissioners review, it will be forwarded to City Council asking for their comments ultimately adopt the Economic Development Strategy. Commissioner Williams stated she is delighted to hear the word culture be used throughout the presentation. She expressed that we have interesting venues within Rancho Cucamonga, and it is never mentioned. She suggested we identify and take advantage of what we have and expand what is here. Chair Dopp asked if the Public Art will be looked at in the Strategic Plan as well. Matt Marquez replied yes. It is a focus point moving forward. Commissioner Daniels commented that it was a good report. He asked how well Victoria Gardens is doing. Matt Marquez replied that Victoria Gardens is doing well. Limited space. Foot traffic very well visited. They are number one lifestyle center in the US and we have a great working relationship with management team. Commissioner Daniels stated with the trends of people working from home, he asked for statistics on how many employers with office workers asked to have them return and work in their facilities. Matt Marquez mentioned it is something his team will look at. Commissioner Daniels asked for statistics on how much e-commerce is replacing retail shopping. Matt Marquez stated he will search for that data and let him know. Commissioner Daniels mentioned for the specific plan for the HART District, 4-5 years seems too far out. We should be working on it now. Also, he has been hearing more and more about global warming and how it’s affecting Economic Development. He would like more information. Matt Marquez stated that they are continuously learning on a regular basis, along with other programs such as “Green Business” program and getting more involved. He said they are becoming more familiar with those and will make it as part of their regular routine. Jennifer Nakamura explained that a lot of climate adaptation policies and strategies are housed in the Climate Action Plan adopted in late 2021 and lays out 5-10 years strategies for things we want to implement and focus on as achievable goals. HPC/PC MINUTES – August 23, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Draft Commissioner Boling expressed staff did a great job. He appreciates that the community was included in the strategy, especially in Goal 4 talking about education. Since education and workforce development go hand in hand as part of any economic development strategy, you need to ensure businesses have the skilled workforce they need and hopefully we can entice those individuals come through that educational system to gain knowledge base, stay local and work local. Promoting the city’s historic resources as mentioned by Commissioner Williams is important as well. The Maloof house is a perfect example. We should include things like that when promoting the city. As resident Mr. Martinez mentioned, the culture and history of the city is significant to the residents. It effects and impacts how we look at things and what we accept. There are a lot of strategies wrapped up into Goals focused on future, attraction, and expansion. He cautions staff do not underestimate the value of business retention. We have good core businesses that have invested in the city. We want to make sure those investors/residents are getting the value that they deserve. Story telling is the important part why Rancho Cucamonga is the premier city in the Inland Empire. Vice Chair Morales stated it is a great economic development strategy. He expressed everything was covered and it was very comprehensive. Goal 1, Grow and Diversify the Cities Economy. It is important to have a diversity of industry in business. Goal 2, Enhance Quality of Life, one thing that is important is public safety. It’s important to include how strong our public safety is and how committed we are when meeting with businesses. Chair Dopp asked about people who own agricultural land and if anyone has expressed interest in preserving it. Jennifer Nakamura replied that Council adopted the agricultural overlay for those who want to volunteer to preserve their land as agricultural. She said no one has yet to apply. Chair Dopp stated that this report has checked every box for him. He thanked Planning and Economic Development department for all the effort they put into this. His general comment would be in terms of emphasizing the green manufacturing under advanced manufacturing, he suggests make it clearer. Chair Dopp announced this is not a Public Hearing but asked if anyone who like to comment on this item. Rubin Martinez, Resident, expressed the plan is exciting. He asked if we know how much city revenue is since stocking the great harvest festival. He asked why there is not a core curriculum for wine making or about the Tonga Indians and how this area was established. He mentioned Chicano Art and Mexican Culture and showcasing history in a museum. He expressed Rancho Cucamonga has a lot of great charming things that we can build on. Chair Dopp asked Commissioners if there were any changes they would like to see moving forward. Commissioner Boling stated he believes staff has enough feedback they can take and assemble, knowing that future updates and amendments are yet to come. Commission received and filed report. F. Director Announcements – None G. Commission Announcements – None HPC/PC MINUTES – August 23, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Draft H. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Boling, second by Vice Chair Morales to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chair Dopp adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Department Approved: RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action: Adopt the attached Resolutions approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, Design Review DRC2022-00348, Minor Exception DRC2022-00349, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350 for a subdivision of land and construction of a 22-unit detached single-family development at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue, subject to the included Conditions of Approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A request to subdivide 9.14 acres of land for the development of 22 single-family residences, including a Minor Exception for additional wall height due to on-site grades, and a Tree Removal Permit for the removal of up to 7 trees necessary to construct the development. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Site Characteristics: The undeveloped project site is located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues. The site is approximately 663 feet along the south property line, 958 feet along the north property line, 663 feet along the west property line, and 452 feet along the east property line. The existing grade is at an elevation of approximately 1,433 feet along the north property line and 1,410 feet along the south property line, for a grade change from north to south of approximately 23 feet. Onsite vegetation includes native and non-native vegetation with palm trees along the west property line and eucalyptus trees along the south property line. The street improvements along both Etiwanda Avenue and Highland have not been installed. The existing rock curb along Etiwanda Avenue will be preserved or rebuilt, as needed. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: DATE: October 11, 2023 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Marquez, Planning and Economic Development Director INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION & TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – MANNING HOMES - A request to subdivide 9.14 acres of land into 22 lots including the Design Review of 22 single-family residences, a Minor Exception for increased wall heights, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove onsite trees for a project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues in the Low (L) Residential Zone (2 - 4 Dwelling Units per Acre); APN: 0227- 151-03. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, Design Review DRC2022- 00348, Minor Exception DRC2022-00349, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2022- 00350. 2 ANALYSIS: Project Overview: The applicant is requesting to subdivide 9.14 acres of land located within the Low (L) Residential Zone into 22 numbered lots and 2 lettered lots. Lettered Lot A (19,262 square feet) will be used as a community park and lettered Lot B will be used as a Paseo (10,103 square feet) that will provide a pedestrian connection between Etiwanda Avenue and the community park. Lettered Lots A and B will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association. Lots 10 – 16 will face, and be accessed from, Etiwanda Avenue with the remaining lots facing and taking access from an internal loop street accessible from Highland Avenue. A combination wall (up to 8- feet in height with 4-foot retaining) is required along the south property line due to onsite grades. The eucalyptus trees along the south property line will be replaced at a minimum one-for-one basis. Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential North 210 Freeway - - South Cucamonga Valley Water District Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Flood Control/Utility Corridor East Single-Family Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential West Single-Family Residences Traditional Neighborhood Low Low (L) Residential Figure 1 - Site Plan 3 The project complies with each of the development standards for the Low (L) Zone as shown in the following table: Table 1 - Development Standards Required Proposed Compliant? Density Up to 6 Units Per Acre 2.4 DUA Yes Street Setback 37 Feet Greater than 37 Feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5/10 Feet 5/10 or Greater Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Greater than 20 Feet Yes Lot Size 7,200 Minimum 8,000 Average 11,034 to 23,202 SF 13,619 SF (Average) Yes Lot Coverage 40 Percent 15 to 34 Percent Yes Design and Layout: The project includes the Design Review for construction of single-family residential units on the 22 proposed lots. Development Code Table 17.122.010-1 requires that projects with 21-40 units provide a minimum of 3 distinct floor plans and 3 distinct, architecturally varied elevations per floor plan. The project provides three (3) distinct floor plans with three (3) different elevations for each floor plan, which include Spanish, farmhouse, and California ranch. Development Code Section 17.122.010.A.1 requires that projects consisting of 4 or more units include a minimum of 25 percent single-story plans. The project includes 6 single-story floor plans (27 percent). Each floor plan and architectural variation includes both wall and roof plane articulation and carries the various architectural design themes and materials to each elevation. This includes the use of stone veneer, wood siding, exposed rafter tails, architecturally compatible window and door surrounds, window shutters, wrought iron accents, and tile roofs. Plan #1 is a single-story with 3,511 square feet of living area and a 672 square foot 3-car garage. Plan #2 is two-story with 4,767 square feet of living area and an 806 square foot 3-car garage. Plan #3 is a two-story with 4,960 square feet of living area and an 876 square foot 3-car garage. Minor Exception: The applicant has submitted a Minor Exception to allow the construction of combination walls (garden walls on top of retaining walls) with a maximum calculated height of up to 8 feet. Pursuant to Development Code Table 17.48.050-1, wall height in residential zones is limited to 6 feet in height. However, Development Code Table 17.16.110-1, maximum wall height may be increased by 2 feet upon the approval of a Minor Exception. The additional wall height is necessary due to onsite grades and permitting the increased wall height will allow the applicant to construct walls that will provide property screening, security, and usable yard area. The findings of fact are included in the Resolution of Approval to support the necessary Minor Exception findings, which are required by Section 17.16.110(E) of the City's Development Code. Tree Removal Permit: The project includes the removal of up to 7 blue-gum eucalyptus trees. An Arborist Report (Jim Borer, May 21, 2023) was submitted to staff that evaluated the health and condition of the onsite trees and recommends that the trees be removed due to their health and age. To achieve compliance with tree replacement requirements pursuant to Development Code Chapter 17.80, the Landscape Plan for the project illustrates the planting of 134 trees including replacement eucalyptus windrows along the south property line (20 trees). Neighborhood Meeting: The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting on the project site on April 19, 2023. The intent of the meeting was to invite property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project boundaries for input related to the project. Approximately ten (10) neighbors attended the meeting. Manning Homes provided colored display boards for viewing which included the project site plan, project 4 landscape plan, house floorplans and elevations. The meeting ran for approximately 45 minutes and attendees asked questions about the proposed project. Amongst the attendees, there was no direct opposition or negative comments regarding the project. Overall, all attendees were complementary about the project design and homes. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed and approved as presented by the Design Review Committee (Daniel and Morales) on May 16, 2023. Staff presented an overview of the project and subsequently the Committee recommended the project move forward for full Planning Commission review as proposed. Public Art: Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code exempts residential projects with less than 4 dwelling units per acre from providing public art. The proposed project has a density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre. CEQA DETERMINATION: The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GP) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 9.14-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “Suburban Neighborhood Very Low” land uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation of “Low Residential” except for a request for a Minor Exception for wall height and would be consistent with all other applicable GP policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated August 2023, was prepared by an environmental consultant hired by the city (Ascent, Inc.) (Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum). Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR adopted and certified as part of the City’s GP on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GP EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The project supports 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 land use designation for the project site is Suburban Very Low, and the zoning designation for the subject property is Low (L) Residential zone. The proposed subdivision will create 22 single-family residential lots with new homes consistent with the underlying land use designations and compatible in size and configuration with the residential development in the 5 surrounding area. These units will add to our existing housing stock and contribute to the city’s RHNA allocation of planning for 10,525 new housing units issued by the state of California. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on September 27, 2023, the property was posted on September 27, 2023, and notices were mailed to 232 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on September 26, 2023. Staff has not received any comments related to the project to date. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Project Location Exhibit B – Project Plans Exhibit C – DRC Comments and Draft Action Agenda Dated May 16, 2023 Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum Link Exhibit E – Draft Resolution 23-19 of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566 Exhibit F – Draft Resolution 23-20 of Approval for Design Review DRC2022-00348 Exhibit G – Draft Resolution 23-21 of Approval for Minor Exception DRC2022-00349 Exhibit H – Draft Resolution 23-22 of Approval for Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350 Exhibit I – Conditions of Approval Exhibit A EXHIBIT B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Project Plans Exhibit B 1 9 2 1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS May 16, 2023 6:00 p.m. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION & TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – MANNING HOMES - A request to subdivide 9.15 acres of land into 22 lots including the Design Review of 22 single-family residences, a Minor Exception for increased wall heights, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove onsite trees for a project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues in the Low (L) Zone (2 - 4 Dwelling Units per Acre); APNs: 0227-151-03. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, Design Review DRC2022-00348, Minor Exception DRC2022-00349, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350. Site Characteristics: The undeveloped project site is located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues. The site is approximately 663 feet along the south property line, 958 feet along the north property line, 663 feet along the west property line, and 452 feet along the east property line. The existing grade is approximately 1,433 feet along the north property line and 1,410 feet along the south property line, for a grade change of approximately 23 feet. Onsite vegetation includes native and non- native vegetation with palm trees along the west property line and eucalyptus trees along the south property line. The street improvements along both Etiwanda Avenue and Highland have not been installed. The existing rock curb along Etiwanda Avenue will be preserved or rebuilt, as needed. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Project Overview: The applicant is requesting to subdivide (SUBTT20566) 9.15 acres of land located within the Low (L) Residential Zone into 22 numbered lots and 3 lettered lots. Lettered Lot A (19,262 square feet) will be used as a community park, lettered Lot B will be used as a Paseo (10,103 square feet) that will connect Etiwanda Avenue with the community park and lettered Lot C is for street dedication purposes (7,637 square feet). Lettered Lots A and B will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association. Lots 10 – 16 will face and be accessed from Etiwanda Avenue with the remaining lots facing and Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land N Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential North 210 Freeway - - South Cucamonga Valley Water District N Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Flood Control/Utility Corridor East Single-Family Residences N Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential West Single-Family Residences N Traditional Neighborhood Low (L) Residential Exhibit C DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00348 - MANNING HOMES May 16, 2023 Page 2 taking access from an internal loop street off of Highland Avenue. An up to 8-foot retaining tall combination wall (4-foot retaining) is required along the south property line due to onsite grades. The eucalyptus trees along the south property line will be replaced on a minimum one-for-one basis. The project complies with each of the development standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone as shown in the following table: DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00348 - MANNING HOMES May 16, 2023 Page 3 Required Proposed Compliant? Density 2-4 Units Per Acre 2.4 DUA Yes Street Setback 37 Feet Greater than 37 Feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5/10 Feet 5/10 or Greater Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Greater than 20 Feet Yes Lot Size 7,200 Minimum 8,000 Average 11,034 to 23,202 SF 13,619 SF (Average) Yes Lot Coverage 40 Percent 15 to 34 Percent Yes Architecture: The project includes the Design Review (DRC2022-00189) for the residences on the 22 proposed lots. Development Code Table 17.122.010-1 requires that projects with 21-40 units provide a minimum of 3 different floor plans and 3 elevations per floor plan. The project provides three (3) separate floor plans with three (3) different elevations for each floor plan, Spanish, farmhouse, and California ranch. Development Code Section 12.122.010.A.1 requires that projects consisting of 4 or more units include a minimum of 25 percent single-story plans. The project includes 6 single- story floor plans. Each floor plan and architectural variation includes both wall and roof plane articulation and carries the architectural design theme and materials to each elevation. This includes the use of stone veneer, wood siding, exposed rafter tails, architecturally compatible window and door surrounds, window shutters, wrought iron accents, and tile roofs. Plan #1 is a single-story with 3,511 square feet of living area and a 672 square foot 3-car garage. Plan #2 is two-story with 4,767 square feet of living area and an 806 square foot 3-car garage. Plan #3 is a two-story with 4,960 square feet of living area and an 876 square foot 3-car garage. Staff Comments: Staff supports the project design and layout with the houses facing either Etiwanda Avenue or the private community park. The loop street around the park creates both a focal point and a recreational amenity for the community. The landscaped paseo provides a pedestrian connection between Etiwanda Avenue to the community park improving access to the community and the residences facing Etiwanda Avenue. The houses are well-designed and provide design variety as well as a good mix of single and two-story house plans. Staff Recommendation: Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the design (building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend the selected action below to the Planning Commission: × Recommend approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant; or ☐Recommend approval with modifications to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission; or ☐Recommend conditional approval of the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan DRC COMMENTS DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00348 - MANNING HOMES May 16, 2023 Page 4 check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission; or ☐Recommend denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag Members Present: Staff Coordinator: Sean McPherson, Acting Principal Planner Design Review Committee Meeting Rains Conference Room Meeting Agenda May 16, 2023 DRAFT MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 6:00 p.m. A. Call to Order The meeting of the Design Review Committee held on May 16, 2023. The meeting was called to order by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:02 p.m. Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chair Commissioner Tony Morales and Commissioner James Daniels. Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant 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 April 18, 2023. Motion carried 2-0 vote to adopt the minutes as presented. D. Project Review Items D1. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION & TREE REMOVAL PERMIT – MANNING HOMES - A request to subdivide 9.15 acres of land into 22 lots including the Design Review of 22 single-family residences, a Minor Exception for increased wall heights, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove onsite trees for a project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues in the Low (L) Zone (2 - 4 Dwelling Units per Acre); APNs: 0227-151-03. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum has been prepared for this project. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, Design Review DRC2022-00348, Minor Exception DRC2022-00349, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350. Committee member Morales commented on triangular piece and suggested that it could be fenced off. Applicant agreed that IF it is proven to be theirs, they will landscape and consider fencing. Committee Member Daniels mentioned that Eucalyptus trees are up to their discretion. Committee Member Morales expressed his thanks for the project, including circular driveway and rock curbs. He also commented that Highland tends to be high traffic area and asked if the city would consider any signage saying, “intersection coming up”. Applicant stated that landscaped walls and trees have been limited to provide for site line visibility. Committee Member Morales commented on use of the park and asked if is public. Staff responded that the General Plan aims to complete neighborhoods, which partly includes inviting public and other residents into the park and passive areas. The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote. D2. DESIGN REVIEW – PATRIOT PARTNERS - A request to construct two warehouse/distribution buildings totaling 91,369 square-feet within the Neo-Industrial (NI) District, located at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 4th Street. APN: 0210-371-07 (Design Review DRC2022-00209). The Committee complimented on the layout and site design. Appreciated that all queuing can occur on site. Asked if project will result in two lots. Applicant responded yes. Asked if there will be reciprocal parking. Applicant responded that both parcels are sufficiently parked. Committee stated that truck and cab maneuvering may be difficult in the southwest corner of northerly parcel. Asked about EV parking - only 3. Staff confirmed that project meets parking. Each committee member expressed their opinion over color; Committee Member Daniels expressed he prefers compatible color design. Committee Member Morales differed, suggesting his opinion is the project sticking out is a good thing. The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote. E. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant EXHIBIT D Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM CEQA Section 15183 Exhibit D 1 9 2 1 RESOLUTION NO. 23-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT20566, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 9.14 ACRES OF LAND INTO 22 LOTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 22 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES FOR A PROJECT SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND HIGHLAND AVENUES IN THE LOW (L) ZONE (2 - 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0227-151-03. A.Recitals. 1.Manning Homes filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 11th day of October 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on October 11, 2023, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The application applies to an undeveloped project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues; and b.The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 9.14 acres The site is approximately 663 feet along the south property line, 958 feet along the north property line, 663 feet along the west property line, and 452 feet along the east property line; 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 parcel) are as follows: Exhibit E PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-19 TTM SUBTT20566 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 2 d. The project includes the subdivision of 9.14 acres of land located into 22 numbered lots and 2 lettered lots. Lettered Lot A (19,262 square feet) will be used as a community park and lettered Lot B will be used as a Paseo (10,103 square feet) that will connect Etiwanda Avenue with the community park. Lettered Lots A and B will be maintained by a Homeowner’s Association; and e. The subdivision complies with each of the development standards for the Low (L) Residential Zone. f. The subject subdivision is in conjunction with Design Review DRC2022-00348, for the design of the 22 residences on the subject lots, Minor Exception DRC2022-00349, for increased wall heights due to onsite grades, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350, for the removal of onsite trees. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to subdivide a property with an area of approximately 9.14 acres of land into twenty-two (22) lots for the development of 22 single-family residences. The underlying General Plan designation is Suburban Neighborhood Very Low which is intended for the development of single-family residences with a density of up to 6 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a density of 2.4 units per acre; and b. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the Low (L) Residential Zone. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City, and c. 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 land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is Low (L) Residential Zone. Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential North 210 Freeway - - South Cucamonga Valley Water District Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Flood Control/Utility Corridor East Single-Family Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential West Single-Family Residences Traditional Neighborhood Low (L) Residential PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-19 TTM SUBTT20566 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 3 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GP) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 9.14-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “Suburban Neighborhood Very Low” land uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation of “Low Residential” except for a request for a Minor Exception for wall height and would be consistent with all other applicable GP policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. c. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated August 2023, was prepared by an environmental consultant hired by the City (Ascent, Inc.). Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR adopted and certified as part of the City’s GP on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GP EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-19 TTM SUBTT20566 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 4 ATTEST: Matt Marquez, Secretary I, Matt Marquez, Secretary 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 11th day of October 2023, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 23-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00348, A REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW OF 22 SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES RELATED TO THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.14 ACRES OF LAND INTO 22 LOTS FOR A PROJECT SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND HIGHLAND AVENUES IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL ZONE (2 - 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0227-151-03. A.Recitals. 1.Manning Homes filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2022- 00348, 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 11th day of October 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on October 11, 2023, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an undeveloped project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues; and b.The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 9.14 acres The site is approximately 663 feet along the south property line, 958 feet along the north property line, 663 feet along the west property line, and 452 feet along the east property line; 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 parcel) are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential North 210 Freeway - - South Cucamonga Valley Water District Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Flood Control/Utility Corridor Exhibit F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-20 DR DRC2022-00348 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 2 d. Approval is for the design review and site layout of 22 single-family residences; and The project complies with each of the development standards for the Low (L) Conventional Zone as shown in the following table: Required Proposed Compliant? Density Up to 6 Units Per Acre 2.4 DUA Yes Street Setback 37 Feet Greater than 37 Feet Yes Side Yard Setbacks 5/10 Feet 5/10 or Greater Yes Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Greater than 20 Feet Yes Lot Size 7,200 Minimum 8,000 Average 11,034 to 23,202 SF 13,619 SF (Average) Yes Lot Coverage 40 Percent 15 to 34 Percent Yes e. This application is in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, for the subdivision of 9.14 acres of land in 22 residential lots, Minor Exception DRC2022-00349, for increased wall heights due to onsite grades, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350, for the removal of onsite trees. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan land use designation is Suburban Neighborhood Very Low, which permits the development of single-family residences with a maximum density of up to 6 units per acre. The project is for the development of single-family residences with a density of 2.4 units per acre; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Low (L) Residential District The project complies with all the requirements of the Development Code except for wall height. The applicant has submitted a Minor Exception to permit walls up to 8 feet in height due to onsite grades; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project complies with each of the requirements of the Development Code except for wall height for which the applicant has submitted a Minor Exception; and d. The proposed use, 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. East Single-Family Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential West Single-Family Residences Traditional Neighborhood Low (L) Residential PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-20 DR DRC2022-00348 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 3 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GP) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 9.14-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “Suburban Neighborhood Very Low” land uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation of “Low Residential” except for a request for a Minor Exception for wall height and would be consistent with all other applicable GP policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. c. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated August 2023, was prepared by an environmental consultant hired by the City (Ascent, Inc.). Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR adopted and certified as part of the City’s GP on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GP EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matt Marquez, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-20 DR DRC2022-00348 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 4 I, Matt Marquez, Secretary 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 11th day of October 2023, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 23-21 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2022-00349, A REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT FROM 6 FEET TO 8 FEET DUE TO ONSITE GRADES, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED 22-LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL ZONE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND HIGHLAND AVENUES IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL ZONE (2 - 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0227-151-03. A.Recitals. 1.Manning Homes filed an application for Minor Exception DRC2022-00349 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 11th day of October 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 11, 2023, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an undeveloped project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues; and b.The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 9.14 acres The site is approximately 663 feet along the south property line, 958 feet along the north property line, 663 feet along the west property line, and 452 feet along the east property line; 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 parcel) are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential North 210 Freeway - - Exhibit G PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-21 ME DRC2022-00349 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 2 d. The applicant is requesting a Minor Exception to allow the construction of combination walls (garden/screen walls on top of retaining walls) with a height of up to 8 feet along the southern boundary of the project site; and e. Per Table 17.48.050-1 of the Development Code, the maximum wall height of fences and walls along the rear and interior property lines is 6 feet. Walls may be increased up to 2 feet with the approval of a Minor Exception. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The General Plan designation of the project site is Suburban Neighborhood Very Low and the zoning of the property is Low (V) Residential. The Minor Exception does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and b. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The Minor Exception for additional wall height will not result in a substantially larger house, an increase in lot coverage, an increase in density, or adjustments to the physical lot area of the subject lots; and c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The proposed walls will be located generally where there are grade differences that warrant retaining walls. Generally, the natural terrain of the project site slopes from north to south. Therefore, the usual alternative, an earthen slope, is not practical because of the lack of available space; and d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct walls that will provide adequate property screening/security and usable yard area and are similar to other walls that have been constructed for the same purpose because of similar site conditions. The walls will be consistent with the standards and guidelines of the City. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no South Cucamonga Valley Water District Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Flood Control/Utility Corridor East Single-Family Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential West Single-Family Residences Traditional Neighborhood Low (L) Residential PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-21 ME DRC2022-00349 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 3 substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GP) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 9.14-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “Suburban Neighborhood Very Low” land uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation of “Low Residential” except for a request for a Minor Exception for wall height and would be consistent with all other applicable GP policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. c. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated August 2023, was prepared by an environmental consultant hired by the City (Ascent, Inc.). Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR adopted and certified as part of the City’s GP on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GP EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matt Marquez, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-21 ME DRC2022-00349 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 4 I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 11th day of October 2023, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. 23-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2022-00350, A REQUEST TO REMOVE UP TO 7 TREES, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED 22-LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL ZONE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND HIGHLAND AVENUES IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL ZONE (2 - 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE); AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 0227-151-03. A.Recitals. 1.Manning Homes filed an application for Tree Removal Permit DRC2022-00350 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tree Removal Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2.On the 11th day of October 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 11, 2023, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The application applies to an undeveloped project site located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues; and b.The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 9.14 acres The site is approximately 663 feet along the south property line, 958 feet along the north property line, 663 feet along the west property line, and 452 feet along the east property line; 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 parcel) are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Vacant Land Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Low (L) Residential North 210 Freeway - - Exhibit H PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-22 TRP DRC2022-00350 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 2 d. The applicant is requesting the removal of up to 7 blue-gum eucalyptus trees. An Arborist Report (Jim Borer, May 21, 2023) was submitted that reviews the health and condition of the onsite trees and recommends that the trees be removed due to their health and age. The Landscape Plan for the project includes the planting of 134 trees including replacement eucalyptus windrows along the south property line (20 trees); and e. This application is in conjunction with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20566, for the subdivision of 10.4 acres of land in 22 residential lots, Design Review DRC2022-00348, and Minor Exception DRC2022-00349 for two-foot increase in wall height due to onsite grades. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. Every effort has been made to incorporate the tree(s) into the design of the project, and the only appropriate alternative is the removal of the tree. Based on the onsite grades and the location of the trees tree along the south property line of the project site, preservation of the trees has been determined to infeasable; and b. The trees slated for removal are in conflict with the construction of on-site improvements and cannot be incorporated into the project. The trees stated for removal are located along the south property line of the project site and need to be removed to construct a retaining. The eucalyptus trees stated for removal will be replaced on a minimum one-for-one basis; and c. The removal of the tree will not have a negative impact on the health, safety, or viability of surrounding trees, nor will it negatively impact the aesthetics or general welfare of the surrounding area. The project site is in an area with a large number of mature trees. The impact on the surrounding area will be minimal with the planting of 134 replacement trees. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment based upon the findings as follows: a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a comprehensive update to the City’s General Plan (GP) and certified a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) on December 15, 2021. According to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Program EIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. Use of a Program EIR gives the Lead Agency an opportunity to consider broad policy South Cucamonga Valley Water District Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Flood Control/Utility Corridor East Single-Family Residences Suburban Neighborhood Very Low Very Low (VL) Residential West Single-Family Residences Traditional Neighborhood Low (L) Residential PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-22 TRP DRC2022-00350 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 3 alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures, as well as greater flexibility to address project-specific and cumulative environmental impacts on a comprehensive scale. b. Pursuant to Section 15183(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards…then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” The 9.14-acre property is designated by the City’s General Plan for “Suburban Neighborhood Very Low” land uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation of “Low Residential” except for a request for a Minor Exception for wall height and would be consistent with all other applicable GP policies. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required for the proposed project. c. To demonstrate that no subsequent EIR or environmental review is required, a CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated August 2023, was prepared by an environmental consultant hired by the City (Ascent, Inc.). Staff evaluated this memorandum and concluded that the project is within the scope of the EIR adopted and certified as part of the City’s GP on December 15, 2021. The project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the GP EIR, nor have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: Matt Marquez, Secretary I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 11th day of October 2023, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 23-22 TRP DRC2022-00350 – MANNING HOMES October 11, 2023 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: SUBTT20566, DRC2022-00348, DRC2022-00349, DRC2022-00350 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map Design Review, Minor Exception, TRP ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The street facing and return walls shall include decorative pilasters at the corners, changes in direction and at regular intervals. 1. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated August 2023 (Ascent, Inc), 2. Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity. 3. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 9/21/2023 Exhibit I Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 6. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 7. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 8. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and /or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 9. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines ), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 11. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls /fences and sidewalk. The 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 12. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 13. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. 14. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 15. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects. 16. Street names shall be submitted for Planning and Economic Development Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map 17. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or . This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 19. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right -of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 20. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control . Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 21. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 22. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 23. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 24. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 25. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 26. New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required. The size, spacing, staking, and irrigation of these trees shall be in conformance with the City's Development Code Chapter 17.80. 27. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment , detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 28. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions (DIF's) Development impact fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy per the Engineering Fee schedule, Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and local ordinance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d), the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest these fees will begin at the date the fees are invoiced. Protests must be made in writing and be delivered to the City Clerk prior to the close of business on the 90th day of the 90-day approval period. *Note that fees are subject to change annually. 1. (Annexations) (1) Landscape District: A signed consent and waiver form to join the appropriate Landscape Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. (1) CFD District: The developer shall enter into an Annexation Proceeding and sign a Consent and Waiver to join Community Facilities District CFD 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services ), and shall be filed by Special Districts prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. For any questions and /or processing coordination of the CFD please contact Kelly Guerra at (909) 774-2582 or by email at kelly.guerra@cityofrc.us." 2. (Undergrounding Public R/W) Per Resolution No. 87-96: All developments, except those contained in section 7 and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows: 1. Lines on the project side of the street. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developers expense. 2. Lines on the opposite of the street from the project: The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per Section 6. 3. (Street Lights) The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 4. (Final Map) The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits . 5. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions (RCMU) 1) Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City’s Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber-to-the-Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The City will require the developer to install a 1-4” UG Fiber Optic dark conduit on the frontage of the development (East side of Etiwanda Ave and the South side of Highland Ave) along the project boundary along with a 3’x4’x3’ pullbox on each end of the route and into the project boundary. The size , placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and /or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department 's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. On site, the City will require 1-2” UG HDPE or equal fiber optic conduit to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City 's 4"" fiber optic conduit. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run directly from the mainline pullbox to an 8” round plastic “flower pot” type telecom access box flush mounted to finish grade to serve as a drop access point to a future city network directly at each individual residence. This drop conduit shall be dedicated for City fiber drop installation only , where an Optical network demarcation enclosure /panel shall be mounted on the side of the home , garage or utility closet for the placement of a Fiber Optic Network Interface Device. Place a #6 solid ground wire placed from network demarcation enclosure to power ground. If no power ground exists a 5/8” x 8” copper clad ground rod is to be installed for ground wire to be connected. 2) Streetlights: New streetlights will need to be installed along the frontage of the project boundaries to the City’s streetlight Standard Drawing 410. RCMU will be the owner of the streetlights. 6. (ADA Requirements) The existing ramp (s) shall be evaluated for conformance to current ADA regulations. If the ramp does not meet ADA regulations then the developer shall be responsible for providing design and reconstruction of the ramp for compliance . Design shall be completed and improvements secured for prior to issuance of Building permit or approval of final subdivision map whichever occurs first . The reconstruction along with all public improvements shall be completed prior to occupancy. 7. Standard Conditions of Approval Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map, if proposed or found to be needed during plan check. 8. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards .9. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from street centerline): 44 total feet on Etiwanda: 23' (CL to Curb Face) & 17' (Parkway) 42 total feet on Highland: 22' (CL to Curb Face) & 20' (Parkway) 10. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and /or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 11. A final drainage study, with the use of the Rational Method of Hydrologic Modeling showing a 100-year (AMC 3), shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 12. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street, and provisions made to pass through walls. 13. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 14. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City 's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering / Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. 15. Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans .” If there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern. 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Construct the following perimeter street improvements to current City Standards including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter Note: Cobble Curb & Gutter along Etiwanda Ave shall be per City Std .No.105-B. A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Approaches Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail T r a f f i c S i g n a l s Other Notes: (a) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. 17. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits , whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. e. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. f. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. g. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 18. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet 1."" Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public street improvement plans. Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Min. Grow Space Spacing Size Qty. Construction Notes for Street Trees : 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 19. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. 20. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and /or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 21. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 22. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.23. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 24. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 25. Grading Section Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 1. Standard Conditions of Approval (Grd.017) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”. 2. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 3. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 8. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible , and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 9. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code . 10. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 12. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations, the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative , the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden /retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe /heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the typical sections of the grading and drainage plan. 14. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan ) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 15. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structures and drainage of the site. 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the following information in the equestrian trails: – Provide PVC fencing per city standards, provide a 4” thick decomposed granite (DG) surface, provide a drainage V ditch parallel to the trail, provide a bridge over the V ditch where necessary for access to corals, and gates to corrals. The equestrian bridges shall be capable of carrying vehicle loads where necessary. Where the longitudinal slope (s) is S< 5% the cross fall shall be 2%, if S>5% the cross fall may be 4% maximum. Where water bars required, the spacing for the water bars is: 50’ maximum for longitudinal slopes of 4% to 6%, 40’ maximum for longitudinal slopes of 6.1% to 9%, 30’ maximum for longitudinal slopes of 9.1% to 12%, 20’ maximum for longitudinal slopes greater than 12%. In the equestrian trails water bars shall also be placed at the top and bottom of the trail where the gradient of the trail changes, i.e. a steep downhill slope which will cause additional erosion to the trail. 17. A drainage study with the use of the Rational Method of Hydrologic Modeling showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on -site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan and report shall contain water surface profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management plan storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 18. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 19. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage acceptance easements(s) from adjacent downstream property owner (s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Engineering Services Department a drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 20. Roof water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a grading permit. 21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall demonstrate that the storm water run -off will not adversely affect the downstream properties and that the water may legally discharge to the downstream properties. The engineer of record shall show on the final permitted grading and drainage plan one (1) or more of the following items are met: a) There is sufficient downstream capacity to accept the proposed storm water flows and that the downstream property owner have provided permission to accept the upstream storm water flows; b) a legal document/entity exists allowing developed storm water flows to be discharged to the property lower in elevation; c) a storm drain system to safely convey the storm water flows to a public storm drain system without causing flooding to adjacent property(ies). 22. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading permit and in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution 92-17, if a lot may not directly drain off -site directly to the street or other acceptable drainage device (such as a drainage ditch adjacent to an equestrian trail ), then: a) drainage may flow from only one lot onto only one other lot; b) a drainage easement shall be provided over the lot accepting the drainage; c) the drainage shall be contained within either a concrete /rock lined swale/channel or a reinforced concrete pipe; and d) the drainage shall be designed with excess capacity to account for the probable lack of necessary maintenance, therefore, it shall be designed to convey two (2) times the runoff from a 100-year storm event with the minimum diameter of the pipe being 12-inches. 23. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. 24. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 25. Reciprocal access easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm water quality structural /treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project’s Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC &R’s or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC &R’s and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan . 26. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office . 27. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 28. The applicant shall provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Engineering Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and /or approval of the project-specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 7520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan. 29. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person /company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells /underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 30. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval The applicant shall prepare or amend existing CC &R’s as needed to clarify how maintenance responsibilities will be shared between the newly created parcels of Tract No. 20566 prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading and drainage plan and the CC &Rs shall address shared access to private sewer main facilities, storm water treatment devices, surface drainage and maintenance of common areas, including landscaping within public rights -of-way and Best Management Practices identified in the WQMP. 31. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 32. The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. 33. A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit. 34. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or designee, a final project specific water quality management plan for review and approval, and shall have said document recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office. 35. The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall include maintenance agreement (s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP document. 36. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as addressed in the in the final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan. 37. www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety Factors”. 38. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”. 39. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department. 40. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No . R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements ).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. d. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. e. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. f. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. 41. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Project #: SUBTT20566 Project Name: Highland 22 Location: 6527 ETIWANDA AVE - 022705103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following: 1.Swales. 2.Water collection and disposal systems . 3.French drains. 4.Water retention gardens . 5.Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge. Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 16Printed: 9/21/2023 Page 1 2 0 6 3 DATE:October 11, 2023 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development INITIATED BY:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Deputy Director of Planning Sean McPherson, AICP, Principal Planner David F. Eoff IV, Senior Planner SUBJECT:DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE - Consideration to Recommend Approval to the City Council of Zoning Text Amendments to Articles II, III, V, VIII, and IX of Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code that will Include the Addition of a New Section for Major Exceptions, the Addition of New Subzone to the Summary Table and Land Use, Clarifications to Various Development Standards including updates to Drive-Thru Use and Service Station Standards, New Standards for Subdivisions in the Form Based Code, Adjustments to Open Space Requirements, and Additional Typographic and Formatting Amendments, and Recommendation of Zoning Map Amendments to Specific Parcels for Consistency with the General Plan (“PlanRC”). An Addendum to the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan FEIR has been prepared for this project (Zoning Map Amendment DRC2023-00317; Municipal Code Amendment DRC2023-00318). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council to do the following: 1. Adopt the CEQA Addendum 2. Adopt the proposed Development Code Text Amendments 3. Adopt the proposed Zoning Map Amendments BACKGROUND: On December 15, 2021, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the city’s General Plan. Commonly referred to as “Plan RC”, the General Plan was designed to address issues and challenges facing the City, including diversifying employment opportunities, expanding housing and mobility choices, and maintaining many of the characteristics that make the city a special place to live. Following the adoption of the General Plan, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the Development Code on May 18, 2022. The Code Update was designed to codify the community’s vision that was established in the General Plan and increase certainty in the development review process. Since the Page 2 2 0 6 3 adoption of the code, various clarifications and technical clean-ups have been identified. These items are necessary to better calibrate the Code to the General Plan vision and to ensure clearer standards and procedures are implemented through the development review process. As has previously been described to the Commission, the Development Code and General Plan are living documents in that they are intended to change over time to reflect the evolving complexity of the development review process. With this understanding, staff is now proposing a “Phase III” of development code updates along zoning map amendments to ensure consistency between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The amendments proposed in this staff report are to ensure that the Development Code maintains consistency with the City’s vision for development as outlined by the General Plan. ANALYSIS: The Development Code text amendments consist of various technical amendments to Articles II, III, V, VII, VIII, and IX. The technical amendments include formatting and typographic error fixes, new/clarified development standards, new sections, and the creation of new CE1 subzone. The proposed text amendments are listed below and on Attachment A. Article II – Land Use and Development Procedures 1. Section 17.20.070 (Major Exceptions) •This new section will be added to allow applicants to apply for exceptions from specific form- based standards outlined in Article VIII. Since the adoption of the code and implementation of the Form Base requirements, Staff has seen the potential benefit with offering flexibility with certain standards. The intent of this section is not to shift away from the goals and vision the Form Base Code facilitates, it is instead a response to current trends and conditions in the development, construction, and economic markets that may not be aligned with the expectations of the code at the time of the project proposal. Additionally, this section will also offer opportunities for flexibility when practical constraints exist on parcels that may make the FBC standards infeasible. The major exception process will apply to following four specific standards: 1. The number of otherwise applicable building type requirements stipulated in subsection 17.138.020.B (Requirements); 2. The non-residential use mix requirements stipulated in subsection 17.138.030.D (Required Non-Residential Use); 3. The FAR requirements stipulated in Table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area); 4. The minimum dwelling unit per acre requirements stipulated in Table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area) only for existing, active commercial shopping centers. Items 1, 2, and 3 have become recurring concerns from applicants since the adoption of the Form Based code. Staff has engaged in very lengthy, ongoing discussions over these standards and has received numerous proposals that include requests for reductions or flexibility using different mechanism from the Code or other tools provided through State regulations. Generally speaking, past and recent applicants have held a strong position that the strict application of these three standards is challenging and burdensome to the point that may render a development unfeasible. By allowing flexibility through a discretionary Page 3 2 0 6 3 exception process, these requirements can be reviewed upon request for a specific project to determine if application of a more flexible standard can be warranted. The approving authority for these will be either the Planning Commission or in some instances, the City Council, with Planning Commission providing a recommendation to the Council as noted below. In addition, there are several commercial shopping centers throughout the city, with many of the larger centers located on Foothill Boulevard. The zoning along Foothill Boulevard is Corridor 1 (west of Haven Avenue) and Corridor 2 (east of Haven Avenue). These zones are intended to be mixed-use zones and contain a minimum density for any development proposed within those zones. Exception 4 provides an opportunity for an existing commercial shopping center to proposal a new structure, expand existing buildings, or potentially rebuild a portion of the shopping center without having to provide the minimum number of residential units. Existing shopping centers serve a valuable need and purpose to the community and the City and modifications from time to time may be needed without complete redevelopment of the site. This major exception will essentially allow existing, active shopping centers to remain a shopping center until such time when a property owner or applicant wishes to redevelop under the full regulations of the Form Based Code. These major exceptions can be requested by the applicant or recommended by the Planning Director, Planning Commission, or City Council. The approval process for a major exception is as follows: Major Exception Planning Commission City Council 1: Reduction in number of building types Approving body N/A Unless on appeal 2: Reduction in the non-residential use mix Recommending Body Approving Body 3: Reduction in the minimum FAR Recommending Body Approving Body 4: Reduction in the minimum density Approving Body N/A Unless on appeal Any request for items 1-4 on a large site (3 acres or more)Recommending Body Approving Body Any request for 2 or more major exceptions for one proposal Recommending Body Approving Body Table 1: Major Exception Approval Authority The major exceptions are intended to provide relief with these specific standards, at the discretion of the Planning Commission and/or City Council. These major exceptions are not intended to provide relief with the remainder of the Form Base Code requirements. Any proposal requesting a major exception is still required to comply with the remaining standards of the Code and will be expected to produce a development that meets the intent and vision of the underlying zone. Page 4 2 0 6 3 Article III – Zones, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards 1. Section 17.30.030 (Allowed land uses and permit requirements); Amendments to Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone) •“Work/Live” will be added to the Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses section of the Use Table. The “Work/Live” use is permitted in the NI and IE zones, but the change was not reflected in Table 17.30-030-1. •“Alternative Fuel Station, with Lounge” will be added to the Land Use Table to allow the development of new service stations exclusively for alternative fuel vehicles in the Neo- Industrial and Industrial Employment zones. •Footnote 11 on Table 17.30.030-1, which references two old industrial zones - Industrial Park and General Industrial – which no longer exist. Through a previous code amendment, the Industrial Park zone and General Industrial zone became the Neo-Industrial zone. 2. Section 17.32.020.G.6, 8, and 9 (Allowed Use Descriptions) •The use description for automobile service station, general will be updated to provide clarity between service stations for petroleum-based fuel vehicles and service stations for alternative fuel vehicles. Additionally, a new use description will be added for “Electric Vehicle Charging, Ancillary” and “Alternative Fuel Station with Lounge”. These two new use descriptions will provide clarity between charging equipment for electric vehicles that is installed in an existing development (shopping center, restaurant parking lot, etc.) and a new service station that is developed for the sole purpose of providing alternative fuel options (similar to a gas station, but for alternative fuel vehicles). 3. Section 17.36.020 (Development standards for two units in single-family residential zones) •The affordability requirement for new residential units over 800 square feet will be stricken. State law now prohibits an affordability requirement for urban lot splits. 4. Section 17.36.030 (Urban lot splits in single-family residential zones) •The affordability requirement for new residential units over 800 square feet will be stricken. State law now prohibits an affordability requirement for urban lot splits. 5. Table 17.38.060-1 (Overlays and other Special Planning Areas – Land use table for The Resort) •This section includes Footnote 13, with a reference to two industrial zones. Since the industrial zones do not exist in The Resort Specific Plan, this footnote is not relevant and will be deleted. Article V – Specific Use Requirements 1. Section 17.89.020 (Development and design standards – Service Stations) •After the adoption of updated service station standards, a conflict was discovered. The regulation on the “number of automobile service stations per intersection” will be stricken as this requirement conflicts with the existing provision requiring a minimum 1,000-foot Page 5 2 0 6 3 separation between Automobile Service Stations. A maximum of two service stations are currently allowed per intersection, however, the 1,000-foot separation requirement will likely prevent the ability to have two service stations an any intersection. The separation requirement will remain in the code, while the number of service stations per intersection will be stricken. 2. Section 17.91.040 (Development and design standards) •Subsection C.3.v states “drive-through lanes and stacking area shall be located adjacent and parallel to the public right-of-way.”, while the previous Subsection A.3.f prohibits drive-thru lanes between the property line and the front of a building. To avoid conflict, subsection C.3.v will be stricken, as part of the intent behind the drive-thru standards is to screen the drive- thru lane. Article VII – Design Standards and Guidelines 1. Section 17.122.010 (Purpose and applicability), Table 17.122.010-1 (Single-Family Variations Required) •The table will be amended to reduce the number of floor plans that is required per the number of dwelling units and provides clarity to related footnotes. As an example, the current provisions require a subdivision with 11-20 dwelling units to provide a minimum of 4 floor plans and 3 different elevations per floor plan. For a small subdivision of 12 units, this will require four different plan types and three different elevations (architectural styles) per plan. While variety in design is appreciated and expected, achieving a variety of this level for a small subdivision has presented challenges. The amendment will be help create a less burdensome requirement for new smaller infill subdivisions, by slightly reducing the minimum number of floor plans for each range of dwelling units. The number of elevations per floor plan will remain the same, which will still ensure a variety of architectural styles is provided and a balanced neighborhood is established. Article VIII – Form Based Code 1. Section 17.128.020 (Overview of Form-Based Zones) •Amendment to Table 17.128.020-1 (Summary Table of Form-Based Zones), adding a CE1- SC subzone to the CE1 zone. This proposed subzone area is generally located south of Arrow Route, north and 7th Street, west of Archibald Avenue, and east of Helms Avenue. This new subzone will allow certain existing uses to remain, specifically Vehicle Services – Minor and Vehicle Services - Major. The area of the proposed subzone contains a current zoning designation of Neo-Industrial (NI), which allows the vehicle services uses. However, the current underlying General Plan Land Use is Traditional Town Center, which corresponds to the Center 1 (CE1) zone. To ensure the General Plan and Zoning map are consistent for this area, a zoning map amendment is proposed (discussed below). A direct zone change from NI to CE1 will result in a substantial amount of existing Vehicle Service business to become nonconforming and will also result in the use becoming “Not Permitted”. Through detailed research it was determined that the vehicle service uses made up over 30% of the unpermitted uses (roughly 20 of the 55 unpermitted uses). Additionally, these existing vehicle service operations are small, family-owned businesses that serve the local and surrounding community. While the zone change is necessary to facilitate the vision and purpose of the General Plan, it is not intended to “push out” local small businesses that bring value and purpose to the community. As such, a new subzone is proposed that is specific to the subject area to allow the existing uses to remain in place and as permitted uses. Page 6 2 0 6 3 2. Section 17.130.030 (Applicable to All Zones) •New language will be added to address proposed subdivisions in Form Based zones. The Form-Based Code is currently silent on subdividing existing parcels without a proposed development. The new language will stipulate that when subdividing a parcel, each development site (or parcel) must be able to accommodate the largest building type allowed in the zone constructed in its smallest form. Each building type in the Form Base code contains a minimum and maximum footprint to ensure all proposed developments maintain an appropriate scale and massing. Using these standards will allow opportunities to subdivide a parcel in a Form Base zone without compromising its full development potential. 3. Section 17.130.050 (Specific to Zones); Table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area), •The minimum and/or maximum FAR will be updated in the following zones as follows: o CE1: 0.2 min/1.0 max (Existing: 0.2 min/0.6 max) o ME1: 0.6 min/2.0 max (Existing: 0.4 min/1.0 max) o ME2: 0.4 min/2.0 max (Existing: 0.4 min/1.0 max) The changes to the FAR will allow greater opportunities for development in these zones. The existing FARs were proving to be strict and potentially limiting, which affects the ability to achieve the desired development types, including multi story development, in these zones that is envisioned by the General Plan. 4. Section 17.130.060 (Building Type Standards) •The requirement limiting the amount of common open space for Mid-Rise and High-Rise building types will be deleted. This will remove any limitations on the amount of open space that is provided when developing two of the largest building types allowed in the Form Base Code. We do not want to restrict a development from providing as much open space as desired. 5. Section 17.134.070 (Pocket Park) •A minimum size of 1,000 square feet will be added for all proposed pocket parks in the Form Base code. The pocket park is a common selection from the open space types in the Form Based Code, however, the code is currently silent on the minimum size a pocket park must be. Providing this minimum size for the pocket park will ensure the park space is functional and serves the needs of the community. 6. Section 17.136.020 (Allowed Land Uses) Amendment to Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) •The table will be updated to add the CE1-SC subzone as a column on the Allowed Land Uses table. All existing uses from the CE1 zone, along with the inclusion of vehicle services minor and vehicle services major, will also be added to the Allowed Land Uses table. Zoning Map Amendments: The proposed Zoning Map Amendments include updating the zoning of certain areas to be consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use Designation and to address incorrect zoning from Page 7 2 0 6 3 inadvertent oversight. The General Plan was updated in 2021 to address many issues facing the city, including the strong desire for quality places that met the diverse needs of the community. Through the General Plan process, several areas were identified as great opportunities to address these challenges by updating the land use designations and establishing new visions, new goals, and new objectives. Most of the zoning changes were adopted in 2022 as part of the Development Code and Zoning Map update to implement the general plan. In most circumstances, the new land use designation was fairly similar to the current designation, which made the accompanying zoning map amendments a marginal change. However, in other instances, the change to the land use designation was intentional to meet the community’s desire to see redevelopment of areas that correspond with the big ideas outlined in the General Plan. These changes lead to a significant change in the zoning, allowed uses, and development requirements of these areas. Due to the nature of these changes, staff desired to take additional time to review and analyze the potential impacts to these properties and develop a path forward that would minimize potential impacts while still achieving the goals of the General Plan. The zoning amendments are summarized below. 1.Southwest Rancho Cucamonga Image 1. CE1-SC Subzone Boundary Area Page 8 2 0 6 3 An area within Southwest Rancho Cucamonga will be rezoned with a new subzone Center 1 – Southwest Cucamonga (CE1-SC). During outreach for PlanRC, the Southwest Cucamonga community expressed a sincere desire for a downtown/town center that provided access to goods and service in walkable environment in their community. In response to this desire, the General Plan land use was updated from Neo Industrial to Traditional Town Center across various parcels in a prominent location within the historic boundaries of Southwest Cucamonga. The proposed zoning map amendment will modify the current zoning designation of Neo-Industrial to the new zoning of CE1-SC. The Form Base Code will regulate the new subzone, including the development standards and land use requirements for future development. Creating a new subzone will minimize the number of legal nonconforming uses. A detailed analysis of existing businesses within the subject zone change area was conducted by Staff to understand the types of uses that are currently in operation and how the zone change might impact them. The CE1 zone is the corresponding zone for the Traditional Town Center land use designation. Staff analyzed the area of the zone change to gain a better understanding of the existing uses and business currently I operation. There are roughly 180 businesses in the area. A comparison of these existing business to the land use table of the CE1 zone resulted in nearly 55 business/uses becoming “Not Permitted”, which is roughly 30 percent of the local businesses in that community. Using the analysis, Staff took a closer look at the unpermitted uses and of the 55 business, approximately 18 of these uses were local small businesses, particularly vehicle service uses, that serve a valuable need and purpose to the community. While the Traditional Town Center designation is intended to create walkable downtown/town center place that meets the desire of the community, the change was not intended to push out local, small businesses that hold great value to the residents and surrounding community. As such, the CE1-SC subzone was created to help balance the shift between the existing uses and the expectations of the CE1 zone. One key component to this subzone is the regulation of some of the existing business, particularly the vehicle service uses. These existing uses and their existing buildings are permitted to remain; however, new vehicle service uses cannot be established. This specific criterion is identified as footnote on the land use table in the Form Base code. Placing this restriction on future vehicle service uses furthers that balance between the vision and expectations of the Traditional Town Center and the value of the local, small business. The vision of the Traditional Town Center can be achieved over time without coming at the abrupt expense of small business owners. 2. Rochester / Jack Benny / Arrow Area. An area along Rochester Avenue near Jack Benny Drive and Arrow Avenue will be rezoned to Corridor 2. The land use designation in this area was updated during PlanRC from Neo-Industrial to Corridor High. This amendment will modify the current zoning designation of Neo-Industrial to Corridor 2 (CO2). The zoning amendment will result in a change in the allowed uses, however, the impacts to existing business in this area will be minimal. Using analysis completed by Staff, it was determined that a majority of the businesses fall under the commercial uses category, which is more aligned with the CO2 zone than the NI zone. This minimizes any concerns with nonconformities and minimizes the impacts to existing uses. The amendment will not only bring consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map, it will also help facilitate future development that will complement the vision around the Epicenter. Page 9 2 0 6 3 3.Various Parcels at Southwest Corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route. Various parcels will be rezoned to Neighborhood General 3 (NG3). The land use designation in this area was updated during the comprehensive General Plan update in 2021 from Neo-Industrial to Neighborhood Corridor. This amendment will modify the current zoning designation of Neo- Industrial to NG3 to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map and to help facilitate a medium intensity, neighborhood serving development in the future. Image 2. Rochester / Jack Benny / Area Page 10 2 0 6 3 4.Vacant Parcel on Carnelian, South of 19th Street. This parcel contains a General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. The parcel should contain a corresponding zoning designation of Low Residential (L), however the parcel was inadvertently missed during the comprehensive zoning map update in May 2022. This amendment is a technical clean-up that will apply the L residential zoning designation to the parcel to correct the error. Image 2. Southwest Corner – Vineyard, Arrow Image 3. Southwest Corner Arrow/Vineyard Image 4. Vacant Parcel on Carnelian Page 11 2 0 6 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: In approving the General Plan update in December 2021, the City Council certified the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Development Code and Zoning Map against the General Plan EIR and determined the EIR adequately addresses all the environmental issues associated with the project. The proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts on the environment based upon the analysis and conclusions presented in the General Plan EIR. In addition, previously identified significant impacts would not become substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. Finally, no new feasible mitigation measures have been identified that would substantially reduce significant impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, staff has prepared an EIR Addendum for the amendments to the Development Code and Zoning Map. Unlike an EIR, an Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review FISCAL IMPACT: There is no direct fiscal impact resulting from the proposed Development Code amendments and Zoning Map amendments. However, the adoption of these amendments will help facilitate future development that is consistent with the vision outlined in the General Plan. The General Plan vision for denser, mixed use urban centers can help Rancho Cucamonga maintain a high level of fiscal performance and become a regional destination and focal point of activity. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: These amendments address multiple City Council Core Values, including providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and intentionally embracing and anticipating the future. The Development Code is the implementing tool for the General Plan, which has laid out the vision for Rancho Cucamonga over the next 10-20 years. This vision, supported by the Big Idea, is the starting point to maintaining and improving Rancho Cucamonga as a world class community. The amendments to the Code and Zoning Map will further support these visions by offering clarity in the review process, flexibility with certain standards, and zoning updates that will facilitate future improvements throughout the City. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A. Proposed Development Code Text Amendments Exhibit B. Zoning Map Amendments Exhibit C. EIR Addendum Exhibit D. PC Resolution 23-23 EXHIBIT A Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Phase 3 Amended Articles Exhibit A Exhibit B --City Limits r------------------, r-.,--r--------; i-----------------------------------, I •--1 __ J I 1' I Freeway Amendment Zoning I I I 1i5 > > I ,J r, -, C � <( <( ,-1 -- � C � rn , .--1 � .§ :c � !!.'I !I ____ _<3 _______ !_ ____ ! ____ ! ___ �I f I I I I I Hillside Rdl \I \ I \ Banyan St\ \ \ \ \\ \ 19th sk,._ "\ I \ I \ I Base Line Rd ,��, I ,.J ,rv I I l. I I Foothill sf I I I Arrow Rt! II I 8th StL_ _________ _ � C (I) � � > <( * (I) C 8a: -■ . - "' 'C C �w , /, / , /, /, / , J/ Base Line Rd I I I I I I I I ! Foothill Bl I I II I Arrow Rt I I I I I > > \ <( <( " \ ,----�!I <( N A 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1.5 1 inch equals 1 miles \ 6ths\ I \ I I �&\ I -----------------------------------------• � � � � � � � -"Ero � � � c � : � � §n, i � � � OJ J: � 8 -� <( :i:: a: w gj IJ.J , / / , / -CEl Southwest CUGlmonga -CO2 Corridor 2 Zone NG3 Neighborhood General 3 L Low Residential L----,/ Wilson Av , ... , / , /, SR-210 October 2023 | General Plan EIR Addendum ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN EIR SCH No. 2021050261 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE City of Rancho Cucamonga Exhibit C A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A Table of Contents Section Page 1. ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN EIR ................................................. 4 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 4 1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM .................................................................... 4 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 6 1.4 ZONING MAP CLEANUP ................................................................................... 10 2. FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 11 Tables Page TABLE 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISIONS .............................................. 9 Figures Page Figure 1, Prior to Phase 1 Zoning Map Amendment .................................................................. 14 Figure 2, Post Phase 1 Zoning Map Amendment ....................................................................... 15 A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A This page intentionally left blank. A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 4 1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR 1.1 BACKGROUND This document serves as the environmental documentation for the City’s update to its Development Code (proposed project) to ensure consistency with the City’s General Plan. This addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), certified in December 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2021050261), demonstrates that the analysis in the General Plan EIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that none of the conditions described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15162, exist and preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration is not necessary. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) calling for the preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations): When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: (a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 5 (c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions outlined in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1) to (3) because these changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring major revisions to the General Plan EIR. The following analysis provides the substantial evidence required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e) to support the finding that a subsequent EIR is not required and an addendum to the General Plan EIR is the appropriate environmental document to address changes to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR): (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration. (d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 6 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The intent of the project is to ensure that the updated Development Code is consistent with the adopted General Plan. The key amendments to existing Development Code chapters and sections are described below and in Table 1 and include modifications to Articles II, III, V, VII, VIII, and IX. 1. Article II • Section 17.20.070 (Major Exceptions) This new section will be added to allow applicants to apply for exceptions from specific form-based standards outlined in Article VIII. Since the adoption of the code and implementation of the Form Base requirements, Staff has seen the potential benefit with offering flexibility with certain standards. The intent of this section is not to shift away from the goals and vision the Form Base Code facilitates, it is instead a response to current trends and conditions in the development, construction, and economic markets that may not be aligned with the expectations of the code at the time of the project proposal. Additionally, this section will also offer opportunities for flexibility when practical constraints exist on parcels that may make the FBC standards infeasible. The major exception process will apply to four specific standards and will require review and approval from the Planning Commission and/or City Council. This section is not intended to provide relief in the remainder of the Form Base Code requirements, as all proposals will still need to produce a development that meets all other standards of the Code and the general intent/vision of the underlying zone. 2. Article III • Section 17.30.030 (Allowed land uses and permit requirements); Amendments to Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone). i. “Work/Live” will be added to the Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses section of the Use Table. The “Work/Live” use is permitted in the NI and IE zones, but the change was not reflected in Table 17.30-030-1. ii. “Alternative Fuel Station, with Lounge” will be added to the Land Use Table to allow the development of new service stations explicitly for alternative fuel vehicles in the Neo-Industrial and Industrial Employment zones. iii. Footnote 11 on Table 17.30.030-1, which references two old industrial zones - Industrial Park and General Industrial – will be stricken. Both industrial zones were replaced from previous code amendment with the Neo-Industrial zone and Industrial Employment zones. • Section 17.32.020.G.6, 8, and 9 (Allowed Use Descriptions) The use description for automobile service station, general will be updated to provide clarity between service stations for petroleum-based fuel vehicles and service stations for alternative fuel vehicles. Additionally, a new use description will be added for “Electric Vehicle Charging, Ancillary” and “Alternative Fuel Station with Lounge”. These two new use descriptions will provide clarity between charging equipment for electric vehicles that is installed in an existing development (shopping center, restaurant parking lot, etc.) and a new service station that is developed for the sole purpose of providing alternative fuel A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 7 options (similar to a gas station, but for alternative fuel vehicles). • Section 17.36.020 (Development standards for two units in single-family residential zones); Section 17.36.030 (Urban lot splits in single-family residential zones) An affordability requirement for new residential units over 800 square feet will be stricken. This amendment is in response to State law requirements. • Section 17.38.060 (The Resort) A reference to old industrial zones - Industrial Park and General Industrial. Both industrial zones were removed in a previous code amendment which replaced said industrial zone with the new Neo-Industrial and Industrial Employment zones. 3. Article V • Section 17.89.020 (Development and design standards) The regulation on the “number of automobile service stations per intersection” will be stricken as this requirement conflicts with the existing provision requiring a minimum 1,000-foot separation between Automobile Service Stations. A maximum of two service stations are currently allowed per intersection, however, the 1,000-foot separation requirement will likely prevent the ability to have two service stations an any intersection. The separation requirement will remain in the code, while the number of service stations per intersection will be stricken. • Section 17.91.040 (Development and design standards) Subsection C.3.v states “drive-through lanes and stacking area shall be located adjacent and parallel to the public right-of-way.”, while a prior section prohibits drive-thru lanes between the property line and the front of a building. To avoid conflict, subsection C.3.v will be stricken, as part of the intent behind the drive-thru standards is to screen the drive-thru lane. 4. Article VII • Section 17.122.010 (Purpose and applicability), Table 17.122.010-1 (Single-Family Variations Required) The table will be amended to reduce the number of floors that is required per the number of dwelling units and provides clarity to related footnotes. The amendment will be help crete a less burdensome requirement for new single-family subdivisions, especially smaller infill subdivisions, but still ensures a variety of architectural styles and floor plans is provided. 5. Article VIII • Section 17.128.020 (Overview of Form-Based Zones) Amendment to Table 17.128.020-1 (Summary Table of Form-Based Zones), adding a CE1- SC subzone to the CE-1 zone. This new subzone will allow certain existing uses to remain as, specifically Vehicle Services – Minor and Vehicle Services - Major. The area of the proposed subzone contains a current zoning designation of Neo-Industrial (NI), which allows the vehicle services uses. However, the current underlying General Plan Land Use is Traditional Town Center, which corresponds to the Center 1 (CE1) zone. To ensure the General Plan and Zoning map are consistent for this area, a zoning map amendment is proposed (discussed below). A direct zone change from NI to CE1 will result in a A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 8 substantial amount of existing Vehicle Service business to become nonconforming and will also result in the use becoming “Not Permitted”. Through detailed research it was determined that many of the existing vehicle service operations are small, family-owned businesses that serve the local and surrounding community. While the zone change is necessary to facilitate the vision and purpose of the General Plan, it is not intended to “push out” local small businesses that bring value and purpose to the community. As such, a new subzone is proposed that is specific to the subject area to allow the existing uses to remain in place and as permitted uses. • Section 17.130.030 (Applicable to All Zones) New language will be added to address proposed subdivisions in Form Based zones. The Form-Based Code is currently silent on subdividing existing parcels without a proposed development. The new language will stipulate that when subdividing a parcel, each development site (or parcel) must be able to accommodate the largest building type allowed in the zone constructed in its smallest form. Each building type in the Form Base code contains a minimum and maximum footprint to ensure all proposed developments maintain an appropriate scale and massing. Using these standards will allow opportunities to subdivide a parcel in a Form Base zone without compromising it’s full development potential. • Section 17.130.050 (Specific to Zones); Table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area), The minimum and/or maximum FAR will be updated in the following zones as follows: o CE1: 0.2 min/1.0 max (Existing: 0.2 min/0.6 max) o ME1: 0.6 min/2.0 max (Existing: 0.4 min/1.0 max) o ME2: 0.4 min/2.0 max (Existing: 0.4 min/1.0 max The changes to the FAR will allow greater opportunities for development in these zones. The existing FARs were proving to be strict and potentially limiting, which affects the ability to achieve the desired development types in these zones that is envisioned by the General Plan. • Section 17.130.060 (Building Type Standards) The requirement limiting the amount of common open space for Mid-Rise and High-Rise building types will be stricken. This will remove any limitations on the amount of open space that is provided when developing two of the largest building types allowed in the Form Base Code. • Section 17.134.070 (Pocket Park) A minimum size (square feet) will be added for Pocket Park in the Form Base code. The code is currently silent on the minimum size for pocket parks, which could lead to proposals that don’t result in functional or usable park space, especially for the pocket park option that is commonly incorporated in the mixed-use development. • Section 17.136.020 (Allowed Land Uses) Amendment to Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) The table will be updated to add the CE1-SC subzone as a column on the Allowed Land Uses table. A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 9 Table 1: Proposed Development Code Revisions Article Chapter Section Code Amendment II 17.20 17.20.070 New section – “Major Exceptions”. Section allows applicants to apply for exceptions from certain form-based standards in Article VIII. The section includes a specific review process and findings to ensure the intent of the General Plan and Development Code are still being met despite the proposed exceptions. III 17.30 17.30.030 Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone) amended to add “Electric Vehicle Service Station with Lounge” use. III 17.30 17.30.030 Table 17.30.030-1 (Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zone) amended to add “Work/Live” as a permitted use in the NI and IE zones within the “Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses”. The use already existed in the Code under Use Descriptions but was not previously added to Table 17.30.030-1 in error. III 17.36 17.36.020 Removal of affordability requirement for new residential units over 800 square feet. III 17.36 17.36.020 Removal of affordability requirement for new residential units over 800 square feet. III 17.38 17.38.060 Removal of references to old industrial zones, Industrial Park and General Industrial. Both industrial zones were removed in a previous code amendment. V 17.89 17.89.020 Removal of “number of automobile service stations per intersection” standards to avoid conflict with the existing provision that requires Automobile Service Stations be separated by a minimum of 1,000 feet of one another. V 17.91 17.91.040 Removal of Section 17.91.040.C.3.v which stipulated, “The drive-through lanes and stacking area shall be located adjacent and parallel to the public right-of-way.” to avoid conflicts with the provisions of Section 17.91.040.A.3 which state the required location of drive-through lanes on a property. V 17.92 N/A New Chapter for “Electric Vehicle Service Station with Lounge” to regulate the development of electric vehicle service stations with an ancillary lounge use. V 17.111 N/A New Chapter for “Vehicle Service Uses” which stipulates that existing vehicle service uses in the CE1-SC are permitted to remain in operation but any new proposed vehicle services uses are prohibited. VII 17.122 17.122.010 Amendment to Table 17.122.010-1 (Single-Family Variations Required) to lower each required amount of floor plans per number of dwellings and associated footnotes for a less A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 10 burdensome requirement on multi-unit single-family developments. VIII 17.128 17.128.020 Amendment to Table 17.128.020-1 (Summary Table of Form- Based Zones), adding a CE1-SC subzone to CE-1 zone which allows certain existing service uses to remain. VIII 17.130 17.130.030 New “Subdivisions” subsection which stipulates that any property being subdivided shall accommodate the largest allowable building type in its smallest form within the underlying form-based zone. VIII 17.130 17.130.050 Amendment to Table 17.130.050-1 (Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area), updating the minimum and/or maximum FAR in the following zones: CE1, ME1, and ME2. VIII 17.130 17.130.060 Removal of maximum square footage of “Common Useable Open Space, Area” for Mid-Rise and High-Rise Building Types. VIII 17.134 17.134.070 Amendment to add a minimum square footage standard for a Pocket Park. Code was previously silent on a minimum square footage. VIII 17.136 17.136.020 Amendment to Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) to add the CE1-SC subzone to the Allowed Land Uses table. VIII 17.136 17.136.020 Amendment to Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) to add Electric Vehicle Service Station with Lounge use, only allowed on sites with frontage on an auto priority street as defined in the General Plan. VIII 17.136 17.136.020 Amendment to Table 17.136.020-1 (Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones) to Vehicle Services, Major as a use within the Automobile and Vehicle Uses category. 1.4 ZONING MAP CLEANUP Additionally, the proposed project also includes changes to various parcels in the City that fall under specific zoning designations as shown on Figure 1, Prior to Zoning Amendment, and Figure 2, Post Zoning Amendment. The zone changes are described as follows: 1. Southwest Rancho Cucamonga. An area within Southwest Rancho Cucamonga will be rezoned with a new subzone Center 1 – Southwest Cucamonga (CE1-SC). During outreach for PlanRC, the Southwest Cucamonga community expressed a sincere desire for a downtown/town center that provided access to goods and service in walkable environment in their community. In response to this desire, the General Plan land use was updated from Neo Industrial to Traditional Town Center across various parcels in a prominent location within the historic boundaries of Southwest Cucamonga. The proposed zoning map amendment will modify the current zoning designation of Neo-Industrial to the new zoning of CE1-SC. The Form Base Code will regulate the new subzone, including the development standards and land use requirements for future development. A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 11 2. Rochester / Jack Benny / Arrow Area. An area along Rochester Avenue near Jack Benny Drive and Arrow Avenue will be rezoned to Corridor 2. The land use designation in this area was updated during PlanRC from Neo-Industrial to Corridor High. This amendment will modify the current zoning designation of Neo-Industrial to Corridor 2 (CO2). This amendment will not only bring consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map, it will also help facilitate future development that will complement the vision around the Epic Center. 3. Various Parcels at Southwest Corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route. Various parcels will be rezoned to Neighborhood General 3 (NG3). The land use designation in this area was updated during the comprehensive General Plan update in 2021 from Neo-Industrial to Neighborhood Corridor. This amendment will modify the current zoning designation of Neo-Industrial to NG3 to ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Map and to help facilitate a medium intensity, neighborhood serving development in the future. 4. Vacant Parcel on Carnelian, South of 19th Street. This parcel contains a General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. The parcel should contain a corresponding zoning designation of Low Residential (L), however the parcel was inadvertently missed during the comprehensive zoning map update in May 2022. This amendment is a technical clean-up that will apply the L residential zoning designation to the parcel to correct the error 2. Findings The General Plan contains policies related to land use and community character, focus areas, open space, mobility and access, housing, public facilities and services, resource conservation, safety, and noise. The General Plan EIR included Standard Conditions of Approval (See Chapter 4 Implementation) for the following environmental topics: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The policies of the General Plan and the City’s existing development standards apply to all development in the General Plan Planning Area and would continue following adoption of the proposed project. As indicated above, the Development Code revisions are intended to improve alignment with the General Plan. As shown in Table 1, the text revisions constitute minor changes to existing Development Code intended to clarify and support implementation the rezoning of the General Plan. The proposed map revisions shown in Figure 2, correct mapping errors that were identified during the Development Code review or changes that reflect existing developed conditions of the land. The General Plan EIR considered land use designations and the general pattern of future development. While the Development Code is not specifically evaluated in the General Plan EIR, state law requires that land use and zoning be consistent. The General Plan EIR included policy changes as well as an update to the Development Code, which included zoning updates. Overall, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are minor in nature and are required to ensure consistency with the recently adopted General Plan, any physical impacts associated with the rezoning of parcels are addressed through the City’s General Plan Implementation Chapter, zoning, and development standards. For these reasons, the proposed project would not change the conclusions of the General Plan EIR. The following identifies the standards in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 as they relate to the project. A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 12 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan; therefore, the proposed revisions to the Development Code are consistent with the General Plan as evaluated in the General Plan EIR and adopted by the City. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of parcels in the City will remain consistent with the General Plan Land Use and the development visions/expectations of the General Plan. These changes would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment that are different from those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Consequently, the changes to the Development Code and rezoning of parcels would not change the conclusions of the EIR. 2. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The General Plan Update anticipated the need to amend the Development Code to implement the goals and policies adopted by the City. The General Plan EIR relies upon the Implementation Measures included in the General Plan to regulate all future development. These Measures will continue to apply to all development in the City and will have the same mitigating effects as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions of Approval identified in the General Plan EIR to reduce physical environmental effects would apply to all new development. These policies would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan, and therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of parcels in the City will remain consistent with the General Plan Land Use and the development visions/expectations of the General Plan. These changes would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment that are different from those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. 3. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete demonstrating that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The proposed project would better align the Development Code with the recently adopted General Plan as evaluated by the General Plan EIR. All policies and Standard Conditions of A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 13 Approval identified in the General Plan EIR would continue to apply to all development in the City and would have the same mitigating effect as disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not change the assumptions described in the General Plan EIR and does not change the conclusions of the EIR or require new Standard Conditions of Approval or mitigation. Additionally, the proposed rezoning of parcels in the City will remain consistent with the General Plan Land Use and the development visions/expectations of the General Plan. These changes would not result in direct physical impacts to the environment that are different from those anticipated in the General Plan EIR. Future development that would require amendments to the General Plan would be required to undergo appropriate environmental analysis. There are no substantial changes in the circumstances or added information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the adoption of the General Plan EIR. As a result, and for the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum. A D D E N D U M T O T H E G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E D EV EL O P M EN T C O D E U PD AT E C I TY O F R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A 1 RESOLUTION NO. 23-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2023-00318, AMENDING ARTICLES II, III, V, VII, VIII AND IX OF TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REVISE VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADOPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2023-00317, ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO A CERTIFIED RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2020 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND ADOPT FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2023-00318 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2023-00317 A.Recitals. 1.The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared a set of amendments, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Municipal Code amendments are collectively referred to as the “Amendments.” 2.On October 11, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date. 3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1.This Planning Commission hereby finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct. 2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 11 , 2023, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: a.The Articles/Chapters/Sections of the Municipal Code subject to Municipal Code Amendment DRC2023-00318 are as follows: Exhibit D 2 (1) Chapter 17.20 (“Planning Commission Decisions”) to add Section 17.20.070 per the adoption of Ordinance No. ____ to allows applicants to apply for exceptions from certain form-based standards in Article VIII of the Development Code; (2) Chapter 17.30 (“Allowed Land Use by Base Zone”) to amend Table 17.30.030-1 to add “Alternative Fuel Service Station with Lounge” use; (3) Chapter 17.30 (“Allowed Land Use by Base Zone”) to amend Table 17.30.030-1 to add “Work/Live” as a permitted use in the NI and IE zones within the “Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses”; (4) Chapter 17.36 (“Development Standards by Base Zone”) to amend Section 17.36.020 by removing affordability requirement for new residential units over 800 square feet; (5) Chapter 17.36 (“Development Standards by Base Zone”) to amend Section 17.36.030 by removing affordability requirement for new residential units over 800 square feet; (6) Chapter 17.38 (“Overlay Zones and Other Special Planning Areas”) to remove references to old industrial zones, “Industrial Park” and “General Industrial” in Section 17.38.060; (7) Chapter 17.89 (“Automobile Service Station”) to remove “number of automobile service stations per intersection” standards in Section 17.89.020 to avoid conflict with the existing provision that requires Automobile Service Stations be separated by a minimum of 1,000 feet of one another; (8) Chapter 17.91 (“Drive-In and Drive-Through Uses”) to remove Section 17.91.040.C.3.v to avoid conflicts with the provisions of Section 17.91.040.A.3; (9) Add Chapter 17.111 (“Vehicle Service Uses”) to allow existing vehicle service uses in the CE1-SC to remain in operation but prohibit any new proposed vehicle services uses; (10) Chapter 17.122 (“Design Provisions by Development Type”) to amend Table 17.122.010-1 (“Single-Family Variations Required”) to lower each required amount of floor plans per number of dwellings and associated footnotes; (11) Chapter 17.128 (“Form-Based Zones”) to amend Table 17.128.020-1 (“Summary Table of Form-Based Zones”), adding a CE1-SC subzone to CE-1 zone which allows certain existing service uses to remain; (12) Chapter 17.130 (“Zone and Building Standards”) to add Subsection 17.130.070.D. “Subdivisions” to Section 17.130.070 (“Applicable to All Zones”) to stipulate that any property being subdivided shall accommodate the largest allowable building type in its smallest form within the underlying form-based zone; 3 (13) Chapter 17.130 (“ Zone and Building Standards”) to amend Table 17.130.050-1 (“Required Build-to-Line, Height, and Frontage Area), updating the minimum and/or maximum FAR in the following zones: CE1, ME1, and ME2; (14) Chapter 17.130 (“Zone and Building Standards”) to amend Section 17.130.060 to remove the maximum square footage of “Common Useable Open Space, Area” for Mid-Rise and High-Rise Building Types; (15) Chapter 17.132 (“Building Entrances and Facades”) to amend Table 17.132.030-1 (“Allowed Building Entrance and Façade Types by Zone”) to add frontage type to NE2 Zone; (16) Chapter 17.134 (“Public Open Space”) to amend Section 17.134.070 to add a minimum square footage standard for a Pocket Park; (17) Chapter 17.136 (“Land Use Standards”) to amend Table 17.136 17.136.020-1 (“Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones”) to add the CE1-SC subzone to the Allowed Land Uses; (18) Chapter 17.136 (“Land Use Standards”) to amend Table 17.136 17.136.020-1 (“Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones”) to add Alternative Fuel Service Station with Lounge use, only allowed on sites with frontage on an auto priority street as defined in the General Plan; (19) Chapter 17.136 (“Land Use Standards”) to amend Table 17.136 17.136.020-1 (“Allowed Land Uses in Form-Based Zones”) to add a row for “Vehicle Services, Major” as a use within the Automobile and Vehicle Uses category; (20) Chapter 17.140 (“Universal Definitions”) to delete the definitions for “Automobile Service Station, General” and “Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Station”; and (21) Chapter 17.154 (“Form-Based Code Definitions”) to amend Section 17.154.020 (“Form-Based Code Definitions”) to update the definition of the term “Build-to-Line” and remove the terms “Frontage Line, Primary” and “Frontage Line, Secondary”. b. The parcels that are subject to Zoning Map Amendment DRC2023- 00317 include: (1) An area within Southwest Rancho Cucamonga will be rezoned with a new subzone Center 1 – Southwest Rancho Cucamonga (CE1-SWRC); (2) An area along Rochester Avenue near Jack Benny Drive and Arrow Avenue will be rezoned to Corridor 2 (CO2); (3) Various Parcels at Southwest Corner of Vineyard Avenue and Arrow Route will be rezoned to Neighborhood General 3 (NG3); and 4 (4) A t echnical fix the zoning designation of a vacant parcel on Carnelian, South of 19th Street. c. The City prepared the Amendments, which are included as Exhibits “B,” to this Resolution and are hereby incorporated by this reference as set forth in full. d. Municipal Code Amendment DRC2023-00318 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2023-00317 conform to and do not conflict with the goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including, without limitation, the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan. e. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, the City Council, in December 2021, certified the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update 2020 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2021050261) for the City’s adoption of the 2020 General Plan Update (“PlanRC”) and Climate Action Plan, and adopted findings pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (“Certified FEIR”). No new information has become available and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan has been undertaken since the certification of the FEIR occurred. The proposed Amendments would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified FEIR, nor would the proposed Amendments require new mitigation measures or alternatives. An Addendum to the Certified FEIR for the PlanRC and Climate Action Plan was prepared for the adoption of the Amendments pursuant to CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Addendum to the Certified FEIR attached to the staff report accompanying the proposed Amendments, along with the Certified FEIR, and, hereby recommends that the City Council: (1) Based on this evidence and all evidence in the record, concur with Planning Department staff’s determination that the proposed Amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and an Addendum is the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA; (2) In the exercise of its independent judgment, conclude that the Addendum accurately describes the environmental ramifications of the adoption the Amendments; (3) Find, based on the evidence in the record, including the Addendum, that the Amendments do not require supplemental or subsequent environmental review because the Amendments (i) are not substantial changes to the PlanRC and Climate Action Plan analyzed under the Certified FEIR that would require major revisions to the previously Certified FEIR, (ii) is not a substantial change in the circumstances under which the PlanRC and Climate Action Plan are being undertaken that would require major revisions to the Certified FEIR, and (iii) do not constitute new 5 information of substantial importance that was not known at the time the FEIR was certified; (4) Find that if the Amendments are adopted by the City Council, the impacts associated with the adoption of the Amendments would be the same or less than those identified for the PlanRC and Climate Action Plan in the Certified FEIR, for the reasons set forth in the Addendum; (5) Exercising its independent judgment after considering the administrative record, adopt the Addendum to the Certified FEIR and reaffirm the findings adopted as part of the FEIR certification as remaining applicable to the Amendments. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of paragraph B above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Municipal Code Amendment DRC2023-00318, and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2023-00317 as indicated in Exhibits “A” and “B” and collectively in the draft City Council ordinance attached to the Planning Commission staff report dated October 11, 2023, and incorporated herein by this reference. 4. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: _______________________________ Bryan Dopp, Chairman ATTEST: ___________________________ Matt Marquez, Secretary I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 an adjourned regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of October, 2023, by the following vote-to-wit: 6 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: EXHIBIT A Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Phase 3 Amended Articles Exhibit A Exhibit B --City Limits r------------------, r-.,--r--------; i-----------------------------------, I •--1 __ J I 1' I Freeway Amendment Zoning I I I 1i5 > > I ,J r, -, C � <( <( ,-1 -- � C � rn , .--1 � .§ :c � !!.'I !I ____ _<3 _______ !_ ____ ! ____ ! ___ �I f I I I I I Hillside Rdl \I \ I \ Banyan St\ \ \ \ \\ \ 19th sk,._ "\ I \ I \ I Base Line Rd ,��, I ,.J ,rv I I l. I I Foothill sf I I I Arrow Rt! II I 8th StL_ _________ _ � C (I) � � > <( * (I) C 8a: -■ . - "' 'C C �w , /, / , /, /, / , J/ Base Line Rd I I I I I I I I ! Foothill Bl I I II I Arrow Rt I I I I I > > \ <( <( " \ ,----�!I <( N A 0 0.25 0.5 Miles 1.5 1 inch equals 1 miles \ 6ths\ I \ I I �&\ I -----------------------------------------• � � � � � � � -"Ero � � � c � : � � §n, i � � � OJ J: � 8 -� <( :i:: a: w gj IJ.J , / / , / -CEl Southwest CUGlmonga -CO2 Corridor 2 Zone NG3 Neighborhood General 3 L Low Residential L----,/ Wilson Av , ... , / , /, SR-210