Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-12 - Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS June 12, 2024 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 PM A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales Vice Chairman Boling Commissioner Dopp Commissioner Daniels Commissioner Diaz B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This 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 May 22, 2024. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS D1. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Establishing Battery Energy Storage Facilities as a Use Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit for Properties Located in the Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) Zones. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(C)(2) And 15061(B)(3). This Item Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from April 24, 2024. D2. DESIGN REVIEW – FORE PROPERTY – A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising 308 residential units and 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area on 9.15 acres of land at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Center 1 (CE1) Zone. APN: 0207-011- 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and 45 (DRC2022-00379). 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 $3,526 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 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 – May 22, 2024 Page 1 of 4 Draft 2 8 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda May 22, 2024 Draft Minutes Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 7:00 p.m. The regular Joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on May 22, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz. Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Justine Garcia, Deputy Director of Engineering; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Deborah Allen, Management Analyst; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. The following persons commented on the Ivy Lane Street dedication: Stephane Kan, Peter Fung and JoAnn Gritchin. Comments included the following concerns: •Traffic. •Street not wide enough for a two-way lane. •Impact financially to pay for a street that is not necessary. •Nearby school - dangerous for children playing and using crosswalk. •Yard will be cut out. Loss of property. For the record, it is noted the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: •Letter from JoAnn Gritchin, resident, noting her property would be affected by the proposed road extension and is opposed to this change. •Letter from David Burnett, resident, expressed his concern about the negative impact it would create more than the benefit it could bring. Principal Planner Sean McPherson spoke to residents after the meeting to answer their questions and concerns. With no other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.    Page 3 HPC/PC MINUTES – May 22, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Draft 2 8 3 1 C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2024. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to approve Minutes as presented. Motion carried 5-0. D. Public Hearings D1. DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – ELECTRIC PICKLE - A request to construct a 12,074 square-foot building for a restaurant/bar with full alcohol service (Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Type 47 license); a 1,770 square-foot building with a coffee bar, restrooms, and storage; and outdoor recreational courts within the mixed use placetype of The Resort Specific Plan, located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Resort Parkway - APN: 0210-102-07. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15162 (Design Review DRC2023-00248, Conditional Use Permit DRC2024- 00151). Associate Planner Bond Mendez presented a PowerPoint presentation. (Copy of file) Commissioner Daniels asked if there where discussions with the applicant regarding the shade structures on the ball courts. Associate Planner Bond Mendez mentioned the applicant has agreed to include the shade structures. Vice Chairman Boling asked for clarification from the applicant if they are okay with putting shade structures over the ball courts, as well as seating areas. Applicant Cody Conti stated they could shade partial courts, not all. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Carol Plowman expressed how Rancho Cucamonga is the best city to work with and she is excited about this project. Pickle Ball player Connie Grisby expressed her excitement bringing Pickle Ball to Rancho Cucamonga. Her only concern would be to have shade over the ball courts for a more pleasant and enjoyable game. Commissioner Dopp asked the applicant about membership. Applicant Cody Conti indicated they would sell membership only during the hours of 6:00-10:30am when restaurant is not open for full-service, then it opens to the public at 10:30am to 11pm, with courts available for walk-ins who have no previous reservations. With no other comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp commented he is pleased to see the community is excited about this project and they can spend time with family and friends. He expressed he likes the design it has a retro feel that he likes. He agrees about the shade, especially during the summer that it will be needed. Commissioner Daniels agreed the project will be an asset to the neighborhood and to the community. He expressed it is unique and that the one-story building looks better than the two-story. It is laid out very well, and it is functional.    Page 4 HPC/PC MINUTES – May 22, 2024 Page 3 of 4 Draft 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling stated that he liked the height with the two-story design. Although, with the new design proposed, they kept some of the height at 35 ft. that alleviated some of his concern. He commented it will be a positive regional attraction for residents and visitors. He indicated with shade over the courts it will bring higher usage. Commissioner Diaz concurred with fellow Commissioner and expressed she is pleased to see they are doing something on the roof top. Chairman Morales commented it is well designed. He expressed that it is good use for that site. He asked about the shade structure and if it is something we could include in the Conditions of Approval tonight for Resolution 24-16. Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura stated we would add a condition for the final design requiring a minimum of 3 courts to be shaded. Vice Chairman expressed his appreciation to the applicant for adding bicycle racks to an area adjacent to the building entrance and wishes more applicants would do the same. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to approve Design Review DRC2023-00248 with the amended condition to Resolution 24-16 and Conditional Use Permit Resolution 24- 17. Motion carried 5-0 E. General Business E1.Consideration of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Major Projects Program for Fiscal Year. Management Analyst Deborah Allen presented a PowerPoint presentation. (Copy of file) Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. With no comments, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Boling commended staff for putting together a comprehensive report. He said it helps to easily identify how the projects being proposed ties back to the General Plan, which makes it easier for them to know that it is in conformance. Commissioner Daniels indicated it is a very ambitious plan and easy to follow. Commissioner Dopp thanked staff it is very comprehensive. He said it has connectivity, which are several elements they are looking for from a planning perspective. Commissioner Diaz agreed that it is very easy to read. She said residents of the city would like to see this to know what is going on and around the city. Chairman Morales stated that the updated General Plan is very much a part of our future 10-20 years from now to make sure we are accomplishing our goals. He said it is in conformance with the General Plan and this is how City Government should operate to keep improving, and it is what the public wants. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to approve Resolution 24-13. Motion carried 5-0.    Page 5 HPC/PC MINUTES – May 22, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Draft 2 8 3 1 F. Director Announcements – None G. Commission Announcements - None H. Adjournment Motion: Moved by Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Department Approved:    Page 6 Page 1 2 4 1 5 DATE: June 12, 2024 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development INITIATED BY:Bond Mendez, Associate Planner SUBJECT:Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Establishing Battery Energy Storage Facilities as a Use Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit for Properties Located in the Neo- Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) Zones. This Item is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(C)(2) And 15061(B)(3). This Item Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from April 24, 2024. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the hearing to a date uncertain. BACKGROUND: The proposed Municipal Code Amendment was scheduled for a public hearing by the Planning Commission on April 24, 2024. At the request of multiple stakeholders, Staff requested the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing to a date certain of June 12, 2024. Since the public hearing continuation on April 24, 2024, Staff has had continued communication with the interested parties in revising the proposed Municipal Code Amendment. Staff is also continuing to discuss any proposed changes internally with the Fire District. Staff is requesting to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain in order to continue to work with the private parties and internal staff on the draft ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: None by this continuance. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: None by this continuance.    Page 7 DATE:June 12, 2024 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development INITIATED BY:Adam Pisarkiewicz, AICP, Contract Planner SUBJECT:DESIGN REVIEW – FORE PROPERTY – A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising 308 residential units and 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area on 9.15 acres of land at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Center 1 (CE1) Zone. APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and 45 (DRC2022-00379). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 24-18, approving Design Review DRC2022- 00379, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval related to a request to construct a mixed-use development comprising 308 residential units and approximately 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area on approximately 9.15 acres of land, inclusive of waivers requested by the applicant in compliance with state housing law. BACKGROUND: Site Characteristics and Land Use/Zoning: The 9.15-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue. There is an existing agricultural use with associated structures on the project site that are proposed to be removed as part of this project. The dimensions of the roughly square project site are approximately 550 feet from north to south and 816 feet from east to west. The site gently slopes from north to south from approximately 1,204 feet along the north property line and 1,190 feet at the south property line for a grade change of approximately 14 feet. The applicant has submitted a Tentative Map Application which proposes to consolidate the existing six lots into one. The application is currently under review and a condition has been added to this application that the Tentative Map Application must be approved by the Planning Commission prior to Building Permit issuance.    Page 8 Page 2 of 11 2 4 0 6 The Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Table A: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Context Legislative Context: The applicant proposes to set aside 5% of the residential units (16 units) as affordable housing for very low- income households. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), in exchange for setting aside a minimum of 5% of the units as affordable housing, the applicant is permitted automatic parking reductions, and may request one concession/ incentive and unlimited waivers from the City‘s required development standards. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project is comprised of a total of six buildings: four 4-story residential buildings, one 2-story building for on- site amenities, and one 2-story commercial building. Two of the residential buildings contain interior courtyards while the site also includes a pool, lounge area, a dog park, and two pocket parks. Parking is provided in surface lots, private garages on the first floor of the residential buildings, and off-street parking along Red Hill Country Club Drive, Foothill Boulevard, and Grove Avenue. The new on-street parking creates a buffer between the units, the pocket park/retail area, the public sidewalk, and vehicle traffic. (See Figure 1) Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Agriculture Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) North Single-Family Residences* and Golf Course City of Upland/ General Open Space and Facilities (OS) City of Upland/ Parks (P) South Commercial/Gas Station Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) East Golf Course/Single-Family Residence General Open Space and Facilities (OS)/Traditional Town Center Parks (P)/ Corridor 2 (CO2) West Commercial Shopping Center*City of Upland City of Upland *These properties are located within the City of Upland and therefore do not have a corresponding Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning District    Page 9 Page 3 of 11 2 4 0 6 Figure 1: Illustrative Site Plan Architecture: The project’s exterior design is considered contemporary as building materials include stucco, porcelain tile, ceramic tile, metal railings on balconies, and metal awnings carried to various elevations. Additional building materials include perforated metal panels and large shade structures for the retail facades. All proposed buildings contain flat roofs with varying rooflines and undulating building facades to break up building massing and provide visual interest. Figure 2: View from corner from Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue    Page 10 Page 4 of 11 2 4 0 6 Figure 3: View looking east along Red Hill Country Club Drive Figure 4: Looking east from Grove Avenue along the project’s east-west drive aisle/fire access lane. Unit Composition and Floor Plans: The project is comprised of 308 elevator-served residential units that are all single-level. The affordable units are distributed throughout the four residential buildings. Commercial lease areas are located on a portion of the project’s first-story frontage along Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue. The table below summarizes the number of residential units and square feet of commercial lease area:    Page 11 Page 5 of 11 2 4 0 6 Table B: Unit Summary Residential Unit Type Unit Size Number of Units Studio 578 SF 16 1 Bedroom 708 - 779 SF 183 2 Bedroom 1,076 – 1,206 SF 93 3 Bedroom 1,454 SF 16 Total Number of Units 308 Commercial Total Area Commercial (SF)N/A 14,704 Recreational Amenities: The project also proposes various amenity spaces to be used by the residents of the development. Resident amenities include the following: •Pool/spa with lounge seating areas •Club House •Fitness room •Dog Park •Multiple outdoor gathering areas with BBQs, fire pits, and outdoor seating •Leasing office Public Amenities: Two publicly accessible pocket parks are located along the Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Road frontages. State Density Bonus Law – One Incentive and Six Waivers Requested: Under State Density Bonus Law, depending on the quantity and target income level of affordable units provided, developers are eligible an increase in prescribed density for a site. In addition, developers can request an “incentive” or “concession” of a development standard to facilitate the construction of the development including the density bonus units. To deny a concession or incentive, the city must find, based upon substantial evidence, that the requested concession or incentive: 1) does not result in identifiable and actual cost savings to the project to provide for the affordable housing costs; or 2) would have a specific adverse impact on public health, safety or on property which is listed on the state Register of Historical Resources and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the specific adverse impact without making the project unaffordable to the affordable households; or 3) would be contrary to state or federal law. The number of incentives or concessions increase as projects provide more affordable housing. In addition, developers can request “waivers” or modifications of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the proposed density bonus units or the requested developer’s requested concession or incentive. As with requested concessions or incentives, a city can only deny the requested waiver if it finds, based upon substantial evidence, that the waiver would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety or on property which is listed on the state Register of Historical Resources and where there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the specific adverse impact or, is contrary to state or federal law. Incentive and Waivers Requested: The applicant has requested a total of 6 waivers and one incentive through State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). Under the SDBL, a “waiver” is intended to modify or reduce applicable development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the proposed density bonus units. An “incentive” is intended    Page 12 Page 6 of 11 2 4 0 6 to allow for any modification to the City’s zoning and development standards which results in identifiable and actual cost reductions towards providing affordable housing units within the development. These incentives and waivers, as requested by the applicant, include: 1. Incentive: Reduce the target use mix ratio and requirement for any non-residential intensity in the Traditional Town Center designation pursuant to General Plan Table LC-1 (General Plan Designations). •City Requirement – non-residential FAR of 0.2-0.6 •Project Proposes – non-residential FAR of 0.04 Relative to the subject Traditional Town Center land use designation, General Plan Table LC-1 (General Plan Designations), establishes a maximum residential density (DU/AC) of 30 du/ac, non-residential intensity (Floor Area Ratio – “FAR”) of 0.2-0.6, and a target use mix ratio (residential-to-non-residential) of 50/50. In requesting a waiver, the applicant instead proposes to provide 14,704 square feet of leasable non-residential area. 2. Waive the minimum residential finish floor elevation above grade at maximum build-to line and the maximum non-residential finish floor elevation above grade at maximum build-to line. •City Requirement – Minimum Residential Finish Floor Elevation of 30 inches above grade at the maximum build-to line and Maximum Non-residential Finish Floor Elevation of 18 inches above grade at the maximum build-to line. (RCMC Table 17.130.050-1) •Project Proposes – Residential buildings within build-to lines contain a finished floor elevation of approximately 3.5-6.8 inches and Non-residential building within build-to lines contain a finished floor elevation of 4-6 inches. Development Code Table 17.130.050-1 specifies that the finished floor heights of buildings within the build-to lines shall be at least 30 inches above grade for residential uses and a maximum of 18 inches above grade for non-residential uses. The intent of the 30-inch minimum for residential uses is to create stoop-like frontages for ground-floor residential units that allow for separation between the street and the ground floor unit. In addition, the intent of the maximum of 18 inches for non-residential uses is to discourage large height separations between the street-level pedestrian experience and a non-residential frontages and their associated building entrances. The applicant contends that to comply with the accessible access standards required by the City’s Universal Design Standards for residential unit design (Section 17.123.070.E.ii), design around the property’s complex grading constraints, and accommodate residential density afforded by the proposed density bonus, a waiver of the standards pertaining to minimum residential and non-residential raised grade is required. 3. Waive the building massing, development site size, overall height, and parapet height for Courtyard, Multiplex, and Main Street Building Types. •City Requirement – Specific maximum dimensional requirements for Building Massing, Development Site Size, Overall Height, and Parapet Height for the Courtyard, Multiplex, and Main Street Building Types. •Project Proposes – Specific increases in Building Massing, Development Site Size, Overall Height, and Parapet Height over the allowable maximums for the Courtyard, Multiple, and Main Street Building Types. Section 17.130.060 (Building Type Standards) provides specific maximum dimensional standards for all building types to create the specific form of each building type. The applicant is proposing to utilize the    Page 13 Page 7 of 11 2 4 0 6 Courtyard, Multiplex, and Main Street Building Types for their overall development. The applicant asserts that to accommodate the residential density afforded by the proposed density bonus, the proposed development requires a waiver for certain dimensional requirements of each building type being employed. Each specific deviation is listed below: -Courtyard Building Type - Building Massing: o Required: Maximum 140’ Width x 120’ Depth o Proposed: 199’ Width x 210’6” Depth -Courtyard Building Type - Development Site Size: o Required: 80’-136’ Width x minimum 60’ Depth o Proposed: 207’9” Width for Building A; 259’3” Width for Building B -Courtyard Building Type – Overall Height and Parapet Height: o Required: Max. Overall Height – 52’; Max. Parapet Height – 42’ o Proposed: Overall Height of 55-58’ and Parapet Height of 45-48’ for Buildings A & B -Multiplex Building Type - Building Massing o Required: Maximum 160’ Width x 80’ Depth o Proposed: 212’9” Width x 152’4” Depth -Multiplex Building Type - Development Site Size o Required: 60’-176’ Width x minimum 60’ Depth o Proposed 469’5” Width for Building C; 379’7” Width for Building D -Multiplex Building Type – Overall Height and Parapet Height o Required: Max. Overall Height – 52’; Max. Parapet Height – 42’ o Proposed: Overall Height – 55-58’ and Parapet Height – 45-48’ for Buildings C and D -Main Street Building Type - Overall Height and Parapet Height o Required: Max. Overall Height – 40’; Max. Parapet Height – 35’ o Proposed: Overall Height – 48’ and Parapet Height – 40’ for Buildings E & F 4. Waive the Site and Block Configuration Standards for Large Sites. •City Requirement – Development sites which are three acres or larger in size must lay out a block and thoroughfare network that connects to adjacent neighborhoods and/or corridor areas and as in compliance with Section 17.138.030 (Site and Block Configurations). •Project Proposes – Buildings configured around drive aisles and surface parking lots that create a contiguous site rather than a block network defined by Code-compliant thoroughfares. Section 17.138.030 (Site and Block Configurations) provides maximum dimensions for block face lengths and perimeters for each form-based zoning district. The CE-1 zone requires block faces to be a maximum of 400 ft. and have a maximum perimeter of 1,400 ft. In addition, the Section requires public or private thoroughfares be established to define the publicly accessible circulation network that refines large sites into more interconnected environments. Specifically, thoroughfares are required to include: i.) a landscape buffer between the right-of-way and frontage road; ii.) At least one lane of on-street parking, either angled, or parallel, that includes a minimum of two EV stations installed per block; iii.) A recommended sidewalk width of eight feet minimum; iv.) a recommended lane width of 10 feet minimum. Except for the lane width standard, the proposed development has not applied the required thoroughfare standards to the site and therefore has not created a coherent, measurable block network. As proposed, the site contains six buildings connected via drive aisles and Section 17.138.030.B.1.b specifically states that “Drive aisles not designed as streets do not constitute a thoroughfare and do not satisfy the requirements of this section.”    Page 14 Page 8 of 11 2 4 0 6 5. Waive Drive Aisle Length and Carport Requirements •City Requirement – Drive aisles may not exceed 150 feet in length when garages/carports are aligned; 200 feet when garages/carports are staggered or offset per Section 17.120.020.D.4.a. •Project Proposes – Exceed the maximum drive aisle length to allow placement of a sufficient amount of covered parking to serve all residential units, as increased by the density bonus. As stated, drive aisles may not exceed 150 in length when garages/carports are aligned and Table 17.64.050-1 requires one covered parking space for each studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom unit, and two covered spaces for each three-bedroom unit. The applicant asserts that to accommodate the amount of parking for the overall residential unit count, the standard for the maximum drive aisle length with carports must be waived in order to allow placement of a sufficient amount of covered parking to serve all of the residential units. Based on the unit count, the site requires 249 carports. 6. Waive Building Orientation Requirement. •City Requirement – For sites with more than two primary buildings, buildings must be sited to create plazas or common open space per Section 17.120.020.B. •Project Proposes – Three out of the six buildings are site around plazas and/or common open spaces The applicant asserts that to achieve the higher residential density allowed due to the proposed density bonus, the multiple required building types, and allow for sufficient parking, only certain buildings comply with the requirement of Section 17.120.020.B. Specifically Buildings C, E, and F are sited around plazas or common open spaces. Buildings A, B, and D are sited around surface parking. 7. Waive Building Entrance and Façade Standards for the Courtyard and Multiplex Buildings •City Requirement – Various dimensional standards to comply with the required residential and non-residential/commercial building entrance and façade types detailed in Chapter 17.132 (Building Entrances and Facades). •Project Proposes – Non-compliant entrances in Buildings A, C, and D. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the building entrance and façade type requirements for the width of the shopfront bay and the ground floor transparency in Buildings A, C, and D. The applicant asserts that the waiver is required because the buildings are residential rather than retail buildings, with entry doors rather than glass storefronts, to accommodate the increased residential density and reduced non-residential space (see Incentive 1).    Page 15 Page 9 of 11 2 4 0 6 Compliance with Development Standards See Table C regarding the project’s compliance with relevant development standards of the Center 1(CE1) zone and General Plan requirements, in light of the various waivers requested. Table C: Development Standards Compliance Table Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Density (General Plan)30 DU/AC 33.7 DU/AC YES* Non-Residential Intensity/ FAR (General Plan)0.2-0.6 FAR 0.04 Incentive* Setbacks (CE1)Variable Variable YES Building Height (CE1)4 stories max.2 - 4 stories Waiver* Landscape Area 10% min (39,844 square feet) 30% (82,468 square feet)YES Open Space 10,780 SF (30 SF/Unit)83,911 SF YES *Applicant has requested an incentive and multiple waivers through State Density Bonus law Parking: Based on the number of units provided and the amount of non-residential floor area, the project is required to provide 572 parking spaces pursuant to the development code (513 spaces for residential, and 59 spaces for commercial). Notably, the project proposes 535 parking spaces, a deficiency of 37 parking spaces. The applicant is afforded these parking reductions through a combination of State Density Bonus Law, which permits automatic parking reductions for affordable housing projects. Lastly, staff also notes that the applicant is providing 57 on-street parking spaces, in addition to the on-site parking, in order to serve the on-site commercial spaces. Specifically, 17 clear-view parking spaces along Red Hill Country Club Drive, 10 parallel parking spaces along Foothill Boulevard, and 30 clear-view parking spaces along Grove Avenue. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting, hosted by the applicant, was held on November 28, 2023 at Lifeway Church. Approximately 40 people attended the meeting and expressed their concerns about the project which generally focused on density, building height, parking, and traffic impacts. Many participants at the neighborhood meeting also expressed concerns regarding the loss of the existing strawberry farm business. For clarity, staff notes that the existing strawberry farm business is a tenant and is not the property owner of the subject project area. Design Review Committee: The proposed project was presented to the Design Review Committee at their April 16, 2024, meeting. The Commissioners were supportive of the proposed architectural style as well as the associated materials and colors. The Commissioners asked the applicant to consider a masonry block wall along the northern property line instead of the proposed tubular steel fence that is being proposed which the applicant has since changed to a masonry block wall.    Page 16 Page 10 of 11 2 4 0 6 Public Art: The project is subject to the public art ordinance, but pursuant to Development Code Section 17.124.020.B.2, the applicant may request an exemption from this requirement if it can establish that the value of the project’s income restricted units equals or exceeds the minimum value of the artwork that would otherwise be required. Based on the number of units proposed and the square footage of the proposed commercial space, the value of the artwork that would be required for the project is $245,704. Staff has proposed a condition of approval that prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide staff with an appraisal prepared by a licensed professional which determines whether the value of the affordable units equals or exceeds the minimum value of the artwork which would otherwise be required. 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. 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 “Traditional Town Center” land uses. The proposed Project is generally consistent with the site’s GP land use designation regarding land use and development intensity as well as built form and character and is 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 May 2024, was prepared by an environmental consultant hired by the City (Michael Baker, 2024) (Exhibit E – 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, upon the project’s compliance with all conditions of approval. The project will not have any 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. CORRESPONDENCE: Mailed notices were sent to all property owners within 660-feet on May 28, 2024. Similarly, a notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, and the site was posted on May 29, 2024. Prior to the publication of the staff report, on May 8, 2024, correspondence was received by Sara Edelmeyer (Exhibit F) which included documents pertaining to the history of the project site and its associated agricultural uses. This correspondence also included a request that the subject project site be considered for historical designation and preservation as an agricultural use. Notably, the cultural resources analysis completed for this project as part of the CEQA Compliance Memorandum determined that the existing agricultural use, including existing buildings on site, did not warrant preservation or historic designation. Following the mailing, posting and publishing of the public hearing notice for the June 12, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, staff has received additional correspondence from various neighbors, residents and interested individuals (Exhibit G) expressing various concerns related to the project. These concerns primarily involve traffic, parking, concerns over the loss of the strawberry farm business, and general concerns over the compatibility of the development within the surrounding neighborhood.    Page 17 Page 11 of 11 2 4 0 6 COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(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 anticipates Foothill Boulevard becoming a vibrant, walkable multi-modal environment including a variety of uses and activities for all to enjoy. The proposed project fits this vision of the General Plan. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph Exhibit B – Project Plans (Link in Exhibit) Exhibit C – Applicant’s Project Description, State Incentive and Waivers Exhibit D – DRC Report, Applicant Comments and Minutes Exhibit E – CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum and Traffic Impact Analysis (Link in Exhibit) Exhibit F – Correspondence and Information from Sara Edelmeyer (Link in Exhibit) Exhibit G – Written Public Correspondence Received Exhibit H – Resolution 24-18 with Conditions of Approval    Page 18 Vicinity Map and Aerial Photograph Existing Conditions Project Site (Approximate boundaries in yellow) Red Hill Country Club Drive Exhibit A    Page 19 EXHIBIT B Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Project-Plans    Page 20 Foothill & Grove Mixed Use Project PROPERTY & PROJECT DESCRIPTION I. PROPERTY OVERVIEW The subject site (the “Property”) is comprised of six adjacent parcels located at the corner of Foothill Boulevard & Grove Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City”). The total gross site area (after anticipated right-of-way dedications to the City) is approximately 9.14 acres, and 398,443 square feet (“sf”). The site is commonly identified as 8112 Foothill Boulevard and 8118-8226 Red Hill Country Club Drive. The addresses, APNs and land use designations for each parcel are as follows: # Address APN Acreage Land Use & Zoning 1 8212 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0-207-011-35 0.26 acres GPLU: C Traditional Town Center Zoning: CE1 (Center 1 Zone) 2 8224 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0-207-011-36 0.35 acres GPLU: C Traditional Town Center Zoning: CE1 (Center 1 Zone) 3 8226 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0-207-011-41 0.02 acres GPLU: C Traditional Town Center Zoning: CE1 (Center 1 Zone) 4 8118 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0-207-011-43 0.18 GPLU: C Traditional Town Center Zoning: CE1 (Center 1 Zone) 5 8148 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0-207-011-44 8.31 GPLU: C Traditional Town Center Zoning: CE1 (Center 1 Zone) 6 8202 Red Hill Country Club Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 0-207-011-45 0.69 GPLU: C Traditional Town Center Zoning: CE1 (Center 1 Zone) As shown on the site aerial below, the Property is largely vacant and undeveloped. It was primarily used for agriculture from the 1930s to 1990s. The southwest corner of the Property is developed with three small structures used by “Nicolson’s Strawberries” for the retail sale of produce, microscale agriculture, and ancillary uses. The “microscale agriculture” is a strawberry patch available for “U-Pick” (whereby customers pick and then buy their own strawberries) during certain seasons. (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (“RCMC”) § 17.32.030(B)(5).) The three buildings consist of one (1) single-story 1,000 sf residence building; one (1) 2,000 sf high-bay barn structure, and one (1) single-story 500 sf shed structure. The residence and barn structures appear to have been constructed in the 1950s, and the shed structure appears to be constructed in the 1970s. Unpaved roads provided access to interior and perimeter portions of the Exhibit C   Page 21 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -2- agriculturally developed portions of the Property with a gravel surfaced parking area located adjacent west of the barn, which is reportedly utilized for strawberry customer parking. Mature trees are present adjacent to the residence, and along the northern and eastern sides of the Property. PlanRC 2040 designates the Property as “Traditional Town Center” and “Focus Area 4 – Red Hill Gateway.” The Property is zoned Center 1 Zone (CE1). II. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES & USES Direction Name Address North Single-family residences Various residential address listings. East Red Hill Country Club 8358 Red Hill Country Club Drive Southeast Single-family residences and vacant lot Various residential address listings. South Convenience Store Meat Market Restaurant 8166 W. Foothill Boulevard 8133 W. Foothill Boulevard 8111 W. Foothill Boulevard South west Multi-tenant commercial/ retail and restaurant 1460 and 1490 E. Foothill Boulevard    Page 22 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -3- Direction Name Address West Walmart and multi-tenant commercial/retail 1445, 1463, and 1471-1493 E. Foothill Boulevard III.PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project Fore Green Development, LLC (“Applicant”) proposes to develop the Property for a mixed-use project comprised of approximately 308 multi-family rental units, including 16 (5%) very low income units, in four four-story buildings with a gross residential building area of 383,721 square feet (“sf”); 14,704 sf of commercial retail space; and 22,610 sf of leasing and club amenities (comprised of a two-story amenity building and pool building) (the “Project”). The Project would include 535 surface and garage parking spaces including: 152 on-site surface parking, 249 carports, 77 one-car garage, 57 off-site surface parking spaces. The Project is significantly over-parked given that the appliable parking standard under state density bonus law is 422 spaces (see breakdown in DBL narrative below). Site Grading & DTSC Approvals Site grading will include demolition of all existing structures, both surface and underground, within the property boundary. Approximately 169,000 cubic yards of earthwork will be required to achieve the proposed grades, in addition to remedial earthwork per the recommendations of the soils report. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of soil will be excavated and exported off-site for Project site balancing purposes. Moreover, consistent with a voluntary agreement that Applicant entered into with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”), an agency of the California Environmental Protection Agency, an environmental Response Plan will be approved by DTSC prior to commencement of grading activities and be implemented as part of the Project. Based on Phase 2 site assessment activities performed under DTSC’s oversight, it is foreseeable that the approved Response Plan will require that approximately 8,500 cubic yards of soil impacted with lead or arsenic having concentrations greater than DTSC residential screening levels (DTSC- SLs) will be excavated and either exported to an appropriately permitted landfill facility or managed onsite (e.g., below building foundations) in a manner protective of future site users including residents, construction workers and members of the public. Assuming this soil is exported off-site the 8,500 cubic yards of impacted soil will be included as part of the 15,000 cubic yards of soil that will be removed for Project grading purposes (i.e. no additional excavation due to remediation will occur beyond that required for site development). Following this work, there will be no known soil concentration that exceeds the protective DTSC-SLs that could come into contract with residents. Additional protective measures will be specified by the DTSC and included in the Response Plan and associated documents. These measures foreseeably may include vapor intrusion mitigation systems (VIMS) that minimize the risk that subsurface contaminants could impact the quality of indoor air, and institutional controls (e.g., land use covenants and restrictions and/or operation and maintenance plans) to ensure long-    Page 23 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -4- term environmental stewardship and protection of engineering controls. Additional information regarding the range and types of these protective measures is included in the Feasible and Protective Remedies Report. All remedial measures will be conducted under the supervision of a qualified environmental professional and, to the extent required by DTSC as a condition of its approval of the Response Plan, be subject to compliance with a site-specific Site Management Plan, environmental health and safety management plan, and community air monitoring plan. The Feasible and Protective Remedies Report are included herein as Attachment C. DTSC will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act prior to approval of the Response Plan. In addition to the architectural improvements, the site work will include paving, curbs and gutters for on-site parking and drives, underground water mains, sewer mains, gas, telephone, electric and communications facilities, trash enclosures and 4 underground water quality/stormwater detention basins. Offsite improvements in connection with the Project will include: • Grove Avenue – demolition of existing curb & gutter along east side of street to accommodate new angled parking, rehabilitation of ½ of the existing paving, undergrounding of existing overhead utilities, and addition of new street lights and sidewalks on east side; • Foothill Boulevard – addition of new curb & gutter adjacent to the Project and a new frontage road with parallel parking, new sidewalk, street lights, pavement rehabilitation, signing & striping and undergrounding of overhead utilities at northeastern corner of intersection with Grove Avenue; and • Red Hill Country Club Drive – addition of new curb & gutter adjacent to the Property, with new sidewalk, angled parking spaces, street lights, undergrounding of existing overhead utilities at east end and rehabilitation of existing ½ street of paving. Stormwater System In the existing condition, the Property slopes generally from the NE corner toward the SW corner, with the exception of a small portion of the site which slopes toward Redhill Country Club Drive at the SE corner of the site. The developed condition will emulate this condition. There are six proposed buildings. All rainfall on the roof will be captured by roof drains and conveyed under the planters and sidewalks surrounding each building, and from there will flow to concrete swales or curb & gutter in the parking and drive areas. The runoff in the gutters will be intercepted by grate inlets or catch basins at strategic locations and conveyed through storm drain pipes to underground vaults acting as infiltration basins. As noted above, the project site generally slopes in 2 different directions. The westerly portion of the site drains from northeast to southwest and into the existing catch basin at the corner of Foothill Blvd and Grove Avenue. This is consistent with the City of Upland’s Master Plan of Drainage. The easterly portion of this site drains from the northwest to the southeast and into Red Hill Country Club Drive, also consistent with Uplands’ Master Plan of Drainage. This area    Page 24 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -5- flows within the street to an existing 30-inch corrugated pipe culvert where an unnamed tributary of Cucamonga Creek running through Red Hill Country Club Golf Course crosses the road. The proposed drainage solution will be designed with basins for water quality and water detention purposes and would essentially emulate the existing flow patterns. Ultimate design and approval will be obtained by the cities of Upland and Rancho Cucamonga Water System The on-site water system for the Project will include 12” and 8” water lines that will be connected to an existing 12” water main at two locations on Grove Avenue (one connection at each entrance), to an existing 12” water main in Foothill Blvd. near the SW corner of the site, and to an existing 8” water main in Redhill Country Club Drive at two locations, one at the main entrance and one at the open space/courtyard at the southeast corner of the site. This will provide a looped system within the site to provide water service for domestic use, fire protection and landscape irrigation. Sewer System All residential and retail buildings in the proposed Project will be served by a network of 6” and 8” gravity sewer lines, all of which will flow toward the SE corner of the subject site. A single connection will be to an existing 8” sewer main in Red Hill Country Club Drive. IV. ANTICIPATED ENTITLEMENTS & APPROVALS It is anticipated that the Project will require the following entitlements and approvals from the City: 1. Major Design Review. The Applicant requests a Major Design Review pursuant to Development Code §§ 17.138.010(A), 17.138.010(C)(1)(b) and 17.138.020(A) to allow for new development upon sites 3 acres or larger. As the Project proposes to develop a Property that is 9.15 acres in size, major design review will be necessary. 2. Tentative Tract Map. A tract map will be required to merge the six parcels that form the Property into a single legal parcel. Applicant will file a tentative tract map to create the development site and effect the dedication of additional right-of-way, access & public utility easements and the vacation of existing easements required for the Project. (RCMC § 16.49.030(A).) 3. SB 330. The Project is a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2).) This filing is an update to Applicant’s complete and timely development application package, filed pursuant to SB 3301. 1 The Project’s preliminary application under SB 330 was filed on November 21, 2022, which is the Project’s vesting date under this statute. (Gov. Code section 65589.5(o)(1).) A preliminary application is “deemed complete” automatically if it includes all of the materials in Government Code Section 65941.1(a), and the Project’s preliminary application included all required items. The Project’s full development application was timely submitted    Page 25 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -6- 4.Density Bonus Law. The Applicant requests a Density Bonus Compliance Review pursuant State Density Bonus Law, California Government Code sections 65915-65918 (“DBL”) and Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code section 17.46.070(A). The requested density bonus, incentive, waivers and parking reductions applicable to the Project under state and local DBL are set forth in Attachment B, Density Bonus Law Narrative. 5.Uniform Sign Program. A Uniform Sign Program is required for all mixed-use developments of three or more tenants that share a building. (Development Code § 17.16.060(B).) It is anticipated that this will be a post-entitlement review and approval by the City’s Planning Director. V. DENSITY BONUS LAW NARRATIVE The Applicant requests a Density Bonus Compliance Review pursuant to State DBL and RCMC section 17.46.070(A). The Project proposes to create 308 new dwelling units, including five percent or 16 dwelling units for Very Low Income households, with the following on- menu incentive: Reduction in 33% minimum non-residential use mix for the CE1 Zone (RCMC Table 17.138.030-2) and related 50/50 target use mix ratio for the Traditional Town Center land use designation under the General Plan (p. 61; Table LC-1) to allow the reduced commercial2 proposed by the Site Plan for the project. As set forth below, the Project will also require multiple waivers that would physically preclude the construction of the Project at the density and with the incentive proposed. A.Density Bonus. Under the DBL, projects that include a minimum of 5% very low income (“VLI”) units must be granted a 20% residential density bonus. (Gov. Code § 65915(f)(1), (2); RCMC § 17.46.020.) The increase in residential density would be calculated by multiplying the maximum base residential density allowed by the percentage density bonus. The percent of affordable housing that must be set aside is a percentage of the base number of units, not the total number of units after the density bonus units are added. (Gov. Code § 65915(o)(6)(A).) The base density for the Property is 30 dwelling units per acre. This allows 274 units on the 9.14-acre project site. With a 20% density bonus, the maximum site density is increased to 329 on December 23, 2022. (Gov. Code § 65941.1(d)(1).) That application was received and processed on January 4, 2023, and was deemed complete on February 15, 2023. Comments were timely received, in compliance with the time frames set forth in the Permit Streamlining Act, on April 4, 2023. (Gov. Code §§ 65941.1(d)(2), 65943(a).) Further comments were provided by the City on February 16, 2024. The present revised submittal and development application responds to those comments. 2 The proposed commercial and non-residential areas are approximately 9% of the on-site uses (37,314 SF/421,035 SF). The retail area, not including the leasing and amenity areas, is approximately 3.5% of the total onsite building square footage (14,704 SF/421,035 SF).    Page 26 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -7- units. The Applicant proposes 308 units, which is well within the permitted density with density bonus. We note that a city does not have discretion to deny a density bonus to a qualifying project. A request for a density bonus under the DBL must be granted “when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development” that meets one or more of the statute’s thresholds. (Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1329, 1339.) B. Incentive. As the Project will allocate five percent of the total units of a housing development for very low- income households, the Applicant is entitled to one incentive. (Gov. Code § 65915(D)(2); RCMC §§ 17.46.020(B), 17.46.040(B).) This can be any modification to the City’s zoning and development standards which results in “identifiable and actual cost reductions” towards providing the affordable housing. (Gov. Code § 65915(k); RCMC § 17.46.040(B).) Pursuant to the RCMC, available on-menu incentives include: “A reduction in the site development standards or a modification of this title’s requirements or architectural design requirements . . . including, but not limited to, a reduction in . . . square footage requirements . . . that would otherwise be required and that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents.” (RCMC § 17.46.040(C)(1).) Here the Project’s chosen incentive is a reduction in the site development standards and square footage requirements that generally require a 33% minimum non-residential use mix for the CE1 Zone (RCMC Table 17.138.030-2) and related 50/50 target use mix ratio for the Traditional Town Center land use designation under the General Plan (p. 61; Table LC-1) to allow the approximately 9% non-residential proposed by the Site Plan for the project. C. Waivers. In addition to incentives, the DBL prohibits the City from applying development standards that would physically preclude the construction of the project at the density proposed. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1); RCMC § 17.46.030(E).) Unlike incentives, which require a certain amount of affordable set aside, the number of waivers a developer can seek is, subject to this standard, unlimited. Development waivers are subject to the same standard of review as incentives: the City must grant the requested waivers unless it can find, based on substantial evidence, that the waiver or reduction would cause a specific, adverse impact upon physical health or safety that cannot be mitigated, or that the waiver or reduction would be contrary to state or federal law. (RCMC § 17.46.030(E) [“city shall not apply any development standard that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development meeting the requirements of section 17.46.020 (Eligibility) at the densities or with the incentives or concessions permitted by this chapter”].) This Project will require City waiver of the following development standards that would physically preclude the construction of the Project at the density and with the incentive proposed. (Gov. Code § 65915(e)(1); RCMC § 17.46.030(E).) 1. Waiver 1 – Residential & Non-Residential Grade.    Page 27 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -8- In order to i) comply with the accessible access standards required by the City’s Universal Design Standards for residential unit design (RCMC section 17.123.070(E)), ii) design around the Property’s complex grading constraints, and iii) accommodate the residential density afforded by Applicant’s density bonus on this site, a waiver of the standards pertaining to minimum residential and non-residential raised grade (RCMC Table 17.130.050-1) is required. Required Provided Residential Raised Grade 30 inches (RCMC Table 17.130.050-1) Fully compliant where possible, some areas 0 inches, as shown on Planning Exhibit 3 Non-Residential Raised Grade 18 inches (RCMC Table 17.130.050-1) 4-6 inches Because of the complex grades on site, in the few areas where the Project does not comply with the 30-inch residential minimum, the Applicant would have to add ramping in too many locations throughout the site to maintain accessible access as required by the “Universal Design Standards” for residential unit design. Universal Design. For projects with at least ten dwelling units, a minimum of ten percent of units must adhere to the following principles of Universal Design. . . . 1. At least one entrance without steps and a flat threshold. (RCMC section 17.123.070(E).) Planning Exhibit 3 shows finished floor elevations of each of the residential buildings (southern portions) are at least 30 inches above adjacent grade or sidewalk. The pink shaded areas shown in the exhibit represent the 30 inch differential between the finished floor and adjacent grades. The areas where these 30 inch grade differentials occur are adjacent to the most meaningful pedestrian connections of the project, as shown in green. As such, the Project has been designed to comply with this requirement to the greatest extent possible given the unique site grades, ADA accessibility and increased project density. 2. Waiver 2 – Building Massing & Dimensional Requirements for Courtyard, Multiplex & Main Street Residential Buildings. The Project as shown in the updated site plan includes the following 3 building types, all of which are permitted in the CE1 Zone: 1. Residential Buildings – A combination of large Courtyard and Multiplex; 2. Amenity Building – Main Street – Amenity Building complies with all massing & development standards for Main Street; and 3. Retail Building – Main Street – Retail Building complies with all massing & development standards for Main Street. However, in order to accommodate the residential density afforded by Applicant’s density bonus the Project will require a waiver of certain building massing & dimensional requirements for the    Page 28 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -9- Project buildings, which otherwise comply with all other form-based Code requirements for Courtyard, Multiplex and Main Street as applicable. The Project’s proposed density (with density bonus inclusive of very low income units) cannot be achieved within the maximum massing and dimensions of the permitted CE1 building types for the following reasons: • The Courtyard building type is the most dense product type allowed in the CE1 Zone. It prescribes a 120 x 140-foot maximum building dimension. As shown on the previously provided Site Plan Analysis with Courtyard Template eight three-story Courtyard buildings can only hold a maximum of 264 dwelling units. This falls short of the 308 dwelling units planned for the project (or the up to 330 units if the full 20% density bonus was utilized). • The Code’s requirement for a mix of at least three building types, all of which allow even less density than Courtyard buildings, further constrains space for DBL units. • Additionally, because the maximum dimensions for each building type are strictly defined, each of these building types have inefficient floor plates with single loaded corridors which serve each unit per floor. This will be more costly to build due to the very high non-rentable to rentable square foot ratio. • As shown on the exemplary Site Plan Analysis with Courtyard Template, restricting the site to the types and dimension of the form-based Code would cause the site to be under- parked. This plan provides only 363 stalls, far short of the 422 stalls required by law for the Project unit count (even with the parking reductions provided by DBL, see table at Section V(D) below), and even further short of the proposed 535 stalls that is operationally feasible for this type of mixed-use project. • Finally, added height is required to achieve the density authorized by DBL. Restricting the Project to use of the CE1 Building Type maximum dimensions would physically preclude the construction of the Project at the density and with the incentive proposed. Applicant therefore proposes to utilize a density bonus waiver of the following dimensional requirements for CE1 Form-Based Zone (RCMC § 17.130.060) to allow larger buildings that can accommodate the increased DBL unit count: • Courtyard Building Massing (RCMC § 17.130.060(E)) o Required: Maximum 140’ (W) x 120’ (D) o Proposed with Waiver: 199’(W) x 210’6”(D) • Courtyard Development Site Size (RCMC § 17.130.060(E))    Page 29 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -10- o Required: 80-136’ (W)3 x min 60’ (D) o Provided with Waiver: Building A/Block 14 – 207’9” (W); Block 3/Building B – 259’3” (W) • Courtyard Overall & Parapet Height (RCMC § 17.130.060) o Required: Maximum overall height = 52’; Maximum parapet height = 42’ o Provided: Buildings A & B – overall height = 55-58’; parapet height = 45-48’ • Multiplex Building Massing; Primary Building (RCMC § 17.130.060(F)) o Required Building Massing: Maximum 160’ (W) x 80’ (D) o Proposed with Waiver: 212’9” (W) x 152’4” (D) • Multiplex Development Site Size (RCMC § 17.130.060(F)) o Required: 60’-176’ (W) x min 60’ (D) o Provided: Building C/Block 4: 469’-5” (W) Building D/Block 5: 379’-7” • Multiplex Overall & Parapet Height (RCMC § 17.130.060) o Required: Maximum overall height = 52’; Maximum parapet height = 42’ o Provided: Buildings C & D – overall height = 55-58’; parapet height = 45-48’ • Main Street Overall & Parapet Height (RCMC § 17.130.060) o Required: Maximum overall height = 40’; Maximum parapet height = 35’ o Provided: Buildings E & F – overall height = 48’; parapet height = 40’ The Project’s Courtyard, Main Street and Multiplex buildings are permitted building types for the CE1 Zone; however, the Project buildings exceed the maximum building massing standards for these building types. Further, because the buildings are larger to accommodate the density bonus units, the development site size and height must be proportionately increased to accommodate the larger buildings. The overall height of the residential buildings will be between 55 and 58 feet, with the precise height to be determined during plan check based upon the final floor truss design. The waiver of these massing requirements to allow larger buildings for the residential and resident-serving uses is necessary to make the Project viable inclusive of the low-income units. 3. Waiver 3 – Site and Block Configuration Standards. 3 We also note that the Form-Based Code standard maximum width for development site size (136’) is smaller than the Form-Based Code standard maximum width for building size (140’), which may be a Code discrepancy. 4 Measurements of block size based on standards set forth at RCMC sections 17.130.030(C) and 17.126.060. (Id. [“Comply with the block standards requirements to establish connectivity and design the lot consistent with the development site standards per building type”].)    Page 30 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -11- Four out of five blocks within the Project are in compliance with the City’s block dimension requirements. (RCMC section 17.138.030.) Block 4 (formerly Blocks 4 & 5, now combined) is out of compliance and requires a waiver of this standard because of the complex grades and other applicable design constraints. Blocks 4 and 5 were combined to connect the paseo to the pocket park and to create the open space courtyard-feel areas requested by the City between the leasing area and amenity spaces. See Planning Exhibit 5 (revised block standards exhibit), which now includes a north/south dimension as requested by staff. Relatedly, as shown on Planning Exhibit 5, Applicant has adjusted the revised site plan to increase the number of paseos and pocket parks and to create a network of connections. Circulation is now broken up by Blocks 1, 2, 3 & 4. There are also now two open space types provided in the revised project: Paseo and Pocket Park. With the added paseo located between Block 1 and Block 2, the mid-block dimension is 202’-10” which is well under the 400’ maximum. However, since the paseo between Buildings E/F and C is no longer recognized as a boundary line that can separate the long block into two smaller sections, Blocks 4 and 5 have been combined. Now Block 4 is 464’-5” (W) x 250’-3” (D). Consequently, this combination has produced a non-compliance for maximum block length (400’) and maximum block perimeter (1400’) which is included within the scope of this Waiver 3. 4. Waiver 4 – Drive Aisle & Carport Restrictions The revised Project will require a waiver of the standard relating to drive aisles with carports (RCMC § 17.120.020(D)(4)(a)) in order to accommodate the required amount of covered parking per unit (RCMC Table 17.64.050-1) for the increased residential afforded by Applicant’s density bonus. Increased residential requires more covered parking. The City’s Code requires 1 covered space for each studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom unit, and two covered spaces for each three- bedroom unit. (Id.) As such, the standard for maximum drive aisle length with carport must be waived in order to allow placement of a sufficient amount of covered parking to serve all residential units, as increased by the density bonus. Based on the Project’s unit count and unit types, 326 covered stalls (249 carports and 77 garages) are required. This is the amount of covered parking provided on the updated site plan. 5. DBL Waiver 5 – Building Orientation. In order to i) achieve the higher residential density allowed due to the Project’s density bonus, ii) include the multiple building types required by the City’s design standards, and iii) allow for sufficient supportive parking, Building D is oriented towards parking. As such, a waiver is required as to this building only. All other buildings are oriented towards plazas or common open space. Additionally, the Project has been designed so that there is a large open space just to the southeast of Building D that is easily accessible to these residents. As such, the building orientation has been revised to the greatest extent possible to provide for greater common open space and comply with the spirit of the City’s requirement within the above-noted constraints.    Page 31 4895-2023-2898.1 392306.00001/6-4-24/ksa/lmt -12- 6. DBL Waiver 6 – Building Entrance and Façade Type. The Project will require a waiver of the building entrance and façade type requirements for width of shopfront bay and ground floor transparency as to Buildings A-D. This is required because these are residential rather than retail buildings – with entry doors rather than glass storefronts – in order to accommodate the increased residential density (per density bonus) and reduced commercial (per Applicant’s chosen incentive). For further detail on the impacted dimensions please see the concurrently provided Compliance Table, Façade Standards. D. Reduced Parking. Pursuant to the DBL, the City must reduce the required parking standard for all residential units, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, to the following ratios: 1 onsite parking space for units with 0-1 bedrooms; 1.5 onsite parking spaces for units with 2-3 bedrooms; and 2.5 onsite parking spaces for units with 4 or more bedrooms. (Gov. Code Government Code § 65915; RCMC § 17.46.030(D).) The Project’s parking requirements are therefore reduced as follows: Unit/Product Type Number of Units Parking Standard Parking Spaces Required Studio 16 1 space/unit 16 1 BR 183 1 space/unit 183 2 BR 93 1.5 spaces/unit 140 3 BR 16 1.5 spaces/unit 24 Retail 14,704 sf 4 spaces/1,000 sf 59 Total Parking Required 422 spaces Total Parking Provided 535 spaces Based on the current 40% requirement, the site is programmed to include a total of 214 electric vehicle (EV) chargers – 27 EV chargers, 134 EV ready and 54 EV capable. Of these, 191 are residential stalls and 59 are non-residential stalls. During plan check the Applicant will increase the EV stall count to 252 (50%) EV stalls in accordance with the Code updates that will go into effect in July 2024.    Page 32 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS April 16, 2024 7:00 p.m. Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner DESIGN REVIEW – FORE PROPERTY (FOOTHILL AND GROVE MIXED USE) – A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising 308 residential units and 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area on 9.15 acres of land at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Center 1 (CE1) Zone. APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and 45 (DRC2022- 00379). Site Characteristics: The 9.15-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue. There is an existing agricultural use with associated structures on the project site that are proposed to be removed as part of this project. The dimensions of the roughly square project site are approximately 550 feet from north to south and 816 feet from east to west. The site gently slopes from north to south from approximately 1,204 feet along the north property line and 1,190 feet at the south property line for a grade change of approximately 14 feet. Background and Legislative Context: The applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on October 7, 2022 (followed by a timely full application), which vested the project to applicable development standards in place at the time in accordance with state law. The Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Table A: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Context *These properties are located within the City of Upland and therefore do not have a corresponding Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Land Use and Zone. In addition to the SB 330 application, the applicant also proposes to utilize State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and will preserve 5% of the residential units (16 units) for very low income households. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), the applicant is requesting waivers from various development standards. A full discussion of waivers will be provided to the Planning Commission at the appropriate time. Land Use General Plan Zoning Site Agriculture Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) North Single-Family Residences* and Golf Course City of Upland/General Open Space and Facilities (OS) City of Upland/Parks (P) South Commercial/Gas Station Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) East Golf Course/Single- Family Residence General Open Space and Facilities (OS)/Traditional Town Center Parks (P)/Corridor 2 (CO2) West Commercial Shopping Center* City of Upland City of Upland Exhibit D   Page 33 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2022-00379 – FORE PROPERTIES April 16, 2024 Page 2 Project Design and Layout: The project is comprised of a total of six buildings: four 4-story residential buildings, one 2-story building for on-site amenities, and one 2-story commercial building. Two of the residential buildings contain interior courtyards while the site also includes a pool, lounge area, a dog park, and two pocket parks. Parking is provided in surface lots, private garages on the first floor of the residential buildings, and off-street parking along Red Hill Country Club Drive, Foothill Boulevard, and Grove Avenue. The new on-street parking creates a buffer between the units, the pocket park/retail area, the public sidewalk, and vehicle traffic. Figure 1: Site Plan Architecture: The project’s exterior design is considered contemporary, when comparing to other developments in Southern California of similar size. All proposed buildings contain flat roofs with varying rooflines and undulating building facades to help break up the building massing and provide visual interest. Building materials include stucco, porcelain tile, ceramic tile, metal railings on balconies, and metal awnings carried to various elevations. Additional building materials include perforated metal panels and large shade structures for the retail facades.    Page 34 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2022-00379 – FORE PROPERTIES April 16, 2024 Page 3 Figure 2: View from corner from Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue Figure 3: View of entire site from corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue    Page 35 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2022-00379 – FORE PROPERTIES April 16, 2024 Page 4 Figure 4: View of interior lounge and pool area with the amenities building on the left, the commercial building on the right, and one of the residential buildings in the background. Unit Composition and Floor Plans: The project is comprised of 308 elevator-served residential units that are all single-level. Commercial lease areas are located on a portion the project’s first-story frontage along Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue. The table below summarizes the number of residential units and square feet of commercial lease area: UNIT SUMMARY Residential Unit Type Unit Size (SF - Net) Number of Units Studio 578 SF 16 1 Bedroom 708 to 779 SF 183 2 Bedroom 1,076 to 1,206 SF 93 3 Bedroom 1,454 SF 16 Total Number of Units 308 Commercial Total Area Commercial (SF) N/A 14,704 Recreational Amenities: Resident amenities include the following: •Pool/spa with lounge seating areas •Club House •Fitness Room •Dog park •Multiple outdoor gathering areas with BBQs, fire pits, and outdoor seating •Leasing office    Page 36 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2022-00379 – FORE PROPERTIES April 16, 2024 Page 5 Public Amenities: Two pocket parks along the Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Road frontages. Compliance with Development Standards: As noted, the applicant has requested waivers from various development standards through State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). Under the SDBL, a “waiver” is intended to modify or reduce applicable development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the proposed density bonus units or the developer’s requested concession or incentive. See below for the project’s compliance with relevant development standards. COMPLIANCE TABLE Development Standard Required Proposed Complies Residential Density 30 DU/AC max. 33.7 DU/AC YES* Non-Residential Intensity/FAR (General Plan) 0.2-0.6 0.04 WAIVER Setbacks (CE1) Variable Variable YES Building Height (CE1) 4 stories max. 2 - 4 stories YES** Landscape Area 10% min. 30% YES Open Space 10,780 SF (30 SF/Unit) 83,911 SF YES *State Density Bonus Law allows for developments to exceed the maximum units per acre standard *Waiver for height measurement for Courtyard Building Type Regarding parking, the project proposes 535 parking spaces to serve the residential units and commercial areas of the project. As a result of parking reductions afforded to the project through SDBL, these 535 parking spaces exceeds the minimum number of required parking spaces for the project which would be 422. Foothill Boulevard/Red Hill Country Club Drive/Grove Avenue Off-Street Parking: Staff also notes that the applicant is providing 57 off-street parking spaces, in addition to the on- site parking, in order to serve the on-site commercial spaces. Specifically, 17 back-in parking spaces along Red Hill Country Club Drive, 10 parallel parking spaces along Foothill Boulevard, and 30 back-in parking spaces along Grove Avenue. The figure below displays the locations of the off-street spaces for reference:    Page 37 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2022-00379 – FORE PROPERTIES April 16, 2024 Page 6 Figure 5: Site Plan, displaying the off-street parking areas circled in red. Staff Recommendation: The project meets the City’s vision for a mixed-use development within the underlying zone, in terms of walkability, pedestrian connections, the public realm, and a mix of uses. 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: ☒Recommend Approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant. ☐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. ☐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 check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission. ☐Recommend Denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant.    Page 38 DRC COMMENTS DR DRC2022-00379 – FORE PROPERTIES April 16, 2024 Page 7 Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner Members Present: Staff Coordinator: Sean McPherson, Acting Principal Planner    Page 39 Design Review Committee Meeting Agenda April 16, 2024 FINAL MINUTES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 New Time: 6:00 p.m. A.Call to Order The meeting of the Design Review Committee held on April 16, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:00 p.m. Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Al Boling and Commissioner James Daniels. Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner; Adam Pisarkiewicz, Senior 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 March 19, 2024. Motion carried 2-0 vote to adopt the minutes as presented. D.Project Review Items D1. DESIGN REVIEW – WESTERN SPIRE – A request for a site plan and design review of a mixed-use development consisting of 176 residential units (including 2 live-work units), 7,870 square feet of commercial lease area, and 1,400 square feet of live-work commercial lease area on 1.8 acres of land at the northeast corner of Red Oak and Spruce Avenues in the Center 2 (CE2) Zone. APN: 208-353-18 (DRC2023-00154). Staff presented the item to the Design Review Committee. Following the staff’s presentation, members of the applicant team (Western Spire), including their architect provided additional background and detail on the project. Following the presentation discussion ensued over various aspects of the project. The Committee was complimentary of the project design and amenities and was accepting of the proposed reduction in the square footage of the non-residential floor area. They stated there were adequate commercial and office uses adjacent to the building and that creating housing was a priority. The Committee raised mild concerns about the requested reduction in on-site parking. The applicant stated that they have a parking management plan to ensure adequate on-site parking. The Committee asked questions about the location of parking spaces for guests, customers, and delivery trucks and whether the roundabout would require modification of the existing drive approaches for the surrounding land uses. The applicant outlined the parking and staff stated that the drive approaches are not expected to be impacted by the roundabout. The Committee recommended that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for their review.    Page 40 The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote. D2. DESIGN REVIEW – FORE PROPERTY (FOOTHILL AND GROVE MIXED USE) – A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising 308 residential units and 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area on 9.15 acres of land at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Center 1 (CE1) Zone. APN: 0207-011-35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and 45 (DRC2022-00379). Staff presented the item to the Design Review Committee. Following the staff’s presentation, the Committee made the following comments: •Commissioners concerned with the on-street parking along Foothill Blvd and Grove Ave. o Concern that parallel parking along Foothill Blvd could be dangerous given the speed of vehicles. o Concern about the efficacy of back-in, angled parking along Grove and that it will force drivers to travel north into the residential neighborhoods of Upland in order to circle back to Foothill Blvd. •Commissioners would like the applicant to consider a masonry block wall along the northern property line instead of the tubular steel fence that is being proposed. •Commissioners concerned that the retail entrances only face Foothill Blvd, rather than also having rear entrances which would make it more convenient for residents of the development to access. Applicant explained that there are no rear entrances because the area behind the retail building is a private area for residents only and the area in front of the retail building is for the general public. •Commissioners requested that the applicant accurately depict the proposed back-in, angled parking on all renderings that include Grove Avenue. •Commissioners are in favor of the architectural style and associated materials/colors. The Committee took the following action: Recommend approval to PC. 2-0 Vote. E.Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant    Page 41 EXHIBIT E Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Compliance Memo and Traffic Impact Analysis    Page 42 EXHIBIT F Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link: Documents from S. Edelmeier    Page 43 RE: Question re: Nicolson's Strawberries Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 11/6/2023 1000 AM To:Sarah K. <skaleel@gmail.com> Cc:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Sarah, I will pass your contact information to the project planner, Adam Pisarkiewicz (pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com) so that meeting notices get sent to you. 1. Why is there no scheduled hearing for this project? The next step will be the neighborhood meeting. The PC hearing notice will be placed on the notice board on the property. 2. What is a neighborhood meeting vs a hearing? A neighborhood meeting is for the public to comment on the project prior to the PC meeting. 3. How many acres is the lot? I thought I saw 8 acres but wasn't sure.  The site is 9.82 gross acres. State law allows developers of housing units to request a density bonus if the project includes affordable units. The applicant is requesting a density bonus. Tabe From: Sarah K. <skaleel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 8:07 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: Hubby Johnnie <Jfcranev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Question re: Nicolson's Strawberries Thank you for the information! Yes, I would like to be added to the neighborhood meeting. We live at 7920 valle vista dr, RC 91730. I have a few more questions: 1. Why is there no scheduled hearing for this project? 2. What is a neighborhood meeting vs a hearing? 3. How many acres is the lot? I thought I saw 8 acres but wasn't sure. Thank you!! Sarah On Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 7:16 AM Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> wrote: Thank you for your interest. The CE1 zone permits up to 30 units per acre. If you are within 660 feet of the project site you will get an invitation to the neighborhood meeting. There is no hearing scheduled for the project.  If you would like to be on the list, please provide your address. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner From: Sarah K. <skaleel@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2023 10:54 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Question re: Nicolson's Strawberries CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! We noticed a proposed development sign in front of Nicolson's Strawberries, who confirmed that the land owner (San Antonio Hospital, I believe) is looking to sell the land to a developer to build 308 units. 1/2Exhibit G    Page 44 Aside from the fact that the farm has been there for decades, that street corner and the local school system can not support such a huge increase. I looked up parcel 8112 and saw that it is zoned as CE1 Center 1 Zone, which (to my very, very limited knowledge) is not approved for residential use. The sign did not state when/where there will be a hearing. I was hoping to get more information so we can voice our concerns. Thank you so much in advance for any information you can provide, Sarah Kaleel 2/2    Page 45 From: Brian Smith <briansmith76@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 6:09 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: DRC2022-0379 CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good Evening, My name is Brian Smith and I am a resident of Rancho Cucamonga and live at 11943 Huntley Drive. I am writing to express my concern over the PROPOSED 308-UNIT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (File No.: DRC2022-0379) located at Foothill and Grove. I am strongly opposed to any zoning change to accomodate this development. Thank you, Brian Smith, 951.285.8344    Page 46 Re: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) russburroughs1 <russburroughs1@gmail.com> Tue 12/5/2023 1054 AM To:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Thanks, hopefully it will be different than the last time. If it is planned to exit on Grove, that's where the problem is Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message -------- From: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Date: 12/5/23 1038 AM (GMT-0800) To: russburroughs1 <russburroughs1@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) Hi Russ, I work for the City. My firm has a contract with the City for planning services. The Planner who was previously assigned to this project left the City a few weeks ago so I am helping fill a staffing shortage. The applicant should be submitting an updated set of plans with new renderings very soon. I can send you a rendering once I receive the updated plans. Also, the lot is 9.15 acres. Best, Adam From: russburroughs1 <russburroughs1@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 9:58 AM To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Subject: Re: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) Can you email me a rendering of the project, and how big that lot is Thanks  Sent from my Galaxy 6/4/24, 5:55 PM Mail - Adam Pisarkiewicz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/AQMkADgwMjE4ZjA0LWEyYjUtNDM5NS05YzUzLTc2OTQzYzUwMmY3OAAuAAAD5aTgDqia20SQoVxBWxuiJQEARfz2T…1/4    Page 47 -------- Original message -------- From: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Date: 12/4/23 524 PM (GMT-0800) To: russburroughs1 <russburroughs1@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) Yes, the City of Upland has been made aware of the project. They will also be provided an opportunity to comment on the environmental analysis and the traffic analysis. Best, Adam From: russburroughs1 <russburroughs1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 5:19 PM To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Subject: Re: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) Thank you. Do you know if the city of Upland has been made aware of this project  Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message -------- From: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Date: 12/4/23 418 PM (GMT-0800) To: russburroughs1 <russburroughs1@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) Hi Russ, So, the project is still in the midst of doing the CEQA environmental analysis as well as the traffic analyses. These will likely be completed in the next couple of months. Once those have been completed, and their plans have been finalized then it will be scheduled for a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. At this point, it has not been scheduled. Given the work that still needs to be done, I assume the Planning Commission hearing will likely be scheduled for March/April 2024.  I suggest checking back in with me or Planning Department staff early next year to check in on the status of the application. Please let me know if you have any further questions. 6/4/24, 5:55 PM Mail - Adam Pisarkiewicz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/AQMkADgwMjE4ZjA0LWEyYjUtNDM5NS05YzUzLTc2OTQzYzUwMmY3OAAuAAAD5aTgDqia20SQoVxBWxuiJQEARfz2T…2/4    Page 48 Best, Adam From: russburroughs1 <russburroughs1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 4:09 PM To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Subject: RE: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) I was just wondering when there's going to be a council meeting addressing the public issues, like the last time a project was presented  Sent from my Galaxy -------- Original message -------- From: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Date: 12/4/23 223 PM (GMT-0800) To: russburroughs1@gmail.com Subject: Development Application Inquiries (Foothill and Grove) Hi Russ, Thanks for reaching out. I am a Contract Planner with the City and have recently been assigned to the project. The previous Planner assigned to the project has since left the City.  City staff let me know that you had reached out to them with questions regarding the project. Please let me know your questions and I'll get your answers ASAP. Or, we can set up a call to chat.  Best, Adam 6/4/24, 5:55 PM Mail - Adam Pisarkiewicz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/AQMkADgwMjE4ZjA0LWEyYjUtNDM5NS05YzUzLTc2OTQzYzUwMmY3OAAuAAAD5aTgDqia20SQoVxBWxuiJQEARfz2T…3/4    Page 49 6/4/24, 5:55 PM Mail - Adam Pisarkiewicz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/AQMkADgwMjE4ZjA0LWEyYjUtNDM5NS05YzUzLTc2OTQzYzUwMmY3OAAuAAAD5aTgDqia20SQoVxBWxuiJQEARfz2T…4/4    Page 50 FW: Proposed Development Near Foothill & Grove Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Thu 11/16/2023 1156 AM To:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com>   Adam,   Here is a question related to the Foothill and Grove project.   Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner     From: Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 10:14 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Proposed Development Near Foothill & Grove    CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi!   My wife and I own a home at 8238 Red Hill Country Club Drive in Rancho Cucamonga.  Recently, we heard of a proposed development near the intersection of Foothill and Grove.  We should like to learn more about this proposed development.  Below is some information about it.  What information concerning this proposed development is available (e.g., the CUP application, etc.)?  Preferably we could obtain this information in some sort of electronic format (e.g., PDF, online, etc.).   File Number DRC2022-0379 Proposed: 308-unit mixed use development Applicant: Fore Green Development   I can be contacted either by reply email or by telephone at (310) 597-3986 if you should have any questions.   Thank you, Richard 6/4/24, 6:16 PM Mail - Adam Pisarkiewicz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADgwMjE4ZjA0LWEyYjUtNDM5NS05YzUzLTc2OTQzYzUwMmY3OAAQADHMhYbi8EnDpmEPPCayDFA%3D 1/1    Page 51 Re: Strawberry Field Development Proposal Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Tue 11/21/2023 434 PM To:queenzoe77@gmail.com <queenzoe77@gmail.com> Hi Sara, Thanks for reaching out and yes you did reach the correct department! I am a Contract Planner with the City and have recently been assigned to the project. The previous Planner assigned to the project has since left the City. The project is still under internal review with the City so, nothing has been approved yet. All of the plans are still being reviewed by City staff and comments/corrections are being issued to the applicant. In addition, the environmental and traffic impact reports are still in progress as well. These plans/reports will all be publicly available once they are complete. Given your proximity to the site, you might be receiving a postcard with information about the forthcoming neighborhood meeting on the project. The applicant is hosting an open house style neighborhood meeting on November 28th, 6pm-7pm, at the Lifeway Church (7477 Vineyard Avenue). The applicant team will be there to answer any questions and provide more information on the project. All are welcome to attend. The project will go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing once all plans and reports have been finalized. Since the project is still under internal review, my guess is that the Planning Commission's public hearing will occur towards the end of the first quarter of 2024. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Best, Adam From: ssscee <queenzoe77@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:36 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Strawberry Field Development Proposal CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am trying to find information on the proposed development of the strawberry field on Foothill and Grove. There is a sign up that lists it as File No. DRC2022-0379. I haven't been able to find anything on the city website or Google searches. I would like to know if this proposal has been approved, or   Page 52 if there are to be city meetings that are open to the public about the proposal. I live off of Red Hill Country Club Road, and would like to see traffic impact reports and other research for the proposal, and to be able to voice my concerns and see the design layout. I am not sure that I am contacting the correct department. I would greatly appreciate this email being forwarded to the correct people. I would also appreciate any information you can give me. Thank you, Sarah Edelmaier    Page 53 FW: Foothill/Grove Development Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 11/27/2023 715 AM To:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Cc:McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us> Strawberry patch email. Tabe -----Original Message----- From: Matt Roberts <ramblinmtb@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2023 759 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Foothill/Grove Development CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi I just saw on the Neighborhood App. That there is a proposal to develop the area at Foothill and Grove where the neighborhood strawberry patch is located. I live on Red Hill and have for nearly 20 years. If youʼre taking note of how this project is received by local residents, Iʼd like to say I strongly oppose this idea. I am not of any notoriety nor do I have any political influence. Iʼm just a local Rancho Cucamonga resident that has seen the traffic and exploding apartment construction making getting from one place to another a nightmare. So I am against any such project and would hope the strawberry Patch would be left alone. Thanks for your time, Sincerely, Matt Roberts Sent from my iPhone    Page 54 Fw: Foothill & Grove Mixed Use Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Wed 11/22/2023 105 PM To:skaleel@gmail.com <skaleel@gmail.com> Hi Sarah, Happy to help! Please see my responses to your questions below in red. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Feel free to reach out anytime. Have a great Thanksgiving as well! Best, Adam From: Sarah K. <skaleel@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2023 12:42 PM To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Subject: Re: Foothill & Grove Mixed Use Hi Adam, Thank you so much for your thorough response. I deeply appreciate it, and I'm sure you are getting quite a few other inquiries. A few more questions: 1.I am learning more about these processes (I am a fairly new resident to Rancho Cucamonga) - will the city (yourself) be in attendance next Tuesday? Yes, I will be attending along with one or two other City staff members. Our role is mainly to observe since this meeting is hosted and organized by the applicant but we can certainly chat with attendees and answer any questions, especially ones related to the City's review process. 2.Why is the meeting being held in a church? I suspect it is because it is an informal meeting with the developer, but wanted to double check. The City requires the applicant to find a meeting space that is as close to the project site as possible. This is to ensure that the immediate neighbors are able to attend with ease. The meeting is informal and is not a City-sponsored so no decisions are being made at the meeting, it is purely informational. 3.I recognize this may be a conflict of interest question, but are there any specific kinds of questions you advise citizens to ask of the developer? No. I would just utilize the time to ask all the questions you have to the developer. 4.I know this is a silly question, but is there any possibility the number of units could be reduced and/or convert the development to townhouses/single family? A citizen can dream! LOL We realize   Page 55 we can not save the poor strawberry farm but 308 units is just so high density. It's unlikely and it would be really incumbent upon the applicant to make that change to their proposal. Multi- family residential with commercial space (aka mixed-use) is a permitted use in that zoning district. I hope you have a great Thanksgiving. Warmly, Sarah On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1100 AM Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> wrote: Hi Sarah, Thanks for reaching out. I am a Contract Planner with the City and have recently been assigned to the project. The previous Planner assigned to the project has since left the City. The project is still under internal review with the City so, nothing has been approved yet. All of the plans are still being reviewed by City staff and comments/corrections are being issued to the applicant. In addition, the environmental and traffic impact reports are still in progress as well. These plans/reports will all be publicly available once they are complete.  To respond to some for your questions: The project proposes a total of 521 parking spaces. The Traffic Impact Analysis reviews the project for compliance with all necessary regulations and will outline any potential infrastructure necessary to service the project. There is a third ingress/egress onto Grove in the northwest corner of the property. The site plan you are referencing is an old version that is in the process of being updated. Among the updates are new roadway designs along Red Hill which will divert traffic away from the interior neighborhood streets to a new ingress/egress onto Foothill directly next to the gas station across the street from the site. Regarding the school system: Every year the City is contacted by the local school districts for a cumulative projects list that they then incorporate into their facilities and enrollment planning. This project has been shared with local school districts. Also, the CEQA environmental report incorporates this element into its analyses. If there is a potential significant impact related to an increase in students, mitigation measures will need to be included and likely required as part of the project. Also, the applicant is hosting an open house style neighborhood meeting on November 28th, 6pm-7pm, at the Lifeway Church (7477 Vineyard Avenue). The applicant team will be there to answer any questions and provide more information on the project. All are welcome to attend. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Best, Adam    Page 56 From: Sarah K. <skaleel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 2:20 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com>; Hubby Johnnie <Jfcranev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Foothill & Grove Mixed Use Hello, We reviewed the proposed plans for this development. What infrastructure is being put into place to handle up to 700+ additional cars (as well as all the people)? There is only one egress/entry on Red Hill CC Dr (a one lane/each side residential street, leading to a residential community), and another on Grove (which is a dead end). This will result in a lot of traffic on Red Hill CC as people cut through the neighborhood. This development is more accurately "Grove and Red Hill", not Foothill. These roads, especially the ones in the Red Hill community, are not set up to handle this type of traffic increase. Also, can the school system, notably Valle Vista Elementary, handle this large increase in students? This is very concerning. Please let us know when the residential meeting is being held. Thank you, Sarah    Page 57 On Mon, Nov 6, 2023 at 1000 AM Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> wrote: Sarah, I will pass your contact information to the project planner, Adam Pisarkiewicz (pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com) so that meeting notices get sent to you. 1.Why is there no scheduled hearing for this project? The next step will be the neighborhood meeting. The PC hearing notice will be placed on the notice board on the property. 2.What is a neighborhood meeting vs a hearing? A neighborhood meeting is for the public to comment on the project prior to the PC meeting. 3.How many acres is the lot? I thought I saw 8 acres but wasn't sure.  The site is 9.82 gross acres. State law allows developers of housing units to request a density bonus if the project includes affordable units. The applicant is requesting a density bonus. Tabe From: Sarah K. <skaleel@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 807 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: Hubby Johnnie <Jfcranev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Question re: Nicolson's Strawberries Thank you for the information! Yes, I would like to be added to the neighborhood meeting. We live at 7920 valle vista dr, RC 91730. I have a few more questions: 1.Why is there no scheduled hearing for this project? 2.What is a neighborhood meeting vs a hearing? 3.How many acres is the lot? I thought I saw 8 acres but wasn't sure.   Page 58 Thank you!! Sarah On Mon, Nov 6, 2023, 716 AM Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> wrote: Thank you for your interest. The CE1 zone permits up to 30 units per acre. If you are within 660 feet of the project site you will get an invitation to the neighborhood meeting. There is no hearing scheduled for the project.  If you would like to be on the list, please provide your address. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner From: Sarah K. <skaleel@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 4, 2023 1054 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Question re: Nicolson's Strawberries CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello! We noticed a proposed development sign in front of Nicolson's Strawberries, who confirmed that the land owner (San Antonio Hospital, I believe) is looking to sell the land to a developer to build 308 units. Aside from the fact that the farm has been there for decades, that street corner and the local school system can not support such a huge increase. I looked up parcel 8112 and saw that it is zoned as CE1 Center 1 Zone, which (to my very, very limited knowledge) is not approved for residential use. The sign did not state when/where there will be a hearing. I was hoping to get more information so we can voice our concerns. Thank you so much in advance for any information you can provide, Sarah Kaleel    Page 59 Noise, Light, Trespassing and Other Mitigation for the Foothill & Grove Development Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Wed 11/29/2023 732 AM To:Council@CityofRC.us <Council@CityofRC.us>;Planning@CityofRC.us <Planning@CityofRC.us> Cc:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners,   My wife and I own a home in the Red Hill neighborhood of Rancho Cucamonga.  We should like to suggest the below design aspects relative to the proposed development at Foothill and Grove.  Critically, these aspects are not in conflict with the State rules relative to the “Density Bonus” provisions of CA Govt. Code §65915.  That is, these aspects have zero impact on the proposed development’s unit concentrations, heights nor parking requirements.  While the Density Bonus rules exempt the developer from some of the City’s development standards, they do not exempt it from all of them.   Noise Mitigation: All rooftop mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC) should be put into some sort of a structural enclosure like a shed or wrapped in some sort of noise mitigating material.  Each building’s rooftop should have parapets completely around their perimeter to direct noise upward.  Any ground level equipment (e.g., pool/jacuzzi equipment) should be situated as far away as feasible towards the West side of the project away from residential dwellings and the golf course. Light Mitigation: All outdoor lighting around all the buildings for the project should conform with “Dark Sky” concepts such that bright light is directed downward away from residential dwellings, the golf course and street car traffic. Trespassing, Trash, Crime and Other Mitigation: A wall should be built around the entirety of the perimeter of the North and East sides of the project site.  This would shelter nearby residential dwellings and the golf course from a host of problems like trespassing, trash from the development and the opportunity for crime to name a few.  Additionally, a wall would help to mitigate noise and light pollution from spilling-over from the development. This wall should be the first thing that the developer is required to construct such that its benefits happen both as the construction begins and throughout the development’s existence.   The wall should be eight feet tall, but in no case less than six nor more than 10 feet tall.  It should be constructed of robust masonry materials like cinder blocks with an aesthetic coating.  Of course, some portions of the wall may require design entailing more than a simple wall configuration; such as tiered retaining formations where drainage and soil runoff are an issue like along the North wall close to Grove.   The above suggested design aspects are important, ordinary, necessary and customary.  Fundamentally, all these aspects relate to the Red Hill neighborhood property owners rights to the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their property.   I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you further about the foregoing.  I can be contacted by reply email or by telephone at (310) 597-3986.   Respectfully, Richard 6/4/24, 6:18 PM Mail - Adam Pisarkiewicz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/id/AAQkADgwMjE4ZjA0LWEyYjUtNDM5NS05YzUzLTc2OTQzYzUwMmY3OAAQALHfaahoNkm8jUpj5Y%2F%2FMak%3D 1/1    Page 60 FW: Strawberry Patch Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 11/27/2023 712 AM To:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Another email related to the strawberry patch project. Tabe -----Original Message----- From: Allison Williams <jballiwilliams@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 854 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Strawberry Patch CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To whom it may concern: I email you to ask that you please reconsider the removal of the strawberry field on foothill and grove. Not only do they provide some of the best produce in town but they also provide wonderful outdoor opportunities for families by allowing community members to pick their own strawberries. So many people do not have the ability to maintain a garden of their own so allowing them to have access to opportunities like this is invaluable. I hope you reconsider replacing such a meaningful establishment. Respectfully, The Williams Family Sent from my iPhone    Page 61 RE: The Wall Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Mon 12/11/2023 912 AM To:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> 1 attachments (579 KB) Site Plan Marked-up with Wall_Fence.pdf; Hi Adam! Your very erudite response below makes my understanding of the development much more clear.  Thank you SO very much for it!  There is one thing that I should like to go into a bit further: the wall. Indeed, please do see if a block wall is something that the City can require.  If not, perhaps the City could request it as a reasonable ask.  No doubt, everyone benefits from a good wall since the troubles (next) that come from an inadequate wall flow both ways.  I am reminded of the very true saying that strong walls make good neighbors! The problems with a tubular steel fence are many.  It provides zero privacy, noise mitigation nor prevention of trash blowing through it.  Critically, it provides very little by way of security as compared to a block wall.  There are many other disadvantages as well, but I won’t list them here in the interest of brevity because they are so obvious.  Fundamentally, though, the need for a block wall over a tubular steel fence relates directly to matters of health and safety.  Perhaps as a reasonable discussion point with the Developer, the ideas suggested on the attached “Site Plan Marked-up with Wall_Fence” could be reached; as discussed next. As depicted in the attached “Site Plan Marked-up with Wall_Fence,” a block wall (blue line) is a necessity where shown.  Anything less than that would be inappropriate on many, many grounds.  Where a block wall is strongly suggested (yellow line), doing so would greatly further benefit everyone.  A tubular steel fence (green line) is fitting and appropriate where depicted.  Next is a bit more about the tubular steel fence. On a tweaky point, on the attached “Site Plan Marked-up with Wall_Fence” where the block wall (blue line) ends as it approaches the Southern property line of the development along Red Hill Country Club Drive, depicted there schematically is tubular steel fencing (green line) that picks-up not more than ~10’ before reaching the southern property line of the development whereupon it then makes a Westward right-angle turn proceeding out towards Grove along Red Hill Country Club Drive.  of course, there are several aesthetic, traffic safety and security reasons for such a configuration.  Importantly, on the attached where the tubular steel fence (green line) is depicted both in the North and the South proceeding out towards Grove, such depiction is meant only to illustrate the concept.  No intent is meant to suggest precisely how that fence would be built. Finally, although an 8’ block wall is most appropriate and desired, I am aware of the increased permitting, engineering and cost associated with that as compared to a 6’ block wall.  Therefore, if an 8’ block wall cannot be reached, a 6’ block wall would be adequate.  I hope that everyone can see the utter sensibility and reasonableness of what is proposed here. Adam, it is my great hope that you might discuss with the Developer the appropriateness, benefits and reasonableness of what is suggested here.  Were they to agree to it, they would avert many, many problems.  It is a miniscule ask in relation to the size of the development.  I should like to call you sometime tomorrow to briefly cover just a couple of clarification questions I have. Many thanks, Richard From: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2023 11:32 AM   Page 62 To: Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Subject: Re: A Few Questions about the Foothill/Grove Development Hi Richard, I've marked up the photo of the Site Plan with the locations of the dog park and the trash areas. Notably, the trash areas for the two larger buildings in the rear of the property are rooms within the buildings. The two smaller buildings that are along the front property line have outdoor trash areas in between them, meaning they would be fully screened from your house by the buildings themselves. Regarding the small structure within the open space in the southeast corner, I think it might be an embellishment of the developer's rendering because the latest architectural/engineering site plans do not show a structure within that open space area. I will ask the developer about this in my next meeting with them. Lastly, regarding your previous questions on noise, lighting and the perimeter wall, please see the responses below: ·Noise Mitigation: The latest set of plans have all rooftop mechanical equipment located in the middle of each rooftop and are concealed from exterior view by perimeter parapet walls. In addition, the rooftop plans show solar panels between the mechanical equipment and the roof edge which will likely provide more screening in addition to the parapet walls. All ground level equipment related to the amenity space, pool, etc. is located on the southwest corner of the property, the furthest point from the adjacent residential dwellings and the golf course. ·Light Mitigation: The City's code provides the following language regarding outdoor lighting standards: "...all outdoor lighting shall be recessed and/or constructed with full downward shielding in order to reduce light and glare impacts on trespass to adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. Each fixture shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way, so that no light fixture directly illuminates an area outside of the project site intended to be illuminated." We will be reviewing the plans for compliance with this standard. ·Perimeter Wall: The applicant is currently proposing a 6-foot tubular steel fence along the north and east property lines. This is something I need to look into further as to whether the City can require the applicant to put a block wall there or not. Nevertheless, your requests have been noted. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Best, Adam 2/3    Page 63 From: Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 8, 2023 6:26 AM To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Subject: A Few Questions about the Foothill/Grove Development Hi Adam! I have a few questions about the Foothill/Grove development, below.  please see the attached file “Site Plan.”  This Site Plan is from the Developer’s 11/28/2023 neighborhood meeting.  Since I am blind, I have a bit of trouble understanding it.  So, your help with this is very much appreciated! 1.Dog Park: Where, exactly, is the dog park?  With respect to the attached Site Plan, could you somehow mark it up with a label or arrow or something like that to indicate where the dog park is?  Also, am I correct that there is only one dog park? 2.Trash Collection Site: Where is the trash collection site for the development?  Typically, there is some area where large trash receptacles (e.g., dumpsters) are situated where trash trucks come to collect it.  With respect to the attached Site Plan, could you somehow mark it up with a label or arrow or something like that to indicate where the trash collection site is? 3.Unidentified Structure: With respect to the Site Plan, in the very Southeast corner of the site within the greenspace shown there bordering Red Hill Country Club Drive to the South and the residential property to the East, there is some sort of a small structure depicted.  What exactly is this?  On the attached Site Plan, could you somehow mark it up with a label or arrow or something like that to indicate what this structure is? If you were to markup the attached Site Plan per the above and then email it back to me, my wife could then describe it to me.  This would be really helpful. Many thanks! Richard    Page 64 From: krusedeb@aol.com <krusedeb@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 8:07 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Strawberry Fields CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please leave the strawberry farm alone. We do not need more stacked living with no parking, not enough water, and too much traffic. We need our fields Forever. Stop the greed. You should be ashamed. Debra Kruse [Sent%20from%20the%20all%20new%20AOL%20app%20for%20iOS]Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS    Page 65 Implement Permit Parking for Red Hill to Abate Onslaught of Problems with Foothill/Grove Development Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Tue 12/5/2023 728 AM To:Council@CityofRC.us <Council@CityofRC.us>;Planning@CityofRC.us <Planning@CityofRC.us> Cc:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> 1 attachments (433 KB) Satellite Red Hill Neighborhood Markup.jpg; Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners, My wife and I own a home in the Red Hill neighborhood of Rancho Cucamonga.  As specified below, we should like to request on behalf of the Red Hill neighborhood that permit parking be implemented as the proposed development at Foothill and Grove comes into being.  Critically, this is not in conflict with the State rules relative to the “Density Bonus” provisions of CA Govt. Code §65915.  That is, this has zero impact on the proposed development’s unit concentrations, heights nor parking requirements.  Your proactive action on this would improve safety, avert a known problem and be greatly appreciated and recognized by residents. Improved Safety: Red Hill Country Club Drive is already a known hazardous road.  Traffic drives exceedingly fast, and is not light.  There are no curbs or sidewalks but, rather, only ditches along its shoulders.  Pedestrian and bicycle use of the road does not regularly happen because of these hazards.  The City has been previously contacted about these already-existing hazards.  Were unmitigated, unpermitted parking be allowed on the road (as specified below), safety for all would further decline to the level of downright dangerous.  Prior experience with this consequence with respect to the Developer’s other project in the City (Arte Apartments) means that this is not speculation but a simple fact (see below). Implementation Timing: Permit parking should commence once construction on the development begins.  Although the Developer stated in its “Neighborhood Meeting” on 11/28/2023 that no staging of construction equipment (e.g., heavy trucks carrying supplies like lumber, dump trucks, cement trucks, etc.), other building trades (e.g., plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.) would undoubtedly park along Red Hill Country Club Drive (see next). Permit Area: The critical area to be covered by permit parking is, basically, both sides of the portion of Red Hill Country Club Drive between the proposed new to-be-built road (see attachment*) and the entrance to Red Hill Country Club itself.  Only residents who live along this portion of Red Hill Country Club Drive should be allowed to get a permit; not residents of the development.  It should be impermissible for any permit holder to lend, rent, sell or give-away their permit to anyone; except of course to a visitor to their property.  “Permit Parking Only” signage should be posted along this portion of Red Hill Country Club Drive. At the Developer’s “Neighborhood Meeting” on 11/28/2023 for the Foothill/Grove project, a resident in the neighborhood adjacent to the Developer’s existing project at “Arte Apartments” spoke about what happened when unmitigated, unpermitted parking was allowed in the their neighborhood.  They said that tenants from Arte constantly trolled the neighborhood aggressively jockeying for parking.  On more than one occasion, “road rage” physical altercations broke-out as disputes about parking happened.  Arte tenants often parked encroaching onto neighborhood residents’ private property.  When a neighborhood resident would contact the police about illegal parking, that neighborhood resident would sometimes find their own car or property vandalized the next day as the Arte tenant took revenge.  This speaker said that consternation about all this only subsided after the City implemented permit parking in the neighborhood. Ideally, a resolution by you or a requirement of approval of the development would be made that mandates the implementation of permit parking as specified above.  This would calm much of the neighborhood’s aversion to the Foothill/Grove development.  It would be viewed by residents as you proactively doing what you can within the constraints of your authority to take into account their interests.    Page 66 I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you further about the foregoing.  I can be contacted by reply email or by telephone at (310) 597-3986. Respectfully, Richard * This image is schematical in nature only.  It is not technically precise as to exact property lines nor the location of the new road.  Rather, it is intended to illustrate how close the development is to the Red Hill neighborhood and where the new road will be built.    Page 67 From: holguin8@verizon.net <holguin8@verizon.net> Sent: Sunday, January 7, 2024 5:04 PM To: McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us> Subject: Nicholson Farms CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Mr. McPherson, we recently spoke regarding the Nicholson Farms situation...we spoke at the City Hall, Planning Desk. I appreciate your time and the thoughts that you shared. My concerns were, and continue to be, that retail/apartments/housing are a poor substitute for the quality produce offered by the Nicholsons...as well as a much healthier contribution ecologically...as well as their contribution of a well run business that has been at that site for over 35 years...our city has a dearth of such offerings and has no need to replace it with more retail, housing (affordable??).... Kathy Holguin Rancho resident for 45 years Nicholson customer from the beginning **both grandsons visited with me weekly as young children, learning from time spent wandering the farm, observing a farm environment first hand......not many other places in RC offer this experience...any??    Page 68 You don't often get email from mrskarengaray@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important From: Karen Garay <mrskarengaray@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 10:03 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Nicolson’s Strawberry Site CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the planning department of Rancho Cucamonga: Please listen to the voice of your public. Tearing down historic and appreciated sites here in Rancho Cucamonga is devastating. We have a long history in this community and a proud history. Preservation is important! We have been residence of Rancho Cucamonga for more than 38 years. Nicholson Farms is a business/agricultural amenity, and prize position within our community. They generate local interest, bring customers from other cities, and share in our local income. Stop the insanity now, please. Do not allow the relationship of Nicolson   Farms at Foothill and Grove to terminate. SAVE NICOLSON FARMS.  Do not forfeit what we have to build structures on this property. Sincerely, Karen Garay 7825 Hickory  Circle Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone    Page 69 You don't often get email from jasa.cocke@pomona.edu. Learn why this is important From: Jasa R. Cocke <Jasa.Cocke@pomona.edu> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 10:42 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Save Nicolson Farm CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To the planning department of Rancho Cucamonga: Please listen to the voice of your public. Tearing down historic and appreciated sites here in Rancho Cucamonga is devastating.  This community is proud to enjoy spaces with history and FAMILY values - Preservation is important! We have been driving to Rancho Cucamonga for more than 20 years to buy produce from The Farm. My young son, now an adult, was happy to see a working farm, buy from a working farm, and eat healthy! We still ruminate about the weekend trips to get fresh strawberries from the field. Nicholson Farms is a business/agricultural amenity, and prize position within the community. They generate local interest, bring customers from other cities, and contribute to local income. PLEASE PLEASE consider the value of small businesses – preserve the incredible humanness you only get when pulling up to a farm stand to chat with a person who happily shares the wonders of “home” grown food. Do not allow the relationship of Nicolson Farms at Foothill and Grove to terminate. SAVE NICOLSON FARMS.  Do not forfeit what we have to build structures on this property! … let my grandchildren grow up knowing the pure joy of a neighborhood farm – it’s the right thing to do! Sincerely, Jasa Cocke 1145 Yale Ave Claremont, Ca. 91711 Jasa Cocke   /  AOD Counselor /  Pomona College jasa.cocke@pomona.edu         (909) 607-8763 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Confidentiality of email cannot be guaranteed.  If privacy is essential, communications should be reserved for telephone. Thank you.    Page 70 You don't often get email from tinas001@msn.com. Learn why this is important From: TINA SILVA <tinas001@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 10:11 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: RE: File No. DRC2022-0379 CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my concern with the cities decision to remove Nicolson's Farm which is one of the last agricultural places in Rancho that offers fresh Strawberries to consumers like me. Before Rancho Cucamonga was established it used to be to be an agricultural city where individuals could get fresh produce. Although we must grow with the times, there are plenty of unoccupied space elsewhere that should be considered, such as the unoccupied land on Haven Ave and Civic Center across from San Bernardino County, which is much bigger than the land that is occupied by Nicholson Farms. In additional we already have huge a low-income apartment in our area and lately we have started seeing more criminal and drug activity in our neighborhood which is starting to raise concern as individuals are no longer feeling safe and supported by our community leaders. One of the things that I love about Rancho Cucamonga is how the community (neighbors, city leaders & local businesses) take pride in keeping our city clean and safe. Being a part of this community, my hope is that the city would recognize the value that Nicolson's Farmer is to our community. I hope that the city would support our local farmer that provides fresh strawberries and other fresh produce from other local farms which surpasses store-bought produce by far. There are a lot of benefits in keeping Nicolson's farm as they are one our last agriculture locations that provides fresh produce which supports other local farmers. The benefits of having fresh produce even if it is a small farm, ensures maximum nutrition and flavor, no chemicals resulting in chemical free produce and most important cost-effective as stores keep driving up the prices on low quality produce that often lack nutrients. Furthermore, we know exactly where are produce is coming from and most importantly what is in it.    Page 71 By keeping Nicolson's farms and other farms open we as a community are: Contributing to a healthy, sustainable environment Support animal welfare and preserve natural resources Reduce or prevent chemicals from entering the ecosystem Support food equity Supporting entrepreneurs and small business owners Create local jobs that directly invest in the health and financial security of the community Encourage partnerships between rural and urban community members Promotes a safer food supply With the housing market and rent raising out of control, I do understand the need and the importance of creating affordable housing; however, I do not believe that it should be at expense of losing one more agriculture site which we cherish as a community. I appreciate your time and consideration in supporting what little agriculture we have left. I hope that the board would take into account our desire and need to keep Nicolson’s farm open at its current location which is a big part of our community and we look forward to them opening up every season. It would be devastating to see them go, for another housing project. Please reconsider and moving the housing project to another location. Thank you, Tina Silva Rancho Cucamonga resident.    Page 72 You don't often get email from valleycycles1@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From:Planning, City To:Nakamura, Jennifer; McPherson, Sean Subject:FW: Nickolsons strawberry Date:Thursday, May 30, 2024 9:50:24 AM From the planning in box. Tabe From: Don Horvatich <valleycycles1@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 9:42 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: Sandra Horvatich <shorva@gmail.com> Subject: Nickolsons strawberry CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This message is to express my hopes, as well as many in the community, that the rancho cucamonga planning division will reconsider its plans to deveope more housing and retail space in place of our beloved strawberry farm. Rancho certainly doesn't "need" more retail or condos. What we need is sense of preservation. Preserving that "vibe" that has made Rancho Cucamonga a desirable place to live and raise a family. Looking at other communities that have embraced a sense of preservation would be Malibu Laguna Beach Irvine (specifically Tanaka Farms) Carmel...and more. It is my belief that Rancho would benefit more from assisting Kyle Nicholson to create an agrarian space similar to Irvine's Tanaka Ranch. It could be the true heart of the city. A way of saying "we love it here. And this is why" I get it that the governor is demanding housing like crazy. But we already have it. 1000s of new units under way. I say it's time to out the brakes on this one and reconsider. I believe the council in its infinite wisdom will see the benefit to adding a real jewel like this to rancho cucamonga. I mean you've already removed all the grapes. Maybe you can put strawberries up on the city logo instead of grapes. (Sorry, I had to say that) Regards Don Horvatich 909 646 0606    Page 73 You don't often get email from candacecooke05@gmail.com. Learn why this is important From: Candace Cooke <candacecooke05@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 7:16 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: Candace Cooke <candacecooke05@gmail.com> Subject: Nicolsons strawberry patch CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Good evening, i'm writing this to express my dismay at building 308 units where the Nickelson strawberry patches currently. Most people have at least two cars which will make the traffic horrendous .... all those people will be parking in the Walmart center taking away business from the store owners. Grove Avenue will then become the main thoroughfare making the potholes worse than they are now. Please save the strawberry patch from the developers who don't even live here. Sincerely Candace Cooke 1303 Loma Sola Ave, Upland, CA 91786 (On the other side of Redhill country club) 909 982 9950    Page 74 You don't often get email from tajames1000@verizon.net. Learn why this is important From: Tom and Sue James <tajames1000@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 11:46 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Grove and Foothill Development CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Planning Commission, Please do not allow the building planned at the strawberry field on Grove and Foothill. We need fields like this which add untold value to our communities by their very presence. No city is enhanced by becoming a “concrete jungle”. We live a few blocks from the field and greatly appreciate it. Please keep this small part of the country atmosphere Rancho Cucamonga once had intact. Respectfully, Tom and    Page 75 You don't often get email from bjgallagher55@live.com. Learn why this is important From: Jane Gallagher <bjgallagher55@live.com> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 6:34 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Apartments at the corner of Foothill and Grove CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The thought of all of those apartments at that corner make me cringe.  I live on Grove and the amount of traffic that we have cutting through to 14th is enormous.  They speed through here all of the time. The corner of Grove and Foothill is dangerous enough now without another thousand people living on that corner. Please don’t put high density apartments at that corner.  There is no way that the neighborhood or the streets around here can handle that many people and cars. Jane Gallagher Sent from Mail for Windows    Page 76 FW: proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 6/3/2024 701 AM To:McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us>;Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> -----Original Message----- From: Joe Hernandez <joetssteel@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2024 156 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, [You don't often get email from joetssteel@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I am a longtime resident of the Redhill area. I would like to voice my concern and opposition to the proposed mixed used development at the corner of foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. The local school in Redhill does not have sidewalks, and there is a line every day that blocks the entire street which forces residents to either use another street or dangerously drive partially on the other side of the road. There are no sidewalks in Redhill. There is already a traffic situation which is constantly a problem at the corner  of Redhill and foothill right next to where the proposed apartments are. The school is already overcrowded and I would propose that the city needs to develop another school before they add this 380 unit apartment building which traditionally houses many children. In addition, there is a homeless population that lives in the hills area behind , the Sycamore Inn nearby and I think the city should focus on dealing with that before spending time and effort on this new development putting those new residents at risk as well as the current and longtime residents like myself. Finally, there is tradition and we have very few local farms left . We should treat these farms as places of historical and community significance. Because they are. Thank you, Joe Hernandez    Page 77 RE: Re: Fore Property - DRC 2022-00379 Robert Dalquest <rdalquest@uplandca.gov> Thu 5/30/2024 653 PM To:'Planning@CityofRC.us' <Planning@CityofRC.us>;Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Cc:James Breitling <jbreitling@uplandca.gov>;Michael Blay <mblay@uplandca.gov> RC Planning Department This email is in regard to the proposed mixed-use development at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue.  Staff did not receive a public hearing notice for this project.  We learned of the June 12th Public Hearing on social media.  As the project is adjacent to the Upland City Limits, we should have been provided a notice and ample time to review the CEQA document and traffic study in order to provide comments to you in advanced of the staff report and conditions of approval being finalized for the Agenda.  However,  It appears from the public hearing notice posted at the site that the project’s documents will not be available until June 6th. The City is very concerned with the traffic from this project exiting the development from Grove Avenue and traveling north through the residential neighborhoods in Upland.  Residents of this project who take the 210 Freeway to work, will go through this area to get to 14th Street and then onto Campus Avenue to get to the 210 Freeway, as well as returning home from work.  They will also travel through these residential neighborhoods to get to the Colonies Crossroads Commercial Center.  Approximately 300 feet of the west side of Grove Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, and approximately 250 feet on both sides of the remaining Grove Avenue Project frontage is in the City of Upland.  Grove Avenue along the project’s frontage is in bad condition.  The project’s traffic will accelerate the degradation of the street. Thus, the City of Upland is requesting the following conditions of approval be placed on the project’s entitlements: 1.Both side of Grove Avenue, from Foothill Boulevard to Anita Street shall be completely repaved. 2.The design of the ingress/egress driveway off Grove Avenue shall contain a raised median (a.k.a. “porkchop”) that prevents right turns from vehicles exiting the development and with appropriate signage that states “no right turns”. 3.The angled parking along Grove Avenue should be changed to reverse-angled parking.  The current design with standard angled parking would encourage vehicles to proceed north through the residential neighborhoods as they would be facing north as they back out, or it would create unsafe U-Turn movements for those vehicles needing to get to Foothill Boulevard. Your consideration of the City of Upland’s request to include the above conditions of approval on the project’s entitlements is greatly appreciated. Best regards, Robert D. Dalquest, AICP, MPA, MURP Development Services Director CITY OF UPLAND 460 N. Euclid Avenue, Upland, CA 91786 Direct: 909.931.4148 | Cell: 909.493.9081 Email: rdalquest@UplandCa.gov www.ci.upland.ca.us    Page 78 FW: Ref: Neilson strawberry Farm Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 6/3/2024 702 AM To:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com>;McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us> -----Original Message----- From: Gretchen Marsden <einsteinjr2u@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 755 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Ref: Neilson strawberry Farm [You don't often get email from einsteinjr2u@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Dear Sirs/Madam; Personally I don't feel the property has enough driveway access to build 308 Units and compete with new gas station traffic.  It's a very busy intersection there and Grove and Foothill would be only entrances - 307 units means could be 614 tenants, more or less plus customers.  Just see frightening congestion and accidents!  A possible cost yellow flashing caution light would be added for this parking lot on Foothill as a partial safety measure, but once it's built, there is no turning back!  You have heavy traffic right there anyhow... I just envision multiple rear end collisions entering into the property off Foothill. Maybe a two-story birthing center and 4 additional businesses.  We desperately need a central disaster office to hand out maps,outline potential evacuation centers and directions ahead of time. If all radios are out and phones are dead, nobody will know where to go. SAFETY is essential for ALL inland empire.  Have free classes out of that office as well.  Please consider this as residents have no clue where the potential evacuation sights are to learn the different or alternate routes to them during disaster.  We may not know WHERE we will end up but please gives us advanced knowledge if the locations for these evacuation shelters. Please! Sent from my iPhone    Page 79 You don't often get email from amway13@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important FW: Regarding the "Notice of Public Hearing - Foothill Blvd/Grove Ave Mixed-Use Development Application" Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 6/3/2024 703 AM To:McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us>;Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> From: Alice Marie Way <amway13@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 12:38 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Regarding the "Notice of Public Hearing - Foothill Blvd/Grove Ave Mixed-Use Development Application" CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Whom The intersection at this site already has a Lot of traffic.  The Site is close to a curve.  308 new units in that area (given, perhaps one car to a unit) would necessarily add 308 more automobiles residing there, and needing access to the road, then Foothill Boulevard.  If 1.5 cars per unit, then almost 460 cars, and maybe more. Add to that the commercial uses, with in and out throughout the days and nights, and there is a high chance of vehicle traffic involved in more accidents needing assistance by police units and other agencies, and will cause interference with the commercial center across Grove. I sincerely ask the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reconsider  the requested development of this property as outlined in this filing, and turn it down. Alice Marie Way 11467 Pikes Peak Court Alta Loma, California 91737 909 989 3961 amway13@yahoo.com    Page 80 FW: Strawberry farm Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 6/3/2024 704 AM To:McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us>;Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> -----Original Message----- From: Austin Bonilla <aabonilla12@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 259 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Strawberry farm [You don't often get email from aabonilla12@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please don't take away the strawberry farm on foothill and grove. Those are the best strawberries in town. It's a little slice of old Rancho Cucamonga when there weren't ugly apartment complex's on every corner. My kids and I love going here, seeing how strawberries grow and taking some home with us. We hope you reconsider this terrible idea.    Page 81 FW: Comment 1 of 2 for PC Meeting 6/12/2024 on "Strawberry Patch Development" (DRC2022-00379) - Need to Implement Permit Parking Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Mon 6/3/2024 1005 AM To:McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us>;Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> 1 attachments (433 KB) Satellite Red Hill Neighborhood Markup.jpg; From: Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 9:53 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us> Subject: Comment 1 of 2 for PC Meeting 6/12/2024 on "Strawberry Patch Development" (DRC2022- 00379) - Need to Implement Permit Parking CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, This comment is in relation to the proposed development near the intersection of Foothill and Grove Boulevards, commonly known as the “strawberry patch development” (DRC2022-00379).  My wife and I own a home in the Red Hill neighborhood of Rancho Cucamonga near the development.  For the reasons of public health and safety, as specified below, on behalf of the residents of the Red Hill neighborhood we should like to request that permit parking be implemented as the development comes into being.  notably, doing this would not conflict with any State “Density Bonus” rules (CA Govt. Code §65915).  That is, this would not have any impact on the development’s unit concentrations, heights nor parking requirements.  Your proactive action on this would improve public health and safety, mitigate a known danger and be recognized positively by residents. Public Health and Safety: Red Hill Country Club Drive is already a known dangerous road. Traffic drives exceedingly fast, and is not light.  There are no curbs or sidewalks but, rather, only ditches along its shoulders.  Pedestrian and bicycle use of the road does not regularly happen because of these hazards.  The City has been previously contacted many times over many years about these hazards.  Yet, no traffic-calming measures have ever been implemented.  Were unmitigated, unpermitted parking to be allowed on the road (as specified below), safety for all would further decline to the level of negligence.  Prior experience with the consequence of unpermitted parking with respect to the Developer’s other project in the City (Arte Apartments) means that this is not speculation but, rather, a simple fact (see below). Implementation Timing: Permit parking should commence once construction on the development begins.  Although the Developer stated in its “Neighborhood Meeting” on 11/28/2023 that no staging of construction equipment (e.g., heavy trucks like those carrying lumber, dump trucks, cement trucks, etc.), would happen along Red Hill Country Club Drive, countless other building trades (e.g., plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.) would undoubtedly park along the street (see next). Permit Area: The critical area to be covered by permit parking is, basically, both sides of the portion of Red Hill Country Club Drive between the new to-be-built road (see attachment*) and the entrance to Red Hill Country Club itself.  Some portions of the street are currently designated “No Parking,” but other portions of the street are open for parking.  Only residents who live along this portion of Red Hill Country Club Drive should be allowed to get a permit; not residents of the development.    Page 82 At the Developer’s “Neighborhood Meeting” on 11/28/2023, a resident in the neighborhood adjacent to the Developer’s existing project at “Arte Apartments” spoke about what happened when unmitigated, unpermitted parking was allowed in their neighborhood.  They said that tenants from Arte constantly trolled the neighborhood aggressively jockeying for parking.  On more than one occasion, “road rage” physical altercations broke-out as disputes about parking happened.  Arte tenants often parked encroaching onto neighborhood residents’ private property.  When a neighborhood resident would contact the police about illegal parking, that neighborhood resident would sometimes find their own car or property vandalized the next day as the Arte tenant took revenge.  This speaker said that troubles about all this only subsided after the City implemented permit parking in the neighborhood; and that happened only after much time and troubled took place.  Your proactive action will avert all this trouble. A stipulation of approval of the development that mandates implementation of permit parking should be made by you.  Alternatively, a referral by you to the City Council to take action on this could be made.  It is within the City’s authority to implement permit parking proactively.  In a forthcoming separate email, I will respectfully make some suggestions how implementation of permit parking may be done proactively. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you further about the foregoing.  I can be contacted by reply email or by telephone at (310) 597-3986. Respectfully, Richard * This image is schematical in nature only.  It is intended to illustrate how close the development is to the street and where the new road will be built.    Page 83 FW: Comment 2 of 2 for PC Meeting 6/12/2024 on "Strawberry Patch Development" (DRC2022-00379) - How to Implement Permit Parking Proactively Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Tue 6/4/2024 927 AM To:McPherson, Sean <Sean.McPherson@cityofrc.us>;Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> From: Richard B. McDonald <richardbmcdonald@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 9:11 AM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Cc: City Council <CityCouncil@cityofrc.us> Subject: Comment 2 of 2 for PC Meeting 6/12/2024 on "Strawberry Patch Development" (DRC2022- 00379) - How to Implement Permit Parking Proactively CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Commissioners, As outlined in my previous emailed comment, the already existing dangers of Red Hill Country Club Drive (that certain segment of Red Hill Country Club Drive detailed in my previous emailed comment) are well-known.  They will be greatly magnified when the development is completed.  The typical process for implementing permit parking happens only after much harm, danger and trouble has already happened. I should respectfully like to suggest how permit parking could be implemented proactively.  It is within the City’s authority to do this.  As described below, either the Commission can take this action itself, or it can refer this to the City Council for action. importantly, this action would not be in conflict with any State “Density Bonus” rules (CA Govt. Code §65915 et seq.).  in fact, it would be fully commensurate with those rules as regards public health and safety.  Surely, the unmitigated onslaught of parking along the street constitutes a clear health and safety issue; one that is foreseeable and reasonably mitigated by implementing permit parking.  And, it seems reasonable and possible that the costs attendant with implementing permit parking be paid-for by the developer since the public health and safety problem results directly from their development. One approach that the Commission can take would be to determine via the CEQA section 15183 compliance memorandum that, without implementing permit parking, the already dangerous street would become extraordinarily even more dangerous.   Without question, the development is severely under parked.  Undoubtedly, the Development’s tenants will yearn to park along the street.  This is a certain and foreseeable public health and safety problem. Another approach that the Commission can take is to refer this to the City Council for action.  RCMC Sec. 10.50.010 specifies the rules for permit parking.  The City’s Engineering Department has intimated that permit parking be implemented commensurate with the Development’s completion by resolution of the City Counsel.  In fact, RCMC Sec. 10.50.040  says that the Council can make such a resolution without any petition from residents but, rather, only a report from Engineering.  Without doubt, Engineering would easily conclude such a report; readily making the “Findings” specified in RCMC sec. 10.50.020. In any event, the residents of the Red Hill neighborhood are ready, willing and able to take whatever steps are necessary to assist the City to implement permit parking.  It simply cannot come to pass that the development be completed without taking this action proactively.  Given the certainty of the danger to public health and safety, and yet the ease and reasonableness by which it can be mitigated, it would be a gross let-down for the City to allow this danger to happen. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you further about the foregoing.  I can be contacted by reply email or by telephone at (310) 597-3986.   Page 84 Respectfully, Richard    Page 85 You don't often get email from jbreitling@uplandca.gov. Learn why this is important FW: Development project at the north east corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Tue 6/4/2024 543 PM To:Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> 1 attachments (2 MB) IMG_5506.jpeg; From: James Breitling <jbreitling@uplandca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 5:33 PM To: Planning, City <City.Planning@cityofrc.us> Subject: Development project at the north east corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff, Could you please provide the "CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum" for the project, including all supporting appendices and technical studies that are referenced within or supplement this memorandum? Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, James Breitling Mayor Pro Tem City Council Member, District 2 City of Upland    Page 86 Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Foothill Blvd/Grove Ave Mixed-Use Development Application (City of Rancho Cucamonga) Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Tue 6/4/2024 329 PM To:Martha Nastase <mnastase5@yahoo.com> Hi Martha, Apologies for the delay. Yes, there is an opportunity to provide public comments to the Planning Commission at the meeting that night and they will make an announcement about this during the meeting. The Planning Commission will provide an allotted amount of time for each speaker. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Adam From: Martha Nastase <mnastase5@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2024 9:08 AM To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Subject: Re: Notice of Public Hearing - Foothill Blvd/Grove Ave Mixed-Use Development Application (City of Rancho Cucamonga) Hi Adam, How will it work for those who want to voice their opinion at this hearing? Will the public be given a chance to speak? Thanks, Martha Nastase On May 29, 2024, at 1224 PM, Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> wrote: Hello,   Page 87 Due to your interest in the proposed mixed-use development at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, I am sending you the Notice of Public Hearing via email. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the proposed development on June 12, 2024. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 7:00pm in the Council Chambers within the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. The attached Notice of Public Hearing PDF contains additional project information as well as additional Planning Commission meeting details. The Notice of Public Hearing has also been mailed to all properties within 660 feet of the proposed development site. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Adam Pisarkiewicz Project Planner <Outlook-dduzfs0w.jpg> <Notice of Public Hearing_DRC2022-00379.pdf>    Page 88 Re: Strawberry Farm land Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Tue 6/4/2024 611 PM To:ssscee <queenzoe77@gmail.com> Hi Sarah, Apologies for the delay. I'm able to answer a few of your questions, please see below: Your documentation/report and any other correspondence you have sent to the City will be included as Public Correspondence in the Planning Commission's agenda packet that will be released on the 6th. All project documents will be available on June 6th per the City's schedule. Regarding the Planning Commission meeting, you can submit comments ahead of time or attend the meeting and give your comments in-person. There will be a designated time to provide public comments to the Planning Commission when this project is being heard by them, per the Planning Commission Agenda. Any building codes related to seismic requirements would be within the California Building Code and this project, along with any other, would be required to conform with the California Building Code standards. If you'd like to discuss these standards further, I recommend reaching out to the City Building and Safety Department as they enforce all building codes and regulations. All projects must conform to all required codes prior to construction. This is covered in the CEQA compliance memo. Currently, small portions of the property along the southern and western-facing edges are located within 100-year and 500-year floodplains which means the project is subject to the standards within Municipal Code Chapter 19.12 (Floodplain Management Regulations) which reduce vulnerability to flood impacts and ensure safe use and occupation of structures. In addition, the General Plan EIR, Policy S-4.4, requires new development to implement and enhance the Storm Drain Master Plan by constructing stormwater management infrastructure downstream from a project site and General Plan EIR Policy S-4.5 requires development within properties located adjacent or near flood zones to reduce or minimize runoff. The Engineering Department has already reviewed the project for conformance with these standards and if the Commission approves the project, all construction drawings will be re-reviewed by Engineering and Building & Safety for compliance with the City's standards, along with applicable State and Federal standards, prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. This is also covered in the CEQA compliance memo. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Best, Adam    Page 89 From: ssscee <queenzoe77@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 3:08 PM To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <pisarkiewicz@civicsolutions.com> Subject: Fwd: Strawberry Farm land Hi Adam, I just sent this email to Jennifer, then got the automated reply that she's out of the office. Maybe you can help me out? I'd appreciate answers to all my questions. Thank you, Sarah ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: ssscee <queenzoe77@gmail.com> Date: Fri, May 31, 2024 at 306 PM Subject: Strawberry Farm land To: Nakamura, Jennifer <Jennifer.Nakamura@cityofrc.us> Hi Jennifer, I hadn't heard from anyone about the report I submitted to the Planning Department regarding historical status of the lot. I was wondering if my proposal will be included in the hearing on the 12th. Also, I had sent an email a few weeks ago, I believe to Sean, asking some questions about the building codes for the area, and I didn't get a response. I wanted to know what the codes are for earthquake safety, since there is a fault line that runs under Red Hill. And also what classification the area fits under for the floodplain codes. Being at the bottom of the hill, and the fact that they want to go down 14 feet from the level of the street above them, I am sure flooding is an issue. I assume that since there is going to be the hearing, that means the environmental and traffic reports are completed. Those will be available on the 6th, correct? For the land that surrounds the Sycamore Inn, they have started development there- you told me before that the project was approved years ago. What is it? Housing? What kind? How many units? Can I see the plans for that somewhere? How does that development play into the traffic studies done on the strawberry lot? For the meeting on the 12th, how does it work? I haven't been to one of these hearings before. I believe we are all supposed to submit our comments ahead of time? Is there still the public speaking period at the beginning? Any run-down you can give me would be appreciated. I hope you can get back to me soon! Or, if possible, can I set up a meeting with you or someone from the department for Monday or Tuesday? I will be out of town the 5th-9th. So I'm really only available the 3rd and 4th. Please respond as soon as you can. I have a lot to go over! Thank you, Sarah Edelmaier    Page 90 RESOLUTION NO. 24-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00379, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 308 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 14,704 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LEASE AREA INCLUSIVE OF WAIVERS, AN INCENTIVE, AND PARKING REDUCTIONS PURSUANT TO STATE LAW LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 9.15 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND GROVE AVENUE IN THE CENTER 1 ZONING DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0208-961-35, -36, -41, -43, -44, AND -45. A.Recitals. 1.Fore Property has filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2022- 00379 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 12th day of June, 2024, 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 June 12th, 2024, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.The applicant submitted a Senate Bill (SB) 330 preliminary application which was accepted on October 7, 2022, followed by a timely full application, which vested the project to applicable development standards in place at the time in accordance with state law; and b.As of October 7, 2022, the zoning of the subject project area in place at the time, and still effective today, was and is Center 1 (CE1); and c.As of October 7, 2022, the General Plan land use designation of the subject project area in place at the time, and still effective today, was and is Traditional Town Center; and d.As the applicant proposes to set aside 5% of the residential units, under State Density Bonus Law the applicant is permitted automatic parking reductions, one concession/incentive, and unlimited waivers from the City’s required development standards; and e.As the applicant has requested one incentive to deviate from city requirements related to the design of frontage improvements along Foothill Boulevard, and 6 waivers specifically related to the following: Exhibit H    Page 91 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-18 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00379 –FOOTHILL AND GROVE MIXED USE JUNE 12, 2024 Page 2 • Incentive to reduce the target use mix ratio and requirement for any non-residential intensity in the Traditional Town Center designation pursuant to General Plan Table LC-1 (General Plan Designations); • Waive the minimum residential finish floor elevation above grade at maximum build-to line and the maximum non-residential finish floor elevation grade at maximum build-to line per RCMC Table 17.130.050- 1; • Waive the building massing, development site size, overall height, and parapet height for Courtyard, Multiplex, and Main Street Building Types per RCMC Section 17.130.060; • Waive the site and block configuration standards for large sites per RCMC Section 17.138.030; • Waive drive aisle length and carport requirements per RCMC Section 17.120.020.D.4.a; • Waive building orientation requirements per RCMC Section 17.120.020.B; and • Waive building entrance and façade standards for the Courtyard and Multiplex buildings per RCMC Chapter 17.132. f. The applicable land use, General Plan designation, and Zones for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: g. As stated in the title of this Resolution, the project is a mixed-use development comprising of 308 residential units and approximately 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area on approximately 9.15 acres of land at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Elm Avenue; h. The project complies with all applicable development standards of the Center 1 (CE-1) zone and General Plan requirements, in light of the various waivers and incentive requested. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:    Page 92 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-18 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00379 –FOOTHILL AND GROVE MIXED USE JUNE 12, 2024 Page 3 a. Upon the application of the requested incentive and waivers, the proposed development is generally consistent with the General Plan (GP). The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation with regard to land use and development intensity as well as built form and character and is consistent with all other applicable GP policies. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Traditional Town Center, which envisions a range of residential and non-residential land uses. The project is for the development of 308 residential units and approximately 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area providing a density of 33.7 dwelling units per acre due to the State Density Bonus Law, which is greater than the maximum density of 30 dwelling units per acre for Traditional Town Center; and b. The proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The applicant submitted an SB330 preliminary application (followed by a timely full application) which vested the project to applicable development standards in place at the time in accordance with state law. Through the application of waivers and an incentive as described above, and in accordance with state law, the project is in accord with the zoning district within which the site is located. c. The proposed project, 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. A CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum was prepared for the project that demonstrates that the project would not have an impact on the environment not already contemplated in the General Plan EIR. 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 approximate 9.14-acre project area is designated by the City’s General Plan for “Traditional Town Center” land uses. The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s GP land use designation of “Traditional Town Center” and is 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 May 2024, was prepared by an environmental consultant hired by the City (Michael Baker International). 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    Page 93 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-18 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2022-00379 –FOOTHILL AND GROVE MIXED USE JUNE 12, 2024 Page 4 project to a level of less than significant. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the attached Conditions of Approval. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2024. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony Morales, Chairman ATTEST: Matt Marquez, Secretary I, Matt Marquez, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of June 2024, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:    Page 94 Conditions of Approval Community Development Department Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions The Density Bonus Agreement shall be executed by the City Council prior to Building Permit issuance.1. The Tentative Parcel Map application shall be approved prior to Building Permit issuance and the Final Map shall be adopted prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The Applicant is required to execute a Maintenance and Access agreement with the City for all privately maintained public open spaces within the City's right-of-way prior to Building Permit issuance. 3. The project shall comply with all of the applicable General Plan EIR mitigation measures, regulations, and standard conditions of approval outlined in the CEQA Section 15183 Compliance Memorandum dated May 2024, prepared by Michael Baker International. To the extent that any conditions contained herein conflict with the General Plan EIR mitigation measures, regulations and standards conditions, as well as the aforementioned Compliance Memorandum, the General Plan EIR mitigation measures, regulations, standard conditions and Compliance Memorandum supersede. 4. Standard Conditions of Approval 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. 5. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 95 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in-lieu option as outlined in 17.124.020.D. If the project developer chooses to pay the in-lieu fee, the in-lieu art fee will be invoiced on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance. If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124. If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and final acceptance by the City Council. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the a issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project (or if a multi-phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. Pursuant to RCMC Section 17.124.020.B.2, the applicant may request an exemption if it can establish that the value of the project’s income restricted units equals or exceeds the minimum value of the artwork that would otherwise be required. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide an appraisal prepared by a licensed Appraiser for review by the Planning and Economic Development Director which details the value of the project's income restricted units. 6. 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. 7. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 96 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review 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. 8. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 9. For all residential development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for Planning Director and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 10. 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. 11. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 97 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 12. The contractor shall ensure that all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the Project are watered at least three (3) times daily during dry weather. Watering, with complete coverage of disturbed areas, shall occur at least three times a day, preferably in the midmorning, afternoon, and after work is done for the day. 13. The contractor shall ensure that traffic speeds on unpaved roads and Project site areas are reduced to 15 miles per hour or less. 14. All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 15. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. 16. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 17. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 18. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.19. All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 20. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 98 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24 inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 21. The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 22. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. 23. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. 24. Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services.25. Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours.26. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 27. Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 28. All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 29. All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. 30. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 99 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Three days prior to the removal of vegetation or ground-disturbing activities, a breeding bird survey that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is occurring. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation; or (b) the juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If the biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of non-raptor nests, and within 500 feet of raptor nests, during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of the young. If nests are discovered, they shall be avoided through the establishment of an appropriate buffer setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary “no construction” area shall be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the area may resume. 31. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 100 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Perform a Burrowing Owl Survey that is in conformance with the Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and submit the written report outlining the findings to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Planning Department within 30 days of groundbreaking activity. The survey shall include a habitat assessment, survey and impact analysis. The Burrowing Owl Survey shall follow the following protocol: • Burrowing Owl Survey methodology shall be based on Appendix D (Breeding and Non-breeding Season Surveys and Reports) of the CDFW Staff Report. Results of the pre- construction survey shall be provided to CDFW and the City. If the pre- construction survey does not identify burrowing owls on the project site, then no further mitigation is required. If burrowing owls are found to be utilizing the project site during the pre-construction survey, measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW to avoid Impacting occupied burrows during the nesting period. These measures shall be based on the most current CDFW protocols and will at minimum include establishment of buffer setbacks from occupied burrows and owl monitoring. If ground-disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey, the site shall be resurveyed for owls. • During the non-breeding season from September 1 through January 31, if burrows are occupied by migratory or non- migratory resident burrowing owls during a pre- construction survey, burrow exclusion and/or closure may be used to exclude owls from those burrows. Burrow exclusion and/or closure should only be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW using the most current CDFW guidelines. • During the avian nesting season from February 1 through August 31, if nests are discovered, they shall be avoided through establishment of an appropriate buffer setback, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary "no construction" area would have to be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the area may resume. 32. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 101 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 33. If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth- disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 34. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 102 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 35. Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 36. Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 37. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. 38. The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short- term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 39. The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low-emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures’ specification. 40. Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes.41. Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 42. Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic.43. Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew.44. Construction and Building materials shall be produced and/or manufactured locally. Use “Green Building Materials” such as materials that are resource efficient, recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way including low-volatile-organic-compound (VOC) materials. 45. Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of; • Increased insulation. • Limit air leakage through the structure. • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances. • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping. • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. • Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements. • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED’s) for outdoor lighting. 46. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 103 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following; • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non- vegetated surfaces. 47. If soil contamination is suspected or observed in the project area, or the project proposes to import/export soil that is suspected or observed to be contaminated, the applicant shall provide a report evaluating status of the soil to determine if it has been contaminated by oil and gasoline. The potential solutions for addressing any contamination and a timeline for implementing the chosen solution shall be included in the report. If the soil is contaminated, it shall be disposed of properly in accordance with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations. 48. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 49. An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 50. During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 51. During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 52. Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. 53. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 104 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 54. Prior to the issuance of any grading plans a construction-related noise mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction. 55. Business operations shall maintain a noise level at 60dB or less during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 p.m. No loading and unloading activities including opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 p.m. in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to residential areas. 56. Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 57. Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. Developers shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 58. Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 59. During construction, the contractor shall ensure all construction equipment is equipped with appropriate noise attenuating devices. 60. Idling equipment shall be turned off when not in use.61. The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 62. The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 63. The construction contractor shall change the timing and/or sequence of the noisiest construction operations to avoid sensitive times of the day. 64. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 105 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval During all project site excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with the manufacturers’ standards. 65. Equipment shall be maintained so that vehicles and their loads are secured from rattling and banging.66. The developer shall provide all buyers with a real estate transaction disclosure identifying the ONT Airport in the City of Ontario and possible exposure to impacts associated with aircraft operations (e.g., aircraft noise). This disclosure shall be recorded against the property for future transactions. 67. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project. 68. In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, all Native American tribes previously contacted during the Tribal Consultation process will be re-contacted if any such find occurs and be provided information and permitted/invited to perform a site visit when the archaeologist makes his/her assessment, so as to provide Tribal input. 69. If significant Native American historical resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2016), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, an SOI-qualified archaeologist shall be retained to develop an cultural resources Treatment Plan, as well as a Discovery and Monitoring Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to San Manuel Band of Mission Indians for review and comment. • All in-field investigations, assessments, and/or data recovery enacted pursuant to the finalized Treatment Plan shall be monitored by a representative of a Native American tribe previously contacted during the Tribal Consultation process. • Prior to disposition and treatment of any artifacts or other cultural materials encountered during the project, all Native American tribes previously contacted during the Tribal Consultation process will be consulted. 70. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department and the Planning Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. 71. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 106 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 72. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e. beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the Planning Director prior to issuance of Building Permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. 73. Noise levels shall be monitored after construction to verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. Noise levels shall be monitored by actual noise level readings taken on- and off-site. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final occupancy release. The final report shall also make recommendations as to additional mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to below City standards, such as, residential exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA and interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA. 74. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 75. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 76. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 77. 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. 78. 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. 79. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls.80. www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 107 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 81. 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. 82. 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. 83. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 84. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 85. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas. 86. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 87. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet.88. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 89. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. No gates which prohibit vehicular or pedestrian access into the site shall be permitted except in those instances where security gates may be required pursuant to the building code (i.e. swimming pool areas). 90. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 91. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 92. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. 93. Unless exempt, directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or town homes prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department and the RCFPD prior to issuance of Building Permits for the signs in question. (Chapter 17.74.040 B-4) 94. www.CityofRC.us Page 14 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 108 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 95. 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. 96. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 97. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code and General Plan. 98. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line-of-sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on-site to match the building. 99. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided at a rate equivalent to 5 percent of all required motorized vehicle parking, with a minimum of one rack with a capacity for two bicycles. 100 The applicant shall comply with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board and Federal EPA water requirements. 101 The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 102 Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions “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.” 1. www.CityofRC.us Page 15 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 109 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions Undergrounding 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. a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developers expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in-lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. c. The developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on opposite sides of the street. 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. Lines on both sides of the street: The Developer shall comply with Section 1 above and be eligible for reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street. 2. The applicant shall work with City staff to determine potential median, striping, and traffic signal modifications along Foothill Boulevard based on the Traffic Impact Analysis within 30 days of project approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant shall be responsible for any costs associated with updating design plans and construction costs associated with these modifications. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, developer shall coordinate with the City’s traffic consultant and City Engineer to evaluate whether the project’s traffic impacts must be mitigated with a redesign of the egress onto Grove Avenue to physically preclude right turns from the project site onto Grove Avenue. If the evaluation concludes that such a restriction is required due to traffic impacts caused by the project, then the construction plans for the Grove Avenue exit shall be revised to incorporate this restriction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additionally, within 2 years of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, if it is determined that right turns from the project site onto Grove Avenue are causing a traffic or safety impact, then the City reserves the right to request further evaluation of this issue at the developers expense and, if supported by the analysis, to restrict this entrance to left turn only to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Standard Conditions of Approval Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.5. Dedication shall be made on Foothill Blvd and Grove Ave per the requirements of the General Plan and per approved Tentative Parcel Map. 6. www.CityofRC.us Page 16 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 110 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 7. ** 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. 8. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts and/or Community Facilities District 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. 9. 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. 10. A fair share contribution payment shall be made from the West Foothill Boulevard Street Improvements Project for the improvements along Foothill Boulevard, including all related street, bike lane, storm drain, irrigation, and landscape improvements, all traffic signal modifications, and new traffic signal installation at intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country Club Drive prior Building Permit issuance or Final Map approval, whichever comes first. Street Moratorium of 5 years for Foothill Blvd will begin in 2024. No street cut shall be made within the 5 year mark. A Maintenance Agreement between the City and property owner acceptable to the City Attorney for the maintenance of the open spaces within frontage of the property shall be signed and recorded prior Building permit issuance. 11. www.CityofRC.us Page 17 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 111 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 12. Improvement Plans and Construction: a.Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch pvc with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled shall be installed on all corners of intersections per latest ADA standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 13. www.CityofRC.us Page 18 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 112 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on typically Sheet 1.” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name 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. 14. 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. 15. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.19. www.CityofRC.us Page 19 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 113 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review 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. 20. Construct the following street improvements on Grove Avenue including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees The Parking along the Grove Ave frontage shall be back-in. The curb shall be linear and the parking shall be delineated by striping. Additional improvements may be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21. Construct the following street improvements on Red Hill Country Club Drive including, but not limited to: Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side-walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees The Parking along the Red Hill Country Club Drive frontage shall be back-in. The curb shall be linear and the parking shall be delineated by striping. Additional improvements may be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Additional improvements may be required to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 22. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone AO designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain a Zone "X" designation. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 23. www.CityofRC.us Page 20 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 114 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 24. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 25. Permits and all approvals shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way: City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department City of Upland Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) 26. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 1. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 2. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 3. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 4. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 5. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 6. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire District has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. 7. Fire sprinklers are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 8. www.CityofRC.us Page 21 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 115 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 9. A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates. 10. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 11. Due to the type of construction, construction materials, the floor area of the project, and known risks associated with projects of this nature, a Fire Protection and Site Safety plan is required to be implemented when combustible construction materials are delivered to the site, with the exception of foundation form materials. The Fire Prevention and Site Safety plan is required to be in compliance with Fire District Standard 33-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. Review and approval of the fire prevention and site safety plan is a condition of construction permit approval. The fire prevention and site safety plan is required to be approved by the Fire District prior to construction permits being approved and issued. 12. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 13. Emergency responder communication coverage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-12 is required for the building(s) included in this project. A radio signal strength test of the public safety radio communication system conducted in accordance with the requirements of the 2022 California Fire Code is required to be submitted. Where existing radio signal strength does not meet the requirements of the Fire Code, a separate submittal for an emergency responder communication coverage system is required. 14. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 15. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 16. www.CityofRC.us Page 22 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 116 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval Due to the type of construction, construction materials, the floor area of the project, and known risks associated with projects of this nature, a Fire Protection and Site Safety plan is required to be implemented when combustible construction materials are delivered to the site, with the exception of foundation form materials. The Fire Prevention and Site Safety plan is required to be in compliance with Fire District Standard 33-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. Review and approval of the fire prevention and site safety plan is a condition of construction permit approval. The fire prevention and site safety plan is required to be approved by the Fire District prior to construction permits being approved and issued. 17. Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 18. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 19. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 20. 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 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. www.CityofRC.us Page 23 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 117 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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 Building and Safety Official for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s) or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path from the public right of way and the accessibility parking stalls to the building doors in conformance with the current adopted California Building Code. All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and comply with the current adopted California Building Code. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Prior to the issuance of a grading plan for multi-family projects, the private streets and drive aisles within multi-family developments shall include street plans as part of the Grading and Drainage Plan set. The private street plan view shall show typical street sections. The private street profile view shall show the private street/drive aisle centerline. 13. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California Building Code. 14. 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 Building and Safety Official. 15. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 16. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 17. www.CityofRC.us Page 24 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 118 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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 Engineering Services Department 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. 18. All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans. 19. 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 CBC1804.3/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. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a signed and notarized letter from the adjacent property owner(s) for ALL work proposed on the adjacent property. The letter shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set. The letter shall show on either the title sheet or a detail sheet of the grading and drainage plan set. 21. 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. 22. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The 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. 23. www.CityofRC.us Page 25 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 119 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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. Prior to approval of the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), the WQMP shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 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 Building Official 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 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. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way permit, the applicant shall submit to the Building Official, or his 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. 32. Prior to the start of landscaping operations, the landscape architect and the landscape contractor shall provide a sample of the weed fabric barrier to the Project Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The weed barrier shall be permeable. 33. 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. 34. www.CityofRC.us Page 26 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 120 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review 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”. 35. 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”. 36. The subject project, shall accept all existing off-site storm water drainage flows and safely convey those flows through or around the project site. If existing off-site storm water drainage flows mix with any on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off-site storm water drainage flows shall be treated with the on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the storm water drainage flows from the project site. 37. 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. 38. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.2 (Storm water drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site. 1. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site. 2. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga). 3. Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance. 39. www.CityofRC.us Page 27 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 121 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 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”. Note: As this project has been previously graded and the site soils have been compacted for building pads and parking lot purposes, the use of the Custom Soil Resource Report for San Bernardino County Southwestern Part by the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service for natural soils is not acceptable for soil groundwater infiltration rates. 40. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3 41. 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 Building and Safety 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. 42. www.CityofRC.us Page 28 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 122 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.1 (Storm water pollution prevention) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Newly construction projects and additions which disturb less than one acre of land shall prevent the pollution of stormwater runoff from the construction activities through one or more of the following measures: 5.106.1.1 Local Ordinance – Comply with a lawfully enacted stormwater management and/or erosion control ordinance. 5.106.1.2 Best Management Practices (BMP) – Prevent the loss of soil through wind or water erosion by implementing an effective combination of erosion and sediment control and good housekeeping BMP. 1. Soil loss BMP that should be considered for implementation as appropriate for each project include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Scheduling construction activity. b. Preservation of natural features, vegetation and soil. c. Drainage swales or lined ditches to control stormwater flow. d. Mulching or hydroseeding to stabilize disturbed soils. e. Erosion control to protect slopes. f. Protection of storm drain inlets (gravel bags or catch basin inserts). g. Perimeter sediment control (perimeter silt fence, fiber rolls). h. Sediment trap or sediment basin to retain sediment on site. i. Stabilized construction exits. j. Wind erosion control. k. Other soil loss BMP acceptable to the enforcing agency. 2. Good housekeeping BMP to manage construction equipment, materials and wastes that should be considered for implementation as appropriate for each project include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Material handling and waste management. b. Building materials stockpile management. c. Management of washout areas (concrete, paints, stucco, etc.). d. Control of vehicle/equipment fueling to contractors staging area. e. Vehicle and equipment cleaning performed off site. f. Spill prevention and control. g. Other housekeeping BMP acceptable to the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga). 43. www.CityofRC.us Page 29 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 123 Project #: DRC2022-00379 Project Name: Foothill and Grove Mixed Use Location: 8112 FOOTHILL BLVD - 020701144-0000 Project Type: Design Review Tentative Tract Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 5.106.10 (Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. 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. 44. www.CityofRC.us Page 30 of 30Printed: 6/6/2024    Page 124