Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-22 - Agenda Packet Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS January 22, 2025 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 December 11, 2024. (No meeting December 25, 2024). D. GENERAL BUSINESS D1. Annual Selection of Officers for the Commission and Appointments to Other Committees D2. Staff Presentation on California State Assembly Bill 98 D3. Staff Presentation to Discuss 3D Modeling Policy 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 – December 11, 2024 Page 1 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission Agenda December 11, 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 December 11, 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; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Bond Mendez, Associate Planner; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Justine Garcia, Deputy Director of Engineering; Ulises Benavente, Associate Engineer; Albert Felix, Traffic Engineer; Lupe Biggs, Executive Assistant; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant. B. Public Communications Chairman Morales opened the public communications. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public communications. C. Consent Calendar C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of November 11, 2024. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried 5-0 approved the minutes as presented. D. Public Hearings D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request for site plan and architectural review of 75 multi-family units located on approximately 3.18 acres of land within Planning Area N-12 in the Core Living (CL) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00360). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same    Page 3 HPC/PC MINUTES – December 11, 2024 Page 2 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 project. (Continued from November 13, 2024, HPC/PC meeting). Associate Planner Bond Mendez presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She mentioned a copy of the red-lined version of the amended Conditions of Approval was placed on the dais indicating changes to the Engineering Services Department, Item 2. Chairman Morales re-opened the public hearing. Applicant Cendejas was in attendance and available to answer questions, along with his consultant team. Commissioner Daniels asked if the HOA’s will be for each planning area or the entire project. Applicant Cendejas answered that the HOA’s will be for the entire project, which will cover all the common areas. Commissioner Daniels asked what kind of amenities will be available for the 1st floor multi- generation suites. Architect Debra explained that the multi-generation suites have slightly bigger doors in the bathroom with an on-suite bedroom. Chairman Morales asked the applicant if he approves the amended Conditions of Approval. Applicant Cendejas confirmed. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp expressed his appreciation of the layout, specifically the circulation of the vehicle flow which will help improve the overall ability for people to get around, as well as liking the Spanish style architecture. Commissioner Daniels expressed his appreciation that they adhered to the specific plan and there are no variances. Vice Chairman Boling mentioned he appreciates the variety of architecture this project is providing. He asked staff to confirm with this project being on the north side of sixth street, it’s adjacent to the master plan fiber network the city is investing in and that there are plans for future additions for the residents and future businesses going in they would be able to tap into the fiber network. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling stated with this project having 75-For Sale units and a number of these have a potential for families to move in, he wants to make it clear that the developers coordinate with the effected school districts the project is in, works with them and pays the schools impact fees. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales expressed he likes the architecture and layout and appreciates the affordable housing.    Page 4 HPC/PC MINUTES – December 11, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Commissioner Daniels to adopt Resolution 2024-036, Design Review DRC2023-00360, with the amended Conditions of Approval. Motion carried 5-0. D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW – SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. - A request for site plan and architectural review of 84 multi-family units located on approximately 3.4 acres of land within Planning Area N-14 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) Placetype of the Resort Specific Plan, Planning Area 1B, located north of 6th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink right of way, and west of Milliken Avenue; APN: 0209-272-20. (Design Review DRC2023-00331). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City’s approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. (Continued from November 13, 2024, HPC/PC meeting). Associate Planner Bond Mendez presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She mentioned a copy of the red-lined version of the amended Conditions of Approval was placed on the dais indicating changes to the Engineering Services Department, Item 2. Chairman Morales re-opened the public hearing. Applicant Cendejas thanked staff for all their hard work and he is available to answer questions, along with his consultant team. Commissioner Dopp asked will the residents have access to south of 6th Street clubhouses now and forever more. Applicant Cendejas confirmed. Commissioner Daniels asked what a flex is. Architect Debra explained a flex, located on the first floor in some units, is a bathroom. She said a space was needed to have a bath to meet the accessible physical requirements. Chairman Morales asked if applicant approved the amended Conditions of Approval. Applicant Cendejas confirmed. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Dopp stated there is a pocket park located on the southeast corner of the parcel and maybe will not be accessible to a lot of the residents and want spaces to foster more communities. He recommended that could be something they can look at on future projects. Commissioner Daniels stated the elevations to the south does not look right to him. He said the pop-out does not work well with the roof. Also, the 84 units have tandem parking and seems there could be more vehicles on the street. Architect Debra explained the elevation and rendering, and stated it is only seen that way because it is a 2D rendering.    Page 5 HPC/PC MINUTES – December 11, 2024 Page 4 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling mentioned that he walked the project and said he did not see the hip roof compared to what he saw on the 2D rendering and seeing it in real life, he is more at ease. Chairman Morales expressed he liked the variety of design and site layout, and it is adding 84 more affordable townhomes to the community. Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2024-035, Design Review DRC2023-00331, with the amended Conditions of Approval. Motion carried 5-0. D3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – MADOLE & ASSOCIATES FOR CHASE PARTNERS – A request to subdivide a 5.85 acre lot into four (4) parcels within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone and the Neo-Industrial Employment District General Plan land use designation, located at the southeast corner of Eighth Street and Cottage Avenue at 9851 Eighth Street; APN: 0209-193-09. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15315 – Minor Land Divisions (SUBTPM20894). Assistant Planner Sophia Serafin presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concern was noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details: •Email received from Lisa Platz, Ironwood Packaging, concerns about the property flip and possibly having to leave Rancho Cucamonga. Applicant Carter thanked staff and was available to answer questions. Vice Chairman Boling asked if they plan to sell all or portions of the newly formed parcels. Applicant Carter answered it is to be determination but will probably sell all of them. Chairman Morales mentioned the letter that was received the tenant expressed concerns they would not be able to access their loading dock and he asked if parcels are sold off, how will that work for them. Applicant Carter replied that a reciprocal parking and access agreement will be filed with the recording of the map, so they will have access to their parcel and be able to get through to their dock. Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Commissioner Daniels stated the letter received indicated they may have to relocate. He said he talked to staff to contact that business owner. For the record, he also noted that he is not sure when development was built but a lot of times on older developments the city may not have required all the public improvements, and he asked staff to look into if there is any bonding when the original project was built. Vice Chairman Boling recommended that the tenant who has potential business concerns to reach out and work with Economic Development staff who can potentially assist with a new site selection process.    Page 6 HPC/PC MINUTES – December 11, 2024 Page 5 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-041, Tentative Tract Map SUBTPM20894. Motion carried 5-0. D4. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW & VARIANCE – GRAND PACIFIC COMMUNITIES – A request to subdivide approximately 1.7 acres of land into 8 numbered and 4 lettered lots including site plan and design review of 8 two-family residential buildings (16 units total), and a variance to reduce the required streetscape setback and the height of property line walls for a site located in the Medium Residential (M) Zone at 10235 19th Street; APN: 1076-121-03. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects. Associate Planner Tabe van der Zwaag presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He mentioned a copy of the red-lined version of the amended Conditions of Approval was placed on the dais indicating changes to the Engineering Services Department Items 3, 4 and 11. Commissioner Dopp asked about underground powerlines on 19th Street and how much it might cost the developer. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura indicated presently there are no firm numbers. Commissioner Daniels asked who will enforce the conditions with the signage on 19th Street. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura stated through police action with a ticket. Commissioner Daniels stated there should be some exception for homeowners. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura explained this is a common situation around schools. Commissioner Daniels expressed he is opposed to it. Vice Chairman Boling stated as the project moves forward on 19th Street there may be a need for new restriping. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura asked Traffic Engineer Alberto Felix to look into shortening the left-hand turn lane onto Mayberry so there is adequate left hand turn space for those heading south onto the new street. Traffic Engineer Felix confirmed and stated as part of the condition that section will need to be restriped and will be addressed as plans come in. Vice Chairman Boling stated as the conditions are currently written, it will take place on the developers dime not the cities. Traffic Engineer Felix confirmed. Vice Chairman Boling stated regarding the construction on the bulb-outs to the south, he wanted to confirm that there is still sufficient green space to be utilized for the water quality management plan. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed.    Page 7 HPC/PC MINUTES – December 11, 2024 Page 6 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling stated the placement of the crosswalk does not include any sidewalk work ADA ramps necessary on the south side and asked if those would be included and paid for by the developer and not the city or school district. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura confirmed. Chairman Morales opened the public hearing. Applicant Pang thanked staff for their work over the years and available to answer questions. Chairman Morales asked if applicant approves the amended Conditions of Approval. Applicant Pang confirmed. Commissioner Diaz inquired about the number of duplexes and units being sold. Applicant Pang answered there are a total of 16 units being sold. The following persons commented on the project: Connie Grisby, Brad Buller, Rebecca Davies, Dr. Sherry Smith. The comments included the following concerns: •Traffic concerns •Student and staff safety •Width of street •School events Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing. Applicant Pang responded to the traffic and parking concerns and said they are pre-existing, and the project is not contributing to it. Commissioner Dopp asked if Engineering and Planning believe a sign is going to be enough. He asked if there are any other ideas to limit people the ability to drive down that road during school hours, such as retractable bollards. Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura replied that more mechanical options in the right of way as Commissioner Dopp suggested become the responsibility of the city to maintain when the right of way is dedicated to us and there is no funding mechanism to maintain them. However, as the development gets completed, additional signage to limit turn movements onto Hamilton is an option. Commissioner Dopp commented on the project that the architecture does not match the character of the neighborhood. He said he does appreciate that there are duplexes. He suggested to find different strategies to limit the inflow onto Deer Canyon. Commissioner Daniels stated that having different architecture is not a bad thing. He said the smaller lots will be an asset to the community. He suggested to put Solar as part of the package to the new homeowners. He is opposed to signage on 19th Street because it will not be enforced.    Page 8 HPC/PC MINUTES – December 11, 2024 Page 7 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 Vice Chairman Boling stated he wants to make sure we all take a step back and look at everybody’s perspective and try to strike a balance. The school, and its existing traffic patterns, have and will continue to exist, but cannot limit future development of vacant properties nearby. He expressed his thanks to staff for trying to reach that balance and put forth recommendations to the Commission and working with the developer. He said regarding the project, it is a good product as far as sizing goes, it provides a wide variety of housing types, and hits the price point, which there is not a lot of. Commissioner Diaz expressed traffic concerns and asked if there would be parking allowed on the new street. Associate Planner Tabe confirmed. Commissioner Diaz stated with the many events that will be happening it is good to know there will be parking on the street. She expressed she likes it is a duplex and it affords people the potential for multi-generational living. As far as the traffic concerns, she said the city is doing the best they can and there is always a potential to address concerns as they arise. Commissioner Dopp stated for the record as a Commission and Staff we continue to see evolving trends in Planning. He said we see different kinds of strategies on how to curb traffic and how to make areas more pedestrian friendly with green space area for our community to come together. He said like bollards, there might be future opportunities to look at 19th Street with different types of traffic control devices. He said no matter what the vote will be tonight, we must continually be open to evolving trends and see what the city recommends at first and if not, look at different kind of mechanisms in the future and learn from other cities that have similar school neighborhood interfaces with high traffic densities. Chairman Morales expressed that the developer worked great with the city and also the school district got involved. He said everybody contributed and worked together making the best that this could be. He said ultimately with the family homes and improvements to the streets, the neighborhood will be enhanced. He is in support. Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2024-038 Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20662, Resolution 2024-039 Design Review DRC2023- 00363 and Resolution 2024-040 Variance DRC2024-00300, with the amended Conditions of Approval. Motion carried 5-0. E. Director Announcements Deputy Director of Planning Nakamura announced that December 25th and January 8th meetings will be cancelled. The next meeting will be held on January 22nd, 2025. F. Commission Announcements - None G. Adjournment    Page 9 HPC/PC MINUTES – December 11, 2024 Page 8 of 8 Draft 2 8 3 1 Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant Planning and Economic Development Dept. Approved:    Page 10 DATE:January 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant II SUBJECT:Annual Selection of Officers for the Commission and Appointments to Other Committees RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission/Planning Commission take the following by minute actions: •Appoint a Chair to serve for calendar year 2025. •Appoint a Vice-Chair to serve for calendar year 2025. •Appoint two commissioners to serve on the Trails Advisory Committee for calendar year 2025. •Appoint two commissioners to serve on the Design Review Committee and one to serve as alternate for calendar year 2025. •Appoint a commissioner to serve on the Public Art Committee from March 2025 – February 2027. BACKGROUND: The Administrative Regulations for the Planning Commission provide for the Commission to select its own officers, as well as members to serve on assigned committees. The following positions shall be considered by the Commission: Historic Preservation/Planning Commission Officer Positions: •Chair •Vice-Chair Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee is responsible for reviewing the architecture (including material, finish, colors, and trim), site layout, building plotting, landscaping, compatibility with surrounding properties, and, when appropriate, signs, of new development. The committee’s emphasis is on quality design in the community as described in the City’s General Plan and the Development Code. The committee consists of the Planning Director or designee and two Planning Commissioners. The committee meets on the 1st and 3rd Tuesday of the month. The committee needs two commissioners to serve and one alternate.    Page 11 Page 2 of 2 2 6 9 8 Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee assists the Planning Commission by reviewing proposed projects that may impact the existing trail system, its use, future improvements and addressing resident concerns. The committee meets monthly to discuss and provide recommendations to the City Council on the development of the City’s trail system. The committee is composed of two members of the Planning Commission and one member of the Planning Department, as well a representative for Equestrians and a representative for Bicyclists. The committee meets on the 2nd Wednesday of the month. The committee needs two commissioners to serve. Public Art Committee: The Public Art Committee advises the Council regarding the selection, purchase, placement, and maintenance of art installed by the City or on City property, and expenditures from the City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Art Trust Fund. The committee consists of one member of the Planning Commission, one member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, one member of the Community and Arts Foundation and two members of the public. The Public Art Committee meets quarterly throughout the year. The appointment is for two years from March 2025 – February 2027. The committee needs one commissioner to serve. ANALYSIS: None FISCAL IMPACT: None COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Annual officer selection addresses the Council’s core value of intentionally embracing and anticipating our future. EXHIBITS: None    Page 12 DATE:January 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Jared Knight, Assistant Planner Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner SUBJECT:Staff Presentation on California State Assembly Bill 98 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file this report and related attachments regarding California State Assembly Bill 98 (AB 98) and provide any comments and questions to staff. BACKGROUND: On September 29th, 2024, AB 98 was signed into law by Governor Newsom. AB 98 expands zoning requirements for logistics facilities such as warehouses and distribution and fulfillment centers. AB 98 also imposes new requirements on local agencies with regards to the circulation element of their general plan relative to industrial development. Several Inland Empire municipalities, including Rancho Cucamonga, are singled out in the text of the bill as being located in what is referred to as the “Warehouse Concentration Region,” and therefore must meet additional requirements. ANALYSIS: This bill may have wide-reaching effects on industrial development within the City. As such, staff wishes to inform the Commission of this bill. Attached to this report is the full text of AB 98. Staff will provide a presentation with additional information on the bill, and address questions from the Planning Commission. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this item, as it is informational only. Future fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of AB98 standards will include staff time preparing development code and general plan amendments. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council’s core value of intentionally embracing and anticipating our future, by ensuring the city proactive adapts to new state standards. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – Full Text of Assembly Bill 98    Page 13    Page 14    Page 15    Page 16    Page 17    Page 18    Page 19    Page 20    Page 21    Page 22    Page 23    Page 24    Page 25    Page 26    Page 27 DATE:January 22, 2025 TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM:Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director INITIATED BY:Sean McPherson, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT:Discussion Regarding 3D Modeling Policy RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive staff’s presentation regarding the 3D Modeling Policy and provide any comments or questions as needed. BACKGROUND: In October 2018, the Planning Commission requested that staff consider creating a new policy which would require developers to provide three-dimensional renderings, modeling and/or virtual tours for certain projects in order to assist with the visual understanding of proposed development. In November 2018, staff presented their research and recommendations on 3D Modeling (Exhibits A and B). This research led to the adoption of a 3D Modeling Policy, in effect since 2019, which is attached to this report as Exhibit C. Please reference the attached Policy for full background context. ANALYSIS: The current 3D Policy establishes project thresholds by which developers are required to submit augmented project visuals (i.e. 3D renderings, virtual tour/fly-through, 3D street perspectives, etc.). In practice, a number of questions arise with this policy which has caused it to be applied inconsistently since it’s adoption. For example, the general plan and zoning code, especially the industrial code and the form-based code, have either been significantly revised and/or incorporated into the code since the policy’s adoption and are therefore not considered by the policy. Further, the policy is also not clear as to when during the development review process these visuals should be submitted to staff. Staff is now revisiting this policy to consider how it may be changed or improved and is therefore seeking the Planning Commissions input. Some questions the Commission may want to consider include, but are not limited to, the following: •Are the current policy’s project thresholds still relevant? •Are there other types of visualizations which should be incorporated into the policy? •At which point during the development review process should these visualizations be submitted by the applicant?    Page 28 Page 2 of 2 2 6 9 9 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the city with this item as it is informational only. Implementation of any changes to this policy may lead to future additional costs to private developers as part of the development review process. COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED: Reviewing this policy for potential changes addresses the Council’s core values of “intentionally embracing and anticipating our future,” and the “relentless pursuit of improvement,” as any changes to the policy would be intended to improve decision-makers’ understanding of projects that they are asked to review. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A – 3D Policy PC Staff Report, November 28, 2018 Exhibit B – PC Meeting Minutes, November 28, 2018 Exhibit C – 3D Modeling Policy, October 9, 2019    Page 29 REPORT DATE: November 28, 2018 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner INITIATED BY: Perry Banner, Contract Planner SUBJECT A Directors Report on a request by the Planning Commission to evaluate adding the requirement for 3D renderings, 3D modeling and/or virtual tours for proposed projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the information that is presented and provide policy direction on a new requirement for applicants/developers to submit 3D visualization of a project with their applications by way of renderings and 3D modeling/animation for medlum- and large-scale development projects that are proposed in the future. BACKGROUND: On October 24, 2018, the Planning Commission requested information and analysis on a new policy that would require developers to provide three-dimensional renderings, modeling and/or virtual tours for larger scale projects in order to assist with the Commission's visual understanding of a proposed development. Staff was also directed to find the threshold for which size and scale of projects should trigger the submittal of a 3D rendering and/or virtual tour. Architectural visualization is the art of creating two-dimensional and three-dimensional images showing the attributes of a proposed architectural design. Rapid advancements in 3D modeling and 3D rendering technology is changing the way architects design in a way that wasn't possible 15 years ago. 3D rendering and architectural visualization software enable architects and designers to evaluate "proportions" and "scales" using intuitive interactive 3D modelling and simulate the effects of lighting, ventilation, and acoustics in internal environments. 3D artists today are getting so good at their craft that they are able to produce realistic 3D renderings of buildings, giving clients an accurate 3D visualization of the proposed design. These proposed architectural visualizations can represent anything the client desires from the scale, textures, interior furnishings, etc. and are often represented together with "architectural scenes" where everyday actions are being carried out. What 3D visualization provides is an excellent understanding of the design concept. For the architect and client, it reduces the amount of changes for a project before construction is started. For local government, it reduces the uncertainty factor in a proposed building's appearance and scale and allows the decision makers to get a feel for the layout and flow of the project to make a more educated decision on the project design. Using 3D technologies makes plans, especially on E1 Pg1 Exhibit A   Page 30 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUIRING 3D VISUALIZATION November 28, 2018 Page 2 complicated projects, much easier to understand and navigate. The following is a sampling of 3D visualization techniques: F1 Pg2 3D rendering of building_ Extruded floor plan_ Virtual tour of office interior.    Page 31 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUIRING 3D VISUALIZATION November 28, 2018 Page 3 Other examples of modeling can include virtual project "walk-throughs" and "fly-throughs" using camera animation to give the 3D drawings direction and movement to allow the viewer the ability to see what the overall impression of the architecture and site development will feel like to walk through and "augmented reality" that uses real images and adds computer generated plans and 3D images to create an environment to see the finished project on an empty lot. As technology continues to change, the options become limitless. ANALYSIS: Architectural visualization using 3D modeling and 3D rendering technology has become one of the most important communication tools for architects and designers. It is a tool used to bridge the gap in understanding between architects, clients, builders, and regulators (i.e. cities and local jurisdictions). As local requirements adjust with the rapidly advancing technology, cities are beginning to require 3D modeling as a standard component of a submittal package for a project under development review. A short survey of neighboring cities identified the following: Los Angeles 3D renderings required for development projects reviewed by the City Planning Commission (CPC) and the Area Planning Commission (APC) Ontario "Perspectives," which are similar to 3D renderings are required, otherwise the Director can request any plans deemed necessary Pasadena 3D renderings required for new projects under Design Review, generally enforced more for projects reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Design Commission Santa 3D renderings not explicitly required for development projects, but may be requestedMonica Rancho 3D renderings not explicitly required but per Section 17.14.020 the Planning Director ay require any plans, maps, and data deemed necessary to provide the approvingCucamonga m authority with adequate information to base their decision on. What appears typical is that Planning and Community Development Departments either explicitly require 3D renderings or routinely ask for them in the review of projects. What is also typical is that 3D renderings are predominantly used as a presentation tool for Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, and other similar committees. Projects reviewed at the staff level typically do not require submittal of 3D renderings. What also appears to be clear is that cities may require or ask for 3D renderings to visualize the exterior of a building, which is what is visible from the public realm, but it is infrequent for cities to require a virtual tourlanimation of the building interior. Cost The cost to produce a mid-level 3D rendering for a medium sized project is between $1,500- 3,500 in the Southern California market. This would be to produce a model of the building exterior. The cost varies depending on the level of detail. This is just for architectural still imaging. Creating a virtual tour or animation of a building interior/exterior is generally priced on a cost per second basis of the animation and could cost between $5,000410,000 depending on duration and level of detailing. E1 Pg3    Page 32 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REQUIRING 3D VISUALIZATION November 28, 2018 Page 4 Threshold For a 3D rendering, Staff and the Planning Commission would be particularly interested in how it would convey size and scale, building massing, site layout, roof articulation, architectural detailing, and exterior finishes. These elements would demonstrate how a proposed project would be compatible with an existing neighborhood and surrounding development, In Pasadena, any project that requires Design Commission review requires a 3D model as part of the submittal package. With some exceptions, Pasadena's thresholds are that structures over 25,000 sq. ft. and/or residential projects consisting of 10 or more dwelling units require Design Commission review, and therefore, 3D modeling (see Exhibit A — City of Pasadena Digital 3D Model Usage Policy). The City of Adelaide, Australia uses a height threshold for determining when a 3D model is required for a project. Any residential, commercial, mixed-use, or institutional development three stories or higher requires 3D modeling regardless of density. For the City of Rancho Cucamonga, potential basic guidelines are outlined below. The types of projects subject to these requirements, the thresholds for the size/scale of the project that triggers the requirements, and the timing of when the visualizations must be submitted will be further refined: Any application for a project that requires review by the Design Review Committee and/or review and approval by the Planning Commission will be required to include 3D renderings for the following projects: Mixed Use development; Multi -family development of 4 units (or more); Industrial development with one or more buildings of 100,000 square feet (or more) in floor area; Commercial development on project sites of 3 acres or with buildings of 25,000 square feet (or more) of gross floor area. One (1) additional form of modeling will be required such as, virtual tour/fly-through, "augmented reality', and 3D street perspective, for the following projects: Mixed Use development with buildings that are three stories and/or 35 feet (or more) in height; Mixed Use development with a density of 25 dwelling units (or more) per acre; Multi -family development of 50 units (or more); Commercial development on project sites of 5 acres (or more); and Industrial development with one or more buildings of 500,000 square feet (or more) in floor area. NEXT STEPS: Upon receiving input and direction from the Planning Commission, Staff will formalize a new policy for requiring 3D modeling for certain projects for consideration by the Planning Commission and add the requirement to the applicable checklists for development applications. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A — City of Pasadena Digital 3D Model Usage Policy E1 Pg4    Page 33 DIGITAL. 3D MODEL USAGE POLICY PURPOSE OF THE POLICY The purpose of this policy is to disclose the intended use and release of digital 3D massing models submitted to the City of Pasadena in conjunction with the review of Planning Division applications (zoning entitlements, design review and master development plans). PURPOSE OF DIGITAL 3D MODEL The city has obtained a digital 3D model of all buildings in the city as they existed in 2008 The models were created using building footprint and height data to create 3-dimensional buildings and digitally attaching photographs of each side of the building to the 3-dimensional model. One of the purposes of acquiring this model is to assist city planners in the analysis of new development projects. Applications for new development projects of citywide significance will require submittal of a digital 3D massing model for this purpose. City planners will incorporate digital models submitted by applicants into the surrounding context of digital models of existing buildings and will create images and animations to present to decision -makers. In addition to assisting planners with the review of new projects, the city's digital 3D model may be made available to the public for viewing through online mapping applications. The city intends to update its digital 3D model by replacing the models of demolished buildings with the models of new buildings after they are constructed. Digital 3D models of new buildings will be required to be submitted at various stages in the city's review process and, upon completion of construction, will be inserted into the overall city model. SUBMITTAL AND RELEASE OF DIGITAL_ 3D MODEL Digital 3D models submitted to the city should be massing models of the exterior shell" of the building and related architectural features and not detailed engineering models of the building's structure or interior. Digital 3D model files of projects that are in draft form (i.e., prior to completion of construction) will not be released to any member of the public without permission from the project applicant. Upon completion of construction, buildings are assumed to be an element of the city's land fabric and, therefore, may be made available for public viewing. When the model becomes part of city's land fabric, the model could be released as part of the neighborhood context under the terms of the city's data sharing agreement or as required under state of federal law. By signing below, I acknowledge that I understand and will comply with the City's 3D Model Usage Policy. Applicant signature Date EXHIBIT A E1 Pg5    Page 34 IVUVCIVIMCM 'Loy LV 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 7:00 PM Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo X Vice Chairman (Vacant) X_ Commissioner Munoz A_ Commissioner Oaxaca X_ Commissioner Wimberly X_ Additional Staff Present_ Candyce Burnett City Planner, Brian Sandona, Senior Engineer, Susan Shaker, Acting Executive Assistant 11; Mike Smith, Senior Planner,- Donald Granger, Senior Planner,- Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner B. ANNOUNCEMENTS B1. INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED HISTORIC PRESERVATION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER BRYAN DOPP Susan Shaker, Acting Executive Assistant 11, stated for the record that Commissioner Dopp was present and has taken his seat on the Planning Commission_ C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate Page 1 of 7 C1—PglExhibit B   Page 35 IYVVGIVitstm LOQ LV IO HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. NONE D. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. D1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of November 14, 2018 Moved by Wimberly. seconded by Oaxaca. carried 3-0-1-1 (Munoz absent, Dopp abstaining) to adopt the Consent Calendar E. DIRECTOR'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. E1. Requirement for 3D Renderings, 3D Modeling and for Virtual Tours for Proposed Projects Candyce Burnett. City Planner. gave the staff report and asked for feedback and direction from the Commission about the proposed policy so that a formal policy of the new visual requirements can be written and implemented. Commissioner Wimberly stated that the staff report addressed most of the concerns he had, especially during Design Review, by enhancing the ability to see the placement of the projects themselves in relation to the project site and surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Oaxaca concurred with Commissioner Wimberly and added that he is satisfied with the proposed timing threshold of when additional materials need to be provided, but asked staff how these new visual 3D -renderings and models will translate visually and be presented to the Planning Page 2of7 C1—Pg2    Page 36 NOVEMBER 28, 20'18 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CiVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commission. He also asked if there has been any feedback from developers about the proposed formalized policy. Ms. Burnett replied the presentation would depend on what type of rendering is required and received. For example, a computerized 3D modeling or fly through could be presented in a PowerPoint format and a 3D rendering could still be presented in the agenda packet. She also stated that the feedback from developers has generally been accepting once they understand that it is something unique to the community and it helps the public and the Commission understand and visualize the project. Commissioner Dopp said that it is a great idea, not only for the Planning Commission but for the public to help alleviate concerns. He asked if the specific type of additional visual materials provided would be up to the discretion of the developer or of staff. Ms. Bumett replied that depending on the unique nature of each project, it would be up to staff to determine which enhanced visual elements would benefit the Commission and public the most as the projects are presented_ Chairman Guglielmo commented on the currently proposed threshold of multi -family developments of 4 units and asked about potentially increasing it to 5+ units or since a development of 1-4 units is considered a smaller development_ He also asked if this policy would be retroactive. Ms. Burnett stated that the threshold of 4 units was chosen because the City is facing a larger number of infill developments which are generally going to be smaller developments and the concern was regarding how these infill projects would fit in with the community. However, it is up to the Commission if they would like to raise the threshold of multi -family units. She further said that this policy would be applied moving forward or as deemed necessary as projects move forward as part of the completeness process per the existing Development Code provisions_ Nick Ghirelll, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the policy will be implemented as part of the application checklist, therefore it cannot be applied retroactively to projects already deemed complete. Chairman Guglielmo asked how the compatibility of the project to the surrounding areas will be shown and if there were any plans to provide a similar City-wide 3D map for Rancho Cucamonga that is used in Pasadena (Exhibit A). Page 3 of 7 C1--Pg3    Page 37 nuvr-mul-K 40, ALU 10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Ms. Burnett answered that the City of Pasadena was building on an existing 3D modeling database that Rancho Cucamonga doesn't have, however the applicant will be asked to look at the compatibility outside their parcel. Commissioner Wimberly asked if the Commission would have access to the digital images of the new visual materials when the agenda packets are received. Ms. Burnett replied that anything that is part of the agenda packet will be available to view, but opportunities to provide more digital data will be looked at moving forward, Ms, Burnett asked if there was any additional direction on the threshold for the minimum number of units for multi -family developments. Commissioners Wimberly, Oaxaca, and Dopp concurred that they are in agreement with staff to keep the minimum threshold at 4 units for multi -family developments. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. F1. TIME EXTENSION DRC2018-00816 -GOLDEN AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, INC. -A request to allow for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444) related to a 13 -unit condominium development on 2.17 acres of land in the Low Medium (LM) Residential District (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side of Archibald Avenue and 150 feet north of Monte Vista Street - APN: 0202-131-27, -61 and - 62. On October 10, 2007, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17444. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to the projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Tabe Van der Zwaag, Associate Planner. gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Page 4 of 7 C1—Pg4    Page 38 MEMORANDUM PLANNING DEPARTMENT Date: October 9, 2019 To: From: John R. Gillison, City Manager Anne McIntosh, Planning Director By: Sean McPherson, Senior Planner Subject: 3D MODELING AND/OR VIRTUAL TOURS POLICY PURPOSE: To establish a policy defining which development applications require the submittal of 3D visualizations. BACKGROUND: On October 24, 2018, the Planning Commission requested information and analysis on a new policy that would require developers to provide three-dimensional renderings, modeling and/or virtual tours for certain projects in order to assist with the visual understanding of proposed development. In response, planning staff surveyed surrounding cities in order to ascertain common practices regarding this topic. Cities that were surveyed included Los Angeles, Ontario, Santa Monica and Pasadena. Staff considered appropriate thresholds for projects which might require 3D visualizations, as well as the potential cost this policy would cause to applicants. At the November 28, 2018, Planning Commission meeting, planning department staff presented their research and requested direction from the Commission. After discussion regarding the implementation of the policy, the Commission concurred with staff’s proposed threshold criteria. The Commission’s discussion is memorialized in a Memorandum provided to the City Council on December 11, 2018. POLICY: Any application for a project that requires review by the Design Review Committee and/or review and approval by the Planning Commission will be required to include 3D renderings for the following projects: •Mixed Use Development; •Multi-family development of 4 units (or more); •Industrial development with one or more buildings of 100,000 square feet (or more) in floor area; •Commercial development on project sites of 3 acres or with buildings of 25,000 square feet (or more) of gross floor area. One (1) additional form of modeling will be required such as, virtual tour/fly-through, “augmented reality,” and 3D street perspective, for the following projects: •Mixed Use development with buildings that are three stories and/or 35 feet (or more) in height; •Mixed Use development with a density of 25 dwelling units (or more) per acre; •Multi-family development of 50 units (or more); •Commercial development on project sites of 5 acres (or more); and •Industrial development with one or more buildings of 500,000 square feet (or more) in floor area Exhibit C   Page 39