Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2025-07-23 - Supplementals
Rempel Mixed- Use July 23 , 2025 Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Description Who: True Life Companies What: A request for amixed-use development to construct 50 new multi-family dwelling units, including 10 live/work units. Where: Southwest corner Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue Entitlements: Tentative Tract Map 20708, Design Review DRC2024- 00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109, Minor Exception DRC2025-00055 Location G� L�D Base Line Road y CD :3 Project y70 a1 J. i (C0 C - 4 a �,RytI Noil Ti. ,,,�� F•'a { J fir. L a�`� � � t V a ✓ a i k .� -31 E i � _ -:�'s'fti F• "4' '.r� U � .J!!S9', sdi._ 4 - _. ... }, May 14, 2025 10:28 AM CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r E ? SrP�r ail qsr-;a ia. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r 1��\_ y�� y���`Wf x���'t'� � � rA°�r y�� �c• 4 - � - r 6.�r, _ �_. � 3 b c;3'G� .. r is�^ �`d��s'�- ��,�° ?'i ✓ � R`R �' zM �4.i Wti% �. it n• • • ■• .; � \� . May 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r Site Plan C Live Worc(3-Story) 7.8 Live Wore,(2-Storyl Townhomes(3-Story( 1 1 8 Townhomes 12-Story) 1 .1 3 1 1 )5.3 2 27 4 25.1 2 29' 26 Y ♦ - WATER QUALITY 1 39 • 21 3 • • 21 7- • n 27 5' 2.!f 4 1 ' LLI h'G£K ►I ■ • s 7' ` ll l.a eusynveh.n: , IRANSFORMER n b � 27.5 9' B' 9 - ��a + 'WATER QlJA11[Y TR/45H ENCLOSUR[ ——=—� __ � EXISTING �VL • SENIOR&E51dENTIAI. CITY OF RANCHO N � . . ` w Tentative Tract -- f Live Wor<(3-StorY) C Live wore(2-SioryJ iii I Townhomes(3-Storyl :: :: ,• i2.8 .Townhomes 12-Story) a I I t - Y � 33 wAn t1I1 • 21 3 • — • 213 I �- 27-S 2 I a � Z 14 I m . = E -- .IVEI WORK A • � R116'I AVBIIIE � = •�� L TR ANSFORM ER IRANSFORMER - I I �o in � WATER p`RLdfY 7 �— °°�-- — N--� • TRAiiT CI:CLUS L'4E r� O EXISTING SENCIR RESIPENTIAI. CITY OF RANCHO j • N � . . ` w Compliance with NG3 Development Standards TAB11 Development Stan• . Required Proposed Complies Residential0-24 du/ac 22 du/ac Yes Primary • 5 - 15 feet 15 feet maximum Yes • 75 percent 42 percent Yes • 3 stories 3 stories Yes di Building Height 40 feet maximum 40 feet Yes Open S•. 1 public open space type Paseo Yes CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA $i fill11 Ili _Afts Ise BOOM J 11111 1 11 in JI'�II11�1� �� � i- 11 _ s1'I _ 11 ��i7i �—L! " �I�1 _ s',I ' - • • ollo , I I .rl 11t .rl llt .�� hilt .rl Ilt ililli CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r �LII Mull imiliffillol :�I,�.� ■�■.� �,�■■:■■ l��■■rill a■■�■■ �n�:■�„■i. ,■■�� Ili,■■■■.a. ,,■■ate �■■■. mil ■ �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r �� CONTEMPORARY Co\ I I \1I101�ARY CONTEMPORARY SCHEME#1 SCHEME#2 "TOWER" SCHEME t '1 R 8 8 e_ ,r BRICK` P.RI•:I. O ym LL o � � Nm LL o a LL Nm g LL 0 0 � 9505 BASE LINE 9505 BASE LINE K 9505 BASE LINE Arcltf[on w kcC— ArcmtaA RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA ...+a+d. RANCHO CUCAMONGA•CA RANCHO CUCAMON GA.CA .w.:.:.. Loot, ) i � i 9 r 71 im Ann- .S_.. •," ! - `C � -tea -��•' ►��'%` ` rr �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Master Plan Required Proposed Floor Area Ratio(min-max) . 0.03 FAR 12 Feet Ground Floor Nonresidential Use 0 - et Height(min) Primary Building Depth (max) 50 Feet Transparency,Ground Floor (Min/Max) 0% 90% ., CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ■ �� ri �_ �illll - I� -�- _ �illlll� � ICI �_ �illll�� � III �IIIII� � 11 ---- Ir-i I■ ■i-i i i-_i__it � i-i i r,=_i_-il � r-i r _i_-il � i-i i_ i _i_ �i � ■III � —0_�❑■�aallll�l�l.___0_ 0_III■III. IIIII_�IIIL____I�,_ 0-�■�_.,II11-�L.-- �_ �-��III=.IIII�I�I __�_ __I�,Ilm�, ������raa,R•r3°a�a_°tea:_—__■° ems,-.-e��°�■■_�,-—°aei�° ems,-._e���■■_°�:_—_air°err-.rra��■■_�,-—_air° ems,-._e���■■_�—�,r�°�� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rd Floor 2nd Floor • • -- . 74T 'P,410 BATH BATH 3 Illilhll 1�i111 IIPI IIII Ill ill 1 � !R •�0GARAGE it ,�I��l�iu i■�� `IIr■ �ii Il�,� 1 � RBI - �1 F=7� M.BATH Elfi � II Il lfll �gE ENTRY ■ -:.. 11 EAR -- Increased building depth fr• 1 feet to • Only applies to residential townhouse buildings CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Minor Exception �BEDRM.2 West Pr,b petty Line , 30 feet BITH, West Property Line > - - i"T FALL 1 27.5 Feet Proposed 27.5 feet rr_Ear i - D I ry i 10 feet L 10 feet 1 Outline of 2-story }° UNIT 2X,1 UNIT 4.1 end unit UNIT 3-1 UNIT 2-1 • Requesting a 10% reduction for the V-story required setback • Only applies to a portion of the unit • Only applies to the 4 residential townhouse buildings i I �� �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA uLJ } --- --ram BASE LINE RD n o Lu 00 zs y - IT ••` 2 4 • -rs �� � i. L7 tE D KUNFN5 p gys � Fk1365�$ J — I DECORATIVE PAVING r. W Q ORGAAIIC LINEW DECORATNE PAVING Wl COLOR AND WTERIAL VARIATIONS TO PAVNG PATTERNS CKATF-OMTRASTTO a0li-DINQAND STRQUAff QW00OR PUBLIC ART PUBLIC ART:URBM SCULPTURALANO'DR DECOMYNE POTS ON PMESTAL a Previous Meetings • Neighborhood Meeting, April 3, 2025 • 70 residents • Design Review Committee, May 20, 2025 • Recommend moving project forward to the Planning Commission. Discussion Topics: Traffic/Parking Safety/Privacy . . il i I II I 1I I. ? �I 'I FF F I F-11" Ela UI u ul . Lj i E n �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PL PROPOSED BASELINE TOWNHOMES EXiSTING SiNGLE FAMILY RESiDENCE I i "TORYTOWN HONE uNfr3 2-STORY TCIWN HDAIE UNff IG'MIN. VARIES:t3S op EIG5TING i SETHAON E]GSTING REARYARDPAT10 RESIDENCE I � ta PROF.D.Olf FASEf --- p, VAJNr .PATH I I-ANTE: PROP.PRNACY SCREEN PLANTING -W GROWTH PER YEAR i o PROP.PER]METER f # BLOCK WALL EkTG HOUSE FFL PROP.RETAINING WALL }.-n. BL03 FFL C� I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r �r - II`s ILA il■ L11—l—■,I loom—rl IL=EE� r.� =m I IN MIN OEM ]MIMI! ■ � Ilrlr��. r,l�l rl�� -��� �- � -- -� ■iirruinrr� iri i�9i�iiii 4ri iiHi iiii 9ni iiuni nr��_ririm�i�nrr�in� ■■I ICI = a, l BALOD -MINN. too ■ai 1 sailLlJ A�� - �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Assessment • The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 — In-Fill Development Public Noticing • Advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin • Notices sent out to 165 property owners within 660 feet on July 9, 2025. To date, staff has received verbal and written communication. Recommendation • Subject to the conditions of approval, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt: • Resolution 25-21 recommending approval to the City Council: • Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20708 • Design Review DRC2024-00108 • Minor Exception DRC2025-00055 • Master Plan DRC2024-00109 Top image: west building end, 3rd floor is setback beyond 2-story unit. RIGHT aS N Bottom image: Residential 6 Uri entrance on east side of building EL u for south end unit, garage entrance for north end unit. U Mi 1.1 NIT 1.0 LF FT WE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA fi�.ill � .�1 .�A I dll 1 � �� � ���� fi_ �1 Ili ® I !me Case III�`I� Ilef I� � • � � s:ttlI' _ 1111 7kiu Jill ��il �II1 sttl _ _ �•� MEN HE Q _ LIn_w Ili m m r ll :I miff� 'li i�u��-i_ . ���Ise lus�+■_�il _.-,,■�� ' z m m .. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 23'-4' Live/Work Ground Floor: Interior connectionts between commercial and F Rifresidential floor areas of �, I each unit. LLII r Red: Commercial --- f , Ij entrance ,� wba„o.. I LS_SS_RJ r bxrc-ea.,xecun.l I r o ---------1�� ` =-------- Blue: Residential Entrance PIDR " I ENTRY , _ ` "Non-Residential Floor Area CANNOT be LIVE�WQRK Ib'E O converted to residential LJVEIW4RK ,saa,a-,r ' rwoR due to land use requirements. AX 15'-5' 7'-0" W-0. 16'-2' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Jw �.�� .dill E� oil l Is In NOR �� a �e it k r` i II 1 ■ILINK �I�r "�' jl Rryb wa: 'onebridgeLegal .. � vy„�..,. .. ,4. i T'"71�rC. � 1 � � .. ■��� -� s��� ri If��:.:� 1�11 '..�� � ��1��' a slll '�� _ f��� �u�,�� I s!■�I 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r� r r� 9505 BASE LINE LOCATION RANCHO CUCAMONGA HERMOSA ❖ 2.3 Net Acre Property on ., PARK .. VICTORIA GROVES Baseline % mile west of ELEM ENTARY SCHOOL Archibald in Alta Loma OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR ALTA L°MA — — — — — — — — A..., — — — — - - - '� — �" "" — — � "', ❖ Bike Trail within two blocks ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RAILROAD TRAIL ALTA LO A ALTA LOMA IQ MILE CENTRAL •j• Amenities within % mile: HIGH SCHOOL - _ PARK BASELINE ROAD THE BARK 0.T CENTRAL PARK ➢ Lions Neighborhood Park .,/ SITE --••� - LIONS PARK RANCHO CUCAMONGA ➢ Public Library PUBLIC LIBRARY ➢ Alta Loma Elementary ,IPMILE J ➢ Cucamonga Middle School I RED HILL COYOTE CANYON COM MLNITY PARK CUCAMONGA PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL 5 �' -'!`T•' RUTH MVSSER ♦•♦ .�� DONNA MERGED MIDDLE SCHOOL . Amenities within 1 mile: _ ..�ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHURCH STREET I ➢ Red Hill Community Park �'• e�QO OpQ PARK WESTGR ENWAY ➢ Alta Loma High School O SPRUCE PARK PARK a �� �y •_I MILKEN �P PARK ➢ Church Street Park 5 _CA Icy. "C"°°"R'ST'A" °°V OTENTARY SCHOOL E CANYON ELEM ➢ Central Elementary Ole •ACACEMV �t School ( •:':./• RALP M LEWIS PARK .. ♦♦ CENTRAL , ♦ Amenities within 2 miles: THILLBLVD. - - ➢ Central Park F90 f, a � �'� r�°� ➢ Senior Center y•� 4�I ➢ Community ' Center c 114 5 `�.i .r, :�, �J' ;. z?-r aiw14 :i1t� ,,•••.-A .. `'�f� '_1 ... _ fI �' '� ➢ The Bark @ Central Park DEVELOPMENT 9505 BASE LINE STANDARDS RANCHO CUCAMONGA Zoning Code vs. Proposed Project — Side-by-Side Comparison Zoning Code Requirement (Min. 0.4 FAR) Proposed Project Commercial Use: Min. 0.4 FAR - At least 40,268 SF 0.03 FAR - 3,000 SF of commercial space Residential Units Allowed: Up to 55 units 50 units proposed Lot Coverage: Up to 75% 41.9% lot coverage Parking: Structured parking for 300 spaces in a 4- 118 on-grade parking spaces level (40 ft) structure Building Height: Up to 40 ft at edge/parapet, 12 ft 30 ft at roof edge, Townhomes — 37' 3" and ground floor allowed Live/work— 39' 9" at roof peak DEVELOPMENT 9505 BASE LINE STANDARDS RANCHO CUCAMONGA What a by right development with existing mixed use zoning standards could look like: SITE SU M MARY - zoning: NG3 Neighborhood Corridor _ Required 5effiacks: t3_4 Front S. .,2 = 3 t'= I Side 5'street side,36'abumi lower density msiderrtial mne Rear 39, r� P _ 7 `� Grosz Vie Area: 2.64 ac 115A71 $f Asxd Net Site Area: 2.31 ac 100rd70 sf �{ k Total Commercial SF: 40,546 of (4ffr268 slmin,60,402 afmax) = Total Units: 54 units Average Net Density: 23.37 dLdec (24 duiec max) FAR 0.40 (0.4 min,0.6 max) e lot Coverage 52% [75%max} - Pill �9 EUILt11N�2 q BUILDING,SUMMARY ti ! Commercial SF Building Footprint 4 Laths Building 1 13,650 sf 4.550 sf Buildirg2 14,006 sf 4r800 sF - $ Building 3 6.896 sf 6r896 sf 12 uric Build ir+g4 61DC0 sf 4.550 sf 12 ursrts Build irg5 - 12r8OO sf 30 uric � NN500 dfl I L Parking Structure 1Rr800 sf Total 40,54d sF 52,346of 54 Units 1I PARKING SUMMARY eul�livcsn a MIN.PARKING REQUIRED[§} Spaces required A spaces!1000sf 40.546 sl 162 spaces ¢ r Residemial \O� 2.5 spacesJunit 54 units 135 spaces Total Required 297 spaces PARKING PROVIDED Spaces provided Parking Structure{4I Poets} 309 spaces pw ADA spaces 2 spaces ,,rj r7 Total"rmided 011 epecea 1— 1 CITY OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA 9505 BASE LINE MASSING DIAGRAM #1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA What the massing of a Zoning Compliant Development could look like: Aw f. i Birdseye View look�g South-West CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Ti. 9505 BASE LINE MASSING DIAGRAM #2 RANCHO CUCAMONGA What the massing of a Zoning Compliant Development could look like: f- ,� Birdseye oking North-West 9505 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MASSING DIAGRAM #3 What the massing of a Zoning Compliant Development could look like: - Oblique View Looking East AO 9505 BASE LINE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MASSING DIAGRAM #4 What the massing of a Zoning Compliant Development could look like: Oblique View Looking North-East 9505 BASE LINE PROPOSED PROJECT 62 Better fit with neighborhood than a by- right zoningproject ®Y a.� •u��.�i. q 11 4 ...I-- iSmallerbuildings height, scale, and footprint without 40,000+ SF of v Less parking and traffic ♦� commercial II em 'yy�j D 100% for-sale homes pride of ownership & HOA v Much-needed B � pmaintenance professional priced in the .0O $700K range 81 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r �r 9505 BASE LINE PROJECT AESTHETICS RANCHO CUCAMONGA ❖ In summary, the proposed project represents the best balance of conforming to the goals of a mixed-use zone on a major street, but set in a predominantly residential neighborhood, on a site with access constraints. OPP Highly articulated, residential-scale buildings High-quality material finishes Two-story end units next to existing residential uses ❖ Shopkeeper units facing Baseline Road ❖ Pedestrian paseos integrated throughout the site RANCHOCITY OF Tr. Planning Commission July 23 , 2025 Paseo 19 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Project Overview Applicant: Hamilton Land Development Inc. What: A request to subdivide 1 .02 acres of land into 19 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot for the development of 19 single-family homes within the Medium (M) Residential zone Where: Between 19t'' Street and Hamilton Street at 10295 19tn Street Entitlements: Tentative Tract Map 20761 , Design Review DRC2024- 00249 Location EfJJ'3!`' _ ate=- 1"'A 4% - _ y I. �,�. _ '1AI A nt '4�4 eE;,�,3i..- � fr ,t..�- R 1 I1 �y r I� j i'P'.{ 1� Irs • i' k . } T 1911, St Project Site 31 45 Hamilton St I f > d •[T [! L G :.bid - _ f , _ �` �. J y s`;•"�,r . �� v �`�,' .• ,� .. / - a Ali r f • Deer Canyon Wr 1 Elementary i ,Y; , f f �• —- Schoilk ol �!., � F �i ,,r :l A► ' _ _� T F �' ,.-�.. � { �. f. gip.. _ �• [J�� ,.lV �.. s� � r •6 _ T �.: _ .f - ��. _ ,� '., �� 1' awl �I rIF rr! Grp Z' ' Hermosa rrt ,fe 14 Park f r Ike l r !! ✓" 1 �`l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA N Zoning id ftt4i Medium ( M ) Residential Project Site tkc L Pa rks ( P) (rDD C= CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA � �r Street View ' } ' i ME OF w SouthLooking rr �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r f Ls Street View NOTICE OF FILING • wl�: :7.- .r �IJ* 4r ��M:1�rt� .,.,�� 1. _4-_ r' M � - RUN P - Looking North from Hamilton Street Lis, t)= CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Legislative Context • Project provides 7% affordable units for Very Low Income households under State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and thus can receive a 25% density bonus; • Applicant has submitted a request for waivers and reductions related to certain development and design standards for providing an affordable unit; • Applicant permitted to request 1 incentive or concession due to providing at least 5% of the units as affordable for Very Low Income households. Site Plan µ 6'CMU WALL 31.67— 3I A7' $=r_ 31.fiT $ — 31.67' 31-6T 3 ,67' y 35.66' - 3.fC 3.54' 354' —LL—i su' 3.su• 7 3.lff 33G'� � 3.9V 3su'� 3.5R H_U_WALL 0 �. w 4'+l-PARKWAY 0 cc 6 _ ARKWAY° 1 GUEST'PARKING 4'SIOEWALK�°- 1-1 DESTUAN — 4TE PUBLIC e �— SPACE — — S*YVALK 4-# —.— ,... — EMSTING I. I yl C SIDEWAD + 40 3 . dT 3 -31_ EXISTING SHARED FXISfING C.M.U. 6'C.m_U_V% # '� 1 E{ISTIN C DRIVEWAY WALL @L Aa � Z Compliance with Development Standards TABLECOMPLIANCE L--- Development StandardRequired Proposed Complies Residential8- 14 du/ac 19 du/ac Yes* • 4,000 SF 1,663-1,988 SF Waiver • 50% 53-63% Waiver Front Yard Setback27 Feet 4-7.9 Feet Waiver Rear • Setback(min) 15 Feet 5-8.4 Feet Waiver SetbackInterior Side Yard 5 Feet 3.5-4 Feet Waiver Street Side Yard Setback17 Feet 19.7 Feet Yes Building35 Feet 27 Feet Yes *State Density Bonus Law allows for developments to exceed the maximum units per acre standard Waivers and Reductions • Applicant permitted unlimited waivers and reductions from development standards in accordance with State Density Bonus Law that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the affordable housing development; • Applicant has requested a total of 29 waivers and reductions; • Request 14 (gate on south end of project) does not qualify as an eligible waiver request; • There are 28 eligible waivers and reductions requested. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA VI Parking • Per State Density Bonus Law, projects that provide 2 to 3 bedrooms are required 1 .5 parking spaces per unit; • Applicant providing 2 covered parking spaces per unit and 3 guest parking spaces; • 29 spaces required and 41 provided; • Utilized a waiver request to waive the development code standard for single-family residences to contain 1 covered and 1 uncovered parking space. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WI 000 Ig I�l ,�Ifak'�,g �i�•.., II I;�. � ��l��f r ��' '���P��i L� �_� i '11�e�rt� � J!" INA ��`�.. .��yy F..� E _�I��� i i i���ili �+ «� .�1r �• i lili� �^ �;kiYl'r .: �s ,: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r � .,; . s ►� ,l; sit �`� � I u u a ,• rim . m ©m ©moo.©m 000mn l yy K I qql� Ally- #t udill CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA u �� ® 00 Awi" r i I ��� +1�►���,,F�-s� 11 1 ] + '� ��' ��°�*��^;' _ _ __ it I + '_� Ali 1lip a Lmm L� ■■ t' r vilif yyY��t' �4} L � y4� _ -. _/-�• r+tom >r � �r,- �i'i`'! -� y Jr9i 9► 1�� �,�i'w �,:.. ��JLIL '�1'a'w �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r Materials Board MANL,FAj=RER.• PASEO 19 MANLIFAIMPIER PASEO 19 5MERWIN WILWRMS 5MERWIN WILWM5 EAGLE ROOFING RANCHO CUCAMONG,CA. EAGLE ROOFING RANCHO CUCAMONG,CA. UU&MISLON ROM FRI w6 imnON PASTE FRI HAMILTON LAND DEVELOPMENT,INC- BOE15.614CA91aP7 HAMILTON LAND DEVELOPMENT,INC. SONSML,CA91Pa1 C..y V I��O�: 1 USOHF6wAY,511DEA rdR]1411� STUCCO I: 1 US OHMswhr.sulTEA rf—D. a F ODSTA MES4LA9MV COSrA MESA G.9161] O AAR1]RISN01 �O I9991791iW1 Ac6DwNDE SW 9IP0 I 5 3 6 2 ORIGAMIW4I SW 706 I 4 5 3 6 2 SIDING 2 SIDING 2: [MATURA GRAY SW 910 ONLINESW Mrl SIDING 3: SIDING 3: AGED WHITE m 91Pp OISIGNSI WMfTE sw IqE TRIM:(EA$CIA/IRIM) TRIM;FASCIAITRIM) 0® o aw�SR CNATUM GRAT Sw 9169 Z�/RIRP ORIGMIIVMITF SW 76r6 � ROOF:RELAIR 9; ROOF.BELAIR O O N6p2 CONCORD MEND /6PI CONCORD BLEND 4kw pelaus vlvA DdYR ACCENT: ACCENT: GARRET GREY SW MY15 F0.pJT€L£NATgN COLOR SC6iBME 1 CI'YSCAPE SW rC 61 FIIONr9E0NgN-COLO0.ELT1@1E I rr 1 ROOFING HORIZONTALIM51DING BOARD F.BATTEN SIDING GARAGE DOOR ROOFING HIDING SIDING BOAADd BATTENSIDING F4ClUPE0.:CLOPAY O0.EQVAL MPM/ACTDPE0.EAGLE O0.EQLWL MAMIFACNREA.JAMESHARDIE MANUFACRIRER:JAMB HARDIE MANFACMREILCMPAYOREWL MANUFACTURER EAGLE OR EQWL MAMUFACTURERDAMPS HARDIE MANFACTURER IAHESHMDIE EL CLASSIC STEAITRADITIONALLONGPANFT STrIf BETAR STYIL HARDIEPLANK SMOOTH STYLE:HARDIE PANEL SMOOTH MODEL COSSICSTEELITRADRIONALLONGMNEL ME:BELAIR STYLE.HMDIEPIANKSMOOTH ME DAADIEPAFETSMOOTH COLORGARRETGREYSW60)5 COLOR CONCORDBIENO COLOR.CMTUMCMYSW9I69 COLORAGED WNDESW91B0 COLORCHYSCAPESW1067 COLOR F60t CONCORD BLEND COLORONUNEMMn COLOROP1GA111WHHESW7636 FL h 4 WINDOWSJSUDERlNNGIEHUNGARNM FRENCHDO aEMFTAEM ENTRY DOOR E%TERIORSTUCCO WINDOWS OLIDERSINGLE HUNG4IXED} FRENCHDOORrrEMPEREDI ENTRYDOOR EMERIORSNCCO MANUFACTURER:MIWARD OR ECI MANUFACNRERMMIDO00. MANUFACN0.ER THEPMAT0.0 00.EQUAL MANUFACTURER:OMEGA,OR EQUAL MANJFACTURER HII.GAPD OR EQWL MANUEACTURER.MMIDOCR MAMUFACNRERTHEPMATRUOKEOUAL MMIUFACWRER.OMEGA OR EQUAL MODEL MILE LINE SENES VWL L-2-10 MODEL SHAKER RAT PANEL STYLE FIBERGLASS II PANEL STYLE SANDNNMH MODEL STYLE UNE SEPBES ANPI N.250I MODEL-H KERFLATPANEL STYLE HBERGLASSlI PANEL STYLE SAND FINISH COLORWHITE COLOR WHITE COLOR GMRET fiEY 5W f0]5 COLOR.CHAMPAGRAY5W9169 COLOILWHITE COLOR.WHITE OOLORCITlBCAPE6W1061 COLOR ORIGAMI WHITE SW 7616 CITY OF ♦ • CUCAMONGA X, �1�1! � � ( :'` �' i Illlllkll411h11���ll�llllllllll'En_.._ _ rP°¢ y t �r �r JA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r r �� ' 7 27 . ro vi CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r OERSERRY- a I NARROW1-MEXI iEN ELDERBE E F MILKWEED PROSTRATE' _ LIFORNW FLISCHIA T DEED}(330 S.F) EDJ MO S.F) ® ® I ® leg � � � w Ed � o- _ NARROWLEAF MILkW :ES(15OAL- o } 'EED 190 S.F) —3-LONDON PLANE THE r '21"BOX)_ � _ ¢ t L f I .7 1 l 4 ] P l f J 4 C5 ► I "-1 J V a O �3- HINESE HACKBERRY w --NARROW LEAF MILKWEED(SOS.F) PRIVATE DRIVE. m I U] 0 a _ : : J 0S.F-SOD r-CALIFORNIA FUSCHIA`PROSTRA7E'(90 S.F) ONCRETE SIDE WALK "' '-I —1010 S.F-SOD ft o m DERBERRY .I�] �7 IJ �L 140 S.F-SOD E5(24"BO}t} • f 12-ME}CICRN ELDER6 TEED{90 S_F) .ES(15 CAL a 'I o- o LONDON PLANE THE IARROW LEAF MILKW F MILKWEED ¢ ® ® ® a o pme f NARROW LEAF MILKWE ED){330 SY) f _CALIFORNIA FUSCHIA'F d {MIXED){3nS.F7 CHINESE HAOKBERR SHRUBS CANOPY TREES Z� • -..... - PROSTRATE" Tr ee Shrub �. u '(806.F Selection Selection Neighborhood Meeting • Meeting held on May 28, 2025 at Hermosa Park; • 8 attendees present. Design Review Committee The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on June 3, 2025. Environmental Assessment • The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 — Infill Development Projects; • A Section 15332 CEQA exemption was prepared by EPD Solutions (June 2025), an environmental consultant hired by the City to demonstrate compliance with the Section 15332 exemption; • Studies confirmed there would not be significant impacts to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. Public Art • The project qualifies for an exemption to the public art requirement due to containing income restricted affordable housing units; • Value of the restricted unit (- $200k) exceeds the minimum value of artwork ($14,250) that would be required. Public Notification • This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on July 9, 2025; • The site was posted with two notices on July 9, 2025; • Public notices were mailed to the 131 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the site on July 8, 2025. Conditions of Approval Modification of existing Planning Department Conditions of Approval: 1 . Planning Department Condition of Approval #3 to include additional language related to the CC&R's prohibition and enforcement of parking in the drive aisle. • "The CC&R's shall include a provision to limit individual garages to vehicle parking only. A separate provision shall also be included to restrict parking within the drive aisle along with a measure of enforcement and removal of vehicles that fail to comply, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or equivalent." 2. Planning Department Condition of Approval # 6 to reword language and include the word "gate." • "Construction plans submitted to the Building Department shall Feffleye not include the vehicular and pedestrian gatE located at the Hamilton Street ingress and egress point." Conditions of Approval Modification of existing Engineering Department Conditions of Approval: 1 . Engineering Department Condition of Approval #5 to include additional language related to the timeline of completion. • "Developers shall be responsible for conducting a thorough analysis of potential traffic conflicts, which must be documented by a registered traffic engineer prior to approval of the Final Map. Said documentation shall include a striping plan accompanied by a formal letter outlining any identified conflicts, as well as any additional supporting materials deemed necessary. All traffic improvements, including but not limited to striping, signage, and restrictions shall adhere to applicable federal, state, and local standards. Furthermore, all such improvements must comply with the guidelines established in the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Please note that depending on the findings additional improvements may be necessary including but not limited to ingress/egress being limited to right-in/right-out only. Recommendation • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2025-019 for the approval of Tentative Tact Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024-00249, subject to the revised conditions of approval. • 19 single family homes on fee simple lots in compliance with existing GP and zoning designations • Mixed-income development with very low income and market-rate affordable homes • Environmentally friendly project: Solar, low flow fixtures, drought tolerant landscaping, Energy Star appliances, etc. • Revitalizes an underutilized, vacant property • Two story homes with 2 car garages, private yard areas and 3 BRs geared toward young families and empty-nesters • CEQA exempt: Negligible impacts to surrounding neighborhood • EVA gate eliminates traffic impact to Deer Canyon Elementary • Overall positive feedback from neighbors • Zoning = MDR, 8 to14 du/acre • Property min. density = 9 units • Property baseline density = 15 units • Max under density bonus = 30 units • 19 units is midway between min. and max. • 4 Bonus Units, 1 is very low affordable (25%) • Negligible incremental impact of 4 bonus units Standards very difficult to achieve with single family homes on fee simple lots Example: 4000 SF lots = 7 du/acre, less than min density required Density bonus reductions primarily due to 2 story homes on fee simple lots, preferred housing type of neighborhood Setbacks and other standards are roduct/orientation dependent 3 story 30 unit apartment building easily compliant with standards • Project is located in a HQTA I K.—P Icn Sr L..R) P, A, R 4ndi o fin, A- W. High Quality Transit Areas.Major Transit Stops and High Quality Transit Corridors in City of Rancho Cucamonga [Connect SoCa12020 Plan Year 20451 0 Major Transit Stops IV High Quality Transit Corridors(HQTCs) High quality Transit Areas(HQ7As) • Close proximity to 3 bus lines: • Line 87: Stops at 19t"/Cartilla -500' • Line 81 : Stops at 19t"/Haven -1300' • Line 367: Stops at 19t"/Archibald -3800' • Bike lanes: 19t" Street, Haven, Archibald • Numerous shops, restaurants, grocery stores, schools, churches, parks within 1 mile radius of project • 210 Freeway access less than '/2 mile • 12 more parking stalls than required by code • Designed for households with no more than 2 vehicles • Large parties held elsewhere: park, restaurant, amusement center • Project geared toward fastest growing segments of Rancho Cucamonga • Young Families: 20s&30s, kids under 5 • Downsizers/Empty Nesters: 55+, kids out of house Table HE-2:Age Distribution 2000 2010 2018 Percent Change Age Groups Persons Percent Persons Percent Persons Percent (2010 to 2018) Under 5 years 8,900 7.0% 10,238 6.2% 11,450 6.5% 11.8% 5 to 9 years 10,984 8.6% 11,190 6.8% 10,593 6.0% -5.3% 10 to 14 years 11,620 9.1% 12,711 7.7% 12,300 7.0% -3.2% 15 to 19 years 10,639 8.3% 13,672 8.3% 12,269 7.0% -10.3% 20 to 24 years 8,622 6.8% 12,104 7.3% 12,534 7.1% 3.6% 25 to 34 years 18,686 14.6% 23,848 14.4% 26,766 15.2% 12.2% 35 to 44 years 23,720 18.6% 24,752 15.0% 22,776 13.0% -8.0% 45 to 54 years 18,391 14.4% 25,883 15.6% 25,380 14.4% -1.9% 55 to 64 years 8,393 6.6% 17,827 10.8% 22,197 12.6% 24.5% 65 to 74 years 4,515 1 3.5% 7,707 1 4.7% 12,965 7.4% 1 68.25 75 to 84 years 2,583 2.0% 3,845 2.3% 4,647 2.6% 20.9% 85 years and over 690 0.5% 1,492 0.9% 1,802 1.0% 20.8% Total Population 127,743 1.0% 165,269 100.0% 175,679 100.0% 6.3% Median Age 32.2 34.5 35.7 Source:U.S.Census 2000 and 2010.American Corr munity Survey 2014-2018. • LC-1.9 Infill Development. Enable and encourage infill development within vacant and underutilized properties through flexible design requirements and potential incentives. • LC-1.11 Compatible Development. Allow flexibility in density and intensity to address specific site conditions and ensure compatibility of new development with adjacent context. • LC-4.4 Balanced Neighborhoods. Within the density ranges and housing types defined in this General Plan, promote a range of housing and price levels within each neighborhood to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. • LC-4.10 Minimize Curb Cuts. Require new commercial development, and residential to the extent possible, to have common driveways and/ or service lanes and alleys serving multiple units, to minimize the number of curb cuts along any given block to improve pedestrian safety. • H-1.1: RHNA Requirement. Encourage the development of a wide range of housing options, types, and prices that will enable the City to achieve its share of the RHNA . • Program HE-16: Density Bonus • Environmentally friendly • Generates impact fees for the City and local schools • Significantly increases the property tax base for the property • CEQA exempt: Negligible impacts to the neighborhood • No change to existing zoning or general plan • Helps the City achieve RHNA and housing policy goals Table HE-52:Summary of RHNA Extremely Low/ Low Moderate Above Very Low (51-80%AMI) (81-120%AMI) Moderate Total (Below SO%AM II (Over 120%AM I) RHNA 3,245 1,920 2,038 3,322 10,525 Remaining Need 3,209 1,864 0 225 5,280 CODE AMENDMENT: Underground of Overhead Utilities July 23 , 2025 Key Actions • Ordinance Amending Section 16.36.09 of the Municipal Code; • Repealing Planning Commission Resolution 87-96; • Adding new Chapter 17.84 to the Municipal Code. Current Code Background • June 10, 19871 PC adopted Resolution 87-96 to repeal Resolution 86-77; • Developers are required to underground or pay in- lieu fees; • Outlines limits of undergrounding responsibility. it I, FFR �4 I I' ."Ir•T 1 1 �r �r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA r Why Update the Code ? • New proposed code will clarify outdated provisions; • Support flexibility for infill/residential projects; • Allow in-lieu fees for all project types; • Improve administrative efficiency; • Align with General Plan focus areas. Code Amendment Highlights • City Engineer will now determine undergrounding impracticality; • Clarifies how the in-lieu fee is calculated; • New outlined appeal process to establish a clear procedure. Code Amendment Highlights • Expanded exemptions (4 to 10 SFR lots); • Defined regions for fee collection & expenditure; • Focus Areas defined in General Plan will not be exempt from undergrounding. Exhibit C ------------- REGION 1 �,,. REGION 2 i i rr . REGION 3 f FOCUSAREA1 ; 'a- �clloea L. OCMAREA2 c .._. FOCUSAREA3 FOCUSAREAB , CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Review • Staff has determined that the proposed code amendment is exempt from the requirements of CEQA; • Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, the proposed amendments are not considered a "Project". Recommendation Staff recommends: • Adopting the draft resolution amending Municipal Code 16.36.09 ( Exhibit B of staff report); • Repeal Planning Commission Resolution 87-96; • Add Chapter 17.84 to the Municipal Code. Planning Commission DRC2025 -00141 July 23 , 2025 Project Proposal • Proiect Type: Zoning Map Amendment • Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga • Proposed Action : Change zoning from Neighborhood Estate 2 ( NE-2) to Low Residential ( L) • Affected Area : 359 single-family lots across 4 tracts (approx. 150.79 acres) S ite Location and Zon ing x r . � '4 J.i.-. .w• - - F if _... - J� ti 1 a � Wilson Ave t . - � lr M W r 712212025-2.55.39 PM 1:9.028 Zoning L Law Residential 0 0.07 0.15 0.a n-,i OSC Open Space Conservation Project Site 0 0.15 o-.3 0.6 km NG3-L Neighborhood General 3-Limited P Parks NE2 Nei hWI-hood Estate 2 N g CauMy of San Bemarorno.Mexer FC1UC Flood ControllUtility Corridor L-ESP Low Residential-Etiwanda Specific Plan k AVery Law Residential Other Planning.CNye Rsnum G�ce ga GIs.DoIT,Planning.C.tye Rancno Cucamonga ExistingPhotographsSito r 949-793-7542, 140* .. X ! �t r -'4!► }�� ! .+ _ - -~F •.l { [ J '�-, .►o"_. '• "s :jam. � 1 ._.Ji.+`. igSj �54", r•, -M f w. r. • P s �� ExistingPhotographsSito W, 0 1 1 MWO WE -fill - Q ` AAA a' � 1 � } \ c "`� :� k' • �� Jy., s�h'^+�, � r ?' "�-`Nye �,�.� VM"!f i h��� •y,�' �.'La� yy F ,ram .i -- ExistingPhotographsSito ., a o. J ..,. t_ fit r y � � y� /I � f I l k8. ��ae� •YI g y;.� a..- Ug� _ + ` t � ZoningHistory 2004 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Subdivision General New Form- Final Map Submittal City-initiated Approved Plan Based Recorded Formal Zoning Map Update Adoption Applications Amendment Site was Final Tract Maps The City initiated subdivided under The City Two formal The City adopted were recorded for Zoning Map the Etiwanda a comprehensive implemented a the subdivision, applications were Amendment North Specific General Plan new form-based solidifying the lot received by Plan, which Update. development configuration and Developers. guided the layout code. layout as of the Project approved. Area. Proposed Amendment • Rezoning from Neighborhood Estates 2 ( NE-2) to Low Residential ( L) • Tracts 16072, 16072-11 16072-2 and 16072-3. • Align zoning with the approved 359-lot subdivision . • Corrects mismatch with recorded layout and zoning standards. • No physical changes proposed . t �e� � ��� ,! ham'4J�� �• 1 ■son am 11 .. ; � ����f �� � r. �}_.y�;,•-rye *AWL rjiw4;�4m Now I�Golden�Prai_r.�e�p�� •', r y"". � s, n^ Bahumalct . Ave- •.• �- �s��"'��'_-- �'yllrilson�Awer.�..w.. - YYfI OWN Feet u r r e n t Z o n i n fstatq 2 m ' IF ■■■ I IS I OWN � t .r ormt(i { -'c., •` "' ��?;VAL y �• .{ 1 _' �•#.- ``'jib : ri4',.LL moll gaha12'a1Ct- 50 pow III +y �: t �,. �Iv �.y r ;ter C t a • 400 600 � Environmental Review • Per State CEQA Guidelines section 15061( b) (3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Noticing notices* 549 . • to property owners within 660 feet of the subject parcels on • 25 . * Published in the Inland Daily ii �� '� * • fit � . Bulletin � «}tip �w�t■� ,��� ��ItM * Physical notices posted at the site on 1Li ����r CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA �� Recommendation • Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2025-018 recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Map Amendment ( DRC2025-00141) Board of Trustees Members Alta Loma r''s r OF DApsC BRAD BULLER HUNG �WtV ERIC CHUNG S C 11 0 0 L DISTRICT HO CUCAMONGA DR,MALINDA L.HURLEY In>p)Imq .to ruin lei „ I II,hm, JUL 2 3&), JESSICA MARTINEZ 9390(909)484-5ase 1t51 Road,Alta Lama,CA 91701 RECEIVED _ PL4NN1NG Superintendent R. RY SMITH July 22, 2025 Dear Planning Commission Members, On behalf of the Alta Loma School District Board of Trustees, I respectfully submit this letter in strong opposition to the proposed Paseo 19 development project referenced in Agenda Item DI for your July 23, 2025 meeting. I respectfully request that this correspondence be read aloud and formally entered into the public record. As Superintendent of Alta Loma School District, I must express our tremendous disappointment and growing concern regarding this proposed project. Our opposition is rooted in student safety and traffic control concerns that directly impact Deer Canyon Elementary School and the surrounding community. We have been told throughout the review process that this development would include a gate at Hamilton Street to prevent through traffic. Now, at the eleventh hour, we are alarmed to learn that not only will there be no gate, but that two full access points will connect 19th Street and Hamilton Street, effectively creating a new thoroughfare directly adjacent to our school. This is simply unacceptable. Traffic congestion on Hamilton Street is already a major challenge during school hours, and our staff, students, and families continue to bear the brunt of the city's intensifying development decisions. It is inconceivable that this Commission would again disregard the significant safety risks posed by additional traffic adjacent to a school site, especially after we previously voiced similar concerns during your consideration of the Grand Pacific Communities development, also directly north of Deer Canyon Elementary. That project was approved despite our opposition, and now, with Paseo 19,the risks are compounded. The City's stated goals of improving neighborhood connectivity cannot come at the cost of student safety. Gate or no gate was not a minor detail; it was a commitment made to this District and to our families. That commitment has now been reversed. In addition to traffic concerns, we believe the inclusion of an accessible pedestrian gate at Hamilton Street is also problematic. It increases the likelihood of overflow parking and through access along Hamilton,particularly during high-volume school drop-off and pick- up times. Furthermore, we are alarmed that there is no condition in the proposal that validates our understanding that signage would be installed to restrict on-street parking on Hamilton during key school hours or overnight, a critical measure to mitigate impacts on school operations and neighborhood access. CARA CERECEREZ DR.CHRISTINA PIERCE ERIC KART FAX: Superintendent(909)464-3I55 Assistant Superinwdent Assistant Superintendent Associate Superintendent FAX: Superintendent Services(909)484-5155 Human Resources Educational Sen-ices Administrative Services Purchasing(909)484.5165 Administrative Services/Accounts Payable(909)484.5175 Loma n Board of Trustees Members /per al �� 1 ,lta Lo l a BRAD ERIC CHUNGHUNG S C Il O O I. D I S 1 R I C 1 REBECCA DAVIES DR.MALINDA L.HURLEY lnernnng ;ca rnrry for rr 1drLr°i JESSICA MARTINEZ 9390 Base Line Road,Alta Loma,CA 91701 DR,SHERRY SMITI1 (909)484.5151 Superintendent We urge the Commission to reconsider this project or, at the very least, require a secure, non-public gate at Hamilton Street as a condition of approval. A connected drive aisle between 19th and Hamilton poses a significant and foreseeable danger to our students. Please do not repeat the mistake of prioritizing density over safety. The children in our community deserve better. Sincerely, Sherry Smith, d. D. Superintendent Alta Loma School District CARA CERECEREZ DR.CHRISTINA PIERCE ERIC HART FAX: Superintendent(909)484-5 ISi Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Associate Superintendent Human Resources Educational Services Administrative Services Educational Services(909)484.5170 Purchasing(909)484-5165 Administrative Services/Accounts Payable(909)484.5175 Thornhill, Elizabeth C/7y0FROC11 0 CUCAM Jut From: Kristine H. <kristinehatanaka8@gmail.com> /�C/ 3 Sent: Wednesday,July 23, 2025 11:S8 AM RE f IVED , To: Thornhill, Elizabeth 1,6 Cc: Mendez, Bond /Y v Subject: Re: 9505 Base Line For Planning Commission Public Hearing, 7/23 CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Hi! Elizabeth, Thank you for returning my call. Please include my email message forthe public hearing today regarding 9505 Base Line. Thank you. Dear Planning Commission, I live at 7444 Layton St. My concerns below for the proposed 50 mixed use condominiums have remained the same since being notified of the proposal: Noise Pollution Safety Parking Traffic Loss of Property values Obstructed views Loss of Privacy Opening Up of Ruby Ct Loitering/the homeless Crime Throughout our conversations and correspondence, I have appreciated the time Sean and Bond have made to address all of my questions and concerns. I continue to try and look at the proposal as something positive. But having moved here from Culver City where mixed use buildings are everywhere, the quality of life there for decades had declined too drastically for me to want stay. My concerns for 9505 Base Line are not positive and not unlike anything I haven't already experienced. We bought our home in Rancho Cucamonga in 2021 at this location where it is quiet, safe, private...a smaller community neighborhood. I cannot express the disappointment and anger after receiving the proposal notice. The concept of mixed use buildings makes sense outside of an area where single family homes are built or in highly dense urban populations. But not within a neighborhood of homes.This is a place where people raise their families and enjoy their privacy and quiet of their surroundings. I understand the city's idea of revitalizing this particular area of Rancho Cucamonga as one of the main corridors to the city and the limitations of land for housing. Besides the location on Base Line and availability of land, the mixed use proposal doesn't work for our neighborhood with far too many problems it will create. In general, we are a car culture. Most of us will continue to drive to our local t coffeehouses, restaurants, and patron whatever other businesses we go.The last thing most people want to do is walk anywhere. When I look around at the vacant businesses along Base Line, it makes me wonder if the city plans to build more mixed use housing in our backyard. It's my understanding that our neighborhood will be the first location where mixed use buildings are'built within a neighborhood of single family homes. In an effort to preserve the way of life we have here, I must ask the Planning Commission to please reconsider this decision. It is wrong and I am opposed to this proposal.Thank you. Sincerely, Kristine Hatanaka 7444 Layton St. z CITY OF RANCHn e,:i-""AONGA Thornhill, Elizabeth JUL2-1 ZDZT From: Mendez, Bond RECEIVED - PL,\NNIN Sent: Monday,July 21, 2025 10:14 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: FW: Public Hearing, Design Review DRC2024-00108- 50-Unit, 3-Story Mixed-Use Condominium (APN 0208-432-16) From: P Soto <damexican@damexican.net> Sent: Monday,July 21, 2025 8:47 AM To: Mendez, Bond<Bond.Mendez@cityofrc.us> Subject: Public Hearing, Design Review DRC2024-00108-50-Unit, 3-Story Mixed-Use Condominium (APN 0208-432-16) You don't often get email from damexican(@damexican.net.Learn why this is important WARNING:The sender of this email failed validation.This may indicate phishing or impersonation from an unauthorized source. Verify the sender before clicking links or opening attachments. CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Patrick and Angelina Soto 7345 Layton Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Date: July 23, 2025 To: Planning Commission Re: Public Hearing, Design Review DRC2024-00108 - 50-Unit, 3-Story Mixed-Use Condominium (APN 0208-432-16) Dear Commissioners, We appreciate the City's efforts to bring new housing and live/work opportunities to our city. While we are not opposed to development here, we live immediately to the west of the proposed site and have remaining concerns about how a 50-unit, three-story building will affect our property. Our backyard currently overlooks this mostly undeveloped parcel, and even with the applicant's concessions (parking shifted east and an initial two-story step-back), several impacts remain. Please include the following comments in the public record: 1. Backyard View & Building Mass • Unobstructed Vista Today, our backyard enjoys an open view across the empty lot. Introducing a three-story facade just 10 feet from our property line will feel oppressive and block both sky and daylight. • Recommendations o Deepen the two-story buffer along the west boundary by an additional 10 feet (total 20 feet) before rising to three stories. i o Enhance screening with a 6-8 ft masonry wall topped by a vine-covered trellis, plus a 10- ft-wide planting strip of fast-growing evergreens or tall canopy trees. 2. Amenity Area Setback • BBQ / Seating Proximity The proposed hang-out spaces sit only 5-7 feet from our fence, introducing noise, smoke, and lighting into our backyard. • Recommendation Shift all active recreation areas at least 15 feet toward the eastern half of the site, away from adjacent single-story homes. 3. Parking Capacity & Spill-Over • Overflow Risk Although no stalls back directly onto our yard, the current count appears insufficient for 50 units plus live/work demand. Overflow into Layton, Alder, and Ruby Streets will overburden neighboring families and increase congestion. • Recommendations o Increase on-site parking by 10-15% (approximately 8 additional stalls), or o Implement a valet or shared-parking agreement with a nearby facility to manage peak demand. We do not support "No Overnight On-Street Parking"restrictions on the neighboring streets either. 4. Fagade & Lighting Treatments • Articulated Fagade Break up long, blank walls facing west with material changes, projections, or vertical trellises to reduce visual bulk and monotony. • Shielded Lighting Use only down-shielded, motion-activated fixtures—no upward or outward glare toward single- family yards. 5. Traffic Circulation & Egress • Multiple Access Points 1. Ruby Avenue (south), leading directly into quiet residential streets without a signal. 2.. Shared driveway to the east, which connects at a traffic signal by the Elderly Care facility. • Concern Residents and service vehicles will likely favor exiting via Ruby Avenue to avoid the light, pushing more traffic onto Layton, Alder, and other local streets ill-suited for higher volumes. • Request Consider restricting general residential egress onto Ruby Avenue, directing all outbound traffic through the signalized driveway, or installing traffic-calming measures on Ruby to discourage cut- through. Implementing these measures—greater step-back depth, relocated amenities, increased parking or valet management, and enhanced screening—will help the new development integrate more harmoniously with our single-story neighborhood. Thank you for considering these comments and making them part of the official record. Sincerely, 2 Patrick &Angelina Soto 7345 Layton Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 3 Thornhill, Elizabeth From: Mendez, Bond Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2025 7:00 AM To: Thornhill, Elizabeth Subject: FW: True Life Companies Project dre2024-00108/dre2O24-00109/dre2O25-00055 Hi Liz, C Here is another one. Thanks. RY�FRANCyoCUCA JUC Z2 MQNGA Bond RECEIVED , P/ems From:James Cordova <james.n.cordova@pm.me> TANNING Sent: Monday,July 21, 2025 10:56 PM 'V To: Mendez, Bond <Bond.Mendez@cityofrc.us> Subject:True Life Companies Project dre2024-00108/dre2O24-00109/dre2O25-00055 You don't often get email from iames.n.cordova@pm.me.Learn why this is important CAUTION:This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe. Dear Bond: I am sending this email regarding theTrue Life Companies project on the vacant land at 9505 Baseline Rd. (SW Corner of Baseline Rd. &Amethyst Ave,—APN 0208-432-16). 1 live at 9484 Alder St, on the NE corner of Alder and Ruby Ave. I know that the project will more than likely be approved at the July 23rd meeting, however as you can imagine I do have the following concerns since my family and I live on that corner. They are as follows: 1. Parking-We have both of the houses on Ruby Ave who take all the parking on that street already. 1 believe this will cause any visitor or overflow parking from the project to park on any open curb parking spots on Alder. I believe the project is way under parked even though it may be up to city code(s). 2. Since parking wilt be an issue, would the City consider implementing parallel parking East of the Bike Path to Klusman Ave. or back in parking like the City did for the Arte Apartments? Or permit parking on all of Alder St. between Layton and Klusman Ave. 3. 1 do have a concern about traffic going through our neighborhood as I understand Ruby Ave.will be part of the "Public" Paseo that cars will use as a shortcut to our neighborhood and Baseline Rd. Would the city consider making True Life, or whomever they possibly sell the packaged project to, install a remote controlled or loop controlled gate at the end of Ruby Ave. ? Thank you for your time. > Best regards, James &Karen Cordova 9484 Alder St. 2 Item: D3 I �s( I�I 111C C"yOFRANCHO CUC a1141oA1o,e1 July 23,2025 JUL 2 3 4 RECEIVE® _ PIANNI5- Dear Jason Welday, NG Thank you and the rest of the City staff for the new ordinance provisions being considered tonight by the Planning Commission. The provisions in the proposed ordinance amendment would make our small 6 lot project exempt from a condition that was unfortunately attached to our project.The ordinance revision also includes a process for us to have the new thresholds apply to our project. We support the City's proposed revisions that put projects like ours in an exempt category. Thank you, Guy Ale nder 1300 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 108, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 0 714.987.2213 I C 714.270.3313