Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/02/13 - Agenda Packet - Planning Commission • • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CuRc~o cn FEBRUARY 13, 2008 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California L CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Stewart Vice Chairman Fletcher Munoz_ Howdyshell _ Wimberly - II. ANNOUNCEMENTS' `' `~ : '.: '- - ~ ~ III: ` ~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES;. January 23, 2008 Regular Meeting Minutes IV. CONSENT CALENDAR .' The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission atone time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion.. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. A. VARIANCE DRC2007-00299 - PETE VOLBEDA - A request to reduce the required side-yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a 1 of 5 _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 13, 2008 jtANCeo cUCAMONGA single-family residence in the Low (L) Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 8770 VinmarAvenue -APN: 0207-242-18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section •15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for side yard setbacks. CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 23, 2008 B. VARIANCE DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZP,DY - A request to reduce the required corner side yard setback from 27 feet to 16 feet 11 inches for the purpose ofbuilding asingle-family residence in the Low (L) Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Amethyst Avenue and 19th Street -APN: 0202-111-05. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for side yard setbacks. CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 23, 2008 C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006-00635 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING - A request to amend the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to Mixed Use (MU) for approximately 17 acres of land, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue-APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, 05, O6, 11, 13, and 14. Related Files: Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, Development Review DRC2006-00633, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for consideration. This item and the Environmental Impact Report will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 23, 2008 D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2006-00634 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING - Arequest toamend the Development District from Community Commercial (CC), Foothill Boulevard District, Sub area 3, to Mixed Use/Retail (MU) for approximately 17 acres of land, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 11, 13, and 14. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, Development Review DRC2006- 00633, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for consideration. This item and the • • 2 of 5 • • - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 13, 2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Environmental Impact Report will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 23, 2008 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING -The request to develop a 166-unit apartment complex on 10.5 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (the associated General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment applications propose a Mixed Use District), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and west side of Center Avenue. APN: 1077-601-02, 03, and 04. Related Files: Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for consideration. CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 23, 2008 VI: ~ PUBLIC COMMENTS. - ' This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. VIL ` COMMISSIONBUSINESS/COMMENTS- VIII. ADJOURNMENT .- The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p. m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on February 7, 2008, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting perGovernment Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 3 of 5 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 13, 2008 RANCHO CUCAMONGA If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. 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. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC 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 ycu 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. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. 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 • 4 of 5 u • - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 13, 2008 RAxceo (/UCAMGNGA appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,039 for maps and $2,141 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at http:l/wwW.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us 5 of 5 VICINITY MAP ~ Planning Commission February 73, 2008 Q ~ Meeting Location: N City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive • ~' _~Y ~ , , ., ~'~r~P"yJ'~~'l T H Er C I T Y O F -'ie"~.~""n.,€.zt~.~ ~i`:~^"...a5~~,,~~w~,..::racas..`~.s,5"..~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Report DATE: February 13, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA - A request to reduce the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct asingle-family residence in the Low (L) Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 8770 Vinmar Avenue - APN: 0207-242-18. • BACKGROUND: This request was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2008. The item was continued until the February 13, 2008, meeting in order to meet the public notification requirements. The neighboring property owner to the south attended the January 23, 2008, meeting in order to voice her objections to the Variance request. Her main objection was the fact that when the property was for sale, she approached the City and was told that the lot was too narrow to be developed. She also submitted a letter on her behalf and one from a neighbor outlining their concerns regarding parking, noise, and fire danger. It should be noted that the property owner to south lives on a lot of equal dimensions to the subject lot. Additionally, the minimum sideyard setback in the Low Residential District is 5 feet, so that without the Variance, the applicant could have built within 5 feet of one of their property lines. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The project site is located on the west side of Vinmar Avenue and south of 9th Street. The site is a vacant 5,440 square foot lot that is 31.55 feet wide and 158 feet deep. The neighboring house to the south is also on a 31.55-foot wide lot and is setback 5 feet from the property line. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Low Residential -Existing Single-Family Residence South - Low Residential -Existing Single-Family Residence East - Low Residential - Exlsting Single-Family Residence • West - Low Residential - Existing Single-Family Residence ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA February 13, 2008 Page 2 C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential East - Low Residential West - Low Residential ANALYSIS: A. Background: The applicant proposes developing a legal non-conforming lot with asingle-family residence. The narrowness of the lot necessitates that the applicant apply for a Variance in order to construct the residence and the required two-car garage. The minimum required lot width within the Low Residential district is 60 feet. The applicant has requested a reduction in the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. ~J B., Design Limitations: The applicant has submitted plans to construct a 1,311 square foot single-story residence and a 554 square foot garage. The architectural style of the residence is influenced by the "craftsman" design aesthetic. The width of the lot has resulted in a long and narrow residence whose front elevation is completely dominated by the two-car garage. Staff has worked with the applicant to increase the visual appeal of the front elevation. This includes stepping the two garage stalls, adding an entrance courtyard, and adding shed roof dormers to the north and south elevation. Staff has determined that without an additional Variance for a reduction in the two-car garage requirement, the lot width dictates that the garage be located in front of the residence. C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on .December 18, 2007. Commissioners Fletcher and Stewart were generally supportive of the proposed Variance for a reduction in the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct asingle-family residence. They both felt that the 30-foot width of the subject lot dictated that the two-car garage would dominate the front elevation of the house and felt that the Variance was justified. They commented that the residence to the south was also on a substandard lot and that there were other homes in the surrounding area that had substandard setbacks. The Committee recommended that the Variance be forwarded to the Planning Commission as presented. D. Variance:. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. Without the Variance, the applicant would not be able to construct the required two-car garage. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of the development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same district. In order to grant a request for a Variance, the Planning Commission must make a series of findings. Generally, these findings focus on unique or special circumstances applicable to a specific property. Following are facts to support the necessary findings: Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objective of • this Code. ' ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA February 13, 2008 • Page 3 Fact: Without a reduction in the sideyard setback requirement, the site would have to be developed without the required two-car garage and with a house that is much narrower than the preponderant house width in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. 2. Findin That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Fact: The Development Code requires that lots in the Low Residential District have a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The existing legal non-conforming lot is 30 feet wide, which is much narrower than the lots in the surrounding area. 3. Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in same zone. Fact: Without the reduction in the side yard setback requirement, the applicant would be limited to building a 16-foot wide house, which is much narrower than the other houses in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. 4. Findinp: That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. • Fact: The proposed reduction in the sideyard setback will allow the applicant to develop a house with a width no greater than the other lots in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. 5. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The applicant proposes building asingle-family residence which will not be out of character to the other houses in the surrounding area and will meet all the related Development Code requirements except for the sideyard setback requirement. E. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for sideyard setbacks. Because the applicant is only requesting a Variance for the reduction in the required sideyard setback, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Variance DRC2007-00299 through the adoption of • the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions.. J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA February 13, 2008 Page 4 Respectfully submitted, R- ~~.~-~ Jame .Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT:TV\ma Attachments: Exhibit A -Location Map Exhibit B -Site Plan Exhibit C -Floor Plan Exhibit D -Architectural Elevations Exhibit E -Design Review Committee Action Agenda dated December 18, 2007 Exhibit F -Letters of Opposition Presented at the January 23, 2008, Planning Commission Meeting Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2007-00299 • • n 0 ~1 L J C E v U O ~ 0 ~Q m o° ¢ M ~ K o = o UF-~ ~O N N ~ . N m ~ m _~ N ~ Z O Z O U i r- O i .~ ~ N N ~ ~ L d ~ L ~ 0 L ~~ w ~° r I I (L'Irl °~ "I ~ 6Y L9 44'L1 f6'[9 r ~ _ _ _ 1 0 ' x _ O O _ O O O O rl; sL Oh LB ~,~GA h9LB ~LL$ QXLB O6L8n I I~ n u I - ~-, L4'L9 n ~~ I o I I I ~~ I~ ~ B 8 O ~ ~O~ '~ L~ ~ -1 ='O - I O O O O 7 °'' er crl no'n eo'n n'es - - ~39N~}k4- - -L - - - - - - - - 3~N &tliF tl~&3 +i-~- I ~, ..~ O ••L _ I N o tP n ~ n .P [. ~n „ [> u 1 ~ M M N N ., `<4: 7 - 9L8 ' B L&L`b . ?3 . nG8 ~ . q ~: ;LL " . 11 y<~N ~ O O ' ~ O O O O (~6r 1 ~ I 4't9 6 [60'[f 6P't[ I6fi'SP1 o~ F T C O ~ N ~ m a ~[o 0 0 ~ ~~~ nr ~ O ` N N O 0 m ms yon moo amp I I~ N U L___`}p Nj~_____- t_________yp~M_~ B' I I O i I I I [( 6rl 6f"CY 60 fY C'I Li"I[ 60"[1 ({ Lf a ~I 1 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ O ~ -""-----0 -- '~ I e~`LE 'Chit/ h-LR _,y Lf, u L$ t,LA ~ _ r I Im I , ~~ I I I ., ~ N ~ a ru 0 `~' e I I ~" ;}. I r n r n n n ~.'I I 0 r_ '^ w In ~ _ _ n I _ ~~ -1 I FOR O O O rJ O O - I~finl eo'u ShL3 Ssi3 ICL-, >^L L~ LF; LB ~~L?. 60 t1 6['t9 1 I I I I ~ - - ~ 311 N~ kM-- - - - = - ~ Vi 51 A- 7-1 NO M-) - - - - ~ 3 wy }kW tl-9 - ~--~ I e O.I.rN ^I ~ oa"csr I ~uB ~,Og O~ ~O~ HO8 sa'n OGS Ls zP ~, A I I ~ I V O ~ I I ;M~ ~ ~I I. M n N ~ I el ~ ~'_____________~~ I I o[ e _ -I I [('6r 11 n m I Y O J e V N NO NO N _ c r r I ` \ ~ IG'[9 Sr'l9 0$ ['6L1 ~ 9!'rt f• Yr r 4y 6S ~ ~ _ ~----- ~ e CV m a _ - -- ba r ~ ^ _ I yr _____-___' a-G3 S°G'6 EhL3 ~~LL Lsi$ ,gRLB ([.1$ , „ 0 ~ I ~ ~ 0 ~ O 1 t ~ $ t B - J 8 c l r es I , ~ - - 'M13-kq--_ -__-_-- -- _- --3 h989-- e~ ~ -„ -_ -~ ~- _- ~_ _ EXHIBIT A ~~ - - ~~ ~+ B9BS 16C 606 E1' tl~tlNOW~f1J OHJNtl2[ aVWN~ O V9A6V~'OPNUA '3/~tl NIX19lN pS Y LLB ~~~ ~®~®~®A ~b~~ NV Id 3115 4 e • ® )tlM~ rtltl36 dY ANN y ~ p € / € svtls~rm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q '^ ~. ~ > J h~ N ~ ~ ~ 2 O U W W 0 ~ o W 1 W q < < 1~ ~ ~ U ( j ~ O ,0., O 1~ r 6 ~~ ~ g~ y~ y ~, ~~ ~ i B 4 ~^ III®o~ W ~~ ~ 2 ~ ~ p vl ~ K W - N tl T Q ~, z; ~ >i ~ c ~ r a Z a J a w • EXHIBIT B ~~ \J • s- m osu c~c aoa ai 2JV WNI~ O 9Qd6 VJ'Qftlldl'J 3AY N098fi N SI9 LL N I~ ~~ d®~®9®A ~b~~ ~ SN011H~313/NH~d 2i001d g e ~ ~z° w a: ~ ,a _ ~ ~ - ~ o~g a o ,o. va= ¢4'~ M a-0' ]-d y _ g I -° ~ I b 1$._~. ~ b ~ I I b g. r_. eR ~ .r-.c ^ m N b ~ .[-.I[ y EXHIBIT C ~~ -•a.. osu etc aoa ~ ~ avwNin 0[[ ~' waa v~ •oroia, •~ 3nv r~sae N s~v ` I~ ~~~ ~®~®9®fi ~b~~ SNOl1V n373 ¢ e • • • • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Tabe Van der Zwaag December 18, 2007 VARIANCE DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA - A request to reduce the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct asingle-family residence in the Low (L) Residential District, located at 8770 Vinmar Avenue - APN: 0207-242-18. The project has been determined to be categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for side yard setbacks. Background: The applicant proposes developing a legal non-conforming lot with a single-family residence. The narrowness of the lot necessitates that the applicant apply for a variance in order to construct the residence and a required two-car garage, The minimum required lot width within the Low Residential district is 60 feet. The applicant has requested a reduction in the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. Site Characteristics; The project site is located on the west side of Vinmar Avenue and south of 9th Street. The site is a vacant 5,440 square foot lot that is 31.55 feet wide and 158 Teet deep. The neighboring house to the south is also on a 31.55-foot wide lot, grid is setback 5 feet from the property line. • Design Issues: The applicant has submitted plans to construct a 1,311 square fdot single-story residence and a 554 square foot garage. The architectural style of the residence is influenced by a "craftsman" exterior design. The width of the lot has resulted in a long and narrow residence with its front elevation dominated by a two-car garage. Staff has worked with the applicant to increase the visual appeal of the front elevation, which includes stepping the two garage stalls, adding an entrance courtyard, and providing .shed roof dormers to the north and south elevations. Staff has determined that without an additional variance for a reduction in the two car-garage requirement, the lot width dictates that the garage be located in front of the residence. Maior Issues: None Minor Issues: The narrowness of the lot has resulted in a residence dominated by the two-car garage. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal as submitted. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Stewart, Nicholson Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag • Commissioners Fletcher and Stewart were generally supportive of the proposed Variance for a reduction in the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a single-family residence. They both felt that the 30-foot width of the subject lot dictated that the EXHIBIT E ~`~ DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA December 18, 2007 Page two-car garage would dominate the front elevation of the house and felt that the Variance was justified. They commented that the residence to the south was also on a substandard lot and that there were other homes in the surrounding area that had substandard setbacks. The Committee recommended that the Variance be forwarded to the Planning Commission as presented. • • • ~~ To whom it may concern: My name is Nancy Lopez and I own the property located at 8776 Vinmar Ave. Rancho Cucamonga. The reason 1 am writing is concerning the properly at 877ti Vin-mar Ave, APN:fl2fl7-242-18, Rancho Cucamonga that is located next door to my proper~y on ti,z norti ~ side. I received the notice of public hearing scheduled on \~.2.nu3n~ 23, 2flfl4 to regu°St .~.\ r4d'u'Ciif3i~ C:f i ~~lir°d .~.i'.`!e= yard setback and 1 do plan to attend the meeting to voice my cnnG?rn5. Several years ago when the property first was offered up for sale, 1 contacted the city after hearing that the praparty was sold and had fallen through because the person was told that the property was too sma11 to build a residence on. uvhen i called the city planning department, 1 specifically • asked if 1 could build a home exactly like the one that is on my ~.ropc~ ty rrovv a~i~i was tr~id ti7at i cauio'r~'t because ii~e property was too narrow. I was told that l could knock down ~'+t~/ !A{! O 3,,.-0 h! Itl!'1 3 1.srn~r rf?(~i ~3 ^© f1. #1. hir+ I\\r hVMsV MII\A NM\\V M IMIyV\ \V3\d..nc.. Vn ~~~~ \/©il l~./~~1~ property. The person that I spoke to said that the property w?S vertu?11~ useless to ?n;~one ~tileC tl??n rTlySeif Or thA person that owns the property to the north of said property. My p{an was to purchase fhe property and to build a similar house on the other half of the property. When I was told that there was no way that 1 could do this, 1 decided not to buy the property. I know for a fact, that other people showed interest in the property but vdere told the same thing that I was told, that we couldn`t build_on that half a lot. These people also dropped the idea of purchasing the property :,:,. aiier being toia mis. I feel that I should have been told by the planriing(btailding iii pivy~e i-iat i Spline ~~ uidi i uiu ~iavo vii~ci ~ipiii:iilS ~iiai i • could persue, but being a w1oman~that does not know or have ~r~~nn 8r 4h~ rl air. ~f hl IiilViN1V nr~rr~rit lr~,n ~ ~a~\/^ 11 nr,~ f/VVIi\JJ LV 41 I6s l MIV V X1..111 {AfI I1.A Nf VVVMMI VJ, f ylA Y V 4Ap ~!{..lL EXHIBIT F ~ I~ ~~`~ ~~a ~ knowing that I did have the right to request a variance. e3ecause I wasn't told all the options, open to me by the - employee, i feel discriminated against. ! also have concerns about hflw close the building would be tU n'iy h~rrle, arrCi i~iUvii i[ wOUici a ieC[ the pi`Opet`ty vaiiae ii and when 1 decided to sell, and the noise level and lack of Firiv3%j tiJius use i~3lii~usr'ig lr'iciisg ~i got GOS2, `v"v"olf~d aiiOrd tv ~ii~ family or any potential buyer. Sincerely, Nancy Lopez 1 f20f2008 5~5 vV. 4th five La Habra,.Ca. 90531 ~OL)O~! -OL94 • A la January 23, 2008 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Adalberto Nieves and I live at 8762 Vinmaz Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia 91730. I am writing this letter about the property at 8770 Vinmaz Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California. I own the property on the north side of the lot. I do not agree with the idea of anyone building so close my home. I believe this property would only bring my property value down, cause invasion of my privacy, and be a potential fire hazard. In my opinion I would rather the lot stay as it is. There is a lot of traffic on this street, were would these people pazk. They would also have to build a gazage for there • vehicles. -The lot is too small for that. I would have liked to attend this meefing, due to my work schedule I am not able to. Please take my objections into consideration. Sincerely, Adalbe~~ , "-ti--~_ • ~~3~D~ a13 • RESOLUTION N0.08-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING. VARIANCE DRC2007-00396 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED CORNER SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 27 FEET TO 16 FEET 11 INCHES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING ASINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AMETHYST AVENUE AND 19TH STREET - APN: 0202-111-05. A. Recitals. 1. Jalal Noorzady filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2007-00396 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of July 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued the item to an unspecified date. 3. On the 23rd day of January, 2008, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow for sufficient legal noticing. On the 13th day of February 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. • 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearings on January 23 and February 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an undeveloped property located at the southeast corner of Amethyst Avenue and 19th Street with a street frontage of 40 feet and lot depth of 122 feet; and b. The properties to the south, east, and west of the subject site are zoned Low Residential; the property to the north across 19th Street is zoned Office Professional; and c. The original project site joined two smaller lots together through a lot line adjustment that was approved on July 11, 2006. The applicant submitted a proposal to build asingle-family residence on the site which necessitated a Variance for a reduced corner sideyard setback. The minimum corner lot within the Low Residential District is 70 feet. The subject lot is 40 feet wide and has-been determined to be a legal • non-conforming lot; and ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.08-02 DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY February 13, 2008 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. In that, without a reduction in the corner sideyard setback requirement, the site would have to be developed with a house that is much narrower than the preponderant house width in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. In that, the Development Code requires lots in the Low Residential District to have a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The existing legal non-conforming lot is 40 feet wide, which is much narrower than the lots in the surrounding area. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. In that, without the reduction in the corner sideyard setback requirement, the applicant would be limited to building a 20-foot wide house, which is much narrower than the other houses in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. • d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent • with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. In that, the proposed reduction in the corner sideyard setback will allow the applicant to develop a house with a width no greater than the other lots in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In that, the applicant proposes to build asingle-family residence which will not be out of character from the other houses in the surrounding area and that will meet all related Development Code requirements except for the corner sideyard setback requirement. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations inland use limitations and includes variances for sideyard setbacks. Because the applicant is only requesting a variance for the reduction in the required sideyard setback, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the reduction in the required cornersideyard setback from 27 feet • to 16 feet 11 inches. q ~5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-02 DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY February 13, 2008 - • Page 3 2) Print a copy of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval on the plans when they are submitted for Plan Check. 3) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building and Safety Department. Engineering Department 1) Prior to building permit approval, provide a recorded copy of the Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 630, recorded on September 27, 2006, Document No. 20060660239. 2) The drainage runoff from this developed site shall not adversely affect the existing homes/lots adjacent and downstream of this site. 3) Submit an application to the Engineering Department to revise the City public improvement plans for the required missing public improvements on Amethyst Avenue. Revise existing Drawing No. 1956, Sheets 1, 2, and 3 to show the new drive approach location (width and centerline). Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter and existing sidewalk in order to construct the new wider drive approach.- Also, show all the existing trees, proposed new street trees, and existing trees to be removed, if any, to accommodate the new widened drive • approach. On the Title Sheet (Sheet 1) fill in the street tree table and construction notes. All revisions shall be made by a registered professional engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 4) Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of grading permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete and signed by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 5) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top-of-curb, 1 foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. 6) Protect all existing street improvements in place including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, street lights, street pavement, and street trees. Also, protect all existing local trail and private drainage easement improvements or replace. 7) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50 percent of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to the Building and Safety Department. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department.within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. • 8) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay Development Fees at the rates adopted by the City Council, which are periodically adjusted. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-02 DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY February 13, 2008 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION.OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I,.James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of February 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • ~-~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: VAR SUBJECT: V APPLICANT: PETE E DRC2007-00299 LOCATION: 8770 VINMAR AVENUE - APN: 0207-242-18 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: •A. General Requirements comoiet~o~ oa~e 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/_ agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees maybe required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-02, Standard _/_/_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The _/_/_ project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 B. Time Limits 1. Variance approval shall expire it building permits are not issued or approved use has not _/_/_ commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • SC-1-O5 + f~. Project No. DRC2007-00299 Completion Date C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use,of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _/_/_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_/_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/_/_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for _/_/_ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all _/_/_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/_/ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete _ or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For • single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall _ -/_/ condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining _ property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's perimeter. 9. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than _/_/_ wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 10. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed trom a material more durable than wood _/ / gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. _ _ 11. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. _/_/_ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED • ~ is ~` ~~` ~~~: ~, ,~- ~'r. T H E C I T Y O F Rnn~cno Cucnrton~cn Staff Report DATE: February 13, 2008 T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director- BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: VARIANCE DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY.- A request to reduce the required corner sideyard setback from 27 feet to 16 feet 11 inches for the purpose of building a single-family residence in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located • at the southeast corner of Amethyst Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 0202-111-05. Review History: This Variance request was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2007. The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed house and submit the revised drawings to the Design Review Committee for review prior to rescheduling the item for their review. The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on December 18, 2.007, and determined that the applicant had made substantive progress in addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners and that the project be rescheduled for Planning Commission review. The request was then scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2008. The item was continued until the February 13, 2008, meeting in order to meet the public notification requirements. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: "The project site is located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Avenue. The site was originally two smaller lots that were joined together through a lot line adjustment that was approved on July 11, 2006. The site is a vacant corner lot that is 133 feet long, 40 feet wide, and has an overall size of approximately 4,759 square feet. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Office Professional -Existing Office/Commercial Development across 19th Street South - Low Residential -Existing Single-Family Residence • East - Low Residential -Existing Single-Family Residences across Amethyst Avenue West - Low Residential -Existing Single-Family Residence ITEM B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY February 13, 2008 Page 2 C. General Plan Designations: Project Site -Low Residential North - Office South - Low Residential East - Low Residential West - Low Residential ANALYSIS: A. Background: The original project site joined two smaller lots together through a lot line adjustment that was approved on July 11, 2006. The applicant submitted a proposal to build asingle-family residence on the site which necessitated this Variance for a reduced corner sideyard setback. The minimum corner lot width within the Low Residential District is required to be 70 feet. The subject lot is 40 feet wide and has been determined to be a legal non-conforming lot. • B. Design Changes: The applicant had made numerous changes to the project since it was last reviewed by the Planning Commission. The size of the residence has been reduced from 2,843 square feet of livable area to 2,218 square feet. The second story has been stepped on the north and east elevations of the house, increasing the sideyard setback of the second story on the east side from 5 feet and 10 feet and the frontyard setback on the north elevation from 33 feet to 49 feet. The garage door has been moved from the west elevation to the south elevation and the setback on the south side of the house has increased from 20 feet to 27 feet. The balcony over the • garage has been eliminated. These changes greatly reduce the overall bulk of the house and help to reduce the effect that the second story will have on neighboring property. C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed. the project on December 18, 2007. At that meeting, Commissioner Stewart voiced many concerns regarding the project and felt that the lot was too narrow to be developed without negatively affecting the neighboring property owners. She was also concerned that the proposed driveway was too close (approximately 108 feet) to the traffic light at 19th Street for the future homeowners to safely access the public street. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he also had reservations developing such a narrow lot, but felt that if the Commissioners did not support the Variance request, they were basically reducing the value of the land to zero. He felt that the applicant had made a good faith effort to reduce the overall bulk of the house since the item was first presented to the Planning Commission. Assistant Planning Director Nicholson added that without the Variance, any house on the site would be limited to a maximum width of approximately 20 feet. He stated that-he did not feel that the driveway location would pose an access problem because the garage location would give the homeowner adequate backup distance to enter traffic in a forward direction. D. Variance: The applicant is requesting a reduction in the required corner lot sideyard setback from 27 feet to 16 feet 11 inches. Without the Variance, the applicant would be limited to building a house with a maximum width of approximately 20 feet. • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY February 13,.2008 • Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of the development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same district. In order to grant a request fora Variance, the Planning Commission must make a series of findings. Generally, these findings focus on unique or special circumstances applicable to a specific property. Following are facts to support the necessary findings: 1. Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objective of this Code. Fact: That without a reduction in the corner side yard setback requirement, the site would have to be developed with a house that is much narrower than the preponderant house width in the surrounding area or.within the Low Residential District. 2. Finding: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Fact: The Development Code requires that corner lots in the Low Residential District have a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The existing legal non-conforming lot is 40 feet wide, which is much narrower than the lots in the surrounding area. • 3. Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in same zone. Fact: Without the reduction in the corner side yard setback requirement, the applicant would be limited to building a 20-foot wide house, which is much narrower than the other houses in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. 4. Findin That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Fact: The proposed reduction in the corner sideyard setback will allow the applicant to develop a house with a width no greater than the other lots in the surrounding area or within the Low. Residential District. 5. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The applicant proposes to build asingle-family residence which will not be out of character to the other houses in the surrounding area and will meet all the related Development Code requirements except for the corner sideyard setback requirement. E. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes • variances for sideyard setbacks. Because the applicant is only requesting a Variance for the reduction in the required sideyard setback, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. a~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY February 13, 2008 Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vallev Dailv Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Variance DRC2007-00396 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, Jam R. Troyer, AICP ~/ Planning Director JRT:TV~ma Attachments: Exhibit A -Location Map • Exhibit B -Site Plan Exhibit C -Architectural Elevations -~ Exhibit D -Design Review Committee Action Comments dated December 18, 2007 Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2007-00396 • • u EXHIBIT A ~5 PROJECT SITE ~k~~ ~o ka n~ 19 th STREET qq$ $ ~a6 >~ N ~~~ y~a mo g~ Ino r ~ ~, ~iF Do FSF~~~Ric_ `f~,n a, z ~,. ;~ -m rm.. awn.a src.u. ..i fs `~ oN ~p~pyiy.g ~K~ ~ EASL ~ m~ tl~ yOj2 u I6.YP ~! nO ~~ ON Q <1 S. .U y p 9 ~ ~ p.s aLL`E 2 3 F~ ~/ g..CY__ io F AD F~L ffSf' '!' O z'' VV p yfi •°'J n ~,. ° Ivc B-5^ ~ fe Ya~sil' ;. ;'~~ •.• ~ 3 ffy" „a ! Inn y I.'P °"~ii 'ef_k ~ A i~j ; 6~~ ~ 6S a 3 ~ I wx I ~~~r~ •g_ o °t F Y ~ii sCAf£ Y - m' ~ D v. ff qry. "~''@"- ~~ a .C 22ioa.mla~ T o •.~~ _ .`.. `~?!al.Y~.i;~: rjm ~~D ale AyF D ~ ,•,•.•„• r3.. zo-I~ a ~, .,,`87! ~ r GY Im mmm mFm~ .i'. •. -' ' I ~~-aln Ana o r ~ uro' r. ,l ~:I,F~ t"~~ ~:~ Exar. NasE v'OiiamO - f*1 ~ mYp z, In Ina hr,AF fTl EZ :.s Z }H 4 t~ wti h ~ I ~a Flom ~ r x~'i7~'y r xyy~ wf~ ~'~tit~r ~o~~nmgR 4 5•:1. ,a:ti ~vtd rQw"i'. ;, ~'.~~~'~ _... ma`m$nmz _ ....,. .._ _.. ___ __~________ ______ a rn awV1 f ~ J.. .:_US .00' ~°/ ZA~r7i O~>m ff0 '~~ !!h3'-'Ar. ~l`~ i~.n M. ~amO~r51~Z Nm Tcym~ >n~ '~. ,11:: !fig a\ Czi os~ ~~~mg=~6~ Ng~ ~ooz~&j o~ ~~ggE 331i< n8mno ~Iy~ oyb ~ 5 rD II~ ~ ~O~ ~ogmg um myOZ ° T a g 9 v n ~ g89 ~~ - ~4 } oy u' ' ~ ~ rn 33~ _ oy~ ti~ rn >;o " egg N@ Cp z ~~g m° ~ 4m Ho m`m-' oume 0 zg~ Y~ 7~ '^~KK w $ SITE PLAN ~~~~ Fl®6®~®R MF911l~,t~ ~I~lw~ O .~. 615 N BBGON AVE, SUTE C lPLANJ CA 986 In rx xoaezA r ~ G715 AMETHYS 5T Ta 9~ J7J n`~ fA°°O°"''f 1° • • EXHIBIT B a~ • • • Ex~ m to eoe m OSII CCC 606 El w~xownio anwa is uu3vr se ' wvzaoox 98[16 tl0 QJV ldl 0 31115 '3Atl NOS~B9 N 519 ~ ~~~ ~®~®9®A ~b~~ ~ NVId ?JOOId 1Sl 4 n S A~.t[ CI ~ o-.~ F €„m~sE€ k 5~~gh°Y tl ~ tl ° ~ €. :Fdo_o .__ __.___..Hg ________. k qN£a£;~ ~~ ezg - ~ _ _ ~ w [I I 1 p 50 ~ n Fa ~ i r -~ n I I/ I I _ I 1 I I h d I b I I A'A~ Ia I I * y I b I A-.S ® I I I a-p I 0•. ~ _b ~ ~ Y~ ^ I I I I E ~~ I ~I I I _______ ____ __ _ t I '-1 ~~® A-=' F'~- LJ- + s-.C .ol-. ,0-[ .p-.p .pl-.Z AI-F .5 -S .0-,SE ~~ ~5 e9 ~I ~~ II ~' I ~' II II I~ II I I II II II II Ili II I II II III ~ I I I III III I I I I i I I I I 1 I I b~ ars ew rv~ 0511 fLC 606 BL ryowm acMVa ss Ax13~n su 9846 YJ Qltlld'1 ~ 31R5 `3Atl NOSHB N SI9 wrnnox n ~ ~1~`I~ ~®~®9~A ~~~~ ~ NVId ?10014 ONZ ~ ~ F 0 i -~ ~ t ~ I ~ I I I K ~ ~ a~~ ~ ~ ii • e I ~ ~wi • • ~g 1 I I I I ~ I ~ 1 ~ L ~` ~ ____` ~_~ • wrs eae,v~ 0811 EL£ 606 Bl rro~mm anwa ls su> 9846 tlJ INtllX1 ~ 31R5 '3~tl NO9~H6 N 519 ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~®~®9®A ~b~t~ Ndld d00b g e &p ~ ~~, g@ 8 e d '~~ ~ a ~ ty °. g4 k gEg 3 9 !! ]~ kA 9~Q ~ i ~`~ @@ gg k qq gg ?~ $ `9 B k" gig ~ E Eg nk 9 3 ~~grt"kkE~9 ~F-a-~ ~@ ~tl 4g~"~~a ¢ygr g~ b~li p'p~ ~ ~.~ g yF~gi °g~9~~g8$5 ~jg 9F a da ~a s I I I I I - I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ------------------ I I ~ I I I I I ~ I I I ~ I Z O I I H . ~ j p I w a I ~ ~ w n I I ~ W a u I w vl I I I I ~ i__ _ I I I I I I I i I I I I I I Rye I I ~ I I I I I ~ I \' I 1 ~°~ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Tabe Van der Zwaag December 18, 2007 VARIANCE DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY - A request to reduce the required corner sideyard setback from 27 feet to 16 feet, 11 inches for the purpose of building asingle-family residence in the Low (L) Residential District, located at the southeast corner of Amethyst Avenue and 19th Street - APN: 0202-111-05. Background: This Variance request was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2007. The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed house and submit the revised drawings to the Design Review Committee (DRC) for review prior to rescheduling the item for their review. The Planning Commission's main concern was that the proposed two-story house was out of proportion to the site. The applicant has since redesigned the house to staff's satisfaction, and the item is being forwarded to the DRC for review. Site Characteristics: The project site is located on the southeast corner of 19th Street and Amethyst Avenue. The site was originally two smaller lots that were joined together through a lot line adjustment that was approved on July 11, 2006. The applicant submitted a proposal to build asingle-family residence on the site which necessitated a variance for a reduced corner sideyard setback. The minimum lot within the Low Residential District is 70 feet. The subject lot is 40 feet wide and has been determined to be a legal non-conforming lot. • Proposed Chanoes: The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed house from 2,843 square feet livable area to 2,218 square feet. The second story has been stepped on the north and east elevations of the house. This change increases the sideyard setback of the second story on the east side from 5 feet and 10 feet, and the frontyard setback on the north elevation from 33 feet to 49 feet. The garage door has been moved from the west elevation to the south elevation, and the setback on the south side of the house has increased from 20 feet to 27 feet. Additionally, the balcony over the garage has been eliminated. These changes greatly reduce the overall bulk of the house and reduce the effect that the second story will have on neighboring property. Maior Issues: None. Minor Issues: None. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee approve the proposal as submitted. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Fletcher, Stewart, Nicholson Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag Commissioner Stewart voiced many concerns regarding the applicant's Variance request to • reduce the required setback from 27 feet to 16 feet, 11 inches in order to construct a single-family residence. She felt that the 40-foot lot was too narrow to be developed without EXHIBIT D ~1° • • • DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY December 18, 2007 Page negatively affecting the neighboring propert proposed driveway was too close (108 feet) homeowners to safely access the public street. not be able to support a Variance for the site. y owners. She was also concerned that the to the traffic light at 19th Street for the future She stated that in aood conscience. she would Commissioner Fletcher commented that he also had reservations developing such a narrow lot, but felt that if the Commissioners did not support the Variance request, they were basically reducing the value of the land to zero. He felt that the applicant had made a good faith effort to reduce the overall bulk of the house since the item was first presented to the Planning Commission on July 25, 2007. Assistant Planning Director Nicholson added that without the Variance, any house on the site would be limited to a maximum building pad width of only 20 feet. He also stated that he did not feel that the driveway location would pose an access problem because the garage location would give the homeowner adequate backup distance to enter traffic in a forward direction. Discussion concluded with Stewart, Fletcher, and Nichplson recommending that the Variance be forwarded to the Planning Commission as presented. ~~ • RESOLUTION N0.08-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2007-00396 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED CORNER SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 27 FEET TO 16 FEET 11 INCHES FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING ASINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DW ELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AMETHYST AVENUE AND 19TH STREET - APN: 0202-111-05. A. Recitals. 1. Jalal Noorzadyfiled an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2007-00396 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 25th day of July 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued the item to an unspecified date. 3. On the 23rd day of January, 2008, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow for sufficient legal noticing. On the 13th day of February 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that • date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearings on January 23 and February 13, 2008,. including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an undeveloped property located at the southeast corner of Amethyst Avenue and 19th Street with a street frontage of 40 feet and lot depth of 122 feet; and b. The properties to the south, east, and west of the subject site are zoned Low Residential; the property to the north across 19th Street is zoned Office Professional; and c. The original project site joined two smaller lots together through a lot line adjustment that was approved on July 11, 2006. The applicant submitted aproposal tobuild asingle-family residence on the site which necessitated a Variance for a reduced corner sideyard setback. The minimum corner lot within the • Low Residential District is 70 feet. The subject lot is 40 feet wide and has been determined to be a legal non-conforming lot; and a-a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-03 DRC2007-00396 - JALAL'NOORZADY February 13, 2008 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. In that, without a reduction in the corner sideyard setback requirement, the site would have to be developed with a house that is much narrower than the preponderant house width in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. In that, the Development Code requires lots in the Low Residential District to have a minimum lot width of 70 feet. The existing legal non-conforming lot is 40 feet wide, which is much narrower than the lots in the surrounding area. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. In that, without the reduction in the corner sideyard setback requirement, the applicant would be limited to building a 20-footwide house, which is much narrower than the other houses in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. • d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent • with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. In that, the proposed reduction in the corner sideyard setback will allow the applicant to develop a house with a width no greater than the other lots in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In that, the applicant proposes to build asingle-family residence which will not be out of character from the other houses in the surrounding area and that will meet all related Development Code requirements except for the corner sideyard setback requirement. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for sideyard setbacks. Because the applicant is only requesting a variance for the reduction in the required sideyard setback, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the reduction in the required cornersideyard setback from 27 feet • to 16 feet 11 inches. Ql3 +ra) - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.:08-03 DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY-, . February 13, 2008 • Page 3 2) Print a copy of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval on the plans when they are submitted for Plan Check. 3) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building and Safety Department. Engineering Department 1) Prior to building permit approval, provide a recorded copy of the Certificate of Compliance for Lot Line Adjustment No. 630, recorded on September 27, 2006, Document No. 20060660239. 2) The drainage runoff from this developed site shall not adversely affect the existing homes/lots adjacent and downstream of this site. 3) Submit an application to the Engineering Department to revise the City public improvement plans for the required missing public improvements on Amethyst Avenue. Revise existing Drawing No. 1956, Sheets 1, 2, and 3 to show the new drive approach location (width and centerline). Remove and replace the existing curb and gutter and existing sidewalk in order to construct the new wider drive approach. Also, show all the existing trees, proposed new street trees, and • existing trees to be removed, if any, to accommodate the new widened drive approach. On the Title Sheet (Sheet 1) fill in the street tree table and construction notes. All revisions shall be made by a registered professional engineer and approved by the City Engineer. 4) Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of grading permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete and signed by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 5) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top-of-curb, 1 foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. 6) Protect all existing street improvements in place including, but not limited to, curb and gutter, street lights, street pavement, and street trees. Also, protect all existing local trail and private drainage easement improvements or replace. 7) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50 percent of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to the Building and Safety Department. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department withirS 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. • 8) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay Development Fees at the rates adopted by the City Council, which are periodically adjusted. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. ~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-03 DRC2007-00396 - JALAL NOORZADY February 13, 2008 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of February 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: L~ • • fJ~S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: VARIANCE DRC2007-00396 SUBJECT: VARIAN APPLICANT: JALAL NOORZADY LOCATION: 6715 AMETHYST AVENUE - APN: 0201-111-OS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements • 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Couri costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees maybe required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-03, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 B. Time Limits Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include • site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. Completion Date -/-/- -/-/. / / _/_/ -/-/- ~~f Project No. DRC2007-00396 Completion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _/_/_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Plannirg Director. ~ 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commenly~e until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_/ State Fire Marshal regulations have been_'dgrnplied withr Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga 'Fi~e;`Protectiori District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/_/_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated fore _/_/_ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all _/_/_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/_/_ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in undergrouhd vaults. 6. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _/_/_ including proper illumination. 9. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall _/_/_ condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's • perimeter. 10. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than _/__/_ wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 11. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood _/_/_ .. gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 12. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The _/_/_ 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. D. Landscaping 1. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously _/_/_ maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is, sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 2. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in _/_/_ the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the 3. Engineering Department. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the _/_/~ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 2 ~~~ Staff Report DATE: February 13, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006-00635 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING - A request to amend the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to Mixed Use (MU) for approximately 17 acres of land, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue -APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, O5, 06, 11, 13, and 14. Related Files: Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, Development Review DRC2006-00633, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2006-00634 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING - A request to amend the Development District from Community Commercial (CC), Foothill Boulevard District, Subarea 3, to Mixed Use (MU) for approximately 17 acres of land, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 11, 13, and 14. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, Development Review DRC2006-00633, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for consideration. This item and the Environmental Impact Report will be forwarded to the City Council for final Action. Continued from January 23, 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00633 - RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING -The request to develop a 166-unit apartment complex on 10.5 acres of land in the Community Commercial District (the associated General Plan Amendment and Development Code Amendment applications propose a Mixed Use District), located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard and west side of Center Avenue. APN: 1077-601-02, 03, and 04. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-0063, SDevelopment District Amendment DRC2006-00634, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2006-00636 -The request to remove trees on the property associated with the development of 166 apartments located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, west of Center Avenue. APN: 1077-601-02, 03, and 04. • SUMMARY: The proposed project is a joint venture between Workforce Homebuilders LLC and National Community Renaissance of California, with funding by the City Redevelopment Agency for the TTEM C,D & E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 2 development of Rancho Workforce Housing (RWH), a 166-unit multi-family housing complex. The project area encompasses the entire 17 acres on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue, and south of the existing single-family residences, which includes the proposed 10.54-acre RWH project, the Whole Enchilada, and a master plan of the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Hermosa Avenue (the area currently occupied by Shop & Go, Twins Club, and Route 66 Memories) (see Exhibit A). The project site is currently within a commercial land use designation that does not permit residential land uses; consequently a General Plan Amendment and zone change request was submitted to allow for development of the proposed project. The General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed Use and the Development District Amendment would change the project zoning from Community Commercial to Mixed Use. Final approval of this project will be contingent upon City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment, the Development District Amendment, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as to those applications and upon Planning Commission approval of the Development Review application and certification of the FEIR as to that application. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Zoning and Density: Community Commercial (CC) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) (proposed Mixed Use (MU) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3)). The RWH project area encompasses 10.54 acres and proposes 166 units, a project density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre. • B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-family residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Commercial (restaurant and office) and vacant across Foothill Boulevard; • Commercial/Office (CO) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3). East - Commercial (restaurant) and industrial uses; Community Commercial (CC) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) and Industrial Park (Industrial Specific Plan Subarea 17) West - Commercial (restaurant and convenience store) and vacant; Commercial/Office (CO) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Commercial (proposed Mixed Use) North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Office East - General Commercial and Industrial Park ' West - General Commercial D. Site Characteristics: The RWH project site is located on a relatively flat site, sloping gradually from north to south. Two single-family residences and one business (Espinoza Tire) are currently located within the RWH project boundaries; one of the existing residences will be relocated within the City, and the other residence and the business will be demolished. The majority of the RWH project site is vacant and was recently used for agricultural purposes (the area contains neglected grape vines and an area used seasonally as a strawberry field). Other vegetation consists of small scale shrubs and grasses across the site with some trees near the existing residences that are proposed for removal with the project development. The RWH project surrounds an existing restaurant (The Whole Enchilada) at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue and is adjacent to the existing commercial uses to the west (Shop & Go and the attached apartments, Twins Club, and Route 66 Memories). u C,D,& E- 2 • • • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 3 E. Development Standards: The Development. Code does not establish specific development standards that are applicable to a Mixed Use land use district, but instead establishes that "[e]xisting development standards for each land use category ... shall be the basis of standards for each category within a mixed use development plan, but they may be modified by the City during the Master Plan review process" (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC) §17.08.040.A.3). Consequently, in the evaluation of the proposed project, no specific development standards are applicable to establish building setbacks, building to building separations, building height, etc; however, for the purposes of analysis, the applicant utilized development standards that closely follow the Medium Residential District. What this means to the project site is that even though the applicant is proposing to follow development standards applicable to the Medium Residential District, any development standard may be modified during the review of the project Master Plan. The following table provides an analysis of development standards applicable to the RWH project with a comparison of those standards utilized in both the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts. ~- .. .. . +,•~ Development ~ ; ~ Medum Resrdenfral ~ ~ , I ;Medium Hrgh ~ i Rancho Workforce Housfng,y, i ,y J,S6 ~ 3~ • J ~' S and f , Y i m Si rx_. ri, r, v~+~ wi`!'w rJi r~.~ ~ : } ~, ~ d G' ' rY~ }i trv'. ik ,_~ ~',r ,.. " . $' . , ards t • .. , . ... . ,, :;, ~ , ;~•Resi entral . _ ,,, E. ~,. ~ ~ , . ,r, ,> , :... u . Dwelling Unit Size: Two Bedroom 800 s uare feet re ardless of district 887 Three Bedroom 950 s uare feet re ardless of district 1,088 Setbacks: Building = 55 Bldg B = 55, Bldg A = 47 min Major Boulevard Parking = 30 Parking = 55 (FBD' 45' for 1st floor Landscape and Wall = 55 avg, 40 min. Landscape = 55+ avg, 47 min and 50' for 2nd floor Building to building: Between atio & bld 20 20 20 Building to detached ara a 15 15 15 Building to curb at ro'ect entr 20 20 20 Interior Site Boundary (dwelling unit) 25 25 25 (FBD" adjacent to residential 25' Interior Site Boundary (accessory bldg) Adj -Low Residential 15 15 25 Ad' -Other 5 5 5 Height Limitation 35 40 37 FBD' 35', towers 40' Lot Covera a Max % 50% 50% 33.3% Open Space ' Private 225/150 150/100 225/150 round/u erfloor Common Min 30% 30% 43.6% Usable 35% 35% 50.3% Recreation Area/Facilit Re uired Re uired Provided Landscaping: # of trees/ ross acre 45 50 50 Amenities Re uired Re uired Provided 'All development standards are from RCMC §17.08.040 Development Standards, unless noted Foothill Boulevard District (FBD) §17.32.080 "Bold =Pro osed revision from Medium Residential District develo ment standards C, D,& E- 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 4 • F. Density: The Foothill Boulevard District development standards establish the density range for the Mixed Use District by stating "activities consist primarily of a mix of Medium to Medium-High Residential uses" that typically "include Multiple Family Residential land uses of up to 20 dwelling units per acre" (RCMC §17.32.020.C.3). The Medium Residential District permits a density up to 14 dwelling units per acre, while the Medium-High Residential District permits a density up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The RWH project area encompasses 10.54 acres and proposes 166 units, a proposed density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre, representing a project density 12.5 percent above the Medium Residential District density range, but still well below the allowable maximum density range for the Mixed Use District. The following table provides a density analysis applicable to the RWH project with a comparison of density limits for the Medium Residential, Medium-High Residential, and Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use Districts. ~- '' ' " -'. Development r ~~ ~t Medmm t Medium Hr h '' I' Foothrllz g „ ~ Rancho " ` is , + ~ -~~'~1 , Sfa`ndard+ ~ ' , ~ Residential +~s e~ a i ~ Boulevard ~ ~ Resldential.« 4~+ ~r' ' Workforce ;) '~' 1~i ' ~ ~a ' 7 , , `~ ~ ,,.M xea6U r' ~ 'a ~ Nousm f ;':>~~ U a :k,~ . . .i ~iq; . .,,~ i se . ~ ~> ~. a ,.i . . Density -Dwelling 8 - 14 14 - 24 20 15.75 Units Per Acre Maximum Units for 147 252 210 166 10.54 acres G. Parking Calculations: The total number of parking spaces provided is based on the residential development parking standards (RCMC §17.12.040.A.2), which establish minimum parking requirements based on the number and type of units rather than utilizing parking requirements • contained in the Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions (RCMC §17.40.060), which could allow for a significant reduction in on-site parking. A total of 373 parking spaces will be provided for the project including 232 garage parking spaces, 80 uncovered, and 61 on-site visitor parking spaces. The garages, uncovered parking, and visitor parking spaces are scattered throughout the project site to provide adequate parking opportunities for residents and visitors (see Exhibit B). Utilizing either the general parking requirements contained in the Development Code, or those specifically applicable to Affordable Housing projects, the RWH project provides parking in excess of the applicable Code requirements. Under general parking standards, the project must provide a minimum of 354 parking spaces and 373 spaces are provided, an excess of 19 parking spaces. Under the Affordable Housing Incentives parking standards, the project must provide a minimum of 332 parking spaces and 373 parking spaces are provided, an excess of 41 parking spaces. Parking requirements for the multi-family housing complex project are indicated in the tables below: •. r.r ~ -. e :Numtier oflUmts >Re u" -" '" ' °'"' ~ ""` "" ~' " "' *°`" ~' '"" ~red:Parkm S i ) w Uriit SizeJ;~ ;Packm" Stahdard ~%_ lv' +? aces • ; ' , , , ,~~y s . < .., ; . .aer .x ..~~, r ;_ . ; 2-Bedroom 1.8 S aces Per Unit 100 180 3-Bedroom 2.0 S aces Per Unit 66 132 Visitor 1 er 4 units 166 42 ve, rw~:, t 354 Total 166 '~, 13 ~ ; ! ~ :~' r : a . .e . ., ,. . .e. ~ . 2-Bedroom 1.8: off street parking spaces per, umt of wfiicti t space'shall be to a~gzrage or carport ° ~'~ tr r, 3-Bedroom:2°off.street arkin `s aces e~unit of whicli'2s aces:sfi~sll b'e in ~a: ~aia~e.orcar oh:w' ~*."~:~' ~ r, -. -.~ ' :-,~~-~ • C,D,& E- 4 • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 5 ~. r •r ~ ~.. - ~- :. -. ~f~Uhit`Siie` ~ ~ !' _.. r __.. __ .,,_...._ Re uirediFarkii`i';S""aces' ? ":'~: Pa ki i 'St id ~d*i ` Numf e of ~U t ' , _:. ; ; : r r ar a , _. i r. . ni s..n. _r ., 2-3 Bedrooms 2.0 S aces Per Unit 166 332 Visitor N/A 166 0 4.'. ~Y ~ ' i~Total ~ I.d 111 I III '. 1- i f i i ~ ~ ... ~ ~ry J:' ! P 4 (i. I :' I hi ~ t!ti ~ 332 ~„` 4 I~ a .166ha ~r + . , , ~ , ,. ,; , .~~.N. ., ., ." ,i ,~. u ~ t , r , aces per umt mclusf~e of handicapped a d g est parking ~ , r y ~ ~ s: ~', t*,h~ ~ s. e In 5 I t ~ T r: No're ui ments~f Je ed k re o co ar p -~ ;~~I~arkm T~ ~ ""6 "`"~~~i'I 1:~~w • ~ ~ • • ~ °'~"'Re"urreii'Rarkm aS"'~es~ "r ~ PhoviHe7P,ehkrn°' ~S aces:'~~it= Covered Gara e 232 232 Uncovered 80 80 Visitor 42 61 _ <: _.i :r;Total ..,354 " ..~ :: 373 ' :,. ...; ",,, H. Landscape Standards: Landscape standards establish a minimum number of trees required per acre and a percentage of trees that must be of a certain box size (RCMC §17.08.040.G). The RWH project proposes the planting of 608' trees within the project boundaries; this number was established based on the project size and the tree replacement requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Although it may appear that the project design utilizes the box size requirements applicable to the Medium-High Residential District, in absolute terms the number of • trees provided by RWH far exceeds the minimum percentage planting requirements of both the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts (see Exhibit F). The following table. provides a Landscape Standard analysis applicable to the RWH project with a comparison of those requirements for the Medium and Medium-High Residential Districts. ..- ~. . Development ,~ ~' . ~' Medwm Resrdenhal i" ;~ 4 § Mediurn;Hrgh ~, ` ' 'Ra'ncho Workforce rAis,' " ~, ix w P:' I ~ " t ; St da d i ~ i .w ,y ° ~ s~ r ~ 'fur ~ , is i pµ - ~~ ° Resid t l f ~t A~ ~ r' ~ ~ a ~~~ .ar.~ n ~,'if )sMr~~ t { ' H an r s , u ~ ~ . , , ~ ~~,~ . ,, .~ _ ar ,~, ~. en ta ,y „,i,,,, ,, .,, ~ ousm , , r. ,, Landscaping: # of trees/ ross acre 45 50 50 48-inch box 0% 0 5% 27 5% 30 36-inch box 10% 49 5% 27 5% 30 24-Inch box 10% 49 20% 109 20% 122 %15- allon 80% 392 70% 381 70% 426 # trees rovided' 490 544 608 `Includes the number of trees required per acre based on a project size of 10.54 acres, plus a 1-for-1 replacement of trees removed with TRP DRC2006-00636 ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed RWH multi-family complex is intended to provide workforce affordable housing units in the City; the project proposes 166 units with 131 units (79 percent) held below market rate. The distribution of affordable and market rate units will include 22 units for those families at 35 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI), 44 units for those families at 45 percent of • the AMI, 65 units for those families at 60 percent of the AMI, 33 market rate units, and 2 units for on-site management. C, D,& E- 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 6 • The RWH complex consists of 12 buildings containing a mix of 1, 2, and 3-story structures arranged across the site (see Exhibit B). Dwelling units are distributed so that 1-story units are situated along the north project boundary adjacent to the existing single-family residences, 2-story units are located towards the center of the project site, and 3-story units are located along the southerly boundary of the project adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. The unit mix will include 100 two-bedroom units and 66 three-bedroom units ranging in size from 887 to 1,088 square feet, respectively. A 5,185 square foot 2-story community building, which includes a recreational area and community pool is also proposed and will be located near the center of the project north of the main entrance. On-site recreational amenities are provided including swimming pool, tot-lot, picnic tables and BBQ grilles, and two large (55 feet by 100 feet) lawn areas for open play. B. Density: The project will provide 166 units on 10.54 acres, a proposed density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre, which represents a project density 12.5 percent above the Medium Residential land use designation. Although the RWH project density exceeds the Medium Residential District density standards, the proposed density conforms to the Development Code because under development standards for the Foothill Boulevard Mixed Use District "Multiple Family Residential land uses of up 20 dwelling units per acre developed subject to the applicable density range requirements" of the Development Code, is a permitted land use (RCMC §17.32.020.C:3). The RWH conforms to the Foothill Boulevard District because a proposed density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre is within an allowable density range of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. Utilizing the Foothill Boulevard density range, the applicant could have requested 210 units, a density of 20 dwelling units per acre, and a project density 42.85 percent above the Medium Residential District. The proposed project density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre is achieved utilizing the permitted density range of the Development Code, without requiring a Density Bonus Agreement • under the Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions. Density Bonus Provisions: Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions are contained in Chapter 17.40 of the Development Code. These provisions allow a density bonus and other development incentives to encourage "the production of housing for very low income, lower income households" and to "facilitate the development of affordable housing" within the City (RCMC §17.40.010). The provisions function by allowing a reduction in development standards in exchange for the development of affordable housing units. Based on the number of units provided, and the percentage of those units designated for Low and Very Low Households, the applicant may request a density bonus and/or other development incentive to facilitate the development. Incentives can include reduced building setbacks, reduced open space, increased lot coverage, increased maximum building height, reduced on-site parking standards, reduced minimum. building separation requirements, or other site or construction conditions applicable to residential development (RCMC §17.40.040.6.1.a). "A density bonus and three incehtives shall be provided to a developer who agrees to construct at least thirty percent of the total units for lower income households, [and] fifteen percent of the total units for very low income households" (RCMC §17.40.030.C.1). Had the proposed project not been located in a proposed Mixed Use District, which allows a modification of development standards during the Master Plan process, the applicant could have requested three incentives and a density bonus to allow for development df the project as proposed, while providing approximately 80 percent of the units for lower income households. C. Development Standard Modification: As previously stated, there are no specific development • standards applicable to a Mixed Use District, but instead, the Development Code allows that "[e]xisting development standards for each land use category ... shall be the basis of standards for each category within a mixed use development plan, but they may be modified by the City during C,D,& E- 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 • Page 7 the Master Plan review process" (RCMC §17.08.040.A.3). In designing the project, the applicant attempted to comply with development standards applicable to the Medium Residential District, but because of site constraints, proposes to modify three specific development standards. These standards relate to building setback, maximum building height, and maximum wall height and include the following: A reduction in building setback along Foothill Boulevard (a major boulevard) from 55 feet to 47 feet (RCMC §17.08.040.A.3); this standard is applicable to all residential districts. Additionally, within the Foothill Boulevard District development standards, building setbacks along Foothill Boulevard are 45 feet for the first floor and 50 feet for the second floor (RCMC §17.32.080.C.9.e). In both instances, building setback is measured from the ultimate face of curb. The proposed setback reduction is only applicable to Building A, the 3-story building situated to the east of the Foothill Boulevard driveway and results from installation of the deceleration lane/turn lane into the project. This setback reduction is necessary to facilitate development of the project, will not impact any adjacent residences, and will allow for sufficient area to provide landscaping between the street frontage and Building A. • An increase in the maximum building height from 35 feet to 37 feet (RCMC §17.08.040.C). The 35-foot maximum building height is applicable to the Medium Residential District and not the Medium-High Residential District, which allows a maximum building height of 40 feet. • Additionally, the Foothill Boulevard District development standards identify a maximum height of 35 feet and that towers and other architectural features have a maximum height of 40 feet. The proposed building height increase will only be applicable to the four southerly 3-story buildings; the eight remaining 1- and 2-story buildings do not exceed the height limit. Although the proposed building height of 37 feet exceeds the maximum building height of the Medium Residential District, all of the buildings that exceed the 35 foot maximum building height are in an area away from the adjacent residential land uses and thus will not impact adjacent residences to the north. An increase in the maximum wall height from 6 feet to 9.5 feet for a combination retaining and garden wall along the west project boundary (RCMC §17.08.060.K.2). Walls not exceeding 6 feet in height may be located in a required side yard. Combination retaining and garden wall height is measured from the mid-point of the retaining wall to the top of the garden wall; a combination wall with a 4-foot retaining wall and 4-foot garden wall does not exceed the 6-foot height limitation. Here, the applicant is proposing a combination retaining and garden wall along the west project boundary. The wall design will include a maximum 7-foot high retaining wall and a 6-foot high garden wall, which has a maximum height of 9.5 feet. The proposed wall is located along the west property line, the increased wall height will only be visible from the project site, and the wall is situated adjacent to the garages along the west property line so it will not be visible off-site; the wall height will not impact adjacent residential land uses. D. Parkin On-site parking will be more than adequate for the project; a total of 373 parking spaces, • including garages, open tenant parking, and visitor parking spaces are evenly distributed throughout the site. Garages that are designed to be architecturally compatible with the residential structures will be an asset to the complex because they provide additional security for tenant vehicles, the opportunity to screen a large number of parking spaces, and a buffer from the existing C, D,& E- 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 8 • land uses to the east and west. Neither garages nor covered parking are required for projects that provide affordable housing opportunities; however, by providing garages for tenant parking, the project will benefit both the tenants and the surrounding community by providing safe parking opportunities for complex residents. In addition to providing adequate parking opportunities, the site is within close proximity to existing bus stops along Foothill Boulevard. The closest bus stop is located on Foothill Boulevard adjacent to The Whole Enchilada restaurant. E. Perimeter Fencing: The site will be secured with a 6-foot split face block wall along the north and west project boundaries and adjacent to T.he Whole Enchilada site. Wrought iron fencing will be provided along both the Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue frontages allowing both pedestrian and vehicle access. Vehicle access will be controlled by motorized access gates at the Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue driveways; the Foothill Boulevard driveway will allow both resident and visitor entry, while the Center Avenue driveway will only allow for resident access. Pedestrian access will be controlled by access gates along the Fgothill Boulevard. and Center Avenue street frontages, identified by decorative trellis structures. Entry monuments will be provided along either side of the Foothill Boulevard driveway and will utilize design elements that include the sign structure, wood trellis, block walls with stone veneer, and signage that includes both project and Route 66 identification. Along the Foothill Boulevard frontage of the site, wrought iron fences will be accented with split face block columns (see Exhibit F). F. Architectural Style: The contemporary interpretation of the Spanish/Mediterranean architectural style for the project is well designed (see Exhibit E). The building design elements include fully tiled roofs, trimmed out windows and door openings, and walls clad in stucco and accented with faux stone veneer. Staff finds the exterior materials and details to be appropriate and durable. The • proposed landscaping palette is complementary to the architecture, with plant materials being well distributed around the site. When completed, the development of the site will result in an attractive multi-family complex that will improve the current visual quality of the area consistent with the quality of new projects under construction in the nearby area. G. Design Review Committee: The project was initially reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Munoz, Stewart, Diaz) on May 1, 2007. At that meeting, the Committee identified two general concerns relative to the project Site Plan and architecture. The Site Plan comment directed the applicant to take into consideration the existing land uses adjacent to the project to minimize the potential for both immediate and long term conflict. The architectural comment directed the applicant to revise the architecture to eliminate the boxy appearance of the project design. The applicant revised the project and the Design Review Committee (Munoz, Stewart, Diaz) reviewed the project on June 19, 2007. The Committee reviewed the revised Site Plan and architectural revisions, recommended a change to one of the proposed colors, and recommended that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. H. Grading and Technical Review Committee: The project was conceptually approved by the Committee on May 1, 2007. Neighborhood Meeting: Two neighborhood meetings were held with the adjacent residents to discuss the proposed project. The meetings were held on September 29, 2005, (at The Whole Enchilada), and November 14, 2005, (at Central Park). At each meeting, local residents, primarily from the adjacent residential tract to the north, attended and were opposed to the project. The public comments expressed by residents were based on how they felt the proposed project would • impact their property values and/or create security issues for their neighborhood. Others raised traffic and environmental concerns about the property such as the loss of open-space and why C, D,& E- 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 • Page 9 affordable housing is proposed at this location. The applicant responded to their questions. A copy of the Neighborhood Meeting reports prepared by the applicant is provided (see Exhibit G). J. Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636: The applicant has submitted a request to remove 17 trees in order to accommodate the development of the site. An Arborist Report was prepared to address all 17 trees and identified 12 trees that qualify as Heritage Trees under the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Of those 12 possible Heritage Trees, the Arborist Report recommended removing 7 trees because of their poor condition and preserving 5 trees if they can be incorporated into the landscape design for the project. The applicant proposed the removal of all 17 trees because they conflict with project improvements. To address the proposed tree removal, the applicant is proposing to utilize Development Code landscaping standards applicable to the Medium-High Residential District (RCMC §17.08.040.G.1). This code standard requires that new developments provide 50 trees per acre of which 5 percent must be 48-inch box size, 5 percent must be 36-inch box size, 20 percent must be 24-inch box size, and 70 percent must be 15-gallon size, as well as providing a 1-for-1 tree removal replacement. To address the removal of all trees on site and to conform to development standards, the applicant has proposed the planting of 608 trees of varying sizes, in excess of the 544 trees required by the Development Code tree planting requirement. K. General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635/Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634: Amendment Discussion: Amending the General Plan land use designation from General Commercial to Mixed Use and the Development District Map from Community Commercial (CC) to Mixed Use (MU) would allow for the development of the project area in a manner that promotes • land use compatibility with existing residential uses to the north of the project area and with the existing and future commercial uses to the east and west of the project area, thereby promoting future development consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. As part of the amendment request, the applicant was required to master plan the entire 17-acre site to ensure a cohesive development pattern and demonstrate that those parcels not included in the RWH project area remain developable. A master plan of the area currently occupied by Shop & Go, Twins Club, and Route 66 Memories was prepared (see Exhibit D); this exhibit was also utilized in the EIR analysis. The master plan provided for general office, commercial, and restaurant uses to discuss environmental impacts; however, the ultimate development of this area could include a single tenant commercial use, multiple commercial uses, or a combination of commercial and residential land uses. As an example, development of the site could include land uses similar to those located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, where a variety of commercial and residential land uses are developed and successfully integrated into a cohesive project by providing commercial uses that are compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Mixed Use District: Within the project boundaries there are several existing land uses that will be affected by the proposed Mixed Use District. The existing Espinoza Tire business and two adjacent residences will be removed, one of these residences is proposed.to be relocated within the City limits. The other existing business operations (The Whole Enchilada, Shop & Go and the attached apartments, Twins Club, and Route 66 Memories) will be subject to the following Mixed Use (MU) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) land use regulations, which include: • The Whole Enchilada is classified as a "restaurant with incidental serving of beer and wine. This is a permitted land use within the Mixed Use District. C,D,& E- 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 10 • • Shop & Go is classified as a "delicatessen and specialty food store" and is a permitted land use within the Mixed Use District; the adjacent apartments are also a permitted land use. Shop & Go and the adjacent apartments are considered legal non-conforming with respect to development standards. These uses will be subject to the requirements and limitations of RCMC §17.02.130 -Non-Conforming Uses and Structures. Twins Club is classified as a "restaurant with entertainment and/or cocktail lounge and bar." This land use is not permitted within the Mixed Use District and will be considered a legal non- conforming land use. This use will be subject to the requirements and limitations of RCMC §17.02.130 -Non-Conforming Uses and Structures. Route 66 Memories is classified as an "antique shop" which is a permitted land use within the Mixed Use District. Route 66 Memories is considered legal non-conforming with respect to development standards. This use will be subject to the requirements and limitations of RCMC §17.02.130 -Non-Conforming Uses and Structures. Freguency of General Plan Amendments: The frequency of amendments to the General Plan is generally limited to four cycles per year, three fixed date and one floating date; however, California Government Code (§65358(c)) exempts affordable housing projects that meet certain criteria from the four-per-year restriction. These criteria require the General Plan amendment to be necessary for a single development of residential units, where at least 25 percent of the units will be held for persons and families of low or moderate income. The proposed General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 is necessary for a single residential development, the associated 166-unit multi- family development, and at least 25 percent of the units are held affordable; here, approximately • 80 percent of the units will be held for persons and families of low and moderate income. FACTS FOR FINDING: The project site is approximately 17 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, and is presently improved with various commercial and residential buildings (The Whole Enchilada, Espinoza Tire, Twins Restaurant, Shop & Go, Route 66 house, and two single-family residences). The General Plan land use designation for the project site is General Commercial and the Development District is Community Commercial; 2. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre); the property to the west, across Hermosa Avenue, is designated Commercial/Office Commercial; the property to the east, across Center Avenue, is designated Community Commercial and Industrial Park; and the property to the south, across Foothill Boulevard, is designated Commercial/Office; 3. The project does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; 4. The project does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and 5. The project would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and • would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. C, D,& E- 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 • Page 11 L. Environmental Assessment: The environmental assessment for the project includes the circulation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). NOP/Initial Study: An Initial Study was prepared for the project and based on the findings of the Initial Study, staff determined that the project may have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact, and an EIR is required. Areas identified as environmental factors potentially affected are in Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Population/Housing, Noise, TransportationlTraffic, Public Services, . Recreation, Utilities/Service Systems, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. A NOP for the draft EIR was distributed fora 30-day public review period from October 1, 2007 to October 31, 2007. The objective of distributing the NOP was to solicit public comment to identify and determine the full range and scope of issues of concern so that these issues might be fully examined in the EIR. The RWH Initial Study and its associated reports and studies that were incorporated by reference in the NOP were made available to the public during and after the comment period. Two comment letters were received during the public comment period of the NOP. Comments received regarding the NOP were used to help identify impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The NOP, Initial Study, and comment letters were included as an attachment to the Draft EIR. • Draft EIR: Based on the potential for impacts of the proposed project, including cumulative impacts, and the comments received, the City determined that an EIR should be prepared to analyze potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to Air Quality, Noise, and Traffic. These three environmental issues are addressed in the EIR. Based on the analysis provided in the Initial Study, all impacts associated with eleven environmental issues were determined to be "Effects Not Found to be Significant" according to §15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and are not further addressed in the EIR. A summary of the issues and why they were not included is discussed in detail in the EIR. A draft EIR was prepared for the project and released fora 45-day public review period from November 15, 2007 to December 31, 2007. A total of 8 letters were received by the City in response to the Draft EIR. Under the California Public Resources Code (§21104(c)) "[a] responsible agency ... shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project that are within an area of expertise of the agency ... [and] those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." The primary objective and purpose of the EIR public review process is to obtain comments on the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts, the mitigation measures presented and other analyses contained in the EIR. CEQA requires that the City respond to all significant environmental issues raised (CEQA Guidelines § 15088). Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis of the EIR are not given specific responses; however, all comments are included so that the decision-makers may know of the opinions and issues presented. Of the comment letters received, six were from responsible agencies who were addressing activities within an area of their expertise. Letters were received from Southern California Edison, Native American Heritage Commission, Southern California Association of Governments, California Public Utilities Commission, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. These comment • letters and a response to comments are included in the Draft Final EIR. Two comment letters and a petition were received from adjacent residences located north of the RWH project site. The letters were received from Mr. Dave Lyman and Ms. Sharon Capella; the C, D,& E- 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 12 petition was signed by 57 persons representing 45 different properties. These comment letters and a response to comments are included in the Draft Final EIR. Generally, these comment letters indicate an opposition to the project, question why the project cannot be built at a different location, claim the project will increase crime, traffic and other problems in their tract, and claim that the project will lower their property values. Draft Final EIR: A Draft Final EIR incorporates by reference the dontents of the Draft EIR and, in addition, includes the following: the comments received; the City's response to comments; and a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented. The Draft Final EIR also includes a proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (see Exhibit I) that addresses issues and impacts evaluated in the document. The MMRP includes mitigation measures relating to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, and traffic and circulation. Before approving Development Review DRC2006-00633 the City must "certify" the final EIR. According to CEQA Guidelines (§15090), "certification" consists of three separate steps. The agency's decision making body must conclude, first, that the document "has been completed in compliance with CEQA"; second, that the body has reviewed and considered the information within the EIR prior to approving the project; and third, that "the final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis." CORRESPONDENCE: No comments were received in response to the proposed public hearing notice; however, eight letters, including one petition, were received during the draft EIR public comment period. PUBLIC NOTICE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the • Press Enterprise newspapers, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. A total of 295 notices were mailed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DRC2006-00633, subject to City Council approval of the associated General Plan and Development District Amendments, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00636 and certify the Final EIR relative to those applications and forward to the City Council a recommendation of approval for General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 and Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634 and certification of the Final EIR relative to those applications through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval. • C, D,& E- 12 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00635, DRC2006-00634, DRC2006-00633, DRC2006-00636-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 13 • Respectfully submitted, ~ ~~~ ! Jame R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT:TG/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Grading Plan Exhibit D - Master Plan Exhibit E - Building Elevations Exhibit F - Landscape Plans Exhibit G - Neighborhood Meeting reports dated October 10, 2005, and November 14, 2005 Exhibit H - Initial Study Part I (The Draft Final EIR, which includes the Initial Study Part II will be provided under separate cover) Exhibit I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Draft Resol ution of Approval for General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 Draft Resol ution of Approval for Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634 • Draft Resol ution of Approval for Development Review DRC2006-00633 • C, D,& E- 13 LOCATION. MAP rT~'ii ~I~~I n U GPA DRC2006-00635 GPA DRC2006-00634 ® DR DRC2006-00633 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 Miles EXHIBIT A C, D,& E- 14 4 a [ Y ~ Y RR Ru ____ _ _ ,.= NS i S: Ep46~ eep~p c eg@e y, _ _8 $-~ ° o E i 34 38~ i B5 '~ c :_'~ i ~ a y mm $ X M°. e~e~ S R .°~ 9§y Yyy~~6 3t~ :' c=e~ a ~"~ &`y s : ~~~ 5 ~ 2 } ~ - o% 8 ~ 9 !e {Y is 8s Ji1c g a7~ $ 8 e t A ~ x ~ ~.. 9~1-° ~ ~ ~ ° z~~~~~~i-.ew x ;~ ~~~~ ~ ~M1Bi :R 33 3{4F ~°~ y ~ !i~! t ! a .RR _ ~ ° ~; ..~e~~~.•:.~ ~.. bb ~ ~3 4 S~ °-' ~ 1« 1^ 3_~ _ p`~ dS ~ °5a ~~~ 8 8 BOe:o ° ~1~~~ ~~~ i' ~,, i~ ~~~ i ~il Ji, _~ EXHIBIT B ~:~W. Y~k.~~ ~ z 0 xa z ~ ~ ,~ z M W + O ... w f 7 '° U ~ `= o ~ ~ z ~ o ~ ° U ~ `~ ~~ ~ w ¢ O o V w u n o N 'r ~ "~ ./ ~~°a xpx~ A U 3z N Q / O x z Q x ~ r Z~ a ~M N~ ¢ om w ae K r U p Jau ~^Q ±~a + r DUI I Zm ~ ~3 ~aaa'. z pjUrn z5~~ ~~x J a`-io z x.: Ou~n zz ~ y~- <..~ c C,D,& E- 15 ZZ ~j O~ Z~ ~V ~~ O~ ~~ j0 WO ZV oZ VQ ~@ e i~, r AI ~~ ~ ~ ~~ i it _ 1 ~~;~,_a ar' ~~ ~~ EXHIBIT C . ,, , 3 it ;~ ~~ ~: ;, . ~~ per II /Q t~wYlll ~~ . I I ~ ,~ C~~i ~ `' ~ i~ I I ! i~ ~ II I ~ ~ C, D,& E- 16 sss__ -; mm~o m a .3 ~ Nr - ~ ~ ~ ~ Ro z _ - _ "~n ~ Ey m a a c - ~ ° "s ,~~ tl - •• ~v n a Sg S ~ N 6 3 E_ - a3a e E a w " d' ~ ~ ~ U ______ ______ _ ~ n ;r ~"~ ______ ________ It I I I ~,' i r ___________________________ _____ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ~______ . 3T _+ _S _S -~_]iL___ - T-_,~-- 1S 2131N3,~ 4 - ------------ _ J 1- O Y ~i~~ D D i G ~ j ~ e ~ ~° i i;~~ I ~t a o i li ~~~ i ~i __~> _, ~ , I e Ij w W ii '-- --~~p ~~ - y o ji U~ii ; i j 'ir -------- I ~ w --------- a ee eee o ~__ x ~ ___- -- , j ~ , ~I - , I~ w. ,---, I ~ ~_ ~ ~Q~~O~ o _ o o ___________________ i___________ _ ~ v j l i~-._ `; ; v of o I i o 0 o I it e °v I i I ~o v i i o 0 i ~~ e eeeeeee ~~; ~_ PPP PD p ~ ~ 0 00 P 0000 i ti~ f TII ~ ~t I ~- I `a ~;i ~ it lid ~ `I u EXHIBIT D y j''i Asa t,.... =t .: I II I I ' I '° i i - ' _~ ~+ ~a } ~9 -~ _ .. ' L - I I I ~og ~~ !_ ~--- ~ "~~ 3/ Y VSOlN2/3H Y° ~~ lIY( i I I -L_ m J h 0 B `~kf~ ; o~kE'~ ~u:~` )~pp ~:4;'` I-° :: • Y:[:?. ~ - ~~~ ~ ~' ~~ c I j I~ II ~, 'I Y I I I I i I i I i ,I I ul i it z ~ W H¢ '. W ~ ~ ^^~ z M W Q H o~~¢ x o az F ~,°,, U ~D ry'~ 7 0 G m a V w Z ~ G o N Hy ~ f ti ¢ a •. U~~¢ L C -a °i w'Q,xU q U - W w z _ _l ~ _~ ~ / `l ~i O _~ I -- x -`' z x =-,, j%' ~;~r ICI I I':~~, I ~m ~a A o_~$$~m UUO1 pVU~ ~~Sm 3~~= ~' -~® C,D,& E- 17 • u • EXHIBIT E j N Ji ~ 9 y F' > L ~`( 0 6 V Z ~ ~ 9 ..............- i N ~ Sr Q 9gY ~ LLLL ~ m a g ° ~ m a o "+ ~ m __ __ EB; eg " ` S dg { v Y d - ~ o d$ =~ ~ 8° q °°{ g d y°c • ~-'~ dY ~ ' e m - ^ c I p..g ., ''B r a .0'dE ~ - __._~ N - E>; ~ i sY ° g S 'u u __ w~ . . p N ~ E~BP _; ~ ~ a1Y" ®d ~a; r~ _.. ol=Y =.a; d 4. ~vvvs ~~aY ~~ C, D,& E- 18 _ _ : ~ _ V ~ O ~~ ~~ N O W ~ ~ E Y v A . : : 9Y~ Y. •• 9 ~' a: ~ao.a I-. ;•~P x:E:1. . -,~_ K tV V e N, z r~ O r~ ~ v z z N U !/J C ~ c, ~, ~+ u ~ -~ z o~~r.~ z ~+ o ~~'U~_ `" o ~o ~ <z ~, pax z'° ~o 4 o w ~ w .N x ~ =~a°a ~.: p ~ ~~V ,;' ._ Q u ;; F 3 ,~ - z ~ x ,~ ~ /x, N = y c z ~ U Q a. z ~ 0 U SOV - _ o- sV- ~$Yu' ~~'~ - io 3~2d zommn ® w I j N m W c u ~ W 9 A F'a 1 z°a~a .o,ri i .o,al i_._____ . N a i E:{ d"5 apq s § a ~ W E ° ~ m ~ o .n 'W t0 i ?I __ _ ~ ~ p p a`8 a __ _ 9 m ~a{ K~ e~ °' ..~ ~8 I' ' ~ i ..0 .11 „O~.Ei 1 .u of 'f~ .o,ez i .o-.ol I ~~ -._~ a N. _ ~~ H e A '~ ~ EBB qq __ __ BY a€ ;_ ~ m C i u e $p q~ m ° ^$ 5 d Ora > s ^• 1 s 19 a i '-~ ., g ~ ~o-dl .o,[z ~ N m ° o . W v u O o~~ Z " O C .o~.ri .o,ol s .O A' m°~g$ 9 a g ~I J - {~ s __ __ $ j o`8 _ _ ya~ ~ p c~;$ ~, , o~ g p o A ~~ i ' - 4 _ _ s ~~~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~~~~ 1 ~ ~s~.~ ~a i~:.:l:: I ~~ 1 .o,u .o,a i .o,ri w~ I .o~.m _~ O E,S{ r ` 8 8. ~ ii ~ ~ m t a 6 `° ta ; e -- -~ ~ 'gf 6a~ ;~ 1 --'- ~ ~ b CIS: c' cla :ola' 9 0 ~ -_ _ n.n. & 1 ~- ` .u~mc .u-.ri C,D,& E- 19 N ~[~ { • Q ~~~:1 ~ ~~ ;ii p p ~..1 ~:`p: . 7•; •t Vii:! Yiciil , 7,¢ ~' ` ~ N , ` ~ 00 °° z z O U 1-r N ~' ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~' O a r, x ~ ~ N ~ ~' en m ~ „U a ~ ~az ~ o ~ U d ~ ~ O o • O N x "' O -a -~ U Ri~Q u: :- aO~U O U y, z z ~ ~~ ~ Q "- ~ ~ d O x k F" c N U J z ~ z ~ ~ Q V 0.. s~U ~_' ~ - ~~ ~ ~'~: s' ~,Sda ~ ~zz~m oYu ~s a ~-c~ - eib 3~2~ ® zo°mau • i • ~.~:if 3 a';E: . V'[L;i x::_LI £ -q R • c y v L ~ ~ ~ N ~ 9 q ~ Z a~~ 1 ..UI V61 T.Z'~6 .0~~01 I q ~ n E „; ~ ~ . m a8$ ~ °~ O r0 m U $ N ~n LL i ~ N .-.. ~' ; p E83 d aB: ~ ~~ ' _- -_ ; ` o` 8 d ~ i mp e %~ a° ~~._g..g., i ~ .0'JI .0'.CZ .P.9E ..01'.61 d'.9 A~.01 - ~ L s 6^~ ~ ~ 8 `v Q mp a SY ' 'u, u. m p T 4.. i~ 1 ¢ 1 ~ $1 ~ yr O V aS: m m Y E ^~ y ~ 1 9 8: 2 € `-- - ' m m ap ~ 3 p e . . °-8: q m °-'{ 8 o~ i. i~ p a z. ! Vi ~ ! ;1 ~_ S-8 - ~ ~.i.~a.a.l,L~ 1. .,o,~z ~- z O L z z o .. U ~ r ~ O r, O xa ~^ U ~~ rri ~ ~ N z ~ ~ O ~: ~ ~U~a w p ~' ~ oC:<Z o < e O U d a p w o U w M p N r x O O ..1 URiUQ ro a w ~ O 5 U U . F Q3 z z a ~ x O ~ 4 x ~- a U U z z d 0 ~ ~ ~o~ - ~~~a o~~m ywV^s =LL==`. 2- o - 3g~i zoarca • C, D,& E- 20 4k T ® ~ za as ~~ LL~ o^ 0 x Z-~E ;Vs L~ .~ "mx o_ o~ ~, ~z 40 Fz ~~ ~C . ~ 3 C,D,& E- 21 z; ~m o~ 0 LL x :e ~~ . a ~~i s 6:g: >:.:: ~:~.: i 1-i-:,~ ! Y:ce t. . R V z z ~ o xa ~ U wz , ,~ o ~~oU~.. ;x°fx¢z --~ ~ a v' ~° ~ 7 O zz°~ - N " ~ /-] ,-J ~ ~ a' O'xU p p Ca U z -~ 3 a ~ x F Q z~, n. -'~ ~ U og" ~ o~ V ,~ ay. >0 CZ _~ ~¢ G~ =3 ~~P s~< ~w~a c~=' ~g~ z z ¢am ~ff~d _<~ ~oa~~ ®ti3' iely®i • • • • • z; o` ~~. ¢~ >~ w Z O LL r p 5 3 6 e9 ,t~cj E 8 E~ _ 3 e~ €~ d S ~~ ~~~ qa~ ~~ ~ i i ~- ¢ 3 ,~F~a $F 8~e3 iii 3'u ;.~ 00000 000 000~~ ODD C,D,& E- 22 Za O. FS. a >~ ~~ Q N O: Za rs a >~ wy Iw N h ':€:+ 3 x o~~€E~ ~:F );.•p ~ is t r::: t Y:c i. ~~ e z .. w cn d F- O Z ~.+ Q D ~ -~ w z J M O Y o ~ a z v' U d z~',~.0~ o~ 0 0 _v ow~w ~- _ ¢z~~ ~ '~ ~a°a =~ x~zv - ~ O U 3z ~ a `~ x U z U 0 z x ~~ p °~e s~ _ ~~~ _- ~ aom ~~~a ~~~ oyes a=~" o~ ~__~ - ~~a 3g~ZS i`o a¢a ~T e ~~~,~~ ; ..E~.~ a • 3 a:E:: ~' 8 r::S9 8 Y::•~. ~ E t~~ ~~: itp~ $ ~ e I,, ! ; { Y 6 ~ E i 6 s ~ N ~ ] 0 .fie ~ E 3~ ; T i i •4 ~ ~ ^' ~~~~~ Q~~ ~~Q©~ °~~~ z~3 ~ Ue o>. a~~ >m~ a~ Nr ~- a zo oz z~ ~a a3 a c a V z W a "r .1 i ~+ O. Utl °~ ~ z x a m ~' a ~ a z _ ~, w ~ J m ~ m eU~a a ,.,~~az o -~ 3 `~'V Ua zz ~c O 50 wu~. ~" ° ¢'~~~ a U Ri~Q ^ J :v a~x~ A U -' 3 z 4 a ~- o x z U 0 z x ~ ~s~s -- > ><n ~cd i '^ui u m W OA uM~= u ~j ~Ba~ 20~m¢ C,D,& E- 23 LJ • z § o_ a>. J W Z O LL F 6 i rs ~jgi ag3y3~~~ee~°~~3! .,a a.3 niaec9~:..... 00000 000 00000 OHO z4 ¢'.. ,e aw ~~ 0 0 a C,D,& E- 24 z§ H~ u~j M u'i w 0 N L F' Z`. Vi H.~ ¢~ ~ ~. W~ u u 6 } za a` ,~ a~ o~ 0 t- i ~..ii . ~~ ~~ ;, ; ~: Y i~~; ~i :i F:^; •~ P x:E:[. " ~R e n z G 4 > z 4 O ~' x N o ~wz o ~, o -~U~_ w ,z od~dz Ua ~ ~o ~ ~ O :a,~ o ~, V w - o d W .-1 v ~~o< z x~x~ o Ca U 3z a m ~x a x F U y z U Q z ~, ~~r -a's ~, ~ woa ;«<_ ,o~~m _w oa w x_ _ - =o 3~~d =om~a s zg a. ~e O~ 0 Z 0 U N ~i'd~ a ~::if O % 13 ~:: Y; •_ ~:.: zx3 ;U ,~j,~ R a0LL .~ ~~~ ~ ~~. O ~y LL5 .] ~_ ~`Z ~ ~ . KQ <, z '3 ~ ~ Z 4 V1 o xa J " wz ~, za ~, ^ 0 4 --~U~ ~ m w „ W al o w ¢ Z G v. ~~ o~ L O }, ~a _~~~a o a o VZ ~ k+Uw • µ h _ O ~~/ z [~ ~ W r K a J o a ~~UR+ Q LL x~ x p am v Q3 z .~ Q 4 7 d F- 0 x U U z z :J Q ~i ~ 53 _ ~ ' ~ yyza i na° i3$a - , oY~ js A ~V~o - zo 3® z~nu • C,D,& E- 25 • r ~ ~J u z 0 a .J Z O K 6 s pp y a ~ ~ ~ 6 F ~ ~ d § §§~ x ~ a t ~ 6 E 9~ 's 3 a~ 00000 000 00000 O~® C, D,& E- 26 C u C P ~~ 4 ~'r~r ' a ~'Gi( i Cr 3 ~~t~ T;G.; gg ~.I ,~ i r: E•i i r:Ea. . ~y z z ~ 0 Zq a O ~ o. ~ x d F <~ ~, ~ ~~ ~ Wz ~ LLl ,~ M -=eU~¢ o ~-dSo~<Z ~ }~ r~~ O~`~ 5 vo 0 z z~ w ~ w ~°~~ a -~-~U Rai ~a m n a~ V U A a 3z a a ~ x ~- O a -~ x U 0 z ~ ~ x -- ~~~ p W~; ~~<_ ~ ~~~ ~y~~a °_~s_= 2W6c VKK6~7gi ~4 ~O~U aWLLS A ZZLL=OZ~ ~~ 3 _~d zomrcu ® ii T ^ E s 5 ~ d S r 1~~ g~ s~ ~ ~ 3 I e ~ i 'S 00000 000 00000 ~©O zs§ ~Va a °~ > mu W .~ ~~ W y F d. z^ oz K ~ Wa ~a a3 F 4 d o Q -'~:j ~ ~~ ; ~ ~:.. T; ~: g ;j 6 ~::'i x:.I. . e ~y z z ~ o _ ~ q _ H [~ ? ~°~ o~ a Q ~ ~ x d J W ~ ..1 :1] Y W ^ ~ z ~ r.` M W h z O ~ '^ d -~U~ . >~ . m~o~dz 3 ~' U y (' ne ~~ w~o • z?° °°~x a -~-~U ~~d m ~ V U m ~ A ,, 3 z a a ° a F Q j x U z U z Q x ~- -om ~o< - a~ ~ €° ~QQ~m a¢ ~`-'S~ Qog~b 3g~ez ® an • C,D,& E- 27 °~E€f a a ~~~'! ~°E' >; :, ~:~:: ~ ~~ :•t 3 Y:E: ~. • • lam / 01 zxa 4 ,JV e_ 6~ o ~~ a o o _~ `'~ I I od i i xy _... Q a ~ Q ~ a / I \ ~ z ~ o a I a II a 6 Q ~~ Q 4 ~ ~ i z i 3: a I a ~ i `F ao T ~o C,D,& E- 28 V z z `" ~n Z v G i '~ ~ ww 4. O wj o~ O o x a ~ ~ ~ wz y T :.,- n ~ a ~U~ r~ „ o~az ~~ ~~a 7 p 0 zz 0 0 w~w o y ~ N = U ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ QO~ -~ 3 z a Oa x z U 0 z x j N -- ~oa : ~<~ m ~~~a a: ~= w ea ;&~~~ 5' ` ` 3 ~d ® i oa ~n S S. Z4 <. ,E dw ~~ 0 0 0 z 0 u N Zs <. .c aW ~~ 0 0 a ~ _ i 'E.'~ ~. :.~ e ~::. Y; ~; ~: :? ~ ~:'I Y:L~ . ~~{~}~~ E VJ y V z z '" 4 V] a ~ Q O o x< -~ U a Wz ' m .n O 4 ~U~_ moo o;az _ o }~ ~~x ~- z '° a 0 ~~ow~~ z,~~x .. a °mua°a j d O ~ U m Q3~ z a 4 ~ ~a x v U z z a x R z _m DVv ,yy~V ~U ]~}ZP 2 n x~d°.. $QQam OO~V~ ~Y ¢UOA -Ipp ~r u • \_I C,D,& E- 29 • • 6 s g F c 3 Y Y y [~ { ! 6~ S ~ k n d •` d g e ¢ 1 g e g ~ 5 ~~ ~ § s5 d T ~ pg ~ ~ °s a.i~s a a? a ~i.i`~ d ° 00(J~O 000 X0000 000 C,D,& E- 30 :e ~:~~ s o :., ~:~ >::: ~: , ~ x"1~ € {~ " z z o ~ _ z 4 F, o a^> ~ ~ rv ~~ x a a aW ~ w z ~w > ~., o '°U a L[7 (~ ~.. o or~az ~ F c7 z ~ ~ cC '° ~ °' o °wuw z~ ~. .~ ° _ N a~ m a ua°a ~ a ~ Q 5 U V ~ La ,, 3 z a ~ h a O a x z U 0 z x ~od - i~~a -aFP yoys^~ o~~ aU~o - 38~d zomau ~~ Y, a. r Q ~ ~`~~ ~:~` , >s.•, ~_~: e YiEi! 3 e za a' ~e aw ~~ 0 0 a C7 z z `" a v~ ~ ~. ~ w O 0 xa > z '^ W . o ~ ~ , ~U~ ~ `' ° °a<z ,, o e c;z o o ~o • ~"~w z o _ a `" N ~ ~~ a ° ~a a a~x~ Ca U -~ 3 z a a a O x z U 0 z Q x ~ ~ o _ =n =a ~ m ~ a ~ a Q C A 1~ Vp z ~ 2w ZO 3~ g~i ~ z 6 ® n Y • C,D,& E- 31 u ~n ~ a `%~'i 4 a O:'~if 9 ~: Y; ~; ~_ , f..:'~ ~ Yaa . ~~ R ~J' • zq e- .~ ~ x~ O" O a LL Z U m N zg ¢r ~e ,- 0 C,D,& E- 32 ze c` ~e a K~ O" O LL K LL z z d H d ,^ vI w O `~ O xd o ~wz o ~ pd ~. ~U~~ ~~o~dz >v~~x uzo 00 = p o u• U w ~ `~~ ~ .a ~~UR',~d w z u:~xU ~ Ca U 3z ~ d m ~x x U ~. z U z Q 0 v CG ~~a - ~~~a ~¢QOm _. 3a g=~;P 'YSOA pO =Om i"W~L 3~~y zom¢a r, n tll ryf ; x t. ~° 1 i • < .• a ~~ ~i~ O .y ~ ~: Y;~~p ~:.; ~ `~iiE~~~ C !:~ Y z, oa ~s a~ >~ ~~ z 0 a LL o' <~ >~ 0 a z ~ `" z ~ o O O W x ¢ w I ~ V z , > ~w ,~ o ~U~a w a.w o oR.'¢Z r~ ~-z va O~a vQ o o u+vw • za N x .. Qm a V Ri~Q ~ u:O xV Q v m 3 z w 4 a ~ ~. a O W x v z U z x ° ~?a - u qq _ q £ '.aP E ~U~a _< ~ VA O~U J50 u ~_ V WL ZO 3 3 o i1 Omrca 3B2i • C,D,& E-. 33 6 9a 3j ygm[~ 3 tl ~ ti ' ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ § ~ ~ 3 N 9 y~i3 ~€n e7~z~d.ai°~d~ 00000 000 00000 OHO u • • zt a` a 6~ ~~ 0 0 a w Q z 0 m C,D,& E- 34' ~- _ a G .~~. ~ ~~Ei ~:~~.- >::: ~:: ~ ~::~, Y: .i.. za as a~ x~ aN 0 .~ w K z z `" Q ~ n. ~ .0 O o xa z. ,Q~wz m ~ >°~eU~a W U o ~~ oF~idz r ~x F-<`c 0 ~O C~ ~ o w U tz, z~ N x .. z ,~ o -- ,,ou~°¢ ~-'x~~u ~5 A p 3z a ~ O `~ ~- w x U z z x k ~„ _ ~~ - =z~a op=~m ~_~~ o~~ ~~33~ - °o 3~ai zomrcu ® u ~~ ~~ s a .,, ~:~ >::, ~: ,; ~ F: :•{ % Y::a. " R za O ~"~ 0 a z; ¢: ~m ~ a z o~ ¢ z o~ ,~ LL ~ ^ O C rM = O F' ~ Q °~ x a o ~ o^ ~~ z ,~ W ~ od ~U~~ cS o or~az ~ ~ G U a e ~ ~ n.~ r 0 • °o wUw ~, z N ~ _ ~G] a U Ri~Q z-' C~ ~ x xv ~ U Ca -?m ~z > a m x O x ~" ~. U W U z z ~ 0 v ~ = Na oz p m w ~A a =o s ~LS~ o~ ~ B~i o z4mrca 3 L • C,D,& E- 35 U a . < '~~' ~~~~_ ~: .:... ~ ~:~. rEc;'~ 'x r:rl. R '.~ • za o~ r> <~ >~ u z 0 LL w H z;v o: t- 0 N d r z z `~ o ~ 0 ~' x < :.7 ~ ,~mwz >~' ^ ~ Q eU~„ u7 U p ~~oRidZ U~ F'4 ~o OHO U v~ ° [.Ty U G. z C7 0 N az a --~~ U Ri~Q ~ ~ W O U U °~ Q ~~ 3z < a ~ a F Q x z U ° z a • x ~55 - ~$<_ - ~~~ o~ ~~$a `~~ w uA p~U VS Q =Om ~~~~ °~ =b 386 zomrcn de T C,D,& E- 36 gg ~ 9 7 ~ ~? ~ r $ ~ 9 y~ ~ E g,~ r's~ ,~ ~ e a g F 00000 000 00000 000 '~ .9'.H ~ ~.v.n .o-a .o-~ ~I I 1 I ~~loll ~Il~d("I~~i~fillii ..~ . , / y~l, (gg \33 l - ~3 ~ if b I ~ O O ~ r '~ ~ ~ __ . 1 ~ ®^ i ~i ~ - ' i - qaf chi aj tl; ~ ,~S cqi 4 - ._1 ..; ~~ ~I n3 ° ~~ ~=1 T .r.a ~u.f ..x uf" I ~~ ~~ ;.~: o _~ N " ' ~ - r LLe 6 ~ ..' .~II~1 _ ~~ - I ~ b O Z CJ N .G:1 Q ~ ~~[ ~~ ~a~6~f ~~L~ ~;.•: t7a1- ~ ~:::a € x"`se e z v.d [: O x¢ ¢ °~ z 5 -~ ,n f1 W _ x c7 ~O U ~ ., _ ozoo~¢z LLM oo_ ~~x 4a~~~ ~o • °wu~. ~~~o Em ~t.l x a o.ONU Ri~¢ w^ a~UU U _ (~ z 3 z ~~ a "~ Da x U z ~ 3 ~ Y'S ~ o = - Nar 8 q ~, p ai: a h E ~u~a ~< °=i~°' o- zo aoo« 3~ ? m r_6 • C, D,& E- 37 u • cb o_ ~: yX U YN N N '~Ee ? ~ ~ 'C:f Q II a ~• O. e: it i : E' Cs ~, . : a S•, ~:4s Yaa ~" ~ e ~ N z 0 xa zo z o z ~, W "" a° m 0 U~¢ , o >-• ~° ~<z ° ~ ~~= pia ~ ~~ ' ~"~ ~ ~o O LL~w a w Q ,~ o ,/ N W ..i ~ F < .1 E-¢ h U 0.! ~a o-_' °, w y ~ 5 c4 ~ U n ~. =~ U U z m (~ V 3 z mh o x \ VJ v O x U z x • Oq ~~ »= ~~ c:v 0 Gi 9 ~ ~ p ~ ~~~ _~ `~F~_ ~i~ Tae 3a z: o°s i~ tl a ~ a 00000 000 0000'000 om ~w~ ~a Boa ~~~a ~_., oK- w~SVA ap=Om 3B~y ZOPtt6 C,D,& E- 38 N •~F:II .~ N EE • Q ~~E~I r Cs:"`.' >; :; ~_~,; 8 f~ :'~ F Y:[[~ {~ R V z 0 xa z v ~ z m w ~ ~ ~ 0 a ~U~ ,. .] o-o ~ „ o~¢z , °m= w Ora e ~ az-ro o • °k.uw < p ~ .~ H < o N r a ¢ ~ U Ri~Q . v~ a0~~ ~ z~ ow Q 3z ux Oa x U z x ~~ +u P oU• o ~ S 3 a6 2 ~°a _ .. ZZVm O y. Yii K ~O~Um '~_se~ °"'"i~ 38~d i`o °m ¢u • C,D,& E- 39 • • • 6 i 8 00000 000 00000 000 ~ .. Q ; _ -` - .._ , -- ~ - .. o ~ o ti a ~ ~ __: R -'" 1 z .-_ e a > _._; a t ~ = --- - .; a ~ -= -_- _ C, D,& E- 40 0 u 0 0 ul 9 N F e 4 °iICI:E j ~~e: if ~ C5:': i; :~ ~i :~ Ex/,ir~i~ E lei/ y z N ICI N z~ ~ of ~ O , ¢~ x¢ ~ O1 U w .o z ,~ ~w o w-r' ~M n 0 ¢ ~U~ „ a z N o o~¢ z < V -' V a 0 "= a.~ ^-~ ' ~0 ?O ~ ~" V u. J o Q ' .~ N ~ .. U a ~ ww :~.~ hVRi ¢ x x~ ~~- q ~U ¢ ~' 3 z ~~ ¢ F z x ~ O wp -' x z~ °m U w Z :~ 4 Q C ¢ R V ~w~ ~ ^~e s~<_ _ Nan ~~~P ~QQ~m a - W. ~a `~'SY,',~ pV w ~g~~ ~ogaa N [ ~ ,~`~1` a ~'~.31 S ~:[: ~.I ~~ Y ~'• F:'I a Y:E:I. . e ~;} 9 g $ ~¢ ~ ? z~ a ~ t V~E5m5`°a'i~:, ig ~ 00000 000 00000 0©0 _..-; ~- .::r_ -..-- ~~ ~ 0 W F ~ ~ z N "'q O~ - ~ Z - 'a ~ O F M a- xa >° ~ m A N z ~^ W ~ 0 ~~_ ~V~a -Z v~ o o ~ a z a (7 -~ ~ _ U ~ , ~o Q U a~ ~ o w U 0 w • ~~ _o N ~ O -. ~- u `~ NU Ri ~a . u.a y.O xU U .~} q a ~- 3 z ~~ ~- a az x O ::, ~ " -~ z_ x o~ U U ~ z a U 0 y ~~,U - - OV• Shod z ~z~ ~ ~ ~ a~m ~ P ~e a o oP SS'~+ rc u=X ~ ~ 26_Q. ~'3~ ~g<° i n 3Bdi o z y • C,D,& E- 41 • 4. O N i a ~ • p 7 a~~ • 6 6 n ~ 5 1 ? ~ ~ ~ ~ m 9 ,f 4~ J 6 5 ~:3~$~3°53~- -iE ~~~~~ Q0~ ~~~Q~~~~ n O C, D,& E- 42 O 0 L C 0 U 0 '^ :€E! N a < ~`~:'~ Cs:~s .:.:: ~ u:~ a r:S:~~ ~ Y::~i, . ~~ e V z .. - ~ z `~ O o ~ N _ O F = 4 x6 N C ~] U O ~ W w ~ U ~ e ~~ ~z_ oorx<z ~¢^ ~ ua ~ 4] , ~D O ,._ ow~o '~ w ~r F ~~ .~ N x r °z S ,„J ~U~°a Q a'OVU ~ < -' A 3 z ~~ a _n a w~ O u~ x z¢ °~ U U¢ z x ~~a _ - QEm 'eJ4~=S <at=p .' W ~V ~~ ~ F O z, 3Bai zomrcn !tl i. ~ ~ Q air 0 z a~~ N ~~ ~ E ~ 3 t~! °_ ;! ~ a~ 9 ~ f ~ ~ E- E € ~ ~ ~ ~ S €^ C~ ~y'Esg S F r~5 .7 68 t~ °7i'~~da ~8 ~~`3 ~°:?8 00000 000 00000 OHO _:...-LwJ ~ i C,D,& E- 43 c L' c W 9 N ~ ~:6:i1 ~;~.~~ ^ ;= ' ri::: ~:G:i t-:.:.I § Fa r N V z m zW ~ 06 ~ as O ~ U W x .: W V `s W , z ~„ ~ W o W ~, z ~, Q ~U ~, ~„ ,~ C W o R~"Qz o ~ `aU o-U Q o U~ .. ~ 0 ~ ~ O O ~ '~° ° w U ~a, ° Q N ~ / r.i W r.7 ~'W NU~°a -~ = 5 °' U ¢Y QU ~~- Q3z ;, v uz z° d O ~- x U ~ '~ U W z V Q a U ~ - - - ~Qs - ~~~a "_~ ~«am o-=;P W ~tt o~~ ~- ~om~a 3~~6 h E~ Pz' ® - • • • • • • ~ d $ e ~ ~:i Falb 33 ~ 4 5 H ~~ s ~ ., "~ 0 3 dB z ~ s` E ~ ~ `~ 00000 000 00000 000 4 i ~ ------ ~ i , --- W _ ___ ~ O _, - O D ~ a ~ p __ ___----~ i j WI ~ ' ~ -- 9 e ti a ~ -. ='oa;- ~; ~,IBs § FA b C,D,& E- 44 0 c c 0 U N T E. ~ ~'&:i' Q ~ ~~_~i s 6:°~' Y::: ~:.. d ~.::t ~ ~7 E V N ~ / ^ v '-' o ~ ~~ z ~ ',~ o~ ~ ~-- v o ¢z x¢ N '7 ¢ y °~' w z z m -~ ~ ~ ~- ~, W o ~ ~az eU~a z_4o oRi<z ~` L ~ ~ a V c4 e ~ ~ =~~ O oU.~w G < OA ~ ~„~ U Fi~C F x x~ ~ ,_,~ C7 U A a _z 3 z ~~ F ~ a ~_ a O w~ "p x z °~ U z x y ~~d i ~z~ ~a ozz~° _~ oi~m pyVnE-' -L O1 .. a_`L~ -VNUZ 3g~i zOmCa 6 ~ 3 i o ~. 8 1 3 ~ : C 4~! ~~~ x6~~ ~~ ~-51a3e§ 55~~g' E'- ~) 00000 000 OOOOOp ODO nnnnnn c_u___________~_~ -~ - °_~ a Y !i] 0 w y .~ 0 C O CJ b u~ ]~ 0 N Q ~ Q ,i~ ; ~~...i f ~: ~; ~e 6 r; :ii ! Y:[c. ~R z a U N `~ z ~ ~ o F O xa > ~, ~' z w m~, ~~ I o „U~a zNo orx¢z <° ° ~a O] GV , ,z~ O o o u"UG. • a O V a ~ ~ ~" .~ ~ ~v~ "' ~ ~ U Qi Q ~ O 5 V a~" Q3z a 1 ~ O ~' o V x z ° U U ~i ~ ~ - ~ Wa r ~s °~a . ~=m ~ a ° €s w ;- a ,o~~m ~V~WAW -t~Z ~ OVaOZ. ZO iomrcu 38 d C,D,& E- 45 _ ... ( ~? 3 J ~ ! y ~ ; 3 3°f-'3Z 4$j1 rf '~dEl $1° ~# .. r ~ • ~jle s ~ ~ , ~! G ~ ~ 2 V t ,155 3 € 1~ISSS (n .~ •1~l1 ~ ~ ~ a -, ~ _ ~ aE €Et.l1c_s1' !,s aae~~ifi €73 ppe,: ~'t `, n a ~ 1r ~ F= 31 s. a.-. °'iC N~' ~ d r ~y ~i~= b C 6 ~ e~ 44 p 73 ~ ~ i 3 ~,€ ~~'~~ ~~ ~` tL~~j i~f cpll4i~ 5~ 3!& tt? F~{5![§~~`~¢t~S~, ~3 dpi ~v EE siii c..9 5'~,~a ~i 93 c~ ~ 3 ~~~~~ ~~ ~ ' a2 d~z ~{Ee! ~ ~ 4j f~1~€#~F¢3~~5~~~,f~~~ N E37,- issj i€ ~ ~ i~ ~ °. a- d ~ € ~ ~ b ~ t S ~ 2 ~ d ' ~ ! ~ E ~4 E ~33561t.'.395° ~~a~ ~ 3 ~' Z't 5 ~~ ~3~~ 1 i 2 e # ~ cn aa E.t~ ~ , ~ ¢~ ~~® ~ O ZwxEy-?3 t. bS SB 'a!! ?~ b.f'?5~ 7'e f o 0 N V ° ' D ,~ _~ - I __ i ~._ ~~ 3 _- 1 ~ I _ I ~ o ~. i j e`'V .~~ vz `~ ::~ ~ N ~ 5 0 w U ~ G Q O O zq ~~ s ~~ v ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a V o z~ O° V~ EXHIBIT F c,o,a E- as r- -- - I - --.._. _.._ ' x -- , #5~° ~ y Y )~~ jt ~ 8 5 e [~ ~ ~ S ±~ e ~ ~ 3; :' ~ yF S of x v 34 ~'-s~ C ~ V 56S ~~ Y3 j g~~ ~ 4 ~ ~gY E lF4 yy{g{ ~{:{ a P~ ~ ~' 3E [ E ~ 6S fi ~ ~ q 6 I ` q E s i 3 YY8 4 H ~ { 3 pp e yy e p 5 } 5 w O O 00 00 000 ® ©® ~S ~~ gr. a a^' ] 4j :•4 "'i ._~ ti9 iv 2? a E z V' UIf ~ 3 ~ p I, ., .. w Ef ...., .. C,D,& E- 47 / IF ~ti ...I ~ y t pd] R_ M °o ~D g O N V A e 'N 2 7 ~ c, V 2 F (7 !~ Q W G Q ~ p Q a O ~ V T_ „] cp C V j E V W V U~ z~ o~ • • • f b ? ~ F 7 ¢ ~ E~ g~ ~ ~ s 9~ 33 g 68 gk g~~p iY Y ~ E ~ i € ~ ~ ~~ [ uE ? $~ y C,D,& E- 48 i - 6 e~'S v i .. r ~ . • , u I . ~` t a M ~-' ~ M ~ ~ O z pk O Q~ ~ N v e N_ e v F F- s (~i z ., U G [u V_ a Z v= c. ~J .~ !r z '"'~~ a N z ~~ .J .. ~ W 4 U '_° ~ o O Z~ a q S .~ co V 7 c ~u N U, Oc ^I 2 j 7 : f - _ ~ 11 ~ l1 ~ ~ U1 ~ .. ~ g v p~ Lf Sy ~~ Fe B~ ~~ ~~ 5a E~ 'e~.,.l~., ~S~e ,•• ~,ys • m O O O .N. `~"v 3 i~ s~ 4.. z W L Z L z Q J W W W F z 0 w C,D,& E- 49 Q W W W U N. r V z v G z 0 Q 7 W W C:l •~ O ~^\ W ~ z O !~ :s: J m vUi '2 ~~ O aU a n '- U ¢ o ~ ~ v W U Z V Vr • `I y ~ ~ ¢~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~§j~ ~eg 6G~~~ ~E~ ~~ as n~.eg $5i J..~:•- a ~~~ f~ 2 ~~ ,,s,f//fJJ/I y$[I 1 C 5 ~ ~ i E t: ~~ a _ 9~c~ 1 ~ 9rc Y - a<f~ 8 i •~ ~- _ ~~ s~ .~., ,~ j r ~ ~ +~ ?I ,. ~~, f' 'U~ ~~4 - . ;~:: ~ ~~ ~e ~' W k ':I a kC 515 a gn { 1 .y~ x it e y ~tm v, ~ z - z ~.3 • ~ F ~1~~ k ,,`~ 6 ~' s .. 1 l' ..V ~~ t ;:' 1~ _. ;: w ~ s X s 3 3 w ~. ? a 'rfi ~ ,.' Ss ~ (1 1 kT u ,, Ir~r ~~ f 1 E; 3yy F '.'j' t~ ~ 6~ ~. 4 ,# ~ Ji e-, t 3i€~: i ._ ._..... .: ' ~ _` { +Y i I 9"CR', i 5 ~` ``a ~ _ t k~? r~ i i= ~ F-S 1 i ~ ; ~ 1 ,~ u~ ~,' ! E ~1: ka e'- ' h ~ 1t1 +{ ' i s, ~ S1 ~1i4 11;;1i ~~ 9? 1. i3~ ~~ € a ~,< ~~x°~ y~~ a~kj;2 i~i <i~3~ SHIM _~ a ~~~~y q ~;~ '~:. e ~ .. s e i r ~ r q~jEi~ A t~ _ •~Ig ~Ry 23 ~ ~, ZE~~Y ~j 3 a i E ~ 1! r ~1 l / ~ f1 f ~ ~1 • e ' 1 rl •• t ~'~~ . ~a .:~ ~~ ,y 1e *J` ~'~4 ~ ~ .., ....~....~...._.:..~ a FE~ k E~6~ E ~ ~~$„ ~ ( 's } 3 36~¢ ~ >i€1 fi,~ f3 s €'~f ?~~~ EFE] C, D,& E- VI Z m t' j•~ ' s . e J..___ - s ~~ a ,~ I{I{ 11 € 11~~~1, 5 EeP ~2 ~~. C t `y ~~ '83..1 j6c-, aE_ 1_.fi xmF2 s` _~~~ it ~'a. J~ 7 ~~put ~SA~ ?:ads n 4_~6 _~as $3'!s „ €'s.a; ;; ~~~ ~• a: e .o , ~ ~~ 3 W 2i ! t ..,i ~ ? ~ E~ 3~E Y O ter, '~ fi~~~B of f I 59~ a~~u ~4~ 1. v Z 2 ~ sf Y 51~EYF SLL O 1 S=i~ v~ O Y «i~z 3 ~ o . '~ _= - v -~ - <ie~ .~ ", 1~6 cn ~ < N slae 'L U'~`1 '£3 aa.^,~.~ ~tla% • 0 V O v M O O O N U 0 cn ~ C~ ~ c=n U ~o O C V ¢U U~ ry V ~" `~' 1 E14 - - ,. ~=: ' = : ; 3 Y_ _ k (`7 M O O O O N V ° C -. ~ e • H O pa ~ ~ m e O " c. U N C] V z a ~ ~ ~ G ~ v v o >` O ~ ~; U o ~~ ; ~ _~ rv F °_ O `~ K~ ,D,& E- 51 T,~' ~, WORI~ORCE n ' HOMEBU~DERS • IA6?3 Civic CemvDmc • IlmrSo Cummangy CA 9173A Ph: (9A9) 9A7-9791. roc (9A9) 987.91A2 tnn¢mo~kro¢chh.mm Neighborhood Meeting Report October 1D, 2005 Mr. Dan Coleman Acting Planning Director City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9]730 Re: Foothill Blvd/Center Ave. Community Meeting 9/29/2D05 Deaz Mr. Coleman: • Workforce Homebui]ders LLC and Southern California Housing Development Corporation held an initial community meeting from 6PM to 730 PM at the Whole Enchi]ada restaurant an September 29, 2005. The purpose of the meeting was to seek input from the surrounding neighborhood on our proposal to develop approximately 120- 130units of workforce housing on an approximately 6.9 acre mostly vacant site on the northwest comer ofFoothill and Center (excluding the restauxant itself). I have attached a copy of the notice that was mailed September 13, 2005. I have also attached a copy of the PowerPoint used in the meeting, the sign-in sheets. The map and mailing list have been delivered to you separately. Our handouts were an eazlier version of the attached ULI publication "Higher-Density Development-Myth and Fact" and a similar publication distributed by HCD, also attached. We generally mailed to about 6D0 feet as requested by Brad Buller in an eazlier meeting with planning staff The development team held this 1~ meeting prior to developing any preliminary site plans in order to give the neighborhood the opportunity to be involved up front in design issues, particulazly as they might relate to the northern edge of the site which is adjacent to approximately S or 9 homes on ffie south side of Stafford. The sign-in sheets indicate 70 individuals and one company. There may have been same additional people who did not sign in, but not many. We also had Flavio Nunez from the RDA and approximately 10 people from the Workforce/SoCal Housing staff's. • EXHIBIT G WORI~ORCEHOMEBZTII.DERS,LLG C, D,& E- 52 n • The meeting commended with a presentation by SoCal Flouring staff and me descn-bing our experience in Rancho Cucamonga for the last 12 and 18 years, respectively. The audience contained 4-6 individuals who did their best to ]oudly disnrpt the meeting by interrupting many times during both the formal presentation and the Q&A period and another 4-6 who were more civil but expressed the same concerns. Their common theme was the following. We don't want subsidized housing there. We don't want apartments there, We know we need workforce housing, do it down the street Most of the rest of the audience remained silent and did not really ask questions. While I tried to elicit comments or questions regazding site design issues, there was really only one young man whe spoke to the issue. fie lived directly "aver the fence" from the property and he stated that if it was gcing to be built, he would like to look from his banlcyazd and see some spacing distance, with a walldng path and trees before he sees the buildings. All of the other comments were not really questions but statements along the same lines as the bullets above. It is interesting to note that in the two weeks from mailing to • meeting I only received one phone call the day after the mailing from a Mr. Jose Nuzasco of 10145 Stafford. Also, at the city ceuncil meeting lest Wednesday night there were no public comments at all resulting from the neighborhood meeting of 9/29/05. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, .! D. Anthony Mize, President • C, D,& E- 53 ~,~~ORKFORCE_.___ ~ ® ~ HOIVIEBI.T~DERS 1[lG2l Gvic Curter nrive Randm Cu®monga~ CA 9173A I'h: (909) 9A7.9191 Fa:: (9a9) 9A7-91A1 www,work(otcch6,cam Neighborhood Meeting #2 Report November 21, 2005 Mr. Dan Coleman Acting Planning Duector City ofRanchc Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Foothill B1vd/Center Ave. Community Meeting #2-11/14/2005 DeazMr. Coleman: Workforce Homebuilders LLC and Southern CalifomiaHousingDavelopment Corporation held their second community meeting from 6PM to 8PM at the Goldy Lewis • Community Center on November 14, 2005. We mailed to the same 600 foot list used far the first meeting, We had 31 sign-ins (see attached list) but probably a little aver 4D people actually in attendance. Duringthe initial portion ofthe meeting we presented research results on questions raised in om• first meeting regarding crime, properly values, Section 8 units in SoCal Housing's Rancho Cucamonga properties and relatedproperty management questions. The information presented is included in the attached PowerPoint. We then presented our conceptual site plan and elevation boards, explained that the proposal now included 10,54 acres with 170 units (at 16,1 units per acre) and sought input from the attendees. A number ofpeople continued to express a general opposition to apartments. However, once some of the attendees living on Stafford Street saw that we were sensitive to the edge issues end were proposing single story buildings transitioning to two-story before anythree-story buildings, we received positive comments from a number of the attendees. One of the initial vocal opponents is now helping to organize a December 6 meeting we aze planning to discuss specific edge fence treatment recommendafions. We also received a support call on 11/15 from a Teresa Tims who lives at 7968 Center St, on the comer of Center and Stafford. She had to leave the meeting early but interids to write a support letter to the City Council and Planning Commission. WORI~+ORCE HOMEBUILDEILS, LLC C, D,& E- 54 (~ I have attached a copy of the notice that was mailed October 26, 2005. I have also attached a copy of the PowerPoint used in the meeting and the sign-in sheets, Our handouts were the current version of the attached iTLI publication "Higher-Density Development-Myth and Fact' and the SoCal Housing Crime-Free/Drag-Free lease addendum, along with the conceptual site plan and elevation boards. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Anthony Mize, President • • C, D,& E- 55 t .: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division (909)477-2750 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I -Initial Study) (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) INCOMPLETE APPUCATIONSWlLL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City slat/ will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: DRC200(i ' OD (p~7Zi Project Title: Rancho Family Apartments Name & Address of project owner(s): Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, 10500 Civic Center Drive • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Name E Address of developer or project sponsor: W F Fund III, LLC, 8300 Utica Avenue, Suite 173, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 - Contact Person 8 Address: D. Anthony Mize, 8300 Utica Avenue Suite 173 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): Lesley Edwards, 10681 Foothill Blvd., Suite 220, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Telephone Number: _(909) 291-1400 x 116 . Page 1 of 9 Created on 3/9/2006 11:13 AM EXHIBIT H c,o,a E- 56 'i) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x l i) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s) which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site; and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project Location (describe): Northwest oortion of Foothill Boulevard and Center Street 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary): 1077-601-02-0000, 1077-601-03-0000,1077-601-04-0000 '5) Gross Sife Area (arjsq. ft.): - - 10.77 acres / 469,141 sq. ft. 'S) Net Site Area (total site size minus area o/public streets & proposed dedications): 10.54 acres / 459,122 sq. ft. • 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): General Plan Amendment from General Commercial to Mixed -Use. Development District Amendment from Community Commercial to Mixed-Use. 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: General Plan Amendment, Development District Amendment, Lot Consolidation, Design Review Approval, Tree Removal Permit, Grading Permit, and Building Permit. 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition, cite all sources ofinfdrmation (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): The Site consists of three parcels of land. The majority of the site consists of vacant, undeveloped land, however residential and commercial structures exist along the southerly portions of the property. The site was developed with one single-family residence constructed circa 1970, one single-family • residence constructed in 1928, associated landscaping and garages, and a concrete block auto repair EnvironmentallnfoFOrm.doc Page 2 of 9 ~ Created on 3/9!2006 11:13 AM C, D,& E- 57 Information indicated by an asterisk () is not required of non-construction CUP's unless.othenvise requested by staff. shop constructed circa 1980. The remainder of the site consists of vacant undeveloped land a portion of which is currently utilized for agriculture. • The property is essentially planar, slopin to the south at about a 2 percent rade. Elevations ran a from approximately 1,220 to 1,205 feet above sea level. Vegetation consists of ornamental trees and shrubs associated with the residential structures and abandoned vineyards and strawberry field in the undeveloped areas. In general, the site is mantled with a thin layer of loose to medium dense brown silty sand to sandy silt underlain by a medium dense to dense silty land. These sands are enerally considered non-plastic and non-expansive. (Geotechnical Report #05-072-11 by RMA GeoScience dated December 19 2005). (Cultural Resources Assessment #WKH0601 by LSA Associates Inc. dated May 5 2006) 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects o(the site. Cite all sources of information (books, published reports and oral history): The 1928 residence was determined ineligible for listing in the California Register or for desi nation as a Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark. The records search and archaeological field survey did not • identify any cultural resources that will be affected by the proposed development. (Cultural Resources Assessment #WKH0601 b LSA Associates Inc. dated May 5 2006) 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.J and how they will affect proposed uses: Traffic noise from Foothill Boulevard and Center Street. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result from [he proposed project. Indicate i1 there are proposed phases for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary.' See Attached Project Description. EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 3 of 9 Created on 3/9!2006 1'1:13 AM C, D,& E- 58 PROJECT DESCRIPTION VdF Fund III, LLC and the Southern California Housing Development Corporation have teamed up with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency to develop the subject project. The project is comprised of the development of 166 affordable and market-rate apartments and a community center/recreation building on 10.54 acres. The proposed project fulfills policies of the General Plan, including the promotion of . residential infill. Additionally this project is in conjunction with the Redevelopment Agency's efforts to create affordable workforce apartments. To accomplish the uses envisioned for this site and in accordance with Government Code Sections 65915-65918 and Chapter 17.40 of Title 17, Section 17.40.040(B)(1)(b) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, a General Plan designation change from General Commercial (GC) to Mixed Use (MU) and a Development District designation change from Community Commercial (CC) to Mixed Use (MU) are requested. In addition to the change in designation we are requesting a density bonus in accordance with Chapter 17.40 of Title 17, Section 17.40.030(B)(2) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code which allows a maximum allowable bonus of 3~% based on the percentage of units affordable to very low income households. Although the project qualifies for considerably higher density, our proposal is only requesting 15.75 dwelling units per acre on the 10.54 acre site. This represents only 1.75 dwelling units per acre above the 14 • dwelling unit per acre maximum for medium residential, or a 12.5% bonus. The new project will incorporate three parcels of land at the northwest side of Foothill Boulevard and Center Street. The site is currently improved with two residential structures with associated garages and a tire shop, all of which will be demolished. The project will have 84 two-bedroom and 82 three-bedroom units. One hundred four (104) units (62%) will be rented to low-income families, sixty (60) units (36%) will be rented at mazket rates, and two units will be occupied by the management personnel. The architecture and landscape design of the project wiH have a Tuscan theme, which is intended to create an Old World style and feel with geometric layout of major features, use of stone veneer with columns and wood arbors, and ornamental ironwork. Our proposal includes the positioning of one-story structures along the northern boundary of the project site to create a softer transition to the existing single family homes adjacent to the site. The project will consist of 14 one-, two- and three-story residential buildings which will step up in height, with the one-story buildings adjacent to the single-family dwellings to the north and the three-story buildings along Foothill Boulevard, the major transportation corridor. Tile roofs will be used throughout the project. Parking for the project will be accommodated by providing detached garages around the residential buildings and plenty of open parking spaces. The proposed new development will also include atwo-story community . center/recreation building with high-end amenities such as a fitness center, media room, business center, game room, and laundry room. The ]easing offices and reception area C, D,& E- 59 • will also be located in this building. Major landscape elements are the central pool and spa, outdoor fireplace and barbeque adjacent to the community center/recreation building; large forma] central green; individual children's tot lot and play areas; and picnic gazebos with barbeque facilities. The major vehicular entry to the new development will be on Foothill Boulevard flanked on both sides with entry monument signs and pedestrian gateways. Additional pedestrian gateways will be set at mid-block locations on both sides of the main entry. Monuments and gateways will acknowledge the cormection that the site is located along historic Route 66. The entire site will be fenced with ornamental iron and stone pilasters. r 1 L_J • C, D,& E- 60 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of Land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.) and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.): Surrounding land use includes a restaurant to the southeast industrial offices a gas station oil change and car wash to the east, single-story sin le-family residential to the north vacant land and commercial to the west and vacant land and commercial to the south. 14J lMll the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character o1 the surrounding genera/ area of the project? The project will remove existing bli ht in the form of outdated buildin sand vacant land which collects trash and replace that blight with new high-quality residential development providin affordable workforce housing for the community. 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. Vvhaf methods of soundproofing are proposed? Short term moderate levels of noise will be generated from radin and construction activities Hours of construction will be limited to that allowed by City Ordinance. No Ion term noise anticipated from the new apartment complex. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: The project will require the removal of 17 mature 17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic wafer supplies) into which the site drains: None. Site drainage surface flows to eventually reach City storm drain system. • • EnvironmentallnfoFOrm.doc ~ Page 4 of 9 Created on 3/9/2006 11:13 AM C, D,& E- 61 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-259>. a. Residential (gal/day) 53.120.00 Peak use (gal/Day) 106.240.00 • b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/mir/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ^ Septic Tank ®Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential (gal/day) 36,750.00 b. • Commercial/Industrial (gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:. 20) Number of residential units: 166 - Detached (indicate range o1 parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): Mixed-income rental units. • 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent (per month) $399.00 to $1.500.00 22) Specify number o/bedrooms by unit type: Unit Type 'A" : 2 Bedrooms Unit Type 'B' : 2 Bedrooms Unit Type'C': 3 Bedrooms 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type.• Unit Tvoe 'A': 3 Unit Tvpe 'B': 3 • Unit Type'C': 5 persons maximum EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 5 of 9 Created on 3!9/2006 11:13 AM C, D,& E- 62 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment 8: a. Elementary: 48 • b. Junior High.• 32 c. Senior High 22 COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: 27) Indicate hours of operation: ~ • 28) Number ofemployees: Total: • Maximum Shift: Time of Maximum Shift: 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate o/hire for each classi£cation (attach additional sheet if necessary): 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: `31) For commercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283): • EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 6 of 9 Created on 3/9/2006 11:13 AM C,D,& E- 63 ALL PROJECTS r ~ ICJ 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their response. Yes. Adequate services can be provided to this project Fire protection service would be provided b the Ranco Cucamonga Fire Protection District and a fire station is located less than 2 miles from the project site. The flood control channel is already constructed and the project is tied in throw h the City's master planned storm drain system. 33) In the known history o(this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCt3's; radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. No known history of use stora a or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials on subject property • 34) loll the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? I( yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No. 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation o(this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. i///~~/ Date: ~~ Signature: / ~7 Title: President, WF Fund III, LLC u EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 7 of 9 - Created on 3/9/2006 11:13 AM C, D,& E- 64 ATTACHMENT A Water Usage Average use per day Residential Single Family Apt/Condo Commercial/Industrial General and Regional Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Industrial Park Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Single Family Apt/Condos Commercialllndustrial General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial General Industrial Heavy Industrial Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 6/00 600 gal/day 400 gal/day 3,000 gal/day/ac 1,500 gal/day/ac 2,500 gal/day/ac 3,000 gal/day/ac 270 gal/day 200 gal/day 2,000 gal/day/ac 1,000 gal/day/ac 1,500 gal/day/ac 3,000 gal/day/ac • • \_J EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 8 of 9 ~ Created on 3/9/2006 11:13 AM C,D,& E- 65 ATTACHMENT B • Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909)899-2451 High School • Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909)988-8511 • EnvironmentallnfoFOrm.doc Page 9 of 9 Created on 3/9/2006 11:13 AM C,D,& E- 66 y O .~ `r ~ ~ .~ , 1 : I! I. ' ~., ~ . ~ ~ , : ~~ ~ , ` ~ 1 t ;i t ~ ~! J r, ~ , / 4 ~ 'f s ' ' f If ~~ ~ ;, ~~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~! ~ (t~r~ ( ~M ~ _ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~,. ~3 s ~ ( rS . ~, I1{,., +~ ~ ' `~ ~ ~ , r ~ ~ i . / .~ a, ~ e4- ~ _ras~,, l -_ ~ x ~~ ~ `~` ~~..1~~ I ~ ) " _ - • Aar and +' . i ~ _ i f ` to . ~ s~ ~ ~ I J Q • w t e ~ t~• j~ t ~.9r3 ~ '7 " , i I •. w l~ ,, ~ _..~~ a ~~ Ir ~c~; - ~ ~~ s ° r ..'i ~ 9 - -- - a , ~ ~.. A.1 E { _ o 2 I I r 5 t a w ~1~ ~% 1 ~ ~. r- ~ ~Ilt r ; ~ w*` n. J`! ~ "~ . P • •+ r 1~i I ' t L .:~JIi -_~~ ~+i ~ a F _ar V1~F-~-^fl+~y .~.. .,`i -~. ~ ~~ . ~ {5 j ~„ 6 I i ~ 1 1{ ! ~~J C7, ~{ .SIN-f.i ~ iy T }"'j~ ~ m ~ ....n.:,~. 1 L 1 ~ ~ ~'. a~ ` ~ 1~~ ~ ll~ift7l• ~ a ~. Cam. ~ h ~ - . ~y ~ : ~ ~+ .#~ ~ e/ . , ~ • ~ ~~.~ • ~ Y .Ji!wla ••• • y . '.IE4 s wr rr ti te!!Y/~ Tti ~ •f ~ !~ -'°^~ L it '~~i~: ~-YLisi 4~: i j . i o r~~ ~. ~{... sti •i. sa ~ 1 A . . ':ff,7 " _ ~ ~~ ~.= ..,~~;~~c + j~ ~s, tit "x ~ "h~1'O ~'~"~t{!~' -~. zw ~ " #1 tfffa ^' ~.+ +• ,~ ,,~ ~ If • ~~~1S~~1wt~ ....~• S ~~ 1 ttt-' ^/r/rrt{ ~r ® ~ rt',~~naf r ":a I~ /K! ! ma - ~ .. . ' r3 `' ` M k •~/a a l '~$~ fP ( a s11 ~ yp n"~~~ ^ `)1 1 i I/4 ~a:l ~~ 1 •1 b I ~ f/ r q ` ~~ w~ {wrda al i, 'I~. S ~ ~ ~ } 1. } S ~ ~ ~+l~'t._ 1 .. ' k ~'if"' ~ • T / v ~ t Sri Y ~~ _ ~ ^1 r ~~~ . ~xbp 1 , a~raw : , I f `~3 "1 , ~~ Qii ~ si~d~' •~lr'K ~~i: ~ ~ °'.....~a ~~'~~?~ ~, ~ ~i~ t~'~V~~~aa"`-•r~ a {., "'~. r~~I~s rr < 'his "'~•a w , , , ..-M . ~o ~~, ror (~ r.~E „"„~Fs zr r • '~ ~ ~ ,. ~"; l~u••u~~ ^•R .. ~~~ _ ~~~i aka ~ 'J~aa ~ i ., -3e'~z +;S ~ ~..g-c ±$. ~ ~ yrt." ~ ~ !~" i4.s.. Y~ ~p} .~ '~,cni { ° ,', ; i •' C.~,~}~ ~kg,~ r1 i ~ ~ e-r r ~ LYiat ~! e ~i ~~~° : ~ . f J u a~ • SITE PHOTO KEY MAP RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~~~ ® , WORKFORCE • ;~,~.,.,<~~~~,~',,,,, ~~~ ~ ~ HOMEBUILDERS I isrlc nmYel : rn~n'aJnn ., ~ ..:~-r„o.r u,.„~.e i...,.,~w~,., C,D,& E- 68 • • 1. View of site from Center Street facing west. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ®, WORKFORCE • :~.,,~..,~~~~ ,,.,,.~ ~ ~~-~ HOlVIEBUILDERS .:~,.,~, .,..~-.u.:... C, D,& E- 69 2. Street view along Center Street facing North. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~ ~~ . ®~ WORKFORCE '®~-' HOMEBUILDERS C, D,& E- 70 3. Street view along Center Street facing south. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California '~ ~. ~ : ~®~~ WORKFORCE ~ 5~„~~,~~e~„~,,,,,~~ ~~~ HOMEBUILDERS C,D,& E- 71 4. View of site from Foothill Boulevard facing north. • SITE PHOTOS • RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California WORKFORCE .,~.,~~~,~,~„~.~~~,~~®;:~. ~~~ HOMEBUILDER.S ~,,,,,~,,,,,,o„~~~,~,~~~~„ C, D,& E- 72 SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~ ®,~ WORKFORCE 5~,, , ,,:~ ~~~, ~,~~. ~ ~~ HOMEBUILDER.S ~~,., ~_~,~,, ~, ~~,~~ :,o~ C, D,& E- 73 • 5. Street view along Foothill Boulevard facing west. n U 6. Street view along Foothill Boulevard facing east. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~~ WORKFORCE .~~~~f.,:,~ ~., '~ .~' HOMEBUILDERS .ia.,.-r,~na u,„~,,,... ~.,.~,~~~,o„ C, D,& E- 74 7. View of site from adjacent restaurant facing northwest. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California . ® WORKFORCE :~.,~~..,.~,~~,a„~,~:~.; ~ ~ ~ HOMEBUILDERS C, D,& E- 75 • 8. View of tire store located on western portion of site. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~ .~~~~ ®, WORKFORCE. t~,,,t.~~:~~~.,, ~, ~-®~~~- HOMEBUILDERS .. ,. „~.,~.,.... ~~.,,.o .. C,D,& E- 76 9. View of house located on western portion of site. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~ ®~ ,~ WORKFORCE ~ ,.~~~~.,.:~~.:~~,:~, ~''~ HOMEBUILDERS C, D,& E- 77 10. View of site from Foothill Boulevard facing northwest. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~ ~ -. ~ ®~ WORKFORCE _~.,~..C.a,~~~~,. ~~ ~ HOMEBUILDERS C, D,& E- 78 11. View from site facing east towards office~ndustrial warehousing. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~ ~~ WORKFORCE • ooctl~a:n Cab: o-n;e~Na~asir9 '' HOMEBUILDERS IlwaL: ~ntCwlx:rniun C, D,& E- 79 12. View of restaurant located adjacent to the southeast of site, at northwest corner of Foothill/Center. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILY APARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~ ~ ~~ ®, WORKFORCE ~~a~,~~,,,~,~, '' HOMEBUILDERS - - •Iic~H::f rni Gnponunn .: >..n.,b.fu a+.unc bvnxannm C, D,& E- 80 . ,; - { :, ti '~ ,. .;. . 13. View from site facing southwest towards offices. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ,~ ,. ~, ~~,~ WORKFORCE ,o~,~ n ~ ~,,, ~~,~': ~ _ ~~ HOMEBUILDERS C,D,& E- 81 • 14. View from site facing southeast towards vacant land, and town center with under construction multifamily. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMIl.YAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~ WORKFORCE ~; ,,. o~tlani Cahb:n:a Flou;~rn ~ _ ~ ~ ,~ HOMEBUILDER.S n. ,.,, r,.r ~e..~a.,_ ~,..,.~,~,.,,. C,D,& E- 82 15. View of single-family located adjacent to the north. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California ~~~ ®®~, WORKFORCE ~ ;,~~~_,,~ y'~,ary' HOMEBUILDERS ~:,~.... C,D,& E- 83 • 16. View from site facing north towards single-family. SITE PHOTOS RANCHO FAMILYAPARTMENTS Rancho Cucamonga, California i WORKFORCE ;~:~,.~.~:.~;~,,r~.;~„~;~ ''~ HOMEBUILDER~ ~,, n~~~: ~,~~,~:.,,o: ,..,,,.o;~~;,av.~..~,.Prv,.~ C, D,& E- 84 Cucamonga Valley - Water District Robert A. DeLoach General Manager Chief Executive Officer June 12.2006 Ms. Lesley Edwards Workforce Homebuilders LLC Southern California ]-Lousing Development Corporation 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 220 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 1D440 Ashford Street • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-D638 P.O. 80X 638 • (909) 987-2591 • Fax (909) 476-8032 Re: Will Serve Letter Rancho Family Apartments Northwest Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Ms. Edwards: • Enclosed is the requested "Will Serve Letter'' for the above referenced project. This District understands that you will forward said letter to the appropriate City offices. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me (909) 987-2591. Sincerely, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ~; Ted Mwison Engineering Technician II Enclosure u C.D.& E- 85 r....._..v r....a.r., i. o 0..4...+u_..o_u i_._~. a w.i___ .+__~_~~ ~_-__ ~__~ ~. _.~.. r.___ Cucamonga Valley - Water District Robert A. DeLoach General Manager Chief Executive Officer June 12, 2006 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department P.O Box 807 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 10440 Ashfortl Street • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0638 P.O. BOX 638 • (909) 987-2591 • Fax (909) 476-8032 Re: Availability of Water and Sewer Service Rancho Family Apartments Northwest Corner of Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue Gentlemen: • You are hereby advised that the proposed Rancho Family Apartment complex is located within the service area of the Cucamonga Valley Water District. We have reviewed the tentative map for the development and have determined that the District has an adequate supply of water available to meet the domestic needs of the development. However, water main improvements may need to be completed to provide minimum fire flow requirements as established by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. Following the receipt of appropriate application and hydraulic modeling of the system, arrangements can be made for the installation of facilities required to meet the minimum fire ,flow requirements and furnish public water utility service to the development inaccordance with the District's policies, rules, regulations; and rate ordinances. Also, the District anticipates the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity to be adequate for this development. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me (909) 987-2591. Sincerely, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT _-} , • Ted Munson Engineering Technician II h~.e~v n~.~~~1., tr o onhnN Un,~~nu C.D.& E- 86 Imm~.n 1111.1:1 Il..-J..II 1 Il J V-•l.. T: Cucamonga Valley __ Water District Robert A. DeLoach General Manager Chiel Executive Officer .Tune 16. 2006 Ms. Lesley Edwards Workforce Homebuilders LLC Southern California Housing Development Corporatio^ 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 220 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Rancho Family Apartments Northwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Center Si. Rancho Cucamonga, CA Dear Ms. Edwards: 10440 Ashford Street • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0638 P.D. BOX 638 • (909) 987-2591 • Fax (909) 476-8032 Pursuant to your request, we are furnishing herewith the results of a flow test conducted on 6/15/06 at 9:45 near the above referenced location. The results of the flow test are as follows: Fire hydrant #1 flowed: North side ojFoothil! Blvd. 450' west of Center St. Fire hydrant #2 flowed: NWC of Footlri// Ithul. and Center St. Pressure gauge for flow: East side of Center St. 375' n orth of Foothill Bh~d. Outlet # I Outlet # 2 Static Water Pressure: 85 p.s.i. 85 p.s.i. Pitot Reading: 25 p.s.i. 28 p.s.i. Observed Flow: 2148 g.p.m. 2278 g.p.m. Residual Water Pressu re: 72 p.s.i. 72 p.s.i. Main Size: G-inch 8-inch Outlet Size: 4-inch 4 -inch Combined flow at 20 p.s.i. 10542 g.p.m. The normal static operating pressure ranges from 84 psi to 91 psi for this' location based on the average water elevations in tl:e reservoirs. The test results above indicate the capability of tyre water s}'stem at the time the test was made. Since the capacity of the water systetn may vary as a result of many factors, including changes in demands placed on the system by other users or the static water elevation, we recommend that you give adequate consideration to the information provided, including the normal static operating pressure range, when performing your analysis. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact the (909) 483-7440. Sincerely, • CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ~~ ti Braden u Senior Engine C, D,& E- 87 • MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for use in implementing mitigation measures for: Rancho Workforce Housing The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared incompliance with State law and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007101001) prepared for the project by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment (Public Resource Code §21081.6). The law states that the reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contains the following elements: Action and Procedure. The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several mitigation measures. • Compliance and Verification. A procedure for compliance and verifcation has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will betaken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. • Flexibility. The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations bythose responsible for the • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program. On the following pages are Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program checklist. • EXHIBIT I (1/31/2008) C,D,& E- 88 • • • F- J Y U W 2 U a Z H a w z a NZ_ LL H Z C0 G Z O Q ~_ R C O E m v o °p t °o U N C ~ r w ~ U ~ c m U Q- w d R Q ~ W ~ A C ~ C ~ o 0 2 m d U ~ 7 O U Y L O U C 5 m O ~ t ~" U ~ C T m ~IU d E R Z T d ~ U_ ~ d V ~ v ~ Q a` a` ft~'= +: .. u++- i fu_'. ~ ~i Wn "~~~~, ~R '' V V N M N x c ~ a O Q ~ . ~ 9 ~ S ~P g{ U m U _ ~, ~ ~ S w i`i h., 0 0 0 m m m ~°, ~ ~ o o a o c ~ m m c ' C 'O T ~ F- D ~ ~~ m 3 ~ oz m > E ~ m ~ °' C .-: y U U m B U U C d _ '~~ t0 3 m m m 3 an " d d.~ ~.~ °. ; L w` v a ~ w m o. O o~ 1° E v 5 ~~y r9 w - ° ~ y m O m m n. U T m~ y ~~ i O E L d« N Ol `~ C ~ d d O m N N ~ N r~ ~ ~ ' ° ~ u i?~r~~v} p o ' m N E ° - L x m d N 3 N E L °' c v B C O U # U ~~ ~ ~ N ~ ' ~ N ~ d - O L C ',~ rfF O . d 3 m O C m ' m N °~ Y L N - c d3 t ' - ~i~ U .: w -E N o O o ~a p • ~u"i ~ N ~ O. t ~O w N ~ N O. d d " ' N m C A m y ~3 m Ul =~ C ~ > u Y ~ ° m ~ > o ~ E t m ~ E a i . c i , v o ~, .c ~ ..., li O Ol .U N x ~ ~ H N~ w D_ y N N O N ~ ~ O.~ O.m 3 O C m ~m ~'w O d d ~ 3 U w' U g m O (n rn 0 ~ ~ m N m a ° m ,w N m o u O ~° n 1+'~ ~ ~ ~ m y ~ O m-Y U ~ O. ~ N E O O-« m C d o ~ ~ Ni U • m ~ w~ mw m'~ E a °cocE °-~ m 1,5:' ~~.0 L y ~~ ry~ N ~ L m 3 L d N N U a'O U O ... O j mU~ U ~O ~ Ul • ~ 'N O H m VI Y N N 3 O y. a~ y m N C N C m L C O . }} mE -O S~ m w~? ~~ oy aw oo~c°~m3 u.d F ~ ~~ C CI > m N N C m >. C y N C'~. N N .C m . N m ~jf 0 0 ~ K 'O N O 3 -O h U m O ~ C U N N 2 F N ~ ~pfQ o > °'ami mm ~°> °m m`m p p° Ea ~'a E~~~° ~ Qw Qm Sa Qv Fo i ~0~ 'o~°~ `"' m v 0 N .. v~u~u ~- w N I~ ;; N N ~ N Xa~: i= l a. ~. K:+'- T: U Q Q g; ^ ^ ^ ' - ' fig,. ~:, o 4'> 3 -o N N T ~.: J K U J O ~ _TLL ~`+% U ~ y ;'+ w: m U U "w.`.V m U U '~ m m ; h': `, t Fes; ` p `a: m O ^ w' ^ ^ O w m a _-° a a a U w' v ~~r':~= ~x ~'~sdE ` mo~° `=. , Eoi.L=tO " -°mot c « ~o~a a'i~.c `° ~ a o~ mm Nom ~, ca~ nm_ O ~ 4w o mmd Yrn OI C L L N N.. ~-L .. NL.. N _ ~ ? - M y N O ~ ~ N U C o E ~ O)1] J •~ 3 -O m c ' c L 0~.... ~3 c o . d ai . $ c a L- ~ o N . ~ a o N u E a i a i a~ ~ ~~cN a> k ~_cNm ~= y ~ ~ami O 'o N?`~ ~ i `- a ` N- = « O y m N O~ C L N ~.~' ` 3 E O p N "N y y y E C~~ a i O. yvNF `-O N D N N N O ~ L' O A U C j O N ^ ,~o~!, O N m ttl E ~ L` D ~ N O) N C . J ~ U N N C O Y1 ` O N N U p~'~ ~ h ~~ - D_ N C 'p y N N U C - C N U L (0 N N y N:` ~.N L O ~ '~ O N OU N O O.L.,-. ~~ m Ul a r N C . . N E N j d U O N O. U ~- O) O N 'V 'i "- N m O N ~~ N U (A O) C L C C Z N m L w ~ . E L~ 1] N J N E m C~ C` O '~' ~ - °: C d l] N C ~, 3 E d O N O> C N J y- O ~ N N N N N L j y y U .~ N C= r ~E .- O s t0 - N w J (nom N N .- . .. O N C y.. L N'O _ T N 3OL~ N T E.O Z`10 _ C J O ..: J S N'.>--. W~ NL ~~ E y ~C N O y C O) C - to N N ~ C c6 3 - o y U ~_~ w~ L ..- - ~ '_ O. ~ _ F- O ~ a c C C .~ O N ~ O O ~ ~~~ U O - U . f0c c i~o U rL-. y "~ Yooo~ v m C U E im a O N N w v' ->°- Om O" ~ O ~ Y L Vi ~ O *~ y N O O .= (0 y> _ C d J U ~ T O N N > O ~ w .~ O d ? U 3 E N O ° O N ~ ~ (0 Ip Ul N ~ ~ m3maci a i ~ y ~ J mac ~n o ~~ os- y'-- N=`m ' ~ J p L~ ~ . C L y N C C O y, ~ O N D ~ L N ~~ N C .N « ~ N~ J . U ._. C N 'C ~ Y N~ U U !U C .L. L N T y +~ .O t0 C L~ O" y ~ N N o~ya~~ ' c~~~ 4 o c~ o .K: ,~ oo--E.o~ ~ o d °~~Ln ~ . N--NCC -~ ° N s N d U E ~._ 0 3 n U ~' U .N U : :O ~ N ~~ O G o a y d ~ w d ~~ ~ J J O J N y -O ° ~ L 7 C ., ° C E N : (q: ._ ` U C >` N Q O. N ' J d~ C C N O N N ._. U O-^ w -O O~ ~~ O'om C y 0 'C -° 3u y l0 m y ~ - .w; '~ E mN C y 2 U N N N d N~ E N~ N N N y Y M O) L~ .J O ~pEN U yaV c~ T o ~~ C N ~~ ? ~~ oaJE ~-o Umyoy~d y a~ Nc°'ia3 rn5m--oo x mo"~o";°°' N a~ a rn c m L BN N N'c y m N ~ °Qf U ~ c OONNDJ 3 c m Q TNU - o o~n N L-O0 TrNJ JC. H ~.c ~'o c J LUINy F-5cc m ._ L F-'~ : ; (7_ d QN~$.yym U QEJ~ E '° y ~ QM._Q N=moo Z` m L C m ' E d ~ O W m . rn .- O C N C d N E C~ C ~ O 'O O y C O~ C~ O U O~ N N O J T w O O C ~ ~a~oa d;o~E ac -m; mn°nnU~ [O L -.mom ¢l~ ~macN~ rv.-; m N n • • • C, D,& E- 90 • • • ~ ~` .: : ~s f2;. ` ~ M1 g J~j Y .: f "! 's'~~I ~SRj ~F."v • 4' ` N : 6 .4~i I `J ii_He`. « ~:~ I~..S Y=: {yam: y M:,.. F: ~``s z-. ~~ Q Q 'Y+'; ~ U U a ' a ~.~ m : m '" ~ ~,' x' ~ ~', C C :!'L J eYC4 c "'a a v a~ c.? 3 c m ; gy m 3~.~ o . _° u rc'S D m g D m -° __~ ~° i'~ Q a J C I4 . ~' ~ ' U O m U U m 4i~ ' ' U ~~7'. m m a ac` '. - S a =' xiP ~~ ~~~ ,ux ~. . I O O ;% ~ ~ Kk{ ' W U W C n U r m : D O ~;_ ; m r: ~i ~' ' .: : fir ; z m' ,Sn, ~ ~i Q~O~am OINm ~ ~' TQT Tma ^ -~m=CUla ~ ~ wum u ~cmc '.~ ' mwn wo ~. E oc"3~„o 3 tr: -r J> u c d.Q -°~~ ~~ ~:i ~ i l E g o "x n i ,i~ E E C a s ~R LL m ~m o N ~ ` ., ° d a v n U~ c p d m F a° J m y y~~ H N ~,.:. m O1 ~7 E E O N 2° o o O` ~ N N . N ti .- a> o ° m C L N N- ~-~~. O G ~ N j m- 11r•~ a. w r aU V °' `,~, m L J O~ "' m i `n' O L m 'n m ? E 7'n mma mL~m -.: E~y~mF~p~ + . 4 ~, ° md~ `o a C UO o x m -~ E a o E u d d #t~~ ~ d N m cn °'~" c ~r~`.' > O U y j C N N D Fr1:.M. m n E n m~ y m x '-.t ~ C C U N O .C JO E;'i "~ J U "' O -O E ~ c N m Jx' N N N a. LL E `:' ` - d O C C N L N m ,~ i a o u `~ ~ dL c ; m ° ' ^ 3d~ > - 3 o trw `' mmN=--3 £ -° a m : «;'^' A': F;I d d m ~ c m . _ c . N m N ' i-"5 ii ' _ , . m . L N LL o >.~ : ~-;; «_ O ~.~ $~ U ~ ' N _ ~ - Y s C U -O C ~ m N 3 ; g <i >~ a :.. « O O ... C N ~'O . O y~ C i U O ~ k'=. " r `~ O ~ <. ~ N .. y O N N U ,'<Ex U O? m (p a C m a« UNmNCC C a m E 'C m ~ J.J O. ~~ O 7i" a C O N J+m .. L N" Q m° n~yS ~- mL~NO d V O N 7 m . ~ . J .°' ~ J a a N a , N C a C i~ •: o m ~ . . m J .U E O ~ C "E kp~. m ~- =i' E n L .C N .- N > ' D) m ~ Q m Q' w;. d N c.-. J m w a'a c v o a!= E 'v"-`~' 3i - ` m E= _ W v E LL a o :s`' m ~ ~ L c~ N J N L ~~ ._ v ~ o `°od o m ° o E 4 nJ } tl °~J L m''" '2" rnJ,.. m c m-a m d L J 'F.?: J . L ~> ~ O U '" 0 'Ol" Q OV 'F~ O U ?J' c N l C = C N 3 C U "7,ri. - _ ° ~ " - > L_ E~ j U ~ O O ~ .~ p N N >= m° m N .~ C S] m N 0 0 ra.' p - Fp m p a L ° . m m 41 N a t R c L° N° ' L p 3 L ~ 3 0« L N E ' ' O N r o N m > C, l , cmNE ~ O O N ~O O a m3` ` ° ~ ~Sj' ~` ~ Ana `mom m .'.O a°i n ~' o~a iE d' = ~. o w n m ol ~ m v U N O r ~ - ,w; :W .J- Y ~' J N C U a J `~ m N y C 0 m L C ~ n. « a ~w, m C H7 C m V u - n o C y: O U a .O j o - E m >, :;is.. C ° C ~ j a o J > ~ m ~_ ~ « : iU°. U O_ 4= d .~ m _ , m C ~` m 'a' o m N m J'~ a n L L o~ m n o .' ys _ _ U O N .- J m m O) J ;~ m O N ~ L ^' O> C :~i N~ 0 0 N m O~ N .v~ j O U- D N m ~ ? ~0: J ` m U N U d~ J y N m C> O L= '~A U 'p N B C U d .- .a- 'm N U~ y s"'°: L J V- - ~- m n E ~ p O L ip ;(n. > E d m N C N N T j U N L .Z-:: ;Q' L O: m 6 H O C- N ~L',~. ~N-. p Ol ~' C O !Wf -'Q"1 O « yo N C L TQ U m : m x a p>.'i « O d nom O J >. Qa.C W vt:; O . C e ~ N m TlL TC OL N ° s::^ r J : '~ O .O fn ° N O O m :O; r ~L . m O« m ' .. N m ±t B ~' O . ~~ a L « m m .~ O N O U a a jR". S`°cv'NO C~ . U c =J; 5~~`o C O a~°~ C U . ' a~°c_~Ec a•°.,~ mL - N ~~~c .~'o~~E 7:' H ~ my-' ~ (6 ~ C' ~ p N? r N 'O7 R'' ~ U a L « {.j U r N~ ~,W, O > ~,.=' 3` N Q . a '. f_I! d a m m ~ `o L~ c m T « k J ~ :E 'E !mj C 0 m o E 0 m a'g ~ :'(_~? m ° N O L ~ =o a m« m %~l `U' 7~ j m U Ol O m N$ U O O U m .}, U U> N '2~ >' j U O 2'4= m ::. Y j n Q N O( _~ N~ N Z` ~ d m ~ O O C a m U- C m U >i 1 ; °o N .. 1 1 ~ v r r ~ r r r r U a Q Q Q Q Q < Q o c ~'V m O m O C ] C ~ C ~ ~ N ^ a o a o O O U ~ W' W U U U U W U • O O D m O O O D m a a p m m m a a ~' "m ' O v o ' O L v o^ C N D ~ 0 0 C N L N y d m 0> C ~+ N o ~ ~ I V L ~ J N t6 N~ O ~ (6 O a i a i D ~ O_ ` ~ `o~ ~'E mEa ~EL ~ 0N cLm mo N ~ N U f6 .~' O Om OI S U N a i0 C C m CL.. W U 'i ~ N C C U tC1 O O Q C N NLO O N O1 N ~O C ~ N O N ~ ~, C c C 0 , E `0 0 o 2~ ~ ~ ~~ 'o o ~ u s 0 o ~ m w N a~ , "- 0~ a ~ a B o m b a E m m 0 c i O 3 ~~E~ ~ ~ N N ~ c 0 t m.E .m L ' t 0 3s3i. N 3 0 0 ~> ia -a io 'S o o - 0 `. 0 m >. >. ~ OUl O E OONm L E m c NCtO 'p o C' ~NCU o' ° mwE U~ _ N~ c. O S _ T C E, a d '- O N o c - 0 o _ N N ' 0 c.:=_ - C ~ o •- . m~ . 0 m C C m 0° . U n? m E N ~ N O . . m~ 0 O O 3 m 0 ... ~ ~ O C = 0 N'O N E'm~ d - -" E . O 0)'p - OI O N N U 01 N C U ~ O N .- O C O ~ U C L n 0U ~N t0 O U"- C C l0 l0 N Ol _ ~ ~~ N C Q'N N .` N L Ul ~ N ~ U O N .- C V N O t0 f0 (6 ~ N X d C d'~ N N C O O d d 3 E ~'c _ O o~- N c C o° ~~ n m o E~ a C o° y ~ ~ ~ L ~~ ~` C N U U ~.) u, L~ U O~ N - U . - o~ E a m~ t o ~ o m~ o~ 0 3'~ u X y~ d N - 0 0- ~ N 0 0 0~ c~o u~ ° ~ '~ o f 0 m Na o~ 000 N 0 .oL C m-o S C 0-0 ~~= O Q ~N T N N d O U .O O. ~ N V Ol U j V 0 N d N E ,°~ d O« N~ O.O C .~ U O K E O O C L y d T n U N O O NL- `. L.? C C m~ O _0 p C U C N C O'O C O N N N O m N O)= E U O T« ~= N A r Y r N N> - U D O l9 Z d O p p U= L N d C N -O C C N ~ N O) N U ~ N (_p LL N d'p N E N N- L E O N L N O L N ~ ~.:~ E A C lL " C C U p ~ !0 N l0 ~ -O H N ~N C N O N O O] C W~ m 7~ U~ ~ ] C O 0 L Q N~ "00 0 QI t0 U U D C a 0` N Q 'O O ~C'O ~> ~ ~l0^U N(0 C~ p NO NC.~d N C ~ b N j ~ N ~ E N N E N N O (0 C ` N O O N O N U iV 0 6 N y vQ0 a-oa v°'dE eE owo aNa oma°J v0o v~~ O N • • • • • • ~- M nayT N vim,. ~~1 +Li ~~` ~: ~.' ~: ?x_ ^ ~a a ~t U =,5, ~~~-, ~ ~ ~ Ul c N ~ aE m` `? ~` uJi u a ~ O . - «it K~.a p a ~'~ e U >: u v, ,, t ~ , ;u!ti p ~ m 3i' W ,',;% r_ U FS 'O = C cmo E 5k agk m "- C oYo.- m a y _~,;. c m o m rn~ s~.: ~ mw U L n '!°~: m r 7 C 2 o E :.¢ " ~~ m~ y o w o w C , , y ~ 4 ~ U o r U O (O J m iH^~„ .- N O `p Q N N '~"~` w tl d O m O O - -"' z jp C ~ ~.i p C y y .- N ~_x C F- m N N N ~{+ C t+ y r , d oc _ wn~ ~m U ~C .a.. C _ .~.f U N c` m > a k m 0 C 'O ..~~ ~~;~ ~ ~.- - N N N "O =N « '= N.~' •- 7 C rm .~a .. n m~ O C ~3c-._ do Nosy Da aLL`~ :IL% y ~ ~ ~ . c J C o ~ D-- iQ` ON `- U ~/ + n O .J D o o n n ,p~ (0 N N L L U> a Y U L m °Z' y U C ~N; ~a D J aa~~,~ c d d- dL- ~, m .Z: "tO? O m a$ O > N O O C a a~ °.H: Q; N UJ > J ~- .O--.C m o U ._ .- Y o~ y ~ ~~ E 3 ac ~ . ~ cQ `m d . m C C CI .n J N ,`N ,ZE W L o> m Q O `~ c a r~ J o y ~ E c =o 0 N U J -O y . ~ N> J U C O N m 4F V' 2 m a m ,~. ,& C O R .~ L a s Q N Y V m L U O d Y E- ~~• "e mEcTi yam: ~ d C a m .~ m m n Y mr S C C U 'L+'C w ~ p ~~.ti y Af0.3 p'J O D f1C'.+ ~ p m [0 ?V.- N mN {Ca 'O C ~ O O :" and+. O -p ~- ~ = 4.N.r N~ N O O d fig, ~ U U .`c ~ U -oaa o p 2+ O O O~ CY O I~x~ t L L n m ~ N r ~ . }~ 3.'. t;€`~,y ur. Y:-.:a~i~i c d nc3 ,,oa, «g ~ in ~i U`a, > ~ b~"'v O N 'y3 n a Y~~, Q ~ i~:~.' .~ ~~z, ~ E m d o d z `°Q~4R U T a ~ ~'A O. U J ~i'%i N ~ Yj (n ',ti'a~.i C O) O N 9 ~': d Q U N 9`tx^ . G,x,~e+:°r ~ L C n ,;,~,~. O O a ~ sir ¢- ~, ir~x*>; :::~~k;~ Q ¢] U ny~ 3.i ~r ~'i:" E i~Ua d C nct o 4 Nr°: Y..7.,.. > p ` i>: c,. m ~,,. ,~ pfd O U w ::m:: mwUo 'n"aG,., Z O O J .Tow. ~ U o n m L C ,; o~ .. pU o`m `~"~~ ~iaH00 5 :c~ti~ r A. xx'i'-: QCDUp W ~h~~' :{:,°°, ~lC`i ~ m C '.`~50%i ~ w rn m m,. m 'a~ o D ° `o 'm ~v- `o- ~ P~3 N U'C D s y;.: -0i' p)'p~ mU N xs, n`" c c .c ~'d~~' Ewa uU ~~y, m ,D~9 .o .d ~r;Q aU and ti {: °~= ~s~~~; o w 0 0 0 ~m~~. aUmaw 93' ro °o M RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006-00635, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE FOR 17 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTERAVENUEAND HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 11, 13, AND 14. A. Recitals. 1. Rancho Workforce Housing filed an application for General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 23 and continued to February 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifcally finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 23 and February 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 17 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, and is presently improved with existing commercial (The Whole Enchilada, Espinoza Tire, Route 66 Memories, Twins Club, Shop & Go) and residential (single-family and apartment) land uses, agricultural uses, and vacant land. Said property is currently designated as General Commercial; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential and is developed with existing single-family residences; the property to the west is designated General Commercial and Low Residential and is developed with existing commercial and residential uses; the property to the east is designated General Commercial and Industrial Park and is developed with an automotive service station and industrial uses; and the property to the south is designated General Commercial and is developed with restaurant, day care, and office uses. c. This Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistentwith the General Plan and with related development; and C,D,& E- 94 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 DRC2006-00635 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 2 • d. This Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. - 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area, and the proposed project master plan complies with current development code standards regulating building setback, building height, parking and landscaping; and b. That the proposed Amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties, the proposed project was designed to be sensitive to existing adjacent land uses, and the project Environmental Impact Report was prepared to address and mitigate potential environmental impacts; and c. That the proposed Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission makes the following findings under the requirements of the . California Environmental Quality Act: a. Among the applications for the Rancho Workforce Housing Project, the Planning Commission is not the decision-making body for, and is only the advisory body to, the City Council for the General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 and the Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634. For purposes of making its recommendations onthese applications, the Planning Commission has received and reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Rancho Workforce Housing Project along with the oral and written testimony received thereon during the hearing prior to any action on the Project. Based on that review, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certifythat the FEIR was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines') and that it adequately addresses the impacts and provides for appropriate mitigation measures for General Plan Amendment DRC2006-0635, the Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, and Development Review DRC2006-00633, and all other approvals necessary to carry out the Rancho Workforce Housing Project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that that the modifications to the FEIR that have been made since circulation of the DEIR, do not constitute the addition of new significant information to the FEIR within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. b. The Planning Commission finds that based on the FEIR, additional public comments, and the written and oral staff report, that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts except with respect to interior noise level impacts, short-term construction noise impacts, long-term operational noise impacts, cumulative noise impacts, and traffic impacts with regard to opening year 2009 with commercial conditions, residential conditions, and entire project (commercial and residential) conditions. With respect to all of these potentially significant C, D,& E- 95 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 DRC2006-00635 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 • Page 3 impacted areas and resources, the FEIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the level of impact to less than significant. c. In response to each significant impact identified in the FEIR, and listed in Section 4.b. of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid the impacts identified. The specifc changes and alterations required are contained in Appendix F of the FEIR, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference: The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, contained in Appendix F of the FEIR, avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant impacts of the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program will .avoid or mitigate all significant environmental effects of the Project. d. The Planning Commission finds that the FEIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required no project alternative, the reduced intensity alternative, the all residential portion of the project alternative, and the off-site location alternative. The alternatives identified in the FEIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much lesser degree, and therefore leave unaddressed significant social and economic goals the Project was designed to achieve, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Planning Commission finds that each of the alternatives is determined to be infeasible. • e. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program has been completed incompliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt each of the mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR and incorporate those measures into the Project. The Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" contained in Appendix F of the FEIR and incorporated herein by reference. The Mitigation Monitoring Program will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval. f. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga: Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraph 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, in accordance with the attached Draft City Council Resolution including Exhibits A and B and in accordance with the condition listed below: Planning Deoartment 1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to • relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its .agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be C,D,& E- 96 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 DRC2006-00635 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 4 required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary u I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission ofthe City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and • adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of February 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: u C, D,& E- 97 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION.OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2006-00635, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE FOR 17 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, O5, 06, 11, 13, AND 14. A. Recitals. 1. Rancho Workforce Housing filed an application for General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-04 recommending approval by the City Council. 3. On March 5, 2008, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that day. • 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on March 5, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 17 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, and is presently improved with existing commercial (The Whole Enchilada, Espinoza Tire, Route 66 Memories, Twins Club, Shop & Go) and residential (single-family and apartment) land uses, agricultural uses, and vacant land. Said property is currently designated as General Commercial; and , b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential and is developed with existing single-family residences; the property to the west is designated General Commercial and Low Residential and is developed with existing commercial and residential uses; the property to the east is designated General Commercial and Industrial Park and is developed with an automotive service station and industrial uses; and the property to the south is designated General Commercial and is developed with restaurant, day care, and offce uses. C, D,& E- 98 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. **** DRC2006-00635 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING March 5, 2008 Page 2 c. This Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with the related development; and This Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment, nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the abdve-referenced public hearing and upon the specific firdings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area, and the proposed project master plan complies with current development code standards regulating building setback, building height, parking and landscaping; and • b. That the proposed Amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties, the proposed project was designed to be sensitive to existing adjacent land uses, and the project Environmental Impact Report was prepared to address and mitigate potential environmental impacts; and • c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Draft Environmental Impact Report, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a signifcant effect on the environment. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Environmental Impact Report. b. The City Council has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and all comments received and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (ii) that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information within the Environmental Impact Report prior to approving the project; and (iii) that the Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the independentjudgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council recommends certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. C, D,& E- 99 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. **** DRC2006-00635 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING March 5, 2008 • Page 3 c. The City Council has also reviewed and considered 'the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council therefore adopts the Mitigation Moriitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, including Exhibits A and B and in accordance with the condition listed below: Planning Department 1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its • agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. • C, D,& E- 100 GENERAL PLAN -EXISTING l l ~ LOW RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK i ~ INDUSTRIAL PARK GENERAL COMMERCIAL • GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL ~ I GENERAL COMMERCIAL lOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles • EXHIBIT A-1 C, D, &. E- 101 GENERAL PLAN -PROPOSED l 1 LOW RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK INDUSTRIAL PARK GENERAL COMMERCIAL GENERAL COMMERCIAL LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles • • • EXHIBIT A-2 C, D,& E- 102 • • 2 ~_ Z w O J Q w w Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ m ti~ J U L~ 2 J a w !!! Q Z Q J V ~ M N M M N N M (p M N O V' r In ~ c0 U'7 'Q ~Q r ~ M O~ ~~ ~ O O r N r N ~ ~ ti C~ v. D. o J M ~ y ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ N O ti N aD n N.: N Q1 '~t N N N'] (D V In M oD M ~ (.O m o0 O M A N ~ w N (O Q): N ~ N Q1 O i~ O n ~fi o0 O O m n n 0 0 ~ M M CO 00 Q~ (O r O) c0 ~ M r n M v r CO r Oa fD 1n n y N M M r M n r V oo o ~ V M Q d N ~ b C j ~'" Iry 7 W U Q. O ~ ~ ~ ~ ,C C m ? ; '- 3 ~ Q. o o N ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ rn y[ r I i N ~ Q ~ ~ O Q7 y N N oO N O N N O~ ~ tC1 <D N N O O n O r O op lf] r ~ N r r ~ t[) n V Q y = o rn r: o eo m r~ n ooo w n Q Q Q N N CO Q Q ~n Q n n ~ ~ 01 y M N OD O 0- ~ I~ O) 0 W 0 V 0 V~ V V O 01 ~ n ~ N Z Z Z O) W M [O M I~ r ~ I~ to Z ~ l0 Z O O ~ C N D ~ O : D ~ D r ~+j M `Q t ~ ~ ro y c m . r [ r ( r r v ~ r n N o n O n o o m .. ~ ~ 0 0. tr ~ t ~ ~n f~ cD V cv, O: o ~ n M o r rn h rn n r~r, f~ N o Q) rn oD ~ n Q Q Q '- M v (D N h m N V Q ~o M Q o 0 o 0 ~~ ~ LL7 V.; O r . n ~ to r- O CO M r Z Z Z N (D V O r Z IA Z O O d~ ~ N ~.:.,; c0 ~ n 0 0 f~ op N O'i O n r r r ~ N Q1 m h O ~ ~ Q) ~ V ~ ~ W ~ ~ N M ~ 7 ~ ~ d N o0 O'. O~ ~ ' V'. ~ I ~ O i co M oo r~ u> n ~ri 4 - Q ~ o ao cD ~ v rn n u~ ~ V V ' w N r r. U7 O N I+ r M M t0 ~ N ~ cD tD Q O' N [ r ~' r n O01 p01 _ U y n .C i m ~ ~ G ( i ~ ~ ~ Q Z i ~ i ~ ~ N rn W 3 c0 N Q th y 00 h N a0 O) ~ N N h GO CO V ~n LO N N (D r O) a0 t0 M N O O~ N CO ~ N N O O to 01 O n O O O 00 (O m (D r M I~ V (O m O m ~ W n. n CDr 0 Q1 n V I~ N r r M r O ao ~D ~ N M r N r ~' N [t U r N Q ~ `..° O S O O 3 O 2g O :9 J Q ~ Q O F. M O ~ Q ~ f/) fn (n (n (n 7 ~ N M W M 2' ~ ~ ~ ~ N M ~n ' Q K o ~ a Q _ ~ Z ~ m N ~ -O ~' L L L Q ~ U • LL ~ ~ N N N ~ ~ ~p N 2 QLL (D Ll. U .- O ~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ N ~ J O E ? V ca ~ N O O ~ z o o U E U N ~~ ~ ~ ~ c o ~ U w '-' ~ ~' Z ~ W r 0 ..T~ O C d j '~ 7 U .~ - O O t N ~ ~ V7 ~ O C ~ U p N ~ m ~ ~ d m Z 0 N C m L N - w ~ -- ~ ~ s ., E ~. `° ~ is a~ -o c ;~ ~ `° m - cn C i a U ~ ~ E aci cn o m Z .V .mom E~ C U O 7~ C ~ m N ~ C O ~ E E L . _ y ~ ~, ai 0 Zt¢i ULL C7 ~ ~ ~= C7 2 O U W U U W 2 -'~ a Q ~ Q. O N m d r O a N O U p d ~O N a °' U ~ m U C d O n ~ N ~ .O T N E c w ~ m m c .~ 0 a~ ~ ~ L Q C ~^ 3 LL o E = E d~ o ~ 'm '€ ~ m ~ m ~ E a E N m ~ m m m O ~ „N„ C ._ ~ ~ O C C 7 N ~ N 0 O d E ~ ~ N ~ 61 -O U C-O S] y m a~cEm O L .O 7 mr Z w n = - o - ~ u E m '- ~ ~ ~ ~ d C 3 m O ~ F ~ N ?. ~ N ~ N r n Tc-o E °' ~ N o ~ _n ~. d ~ N ~ = C 7 N •C € 0 ~ U d d d 01 ~ m E ~L c N y til N N C ~ O N N ~ d ~ 7 U .~+~ C ~ N U C y U1 - N O ~ ~ m N D m m C 7 ~~ v=i m-~ o m ca~a~o O~.-~ 0 2 F C O O C C ~ C m Vj T ,In N N C X N ,a N O N n m ~ m o C O .O L^. T O C - N d C V1 C E ~~ _ o d ~, c~ ~ O O N m~ 0 a N .N ~ d'Q O ~ ~ c ~ a_ `o ~ ~ o o m m _ C d N ~ 7 0 0~ ~ m N O~ C m O O o ~ _ ~ m d ~ d m 01 -O 3-m~_ a~ ~ a~ o c 5 ~ Opp U c ~ O d ~ N D d Ol Vl N y O y O C ~ m d m m c c m ~ ~ ~ QL a~ O y Q y C i~ a ~ m o ° mi . N ,_ _ ~ m L S C C m •C C V1 n ~~ N ~.~m C C .N ~ O) ~ m a0 d~.~ ~ c a~ V t6 O .x 3 ~ N CN Z ~ O a~ (!J e EXHIBIT B-1 c,o,& E- 103 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN • Page II/-30 The Pl[nvaing Ce//!er P:ICRA-O1.OGIMarch 2002 Final GPIGP LU Master Repoli/or printing.doc Octaher 17, 2001 use adjacent arterial highways to move to other portions of the mixed-use development. - 8. Exhibit considerable flexibility in design in achieving maximum site potential and sensitivity to adjacent uses. 9. Apply CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principles to provide both the reality and perception of public safety. 10. Provide a unique and engaging experience for both residents and visitors, similar to those often found in older cities. Each application of the Mixed-Use designation on the Land Use Plan has a specific intent. Therefore, the guidance for each one is tailored to that area. A land use table is provided for each mixed-use designation to establish the uses to be permitted and the general area to be devoted to each use. Flexibility is provided in the ranges to permit combinations of uses at a variety of overall intensities. Unless otherwise specified, the most intensive combination is the most desirable. The ten areas designated for Mixed-Use development under these provisions of the General Plan are: 1. The Regional Center area, bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Base Line Road, I-15 and the Day Creek Flood Control Channel; 2 A "Town Center" node at the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; 3. - The north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Hellman; 4. The western entrance to the City along Foothill Boulevard in the area generally know as Bear Gulch; 5. The Terra Vista Mixed Use Area, located along Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; and 6. The Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, generally located west of Milliken Avenue, south of the railroad tracks, north of 4m Street, and east of Utica Avenue 7. The Foothill Boulevard -Cucamonga Channel Area, located at the base of "Red Hill," located near the Historic Route 66 Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. 8. This Historic Alta Loma -Amethyst Site, on the east side of Amethyst Street between the neighborhood elementary school and the original commercial center. 9. The Haven and Church site, located on the south side of Church Avenue, between Center and Haven Avenues. Once the location of a San Bernardino County Flood Control District retention basin, the site was declared surplus because of drainage improvements within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and became available for private development. 10. The Foothill Boulevard site, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue, south of the residences on • Stafford Street. EXHIBIT B-2 C,D,& E- 104 • 2.5.3.6 Mixed Use (Probable FAR of 0.40 and Maximum FAR of 1.0) The purpose of the Mixed-Use designation in the General Plan is to stimulate and guide development in special opportunity areas where land use change is desired. Mixed Use development may occur in two ways: 1) as a combination of uses in a single development project on a single parcel of land; or 2) as a combination of uses on multiple parcels within a specified district of the City. In either case, the intent is to achieve a complete integration of the uses and their support functions into a common concept. . The effect of mixed-use development in the ten opportunity areas in which it is applied is to create special urban places within the general suburban patterri of single uses somewhat isolated from each other. While such a mixture would not be feasible over extensive portions of the' City, it can be desirable within limited, focused areas. The expectations commonly required of mixed use developments through site planning, design, and use configuration is that they: 1. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian movement into and within the site. 2. Provide uses that are interconnected rather than being rigidly separated. • 3. Include uses that are highly urban in character, with generally higher intensities of use than in surrounding areas. 4. Contain usable public open space that is highly accessible and convenient to residents and visitors. 5. Express a common design theme that may be carried out by architectural styles, landscaping and lighting treatment, street improvements and street furniture, or other means of unifying the development. This does not precluded an eclectic mix of architectural styles; only that the development be tied together in its physical form by some means. 6. Involve a variety of scales and spaces to provide interest and diversity in the environment being created. 7. Include an integrated circulation system of arterial access, internal circulation, parking facilities, pedestrian pathways, bicycle routes, transit stops (where applicable), and related signage. It is intended that movement within the entire opportunity area be feasible on site without being forced to CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA GENERAL PLAN Puge I/F30 The Planning Center P:ICRA-O1.OGIMarch 2002 Final GPIGP LU Master Report for p6nting.dac October 17, 2001 use adjacent arterial highways to move to other portions of • the mixed-use development. 8. Exhibit considerable flexibility in design in achieving EXHIBIT B-3 C,D,& E- 105 III. DEVELOPING THE COMMUNITY 2.5.5.7 Foothill Boulevard-Cucamonga Channel Site This 7.24-acre site is significant within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. At the southern base of "Red Hill," the site is strategically located near the northwest corner Historic Route 66 Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. Like other newly designated Mixed Use districts, this site presents an opportunity to expand commercial office activity, while providing an opportunity for new multi-family development in the City. The following table specifies the uses and range of development that is anticipated to bring positive aspects to revitalize the area. TABLE 111-10 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - CUCAMONGA CHANNEL SITE Land Use Mix Percent Ran a Acrea a Ran e Medium Residential 0%- 100% 0-7.24 acres 18-14 Dwelling Units Per Acrel' • 'This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium-High Residential (14-24 • dwelling units per acre) if developed in conjunction with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) 2.5.5.8 Historic Alta Loma -Amethyst Site This is a relatively small (3.24 acres), but significant, site within the historic Alta Loma commercial area. Once the location of a large citrus packing house, the site, now vacant, is strategically located on the east side of Amethyst Street between the neighborhood elementary school and original commercial center. This vacant parcel presents an opportunity to bring new activity into the historic town center either with new commercial office ventures, or with new multiple family developments, possibly aimed to provide housing for our growing senior citizen population. The following table specifies the uses and range of development that is anticipated to bring positive aspects to revitalize the area: TABLE 111-11 ALTA LOMA AMETHYST MIXED-USE Land Use Mix % Ran a Acrea a Ran e Medium-High Residential 0%-100% 0-3.24 acres ~ - 14-24 dwellin units er acre • Otif ce 0% - 100% 0 - 3.24 acres Ciq~ ajRancl+o Cucamonga Genera! Plmr Page 7l1-43 October 17, 2001 I:IYLANh7NGIL°rry1GENERAL PLAT\9Fina12003 GP LU hfaster Rep°rG docrn~4-16.d°c EXHIBIT B-4 c, D,& E- 106 • 2.5.5.9 Haven, and Church Site This 14.77-acre site is located on the south side of Church Avenue, between Center and Haven Avenues. Once the location of a San Bernardino County Flood Control District retention basin, the site was declared surplus because of drainage improvements within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and became available for private development. The site represents a transition area between single family residential to the north and west and industrial/institutional (CVWD Maintenance and Office Facility) to the south and future Office uses across haven to the east. The following table specifies the uses and range. of development that may be permitted on the site. - TABLE III-1 Z HAVEN AND CHURCH- FLOOD CONTROL BASIN Land Use Mix ~ Percent Range Acreage Range Medium Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 10.95 acres (8-14 dwelling units per acre) ` Office 0% - 100% 0 - 3.36 acres * This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). • 2.5.5.10 Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue This 17-acre site is significant within Subarea 3 of the Foothill Boulevard Districts. The site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue. A Master Plan of the site includes a proposed 10.54 acre 166-unit workforce multi-family housing project, an existing restaurant at the northwest corner of Foothill and Center, and a future commercial, office, and restaurant land use at the northeast corner of Hermosa and Foothill. The following table specifies the uses and range of. development that may be permitted on the site. TABLE 111-13 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SITE- MIXED USE Land Use Mix Percent Range Acreage Range Medium/Medium High Residential' 0%- 62% 0 - 10.54 acres (Up to 20 dwelling units per acre) Commercial -Retail, Office 0% - 100% 0 - 17 acres (commercial and professional) and Restaurant " This Mixed Use site may consist of a mix of Medium to Medium High Residential uses, which may include Multiple Family Residential land uses of up to 20 dwelling units per acre developed subject to the applicable density range requirements. r ~ L J C, D,& E- 107 • RESOLUTION NO. 08-05 . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2006-00634 REQUESTING TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) TO MIXED USE (MU) FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) FOR 17 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF- APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, O5, 06, 11, 13, AND 14. A. Recitals. 1. Rancho Workforce, Housing filed an application for Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On January 23 and continued to February 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No. 08-04 recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 be approved. • 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 23 and February 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 17 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, and is presently improved with existing commercial (The Whole Enchilada, Espinoza Tire, Route 66 Memories, Twins Club, Shop & Go) and residential (single-family and apartment) land uses, agricultural uses, and vacant land. Said property is currently designated as Community Commercial (CC) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential and is developed with existing single-family residences; the property to the west is designated General • Commercial and Low Residential and is developed with existing commercial and residential uses. The property to the east is designated General Commercial and Industrial Park and is developed with an automotive service station and industrial uses; and the property to the south is designated General Commercial and is developed with a restaurant, day care, and office uses; ahd C, D,& E- 108 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-OS DRC2006-00634 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 2 c. This Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. • 4. The Planning Commission makes the following findings under the requirements of the • California Environmental Quality Act: a. Among the applications for the Rancho Workforce Housing Project, the Planning Commission is not the decision-making body for, and is only the advisory body to, the City Council for the General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635 and the Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634. For purposes of making its recommendations onthese applications, the Planning Commission has received and reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Rancho Workforce Housing .Project along with the oral and written testimony received thereon during the hearing prior to any action on the Project. Based on that review, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify that the FEIR was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines") and that it adequately addresses the impacts and provides for appropriate mitigation measures for General Plan Amendment DRC2006-0635, the Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, and Development Review DRC2006-00633, and all other approvals necessary to carry out the Rancho Workforce Housing Project. The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council find that that the modifications to,the FEIR that have been made since circulation of the DEIR, do not constitute the addition of new significant information to the FEIR within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5: , b. The Planning Commission finds that based on the FEIR, additional public comments, and the written and oral staff report, that the Project will not cause significant environmental impacts except with respect to interior noise level impacts, short-term construction noise impacts, long-term operational noise impacts, cumulative noise impacts, and traffic impacts • with regard to opening year 2009 with commercial conditions, residential conditions, and entire prdject (commercial and residential) conditions. With respect to all of these potentially signifcant impacted areas and resources, the FEIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that C, D,& E- 109 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-05 DRC2006-00634 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 • Page 3 reduce the level of impact to less than significant. c. In response to each significant impact identified in the FEIR, and listed in Section 4.b. of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid the impacts identified. The specifc changes and alterations required are contained in Appendix F of the FEIR which is hereby incorporated by reference. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, contained in Appendix F ofthe FEIR, avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant impacts of the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or mitigate all significant environmental effects of the Project. d. The Planning Commission finds that the FEIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required no project alternative, the reduced intensity alternative, the all residential portion of the project alternative, and the off-site location alternative. The alternatives identified in the FEIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much lesser degree, and therefore leave unaddressed signifcant social and economic goals the Project was designed to achieve, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Planning Commission finds that each of the alternatives is determined to be infeasible. • e. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt each of the mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR and incorporate those measures into the Project. The Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" contained in Appendix F ofthe FEIR and incorporated herein by reference. The Mitigation Monitoring Program-will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval. f. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraph 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of the Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, in accordance with the attached Draft City Council Resolution including Exhibits A and B and in accordance with the condition listed below: Planning Department 1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or iri the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or - employees, for any Court.costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at C,D,& E- 110 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-05 DRC2006-00634 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 4 its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary • I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting bfthe Planning Commission held on the 13th day of February 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C, D,& E- 111 • DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2006-00634, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) TO MIXED USE (MU) FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) FOR 17 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 11, 13, AND 14. A. Recitals. 1. On January 23 and continued to February 13, 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634 and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 08-05, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Draft Ordinance 2. On March 5, 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634. • 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on March 5, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 17 acres of land, basically a rectangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, and is presently improved with existing commercial (The Whble Enchilada, Espinoza Tire, Route 66 Memories, Twins Club, Shop & Go) and residential (single-family and apartment) land uses, agricultural uses, and vacant land. Said property is currently designated as Community Commercial (CC) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3); and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential and is developed with existing single-family residences; the property to the west is designated General . Commercial and Low Residential and is developed with existing commercial and residential uses; the property to the east is designated General Commercial and Industrial Park and is developed with an automotive service station and industrial uses; and the property to the south is designated General Commercial and is developed with restaurant, day care, and office uses; and C, D,& E- 112 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DRC2006-00634 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING March 5, 2008 Page 2 c. This Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment, nor the surrounding properties; and SECTION 3: Based upon the facts and information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: • a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Draft Environmental Impact Report, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation • measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Environmental Impact Report. b. The City Council has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and all comments received and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (ii) that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information within the Environmental Impact Report prior to approving the project; and (iii) that the_Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council recommends certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. c. The City Council has. also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project d. The custodian of records for the Final Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. C, D,& E- 113 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DRC2006-00634 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING • March 5, 2008 Page 2 SECTION 4: The Development Districts Map is hereby amended to change from Community Commercial (CC) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) to Mixed Use (MU) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) for 17 acres of land, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue, in words and figures, as shown iri the attached Exhibits A and B and in accordance with the condition shown below: Planning Department 1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish. such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers,- or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of • any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. • C, D,& E- 114 ZONING MAP - EXISTING • 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles • k EXHIBIT A-1 c,o,a E- 115 ZONING MAP - PROPOSED _ • Industrial Low Residential Low Residential Park d a N d O J Low Residential Commercial Office Community Commercial Low Medium Residential Low Residential 0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles J • EXHIBIT A-2 Industrial Park Community Commercial + FO Maed Use C, D,& E- 116 • • • Rancho Cucamonga Development Code M W W '~ v / 17.32-71 EXHIBIT A-3 C, D,& E- 117 Section 17.32.080 ~ z J z 0- 5 w ~ y ~ ~ w U ~ U v~i ~ J n m ~ z a ~ a 1 J ~ a w U LL LL Q Q ~ J ~ Q ~ X w U ~ ~ f- h W ~ O N = LL j O ~~ O ~ O O U Z 7 J a( o U W' U ~ J ~ ~ J Q ' 0 Y. U ~ U K W ~ w, ~ ~ g o . ~ o a ~ O U ~; o Q ~ Q ¢~o$ ~ U Q ~ ` O' a~O~ ~ W V. ~. ~ (~ W w n~ ~ ~ N' U N ~a o u. O U U K U ~n U ~ J ¢ J Q ~ Z F Z O O O O ¢ N N ~ W ~ K ~ w K a F ~ p 2 O 7 N ~.~oo J Q to Z' ^ w W K' 2 Foo , . g n. ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~wn z ~ 7 p d , n u W W ~ O ' w ~ a ¢ a ° O O ~ ~ ~ ao Q W w aIF J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2/08 Rancho Cucainonna DeveloRment Code Section 17.08.030 Land Use Mix Percent Range Acreage Range Medium-High Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 3.24 acres Office 0% - 100% 0 - 3.24 acres The land use categories within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character and intensity as defined in Development Code Chapters 17.08 and 17.10. All uses that may be authorized under the Office designation are subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.08 and 17.10, for each permitted land use shall be applicable within the Mixed Use District. 2. Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue Site: This 31.5 acre site is located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The following table specifies the uses and range of development that may be permitted on the site: Land Use Mix Percent Range Acreage Range High Residential 40% - 45% 12.6 - 14.2 acres Office 55% - 60% 17.3 - 18.9 acres • The land use categories within the Mixed Use area shall be•of the character and intensity as defined in Development code Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.30. .All uses and activities that are permitted, or may be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit, under the High Residential, Office/Professional, General Commercial, and Industrial Park designations are subject to the same permitting processes and development standards • as listed in Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.20, shall be applicable to any development within the Mixed Use District, or shall be subject to a Master Plan of Development approved by the Planning Commission specifcally for this site. 3. Foothill Boulevard-Cucamonga Channel Site: This 7.24-acre site is located at the base of "Red Hill" on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Channel. The following table specifies the uses and range of development that may be permitted on the site. Percent Acreage Land Use Mix Range Range Medium Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres 8-14 dwellin units er acre " Office 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres The land use categories proposed within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character and intensity as defined in the Development Code Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32. All uses that may be authorized under office designations are subject to a Conditional Use Permit approval. The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32 for each permitted land use shall be applicable to the development within the Mixed Use District." • This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) if developed in conjunction with a Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD). ~ • EXHIBIT B 17.os-1o 2/04 C, D,& E- 118 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17 08 030 • 4. Haven, Church and Center Site: This 14.77-acre site is located on the south side of Church Avenue, between Center. and Haven Avenues. The following table specifies the uses and range of development that may be permitted on the site. Percent Acreage Land Use Mix Range Range Medium Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 10.95 acres 8-14 dwellin units er acre Office 0% - 100% 0 - 3.36 acres • • The land use categories proposed within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character and intensity as defined in the Development Code Chapters 17.08, and 17.10. All uses that may be authorized under office designations are subject to Development Code Chapter 17.10. The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.08, and 17.10, for each permitted land use shall be applicable to the development within the Mixed Use District, or shall be subject to a Master Plan of Development approved by the Planning Commission specifcally for this site. "This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre). 5. Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue Site: This 17- acre site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue. The following table specifies the uses and range of development that may be permitted on the site. Land Use Mix Percent Range Acreage Range Medium/Medium High 0% - 62% 0 - 10.54 acres Residential (Up to 20 dwelling units per acre Commercial -Retail, Office 0% - 100% 0 - 17 acres (commercial and professional), and Restaurant The land use categories proposed within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character and intensity as defined in the Development Code Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32. All uses that may be authorized under the commercial designation are subject to Development Code Chapter 17.32. The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32 for each permitted land use shall be applicable to the development within the Mixed Use District, or shall be subject to a Master Plan of Development approved by the Planning Commission specifically for this site. * This Mixed Use site may consist of a mix of Medium to Medium High Residential uses, which may include Multiple Family Residential land uses of up to 20 dwelling units per acre developed subject to the applicable density range requirements. 17.08-11 2/04 C, D,& E- 119 • RESOLUTION NO. OS-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00633, A REQUEST TO DEVELOP A 166-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX ON 10.5 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, AND 04. A. Recitals. 1. Rancho Workforce Housing filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2006-00633, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 23rd day of January and continued to the 13th day of February 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. ' 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced hearing on January 23 and continued to February 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of 662 feet and a Center Avenue street frontage of 307 feet, and is presently improved with a commercial use (Espinoza Tire) and two-single family residences; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential and is developed with existing single-family residences. The property to the west is designated Community Commercial and is developed with commercial uses (Shop & Go, Twins Club, and Route 66 Memories). The property to the east is designated Community Commercial and Industrial Park and is developed with a restaurant (The Whole Enchilada) and industrial uses. The property to the south is designated Commercial Office and is developed with restaurant, day care, and office uses; and c. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The applicant proposed the development of 166 workforce apartment units and a community recreational building center. The project also provides on-site parking and recreational amenities including a C, D,& E- 120 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 2 • swimming pool, half basketball court, tot-lot, picnic tables and BBO grilles, and two large (100 feet by 50 feet) lawn areas for open play; and e. The proposed density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre is consistent with the development standards of the Foothill Boulevard District density range for the Mixed Use District, which permits Multiple-Family Residential developments up to 20 dwelling units per acre; and f. The design of the new units is a contemporary interpretation of the SpanishlMediterranean architectural style. The exterior design elements for the new apartment units include fullytiled roofs, trimmed out windows and door openings, and walls clad in stucco and accented with fully grouted faux stone veneer. Moreover, landscaping and recreational amenities are well distributed around the site. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, togetherwith the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to • the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Planning Commission makes the following findings underthe requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act: a. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines"), the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study') for the Project. The Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources, including air quality, noise, and traffic. Pursuant to Guidelines 15064 and 15081, and based upon information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Rancho Workforce Housing Project. On October 1, 2007, the City prepared and sent a Notice of Preparation of the EIR to responsible, trustee, and other interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a) fora 30-day review period. The City circulated the Draft EIR to the public and other interested parties fora 45-day review period from November 15, 2007 through December 31, 2007, consistent with the 45-day public comment period required by Guidelines Section 15087(c) and 15105. During this public comment period, the City received six (6) written comment letters regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City also received an additional two (2) letters after the 45-day review period, for a total of eight (8) written comment letters. The City prepared written responses to all the comment letters received on the Draft EIR in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21092.5 and Guideline 15088. b. The Planning Commission is the decision-making body for Development Review application DRC2006-00633 forthe.Rancho Workforce Housing Project. For purposes of making its determination ofthe • application, the Planning Commission has received and reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Rancho Workforce Housing Project along with the oral and written testimony received thereon during the hearing priorto any action on the Project. Based on that review, the Planning Commission hereby C, D,& E- 121 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 .Page 3 certifies that the FEIR was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the Guidelines, and that it adequately addresses the impacts and provides for appropriate mitigation measures for the Development Review application DRC2006-00633, General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00635, Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634, and all other approvals necessary to carry out the Rancho Workforce Housing Project. The Planning Commission further finds that that the modifcations to the FEIR that have been made since circulation ofthe DEIR, do not constitute the addition of new signifcant information to.the FEIR within-the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. c. The Planning Commission finds that based on the FEIR, additional public comments, and the written and oral staff report, that the Project will not cause significant envirgnmental impacts except with respect to interior noise level impacts, short-term construction noise impacts, long-term operational noise impacts, cumulative noise impacts, and traffic impacts with regard to opening year 2009 with commercial conditions, residential conditions, and entire project (commercial and residential) conditions. With respect to all of these potentially significant impacted areas and resources, the FEIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the level of impact to less than significant. d. In response to each significant impact identified in the FEIR, and listed in Section 4. b. of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid the impacts identified. The specific changes and alterations required are contained in ExhibitA to this resolution, which is hereby incorporated by reference. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, contained in Appendix F of the FEIR, avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant impacts of the Project. The Planning Commission finds that the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring .Program will avoid or mitigate all significant environmental effects of the Project. e. The Planning Commission finds that the FEIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required no project alternative, the reduced intensity alternative, the all residential portion of the project alternative, and the off-site location alternative. The alternatives identified in the FEIR are not feasible, as fully articulated in Exhibit A to this resolution, because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much lesser degree, and therefore leave unaddressed significant social and economic goals the Project was designed to achieve, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Planning Commission finds that each of the alternatives is determined to be infeasible. f. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby adopts each of the mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR and incorporates those measures into the Project. The Planning Commission also adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" contained iri Appendix F of the FEIR and incorporated herein by reference. The Mitigation Monitoring Program will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval. g. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, .Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraph 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, C, D,& E- 122 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 4 • attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Final approval of Development Review DRC2006-00633 shall be contingent upon subsequent City Council approval of the associated General Plan Amendment (DRC2006-00635) and Development District Amendment (DRC2006-00634). 2) This approval is for the site plan, grading plan, exterior building design, and landscaping fora 166-unit multi-family workforce complex and associated site improvements as described in this report and depicted on approved plans on-file with the Planning Department. 3) The 166-unit multi-family housing complex is located in a proposed Mixed Use (MU) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3) and was designed to comply with the Medium Residential development standards, utilizing the Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions. The Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions applicable to this project include: a) A reduction in the Foothill Boulevard building setback from 55 feet to 47 feet. This setback reduction is applicable to Building A located on the east side of the Foothill Boulevard driveway. b) An increase in the maximum building height from 35 feet to 37 feet. This wall height increase is applicable to the 3-story buildings. • c) An increase in the maximum wall height for a combination garden/retaining wall from 6 feet to 9.5 feet. Maximum wall height is measured from the mid-point of the retaining wall to the top of the garden wall. This wall height increase is applicable to the wall along the west project boundary. d) A project density of 15.75 dwelling units per acre, representing a 12.5 percent density increase above the Medium Residential District density range. 4) No exterior changes to the design of the project, including exterior materials, shall be permitted without prior City review and approval. 5) The design and height of decorative metal fences, gates, railings, and perimeter walls shall be submitted for final Planning Director review and approval during plan check. All decorative exterior metal elements shall be finished with high quality powder coat paint and properly maintained by the property owner in good condition at all times thereafter. 6) Primary daily pedestrian and vehicle access to the site shall be from Foothill Boulevard via the main entry gate nearest the Community Building. The use of the vehicle access gate on Center Avenue shall be limited to resident and emergency vehicles/responders only. 7) On-site structures (e.g., buildings, garages, fences, walls, gates, exterior lights, • recreation equipment, etc.) and facilities (including parking lots) within the complex shall be maintained in good and presentable condition at all times. Any damaged areas shall be promptly repaired and restored to original C,D,& E- 123 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OS-06 DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 • Page 5 condition/appearance to the greatest extent possible. All graffiti shall be promptly removed when discovered by on-site management or as notified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Engineering Department 1) Foothill Boulevard frontage improvements are to be in accordance vvith City "Major Divided Arterial" standards including curb and gutter, a.c. pavement, sidewalk, 16,000 Lumens HPSV street lights, street trees, drive approach, traffic signs, and striping: a) The Foothill Boulevard frontage shall be designed in accordance with the City adopted Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan including street lights. This designates a "Suburban Parkway Enhancement Area" featuring colored pavement emblazoned with the Route 66 logo, special sidewalk treatment, artwork and a historic post and a cable roadway safety barrier. Said enhancement area shall be maintained by the developer and shall be included in the CC&R's. A portion of Foothill Boulevard median island including landscaping and irrigation shall be reconstructed. Revise existing Landscape Maintenance District plans accordingly to reflect the above improvements. b) The proposed gated entrance on Foothill Boulevard shall be in accordance • with City's "Residential Project Gated Entrance Design Guide" standard. c) The right-turn lane on Foothill Boulevard shall be per City Standard 119. d) Provide R26(s) "No Stopping" signs along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. e) Provide an easement for sidewalk purposes for the sidewalk located at the back of the main drive approach entrance. f) No accent paving within the City right-of-way is allowed. g) Driveway is to be in accordance with the City Driveway Policy. 2) Center Avenue frontage improvements are to be in accordance with City "Industrial Local Street" standards including curb and gutter, a.c. pavement, sidewalk, street lights, street trees, traffic signs, and striping: a) The Emergency Exit/Entry and Residential Exit Only drive approach shall be 35 feet wide per City Standard 105-C. 3) In compliance with the Final Environmental Impact Report as modifed for Rancho Workforce Housing: a) The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of • Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credit. If the City starts construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development. C, D,& E- 124 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 6 4) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except 66 K~ on the project side of Foothill Boulevard shall be undergrounded from the first pole off-site the westerly project boundary to the first pole off-site the easterly project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy whichever occurs first. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 5) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except 66 K~ on the project side of Center Avenue shall be undergrounded from the first pole off-site the northerly project boundary to the first pole off-site the southerly project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy whichever occurs first. The City shall provide a portion of collected monies from the developer to the east, Parcel Map 15029, paid for as an in-lieu fee for future undergrounding of said overhead utilities. 6) Construct appropriate off-site street improvements from transition to existing ~J 7) The Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") submitted with the tentative map application has been reviewed and found to be substantially complete. Include the Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the plan on grading • plans when submitted for technical plan check. Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) During project construction the construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust. a) Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible b) All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. c) All streets shall be swept once per day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). d) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. e) All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically or chemically stabilized. f) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation • operations shall be minimized at all times. C, D,& E- 125 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 .Page 7 2) The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on-site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 3) The construction contractor shall utilize electric ordiesel-powered equipment in lieu ofgasoline-powered engines where feasible. 4) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment vvhen not in use. During -smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 5) The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak-hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. 6) The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Biological Resources • 1) BIO-1. Apre-construction survey for the burrowing owl is required to confirm presence or absence of the species on the proposed project site. The pre-construction survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the commencement of grading activities. If it is determined that the project site is occupied by this species, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall apply. Conversely, if the project site is not occupied, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall not be required. , 2) BIO-2. Any western burrowing owls identified on site shall be relocated prior to the commencement of grading activities. The relocation of any specimen shall be conducted per applicable California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) procedures. Relocation of on-site burrowing owls shall not be permitted during the nesting season for this species. 3) BIO-3. Any large trees on site shall be removed between September 1 and January 31, outside of the typical nesting season for raptors. If vegetation removal is to take place during the breeding/nesting season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), then pre-construction nest surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that active nests are protected. The last survey day shall be scheduled three days prior to the start of construction work. If nesting birds are found, a qualified biologist shall be consulted regarding the relocation or extent of the buffer area around those nesting areas. • Cultural Resources . 1) CUL-1. In the event a cultural resource is uncovered during the course of grading or construction of the project, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity C, D,& E- 126 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 DRC2006-00633 -RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 Page 8 of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist (meeting Secretary of Interior Standards). Any such resource uncovered during the course ofproject-related to grading or construction shall be recorded and/or removed per applicable City and/or State regulations. 2) CUL-2. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction excavation, the project proponent shall halt excavation in the vicinity of the discovery and call a qualifed paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations for further mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality 1) HYD-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit and receive approval from FEMA a Conditional Letter of Map Revision -Fill (CLOMR-F) to remove the property from the 100-year flood zone map. 2) HYD-2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga supporting evidence of compliance with FEMA CLOMR-F specifications and requirements including the discussion and analysis of fill material placement, elevation changes, and hydro-modification impacts. Noise 1) Residential units located within 358 feet of the centerline of Foothill Boulevard shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system. Second-story balconies or decks on these units with aline-of-sight to Foothill Boulevard would require an additional 6-foot high wall. In addition, any ground-level outdoor uses, such as patios or park/recreation areas with a line-of-sight to Foothill Boulevard and within 358 feet of the centerline of Foothill Boulevard, shall be equipped with a sound wall or sound wall/berm combination with an effective height of 8 feet. 2) Residential units located within 90 feet of the centerline of Center Avenue shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system. 3) For the possible commercial/retail use on the western 5-acre parcel, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.). 4) For the possible restaurant use on the western 5-acre parcel, restaurant deliveries shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) unless the proposed on-site residences will be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system. • u 5) The construction contractor shall implement the following mitigation measures during project construction. Construction will be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, in accordance with City standards. No construction activities are permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and • federal holidays. 6) The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that C,D,& E- 127 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 DRC2006-00633-RANCHO WORKFORCE HOUSING February 13, 2008 • Page 9 emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site. 7) The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas along Foothill Boulevard, away from existing residences to create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 8) During all site excavation and grading, the project/construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. 9) For any commerciallretail use located directly adjacent to a residential use, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.). 10) In the event that the on-site residential uses are constructed and occupied prior to the scheduled demolition of the tire shop, a 6-foot high wall surrounding the tire shop will be required in orderto reduce impacts on adjacent residential uses to a less than significant level. Traffic and Circulation 1) The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of • building permits, the developer shall pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development.. 6.. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: Pam Stewart, Chairman James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of February 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: .NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: C, D,& E- 128 EXHIBIT "A" OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 08-06 DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER C, D,& E- 129 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DRC 2006-00633 SUBJECT: Development Review APPLICANT: Rancho Workforce Housing LOCATION: North/ side of Foothill Boulevard and west side of Center Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • General Requirements comoletlon Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/_ agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Approval of DRC2006-00633 is granted subject to the approval of GPA DRC2006-00635 and DDA DRC2006-00634. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-04, Standard _/_I_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. SC-1-05 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc C, D,& E- 130 Project No. DRC 2DD6-00633 Completion Date 4. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The _/_/_ project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to i t or o the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary pr . the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 b) Notice of Determination - $50 c) Mitigated Negative Declaration - $ 1,926.75 d) Environmental Impact Report - $2,656.75_X_ 5. Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program -The owner shall cause the manager and any _/_/_ resident manager to complete the training for and enroll the project in the San Bernardino County Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved _/_/_ use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. C. Site Development , 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include _/_/_ site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions _/_/_. of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director., 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_/_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/_/_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for /_/_ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, _ building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all _/_/_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved _/_/_ by the Planning Director and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. • C\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf replDRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc C, D,& E- 131 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date 8. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to • the issuance of building permits. 9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 10. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 11. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 12. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 13. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 14. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's perimeter. • 15. For multiple family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the Development Code. 16. For multiple family development, a minimum of 125 cubic feet of exterior lockable storage space shall be provided. 17. For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the Development Code. D. Shopping Centers The Master Plan is approved in concept only. Future development for (each building pad/parcel) shall be subject to separate DevelopmenUDesign Review process for Planning Commission approval. Modifications to the Shopping Center Master Plan shall be subject to Planning Commission approval. E. Building Design An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and effciency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc / / -/-/- / / -/-/- / / -/- - -/-- -/-/- /-- -/-/- / I / / C,D,& E- 132 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment, _/_/_ detailing grid increased delineation of surtace treatment subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. • 3. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or _/_/_ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans. 4: For all residehtial development, provide conduit from each unit/lot and a pull box to connect to the _/_/_ street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for Planning Director and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. F. Pa rking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts _/_/_ a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall _/_/_ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided _/_/_ throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, _/_/_ and exits shall be striped per City standards. • 5. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth _/_/_ from back of sidewalk. 6. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and _/_/_ Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn- around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 7. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more _/_/_ parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall; whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 8. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more _/_/_ parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc C, D,& E- 133 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date G. Trip Reduction • 1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily _/_/_ residential projects of more than 1 D units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. H. La ndscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in _/_/_ the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 50trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within _/_/_ the project: 5% - 48-inch box or larger, 5 % - 36-inch box or larger, 20 % - 24-inch box or larger and 70 % - 15-gallon. 3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 _/_/_ slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater _/_/_ • slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for _/_/_ the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in _/_/_ the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be•required by the Engineering Department. 7. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering _/_/_ sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Foothill Boulevard. 8. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the _/_/_ perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. r1 LJ I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc C,D,& E- 134 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date 9. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the _/_/_ design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department. Director review and Pl nnin itt d f d d b d l / • -/ g m e or a eve ope an su 10. Tree maintenance criteria shall be _ _ approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of _/_/_ Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. I. Signs 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. _/_/_ Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. 2. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or town homes prior _/_/_ to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. J. Environmental 1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the _/_/_ issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. 2. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of _/_/_ implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to • post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the Planning Director in the amount of $ 538 prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. K. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location _/_/_ of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) L. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: _/_/_ a. Site/Plot Plan; I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-73.doc C, D,& E- 135 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 b. Foundation Plan; • c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, waterandwaste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (DRC 2006-00633) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. M. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project f le number (i.e., DRC2006-00633). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for • availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new.residential project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permit issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. , 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department's public counter). 6. Submit pool plans to the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services Department for approval. N. New Structures Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. • 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc Completion Date / / / / -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- -/-/- / / / / /-/- / / C, D,& E- 136 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date 4.' Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC _/_/_ Section 1505. ll li i h i i / / . common wa ne w s. 5. Provide draft stops in att cs n t _ _ _ 6. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A _/_/_ 7. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. _/_/_ 8. If the area of habitable space above the first floor exceeds 3,000 square feet, then the _/_/_ construction type shall be V-1 Hour minimum. 9. Walls and floors separating dwelling units in the same building shall be not less than 1-hour _/_/_ fire-resistive construction. O. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code, City Grading _/_/_ Standards, and accepted' grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to _/_/_ perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the _/_/_ time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, _/_I_ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for _/_/_ • existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. P. Additional Requirements/Comments 1. Project shall fully comply with accessibility requirements of.2001 California Building Code Chapter _/_/_ 11A (Housing Accessibility). APPLICANT SHALL .CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Q. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from _/_/_ street centerline): As needed total feet on Foothill Boulevard _/_/_ 33 total feet on Center Avenue _/_/_ 2. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by _/_/_ deeds and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 8 I:\PLANNINGIFINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res 8 Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCdnd 2-13.doc C, D,& E- 137 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date I~ R 3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded. 4. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. 5. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. Street Improvements Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. • 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street Name Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side- walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Comm Trail Median Island Bike Trail Other Foothill Boulevard X X (c) X X X (b) Center Avenue X X X X X X (b) Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside ' of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res 8 Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc -~-- - -~- -~-~- / / / / -~-~- -~-~- -~-~- C,l),& E- 138 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Comoletion Date Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specifed by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specifed. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City _/_/_ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times. with _/_/_ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be _/_/_ installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to submittal for first plan _/_/_ check. 4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in _/_/_ accordance with the City's street tree program. 10 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc • • • C, D,& E- 139 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date 5. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street • improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet_(typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. • Min. Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size Qty. Center Avenue Brachychlton Bottle Tree 5' 25' o.c. 15 Fill popuioneus GAL. in Under Utilities Magnolia NCN 3' 20 o.c. 15 Grandiflora St. GAL. Mary Foothill Prunus blireiana NCN 3' 20' o. c. 15 Boulevard Informal GAL. Non Activities groupings not more Centers -Accent ~ ~ ~ - 25% of Tree ~ total front age trees Non Activities Prunus blireiana California Sycamore 8' 35' o.c. 15 Centers Informal GAL. groupins Non Activities Prunus blireiana London Plane Tree 8' 30' o.c. 15 Centers Informal GAL. groupins Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Departmerit. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer far conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. S. Public Maintenance Areas • 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan Foothill Boulevard. 11 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2006 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633SldCond 2-13.doc -~- - -~- - ~-~- C, D,& E- 140 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date T. Drainage and Flood Control 1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map _/_/_ • approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 2, Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the _/_/_ property from adjacent areas. U. Utilities 1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, _/_/_ electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. _/_/_ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the _/_/_ Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. _/_/_ Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. V. General Requirements and Approvals • 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one _/_/_ parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Anon-refundable'deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating casts for all _/_/_ new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall _/_/_ be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: W. Security Lighting 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. _/_/_ These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. • 12 I:IPLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & Stf rep\DRC2006-00633StdCond 2-13.doc C,D,& E- 141 Project No. DRC 2006-00633 Completion Date 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with _!_/_ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire • development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures., _/_/_ X. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. _/_/_ 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. Ifwindows arewithin _/_/_ 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. _/_/_ Y. Security Fencing 1. All businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the police _/_/_ with a keypad access and a unique code. The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed due to a change in personnel or for any other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24-hour dispatch center at (909) 941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at (909) 477-2800 extension 2474 or extension 2475. Z. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted _/_/_ from frame or track in any manner. ~. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime _/_/_ visibility. 2. At the entrances of commercial or residential complexes, an illuminated map or directory of _/_/_ project shall be erected with vandal-resistant cover. North shall be at the top and so indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permit and approval by the Planning Department. 3. All developments shall submit an 8'/:" x 11" sheet with the numbering pattern of all multi-tenant _/_/_ developments to the Police Department. • 13 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res & stf rep\DRC2006-006335tdCond 2-13.doc C, D,& E- 142 Feb 07 08 02:57p Vicki Butcher CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CLARE H. & I~AIE~J~~IE C. ~®ESEN 952.9 19TH ST']E~EE~' IZ.ANCH~ CL~CAM[®NGA, CA 917®1 PH®NE (939) 987-29®2 EAX (9®9D 97-3329 February 7, 2008 Planning Division Ciky o£ILanet~e Cuc~mnn~ 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Variance DRC2007-00396 Jalal Nooaady 9099873329 p.1 FEB 0 72008 RECENED -PLANNING I am opposed to granting a variance to reduce the corner side setbank on the south cast corner of Amethyst Avenue and 19a' Street APN:0202-111-05. I own the property directly to the south and east of the subject property at 9517 19's Street My house is just to the east of this property which I also own. I have lived at this address for 50 yeazs. The subject lot size is too small to put the proposed house on. The property had a well on it and was used by the Ramona Water Co. which was bought out by the Cucamonga Co Water which and was used for a well site and was later abandoned. It has had four or five owners in the last 50 or so years. I understand the present owner recently purchased the lot. He should have known what the process was beforehand. This request is only 1' 1" less than the original request to you in July of last yeaz. At that time you asked him to retutu in 60 days with a satisfactory plan. Now seven months later it is back on the agenda. The house alignment on the north is approx 12' to 15' further north than my two houses on 19a' street. ~~~ ~ Feb 07 OS 02:57p Vicki Butcher 9099873329 p.2 Tltis will block the vision of cars coming from the south on Amethyst Street and cazs going west on 19`h Street. A two story house will shade my west house. With this home being an all electric medallion home and a~th it being shaded will increase the utility costs dramatically. There is no street parking on Amethyst and limited pazking at the property. This wik] create an unsafe condition on Amethyst around the clock. I oppose this proposed development and so does the property owner who owns the two homes directly to the south of my property on Amethyst. I ask that you consider my request and oppose the variance request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Clarke H. Bowen 1 ask that you consider my request and oppose this variance request. Thank you for your consideration. S/igncer~ely, V ~'~ Clazke H. Bowen EXHIBIT A TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-06 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Introduction The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. C. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of .CEQA, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Rancho Workforce Housing Project. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the FEIR and all of its contents, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the FEIR, and staff and consultants' reports presented to the Planning Commission. II. Project Objectives As set forth in the FEIR, the objectives of the project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Locate development in infill and redevelopment areas that will minimize any potential environmental impacts; B. Provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the community; C. More fully utilize the availability of existing public improvements, thereby providing maximum benefit to the general public; D. Augment the City's economic base by increasing tax-generating retail uses within the City; and 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc E. Promote balanced, efficient development that is functional, safe, attractive, and convenient to users, and which will strengthen the local economy. Effects Not Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Insignificant The City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted an Initial study to determine significant effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts of the Project were found to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study, and were not analyzed in the Draft EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Agricultural Resources; (C) Biological Resources, with the exception of those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (D) Cultural Resources, with the exception of those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (E) Geology and Soils; (F) Hazardous and Hazardous Materials; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality, with the exception of those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (H) Land Use and Planning; (I) Mineral Resources; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; and (M) Utilities. IV. Effects Not Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Less Than Significant, and Will Remain Insignificant Through Mitigation A general biological resources assessmenUfield study was conducted as part of the Initial Study to aid in the determination that the following issue areas would result in a less than significant impact. However, there still remains the potential for a significant impact to result to the following issue areas. As a result, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to ensure any potential impact remains less than significant. A. Biological Resources Burrowing Owl The Project site is located in an urbanized area and has been previously used for agricultural purposes. Because of this, there is a lack of suitable habitat on the Project site and no probability for the occurrence of any sensitive species except with regard to the burrowing owl. Although the probability of the occurrence of the burrowing owl is low, the EIR has identified a mitigation measure to ensure any potential impact remains less than significant. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: BIO-1: A precondition survey for the burrowing owl is required to confirm presence or absence of the species on the proposed project site. The pre-construction survey for the burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the commencement of grading activities. If it is determined that the project site is occupied by this species, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 shall apply. Conversely, if the project site is not occupied, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall not be required. 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc BIO-2: Any western burrowing owls identified on site shall be relocated prior to the commencement of grading activities. The relocation of any specimen shall be conducted per applicable California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) procedures. Relocation of on-site burrowing owls shall not be permitted during the nesting season for this species. b. Facts in Support of Findings Currently, the northwest and center portions of the proposed project site provide marginally suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. Although a Field Study was conducted as part of the Initial Study, apre-construction survey for the owl is required to confirm the presence or absence of the owl from the site to avoid impacts to any owl(s). Vegetation in these areas is low to moderate in height and interspersed with debris piles, thus providing a potential for owl occupancy. Vegetation within the northeastern portion consists of remnant vineyards, overgrown with ruderal vegetation. This portion of the project site would provide marginally suitable habitat as well, should conditions change (i.e., with vegetation removal). The burrowing owl is a mobile species; therefore, apre-construction survey is required to ensure no impact to burrowing owls that may occupy the proposed project site. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 impacts related to this issue would be reduced to less than significant. 2. Raptors The Project site contains a few large ornamental trees which could be suitable roosting or nesting trees for raptors. During the field survey conducted as part of the biological resources assessment conducted as part of the Initial Study, no nest for raptors were observed. However, because raptors are mobile and there is the possibility that nests may have been established during the period since the Initial Study, there is the potential for a significant impact. With the incorporation of the mitigation measure articulated below, any impact will be reduced to less than significant levels. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: BIO-3: Any large trees on site shall be removed between September 1 and January 31, outside of the typical nesting season for raptors. If vegetation removal is to take place during the breeding/nesting season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), then pre- construction nest surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that active nests are protected. The last survey day shall be scheduled three days prior to the start of construction work. If nesting birds are found, a qualified biologist shall be consulted regarding the relocation or extent of the buffer area around those nesting areas. b. Facts in Support of Findings Because any raptor nests in the trees located on the project site may have been established after the Initial Study field survey, there is the potential for a significant impact with regard to raptors. However, with the incorporation of the above identified mitigation 3 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc ' measure, any impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure specifies the pre-construction nest surveys shall be conducted, and that removal of trees shall be limited to the period outside the nesting season for raptors. Further, the mitigation measure requires that a qualified biologist be contacted if raptor nests or nesting birds are located. These measures will ensure a less than significant impact. B. Cultural Resources 1. Archeological Resources There are no known archeological sites or resources recorded on the Project site. Further, through compliance with Senate Bill 18 which requires notification of the Project to potentially affected Native American Tribes, only one Tribe responded indicating that there was no knowledge of any specific cultural or sacred resources on the site. Nevertheless, the potential to uncover an archeological resource may be present. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: CUL-1: In the event a cultural resources is uncovered during the course of grading or construction of the project, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archeologist (meeting Secretary of Interior Standards). Any such resource uncovered during the course of project-related to grading or construction shall be recorded and/or removed per applicable City and/or State regulations. b. Facts in Support of Findings Although the site is located in a developed area where significant ground disturbance has occurred, the potential may still exist to uncover an archeological resource. With the incorporation of the above identified mitigation measure, any impact to an archeological resource will be less than significant. Specifically, if any archeological resource is found, any ground-disturbing activities will be relocated and a qualified archeologist will be consulted. Further, the archeological resource will be recorded and/or removed per City and State regulations. This will ensure that any impact is reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Paleontological Resources The project site is located in an area containing extensive existing development. The development of the existing roadway, curbs, sidewalks, infrastructure, and nearby structures would have required a large amount of ground disturbance that would have likely resulted in the discovery of or destruction of existing paleontological resources. While there have been no paleontological resources recorded within the City and the project area has previously been disturbed, the potential to uncover a paleontological resource may still be present. a. Findings 4 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: CUL-2: In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction excavation, the project proponent shall halt excavation in the vicinity of the discovery and call a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the find and make recommendations for further mitigation. b. Facts in Support of Findings With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, any potential impact on paleontological resources will be less than significant. The measure will ensure that any excavation of the Project site will be halted when paleontological resources are encountered and that a qualified paleontologist be consulted, thereby ensuring a less than significant impact. C. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Structures Other than Residential in 100-year Flood Hazard Area Because a portion of the Project site is located within a 100-year flood hazard area, and because a small portion of Hermosa Avenue (adjacent to the Project site) is prone to flooding, there is the potential for a significant impact to result. However, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, any potential impact will be less than significant. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit and receive approval from the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") a Conditional Letter of Map Revision -Fill (CLOMR-F) to remove property from the 100-year flood zone map. HYD -2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga supporting evidence of compliance with FEMA CLOMR-F specifications and requirements including the discussion and analysis of fill material placement, elevation changes, and hydro- modification impacts. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) identify areas subject to 100-year flooding. An area along Hermosa Avenue is shown within the 100-year flood hazard area on the FIRMS. The conceptual plan for 5 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc the western portion of the project site includes commercial, office space, and a restaurant. The structures associated with the western portion of the project site may fall within the 100-year flood hazard area. Proper storm drainage facilities shall be constructed on the project site as part of the drainage plans to be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and City Engineer. Implementation of the features and facilities contained in the approved drainage plan will help to ensure that impacts associated with flooding or redirection of flood water flows are less than significant. In addition, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2, impacts related to this issue would be reduced to less than significant. V. Effects Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Insignificant A. Noise Impacts Certain noise impacts were studied in the EIR and found to be less than significant. Specifically, noise construction associated with groundbourne vibration was determined to be less than significant, as was the potential for the Project to expose people in the Project area to excessive noise levels based on the proximity to an airport. Further, the Project is not anticipated to cause excessive off-site traffic noise impacts. Although these noise impacts were found to be less than significant, other noise impacts, as articulated below, were found to be significant requiring mitigation. B. Air Quality Impacts Certain air quality impacts were studied in the EIR and also found to be less than significant. Specifically: (1) the proposed Project is consistent with the most recent Air Quality Management Plan; (2) the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to construction emissions, with the exception of fugitive dust articulated below; (3) the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to operational emissions; (4) the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations from architectural coatings; (5) the proposed Project will not impose short-term health risk impacts on sensitive receptors; and (6) the proposed Project will not create objectionable odors. VI. Effects Studied in the EIR But Which Have the Potential to Become Significant, But Will Remain Insignificant Through Mitigation A. Air Quality 1. Fugitive Dust Emissions The proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact with regard to construction related fugitive dust emissions. Nevertheless, to ensure this impact remains less than significant, mitigation measures have been identified. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc 4.1.1A During project construction the construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust. (A) Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. (B) All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. (C) All streets shall be swept once per day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets (recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). (D) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. (E) All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered periodically or chemically stabilized. (F) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be minimized at all times. 4.1.1 B The construction contractor shall select the construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. 4.1.1C The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible. 4.1.1D The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the same time. 4.1.1E The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so as to not interfere with peak-hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. 4.1.1E The construction contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. b. Facts in Support of Findings 7 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on aproject-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. The project is required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition, SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403 are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component). Compliance with these rules would reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The following are the applicable Rule 403 Measures: • Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving). • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114 (freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer). • Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less. Additional dust suppression measures in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are included as Mitigation Measures 4.1.1A through 4.1.1E to ensure that impacts remain less than significant. In sum, through compliance with Rule 402 and 403 as well as the additional measures incorporated as mitigation measures, this impact will be less than significant. VII. Effects Studied in the EIR and Found to be Significant, But Reduced to a Level of Insignificance Through Mitigation The following impacts were analyzed in the EIR and found to be significant. However, with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, these impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. The Planning Commission finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Final EIR (and below) would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level. A. Noise 8 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc Interior Noise Levels The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that construction of the proposed project would result in noise levels at the on-site proposed residences exceeding the maximum noise level allowed. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 4.2.1A Residential units located within 358 feet of the centerline of Foothill Boulevard shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system. Second-story balconies or decks on these units with a line-of-sight to Foothill Boulevard would require an additional 6-foot-high wall. In addition, any ground-level outdoor uses, such as patios or park/recreation areas with aline-of-sight to Foothill Boulevard and within 358 feet of the centerline of Foothill Boulevard, shall be equipped with a sound wall or sound wall/berm combination with an effective height of 8 feet. 4.2.16 Residential units located within 90 feet of the centerline of Center Avenue shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system. 4.2.1C For the possible commercial/retail use on the western 5-acre parcel, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.). 4.2.1D For the possible restaurant use on the western 5-acre parcel, restaurant deliveries shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) unless the proposed on-site residences will be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system. b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed residential uses would potentially be exposed to high traffic noise from Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to ensure that the sensitive receptor locations are not exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City's standards. Whether or not a specific apartment building is subject to the established mitigation measures depends on the building's location within the project. For residential units within the project site, the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would result in the construction of sound walls and mechanical ventilation. The sound walls would provide a 5 to 7 dBA or more in noise reduction for ground- floor receptors. With a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for southern California residential buildings would provide more than 20 dBA in exterior-to-interior noise reduction with windows closed and 12 dBA with the windows open. However, with windows open, there is a potential for interior noise on the ground floor units to exceed the 45 dBA Ldp standard (i.e., 63 dBA - 12 dBA = 51 dBA). Therefore, the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.1A would be required to ensure that windows can remain closed for a prolonged period of time. Further, with the implementation of all the identified mitigation measures, noise levels would be reduced to a level that would be consistent with the City's 9 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc General Plan noise standards. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be mitigated to level that is considered to be less than significant. 2. Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts Construction noise impacts resulting from the proposed Project will be potentially adverse requiring mitigation. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the. project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 4.2.2A The construction contractor shall implement the following mitigation measures during project construction. Construction will be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, in accordance with City standards. No construction activities are permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays. 4.2.26 The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site 4.2.2C The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. 4.2.2D During all site excavation and grading, the project/ construction contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards. Facts in Support of Findings Noise levels from demolition, grading, and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 85 dBA Lmax at the closest residential uses to the north of the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near them. Construction noise impacts of the proposed project would be potentially adverse. Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA Lm,x at 50 feet during the noisiest construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes site excavation and grading, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backfillers, dozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 to 4 minutes at lower-power settings. Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of earthmovers, bulldozers, and water and pickup trucks. Noise typically associated with the use of construction equipment is estimated between 79 and 89 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet 10 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc from the construction effort for the grading phase. This equipment would be used on site. Each dozer would generate a maximum of 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, and water and pickup trucks would generate approximately 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates as an individual noise source, the worst-case composite noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. As these noise sources are point sources, the noise decreases at a rate of 6 d8 per doubling of distance. The nearest residences are located to the north of the project site along Stafford Street. These residences are approximately 25 feet from the project boundary and may be subjected to short-term noise reaching 97 dBA Lmax intermittently generated by construction activities on site. Additionally, demolition of the existing buildings on the western 5-acre parcel may occur after the project apartments are occupied; however, these will be no closer than the existing residences. This level of noise is comparable with vehicular traffic noise on Foothill Boulevard. Construction-related noise impacts of the proposed project would be potentially adverse; however, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. To minimize the impact of the construction noise on residences adjacent to the project area, compliance with the City's Noise Control Ordinance would be required. Because Construction of the proposed project would result in noise levels at the closest residences exceeding the maximum noise level allowed, the above identified mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. More specifically, by limiting construction hours, using noise mufflers on construction equipment, and placing construction equipment and staging areas away from residential uses, this significant impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3. Long Term Operational Noise Impacts The EIR found that the proposed Project would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels associated with long-term operations of the proposed Project. This significant impact will be reduced to a less than significant level with the imposition of mitigation measures. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 4.2.3A For any commercial/retail use located directly adjacent to a residential use, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p. m. ). 4.2.36 In the event that the on-site residential uses are constructed and occupied prior to the scheduled demolition of the fire shop, a 6-foot-high wall surrounding the fire shop will be required in order to reduce impacts on adjacent residential uses to a less than significant level. 11 11231-0001\103I054v3.doc b. Facts in Support of Findings Potential long-term stationary noise impacts would be associated primarily with operations at the on-site commercial uses. These commercial uses would generate noise from truck delivery, loading/unloading activities, and other activities at the parking lot. These activities are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to the loading areas, such as the proposed residential uses on site. For example, there is an auto fire shop located on the project site near the center of the Foothill Boulevard frontage that would project noise to the surrounding proposed residences. This business is scheduled to be removed; however, it is possible it will continue operation for some period after the apartment portion of the project is built. Noise sources from the auto fire shop include customer-generated noises as well as noises associated with auto services, such as pneumatic drills, hydraulic lifts, and other machinery or equipment typically used in such operations. It is anticipated that the closest project residences will be located no less than 100 feet from the auto service area. Peak noise levels associated with the auto service activities would range up to 80 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Noise attenuation from a point source will drop off at 6 dBA per doubling of the distance, resulting in a noise reduction of 6 dBA at 100 feet from the source. Therefore, the homes 100 feet from these auto service activities would experience noise levels up to 74 dBA Lmax. This range of maximum noise levels is lower than the daytime exterior noise standards of 75 dBA Lmax; however, even with windows closed, it exceeds the daytime interior noise standards of 45 dBA Lmax. A 6-foot-high concrete masonry wall surrounding the fire shop would provide a minimum of 6 dBA in noise attenuation to the nearby residences, thus reducing the daytime interior noise levels to below the standard (80 dBA - 6 dBA - 24 dBA - 6 dBA = 44 dBA). It is assumed that the auto service operations do not occur after 10:00 p.m. Further, delivery trucks for the anticipated on-site office/retail/restaurant uses would result in a maximum noise similar to noise readings from loading and unloading activities for other projects, which generates a noise level of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Based on the site plan, the restaurant will be located in the southwest corner of the site, more than 400 feet from the nearest proposed on-site residence and more than 600 feet from existing residences to the north. Therefore, with the distance divergence, loading/ unloading noise would potentially reach up to 57 dBA Lmax at the ground level of the nearest residences to the east and 53 dBA Lmax at the ground level of the nearest residences to the north. This potential maximum noise level would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dBA; however, it would exceed the nighttime exterior 55 dBA L25 standard at the nearest proposed on-site residence if the noise lasts more than 15 minutes in any hour. Although a typical truck unloading process takes an average of 15-20 minutes, this maximum noise level occurs in a much shorter period of time, (i.e., in a few minutes). As long as the maximum noise level occurs in a time period less than 15 minutes in any hour, a nighttime exterior 60 dBA L~~ standard will not be exceeded. Therefore, noise associated with loading and unloading activities at the restaurant would not result in noise levels exceeding either the daytime or nighttime exterior standards at the nearest residences to the north or the east. Standard building construction in southern California would provide 24 dBA or more in noise reduction from exterior to interior with windows and doors closed and 12 dBA or more with windows and doors open. With windows closed, the maximum interior noise attributable to the restaurant loading/unloading activities would be reduced to 33 dBA Lmax With 12 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc windows open, it would be reduced to 45 dBA Lmax. Thus, only with windows open could the nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA Lmax be exceeded. Therefore, the restaurant deliveries must be restricted to daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.). In sum, because the tire shop may operate for a time after the residential units of the Project are constructed and occupied, Mitigation Measure 4.2.36 will be implemented to reduce any potential significant impact to a less than significant level. Further because the maximum interior noise attributable to the retail/office loading/unloading activities would only be reduced to 41 dBA Lmax at the existing residences to the north (which exceeds the nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA Lmax), Mitigation Measure 4.2.26 will be implemented which will require delivery hours to be restricted ensuring the nighttime interior noise standard will not be exceeded by the operations of the Project. B. Traffic Opening Year 2009 with Commercial Conditions Traffic and Level of Service Impacts The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Commercial Conditions of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result with regard to Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection. a. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 4.3.7A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development. b. Facts in Support of Findings The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service standard of D. With the addition of the commercial portion of project traffic to the year 2009 baseline scenario, the intersection level of service at the following intersection would result in less than the minimum service standard: Hermosa Avenue/Church Street. The intersection would result in LOS F conditions in the P. M. peak hour. As identified above, the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection is forecast to exceed the satisfactory level of service of D in 2009 with the commercial conditions of the project. However, in the 2009 without project scenario, the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection would also operate at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour which is an unsatisfactory level of service, and at 2007 existing conditions, this P.M. peak hour is at LOS E. However, because the forecast level of service at this intersection exceeds the minimum service standard of D in the year 2009 plus commercial scenario, a significant impact will result. 13 II231-0001\I031054v3.doc To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection is reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Commercial Conditions will be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance. 2. Opening Year 2009 with Residential Project Conditions Traffic and Level of Service Impacts The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Residential Conditions of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result with regard to Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 4.3.1A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development. b. Facts in Support of Findings The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service standard of D. With the addition of the residential portion of the project traffic to the year 2009 baseline scenario, the intersection levels of service at the following intersection would result in less than the minimum service standard: • Hermosa Avenue/Church Street. The intersection would operate at LOS F conditions in the P.M. peak hour. However, even without the project (i.e., with just the 2009 baseline), the above intersection would operate at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour, which is an unsatisfactory level of service. Further, at existing 2007 conditions, the P.M. peak hour LOS level is at LOS E. Impacts to this intersection are considered a significant impact of the proposed project. To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection is reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Residential Conditions will be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance. 3. Opening Year 2009 with Entire Project (Residential and Commercial) Traffic and Level of Service 14 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Entire Project (Residential and Commercial) of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result with regard to Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels: 4.3.1A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development. b. Facts in Support of Findings With the addition of the entire project (commercial and residential) traffic to the year 2009 baseline scenario, the level of service at the following intersection would result in less than the minimum service standard of LOS D: Hermosa Avenue/Church Street would operate at LOS F conditions in the P.M. peak hour. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service standard of D. The level of service deficiency at the Hermosa Avenue and Church Street intersection is also forecast to occur in the year 2009 without the project; thus, the project would not produce the LOS deficiency by itself. Nonetheless, the project does contribute to the level of service deficiencies, resulting in a significant impact, and mitigation is required. To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection are reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Entire Project Conditions will be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance. VIII. Project Alternatives A. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in the EIR. The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as more fully discussed in the EIR. Some of these alternatives were rejected outright and were not analyzed in the EIR because they would not fulfill the basic project objectives. This range included: (1) No Build Alternative; (2) the Business Office Alternative; and (3) the Residential Portion of the Project Alternative. With regard to the No Build Alternative, no development would take place on the site, and the project site would be retained in its current condition. The existing fire shop, residences, strawberry fields, and commercial uses would remain on the property. Disallowing development of the site, as suggested by this alternative, would impose conditions that conflict 15 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc with the existing vision of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the site and the project area. The No Build Alternative does not represent the highest or best use of the site. Furthermore, retention of the project site in its current condition would not fulfill the primary objectives of the proposed project and would not provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the community or augment the City's economic base by increasing tax-generating retail uses within the City. The substantial economic and land use benefits derived from the development of the proposed project would be forfeited. Consequently, the No Build Alternative was rejected from further consideration in the EIR. With regard to the Business Office Alternative, The Business Office Alternative consists of the development of the project site entirely with office uses. The development of the entire site with such uses would not provide the varied retail, residential, and service uses associated with the proposed project. Additionally, the development of office uses would not provide the additional municipal revenues expected to be generated from the proposed project; nor would it provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the community. Thus, this alternative was rejected because it would not provide the basic City objectives for development of the project site. Third, the Residential Portion of the Project Alternative would only consist of the development of 166 apartments that are proposed as part of the project. The office and commercial portions would not be developed as part of this alternative. The development of a portion of the site with residential uses would not provide the varied retail and service uses associated with the proposed project. Similar to the alternative for office uses, the development of apartments alone would not provide the additional municipal revenues expected to be generated from the proposed project; nor would it bring new revenue-generating uses in the City. Additionally, the development of the residential portion alone would fail to achieve the objectives of the proposed project, in particular including promotion of "balanced, efficient development that is functional, safe, attractive and convenient to users, and which will strengthen the local economy," and providing "additional jobs to the local economy." This alternative was rejected because it would not provide the basic City objectives for development of the project site. B. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR. The EIR however did undertake an analysis of three other potential project alternatives. These three alternatives were also rejected for the various reasons stated below. 1. No Project, Existing Zoning Alternative a. Summary of Alternative The No Project Alternative assumes what would reasonably be expected to occur, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services, in the foreseeable future. The project site is currently zoned Community Commercial and designated for General Commercial uses. Given the goals and objectives of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the continuing trend of infill development in the project area, it is highly reasonable in the event the proposed project were not approved, that the site would be developed with some type of commercial use. Within the Commercial zone, uses including offices, retail commercial, and general services are allowed. With the No Project Alternative, development of a retail commercial use is assumed at a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 25 percent, allowing up to 185,000 square feet of commercial floor space. 16 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative With the No Project, Existing Zoning Alternative, the project site is assumed to be developed with a commercial use consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning. With this alternative, significant unavoidable air quality impacts would occur that do not occur with the proposed project. In addition, impacts related to aesthetics, traffic, and noise would be increased over those of the proposed project. The No Project, Existing Zoning Alternative has been rejected because it would have greater impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic than the proposed project. In addition this alternative would not meet all of the City's objectives, which includes the failure of the alternative to "provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the community." 2. Reduced Intensity Alternative a. Summary of Alternative Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with approximately 75 percent of the residential, commercial, office, and restaurant uses envisioned under the proposed project. This alternative would result in 125 apartment units, a 3,750- square foot restaurant, an 18,750-square foot office building, and 12,000 square feet of retail shops. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative With the Reduced Intensity Alternative, visual resource impacts would be similar. Impacts related to short-term construction-related air quality and noise impacts would be reduced although similar to those identified with the proposed project. Further, long-term air quality operational emissions under this alternative would remain less than significant, although reduced in magnitude. Because of the reduction in vehicle trips achieved under this alternative, impacts to the operation of local roadways and intersections would be proportionally reduced from the proposed project. Under this alternative, the proposed project objectives are met, although to a lesser degree. Reducing the amount of commercial square footage would decrease the amount of revenue forecast to be generated by the proposed project. This Reduced Intensity Alternative has been rejected, because it limits employment opportunities by limiting commercial and office square footage and housing opportunities would be decreased when compared to the proposed project. 3. All Residential Project Alternative a. Summary of Alternative With the All Residential Alternative, development of apartment units similar to those in the proposed project would occur. This alternative assumes that the existing restaurant on the southeastern 1.5-acre corner of the project (the Whole Enchilada) would remain. Residential apartment uses would take place on 15.54 acres of the site and would be developed at the same density as the proposed project with 15.75 units per acre, resulting in 245 apartment units. This alternative would result in the same removal of all other existing uses on the property as the proposed project. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative 17 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc With the All Residential Project Alternative, potential impacts associated with short-term construction related air quality and noise impacts would remain similar to those identified with the proposed project. Impacts related to traffic operations would be proportionally reduced in relation to the reduction in trip generation between the All Residential Project Alternative and the proposed project. The volume of pollutants emitted during operation of the project under this alternative would be reduced and would be less than significant. The change in the vehicle noise achieved under this alternative would not be perceptible. With the reduction of traffic resulting from the development of the All Residential Project Alternative, air emissions and noise levels would be correspondingly reduced; however, the significance of air, noise, and traffic impacts would remain similar to those of the proposed project and would be less than significant. New housing opportunities would be created with the additional residential apartments planned for this alternative, however, the absence of retail uses from the project site would most likely reduce (sales tax) revenue to the City and therefore not meet all project objectives. 4. Off Site Alternative a. Summary of Alternative The Off-Site Location Alternative analyzes the impacts of the proposed project in a different location. This alternative would be composed of the same intensity and the same uses in an alternative location. An alternative site would require adequate land, access, and services, and must be compatible with adjacent uses. The selected location for the off-site alternative is southeast of the proposed project, at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This site is currently zoned for industrial park uses and is approximately 17 acres. b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative The Off-Site Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed project in all impact areas with the exception of Hydrology and Water Quality which would be reduced. The Off-Site Alternative is not in a redevelopment area and does not meet the City's objective of locating development in infill and redevelopment areas that will minimize any potential environmental impacts and therefore has been rejected. 5. Environmentally Superior Alternative The EIR has identified the Reduced Intensity Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. However, because this alternative would meet the project objectives to a lesser degree than the proposed Project, the alternative has been rejected. More specifically, it limits employment opportunities by limiting commercial and office square footage and housing opportunities would be decreased when compared to the proposed project. C. The Project As Proposed 1. Summary of Project The Project is described in detail in the EIR. 2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed 18 11231-0001\1031054v3.doc The Planning Commission has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts of the Alternatives described in the EIR and has compared it with those of the proposed Project. The Planning Commission finds that the various Alternatives are infeasible for various environmental, economic, technical, social, or other reasons as discussed above. The Planning Commission further finds that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interests of the public and achieve the project goals. More specifically, the proposed Project locates development within the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency project area designated for redevelopment, and as analyzed in the FEIR, minimizes any potential environmental effects. The proposed Project also provides 166 apartment units as workforce housing. Further, the proposed Project will make use of the availability of existing public improvements by locating the Project in a developed area, thereby providing maximum benefit to the general public. The proposed Project also will help augment the City's economic base by increasing tax-generating retail uses within the City with the addition of 16,000 square feet of retail shops, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant. Finally, the proposed Project will be an example of balanced, efficient development that is functional, safe, attractive, and convenient to residents and other users, and will strengthen the local economy by the addition of 25,000 square feet of office space, as well as retail and restaurant uses. For all of these reasons, the Planning Commission has selected the proposed Project. 19 11231-0001\10310i4v3.doc J RESOLUTION NO. 08-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO-CUCAMONGA-CALIFORNIA,-APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2007-00299 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET IN ORDER _TO' CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8770 VINMAR AVENUE - APN: 0207-242-18. A. Recitals 1. Pete Volbeda fled an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2007-00299 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 23rd day of January, 2008, the Planning Commission continued the item to allow for sufficient legal noticing. On the 13th day of February 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on February 13, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a site located on the west side of Vinmar Avenue and south of 9th Street. The site is a vacant 5,440 square foot lot that is 31.55 feet wide and 158 feet deep; and b. The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site are zoned Low Residential; and c. The applicant submitted a proposal to build asingle-family residence on the site, which necessitated a Variance for a reduced sideyard setback in order to construct the residence and the required two-car garage. The minimum lot width within the Low Residential District is 60 feet. The subject lot is 31.55 feet wide and has been determined to be a legal non-conforming lot; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-02 DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA February 13, 2008 Page 2 a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. In that, without a reduction in the sideyard setback requirement, the site would have to be developed without the required two-car garage and with a house that is much narrower than the preponderant house width in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. In that, the Development Code requires lots in the Low Residential District have a minimum lot width of 60 feet. The existing legal non-conforming lot is 31.55 feet wide, which is much narrower than the lots in the surrounding area. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. In that, without the reduction in the sideyard setback requirement, the applicant would be limited to building a 16-foot wide house, which is much narrower than the other houses in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. In that, the proposed reduction in the sideyard setback will allow the applicant to develop a house with a width no greater than the other lots in the surrounding area or within the Low Residential District. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In that, the applicant proposes building asingle-family residence which will not be out of character from the other houses in the surrounding area and that will meet the all related Development Code requirements except for the corner sideyard setback requirement. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for sideyard setbacks. Because the applicant is only requesting a variance for the reduction in the required sideyard setback, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independentjudgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the reduction in the required sideyard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. l PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OS-02 DRC2007-00299 -PETE VOLBEDA February 13, 2008 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: 2) Print a copy of the Resolution and Conditions of Approval on the plans when they are submitted for Plan Check. 3) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building and Safety Department. , Pam Stewart, Chairman James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of February 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS