HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/04/09 - Agenda Packet - Planning Commission1
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
_ PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
CocAMONCA APRIL 9, 2008 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
` I. CALL TO;ORDER`
Roll Call
Chairman Stewart Vice Chairman Fletcher
Munoz_ Howdyshell _ Wimberly
• II. ' ANNOUNCEMENTS '
III. ~ •APPROVAL OF MINUTES :- ~.,; -} .•
March 26, 2008 Meeting Minutes
. _ . , _ ..
,._ : IV;. ,.~EUBLIC'H'EARINGSS,.. .;.,..,:,; .. .,
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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2008-00115 - 2008 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE -CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - In accordance with Article 10.6, Section 65580-
65589.8 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the
City's Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of
restricted, affordable units at-risk of conversion to market rate through
June 30, 2015. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
•
1 of d
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
.APRIL 9, 2008
RANCHO
G'UCA.MONGA
environmental impacts for consideration. This action will be forwarded to
the City Council for final action and the date of the Public Hearing before
City Council will be separately noticed.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC - A residential
subdivision of 23 single family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of
Vintage Drive -APN: 225-161-65 and 71. Related Files: Tree Removal
Permit DRC2006-00871 and Variance DRC2007-00097. Staff has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2007-00097-
PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC - A requestto allow up to 10.5 foot
perimeter wall heights for sound attenuation purposes for lots 1-6 and to
allow up to 7.5 foot combination retaining/freestanding sideyard wall
heights for grade differential purposes for lots 1-6 of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18032, where a maximum 6-foot wall height is permitted, for a
residential subdivision of 23 single family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of
Vintage Drive -APN: 225-161-65 and 71. Related Files: Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT18032 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-0087. Staff has
prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
V. 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.
VL COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS
VIL ` ..ADJbUR1VMENT. x ~°; .. '
•
•
2 of 4
•
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
APRIL 9, 2008
jZANCeo
CtICAMONGA
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations thatsetan 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 April 3, 2008, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, 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 you agree with
a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire
group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should
refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
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.
3 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
APRIL 9, 2008
RANCHO
G'UCAMONGA
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
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 alt cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at
http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us
•
•
4 of 4
A -City-wide Housing Element
~ Meeting Location: "
City Hall
• 10500 Civic Center Drive
~ Vicinity Map
Planning Commission
April 9, 2008
T H E - C[ T Y O F
R A N C h O ~C U C A M O yN G A -
Staff Report
DATE: April 9, 2008
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
BY: Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2008-00115 - 2008 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE -CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - In accordance with Article 10.8, Section 65580-65589.8 of the
California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's Housing
Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at-
risk of conversion to market rate through June 30, 2015. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This
• action will be forwarded to the City Council for final action and the date of the
Public Hearing before City Council will be separately noticed.
ANALYSIS:
A. Background: The draft Housing Element is primarily an update of the existing document's.
technical data. The basic analysis of the Housing Element and the information presented
indicates what changes have occurred and updates applicable to the related technical
aspects so that the document is based on current conditions. The draft Housing Element
will retain its current division into three sections: Parts One, Two and Three.
Part One presents an overview and summarizes the technical data. This section was
revised and updated to reflect changes in state law and new technical information relative
to housing issues.
Part Two presents the goal, objectives, policies, and programs for the five-year period
beginning July 1, 2008, and ending June 30, 2013,. including the assignment of
responsibility for accomplishments, expected funding resources, and the schedule for
completion.
Part Three contains the Technical Appendix to the Housing Element. The Technical
Appendix contains 11 sections and supports, in detailed analysis, the 2008 Housing
Element. All sections of the Technical Appendix contain content and analysis required by
• the State Housing Element law (Government Code §65580). The Technical Appendix
Item A
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA DRC2008-00115-2008 HOUSING ELEMENT
April 9, 2008
Page 2
reflects the 2000 Census, as well as other sources through January 1, 2008. The sections
of the Technical Appendix are:
Section I: Introduction.
Section II: An analysis of population and employment trends.
Section III: An analysis and documentation of household characteristics.
Section IV: An inventory of land suitable for residential development.
Section V: An analysis of potential and. actual non-governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income
levels.
Section VI: An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income
levels.
Section VII: An analysis of special housing needs.
Section VIII: An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation.
Section IX: An analysis of units restricted and affordable to low-income families that are
at-risk of converting to market rate.
Section X: The Redevelopment's Agency's Housing Production Plan.
Section XI: Evaluation of programs included in the 2000 Housing Element.
•
Significant changes to the Housing Element as part of this update include: 1) an expanded
assessment of population, employment trends, household characteristics, and •
governmental and non-governmental constraints; 2) a detailed parcel-by-parcel listing of
land suitable for residential development, including a general description of environmental
constraints and the availability of utility services to address the jurisdictions share of the
regional housing need; 3) an expanded assessment of special housing needs for persons
with disabilities; and 4) a general discussion of "green" development opportunities.
B. Housing Subcommittee: On March 18, 2008, the Housing Subcommittee reviewed the
draft goal, objectives, policies, and programs for the 2008 Housing Element, which is
provided as Part Two of the update. The Housing Subcommittee reviewed the information
presented, did not recommend any changes, and recommended forwarding the document
to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Parts I and II will be reformatted and
incorporated into the overall update to the General Plan.
C. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of
the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that
Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related
to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and
Noise, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant
effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration
was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment
period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation
Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance
with, the mitigation measures for the project •
A-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA DRC2008-00115 - 2008 HOUSING ELEMENT
• April 9, 2008
Page 3
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached
Resolution recommending approval of GPA DRC2008-00115 to the City Council, direct staff to
forward a copy of the draft 2008 Housing Element, including the Technical Appendix, to the
State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") fora 90-day review period,
respond to HCD's comments, and then forward the draft 2008 Housing Element to the City
Council. Staff also recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts and Mitigation Monitoring program.
Respectfully submitte
~•
Jam R. Troyer, AICP
Plan ing Director
JT:TG/Is
Attachments: Exhibit A - 2008 Housing Element (Including Parts One, Two, and Three)
• Exhibit B -Initial Study
Draft Resolution of Approval for GPA DRC2008-00115
•
A-3
•
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DRAFT
2008 HOUSING ELEMENT
' `S~ 7 Y N' f r n.ry t' y. '. ^'y ..y
'°?, ,, ~~i #, r~~ k lr r ,~ r r ,1 ~d ` a ,~• t$'t ' ,r ~ z k~ r P~ -
' tti a< ~~ _. ~J
'~ '~t,G.j~ ~-:'~ 5 1 ~" •.. ' C cNtr j r~ -;s:~. ~^~''~ ~~ t , ~ N~~*+ :"~~' ~ t 1-+a ,~, ~ ~.
*€ g-'l i Jf '$j rl ~ i. l ~ f F~ , - 1 4 Fes; 4 -}~ ~ Y '4 '"a~>T' Y.~ r~..~ ~''~ i.-'.
j . ,,3.,,"ti'.d"C.3t tQej,~..C ~ ..~ t' 4""~~ tv}a^ t . ~" b~ } - 'x"~~.r~<, f;~ I 1 V ~ ~~~ k ,y ~~ f : ~ ~ - ~: ~'7Gr3''~. ~~~ r ~ ~y' .
° ~tp 1L~ni «~ .e ~ ~ -- f 3~ {~ ,.~Y+u X,' r,, a < .c~" ~ ,~ic '~4 ~r f"~ a v:: t ~.*~, - r^
` It y~`'sr~'+~~.~'~~'~rx'S~ '~ ~~~c..~ 1«. ~~~ ~ tJl~t~'+` ' ~ ~~'1'.?".y ~ ;. 1 au, is
,a.. r`A ,S V.,w £'„ a Ft
i r ~'~?~ 'c~ra *~r~"i t~ ~i`r tif•~.r rxr ~: a.lt{~'`r` a`'s ~_~1~ r {ii~'^''/ ~ ~ ~ l ~ r '~.,.i, ~ i" ~ F ~~.
4~; ~ tf,. t ~ ~ der X11 3 ~~~I~ t, { ~ ~~~Sr~`~r` ~ •r ,,,~ - ~ <
`n` r I~T4~ X `r,'r?it rr ~.~..~ ~ t Jfirr frt~ ~ w ~k. '~ r ~- y '~ k tf,~i S.4 r r f ,r ~ k!' di ~Sf , ~Z~} r
1~ `~. f 1t ~ i ~ r' t 'ti. y ~ T s~rti 1'Y ,a, c~wJ t~Y ,y,,~ /. - y}S '~9, r i „ a S-.: ~~ .l~`•R- ; i,t ~P.r ~.
i~ ~ E ~ ~i'~ ~ I ,~ ~i` 7 r 'a rwr> car .. x 3 r 4 - ~ m'L' " ~ 5 aTP ~ ~ ~ ..
k~ ~r y r IY s ~ ! e 1 r ~ ~J y ~ r Y~ ~ / 1 ~ ~ t ~ '1~ JI
r ~ t - ! ~ 6 i ° r' r / t r r. V t°t~rt ~ s~ ~f 7 1Fr i. } Y ~~ ~; r 7~~~'''~~ ~A, /~~ 1 .rah
l~ 't+~r ! a q r(r t' ~ yd F ~r.t w, r r 4` x~,J, ~, ~ ~ e.ha,4~ r A r~ ~ r ! ~ 't
t ~ ~ r +. "`L r 1' u ~ 4a r ~ ~f t:~ r E o
,r",,. t o'' 1'f^ k, ~n^ ~ I~" , e~ +. f, 7+d~E~~^tP3~ ~, w! ~ .f a~ .Y r ` ~~~ m ~ _ r ,xv i
' r ~ ~~ ~ F ~ -cam 'h~i ~n r ~.-~ ~.5 4 M"3<
,.~ 's~,r rr~t3:E . t ~1 '. i ~ `~ y^~ i `~ ! ,. ' ?, ~ ~ ~ "~ . I ~ Mi ~ 'tr`~Y~' t n'F1 ~1` ~"' M~
_ ~ `-,, '~(.Lrx"~~ +'ve dy yr~~.f~{ ~ !k} 1.,4~i,T}" {~''~, t' ti~"°~~4 r}~ r, ~ ~~~{. .N'^>:+ -_ ,F~+'-,pc~~ ~!~(~ _ '4
+{ ~K<,9 , o r'vr`,i..,i, ~ u ~ r-°a ~ ~~ Q }~y' ~M -{+4-`xti r(~., , ~.,~jY~=~~jy a ~ 4 ,~~ilr ~-~, ~" y? T ~ F °` t'r4,. r~ +~ ~ r,
~~~ 5 ! y1 F.}3ht S #t i rii~j :. ~ Yr }c•>~ ~ ~`\, r i~,y'~~yxy~6 ! ~ ~ 8.+ ~1 ,f••.~.~ ~j „+~ti- ~r s-- "'..r
. ~f,.~ s~~~ ~. ~"'~"',~~Ft'~~iK.7"'r~.~is~~~t~h~Y`";"'r~.t~7~ ~=7Ff.+ ~, ~'~l <- ~.; ~~~. .rr rs'!j ~~ r.}'` a .y .. a-
. '~~"\ "r~7t~,y X` ~ f:~ $~ ,f '7r% ._ .. r. .F~ }-. b t~,~l < ! t~ t t vt 7 e ~F~~i~` .t -.- .~ •st'.
~t.i- -,. ~r ~--.~ ~: r J~ a ~ .c~ x3~ } i1ti#! ~~tif ~. fit, h.+e ~ ~r-' 'J ! t ' ~~~ir ~, ~t
~ r7,s fJ} st t~ V c, ~ t y]~.,~! r ? y}}-4 J+" ~+.~ ti:+~r~:--r ~_~:,t
~S't- .4 ;zr '~~~° -~hri r ~»v'r~ ~"; fi. ~~ fr~.C~r~*~r .a#x. ,+Y" ,. ~ f4 qt~ -? T S)~ c I'7 't-q~~+~ra
~ `~ ~r ~' ti ..; ~ ~t . ~~ { h,1L~lY ~t ~?tn: ([~~c't- ~ cry ~ +.i ~-•}r 1r r•^Y- w t~r ~ ~< ~Sr;' ri+r~ ',kj~'"i~ ~'g` .( `yt
.- y i. ~~* ! y !!°s. ~ y tr- ~~'~ ' «. 4l1*,' t' `- A ~., ~ ~ ti~ %l.f f i¢ 'r' -~ / l r- '(~
~! c~` ':-..,.:..~ xlC ~. ytjP, a r;.I` q aa+. }~-,,t'"'t.:,-c4r <,,~"~2 {, ~ ~, 1 I ., ff ~ .r s~ ~;
f f }kh'~,'!f f si -. ° ,~,~J~t._!`; '~t~ Sti }S F. ~`r~ „;„-Tt~r s~ ~{Ly[ :~:ht4 b~" ~r • fi~ ~.' r, i ~~r,.f A ~ ~? fw '43~jt .n}ty, f
-r 1 '° c r r a ,J I rte r.tt%~-,~ "'~ ~y'Y f _!t
r: t I ~'L. ~ t.r ~ ~ 1 ~ y ~ 45 ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ '4~.'aR sek~Y '5~1^ l Its 7~ L~f ~ 7t 6 ~r~t' t % r ~ n ~:
r a t s 1,'~ w ~, _ « a ~~ f~ a a M t
",~ r ~ r n} {^..~, Y~ '~ sr f'. r)d, pp wt .~r 7 i I- 'a'< N~y l `~'~< ~ r,, a ~ `K~ rr tS~/+a ~~~~f ~.-'!•, r i ~ ra-; r' '+ t.
r e } '1 - ~ G' r {.t I*'~Sr w:H~~,~" ~ {P dc.~ I''t'!f"4. r`~jy tx - r
~V irt.'~" -:R ~~ "ilra i~t ,„r 'n;:.-a r1k ,n... ~+TSPr~ ~.lWJ" 'i~'i~ r xr t a... ,. ~-s>Ui -,~
~ ~L' or' )~'r ~""r iFl~ v ,~ s" qq k,~ .:~ t "' ' ~~1~; t .pu. it;1Yi,rt ~r.~~kaTM}}yl .A~~r ~y~c,,' 1!
h ~, t ~ t rtl a ~. iYeY ,.~ 'C3t- ~, `;,,, rrrx :°1 S ~~ r, r' rr rr- .el_. 1. ~4 l~ ~r~~~
M'ra rs~~ jt~~ ~d~t:, r, x } r-.t ,t rr d >i _ ~rv4. 4x~.te p,~' t ~ y~'~.~$ ~.A.~~~.: t 3"sX r 1 ~ ~ r /.. '~^4C U' Sti
~~~ r 4 ~ ~r ~!^.,:~ ; r .tow `( r, { r,.sif 7 w- 7M:R , ~- P f >t i {+.~x,} t S't I i :•7' 4 ~ .. ry,
.~,{ t7 r YtY?.J.3 .k+~ }~w ` iP'J t V~~~`t ~ °"'i° ~ ~, rr.nl Yr.~ rl.,,,y~ ~ ~~rfiT~~~ y~ ~T
~'FSrtL -t .~ q.+,t ;, ~ ,~ rr yyr ,} "`yttfSt`~aS its `'- a~'r z,. --i, rh".tom,- ~~- '~!.~ylt~3c~~ t.~i,~ .t .?D;r tr.q
f r -. I ~ ~+... ~~ f ~ ~* t . !~' 1'( t~, )Ei };~ r~r~j i k~ ~~ ~ ~i t ' 4! '"~Ty~ -7~ r t ~y' + 3 -
•t~X}.i ii j '~ F,r ~ 'i 1 --zzt~nnYl ^I~ ~ r t!t r 1., .« 9 '{C,,, t ~ .. Y K -. t"
r ~ j ~. r ~ k v~ i it~rJ 'ty~tu"~,T ~ - ~k <"~eMMSi. '. '+f'' r 4~' ~. ~7/rt ~~~~ ~:F~`'? f ~l! a, ++~"fi't
c rac.,~l~. wL~~ir"bt< >~`"...f ~~ ?-'1 ~ _~'~M-"ca" ~ $~- ""r'~ a -~-., t
(•r} v" ~ ~ ar; ~ t_ } 5.,, 3 "C ~1iY 1 ~T.wr~l ~-';r 1~;,~ ~' _ ~ ~y~ I~+ ~,¢~~~r n,T ,,,.,,~v ~~ 3 y
~ }~ y~ ~ ~- I Yr r ,~,~~ ~~~. y~ It _~ f: J~ f!r~' ~ ~ ~ 4!~ k G Z :f
'~ -)'jj' 4-` - l1 ~"'r` ~j r 17yq~ ~ tF it ~ t--rt r..~}i,. rrL r.:%+f
... Cr t~ "11 ~~ j ~' }l !'1 r`t'ti`~.7 i~k• '#1 ~ii t 11 ~.::, i t ~ Y>~i'• ..y~-a5N`~ ., J'S rc rl
f f , -r x-.-. Si j k~~ ~ - ~` ~' t ~ I F ` "~ r ~i`~ G-^ •~~ -`W ^'.ti~ T - .ii
~ ,.. r+ <..~ ~j i.ry ,r 1.4'. ,~}'T'"? ~ ~^ ~ ~ sp~~t 1• ~ [~, 1~.. Vr q~(~ ., j t4 ~t ->~"t 'r~ l!; r
- `rt~.,~ ~, ro,. _. '~'' * t.. c ~,rr ~~. f- ; 'i i .r •;-r_ti.;'irt"'T `tr~s 6'. ~;~... ~ ^&~ r rr ,- {1 /<y-~' '
rr ter - ::.i Yi~~~- _ V r~
y+ VI ~ ~E4 t{- t .-. N:+. r . r.~:! ~ ~t _ -,{ V•I -ex f~ ~~ f ~~ ~ e~.}i ~i`G',
~y j $- It '~ as - 'i ~ ~' a ~ ~, - + e:ll~ A' "` r {.~. y r ^7.
-y ~ ;~r-: t.. _~....xi•~-..cS.izY3i;. ~ t] t.l'"',t~"~,. ~':~4...,.. _x ., t•. ~. - 1 . ;;.,. ..x. 1••icusbl
• Exhibit A
Parts One and Two
April 9, 2008
-4
2008 HOUSING ELEMENT
.INTRODUCTION
The 2008 Housing Element is presented in three parts.
• Part One provides an overview of the Housing Element and summarizes the data provided in
the Technical Appendix.
Part Two presents the goal, objectives, policies, and programs forthe five-year period beginning
June 30, 2008, and ending June 30, 2013, including the assignment of responsibility for
accomplishments, expected funding resources, and the schedule for completion.
• Part Three is the Technical Appendix that presents the technical data in detail including: the
State-mandated study ofunits-at-risk of conversion to market rate, the Redevelopment Agency's
Housing Production Plan, and the detailed evaluation of the goal, objectives, policies, and
programs of the 2008 Housing Element.
PART ONE
Purpose and Intent
The Housing Element is intended to provide residents of the community and local governmeht
officials with a greater understanding of housing needs in Rancho Cucamonga, and to provide
guidance to the decision-making process in all matters related to housing. The document analyzes
existing and future-housing needs, develops aproblem-solving strategy, and provides a course of •
action toward achieving the stated housing goal, objectives, policies, and programs.
This document is required by State Law to update the Housing Element originally approved with the
General Plan in 1981, amended in 1984, updated in April 1991, May 1994, and June 2000. This
update incorporates the 2000 decennial census and other recent demographic information and
housing trends.
Legislative Authority
The State Legislature has identified the attainment of a decent home and a satisfying environment
for every resident of the State as a goal of highest priority. Recognizing that local planning
programs play a significant role in the pursuit of this goal, and to assure that local planning
effectively implements the Statewide housing policy, the Legislature mandates that all cities and
counties include a Housing Element as part of their adopted General Plan. California Government
Code §65583 requires the preparation of a Housing Element and specifies that its contents include
a needs assessment, a statement of goals, objectives, and policies, alive-year schedule of program
actions, and an assessment of past programs.
Government Code §65588 previously established the fourth revision of the Housing Element at June
30, 2006, however the California Department of Housing and Community Development extended
the revision date to July 1, 2008. The fifth revision date is yet unspecified, however, this update
assumes a June 30, 2013 revision date based on a 5-year update schedule.
Public Participation
California law states that local governments- shall make a diligent effort to achieve public
participation from all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing •
element. The Housing Element update was prepared to be consistent with the currently adopted
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ("AI"), the Community Development Block Grant
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 1 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element .-
A-5
• ("CDBG") program 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan, the Redevelopment Agency 2005-2009
Implementation Plan, and the overall General Plan.
Public participation was obtained at meetings held with the Housing Subcommittee and through a
community workshop designed to obtain public feedback and to elicit public participation in the
preparation of the document. To achieve meaningful public participation, notices of public meetings,
public workshops, and public hearings were published in the. Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a local
paper of general circulation. In addition, notices were also posted in the City's Community and
Neighborhood Centers as well as at City Hall. Notices were also sent to the local chapter of the
Building Industry Association and the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce.
The City made the draft Housing Element available to the Chamber of Commerce, the two City
Libraries, and at the Planning Department public counter.
State Review of the Housing Element
Consistent with State law, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
Department ("HCD") has 90 days to review and comment on the draft Housing Element. Following
their review, comments are returned to the City. The Planning Department then revises the draft to
bring it into substantial compliance with HCD comments and forwards the document to the City
Council for review and adoption. A copy of the final adopted Housing Element is then sent to HCD
for approval.
General Plan Consistency
California law requires that General Plans contain an integrated set of goals and policies that are
internally consistent within each element and the General Plan as a whole. The Housing Element
• has been prepared to be consistent with other elements of the General Plan; although a major
update to the General Plan has been begun, the update will not be completed for 18 to 24 months
and therefore, the Housing Element has been prepared to be consistent with the currently adopted
General Plan. The General Plan consists of three super elements incorporating the seven State-
mandated elements and four optional elements. The super elements are:
• Land Use and Development (incorporating Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities, and
Community Design);
• Environmental Resources (incorpdrating Conservation, Open Space, and Energy Conservation);
and
• Public Health and Safety (incorporating Public Safety and Noise).
Goals, objectives, and policies throughout the General Plan are related to and consistent with the
Housing Element. Several examples illustrate the interactive character of the General Plan as
follows: the Land Use Element sets forth the amount and type of residential development permitted,
thereby affecting housing opportunity in Rancho Cucamonga; the Circulation Element contains
policies to minimize roadway traffic in residential neighborhoods; the Community Design Element
contains policies directed at maintaining the existing housing stock and ensuring the quality of new
residential development; the Environmental Resources Element establishes policies to minimize the
impact of residential development on sensitive resources, such as hillside areas, ecological habitat,
and scenic viewsheds; and the Public Safety Element sets forth policies to ensure the safety of the
City's housing stock through mitigation of natural and man-made hazards. Further, the General Plan
is updated periodically which helps to ensure consistency among the elements. The most recently
completed technical update of the General Plan was adopted by the City Council on November 17,
• 2001; in addition, a comprehensive update is in process with adoption anticipated in June 2009.
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 2 - _ ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-6
POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS •
Although the City experienced a significant amount of population growth during the last 7 years, the
City's peak year of growth, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of population increase
was in 1988 when the population increased by 12,183, an increase of 17.1 percent. During the
years of 2000 to 2007 the City's population increased an average of 6,369 persons per year, an
average percentile increase of 4.3 percent.
During the last growth cycle, the peak year of residential growth occurred in 2003 where the
population increased by 9,265 persons, an increase of 6.7 percent over the prioryear. Additionally,
in terms of absolute growth, 3 of the highest years of population increase occurred during the last 5
years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2006). As of January 1, 2007, the California Department of Finance
("DOF") estimated the City's population to be 172,331 persons.
Build-out Population Estimate
As vacant land decreases the rate of building is expected to decrease so that build-out will likely
occur between 2015 and 2020. Based on the City's General Plan, the number of housing units at
build-out will range between 61,063 and 61,630. At the current household size of 3.197 persons this
equals a population of 195,218 and 197,031.
Applying a 3.02 percent vacancy factor would result in 59,219 to 59,769 occupied units. Applying
the 3.197 persons per unit occupancy rate, the build-out the population would then range from
189,323 to 191,091.
SCAG's 2007 RHNA
HCD provides each regional Council of Governments ("COGS") its share of the statewide housing •
need. In turn, all COGS, including the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"),
are required by State law to determine the portion allocated to each jurisdiction in their region; this
allocation process is referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA"). The RHNA
allocates to cities and counties within the SCAG region their "fair share" of the regions' projected
housing need by household income group for the planning period. The RHNA covers the planning
period starting January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2014. The most recent RHNA establishes a fair
share housing need of 1,282 housing units for Rancho Cucamonga. Based on the availability of
vacant residentially zoned land, the City will meet and likely exceed its regional fair share allocation
for this planning period. Consistent with SCAG's 2007 RHNA, the City's goal for housing production
is 1,282 housing units.
Ciryof Rancho Cucamonga HE - 3
2008 Housing Element
A-7
• .Employment and Income
Between 1991 to 2005 employment in firms and agencies located in the City more than doubled,
rising an average of 6.9 percent per- year to go from 24,670 to 63,004 jobs. Together, the
manufacturing, distribution and construction sectors accounted for 31.0 percent of this growth, as
the City's economic base expanded. Retailing accounted for 21.7 percent, both because existing
retailers reacted to the larger economic base and because several new power centers opened along
the City's major arterial roads and a new regional mall. In 2003-2005, Rancho Cucamonga's job
growth rates were an aggressive 7.7 percent, 8.0 percent and 6.6 percent, far exceeding those of
the Inland Empire (3.3 percent, 5.3 percent, and 4.8 percent), California's fastest, growing region.
At the time of the 2000 Census, 61,950 residents, or 48.9 percent of the City's population was
employed. The three largest employment sectors were education, health and social services at 20.9
percent, retail trade at 13.2 percent, and manufacturing at 12.9 percent. Correspondingly, the two
highestoccupation sectors are management, professional and related occupations at 35.6 percent
and sales and office occupations at 30.5 percent.
Employment Status
The City has a sizeable labor force that increased by 27.8 percent (18,236) between 2000 and 2006.
During this time the unemployment rate increased from 3.7 percent to 4.0 percent, an increase of
1,226 unemployed persons. During the same period the City achieved a marginal increase in the
employment rate percentage of the population increasing from 65.7 percentto 66.5 percent, yet in
absolute terms this represents an increase in 16,723 persons.
Income
• The 2000 Census identified the median household income for Rancho Cucamonga at $60,931,
increasing to $75,429 in 2006, significantly higher than the San Bernardino County median
household income at $42,066 in 2000 and $52,941 in 2006. In 2007, for Federal assistance
programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") identified a median income
of $59,200 for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical. Area ("MSA").
Poverty Status
The 2000 Census identified that there were 1,574 families and 8,955 individuals below the poverty
level in 1999. Although this number is significant at 4.9 percent and 7.1 percent of the population,
respectively, by far the most signifcant criteria relates to female headed householders. Although
the figure does not represent a significant number of persons relative to the overall population of the
City, the figure is significant in that 24.2 percent of the families with a female headed household,
with no husband present, and with children under 5 years live below the poverty level.
Ethnicity
Census 2000 provides some detailed demographic characteristics for Rancho Cucamonga.
Historically, the Rancho Cucamonga population consisted predominantly of the white race, ranging
from 78.9 percent in 1980, to 68.6 percent in 1990, to 66.5 percent in 2000; in absolute terms, the
City's minority population nearly quadrupled during the same time ranging from 21.1 percent
(11,657) in 1980, 31.4 percent (31,842) in 1990, to 33.5 percent (42,756) in 2000.
The Census Bureau changed the enumeration of races with the 2000 Census. This change in the
way races are counted signifcantly altered the ability to effectively evaluate racial trends between
the 2000 and 1980 or 1990 census. However, under the one race data provided in the census,
whites represent 66.5 percent of the City's total population. Those who identified themselves as
whites alone were 71.0 percent of the total population in 2000.
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 4 - April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-8
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS •
Housing Production
The 1990 Census identified a total of 36,169 dwelling units in the City. As of January 1, 2000, the
DOF reports identified 42,065 units occupied or ready for occupancy. Estimates forthe end of 2006
have raised the total unit count to 54,412. The resurgence of the housing market to the San
Bernardino County area has resulted in an average annual unit growth of 4.8 percent for the City.
Historically, the regional economic trend was the best indicator of residential construction activity;
however, the decreasing availability of vacant land also influences construction activity. The
increased numbers for the City also are partially the result the residential development of annexation
areas.
Most residents of the City live in owner-occupied housing. The ratio of owner-occupied to renter-
occupied housing has remained at around 70 percent between 1990 and 2000. The ratio of renter-
occupiedhousing to owner-occupied housing is expected remain the same as the City approaches
build-out.
Substandard Units
The general definition of a substandard unit is a unit that does not meet the Federal Housing Quality
Standards of the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
Development Code. While it is not possible to determine the number of units that meet these
criteria, the number of units may be estimated by evaluating specific factors that indicate a unit is
substandard. When the potential presence of lead-based paint is subtracted, the number of
substandard units is estimated to be 569, or around 1 percent, of the City's housing stock. •
Specifically, the 2000 Census identified incidences of substandard factors, including incomplete
plumbing, lack of complete kitchen and lack of heating fuels, vacant and boarded-up homes, as well
as the potential presence of lead-based paint.
Of the total incidence of 2,315 substandard factors, 83 percent, or 1,922 factors, were considered
suitable for rehabilitation. From January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007, more than 60single-family
units were demolished. Substandard conditions are also addressed through the CDBG Home
Improvement Program. ,
Between 61,063 and 61,630 dwelling units are estimated at build-out. Build-out is expected to occur
sometime after the year 2015.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 5 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-9
Employment, household income, and the availability of a wide range of housing types directly relate
to housing affordability. Within the City, most owners and renters can afford their housing costs by
the measure of affordability recognized by the Federal government. By Federal standards,
overburdened households spend more than 30 percent of their monthly gross income for housing
costs, including rent and utilities. In renter households 36.8 percent experience cost burden and
13.9 percent experiencing severe cost burden. Among owner households 32.5 percent experience
cost burdens and 10.2 percent experience severe cost burden.
• Vacancy
In comparing vacancy rates by dwelling unit type for 1990 and 2000, the overall vacancy rate
decreased from 7.5 percent in 1990 to 3.0 percent in 2000. The vacancy rate for buildings with five
or more units was significantly higher than for other unit types. The City believes that the census
overstated the 1990 vacancy rate by approximately 3.5 percent through field survey errors which
resulted in the unexpected vacancy rate for 5+ units at nearly 15 percent.
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms. Severe
overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. The proportion of overcrowded
households identified by the 2000 Census shows a slight percentage increase of 1.1 percent.
However, the total number of units identified as overcrowded increased from 1,851 in 1990 to 2,688
in 2000. As was the casein 1990, a greater number of renter households live in crowded conditions
than owner households. The number of severely overcrowded households has increased for both
renters and owners.
Housing Stock Condition
In general, the City's housing stock is in good condition. According to the 1990 Census, 36,169
units were available in 1990. A building spurt occurred from 1970-1979 when 31.1 percent, or
11,296 units, were constructed. A larger spurt occurred during the five-year period from 1985-1989
when 33.7 percent, or 12,309 units, were added to the housing stock. The 1990's saw an increase
of almost 4,800 units, and State estimates for the seven year period starting in 2000 show an
increase of over 12,000 units. Historic preservation programs, Code Enforcement activity, and
CDBG programs are aimed at maintaining older housing stock in residential areas.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 6 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A~10
Households Overburdened by Housing Costs
VACANT LAND INVENTORY
Vacant land zoned for residential use is a primary resource needed to meet housing needs. A
comprehensive inventory of vacant uncommitted land identified vacant land in all residential districts,
with 343 parcels providing a total of 868.50 suitable for residential development. Only vacant sites
were considered. Underutilized sites, which would require further analysis based on market
demand, were omitted from the land inventory. The range of residential land use designations will
support an estimated 3,066 to 3,633 dwelling units across the range of income levels.
As of January 1, 2008 there were approximately 3,330 residential units in the processing stream.
This includes a total of 1,019 units that were either under staff review or had received Planning
Commission approval, but had not advanced to the final map stage. A total of 2,311 units were in
final map state and of these, 513 units have been issued building permits.
HR <.1-2 du/ac •.
104.22 r~, ~
103 •
156
ER <.1-1 du/ac 44.11 42 44
VL <.1-2 du/ac 400.08 430 600
L 2-4 du/ac 70.46 234 246
LM 4-8 du/ac 185.91 1,107 1,301
M 8-14 du/ac 22.96 238 287
MH 14-24 du/ac 23.05 436 495
H 24-30 du/ac 17.71 476 504
Total 868.50 3,066 3,633
Sou~ce:~' -Technical Appendix-IV,= Vacanf Lahd Inventory .Table IV T;'Page IV- 1 ?; -
Ranchd CucamongaiPlamm~g,Department-"
Note' ^`:' Refer.to:$ection IV Table IV 3A=H'.tor a hsLng ofproperties tiy,APN parcersize General Plan Zoning and~proiected unit
Vacant Land Suitable for Affordable Housing
With the exception of hillside areas, land suitable for affordable housing is generally available
throughout the City; however, due to land costs most of the land in the Hillside Residential, Estate
Residential, and Very Low Residential Districts will be unsuitable for affordable housing projects. In
general, multi-family units are more affordable than single-family units. Approximately 63.72 acres
of land is available throughout the City in the multi-family density range of eight or more units per
acre, Medium, Medium-High, and High land use districts.
Production and conservation of affordable units will be discussed in two subsequent sections of the
Housing Element, specifically the section on Units at-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate and the
section on the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Regional economic conditions provide the overall context for housing development and availability.
A strong period of regional economic growth followed by a significant drop in the housing market
characterizes most of the reporting period. An analysis of the relationship of the economy to
housing production indicates that a strong economic climate results in an increase in housing
production.
The American economy began to rebound following the Dot-com crash in 2000-2001. Since
adoption of the 2000 Housing Element, the economy expanded and in the immediate region
provided an increase in service, manufacturing, and construction jobs. The diversification of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 7 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
•
•
A~11
• economy has reduced the impact of adverse economic cycles and provided a stable environment for
new investment. Unemploymerit rates remained relatively steady at around 3.7 percent.
Beginning in 1996, new housing construction began to rise, not to the levels of the late 1980's, but
steadily increasing. Housirig prices for existing homes rose dramatically, interest rates dropped,
thereby stimulating housing sales for new and existing homes. Housing construction remained
strong through early 2006, and was then followed by a steady decline due to the sub-prime loan
crisis and market saturation in some areas of the region. Market research conducted by the
California Association of Realtors does not show a significant recovery until at least 2009 though
greater Federal involvement is expected in an attempt to prevent a recession.
Employment
For the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA, and the City as well, employment has increased
steadily from 2000 to 2007, with the City experiencing a 23.4 percent increase in employment. The
City maintains an unemployment rate below that of the region, with a high of 6.5 percent in 2003 for
the region and 4.0 percent for the'City. In 2006 unemployment decreased to 4.8 percent for the
region, and 3.0 percent for the City.
Market Absorption
The City's overall vacancy rate (including both homeowner and rental properties) was 3.02 percent
as of January 1, 2007. The ideal vacancy level should be 5 percent for rentals and 2 percent for
homeowners. In periods of high production and high absorption, higher vacancy rates are typical.
In periods of low production and slow absorption a vacancy rates in the 7 percent range would be of
some concern. In the context of high new housing production rates, it represents a low availability of
• resale homes and a high absorption of new housing units.
Land Price and Construction Costs
Residential land costs vary depending on the availability of land and the cost of grading and
infrastructure associated with development of a proposed project. The price of land impacts the
price of new homes and also residential resale price. Along with the resurgence of the regional
economy the dramatic growth in home sales was accompanied by a surge to record high property
values. The increase in property values corresponded directly to increases in the cost of obtaining
new housing. During the past 12 to 18 months, the City has experienced a fairly significant drop in
the price of raw land. Between the period from 2003 to 2008 land prices increased dramatically and
have reduced a significant amount as the availability to finance residential construction projects has
decreased.
The two biggest expehses in housing development are land costs and fees. While construction
costs have increased along with the Consumer Price Index ("CPI"),the cost of land has escalated to
the largest item associated with the cost of housing.
Construction cost depends on the price of materials, quality of construction, and finish detail.
Construction costs have more or less paralleled the CPI from 1989 to the present. In general, the
CPI has increased an average of 5.71 percent between 2000 and 2007, with a high of 8.6 percent in
2006 and a low of 4.9 percent in 2002. This compares with an average annual CPI of 3.02 percent
between 1991 and 2000.
Financing
During the past few years, significant changes have occurred in the mortgage lending industry.
Home mortgage rates of the late 1990's and early 2000's were very low with 30-year fixed rates as
• . low as 5 percent. However, problems within the industry and increases in the Federal lending rate
have gradually raised mortgage rates and made them more difficult to obtain. A fixed rate 30-year
loan for a new home currently parries interest rates from 6.75 percent. Due to current lending
City of Rancho Cucamonga - ~ _ HE - 8 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-12
practices, lower income households will have difficulty qualifying for standard mortgages even if •
home prices drop to reasonable levels.
Financing for both construction and long-term mortgages is generally available in Rancho
Cucamonga subject to normal underwriting standards. However, a more critical impediment to
homeownership involves both the affordability of the housing stock and the ability of potential buyers
to fulfill down payment requirements. Typically, down payment requirements are the largest
constraint to first-time homebuyers. -The City's First-Time Homebuyer program, administered by the
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency ("RDA"), provides more favorable down payment and
financing terms for low-income qualified households.
Housing Price
Based on an analysis of the existing home market, the median price of existing homes has
increased from approximately $158,900 in 2001 to approximately $395,000 in 2007; an increase of
60 percent.
Public Opinion
Homeowners, who perceive a generally higher quality of life and amenities in the City than in the
surrounding urban region and who may have paid more to locate in the City, defend elements that
they believe create quality of life. For example, they vigorously promote single-family ownerstip and
have vocally discouraged City sponsored new affordable housing projects.
The community supports affordable projects that appear to increase property values, assistance for
declining neighborhoods, a variety of affordable owner projects, and first time buyer loan programs.
Many homeowners in the City have benefited from such programs.
GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS •
An analysis of government regulation in the City indicates that regulations in force are necessary for
the health, safety, and welfare of the community and, for the most part, are not an undue constraint
on development. The City's zoning and development standards encourage a wide range of housing
types, including single and multi-family, rental and ownership and mobile homes. The resulting
range of development scenarios increases the opportunities for residential development.
Residential Land Use Categories
The General Plan Land Use element and Land Use Map designate particular areas within the City
for residential development. In identifying areas suitable for residential development the General
Plan establishes six residential density categories that are "intended to maximize public safety,
achieve high quality site planning and design, retain significant natural resources, and ensure
compatibility between uses." These residential densities permit both single-family and multiple-
familydevelopments at density ranges that include the following:
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 9
2008 Housing Element
A~13
.. .- .- .~
-
-
.~ . . .
-,
~. -.
Minimum 0.1 2 4 8 14 24
Maximum 2 4 8 14 24 30
.• -~
•.
Sin le-Famil Detached P . P P P
Single-Family Attached
du-, tri-, and four- lex P P P P
Multi le-Famil Dwellin s P* P P P
Second Dwelling Unit
includin elder cotta e P P P
Mobile Home Units P P P P P
Mobile Home Parks C C C C C C
Source •;'Technical,Appendlx VI =.'Governmental Constraints Table VI-- ~1~ Page VI =?~ -
~
s Rancho CucamongaGeneral Plan;and RanchoCucamonga Development Code ~ ~ • ~-~ ~~
~
1 , -= The ove~alLdensity,ot:each development proposal must by,itaelf;fall wdhm;the applicable Eensity range - a development ,=;-
.i~, that falls below the minimum densityeannot be"offset by anotfjer development that exceeds the maximum density -'..
2 Excluding land necesse
ry for secondary and arterial streets
; : ~., ~ ~" `' ^
~
_
^
3 -: P Permitted Use/C -=Conditiorial:U§e.Permit~Re~uired/'Peririitted in oon'viiction with o- tional deveb
ment standards'
Used in combination with the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code §17.08.030 the proceeding
table identifies that the density range for single-family development is 0.1 to 14 dwelling units per
gross acre. The density range for single-family attached and multiple-family dwellings is 4 to 30
• dwelling units per acre. Second dwelling units, either attached or detached to the primary residence
are permitted in Very Low to Low-Medium residential districts. One mobile home unit is permitted on
a lot in all residential districts, except the Very Low district, and mobile home parks are conditionally
permitted in all residential districts.
Performance Standard Criteria
The Development Code for the City, as well as any applicable specific plans, utilizes a performance
standard of development through use of density ranges. The density achieved is based on an
analysis of environmental constraints and on design criteria.
Environmental Assessment Requirements
An environmental assessment is required for each development project. The site-specific
assessment is tiered from the Master Environmental Assessment ("MEA")that was prepared for the
2000 General Plan Update. Hillside Development Regulations (§17.24) were enacted to address
grading and design issues on parcels with slope issues. In most instances, these instruments
clearly set the environmental constraints on the site, including the potential maximum density, and
serve to expedite development. Where additional site-specific information is needed; special
studies are requested.
Design Criteria
Design criteria are established under the Basic Development Standards and Optional Development
Standards. A subdivision designed to meet the City's Basic Development Standards will be
permitted to develop at densities that are at the lower end of the density range appropriate to the
zone. In order to qualify for the Optional Development Standards, a developer may provide such
features as a larger percentage of open space, more than the minimum requirement for
• landscaping, and more than the minimum requirement for recreational facilities. Such projects will
be allowed to develop at the higher end of the density range appropriate to the zone. Further, under
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 10 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-14
the Optional Standards, many of the basic development requirements such as setbacks and lot •
coverage may be reduced to accommodate the higher densities.
Development Standards
There have been no significant changes in residential standards since the adoption of the Rancho
Cucamonga Development Code in 1983; minor changes have brought the Development Code into
compliance with changes in State legislation. In 1989, Hillside Development Regulations were
adopted to codify long-standing hillside development polices.
Overall, development standards are based upon acceptable provisions and are not exceptional or
unusual and, in fact, are consistent with those of surrounding communities. Building standards,
such as parking and height requirements, generally do not provide a constraint to development.
Typically, building heights are permitted to increase with increased density. Parking is based upon
the unit type and number of bedrooms. Carports are permitted in multi-family developments when
approved by the Design Review Committee. The variability of these development standards permits
a wide variety of housing types, including single and multi-family, rental and ownership, and mobile
homes.
Building Code Requirements
The City has adopted the 2007 California Building Code ("CBC"). Adoption of the CBC incorporated
the International Building Code, the California Mechanical Code incorporated the Uniform
Mechanical Code, the California Plumbing Code incorporated the Uniform Plumbing Code, the
California Electrical Code incorporated the National Electrical Code, and the California Fire Code
incorporated the International Fire Code. These codes are considered to be the minimum
necessary to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare, and are not considered an unnecessary •
constraint to housing.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities/Reasonable Accommodations
The City's AI provides an overview of the laws, regulation, conditions or other possible obstacles
that may affect an individual's or a household's access to housing. In addition to those actions
summarized in the AI, and in an effort to remove potential constraints and provide reasonable
accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities the City established an action
program that aims to enforce and regulate the disabled accessibility and adaptability standards
contained in Title 24 of the CBC as they apply to apartments and condominium/townhouse projects.
This program is applicable to new construction projects and in doing so applies all Americans with
Disability Act regulations and the CBC.
Code Enforcement
The Code Enforcement Division enforces the Municipal Code. Areas of concern include property
maintenance and aesthetics, land use and zoning compliance, parking control, animal regulation,
permits and development compliance, weed abatement, vector control, and graffiti removal. The
Code Enforcement Division primarily operates on a complaint response basis.
Fees and Exactions
Fees and exactions on new development by the City and other agencies, including the school and
water districts, have increased an estimated 65.7 percent during the last seven years. Although
some fees have increased significantly, the Beautification Fee applied to residential development
has not increased. The increase reflects the higher cost of new infrastructure.
A new fee imposed on the development ofsingle-family homes is the fee associated with the plan •
check of a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP"). The WOMP plan check may be included as
part of a separate grading plan check or combined with the building plan check. The fee is based
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 11 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A•15
• on an hourly rate ($114.84) and may amount to several hours time depending on the level of review.
Fire Department plan check fees are incorporated into the Building and Safety Plan Check fee and
are not assed separately.
City fee schedules are reviewed and adopted annually. The methodologies to support fees and
exactions are reviewed periodically and increases are based on the CPI. Fees and exactions
ensure that new development will have adequate infrastructure and public services and, therefore,
are a prerequisite to development.
.. ~• ~- .~
.- • tir rr
Buildin Permit $582.50 $770.95 32.3%
Plan Check $436.87 $1,008.12 130.7%
WQMP $0.00 $229.68 100.0%
Draina a $918.27 $3,184.57 246.8%
Trans ortation $1,710.05 $4,654.00 172.5%
Beautification $253.00 $253.00 0.0%
Park Develo ment $2,757.72 $3,932.00 42.6%
Water & Sewer CVWD $9,019.00 $12,263.00 35.9%
Chaffe Joint Union Hi h School District $759.00 $1,846.90 143.3%
K-8 School DistrlCt $1,682.45 $1,872.20 11.3%
Total $18,118.86 $30,014.42 65.7%
Feesbased,on:a.proposed 'I.265square fool'Fesidence 2-. car garage 6000 square :foot lot no decks or patio s-sand located~m-the •_:
-
~.Low,Derisit ±Residential+District;WQMP.assumes:a2houf i:eview.,~„ '~.,« _~ ~F `~ ~ -_~{+
Souioe->aTechnicahAppendix Vl-Governmenfel ConsJra6its'Table Vl „6 Page Vl _]3, -.-• ` -~ r
~-
~
~
~
~
`
`
~" RanchoCu'oamoriga 2007 City Fee Schedule '~ :~i x , , '. , -
fll Cucamong
Valle
Water Distract ~ ~-~
I s _ ~ ~' ~
a
y
,
.;
Chaffe
Jpinl Union High
School District ~
~ ~
~ ~~ `
+ :
-
y
,
.
,
w
,
Sd ;-` K-8 SchooliDistrictscthe Alta Loma'School DistricN,fee was'vsed to com ute`~. s ~ r" " --~~•
Mello-Roos financing through formation of Community Facilities Districts provides an alternative
means to finance a portion of new infrastructure. Their use raises concerns about perceived
property tax burden and equity. Where bonds have been issued for required infrastructure, such as
flood protection facilities, the burden of bond debt has increased to new homeowners and vacant
land property owners in proportion to the reduction in anticipated new home construction. In the
City, Mello-Roos financing has been used to form two districts in areas planned for move-up
housing.
Three of the five school districts, including Chaffey Joint Union High Sdhool District that serves
Rancho Cucamonga and other communities, use Mello-Roos financing. Since new schools are
usually not built until after development occurs, bond repayment is generally distributed equitably
amgng new owners.
Proactive Support of Development
The City proactively promotes development, emphasizing the location of new business and industry
to the City. The City, through its RDA, also promotes affordable housing production. The Agency's
affordable housing efforts are discussed in Sections IX and X of the Technical Appendix.
Removal of Governmental Constraints
The City has implemented various programs that remove, or reduce, governmental constraints on
the development of housing. This was accomplished through the implementation of 1) Affordable
Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions that allow for an increase in project density for certain
affordable housing projects, 2) implementation of the Second Dwelling Unit standards for the
development of an additional residential unit on certain residential properties, and 3) the future
implementatidn of an Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance, which would reduce constraints
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 12 April 2008
2008 Housing Element ~ -
A-16
on affordable housing opportunities when an increased project density is proposed. •
SPECIAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS GROUPS
Several recognized special needs groups reside in the City, including the handicapped, elderly,
large families, families with female heads of households, and families and persons in need of
emergency shelter. An effort has been made to identify these groups, analyze their needs, and to
use the limited resources available to address their needs. The California Department of Social
Services Community Care Licensing Divisiori identified the following licensed facilities within Rancho
Cucamonga: 4 Adult Day Care, 12 Adult Residential Facilities, 6 Group Homes, 14 Residential Care
for the Elderly, and 2 Small Family Homes (Table VII-1 ).
Persons With Disabilities
There are a total of 17,292 persons (14.8 percent of the population 5 years and over) who have a
disability. This includes 3.8 percent (962 persons) of those aged 5 to 15, 15.3 percent (12,919
persons) of those aged 16 to 64, and 44.1 percent (3,411 persons) of those aged 65 and older. In
absolute terms, the 16 to 65 age group has the highest number of disabled persons, but in relative
terms as a percentage of the population, the population age 65 and older has the highest number of
disabled persons with almost half of the population having at least one disability. Over two thirds of
the adult disabled population is employed, with 63.2 percent of those persons with at least one
disability being employed.
Elderly
In 2000, there were 7,788 persons 65 years of age and over reside in the City; this represents a •
significant needs group. A large proportion of elderly renter and owner households have incomes
below 80 percent of the area median family income. Within the elderly population, 73.4 percent of
all elderly renters and 39.8 percent of all elderly homeowners are within the lower income
categories. A cost burden greater than 30 percent of their income is experienced by 65.7 percent of
all elderly renters and 35.3 percent of all elderly homeowners. Additionally, 36.9 percent of all
elderly renters and 17.4 percent of all elderly homeowners experienced a cost burden greater than
50 percent of their income.
Large Families
According to the 2000 Census there were 40,863 households in the City. Of these, 6,861 were
single person households and 27,232 were 2 to 4 person households. Large families are defined as
five or more persons; there were 6,770 large family households representing an increase of 1,676
households since 1.990. In 2000 large families comprised 18.3 percent of all owner occupied
households and 16.6 percent of all households.
Female-Headed Households
A mother with her own children constitutes afemale-headed household. According to the 2000.
Census 3,847 households, 9.3 percent of all households are female-headed and 4.1 percent of all
households are male-headed. Thus, 13.4 percent of all households are single-parent families. In
comparison, the 1990 Census counted 9.2 percent for all single-parent households of which 7.0
percent were.female-headed. It is reasonable to assume that a high proportion of poverty level
households, particularly single-parent households, are at risk of homelessness.
of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 13 ~ April 2008
3 Housing Element
A-17
• Homeless -
The 2002 Census counted 260 homeless persons in the City. Limited assistance and a small
number of emergency shelter spaces are provided by private groups in the area. Less than
0.2 percent of the 61,950 employed persons livirig in the City were identified by the Census as
"farmworkers." Therefore, no special need for housing has been identified for farm workers.
Emergency/Transitional Shelters
As part of the City's 2000 Housing Element, the City established a program to evaluate existing code
requirements to determine those conditions and standards where various types of shelter facilities
maybe located, including review and evaluation of industrial districts. In 2002 the City amended its
Development Code to identify those zones where an emergency shelter may be located with the
intent of.the code revision being to address opportunities for establishing emergency shelter
facilities, not to provide long-term transitional housing opportunities, which typically allow for an
extended stay. Emergency Shelters were permitted in various commercial and industrial districts,
subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, but were not permitted within any residential
districts. Based on a change in State law, the program has been revised to identify "a zone or zones
where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other
discretionary permit."
The City does not permit the development of transitional housing opportunities, but instead through
the CDBG program, supports a variety of organizations that provide immediate assistance,
advocacy, food, and short-term shelter to homeless individuals and families.
• ENERGY CONSERVATION
The City is not a water or energy provider. Cucamonga Valley Water District has the primary
responsibility for domestic water service in the area. Southern California Edison grid Southern
California Gas Company provide electricity and natural gas. Nevertheless, the City proactively
promotes water and energy conservation through codes and policies.
In 1990, the City adopted a Xeriscape Ordinance and implementing guidelines as a means of
improving water conservation efforts in multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial
developments. The Development Code requires all developments to design landscaping and
irrigation to conserve water using the principals of Xeriscape". This is accomplished through the use
of drought tolerant plant materials and low volume irrigation, such as drip and trickle irrigation
systems.
Optional residential development standards encourage energy conserving appliances and features,
as well as the use of solar energy systems inappropriate situations. Solar access rights have been
in the Deyelopment Code since 1984.
In addition to the State requirements, the City incorporated passive and active solar energy
requirements into the Development Code. Under the City's optional development standards a
project may obtain a density increase at the higher end of the density range for energy conservation
design above the minimum requirement.
Additionally, as part of the General Plan update, the City will be focusing on Sustainable
Development, Green Buildings, Healthy Communities, Smart Growth, and Global Warming. The
City will determine "How green do we want to be" and will develop policies to address these
elements in the General Plan, which may also comply with the Green Valley Initiative Program.
• Also, the current General Plan update will address opportunities for the City to practice erivironment
sustainability and smart growth.
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 14 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-18
CONSERVATION OF UNITS AT-RISK OF CONVERSION TO MARKET RATE •
The goal of the City is the conservation of all restricted, affordable units at-risk of conversion to
market rate during the planning period. As of January 1, 2008, there were 1,949 units restricted to
low-income households in the City, 313 of which were identified as units at-risk of conversion to
market rate prior to June 30, 2015. The 313 units at-risk include 234 units between July 1, 2005,
and June 30, 2010, and 79 units between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015. All of the 313 units at-
riskwere produced by private owner participation inmulti-family bond financing offered through the
County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing ("CDH"). Owriers
of the affected multi-family projects entered into 10-year regulatory agreements with the CDH in
exchange for the then lower than market interest rates.
As of January 1, 2008, the City's Redevelopment Agency had executed six owner-Agency
agreements to preserve the restricted affordability of 670 units. The Agency's five-year goal is to
preserve the affordability of these units-at-risk. The Units-at-Risk study is included in Section IX of
the Technical Appendix. To achieve the identified preservation goal, the following programs should
be utilized:
• Contact owners.
• Assist owners with analysis of conservation options.-.
• Assist private non-profit agencies with purchase.
• Enter into agreements with owners for conservation.
• RDA purchase, or assistance with purchase, of projects that include units at-risk.
HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN •
The City's Redevelopment Agency estimates that the 20 Percent Set-Aside Funds from
July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2013, will total approximately $99.85 million. Consistent with State law,
these funds are scheduled to assist affordable housing projects. The use of the funds must be
consistent with State affordable housing law and the more restrictive legal settlement between the
Redevelopment Agency and the Western Center for Law and Poverty.
Consistent with the State requirement that 15 percent of the housing constructed in a
redevelopment area must be affordable, the Agency will leverage their funds with other public and
private resources to produce or conserve 396 affordable units by June 30, 2013.
The Agency is assisting the Northtown Housing Development Corporation, organized by the
residents of the Northtown Neighborhood. The Agency is also assisting the National Community
Renaissance, a regional non-profit agericy. The groups are working independently and together on
affordable projects in the City.
EVALUATION OF THE 2000 HOUSING ELEMENT
The goal, objectives, and policies of the 2000 -2005 Housing Element remain unchanged, with the
exception of slight changes in wording for clarification, and the elimination of programs no longer
applicable. Thejobs/housing balance programs have been revised to stress proactive emphasis on
attracting business and industry to the City.
Some programs are on hold until funding resources are available. For example, the development of
guidelines to enhance residential safety will be completed when funding resources become
available. Some changes in the City's Development Code to achieve consistency with State law are •
also on hold until funding resources are available. For example, State law mandates that
Cily of Rancho Cucamonga H
2008 Housing Element
A-19
manufactured homes, including mobile homes, be permitted in all residential districts. Manufactured
homes except mobile homes are processed assingle-family homes. However, the Code has not yet
been formally amended to state that mobile homes are permitted in the "Very Low" single-family
residential district.
u
A detailed discussion of the evaluation of the 2000 Housing Element is provided in Section XI of the
Technical Appendix. The results of this evaluation have been incorporated into the revised
objectives, policies, and programs provided in Part Two.
PART TWO
GOAL: The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of housing
types for economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sez, or
income group.
Program 1.A.1: Facilitate opportunities for a variety of housing types through the
implementation of the Land Use Plan, Development District Map, and Community Plans on
the remaining vacant land resources of the City.
Target: A total of 55,694 dwelling units, i.e., the 54,412 dwelling units existing as of January
1, 2007, plus 1,282 additional units by June 30, 2013, recognizing that because of market
conditions, as few as 431 units, or more than the 3,330 units currently approved or in the
processing stream, may actually be constructed during the reporting period.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department. .
Financing: Not Applicable.
Schedule: July 1, 2008 -June 30, 2013.
Program 1.A.2: Review and amend provisions of the Development Code pertaining to
mobile homes (consistent with Government Code §65852.3) to allow manufactured homes
in all residential districts.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: Continue item pn the Planning Department work program and complete when
funding resources become available.
Program 1.A.3: Continue to discourage conversion of existing mobile home parks to other
• uses (consistent with Government Code §65863.7) in order to maintain a valuable source of
affordable housing.
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 16 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-20
POLICY 1.A: Through land use distribution and implementation of development standards,
encourage a mix of housing types, including, mobile homes, and apartments within a variety of price
ranges in orderto ensure a range of housing alternatives and enable the City to achieve its share of
the regional housing need as determined by the 2007 RHNA.
Target: All existing mobile home parks.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: Add to Planning Departmentwork program and complete when funding resources
become available.
Program 1:A.4: Continue to maintain and administer a condominium conversion ordinance
which establishes a maximum annual limit, defined as no more than one-half the number of
multi-family rental dwellings added to the City's housing stock during the preceding year, for
the number of multi-family rental units that may be converted to ownership type.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: Not Applicable.
Schedule: Ori-going.
Program 2.A.1: Continue to offer Development Agreements in order to offer incentives for
development of senior andlor family affordable multi-family rental units.
Target: Low- and moderate-income renters.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Community
Development Department.
Schedule: Offer on a case-by-case basis. Examples of projects that have obtained
entitlement approval, but have not been built include the 225-unit San Sevaine Villas project,
where 100 percent of the units will be held as affordable.
Program 2.A.2: Continue to administer a Residential Mortgage Bond program where low
interest loans are available to first-time home buyers making up to 140 percent of the
median family income.
Target: Homebuyers that have difficulty obtaining conventional financing.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency.
Financing: Redevelopment Agency 20 Percent Set-Aside funds.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 2.A.3: Monitor restricted, affordable housing production within the redevelopment
project area assisted by the Redevelopment Agency.
Target: New homeowner and renter households within the redevelopment project area •
assisted by the Redevelopment Agency.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008 Housing Element
A -21
POLICY 2.A: Protect and expand the range of housing opportunities available by location, price,
and tenure to low and moderate-income households.
• Department; Private Sector.
Financing: Public and Private Sector Cooperation.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 2.A.4: Continue informal discussions with private developers and multi-family
apartment managers encouraging use of Federal rental assistance programs to assist lower
income households residing and/orworking in the City and continue to support the Housing
Authority of the County of San Bernardino ("HACSB") applications for additional Federal
vouchers to meet the needs of low-income households now residing in the City.
Target: The HACSB provides housing assistance to 186 households residing in the City as
of June 30, 2007. This includes 170 Section 8 vouchers and 16 public housing units.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department; Private sector,
Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino.
Financing: HUD Rental Assistance Programs.
Schedule: Update annually.
Program 2.A.5: Continue to support the Mobile Home Park Accord voluntary rent
stabilization past the current expiration date of February 2009, as a means of keeping rents
at reasonable levels to allow continued affordability of this method of housing.
Target: Existing mobile home parks.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Administration; Mobile Home Park
• property owners.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: Renegotiate Mobile Home Park Accord in 2009.
Program 2.A.5: Develop, implement, and monitor an affordable housing strategy utilizing
the Redevelopment Agency's 20 Percent Housing Set-Aside Funds consistent with the
Western Centerfor Law and Poverty Agreement and the Redevelopment Agency's Housing
Production Plan.
Target: 190 additional restricted, affordable renter and/or owner units.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency.
Financing: 20 Percent Set-Aside Funds.
Schedule: July 1, 2008 -June 30, 2013.
Program 2.A.7: Develop and implement an Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance to
assist in addressing the City's need to provide affordable housing opportunities for all
economic segments of the community.
Target: The development of affordable housing opportunities for all economic segments of
the community.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: This activity is currently part of the Planning Department work program. The draft
• Ordinance is scheduled for public hearings and the Ordinance should be completed by June
30, 2008.
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 18 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A~22
POLICY 2.6: Promote efforts to define both the size and composition of the homeless population in •
order to assess existing and future needs, and support amulti-jurisdictional comprehensive
approach toward addressing those needs.
Program 2.6.1: Conduct an annual survey of area non-profit service providers to the
homeless in order to determine the level of need within the City.
Target: Identification of the homeless population and their needs.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department; Non-profit
agencies.
Financing: CDBG.
Schedule: On-going.
POLICY 2.C: Assist providers of temporary emergency shelter and transitional housing
opportunities.
Program 2.C.1: Continue to assist the efforts of local organizations, and community groups
to provide temporary emergency shelters, transitional housing opportunities, and services to
the City's homeless population.
Target: Identified homeless population.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department; local organizations
and community groups. ,
Financing: CDBG.
Schedule: On-going. •
Program 2.C.2: Evaluate existing Code requirements to determine those conditions and
standards where various types of shelter facilities may be located, including review and
evaluation of industrial districts. Revise Development Code standards to identify those
locations where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted. use.
Target: Amend the Development Code, consistent with Government Code §65583(a)(4) to
identify "a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a
conditional use or other discretionary permit".
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: Add item to the Planning Department work program and complete within one year
from adoption of the Housing Element.
Program 2.C.3: Participate with adjacent communities toward the provision of a sub-
regionalshelter program and encourage the County to develop a comprehensive homeless
program.
Target: Identified homeless population.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department; Area cities; San
Bernardino County.
Financing: Not Applicable.
Schedule: On-going.' •
POLICY 2.D: Recognize the unique characteristics of the elderly and handicapped households and
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 1
2008 Housing Element
A -23
• address their special needs
Program 2.D.1: Continue to allow for the establishment of second units on single-family
residential lots to provide additional housing opportunities pursuant to State law and
established zoning regulations.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety
Departments.
Financing: Not Applicable.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 2.D.2: Continue to enforce and regulate the disabled accessibility and adaptability
standards contained in Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code as they apply to apartments
and condominium/townhouse projects.
Target: Citywide, developmentally and physically disabled persons.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Building and Safety Department.
Financing: Not Applicable.
Schedule: On-going.
n
I`J
Program 3.A.1: Continue CDBG funding for fair housing services, with emphasis on
proactive educatidn and voluntary compliance, as well as through legal enforcement on a
case-by-case basis, including, but not limited. to, assistance with the resolution of
tenant/landlord disputes and housing discrimination complaints.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department; Non-profit
Agencies.
Financing: CDBG.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 4.A.1: Continue to implement the City's Hillside Development Regulations to
• ensure that residential development in hillside areas is appropriate to the carrying capacity of
the land, avoids development in environmentally sensitive areas, minimizes adverse grading
impacts through architectural and structural techniques, and preserves the natural landform
of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 20
3 Housing Element
A-24
POLICY 3.A: The City shall pursue programs that will reduce the incidence of housing
discrimination within the City.
POLICY 4.A: Promote the use of development techniques that foster a continued high quality of
residential design and construction and ensure the appropriate development of hillside areas.
characteristics. •
Target: New residential development on slopes 8 percent or greater.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety
Departments. '
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 4.A.2: Through the project development design and technical review process,
continue to evaluate residential projects for safety concerns, including lighting, pedestrian
movements, parking lot configuration and design, as well as unit design and orientation,
particularly with regard to multi-family development.
Target: Citywide, new residential development.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning, Erigineering, and Building and
Safety Departments.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 4.A.3: When funding resources become available, use Crime Prevention Through
Environmental Design ("CPTED") concepts to evaluate single-family and multi-family
residential developments and write CPTED design guidelines to improve the safety of new
residential developments.
Target: Citywide, new residential development. •
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: Add to Planning Department work program and complete when funding sources
become available.
Program S.A.1: Continue to encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic residences
through participation in Mills Act contracts.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: Private funding, and CDBG.
Schedule: On-going.
POLICY 5.B: Continue to promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential .
structures.
Program 5.6.1: Continue to evaluate and identify areas of the City with concentrations of
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008 Housing Element
A-25
POLICY 5.1: Recognize the unique contribution to the City's heritage by historic structures and
develop programs to encourage the preservation and maintenance of these structures.
• older or deteriorating housing units which may be targeted for rehabilitation and
improvement programs.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: CDBG.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 5.B.2: Continue to operate a repair grant program for all lower income (including
disabled or handicapped persons) single-family home owners and mobile home owners for
minor housing needs by providing grants up to $7,500 for labor and materials per household
within any five-year period.
Tar et: +/- 36 households anrually.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: CDBG.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 5.6.3: Continue to operate a housing rehabilitation and repair loan program that
offers both deferred loan payments and low interest loans to lower income households,
excluding mobile homes.
Target: +/- 4 households annually.
• Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: CDBG.
Schedule: On-going.
POLICY S.C: In order to improve living environments and prevent neighborhood deterioration, the
City shall promote efforts to ensure that all neighborhoods of the City, including older ones, have
adequate public/community facilities and services.
Program 5.C.1: Continue to provide public improvements/community facilitiessuch asstreet
improvements, streetlights, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, as well as park facilities in
qualified target areas.
Target: Identified eligible areas.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning
and Engineering Departments.
Financing: CDBG funding, plus Redevelopment Agency funds for special eligible projects.
Schedule: On-going.
POLICY S.D: Promote the maintenance of existing housing in sound condition.
Program 5.D.1: Utilize concentrated Code Enforcement programs to target specific areas or
problems when the need and community support warrants such activity.
Target: Identifed areas.
Responsible Agencv: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety
• Departments and Code Enforcement Section; neighborhood residents.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
City of Rancho Cucamonga - HE - 22 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
A-26
Schedule: As need arises and funding resources become available.
Program S.D.2: Develop an outreach referral program whereby City workers encourage
owners of properties which may have structural or maintenance problems to contact the
CDBG coordinator for assistance under existing CDBG repair and rehabilitation grant and
loan programs.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department, Engineering
Department, Building and Safety Department, Fire Safety Department, and the Police
Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 6.A.1: Continue to encourage the location of new business and industry in the City
through promotional activities -and through removal of governmental constraints on
development.
Target: Citywide.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning
Department.
Financing: Redevelopment Agency; General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 6.A.2: Continue to maintain and update the City's database management system,
which monitors proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects.
Target: Citywide residential, commercial, and industrial development.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
POLICY 7.A: Increase public awareness and encourage the utilization of energy and resource
conservation measures through the enforcement of the State's energy code and City development
regulations, as well as through the development of public information and policy statements.
Program 7.A.1: Continue to enforce and regulate the existing State Residential Energy
Design Guidelines through existing State legislation and the California Building Code.
Target: All affected residential development.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning and Building and Safety
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 23
2008 Housing Element
A-27
•
•
POLICY 6.1: Promote efforts toward ajobs/housing ratio consistent with the goals and objectives of
SCAG's 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan and 2007 Regional Transportation Plan and the
projected regional jobs/housing balance.
• Departments.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 7.A.2: Through the Development Code, continue to implement energy efficient
design procedures and specification for such things as solar techniques, landscaping
standards, house orientation, and sun angle exposure.
Target: All new residential developments.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget
Schedule: On-going.
Program 7.A.3: Continue to increase the public's awareness and utilization of energy saving
and resource conservation techniques through the use of public information brochures, the
Model Home Landscape Policy, and the Xeriscape Ordinance.
Target: All new residential developments.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
• POLICY 8.A: To promote efforts to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the
process regarding development costs, and to charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry
out needed public services and improvements.
Program 8.A.1: The City shall continue periodic review and update of City fees and the
methodology on which the fees are based in order to determine the necessary costs for the
provision of adequate public services and improvements to ensure the continued health,
safety, and welfare of the community.
Target: Citywide for new residential development.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Development Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going; Engineering, Building and Safety, and Planning Department fees are
updated annually with the rate of increase tied to the consumer price index (CPI).
Program 8.A.2: Continue to facilitate development processing through multiple techniques,
including staff assistance and handouts at the public couriter, articles in the City's newsletter,
informal meetings with applicants, Preliminary Review applications to address technical
issues, and Pre-Application Review to address policy issues.
Target: Citywide, new residential development.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Services and Community
Development Departments.
• Financing: General Fund, City budget.
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE-24 ~ Apri12008
2008 Housing Element
A ~28
Schedule: On-going. •
Program 8.A.3: Continue to evaluate processing procedures for all residential
developments and whenever possible recommend streamlining procedures.
Target: All new residential development, including development targeted for lower and
moderate-income households.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: On-going.
Program 9.A.1: Preserve restricted, affordable units which are at-risk df conversion to
market rate between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2015, as identified with the City's Units at-
Risk Study and included in the Technical Appendix of the 2008 Housing Element, consistent
with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583(a)(9).
Target: 234 restricted, affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate prior to •
June 30, 2010, and 79 restricted, affordable units at risk of conversion to market rate prior to
June 30. 2015.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency.
Financing: Redevelopment Agency funds.
Schedule: Through June 30, 2013.
Program 9.A.2: Implement the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan, which is
included as Section X of the 2008 Housing Element Technical Appendix.
Target: Development and/or conservation of 396 restricted units affordable to low- and
moderate-income households.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency.
Financing: Redevelopment Agency 20 Percent Set-Aside funds for low- and moderate-
incomehousing; State and Federal low- and moderate-income housing funding programs;
private sector funds.
Schedule: Through June 30, 2013.
Program 9.A.3: In fulfillment of the State mandate to report annually on the Housing
Element, continue to provide the State-mandated Redevelopment Agency report on the
Housing Set-Aside funds and the CDBG Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation
Report on the implementation of citywide low- and moderate-income housing programs.
Target: Housing development and housing programs citywide with emphasis on •
development and conservation of low- and moderate-income housing.
City of Rancho Cucamonga HE - 25 April 2D08
2008 Housing Element - -
A-29
POLICY 9.A: Update the Housing Element in order to incorporate new information, such as data
from the decennial Federal Census, as well as to complywith new State legislation; annually monitor
progress toward attainment and implementation of the goal, objectives, and policies of the Housing
Element.
• Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Redevelopment Agency and Planning
Department.
Financing: Redevelopment Agency and CDBG funds.
Schedule: Annually.
Program 9.A.4: Complete the next State-mandated 5-year update of the Housing Element
consistent with the requirements and schedule adopted by the State Legislature.
Target: 2013 Housing Element Update.
Responsible Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department.
Financing: General Fund, City Budget.
Schedule: Place item on 2012-2013 Planning Department work program, or consistent with
the schedule adopted by the State Legislature.
•
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ HE - 26 Aprii 2008
2008 Housing Element
A~30
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DRAFT
2008 HOUSING ELEMENT
TECHNICAL APPENDIX
.,
"T. y ~, +~' ~n4M1 ~r ~4, a.'~^ ~ ~ .
A9 y
~ ° ~ ~. ~~'~~~ ~ ~ _. r ,Sp~ ~ .feezr0 e~~~~,'"~ ry ,q'9~~~ r ~rf~1~.. '~
~ LL 5
3~t }~~,~^ ~1 ~~t ~~ ~ r ~ } t S y , ~ `~' (4~"' ~a.t~ ~ r K ~sJ ~ ~~ ~~~."
u 5~~'dar~~~Q~3- ~~ ~•~C°"3 ~ i v- ~i. ~~; '~~tyi~~ K 3 n'` ~rtY ~
1h .•i~r,~~~~ "r r ~ A {~ 1 -`-~"ig ~~~ ~, fr' i~~ r:~' ~ 9~r~~~~ '~ 3ng `3.. r M
y 4'~.^~i-. T,t~'~-M~ '~~4 1 ^ L~'~ 3i3 ~ r"~' : I ~ ~- ~R° ~~r ~ ~ r p-~~ r`? ~1'
,{~~Y 5 H+{ T~ ¢w ~f }'~ n++et i^ a. x ri u '~Y' S.. /' }tl' ~p
• ~~ 4`~('ISC` ~~r''~y{~~+~'C~F_;.t . - ~~tti, ~; ~.~7~~ v~ ~ ~ ~vt~e~ '.-.x, s- '"`` s` ~`* y~ "~: ~ ye +w F''
ti -~~r &-ryF"K~~ R < P }~,9~9{'v b aa., t~ i s ..r sT' ~~ s ~r ~ ,+{~.~Cx~Sr
9r^J. ~.;s #~Y.~I,l~w^•sY ~'4 Y • '""` #i t .Y^ ~~ ~ ~ a
w 1' S ~ w ...
r ~ r_y„ "%~y "`pp Y P w` s rN5 f Y e ,y{p f~ ~ «titi `~ i
T ""~, ~H4~`~ 11~ ~`j~ f '_ S - ~ ~ }t~ x ~JT~.w ~Y yY~A.''i~f~
t1x s. {'~ s "I ;.+~ .>,Tr-+v. • ~' ! ~7'Y+' d Thu ~ "' ~.i
5~ 'per ~ i-~ o-F ~ h" ts'- ~~~ P ~~ r $fl
}~ ,6A _
use f ~~a ~~la~ ~ ` ~,e,*L....f ~yy h • 4 _ Y A ~ !~L f .r _ ~ "n` ~
~y~~ry~ '~~L'~~ ~ ~ry~F F p;y~ ~ ~ _ " i ~ ~ 1 ~ Yom- ~{.~
~~ ~ I~T YAM Y•~. 1TM1Y~~~ _ t t~,.. ~ ~'F~ ~~ - • x , {ryy(~`,~
G M ~~ Iv ~ ,~y yy~~; M1' A+,,,,
rk+"ra < : r ~ ~ qp tG'x 7R+r
,,yy ~r ~ : "~+ V a
~~ M~ 5 (~'y~ Q e ~ c ~ ffr~' JSG~ fi ' ~ RY ~ IP I ~ 'INL4 ,r~'yq W.a xy~`~
~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ i+ i I~ ~ • ~7~,"`Y h~ ; ~ '. , .eu i r ~ m ~ttt q '~ ~ - r ~ VY~+.~~ x'
i pf
~~~~~-~. ~ y~ ~'7 m ~ i k it i -1,,, v ~ w 1 ~ ,~ ~ ~~ri ~7~
'1rY , l- i1Pr ~,~,. ~. 3N x ~i5 h1~1 ~ q .,~T}y, ti. 1
t jy~~ ~~~'' } a >+y~µy+ y'
.ei ~~~ r 'Pr~~`,M ~_~~~~.~ ~'}itt' ~ ~ ~r MvT fi -!K •Wi'`S ~'.-. :ISU~S2
Exhibit A
Part Three
April 9, 2008
A31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................
II. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS .................................................
A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS ...........................................
SCAG's 2007 RHNA ...............................................................
City's Population Estimate at Build-Out ..................................
Population and Age Distribution .............................................
School Enrollment ...................................................................
Ethnicity ...................................................................................
B. EMPLOYMENT ...:.........................................................................
Income ....................................................................................
Per Capita Income ..................................................................
E I t St t
I-1
mp oymen a us .............................................................................................. _
Poverty Status ..................................................................................................II - 10
HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................
A. EXISTING HOUSING AND PROJECTIONS .....................
Vacancy ........................................................................
B. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS ........................................
Households Overburdened by Housing Costs .............
Overcrowding ...........................
IV
V
.............................
C. HOUSING CONDITIONS ...............................:..............
Substandard Units ...................................................
Target Areas for Assistance ....................................
VACANT LAND INVENTORY .............................................
A. VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND .....................................
Vacant Land Capacity Analysis ...............................
Vacant Land Suitable for Affordable Housing .........
Units in the Processing Stream ...............................
Units Projected at Build-out .....................................
Annexation Potential ................................................
B. LAND INVENTORY .......................................................
Hillside Residential District ......................................
Estate Residential District ........................................
Very Low Residential District ...................................
Low Residential District ...........................................
Low Medium Residential District .............................
Medium Residential District .....................................
Medium High Residential District .............................
High Residential District .......................................:..
NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ..........................
A. REGIONAL ECONOMIC CLIMATE .............................:
B. HOUSING DEMAND .....................................................
C. AVAILABILITY OF JOBS ...............................................
D. VACANCY RATE ...........................................................
E. PRICE OF LAND ...........................................................
F. COST OF CONSTRUCTION ........................................
G. AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING ....................................
H. INTEREST RATES ........................................................
..................III - 1
..................III - 1
..................III - 2
...........III - 2
.................. I I I - 2
......III - 3
III-4
................ I I I - 4
III-4
IV-1
IV-1
............ IV - 1
... IV - 3
............ IV - 3
IV-4
.IV-4
..... IV - 5
.......... IV - 9
...IV-11
......... IV - 12
...... IV - 13
......... IV - 13
............. V - 1
............. V - 2
..V-3
.... V - 4
............ V - 5
.............. V - 5
.............. V - 6
............. V - 6
City of Rancho Cucamonga TA - 1 - ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Technical Appendix
•
•
A-32
• I.
J. PRICE OF HOUSING ....................................................................................
PUBLIC OPINION .......................................................................................... ......... V - 8
......... V - 8
VI. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ................................................................... ........ VI - 1
A. LAND USE CONTROLS ................................................................................ ........ VI - 1
Residential Land Use Categories ............................................................ ........ VI - 1
Performance Standard Criteria ................................................................ ........ VI - 2
Environmental Assessment Requirements ............................................. ........ VI - 2
Design Criteria ......................................................................................... ........ VI - 3
Specific Plan Designations ...................................................................... ........ VI - 3
Development Standards .......................................................................... ........ VI - 3
Parking Standards ...................................................................:............... ........ VI - 8
Annexation Potential ................................................................................ ........ VI - 9
B. BUILDING CODES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT ...................................... ........ VI - 9
Building Code Requirements ................................................................... ........ VI - 9
Housing for Persons with Disabilities/Reasonable Accommodations ..... ........ VI - 9
Code Enforcement ................................................................................... ...... VI - 11
C. SITE IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................ ...... VI - 11
D. FEES AND OTHER EXACTIONS REQUIRED OF DEVELOPERS ............. ...... VI - 11
Building Permit Fees ................................................................................ ...... VI - 11
Water and Sewer Service ........................................................................ ...... VI - 12
School Facilities ....................................................................................... ...... VI - 13
Financing for Required Infrastructure ...................................................... ...... VI - 14
E. LOCAL PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES ................................ ...... VI - 15
F. REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .................................... ...... VI - 16
Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions ...................... ...... VI - 16
Second Dwelling Units ............................................................................. ...... VI - 17
Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance ............................................ ...... VI - 17
VII. SPECIAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS GROUPS ..................................... ....... VII - 1
A. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ................................................................... ....... VII - 1
B. ELDERLY ....................................................................................................... ....... VII - 5
C. LARGE FAMILY ............................................................................................. ....... VII -6
Family Type/Tenancy ...........................:.............................:..................... ...... VII - 6
Cost Burden .............................................................................................. ...... VII -.7
Overcrowding and Substandard Condition .............................................. ...... VII - 7
D. FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS .............................................................. ....... VII - 8
E. HOMELESS .................................................................................................... ......VII-9
F. FARMWORKERS .......................................................................:.................. ..... VII - 10
G. EMERGENCY SHELTERS ............................................................................ .... VII - 11
H. TRANSITIONAL SHELTERS ......................................................................... .... VII - 11
VIII. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES .................................................. ..... VIII - 1
A. WATER CONSERVATION ..............................................:...........:................ :..... VIII - 1
B. TITLE 24 ......................................................................................................... ..... VIII - 1
C. DEVELOPMENT CODE/ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ....................................... ..... VIII - 1
D. GREEN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... ..... VIII - 2
IX. ST UDY OF UNITS AT-RISK OF CONVERTING TO MARKET RATE ................ ....... IX - 1
A. INVENTORY OF UNITS AT-RISK ................................................................. ....... IX - 1
B. ANALYSIS OF PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS AT-RISK ............... ....... IX - 2
Preservation Costs ...................................................................................
Unit Re
lacement Cost ....... IX - 2 .,
IX - 3
.............................................................................
p .......
City of Rancho Cucamonga TA - 2 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Technical Appendix
A~33
Comparison of Preservation vs. Replacement Costs ............................. ........ IX - 4
C.
AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR CONSERVATION AND/OR •
REPLACEMENT OF UNITS AT-RISK .......................................................... ........ IX - 5
County of San Bernardino Bond Program ............................................... ........ IX - 5
City Bond Program .................................................................................: ........ IX - 5
Private Non-Profit Agencies .........................................::......................... ........ IX - 5
Public Agencies ....................................................................................... ........ IX - 6
Redevelopment Agency Funding ............................................................ ........ IX - 7
D. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING
UNITS AT-RISK ............................'................................................................ ........ IX - 7
E. PROGRAMS FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS AT-RISK ........ ........ IX - 7
Program 1 ................................................................................................ ........ IX - 7
Program 2 ....:........................................................................................... ........ IX - 8
Program 3 ................................................................................................ ........ IX - 8
Program 4 ................................................................................................ ........ IX - 8
Program 5 ................................................................................................ ........ IX - 8
X. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN .................. ......... X - 1
A. HOUSING PRODUCTION: QUANTITATIVE REQUIREMENTS ................. ......... X - 2
Residential Units Produced and Projected to be Developed .................. ......... X - 2
Production Units Required Within the Redevelopment Area .................. ......... X - 2
Production Units Provided ....................................................................... ......... X - 5
B. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOURCES .............................................. ......... X - 6
RDA Funding Resources ......................................................................... ......... X - 6
RDA Land Bank Resources .................................................................... ......... X - 7
Redevelopment Area Vacant Land Resources ....................................... ......... X - 7
C.
PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES .................................. •
....... X - 11
D. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................. ....... X - 14
State Mandates ........................................................................................ ....... X - 14
Housing Replacement Rule ..................................................................... ....... X - 15
Housing Replacement Requirement ....................................................... ....... X - 15
Term Length of Affordability .................................................................... ....... X - 17
Low-Income Housirig Production Rule .................................................... ....... X - 17
Mandated Housing Production Plan Requirement .................................. ....... X - 18
E. CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. ....... X - 18
Housing Element of the General Plan ..................................................... ....... X - 18
Units At-Risk Study .................................................................................. ....... X - 19
Implementation Plan ................................................................................ ....... X - 19
Western Center for Law and Poverty Settlement .................................... ....... X - 19
California Constitution: Article 34 -Public Housing Project Law ............ ....... X - 20
XI. EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR THE
2000 HOUSING ELEMENT .......................................................: ................................. XI - 1
Objective 1 ...................................................................... ................................. XI - 1
Objective 2 ...................................................................... ................................. XI - 3
Objective 3 ...................................................................... ................................. XI - 8
Objective 4 ...................................................................... ................................. XI - 9
Objective 5 ...................................................................... ............................... XI - 10
Objective 6 ...................................................................... ............................... XI - 14
Objective 7 ...................................................................... ............................:.. XI - 15
Objective 8 ...................................................................... ............................... XI - 16
Objective 9 ...................................................................... ~ .
............................... XI - 17
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ TA - 3 April 2008
2008 Housing Element -
Technical Appendix
A~34
• Section I -INTRODUCTION
The Technical Appendix contains the detailed analysis of the required components of the City's
Housing Element (California Government Code §65583, Et seq.). Demographic data is updated
throughout the Technical Appendix, using annual data from the City, California Department of
Finance, and Census 2000 information. Many Tables compare Census 2000 data with 1990
Census data. The Technical Appendix includes the following sections:
• Section I: Introduction.
• Section II: An analysis of population and employment trends.
• Section III: An analysis and documentation of household characteristics.
• Section IV: An inventory of vacant land suitable for residential development.
• Section V: An analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels.
• Section VI: An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the
maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels.
• Section VII: An analysis of special housing needs.
• Section VIII: An analysis of opportunities for energy conservation.
• Section IX: An analysis of units restricted and affordable tolow-income~families that are at-risk
of converting to market rate. .
• Section X: The Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan.
• Section XI: Evaluation of programs included in the 2000 Housing Element.
These sections of the Technical Appendix provide the background and technical basis for the 2008
Housing Element. ,
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga I - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section I -Introduction
A35
Section II -POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS •
Consistent with the California Government Code §65583(a)(1), this section provides '(a]n analysis of
population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the
locality's existing and projected housing needs fora/l income levels, including extremely low income
households ...." This section also includes an analysis of the City's share of the Southern California
Association of Government's ("SCAG") 2007 Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA").
• On January 1, 2007, the State Department of Finance ("DOF") population estimate for Rancho
Cucamonga was 172,331. This represents a population increase of 286 percent since
incorporation, up from 44,600 in 1978.
• Based on current zoning, a vacant land study indicates the City's build-out population will be
between 189,323 and 191,091, with build-out anticipated to occur between 2010 and 2020.
• By 2000, 61,950 City residents were employed.
• In 2000, the City a labor force of 65,509 persons aged 16 years and older, by 2006 the labor
force had increased to 83,745.
• In 2006, Rancho Cucamonga's median household income was $75,429 and the County's
median household income was $52,941.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan
Statistical Area ("MSA"). Metropolitan statistical areas are geographic entities defned by the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget for use by Federal statistical agencies in collecting, tabulating,
and publishing Federal statistics. The following statistics are applicable to the Riverside-San
Bernardino-Ontario MSA:
Po ulation .-
2,031,625
2,028,013
Labor Force 922,600 915,000
Em to ed 862,900 863,200
Unem to ed 59,700 51,800
Unem to ment Rate 6.5% 5.7%
Per Ca ita Income 2004 $26,448 $25,105
t,Source:'~~~..State°of:CalifomiafiEED~LatiorlMarket;Info~mstioniDivision~~~t r-:>:-. ..: ,"-"~~:"~ "r .5. , r. ,: " ~=,t".:^;i-~
The region is generally characterized by three decades of rapid growth. According to census, the
unincorporated area which became Rancho Cucamonga had a 1970 population of 16,043; Rancho
Cucamonga incorporated in 1977. The June 1, 1978, DOF population estimate was 44,600. By
1980, the population had increased to 55,250, 101,409 in 1990, and 127,743 in 2000. The
January 1, 2007 DOF population estimate was 172,331.
The region's and the City's growth is directly related to residential and economic development in
Orange and Los Angeles Counties. As land costs increase in the City and siab-region;
homebuilders, developers, and employers continue to look at Rancho Cucamonga for less
expensive land than may be available in Orange, Los Angeles, or Riverside counties.
A. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
•
Although the City experienced a significant amount of population growth during the"last 7 years, the
City's peak year of growth, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of population increase
was in 1988 when the population increased by 12,183, and increase of 17.1 percent. During the •
years of 2000 to 2007 the City's population increased an average of 6,369 persons per year, an
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ II - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section II -Population Characteristics
A36
• average percentile increase of 4.3 percent.
During the last growth cycle, the peak year of residential growth occurred in 2003 where the
population increased by 9,265 persons, an increase of 6.7 percent over the prior year. Additionally;
in terms of absolute growth, 3 of the highest years of population increase occurred during the last 5
years (i.e., 2003, 2004, and 2006). Population growth for the previous 21 years is shown in Table II-
2.
r~
U
•
.. ~..
1985
~..
58,475
•.~
;`~s~~~:._.w~`.~ ~~":'.~t'S
'1'uws.;:.,. sn3.;~'`°:..t,~`~r.x:::= :r~;
1986 65,193 6,718 11.5%
1987 71,289 6,096 9.5%
1988 83,472 12,183 17.1%
1989 90,540 7,068 8.8%
1990 101,409 10,869 12.0%
1991 105,139 3, 730 6.7
1992 109,761 4,622 4.4%
1993 111, 541 1, 780 1.6%
1994 112, 698 1,157 1.0%
1995 114,587 1,889 1.7%
1996 115, 937 1, 350 1.0%
1997 117,294 1,357 1.3%
1998 119,137 1, 843 1.6%
1999 121,840 2,703 2.3%
2000 127,743 5,903 4.8%
2001 131, 381 3, 638 2.8
2002 138,082 6,701 5.1
2003 147,347 9,265 6.7%
2004 155,437 8,090 5.4%-
2005 161, 867 6,430 4.1
2006 170,372 8,505 5.2%
2007 172, 331 1, 959 1:1
~..e .....,.
t Fo` ul"atlon, ro .. .~:,,.
wth b ~Federal¢cerisus~ - _
- ~7~#'` , . ' ' -`;
~~ ~. ~:~
~~;;;+.~ ~1";~~ ~~.
1980 55,250 ~~~ ~"~~ ~~+';~~£~
,.. ~._ ,. ~~~~~ ~ ~~~"3~,~n~
1990 101,409 46,159 83.5%
2000 127,743 26,334 25.9%
2007 172,331 44,588 34.9%
Souice:: All fi u{es DOF January, 0 ' esfiniate except -"` - `" ~ ~~" - ,~, .
1 ~~-. 1980: Census, `~ T'," ~ - - •~ ~' ~" -
2 y'.,,~1990 Census ~~ ,= --,
. r; .. ..
:.~ ~ ,
Slow growth periods in the 1980's and 1990's have similar average growth rate percentages, roughly
in the 1.0 percent to 2.0 percent rate of growth. These low growth rates are generally attributable to
high interest rates, post-Proposition 13 shift of new infrastructure costs from property taxes to impact
fees, tight lending policies, a general uncertainty in the real estate market, and an economic
recession. High growth periods in the early 2000's are attributable to growth in the City economic
base, land speculation, easing of lending practices, and other practices to increase home
ownership.
Gity of Rancho Cucamonga II - 2
2008 Housing Element
Section II -Population Characteristics
A-37
SCAG's 2007 RHNA •
The State Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") provides each regional
Council of Governments ("COGS") its share of the statewide housing need. In turn, all COGS,
including the SCAG, are required by State law to determine the portion allocated to each jurisdiction
in their region; this allocation process is referred to as the RHNA. The RHNA allocates to cities and
counties within the SCAG region their "fair share" of the regions' projected housing need by
household income group for the planning period.. The 2007 RHNA covers the planning period
starting January 1, 2006 through June 30, 2014. The most recent RHNA establishes a fair share
housing rieed of 1,282 housing units for Rancho Cucamonga (Tables II-3 & II-4). Based on the
availability of vacant residentially zoned land, the City will meet and likely exceed its regional fair
share allocation for this planning period.
.. - rl
. ~~
.. .~
Ve Low Income 317 248 0 69
Low-Income 216 148 0 68
Moderate-Income 245 245 0 0
Above Moderate Income 504 504 0 0
Total 1,282 1,145 0 137
I Source:' SCAG. ~.~- ~.,
The City's housing stock increased from 42,134 housing units in 2000 to 55,180 housing units in
2008, an increase of 13,406 total housing units. As of January 1, 2008, there were approximately
3,330 residential units in the processing stream. This includes a total of 1,019 units thatwere either
under staff review or had received Planning Commission approval, but had not advanced to the final
map stage. A total of 2,311 units were in final map state and of these 513 units have been issued
building permits. Between 2000 and 2006 new construction was primarily available to moderate and
above moderate income households; for example, those with equity from the sale of an existing
home. Additionally, there were 2 units of rehabilitation and 117 units of conserved or acquired
housing available to low- and very low-income households.
Between 2000 to 2007, the average number of persons per household also increased from 3.037
persons to 3.197 persons.
City's Population Estimate at Build-Out
As vacant land decreases the rate of building is expected to decrease so that build-out will likely
occur between 2015 and 2020. Based on the City's General Plan, the number of housing units at
build-out will range between 61,063 and 61,630 (Table IV-2). At the current household size of 3.197
persons this equals a population range of 195,218 and 197,031 persons.
•
Applying a 3.02 percent vacancy factor would result in 59,219 to 59,769 occupied units. Applying
the 3.197 persons per unit occupancy rate, the build-out the population would then range from
189,323 to 191,091 persons. •
City of Rancho Cucamonga II - 3 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section II -Population Characteristics
A-38
• Population and Age Distribution
The median age for Rancho Cucamonga is increasing, but the largest age cohorts are still the
school age group, 5-19 years, and the young adult group, 20-34 years. The median age has
increased from 26.6 in 1980, to 29.7 in 1990, and to 32.2 in 2000. The following Figure
demonstrates a maturing population, evident by the increase in median age, but also the significant
population increases in the 35-44 and 45 to 64 age cohorts.
FIGURE II-1: Population Distribution by Age
35,000
30,000
25,000
0 20,000
w
c~
a
a 15,000
•
10,000
5,000
0
Source: 1990 Census
Census 20D0
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga II - 4 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section II -Population Characteristics
A-39
Under 5 5 to 19 20 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 64 65+
Age
0 1990 ^ 2000
Table II-5 further summarizes the City's 2000 age distribution. This table shows that a significant .
proportion of the City population is relatively young, with the largest age cohort being age 35 to 44.
More significantly, 39.7 percent of the population is under age 25 and 47.6 percent is aged 25 to 54.
., ~.• ~
.
Total Po ulation Year 2000
~~
127,743
100.0%
Median a e ears 32.2 N/A
Under 5 ears 8,900 7.0%
5 to 9 ears 10,984 8.6%
10 to 14 ears 11,620 9.1%
15 to 19 ears 10,639 8.3%
20 to 24 ears 8,622 6.7%
25 to 34 ears 18,686 14.6%
35 to 44 ears 23,720 18.6%
45 to 54 ears 18,391 14.4%
55 to 59 ears 5,174 4.1%
60 to 64 ears 3,219 2.5%
65 to 74 ears 4,515 3.5%
74 to 85 ears 2,583 2.0%
85 ears and over 690 0.5%
Souroe:".~.Census~2000 ~TatlIe;DP_=1 ~. ~-,.:,:."§'` ,~:. .,-
^ . ~s. s.g?~ .~ . -~~ sG - -
School Enrollment
Table II-6 below shows that over 33.6 percent of the year 2000 population was enrolled in school.
As of year 2000, 86.0 percent of the population had obtained a high school education and 23.3
percent had obtained a bachelor's degree or higher education.
..
Total Population (Year 2000) • -. ..
.•
127,743
N/A
School Enrollment 42,875 100.0%
Nurse School, Preschool 2,122 4.9%
Kinder arten 2,135 5.0%
Elements School Grades 1-8 18,691 43.6%
Hi h School Grades 9-12 9,234 21.5%
Colle e or Graduate School 10,693 24.9%
Source:°:°Census2000jTable-DP=2 ~° ~-: ~°~ -~.~~ - '~^~~~ - ~ - ---
Ethnicity
Census 2000 provides some detailed demographic characteristics for Rancho Cucamonga.
Historically, the Rancho Cucamonga population consisted predominantly of the white race, ranging
from 78.9 percent in 1980, to 68.6 percent in 1990, to 66.5 percent in 2000; in absolute terms, the
City's minority population nearly quadrupled during the same time ranging from
21.1 percent (11,657) in 1980, 31.4 percent (31,842) in 1990, to 33.5 percent (42,756) in 2000.
The Census Bureau changed the enumeration of races with the 2000 Census. This change in the
way races are counted significantly altered the ability to effectively evaluate racial trends between
the 2000 and 1980 or 1990 census. However, under the one race data provided below, whites
represent 66.5 percent of the City's total population. Those who identified themselves as whites
alone were 71.0 percent of the total population in 2000.
•
I
City of Rancho Cucamonga. II - 5 - April 2008
2008 Housing Element. _
Section II -Population Characteristics
A-40
..-
Total Po ulation Year 2000
•
,.
127,743
.~
100.0%
,~
89,598
.. ,-
100,0%
One Race 120,829 94.6% 85,969 95.9%
White 84,987 66.5% 61,253 - 68.4%
Black or African American 10,059 7.9% 7,077 7.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native 855 0.7% 650 0.7%
Asian 7,656 6.0% 5,675 6.3%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander 341 0.3% 207 0.2%
Some other race 16,931 13.3% 11,107 12.2%
Two or more races
r:FiISPANICkOR~IArTIN01F_fND1RACE~:t}r,~`'s.'~,~ 6,914
~``~._~"- ~~ 5.4%
~~1 3,629
~`S'~`i~~°~"'' 4.0%
~>4~
Total Po ulation 127,743 100.0% N/A N/A
His anic or Latino of an race 35,941 27.8% N/A N/A
Not His anic or Latino Race 92,252 72.2% N/A N/A
White alone 70,028 54.8% N/A N/A
zRACErAL°-°-"ONE{~OR3INECOMBINFTIONkWITHdONEORiMORERHCES a~`~n~ ~~°~ ^ ~:~,
White 90,760 71.0% N/A N/A
Black or African American 11,325 8.9% N/A N/A
American Indian and Alaska Native 2,061 1.6% N/A N/A
Asian 9,388 7.3% N/A N/A
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 723 0.6% N/A N/A
Some other race 20,805 16.3% N/A N/A
Souiceh 'Censusl2000jT9tilelDP__=9d8iSumrria Table;File1, SF 1 -~"
'
1 •:~@ In combinahon'with~;orielor more dt6er racestlisted: The six numbers may gild to more'thah the total pdpulatidMand'the six-~
.. .:- .erce^.~ -:.,
' - ~ ~ p ntages,may'add!to more thari>100 percent~.because intlividuals m~:re'~ort,more9han one race°;::::: ~ '~ ~~ ,. "'
B. EMPLOYMENT
Based upon information from the City's Economic Profile, from 1991 to 2005 employment in firms
and agencies located in the City more than doubled, rising an average of 6.9 percent per year to go
from 24,670 to 63,004 jobs. Together, the manufacturing, distribution and construction sectors
accounted for 31.0 percent of this growth, as the City's economic base expanded. Retailing
accounted for 21.7 percent, both because existing retailers reacted to the larger economic base and
because several new power centers opened along the City's major arterial roads and a new regional
mall. In 2003-2005, Rancho Cucamonga's job growth rates were an aggressive 7.7 percent, 8.0
percent and 6.6 percent, far exceeding those of the Inland Empire (3.3 percent, 5.3 percent, and 4.8
percent), California's fastest growing region.
At the time of the 2000 Census, 61,950 residents, or 48.9 percent of the population was employed.
Tables II-8A and II-8B show the industries these residents were employed with and the respective
percentage of the labor force. The three largest employment sectors were education, health and
social services at 20.9 percent, retail trade at 13.2 percent, and manufacturing at 12.9 percent.
Correspondingly, the two highest occupation sectors are management, professional and related
occupations at 35.6 percent and sales and office occupations at 30.5 percent.
City of Rancho Cucamonga II - 6 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section II -Population Characteristics
A ~41
.. .. ,
A riculture, forest ,fishin and huntin ,and minin
r-
222
0.4%
Construction 3,935 6.4%
Manufacturin 7,974 12.9%
Wholesale trade. 2,877 4.6%
Retail trade 8,157 13.2%
Trans ortation and warehousin and utilities 4,124 6.7%
Information 1,793 2.9%
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasin 4,763 7.7%
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste
mana ement services 4,907 7.9%
Educational, health and social services 12,946 20.9%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services 3,898 6.3%
Other services exce t ublic administration 2,963 4.8%
Public administration 3,391 5.5%
Total 61,950
tSourcer..Census`2000:TatileiDR?3 .. ,.:;, ~,~+: ~ e +,a :.. r,.;;: t , ~,~ ,.i.:er~;~ _. >5~e » s...:;. . , . ' ~.:
.. . ~ ..
• .. •
Mana ement, rofessional and related occu ations
r-
22,080
35.6%
Service occu ations 8,164 13.2%
Sales and office occu ations 18,918 30.5%
Farmin ,fishin ,and forest occu ations 117 0.2%
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occu ations 5,248 8.5%
Production, trans ortation, and material movin occu ations 7,423 12.0%
Total 61,950
rSourcei~ CCensus,2000tTatile:DP3 ... K+.. ~.,c-.r' + -. :~.?~- G ` r •:'-`
City of Rancho Cucamonga. II - 7 April 2008
2008 Housing ElerneM...
Section II -Population Characteristics -
A -42
• Income
The 2000 Census identified the median household income for Rancho Cucamonga at $60,931,
increasing to $75,429 in 2006, significantly higher than the San Bernardino County median
household income at $42,066 in 2000 and $52,941 in 2006. In 2007, for Federal assistance
programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development identified a median income of
$59,200 for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA.
FIGURE II-2: Mean Income Levels
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
•
~, $60,000
> $50,000
a~
~ $40,000
0
~ $30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Average Income
0 1980 ^ 1990 0 2000 0 2006
•
Source: 1980 Census
1990 Census
Census 2000, Table DP-1
US Census Bureau, American Factfinder, Selected Economic Criteria 2006
City of Rancho Cucamonga II - 8 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section II -Population Characteristics
A-43
Per Capita Median Household Median Family
Per Capita Income •
Rancho Cucamonga residents consistently earn a higher per capita income than residents of the
three surrounding jurisdictions and higher than the State average. The Rancho Cucamonga per
capita income was 4.2 percent higher than the State average per capita income in 2000, and
10 percent higher than the State per capita income in 2006.
.. .~
California
$22,711
$26,974
San Bernardino Count $16,856 $20,728
Rancho Cucamon a $23,702 $29,979
U land $23,343 $27,588
Fontana $14,208 $19, 090
Ontario $14,244 $20, 397
Source-: -0ensus'2000 Table.DP-1 ,.~ ~::.: ; -_:..- ~.;;° ~_,;:; ;+- ~-,•',
' ~ ~ ~"~. ,US"Ceii3us Bureau American Factfirider Selected Economic Characteristics 2006 ~.- . ~ r v r
e'° :~~ ^ ~ ~~
Employment Status
The City has a sizeable labor force that increased by 27.8 percent (18,236) between 2000 and~2006.
During this time the unemployment rate increased from 3.7 percent to 4.0 percent, an increase of
1,226 unemployed persons. During the same period the City achieved a marginal increase in the
employment rate percentage of the population increasing from 65.7 percent to 66.5 percent, yet in
absolute terms this represents an increase in 16,723 persons.
.. r ~ .
..
Po ulation 16 ears and over
i
~~
94,364
n
100.0%
i
.~
118,236
r.
100.0%
In labor force 65,509 69.4% 83,745 70.6%
Civilian labor force 65,482 69.4% 83,431 70.5%
Em to ed 61,950 65.7% 78,673 66.5%
Unem to ed 3,532 3.7% 4,758 4.0%
Armed forces 27 0.0% 314 0.2%
Not in labor force 28,855 30.6% 34,491 29.2%
Females 16 ears and over 47,752 100.0% 59,185 100.0%
In labor force 30,608 64.1 % 37,716 63.7%
Em to ed 28,811 60.3% 35,846 60.6%
Source Censug,2000 Table~DP-3 ~~~- ---~ ~ ,s ~' ,.~„ a `t y , ~`~(, x •;_i
».`,~US.Census`Bureaui:Amencan~Factfinder, Selected~Ecpnomic Characlenstics:2006 :F;; ~ - -
•
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga II - 9 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section II -Population Characteristics
A 44
• Poverty Status
The 2000 Census identified that there were 1,574 families and 8,955 individuals below the poverty
level in 1999. Although this number is significant at 4.9 percent and 7.1 percent of the population,
respectively, by far the most significant criteria relates to female headed householders. Although
the figure does not represent a significant number of persons relative to the overall population of the
City, the figure is significant in that 24:2 percent of the families with a female headed household,
with no husband present, and with children under 5 years live below the poverty level. Table II-11
summarizes the Rancho Cucamonga poverty level in 1999.
•
... .,
.
Families
2,271
~~
~.
1,574
.• .
..
4.9%
With related children under 18 ears 20,073 1,200 6.0%
With related children under 5 ears 7,221 523 7.2%
Families with female householder, no
husband resent 5,279 653 12.4%
With related children under 18 ears 3,692 587 15.9%
With related children under 5 ears 1,100 266 24.2%
All individuals for whom poverty status is
determined 125,390 8,955 7.1
Under 18 ears 37,561 3,074 8.2%
65 ears and over 7,739 562 •7.3%
All individuals below:
50 ercent of ove level 4,292
125 ercent of ove level 11,677
130 ercent of overt level 12,415
'SourceSCerisus'2000 Summa :Table;4' SF4 °-Sam-le:Data ~ ~" -.+,~ -:'~ '~- ~ ~•, ".~ 1f k `"=`Co
City of Rancho Cucamonga II - 10 April 2008
2008 Housing Element ~ -
Section II -Population Characteristics
A-45
Section III -HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
California Government Code (§65583(a)(2)) requires "an analysis and documentation ofhousehold •
characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics,
including overcrowding, and housing stock conditions." The following points are the highlights of
this section.
There were 42,209 residential units ready for occupancy on January 1, 2000. By State estimate
there were 54,412 residential units-ready for occupancy on January 1, 2007.
• From 1990 to 2000 the housing stock increased 16.7 percent or around 1.5 percent per year.
Between 2000 and end of 2006, the unit growth increased to around 4.8 percent annually
reflecting the overall growth trends in the San Bernardino Inland Empire area.
In 1990 and 2000, approximately 70 percent of housing units were owner-occupied. This data
generally reflects stability in ratio of multiple family and single family development.
In 2000, renter households 36.8 percent experienced cost burden and 13.9 percent experienced
severe cost burden and 32.5 percent of owner households experienced cost burdens and 10.2
percent experienced severe cost burden.
• In 2000, 11 percent of renter households and 4.6 percent of owner households were living in
overcrowded housing by the recognized Federal standard.
In general, housing conditions are still good. Since 2000, the housing units within the City have
grown by 29.35 percent, or 4.9 percent annually.
No more than 570 units, or 1 percent, of the 1990 housing stock was substandard by Federally
recognized factors, other than the potential for lead paint. At least 83 percent of substandard •
units are assumed to be suitable for rehabilitation.
A. EXISTING HOUSING AND PROJECTIONS
The 1990 Census identified a total of 36,169 dwelling units in the City. As of January 1, 2000, the
California Department of Finance ("DOF") reports identified 42,065 units occupied or ready for
occupancy. Estimates for 2007 raised the total unit count to 54,412 (DOF E-5 Report). The
resurgence of the housing market to the San Bernardino County area has resulted in an average
annual unit growth of 4.8 percent for the City.
Historically, the regional economic trend was the best indicator of residential construction activity;
however,' the decreasing availability of vacant land also influences construction activity. The
increased numbers for the City also are partially the resultthe residential development of annexation
areas.
Most residents of the City live in owner-occupied housing. The ratio of owner-occupied to renter-
occupied housing has remained at around 70 percent between 1990 and 2000. The ratio of renter-
occupied housing toowner-occupied housing is expected remain the same as the City approaches
build-out.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008 Housing Element
Section III -Housing Characteristics
A-46
•
•
. -. . -.
•r trr •r rr r
Single Family 20,219 85.5 25,191 87.4 2,928 29.3 3,471 28.5
Detached
Single Family . 1,843 7.8 2,024 7.0 1,429 14.3 2,181 17.9
Attached & 2-4 Units
5 or More Units 234 1.0 343 1.2 5,471 54.7• 6,429 52.9
Mobile Homes 1,256 5.3 1,244 4.3 73 0.7 73 0.6
Other 87 0.3 12 0.0 96 1.0 8 0.1
Total 23,639 70.0 28,814 70.3' 9,997 30.0 12,162 29.7
-Source: 1990.Census ~Y--- = 1=4 -`: ~-. -, ~- -
rv
_
-
~
'
~ ~~'~
~.1
_, 2006 Census u datel ~" ,:~
v.>-.: ; +~ ..-'<..
-
-
Vacancy
In comparing vacancy rates by dwelling unit type for 1990 and 2000, the overall vacancy rate
decreased from 7.5 percent in 1990 to 3.0 percent in 2000. The vacancy rate for buildings with five
or more units was significantly higher than for other unit types. The City believes that the census
overstated the 1990 vacancy rate by approximately 3.5 percent through field survey errors which
resulted in the unexpected vacancy rate for 5+ units at nearly 15 percent.
.~ ~ -. .-
•t ttt •t rlr •t r~r
SF Detached 24,527 29,286 1,469 624 5.9 2.1
SF Attached 2,238 2,538 147 94 6.6 3.7
2 Units 100 237 11 8 11.0. 3.4
3 & 4 Units 1,166 1,561 46 29 3.9 1.9
5 + Units 6,810 7,232 1,015 460 14.9 6.4
Mobile Homes 1,346 1,355 26 38 1.9 2.8
Source:: 4990Ceiisus ~~. t '~!. r r
' , ~ ~ ~ ~^ + yea
Cerisus,2000 Census `:'"
SCAO~~S'um
a Sage i
' ~
r ~
,~~~ ~ ~'
'~~ ~ ~` ~,
'~
-~
m
File 3
i . t! v
~
B. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
The average household size determined by the 1990 Census was 3.015 persons per household,
3.03 in 2000, and based on the 2007 State Estimates, was 3.2 in 2006. The City's average has
recently been generally equal to the County household size of 3.3 in 2006.
Households Overburdened by Housing Costs
Employment, household income, and the availability of a wide range of housing types directly relate
to housing affordability. Within the City, most owners and renters can afford their housing costs by
the measure of affordability recognized by the Federal government. By Federal standards,
overburdened households spend more than 30 percent of their monthly gross income for housing
costs, including rent and utilities. In renter households 36.8 percent experience cost burden and
13.9 percent experiencing severe cost burden. Among owner households 32.5 percent experience
cost burdens and 10.2 percent experience severe cost burden.
City of Rancho Cucamonga III - 2 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section III -Housing Characteristics
A-47
RENTER
>30 r~
>50
>30 r~
>50
>30 :r~
>50
>30
>50
>30
>50
Elderly 83.8 76.2 91.3 66.2 86.0 7.2 8.0 0.0 65.7 36.9
Small 76.6 61.9 90.4 51.9 69.5 6.4 11.4 0.8 34.2 11.0
Large 86.1 76.6 77.1 25.7 59.1 6.1 9.7 0.0 34.2 12.5
All Other 62.8 56.1 84.4 66.7 72.1 6.3 13.0 0.4 33.0 12.0
Total Renter 76.0 66.1 87.4 53.6 70.7 6.4 11.5 0.5 36.8 13.9
OWNER
Elderly 62.7 55.2 65.5 42.9 39.1 23.9 23.7 4.3 35.3 17.4
Small 68.8 68.8 82.8 66.7 82.4 48.5 24.7 2.6 30.4 8.1
Large 81.8 81.8 82.3 60.1 77.2 24.1 23.7 3.8 30.5 8.1
All Other 63.6 63.6 92.1 78.9 70.0 70.0 36.1 4.8 43.6 16.3
Total Owner 66.1 63.4 78.1 59.4 69.7 68.2 25.7 3.2 32.5 10.2
-TOTAL 72.0 65.0 82.6 56.6 69.4 22.1 22.4 2.6 33.8 11.3
Source ~~ 2000 SOCDS CHAS Data +1 -' ' ,,,# -- ~ ~ ;.w ''~ - -. - ~'? - -
~~ Percentage"of total~:riiimber of houseFiolds 12 176enler,households arid -28 834 owner Households ,'
-. -~' HAMFI~=+Household'Area:Median`:farnilyinoome:•~ '. _ . ,. ... _ . _ _. - -
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms: Severe
overcrowding is defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. Table III-3 presents an analysis of
overcrowding comparing data from both the 1990 and 2000 Census.
The proportion of overcrowded households identified by the 2000 Census shows a slight percentage •
increase of 1.1 percent. However, the total number of units identified as overcrowded increased
from 1,851 in 1990 to 2,688 in 2000. As was the case in 1990, a greater number of renter
households live in crowded conditions than owner households. The number of severely
overcrowded households has increased for both renters and owners.
.~ •
-..
roanw. - ,tu~~
R 'Y
~QWn@r~'„~~d~`l:~tr~ ..
.,r rrt
.- ~-
. :`t,
Ik ~i '~ ~ 4.• i ""`+Ya° 3 wt{ i ~ `Tr'S 2"'y W`C'. +~^ . p, ^g.rv~
~+.z y~dt i>~a"ii'~~~`~!~:hA~Ae"~" $5 £dbs"~a .+a'.~`aSL~vtw.r?.~xSt`~c
en .+-"
1.01 to 1.50 610 2.6 960 3.3
1.50+ 272 1.2 368 1.3
Tota11.01+ 882 3.7 1,328 4.6
R`e"riter~"»_r~~"~?,`u~.j~ ~~~1~~'1~~`a?`t: ~'°Ea'~a~~~.+~:~.k"i~"~T~~~~k":"~'"
1.01 to 1.50 486 4.9 877 7.2
1.5+ 483 4.9 483 4.0
Tota11.01+ 969 9.7 1.360 11.2
.: 5 5.6 f V M
Tofal'i~~~~~:v_,,'~,`cui~,.'; ri Q y ~1~k~v£lh ~ AaL`;f'aF~:~.'r :T9. ~ ..~
~+~~. ~;`~,art.~~,~t,.s';~;'~?C,.53,~~s°Aar.;arzv,.x~tz_r, ~~ 2
~~. `~ ', ~..tt.~ a ~,x
1.01 to 1.50 1,096 3.2 1,837 4.5
1.50+ 755 2.2 851. 2.1
Tota11.01+ 1,851 5.5 2,688 6.6
Source-~~r1990~Census ,~ -~~;s,7= ~ .., :_=. 4, .3, ~-:; ~? :-~ -
• ti.. -- _
City of Rancho Cucamonga III - 3
2008 Housing Element
Section III -Housing Characteristics
•
A-48
•
•
u
C. HOUSING CONDITIONS
In general, the City's housing stock is in good condition. According to the 1990 Census, 36,169
units were available in 1990. A building spurt occurred from 1970-1979 when 31.1 percent, or
11,296 units, were constructed. A larger spurt occurred during the five-year period from 1985-1989
when 33.7 percent, or 12,309 units, were added to the housing stock. The 1990's saw an increase
of: almost 4,800 units, and State estimates for the seven year period starting in 2000 show and
increase of over 12,000 units. Historic preservation programs, Code Enforcement activity, and
CDBG programs are aimed at maintaining older housing stock in residential areas.
Substandard Units
The general definition of a substandard unit is a unit that does not meet the Federal Housing Quality
Standards of the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
Development Code. While it is not possible to determine the number of units that meet these
criteria, the number of units may be estimated by evaluating specific factors that indicate a unit is
substandard. When the potential presence of lead-based paint is subtracted, the number of
substandard units is estimated to be 569, or around 1 percent, of the City's housing stock.
Specifically, the 2000 Census identified incidences of substandard factors, including incomplete
plumbing, lack of complete kitchen and lack of heating fuels, vacant and boarded-up homes, as well
as the potential presence of lead-based paint.
Of the total incidence of 2,315 substandard factors, 83 percent, or 1,922 factors, were considered
suitable for rehabilitation. From January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2007, more than 60single-family
units were demolished. Substandard conditions are also addressed through the CDBG Home
Improvement Program.
.~ .• .. .
~
.- .. ~
.
•
Possible Lead Paint 524 1,222
Lackin Com lete Plumbin Facilities 35 79
Lackin Com lete Kitchen Facilities 46 106
No Tele hone Service 66 1.54
No Heatin Fuel Used 25 58
Total Substandard 696 1,619
Substandard But Rehabable 577 1,343
Source Rancho Cucamonga:Planning Department ':i' ~:'~ t
~
Note ;" 1 "CHAS Databook Table.9~and HUD Technical Bulleh n #1 ~
n -. - ^ .:
2 5. ~ ~'
2000 Census Percentage of Renters and Owriers calculated based on overall citywide proportion (30°/ Renters,'
,
ri., and ZO/°Qwners) ~~-' o ~ ~~: ,~`~.,,....~.
" ' ° .'4;~ -
lion that 83% ofall umtsare~smtatile fodrehablldation ..?
6 ~':~Assum
Target Areas for Assistance
By CDBG Quartile Method Regulations, all census block groups with a 33.07 percent or greater
concentration oflow-income population may qualify as target areas. Two target areas have historic
community identities, Northtown and Southwest Cucamonga. Portions of Old Alta Loma, and the
Rochester Tract, which were previously qualified by a special census, do not qualify for assistance
by the Quartile Method. Historically, City resources, including CDBG and Redevelopment funding
have been focused on Northtown and Southwest Cucamonga. Conservation and rehabilitation of
housing stock has been a priority in the target areas.
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ III - 4
2008 Housing Element
Section III -Housing Characteristics
A-09
.. ~
1990 •. ..
34,449
`' - ' ''
^
1991 36,169 3.18
1992 37,407 1.65
1993 38,114 0.77
1994 38,410 1.15
1995 38,852 1.32
1996 39,702 0.84
1997 40,044 0.86
1998 40,401 0.89
1999 41,193 1.96
2000 42,065 2.12
2001 42,953 2.11
2002 44,425 3.43
2003 46,870 5.50
2004 48, 964 4.45
2005 50, 749 3.65
2006 53,606 5.63
2007 54,412 1.50
z Source:rState~De artmenPof Fi nance .~ ~T.... ~.?~ "tn' ~ "" ' ~ - - ' . -. - ~`` -- .-- ~ - ~ --` ~ "
FIGURE III-1: 2000 Age of Housing Stock by Year Built
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008 Housing Element
Section III -Housing Characteristics
April 2008
A~50
• Section IV -VACANT LAND INVENTORY
Government Code §65583(a)(3) and §65583.2 requires "an inventory of land suitable for
residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment,
and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services for these sites"
The availability of vacant residential land is the primary resource needed to meet affordable
housing demands throughout the City, consistent with the State law. The following points _
identify the highlights of this section: '
• As of January 1, 2008, approximately 868.50 acres of vacant, uncommitted residential land
suitable for development remained within the City. This vacant land will support an
estimated 3,066 to 3,633 dwelling units in a range of land use designations, providing a
variety of housing opportunities through the build-out period.
• As of January 1, 2008, approximately 2,817 residential units were in the processing stream.
Of these, all but 1,019 had received at least Tentative Tract approval from the Planning
Commission.
• As of January 1, 2008, there were a total of 55,180 residential units within the City. The total
number of residential units at build-out is estimated to be between 61,063 and 61,630.
Build-out is expected to occur after 2015.
A. VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND
As of January 1, 2008, approximately 868.50 acres of vacant, uncommitted residential land was
available for development (Table IV-1 ). This compares to approximately 1,747 acres that were
• available for development on January 1, 2000. Further, in order to create more opportunities for
single-family product, both attached and detached housing types, and senior housing
development occurred on several parcels.
Vacant Land Capacity Analysis
•
Uncommitted vacant land will support an estimated 3,066 to 3,633 residential units. Because
the City uses a performance standard for all classifications of residential development, few
projects are built at 100 percent of the density range. The exceptions would be for senior
housing or other affordable housing projects that qualify for a density bonus consistent with the
City's Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus requirements. Based on a survey of actual
density allowances, Table IV-1 represents the projected unit development from vacant
uncommitted land based on a 50 percent and 75 percent density range.
.~
HR <.1-2 du/ac ~• ..
104.22 -~
r~, •
~- ,~
103
•
~• .•
156
ER <.1-1 du/ac 44.11 42 44
VL <.1-2 du/ac 400.08 430 600
L 2-4 dulac 70.46 234 246
LM 4-8 du/ac 185.91 1,107 1,301
M 8-14 du/ac 22.96 238 287
MH 14-24 du/ac 23.05 436 495
H 24-30 du/ac 17.71 476 504
Total 868.50 3,066 3,633
' Source:- Rancho CucamongaFlennmg Department ~,; -~ "»~ .?~- -::
Refei..to TableIV-3A2HJor a~listin oG ro'erties b AP.N 'arcel s¢e General Plan,~Zonin and 'ro f " :-- :`
ected,'umtiievelo ment.:a
City of Rancho Cucamonga IV - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
A-51
u
N
3
C
C
(6
J
C
N
a
N
U7
N
O
U
C
C
(0
U
(6
~_
a
Q
G
Z-' = r
C N _
W
9
~. O
A ~52
U
y
C
_~
a
Q
N
C
d
L_
O
m
N
N
C
E
m
`o
Q
M
J
N
a
m
F
0
N
N
Q:
0
c
a
~ c
m ~
c ~
0
E~~
E c
Uwe
o i0
t rn>
~ ~ I
m>>
d' O ~
=o
om.~
U N ~
•
•
• Vacant Land Suitable for Affordable Housing
With the exception of hillside areas, land suitable for affordable housing is generally available
throughout the City, although because of land costs most of the land in-the Hillside Residential,
Estate Residential, and Very Low Residential Districts will be unsuitable for affordable housing
projects (Map IV-1 ). The two planned communities, Terra Vista, and Victoria, continue to supply
vacant land suitable for a range of housing types. These two planned communities have made
a commitment where, upon the first sale or rental, 15 percent of the total number of units would
be affordable to low- and moderate-income families. Primarily due to market conditions, Terra
Vista had exceeded the terms of its commitment to provide a.maximum of 1,218 affordable units
by 1990. These units are dispersed throughout the planned communities to avoid over
concentrations of low- and moderate-income families in any one area.
In general, multi-family units are more affordable than single-family units. Approximately 63.72
acres of land is available throughout the City in the multi-family density range of eight or more
units per acres, Medium, Medium-High, and High (Table IV-1 ).
Other land located throughout the City is available and feasible for the development of
affordable housing. Affordable units may be achieved through implementation of the City's
Affordable Housing Incentive/Density Bonus Provisions (Development Code §17.40), in
conjunction with the City's Senior Housing Overlay District (Development Code §17.20.040),
through implementation of the proposed Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance, and
through implementation of the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan (Section XI).
Units in the Processing Stream
As of January 1, 2008, there were approximately 3,330 residential units in the processing
• stream. This includes a total of 1,019 units that were either under staff review or had received
Planning Commission approval, but had not advanced to the final map stage. A total of 2,311
units were in final map state and of these 513 units have been issued building permits.
Units Projected at Build-Out
The total number of residential units at build-out is estimated to be between 61,063 and 61,630
(Table IV-2). This estimate is based on an analysis of existing units, .units in the processing
stream, and the Vacant Land Capacity Analysis. On January 1, 2008 there were 55,180 total
dwelling units in the City and there were another 2,817 units approved kiy the Planning
Commission and awaiting construction. The Vacant Land Capacity Analysis indicates that
existing zoning will support ah additional 3,066 to 3,633 units. Build-out is expected to occur
sometime after 2015.
City of Rancho Cucamonga IV - 3 April 2008
2008 Housing Element -
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
A -53
Annexation Potential
There are approximately 6,054.48 acres of unincorporated territory within the City's Sphere-of- •
Influence. There is 1 application for the annexation of 690 acres currently being processed,
along with the potential to annex 1,100 acres over the next 5-year planning period.
The area is substantially vacant with a total of 21 existing units (4 in the City's Etiwanda North
Specific Plan area and 17 in Section 14, the Snow Drop Road development area).
Approximately 558.41 acres are suitable for residential development under the City's General
Plan Hillside Residential land use designation. Based on a density of 1.29 units per acre, this
area could support approximately 720 new residential units; however, substantially more units
could be allowed under the County's current development standards. Because of hillside
characteristics and distance from existing development, infrastructure costs for the area are
considered to be extremely. high. Therefore, the area is not generally suitable for affordable
housing, whether developed in the City or in the County.
B. tJaND INVENTORY
As part of the 2008 Housing Element, a comprehensive inventory of vacant uncommitted land
was undertaken. The results identify vacarit land in all residential districts, with 343 parcels
totaling 868.50 acres. Only vacant sites were considered. Underutilized sites, which would
require further analysis based on market demand, were omitted from the land inventory. The
inclusion of a number of projected units for each residential district is based on development at
50 percent of the density range. The identified density is not an approval of project density, but
is used merely to represent the potential development on the site: In calculating the minimum
number of units that could be built (Table IV-3A-H), the assumption was made that all identified
lots were buildable, provided all applicable development standards are met. •
Hillside Residential District
The district is intended as an area for very low density single-family use and is designed to
maintain the natural open space character of the area, minimize erosion, provide for public
safety, protect natural resources, and establish design standards to proyide for limited
development in harmony with the environment. The maximum density may not exceed 2 units
per net buildable acre. The district.is located in the extreme northwestern portion of the City and
is generally characterized as large rural residential lots on steep topography, and numerous
development constraints including steep slopes, close proximity to City adopted earthquake fault
zones, high fire hazard, sensitive habitat, excessive grading requirements, limited access, and
utility constraints. There is adequate access to utilities, including water, electrical, gas, etc, but
these parcels are not served by a public sewer system. Because of their size requirements
these parcels are generally considered too expensive for affordable housing opportunities.
20005107
31.52
HR
HR -.
31
20005157 17.66 HR HR 17
20005167 51.06 HR HR 51
20006108 1.18 HR HR 1
20044137 0.91 H R H R 1
20044138 0.91 HR HR 1
20044151 0.98 HR HR 1
Total 104.22 103
. Source: ~~`-Rahcfio`COcamon a'.Plaiiriid De artmenG, .> ax<~~ "~ ._.a ~..,;,- ' ~"~.~~~ ~ "-" a° ~-` ~ `"-`~""
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008.Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
2008
•
A~54
• Estate Residential District
This district is intended as an area for very low density residential use, with a minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to 2 units per acre. The district is
located in the northeastern portion of the City and is generally characterized as large rural
residential lots on relatively steep slgpes, limited access, high fire hazard, sensitive habitat, and
utility constraints. There is adequate access to utilities, including water, electrical, gas, etc, but
these parcels are not served by a public sewer system. Because of their size requirements
these parcels are generally considered too expensive for affordable housing opportunities.
22511107
7.32
VL
ER -.
7
22511108 5.00 VL ER 5
22511137 2.42 VL ER 2
22512242 8.55 VL ER 8
22512265 3.03 VL ER 3
22512267 7.23 VL ER 7
22512277 3.57 VL ER 3
22512283 1.10 VL ER 1
22512288 0.32 VL ER 1
22512291 4.55 VL ER 4
22512296 1.02 VL ER 1
Total 44.11 42
'Source:i?Ranchd:Gucamdn a?P..laririin rDe artmerit "1.'.~ : is. .~:._t; rr, w ~~. -
• Very Low Residential District
This district is intended as an area for very low density residential use, with a minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to 2 units per acre. The district is
located in the northern portion of the City and is generally characterized as large residential lots
by relatively steep slopes, limited access, high fire hazard, sensitive habitat, limited access and
utility constraints. There is adequate access to utilities, including water, electrical, gas, etc, but
these parcels are not served by a public sewer system. Because of their size requirements
these parcels are generally considered too expensive for affordable housing opportunities.
.~
20118228
2.75 ~~ .~ •
VL ~
VL
-.
2
20118232 1.89 VL VL 1
20118233 0.46 VL VL 1
20118234 0.51- VL VL 1
22511109 5.00 VL VL 5
22512205 3.25 VL VL 3
22512256 3.89 VL VL 3
22513111 10.04 VL VL 10
22513114 10.00 VL VL 10
22513121 14.03 VL VL 14
22517104 4.75 VL VL 4
22517134 0.86 VL VL 1
22518135 0.19 VL VL 1
22518138 0.40 VL VL 1
City of Rancho Cucamonga IV - 5 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
A~55
22518173 3.36 VL VL 3
22519109 4.60 VL VL 4
22519110 4.20 VL VL 4
22519117 5.01 VL VL 5
22519132 0.44 VL VL 1
22519136 5.70 VL VL 5
22538106 2.61 VL VL 2
22581105 0.53 VL VL 1
22608105 18.63 VL VL 18
22608106 20.00 VL VL 20
22608107 8.00 VL VL 8
22608108 12.00 VL VL 12
22608111 9.80 VL VL 9
22608113 4.75 VL VL 4
22608115 4.85 VL VL 4
22608116 4.85 VL VL 4
22608117 3.50 VL VL 3
22610202 5.00 VL VL 5
22610203 3.76 VL VL 3
22610204 1.00 VL VL 1
22678212 1.03 VL VL 1
22678213 0.55 VL VL 1
22678214 0.62 VL VL 1
22678215 0.98 VL VL 1
22705103 9.15 VL VL 9
22706174 5.00 VL VL 5
22706182 3.28 VL VL 3
22712145 0.48 VL VL 1
22712154 4.17 VL VL 4
104311105 0.25 VL VL 1
106108105 0.18 VL VL 1
106110114 0.88 VL VL 1
106115120 0.48 VL VL 1
106117209 0.74 VL VL 1
106117220 0.87 VL VL 1
106119109 0.47 VL VL 1
106119118 0.26 VL VL 1
106120109 0.45 VL VL 1
106120137 0.26 VL VL 1
106120138 0.32 VL' VL 1
106121120 0.49 VL VL 1
106121128 0.46 VL VL 1
106121129 0.46 VL VL 1
106123113 1.01 VL VL 1
106123132 0.61 VL VL 1
106123133 0.61 VL VL 1
106123134 0.61 VL VL 1
106125120 .0.46 VL VL 1
City of Rancho Cucamonga IV - 6 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IV- Vacarit Land Inventory
•
•
`J
A-56
u
•
•
106125121 0.40 VL VL 1
106125133 1.00 VL VL 1
106127111 0.51 VL VL 1
106138117 0.57 VL VL 1
106141112 .0.50 VL VL 1
106145105 11.33 VL VL 11
106145105 11.33 VL VL 11
106150102 4.13 VL VL 4
106150103 12.41 VL VL 12
106151106 3.08 VL VL 3
106151107 0.17 VL VL 1
106151110 ~ 0.51 VL VL 1
106151112 20.85 VL VL 20
106151115 6.35 VL VL 6
106151120 0.63 VL VL 1
106155101 8.95 VL VL 8
106160106 1.26 VL VL 1
106179103 0.71 VL VL 1
106179112 0.63 VL VL 1
106179116 0.62 VL VL 1
106180116 0.61 VL VL 1
106180118 0.45 VL VL 1
106180122 0.43 VL VL 1
106180123 0.46 VL VL 1
106180128 0.52 VL VL 1
106181120 0.48 VL VL 1
106181123 0.49 VL VL 1
108181129 0.46 VL VL 1
106206112 0.61 VL VL 1
106206113 0.61 VL VL 1
106206115 0.61 VL VL 1
106212126 0.46 VL VL 1
106221106 0.43 VL VL 1
107404101 1.25 VL VL 1
107405103 3.03 VL VL 3
107408116 2.01 VL VL 2
107410121 3.18 VL VL 3
107412103 0.54 VL VL 1
107412104 0.58 VL VL 1
107412111 0.62 VL VL 1
107412114 0.50 VL VL 1
107422123 1.18 VL VL 1
107422125 1.98 ~ VL VL 1
107423105 0.33 VL VL 1
107426133 0.53 VL VL 1
107426134 0.51 VL VL 1
107428108 0.82 VL VL 1
107428110 2.01 VL VL 2
City of Rancho Cucamonga IV - 7 April'2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
A-57
107431108 0.52 VL VL 1
107431112 1.04 VL VL 1
107431113 0.59 VL VL 1
107431119 0.53 VL VL 1
107432104 0.46 VL VL 1
107432109 0.48 VL VL 1
107432111 0.75 VL VL 1
107433107 1.00 VL VL 1
107434117 0.52 VL VL 1
107436110 0.49 VL VL 1
107446102 0.46 VL VL 1
107447112 0.49 VL VL 1
107447126 0.51 VL VL 1
107447127 0.50 VL VL 1
107449122 0.54 VL VL 1
107449124 0.51 VL VL 1
107449128 0.48 VL VL 1
107449130 0.48 VL VL 1
107450102 0.46 VL VL 1
107450107 0.51 VL VL 1
107450113 0.46 VL VL 1
107450114 0.47 VL VL 1
107452123 0.50 VL VL 1
107453109 0.48 VL VL 1
107453114 0.52 VL VL 1
107454102 0.73 VL VL 1
107454103 0.78 VL VL 1
107454115 0.52 VL VL 1
107454116 0.91 VL VL 1
107454117 0.58 VL VL 1
107454120 0.56 VL VL 1
107455109 0.62 VL VL 1
107455118 0.49 VL VL 1
107455122 0.71 VL VL 1
107455127 0.56 VL VL 1
107455128 0.61 VL VL 1
107455129 0.79 VL VL 1
107456111 0.56 VL VL 1
107456116 0.52 VL VL 1
107456124 0.46 VL VL 1
107456125 0.46 VL VL 1
107456126 0.46 VL VL 1
107456127 0.46 VL VL 1
107456128 0.45 VL VL 1
108708126 37.73 VL VL 37
108951101 9.75 VL VL 9
108951103 0.25 VL VL - 1
Total 400.08 430
°Sdurcei-~:'RancBo Cucamdri--a.P.lannin !De-artment - --- _ ~~+
City of Rancho Cucamonga IV - 8 - April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IV-Vacant Land Inventory
•
u
•
A ~58
• Low Residential District
The Low (L) Residential District is intended as an area for single-family residential use, with a
minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet_ and a maximum residential density of 4 units per gross
acre. Most'of the identified lots were created in older subdivisions and the available lots are
generally older infill lots. There are limited constraints on development as utilities, including
water, sewer, electrical, and gas are readily available; constraints on development may result
from the small size of some identified parcels. There are minimal environmental constraints to
development as these parcels are generally located in areas surrounded by existing residential
development.
•
•
20118207
1.00
L
L -.
3
20118237 0.75 L L 2
20118238 0.37 L L 1
20125148 0.49 L L 1
20172101 0.32 L L 1
20182151 3.58 L L 10
20204153 0.25 L L 1
20206137 0.09 L L 1
20207104 0.20 L L 1
20207110 0.17 L L 1
20208216 0.09 L L 1
20208219 0.06 L L 1
20208233 0.48 L L 1
20209102 0.33 L L 1
20209134 0.22 L L 1
20235136 1.00 L L 3
20246161 1.51 L L 4
20702216 0.13 L L 1
20702227 0.12 L L 1
20702256 0.35 L L 1
20702268 0.15 L L 1
20704429 0.23 L L 1
20705202 0.18 L L 1
20705320 0.21 L L 1
20705333 0.09 L L 1
20705337 0.18 L L 1
20706219 0.64 L L 1
20708258 0.25 L L 1
20717124 0.17 L L 1
20724208 0.18 L L 1
20724209 0.18 L L 1
20724218 0.11 L L 1
20724408 0.17 L L 1
20763101 0.34 L L 1
20763103 0.35 L L 1
20763104 0.35 L L 1
20763105 0.35 L. L 1
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ IV-9 ~ Apri12008
2008 Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
A~59
20763106 0.35 L L 1
20763108 0.35 L L 1
20764101 0.32 L L 1
20764102 0.58 L L 1
20764103 0.64 L L 1
20764104 0.53 L L 1
20764105 0.49 L L 1
20764106 0.40 L L 1
20764107 0.38 L L 1
20764108 0.30 L L 1
20764109 0.30 L L 1
20764110 0.31 L L 1
20764112 0.27 L L 1
20803159 1.50 L L 4
20809177 0.28 L L 1
20816239 0.31 L L 1
20816240 0.30 L L 1
20830222 0.08 L L 1
20837713 0.12 L L 1
20892113 0.24 L L 1
20906102 0.18 L L 1
20906103 0.09 L L 1
20906104 0.18 L L 1
20906211 0.19 L L 1
20906308 0.11 L L 1
20906325 0.04 L L 1
20908509 0.17 L L 1
20908515 0.36 L L 1
20908516 0.19 L L 1
20910203 0.17 L L 1
20910223 0.16 L L 1
20910229 0.16 L L 1
20910230 0.16 L L 1
20910302 0.17 L L 1
20910310 0.17 L L 1
20910317 0.17 L L 1
20910332 0.14 L L 1
20910333 0.10 L L 1
20910421 0.10 L L 1
20910437 0.07 L L 1
20910438 0.05 L L 1
20911112 0.18 L L 1
20911117 0.19 L L 1
20911118 0.19 L L 1
20911216 0.07 L L 1
20912110 0.17 L L 1
20912128 0.17 L L 1
20912201 0.28 L L 1
City of Rancho Cucamonga IV - 10
2008 Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
•
•
•
A-60
•
•
•
20912218 0.17 L L 1
20912219 0.17 L L 1
20912220 0.17 L L 1
20912305 0.07 L L 1
22516113 3.62 L L 10
22516134 5.00 L L 15
22705131 4.43 L L 13
22705132 0.07 L L 1
22706157 5.00 L L 15
22706173 3.98 L L 11
22706173 3.98 L L 11
22706174 5.00 L L 15
22707127 0.53 L L 1
22712137 1.00 L L 3
22712153 4.76 L L 14
22724226 0.16 L L 1
22725311 0.16 L L 1
22725315 0.03 L L 1
106238107 0.28 L L 1
107605113 0.11 L L 1
107707107 1.04 L L 3
107707111 0.71 L L 2
107727110 0.65 L L 1
108728101 0.32 L L 1
108728102 0.26 L L 1
108728103' 0.26 L L 1
108728104 0.24 L L 1
108728105 0.22 L L 1
Total 70.46 234
-Sburcei'~=; Rancho Cucamori- a°P-tannin 'De artmenr- '~ -'-+_~fx,L~ ~ -_$
~ ~ tx1.' '-' ,:i;, -~••-~- ~'~~ _~_.:,
Low-Medium Residential District
The Low-Medium (LM) Residential District is intended as an area for low-medium density single-
family or multiple-family uses with site development regulations that assure development
compatible with nearby single-family detached neighborhoods. Residential densities are
expected to range from 4 to 8 units per gross acre maximum. There are minimal constraints to
development as utilities, including water, sewer, electrical, and gas are readily available to these
sites; constraints to development may result from the small size of some identified parcels.
There are minimal environmental constraints to development as these .parcels are generally
located in areas surrounded by existing residential development.
20127215
9.88
LM
LM -.
59
20127216 9.86 LM LM 59
20127217 9.58 LM LM 57
20127218 4.26 LM LM 25
20213172 0.21 LM LM 1
20213173 0.21 LM LM 1
20829106 0.52 LM LM 3
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ IV - 11
2008 Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
A~61
April 2008
20832124 17.97 LM LM 107
20833117 2.45 LM LM 14
20833118 5.46 LM LM 32
22701224 1.91 LM LM 11
22713103 5.00 LM LM 30
22713117 0.51 LM LM 3
22713138 5.00 LM LM 30
22713139 1.68 LM LM 10
22714167 0.22 LM LM 1
22714171 0.88 LM LM 5
22904109 80.80 LM LM 484
108903114 4.35 LM LM 26
108903115 4.35 LM LM 26
108903116 4.35 LM LM 26
108903135 5.08 LM LM 30
110001102 1.89 LM LM 11
110004110 0.21 LM LM 1
110017110 0.20 LM LM 1
110019105 9.08 LM LM 54
Tota I 185.91 1,107
Souice:`:=Rancho~Cucamoii -a~Blannin ~"De ariment~^' "-~:*,~ ~ -~-<e ~ -'~•
Medium Residential District
•
The Medium (M) Residential District is intended as an area for medium density multiple-family
use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower •
density residential development. Residential densities are expected to range from 8 to 14
dwelling units per gross acre maximum. There are minimal constraints to development as
utilities, including water, sewer, electrical, and gas are readily available to these sites;
constraints to development may result from the small size of some identified parcels. There are
minimal environmental constraints to development as these parcels are generally located in
areas surrounded by existing residential development.
20210107
2.04
M
M ~.
22
20213126 0.08 M M 1
20213127 0.08 M M 1
20213129 0.08 M M 1
20213130 0.08 M M 1
20213141 0.16 M M 1
20213161 0.84 M M 1
20213162 1.17 M M 12
20720101 0.74 M M 8
20720110 0.42 M M 4
20720111 0.42 M M 4
20720121 0.80 M M 8
20720122 0.04 M M 1
20720124 0.38 M M 4
20720128 0.44 M M 4
20720144 10.72 M M 117
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008 Housing Element
Section IV-Vacant Land Inventory
April 2008
\_ J
A-62
r
~J
22713154 0.58 M M 6
22713161 0.30 M M 3
107605105 1.21 M M 13
107605114 1.38 M M 15
110005103 1.03. M M 11
Total 22.96 238
-- , ..: , .
- ource; °iRahc o:000amon aiPlarinin ~-De-ailment=_: '°" ' ~" ~ - - -
Medium-High Residential District
The Medium-High (MH) Residential District is intended as an area for medium-high density
multiple-family use, with site development regulations that assure development compatible with
nearby lower density residential development. Residential densities are expected to range from
14 to 24 dwelling units per gross acre maximum. There are minimal constraints to development
as utilities, including water, sewer, electrical, and gas are readily available to these sites. There
are minimal environmental constraints to development as these parcels are generally located in
areas surrounded by existing residential development.
20725467 0.49 MH MH 9
20725468 1.15 MH MH 21
22753216 21.41 MH MH 406
Total 23.05 436
~~Sources5iR8ncho-Cucambri-a'P.Ianhio "rDe artment ~-'" '-` '^''` ~~"` -" *"~ ~~`~ -"'
High Residential District
The High (H) Residential District is intended as an area for high density multiple-family use, with
site development regulations that assure development compatible with nearby lower density
residential development. Residential densities are expected to range from 24 to 30 dwelling
units per gross acre. There are minimal constraints to development as utilities, including water,
sewer, electrical, and gas are readily available to these sites. There are minimal environmental
constraints to development as these parcels are generally located in areas surrounded by
existing residential development.
LI
22716110
5.00
H
H •.
135
107742221 0.94 H H 25
107742222 0.80 H H 21
107742225 9.91 H H 267
108958104 1.06 H H 28
Total 17.71 476
`,Souide:=~Rancho3Cucamon a~PJanriin~:De artment
> -
~ ~ ~ ;~" - -~ - ~'"-
City of Rancho Cucamonga - IV - 13 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IV -Vacant Land Inventory
A-63
Section V -NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS •
California Government Code §65583(a)(6) requires an "analysis of the potential and actual
nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, ordevelopment ofhousing forall
income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of/and, and the cost of construction."
The following topics are also discussed: regional economic conditions, housing demand, availability
of jobs, price of housing, and public opinion. The following highlights indicate significant potential
and actual non-governmental constraints upon housing production between 2008 and 2013.
• Regional economic conditions provide the overall context for housing development and
availability. A strong period of housing development occurred through early 2007, with a
nationwide decrease expected to continue through at least 2010.
• SCAG predicts that through 2020, California's rapid growth will increase by approximately
40 percent as a result of both a high rate of natural increase and a high rate of immigration.
• Raw land price has increased substantially since 1994 as a result of the economic resurgence
from the 1990's recession. With the restirging economy over the last four years, land prices
slowly rose to the pre-speculation levels.
• Construction costs are assumed to have kept pace with the Consumer Price Index ("CPI"),
averaging an increase of approximately 5.71 percent from 2000 through 2007.
• Financing for raw land purchases, and construction financing is available. Mortgage financing is
available but more difficult in response to the mortgage lending crisis. Loans for less than a 20
percent down payment require mortgage insurance.
• The median price of existing homes has increased from approximately $205,000 in 2000 to
approximately $522,000 in 2007; an increase of 61 percent.
• Public opinion supports a variety of affordable market-rate owner projects, such as small lot
developments, single-family attached housing, and first time buyer loan programs.
The topics concerning non-governmental constraints are discussed in the following order: regional
economic climate, housirig demand, availability of jobs, vacancy rate, price of land, cost of
construction, availability of financing, interest rates, price of housing, and public opinion.
A. REGIONAL ECONOMIC CLIMATE
Regional economic conditions provide the overall context for housing development and availability.
A strong period of regional economic growth followed by a significant drop in the housing market
characterizes most of the reporting period. An analysis of the relationship of the economy to
housing production indicates that a strong economic climate results in an increase in housing
production.
The American economy began to rebound following the Dot-com crash in 2000-2001. Since
adoption of the 2000 Housing Element, the economy expanded and in the immediate region
provided an increase in service, manufacturing, and construction jobs. The diversification of the
economy has reduced the impact of adverse economic cycles and provided a stable environment for
new investment. Unemployment rates remained relatively steady at around 3.7 percent.
Beginning in 1996, new housing construction began to rise, not to the levels of the late 1980's, but
steadily increasing. Housing price for existing homes rose dramatically, interest rates dropped,
thereby stimulating housing sales for new and existing homes. Housing construction remained
strong through early 2006, and was then followed by a steady decline due to the sub-prime loan •
crisis and market saturation in some areas of the region. Market research conducted by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ V - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section V -Non Governmental Constraints -
A -64
• California Association of Realtors does not show a significant recovery until at least 2009 though
greater federal involvement is expected in an attempt to prevent a recession.
Locally, Rancho Cucamonga's taxable retail sales continue to reach record .levels in the City's
history with 2004 generating $1.75 billion. This continues a string of record highs that goes back to
the middle 1980's and includes those years (1991-1993) when Southern Cplifornia was in a severe
recession. The 2004 growth was a record $335 million (23.7 percent). This surge came about with
the fourth quarter opening of Victoria Gardens, a local regional mall. The City's long term retail
trade increase, in part, has been a result of the rising number of families in the City and their
growing incomes, but also reflects the opening and expansion of various destination retail centers.
In addition, Rancho Cucamonga has benefited from direct sales to consumers by several of the
contractors, manufacturers and distributors that are located in the community.
In the period from 2000-2004, Rancho Cucamonga's taxable sales nearly went from $1.16 billion to
$1.75 billion, a $585 million gain or 50.3 percent. Much of this gain represents a true increase in
trade volume since prices rose only 12.9 percent in this period.
B. HOUSING DEMAND
Another factor influencing the housing market is demand. Conventional methodology links demand
directly to population increase. According to Southern California Association of Governments
("SCAG") and the California Department of Finance ("DOF"), the regional population increased
steadily during the period. New residential units authorized by building permits continued to grow
through late 2005.
The strong economy, diversified job market, and stock market profts have helped to strengthen the
• housing market of the region. Prior to 2006, the limited new housing coming to the market was
aggravating the upward pressure on home prices and rents, making it increasingly difficult to afford
homes in places relatively close to employment areas.
Up to 1990, the population increased as families moved to California to work in an expanding job
market. The situation has changed dramatically in the early 1990's as families were leaving
Califomia to seek jobs in other market, as well as to seek lifestyle changes. During this time.
population increases was due primarily to natural increases (i.e., births exceeding deaths).
SCAG predicts that through 2020, the State is projected to have the fastest rate of population
growth. California's rapid growth will'increase by approximately 40 percent as a result of both a high
rate of natural increase and a high rate of immigration. The average annual birth rate for California
is expected to be 20 births per 1,000 population, and the State is expected to attract more than one-
third of the country's immigrants.
Another factor in housing demand related to the economic downturn that began in 1989, is the
likelihood that new household formations were being delayed and many existing households were
doubling-up demonstrating a surprising elasticity in the housing market. There was also a
corresponding slight increase in overcrowding and in homeless families. However, in many
instances there appears to have been excess capacity in existing housing units sufficient to absorb
extended families and non-related housemates. Elasticity in the housing market serves as a non-
governmental constraint on housing production.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga V - 2
2008 Housing Element
Section V -Non Governmental Constraints
A-65
C. AVAILABILITY OF JOBS •
For the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA"), and the City as
well, employment has increased steadily from 2000 to 2007, with the City experiencing a
23.4 percent increase in employment. The City maintains an unemployment rate below that of the
region, with a high of 6.5 percent in 2003 for the region and 4.0 percent for the City. In 2006
unemployment decreased to 4.8 percent for the region, and 3.0 percent for the City (Table V-1 and
V-2).
Regionally, the loss of defense sector jobs has had a direct and indirect effect on the economy,
including a reduction in purchasing power as high paying jobs were replaced by lower paying jobs
and a reported overall loss of confidence in the economy. Further, many jobs were relocated to
other areas and states. In response to the loss of these jobs the City's Redevelopment Agency
("RDA") aggressively markets the City to prospective manufacturing, wholesale, and retail
companies. The top 10 employers within the City include school districts, local government,
medical, and service oriented jobs (Table V-3).
Retail activity has increased substantially from 2000 to the present. Terra Vista Town Center,
including Target and Mervyn's, provided the first regional retail development. The development of
the Victoria Gardens Regional Mall in 2004 has become a significant catalyst for further retail
development in the eastern portion of the City. Other major retail developments include Costco,
Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Lowe's have located in the City.
In 2004, companies located in Rancho Cucamonga paid $1.94 billion in payroll. The City's
emergence as a center forjob growth is primarily the result of the out-migration of people and firms
to the Inland Empire from the Southland's coastal counties. This began when the density of land
development in Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego counties created shortages of housing, •
manufacturing, and distribution space in those areas driving up their space costs. As a result,
people began flocking to the less expensive Inland Empire starting in the late 1970s. Firms began
doing so in the mid-1980s. Today, the inland migration of skilled technicians, professionals and
executives to high-end cities like Rancho Cucamonga is creating a labor pool that is able to support
high technology firms, large professional organizations and regional corporate headquarters.
Firms migrating to Rancho Cucamonga find that labor is available and less expensive. Across over
500 common occupations, Inland Empire workers will accept 5.1 percent less pay than those in
Orange and 4.2 percent less than in Los Angeles counties to offset the time and energy lost in long
commutes. The skilled technicians, professionals, and executives in this group (occupations
earning over $55,000 a year in coastal counties) will accept 9.4 percent less compensation than in
Orange County and 9.6 percent less than in Los Angeles County to work near their homes.
As a result of these advantages, from 1991-2004, California Employment Development Department
data shows that Rancho Cucamonga's employment more than doubled from 24,093 to 58,652. This
was a gain of 34,559 jobs, approximately 2,658 per year, a rapid 7.1 percent annual rate. Looking at
the City's data, it is difficult to believe that Southern California lost over 500,000 jobs from 1991-
1993 due to defense cutbacks after the Cold War or faced a slowdown in 2002. In both cases,
Rancho Cucamonga was adding positions including growth of 10.5 percent in 2004.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga V - 3 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section V -Non Governmental Constraints
A-66
•
2000 1,412,900 1,342,000 79,000 5.0%
2001 1,462,200 1,387,800 74,400 5.1%
2002 1,517,100 1,424,200 93,000 6.1%
2003 1,578,800 1,476,100 102,700 6.5%
2004 1,642,500 1,539,700 102,800 6.3%
2005 1,704,600 1,607,800 96,800 5.7%
2006 1,758,900 1,674,100 84,800 4.8%
2007 1,805,500 1,711,800 93,700 5.2%
Source: California, Employmenf Development Departmen4 - ~ ~
http://www calmis:cahwnet.gov/htmlfile/msa/rivsbern htm ` -
Em to ment data are for danua '-fdr`each ear:.. - -
- ..
2000 68,000 65,900 2,100 3.0%
2001 70,100 67,800 2,300 3.2%
2002 72,400 69,600 2,800 3.9%
2003 74,000 71,000 3,000 4.0%
2004 76,600 73,800 2,800 3.7%
2005 79,100 76,500 2,600 3.3%
2006 81,300 78,900 2,400 3.0%
2007 84,500 81,300 3,200 ~ 3.7%
Source:' Californizj Employment:,Developmenl Department ~. :
1 2000=2006 Employment data'-Annual ~„ ~ F 'G ~
~
http.//www labormarketmfo edd~pa gov/cg
i/dataanalysis/AreaSelectwn asp7tableName Labforce.4
2 200ZtEmployment'data (Prelimihary)De'cember 2007,.'_- ~` s'
"
'-htt //wwwaabormarkehnfo:eddca. ov/c i%databrowsih ~%7PAGEID=4&SUBID 133,
.. . . .. .. r ~ .
. . -
Chaffe Communi Colle e 1,100 Education
Etiwanda Elementa School District 1,015 Education
Ci of Rancho Cucamon a 1,011 Government
Alta Loma Elementa School District- 920 Education
Performance Services, Inc. 855 Em to ment A encies
Frito-La ,Inc 600 Snack Food Manufacturin
C. W. Construction 600 S ecialTrades
Mission Foods 573 Food Manufacturin
Central School District 500 Education
Tar et . 475 General Merchandise
Source:. Gty RDA~~ .~ , _~ ~_ -- - ~'
Note :This list is-not'a~com rehensive hst and~.onl .includes'ith'ose com' antes wtiares"onded t`o`thersurve ..
D. VACANCY RATE
The City's overall vacancy rate (including both homeowner and rental properties) has remained
slightly above 3 percent since 2000; as of January 1, 2007, the DOF estimates the vacancy rate to
• be 3.02 percent. According to SCAG, the ideal vacancy level should be 5 percent for rentals and 2
percent for homeowners. In periods of high production and high absorption, higher vacancy rates
City of Rancho Cucamonga V - 4 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element -
Section V -Non Governmental Constraints
A-67
are typical. In periods of low production and slow absorption a vacancy rates in the 7 percent range •
would be of some concern. In the context of high new housing prdduction rates, it represents a low
availability of resale homes and a high absorption of new housing units.
Lower exurban land cost combined with rural standard infrastructure costs attracts development of
"affordable housing". Deferred costs in these exurban communities are large, including commute
costs, cost to upgrade inadequate infrastructure, and costto provide urban services. In comparison,
the higher cost of housing iri the City includes urban level facilities. Nevertheless, lower priced
exurban housing units impact the absorption of housing units in the City.
E. PRICE OF LAND
In Rancho Cucamonga, residential land costs vary depending on the availability of land and the cost
of grading and infrastructure (off-site improvements) associated with development of a proposed
project. The price of land impacts the price of new homes and also residential resale price. The
land speculation that occurred during the second half of the 1980's resulted in a significant
inflationary trend on all home prices. The result was reduced housing affordability at all income
levels. Along with the resurgence of the regional economy the dramatic growth in home sales has
been accompanied by a surge to record high property values. The increase in property values
corresponds directly to increases in the cost of obtaining new housing.
The two biggest expenses in housing development are land costs and fees. Construction costs
tend to correlate with the CPI, and thus remain somewhat consistent. So while construction costs
have increased along with the CPI, the cost of land has escalated to the largest item associated with
the cost of housing.
During the 1980's land speculation was heated and peaked in 1989. Speculation led to many
foreclosures in the City's Sphere of Influence as well as to foreclosures in the City. For example, •
land in the City with an approved tentative tract map that sold during the 1980's for $100,000 an
acre, resold after foreclosure for $20,000 an acre in 1994. In the early 1990's the price of land
declined dramatically. The raw land price has increased substantially since 1994 as a result of the
economic resurgence from the 1990's recession. With the resurging economy, land prices slowly
rose to the pre-speculation levels. According to local developers, raw land costs in the City and
surrounding region have increased over 100 percent since the mid 1990's. As land has become
scarcer, the price for land has also increased.
During the past 12 to 18 months, the City has experienced a fairly significant drop in the price of raw
land. Between the period from 2003 to 2008 land prices increased dramatically and have reduced a
significant amount as the availability to finance residential construction projects has decreased.
Thus it can be seen that land speculation can act as anon-governmental constraint on housing as
speculation, availability of financing, and land scarcity can greatly impact the price of land.
F. COST OF CONSTRUCTION
Construction cost depends on the price of materials, quality of construction, and finish detail.
Construction costs have more or less paralleled the CPI from 1989 to the present. In general, the
CPI has increased an average of 5.71 percent between 2000 and 2007, with a high of 8.6 percent in
2006 and a low of 4.9 percent in 2002. This compares with an average annual CPI of 3.02 percent
between 1991 and 2000.
Residential construction cost estimates established by the International Code Council in the Fall of
2007 indicate average costs of labor and materials between $86.73 and $126.78 for multi-family,
depending on type of construction. Single family residential costs range between $94.99 and •
City of Rancho Cucamonga V - 5 _ - April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section V -Non Governmental Constraints
A ~68
• $120.93 per square foot, depending on type of construction. Construction costs may vary based on
the type of material uses, location of development, structural features present, and other factors.
Prevailing wages may also be an additional constrain on construction costs. In California, all public
works projects must pay prevailing wages to all workers employed on the project. A public works
project is any residential or commercial project that is funded through public funds, including
federally funded or assisted residential projects controlled or carried out by an awarding body. The
prevailing wage rate is the basic hourly rate paid on public works projects to a majority of workers
engaged in a particular craft, classification, or type of work within the locality and in the nearest labor
market area.
Twice a year, prevailing wage rates are determined by the director of the California Department of
Industrial Relations ("DIR"). A prevailing wage ensures that the ability to get a public works contract
is not based on paying lower wage rates than a competitor, and requires that all bidders use the
same wage rates when bidding on a public works project. The DIR provides lihks to the current
prevailing wages for a journeyman craft or classification for each county in California. Prevailing
wages may constrain construction of affordable housing because they are often higherthan normal
wages.
G. AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING
During the past few years, significant changes have occurred in the mortgage lending industry.
Home mortgage rates of the late 1990's and early 2000's were very low with 30-year fixed rates as
low as 5 percent. However, problems within the industry and increases in the federal lending rate
have gradually raised mortgage rates and made them more difficult to obtain. A fixed rate 30-year
loan for a new home currently carries interest rates from 6.75 percent. Lower initial rates are
• available with Graduated Payment Mortgages ("GPM's"), Adjustable Rate Mortgages ("ARM's"),
Interest Only Mortgages, and Buy-Down Mortgages. However, ARM's of a few years ago have
exercised significant increases that have drastically increased monthly mortgage payments, and
thus jeopardizing homeowners and creating a high percentage of foreclosures.
Therefore, lower income households will have difficulty qualifying for standard mortgages even if
home prices drop to reasonable levels. Financing for both construction and long-term mortgages is
generally available in Rancho Cucamonga subject to normal underwriting standards. However, a
more critical impediment to homeownership involves both the affordability of the housing stock and
the ability of potential buyers to fulfill down payment requirements. Typically, conventional home
loans will require 10 to 20 percent of the sale price as a down payment, which is the largest
constraint tofirst-time homebuyers. The City's First-Time Homebuyer program, administered bythe
RDA, provides more favorable down payment and financing terms provides a silent second loan up
to a maximum of $80,000, which is forgiven if the homebuyer remains in the unit for 45 years.
H. INTEREST RATES
Mortgage interest rates have a large influence over the affordability of housing. Increases in interest
rates decrease the number of persons able to afford a home purchase. Decreases in interest rates
results in more potential homebuyers introduced into the market. National policies and economic
conditions determine interest rates, and there is little local governments can do to affect these rates.
First time homebuyers are the most impacted by financing requirements. Mortgage interest rates for
new home purchases ranged from 6 percent to 7 percent for a fixed rate-30 year loan in 2006/2007.
Lower initial rates may be available with GPM's, ARM's, and Buy-Down Mortgages. However,
variable interest rate mortgages on affordable homes may increase to the point that interest rates
• exceed the cost of living adjustments, which is a constraint on affordability. Although interest rates
Clty of Rancho Cucamonga V - 6 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section V -Non Governmental Constraints
A~69
are currently low, they can change significantly and substantially impact the affordability of the •
housing stock.
Interest rates in 2006/2007 are not a constraint to affordable housing; however more strict lending
standards could pose a constraint to affordable housing. An increase of one percentage point can
make a monthly payment out of reach for many lower income households. As such, long term
mortgages are generally available in Rancho Cucamonga, subject to normal underwriting standards.
A first time homebuyer is one who has never previously owned a home, or who has not owned a
home in the last three years. When the interest rate is 6.75 percent, a first time homebuyer at 100
percent of median income, with no installment debt, and with the ability to put up a 10 percent down
payment could afford a house priced at $178,994. When the interest rate increases to 8.5 percent
the affordability cap drops to $152,205. When the interest rate increases to 9.5 percent the
affordability cap decreases to $139,704 (Table V-5).
A first time buyer participation in a 10 percent down payment program is required to make impound
payments. Impounds include payments on mortgage insurance at 1 percent of the loan value and
property taxes at a minimum of 1 percent of total value, as well as fire insurance; impounds are
computed in the affordability calculation. A perspective buyer would be required to deposit
approximately a one year advance into the impound account, in addition to the down payment. The
monthly payment in Table V-5 is limited to principle and interest. The actual monthly payment for
the first time buyer is increased by the required monthly contribution to the impound account.
Installment debt decreases the affordable home price. For example a typical first time homebuyer
earning $47,200 with a $300 a month car payment could afford a house priced at $139,302 at the
8.5 percent rate of interest, or $12,903 less than the buyer with no consumer debt.
.~ ~ •
2000 $47,400
2001 $49,900
2002 $50,300
2003 $51,000
2004 ~ $54,30D
2005 $55,650
2006 $57,500
2007 $59,200
~Sburce:?"..iHODUSER:Data9Sets~'htC a/wviw:huHuse~.:or /dataset shl6tmL;'' . ..:; ":~. .. . •-G.` -_: ~ ' ~ ' `-~ ~ <~°' ~.
-~ . . tr
..
5.75 % $193, 715 $897
6.75 % $180, 000 $933
8.5% $159, 717 $982
9.5% $149,753 $1,006
Source:''. Rancho Cucamonga~Plahning Department -.~r.+s '~"` ro-ae , .,+'~ --- c
7 Assumes 20`percent down;payment andh o monthly debts ~y ~
~ ei~ a
,
~2:-~Does not include`.tax:anii:ios'u~ance cosis~: ,.
~:- .:~°f~ _i+~:~?= __
~
5 -
Cily of Rancho Cucamonga V - 7
2008 Housing Element
Section V-Non Governmental Constraints
April 2008
•
•
A ~70
• I. PRICE OF HOUSING
Based on an analysis of the existing home market, the median price of existing homes has
increased from approximately $158,900 in 2001 to approximately $395,000 in 2007; a 60 percent
increase.
The City's homeowners have the highest property values among the inland area's major sub-
markets, because of.its foothill setting, proximity to Los Angeles County, and emphasis on planned
unit developments, large lot sizes and quality construction. From 2001 to 2006, the City's home
markets have surged as Southern California buyers have found high quality, affordable real estate.
Even though the housing market has slowed, the City's location still gives it an advantage in difficult
economic times. The federal government has reacted to the slowing housing market by reducing
the prime interest rate with the goal of encouraging more people to enter the housing market.
Though real estate values are still at high levels, the reduction in interest rates and its prime location
still make it a desirable community in which to live.
Several factors explain the higher average price for houses in the City than in the County. Foremost
is the perception of high quality of life in the City. For example, Rancho Cucamonga has been
named one of the "50 Best Places to Live" by Money Magazine and being consistently ranked as
one of California's safest cities for its size. Amenities, including parks, trails, and recreation
programs, add to the public perception of high quality of life standards.
J. PUBLIC OPINION
Homeowners, who perceive a generally higher quality of life and amenities in the City than in the
surrounding urban region and who may have paid more to locate in the City, defend elements that
• they believe create quality of life. For example, they vigorously promote single-family ownership and
have vocally discouraged City sponsored new affordable housing projects.
Consistent with residents in most of California, the commuhity supports affordable projects that
appear to increase property values. For example, they support rehabilitation and replacement of
deteriorating buildings. They support assistance for declining neighborhoods. They also support a
variety of affordable owner projects, such as small lot developments, single-family attached housing,
and first time buyer loan programs. Many homeowners in the City have benefited from such
programs.
City of Rancho Cucamonga _ V - 8
2008 Housing Element
Section V -Non Governmental Constraints
A-71
Section VI -GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS •
California Government Code §65583(a)(5) requires "(a]n analysis of potential and actual
governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all
incomes levels, ... including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site
improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit
procedures." Based on analysis of these categories the following highlights indicate that
government regulation is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare of the community and, for
the most part, is not an undue constraint on development.
• The variability land use controls, including development standards, encourages a wide
variety of housing types, including single and multi-family, rental and ownership, and mobile
homes.
• The housing stock is in relatively good condition. Based upon the current year housing unit
total, 22.6 percent of the City's housing stock was built between 2000 and 2007, 9.2 percent
was built between 1990 and 2000. Significantly, 59.3 percent of the City's housing stock has
been built since 1985. Building codes and their enforcement encourage sound housing
stock.
• The City implemented a series of actions to streamline the permit application process,
including Planning Director review of routine applications, in order to facilitate housing, as
well as other development.
• Frontage improvements, including storm drains and street improvements, are, required for all
new development to protect public health and safety.
• Fees and exactions have increased an estimated 65.7 percent during the last seven years. •
Fees and exactions ensure that new development will have adequate infrastructure and
public services and, therefore, are a prerequisite to development.
• Mello-Roos bonds provide an alternative means of financing a portion of the new
infrastructure required, but raise concerns about property tax burden, equity, and the
potential for default due to low unit absorption rate. Only one of the five school districts
serving the City uses Mello-Roos bond financing to provide classrooms to relieve
overcrowding. The City has sponsored two Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts.
A. LAND USE CONTROLS
The following ,analysis of land use controls includes a discussion of residential land use
categories, performance standard criteria, environmental assessment requirements, design
criteria, specific plan designations, development standards, and annexation potential. The City's
land use controls establish conditions necessary to achieve the health, safety and general
welfare of its residents, and provide for maintenance and development for housing available to
all income levels.
Residential Land Use Categories
The General Plan Land Use element and Land Use Map designate particular areas within the
City for residential development. In identifying areas suitable for residential development the
General Plan establishes six residential density categories that are "intended to maximize public
safety, achieve high quality site planning and design, retain significant natural resources, and
ensure compatibility between uses." These residential densities permit both single-family and
multiple-family developments at density ranges that include the following: •
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 1
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A-72
.. .- ~~ .~
.- ~, .
~-
-
- ~.
Minimum
0.1
2 ,
4 .
8
14 ,
24
Maximum
.- 2 4 8 14 24 30
•. •~
Sin le-Famil Detached P P P P'
Single-Family Attached
du-, tri-, and four- lex P P P P
Multi le-Famil Dwellin s P" P P P
Second Dwelling Unit
includin elder cotta e P P P
Mobile Home Units P P P P P
Mobile Home Parks C C C C C C
.Source: „Rancho=CucamongaGeneral Plan'and Rancho'Cucambnga.DevelopmenCCode ~ ~ --- ~~-
1 '-' The overall density ofeach development proposal must by,itseli fall within lFie applicable"density_range - a development
that falls.below the rrii
i- ,' ~ _ himum densitycannot-be.offset by`anottier development that exceetls4he maximum derisity~~', . „I'_
--
2 Excluding`aand neoe
scary for secontlary andarte~ial streets ~;- --~ ', .- `'- ~ .-, ~-
3 P =Permitted Use%6 =:CondtliohaNl')se Permit.Re uired/`Permitled~m co"h'unction with'o`~tional develo menYStandards''"_
Table VI-1, used in combination with the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code §17.08.030,
identify that density range for single-family development is 0.1 to 14 dwelling units per gross
acre. The density rahge for single-family attached and multiple-family dwellings is~ 4 to 30
dwelling units per acre. Second dwelling units, either. attached or detached to the primary
residence are permitted in Very Low to Low-Medium residential districts. One mobile home unit
. is permitted on a lot in all residential districts, except the Very Low district, and mobile home
parks are conditionally permitted in all residential districts.
The General Plan also allows residential development in two of its open space categories:
Hillside Residential and Open Space. After environmental impacts are determined and
mitigated, the Hillside Residential designation permits up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The Open
Space designation identifies areas were land is to remain essentially open, but up to 1 dwelling
unit per 10 acres is permitted. The remaining open space category is designated as Flood
Control/Utility corridor, and no residential development is permitted under this designation.
Requirements for residential development are contained in the Development Code, two
Community Plans (Terra Vista and Victoria), and two Specific Plans (Etiwanda and Etiwanda
North). A third Community Plan (Caryn) was incorporated into the Development Code along with
a commercial and industrial specific plan. Residential zoning categories and densities
throughout are consistent with the City's General Plan. The basic development standards
contained in these plans are generally consistent; however, they have been tailored to meet the
specific needs identified within each of the community planning areas.
Performance Standard Criteria
The Development Code for the City, as well as any applicable specific plans, utilizes a
performance standard of development through use of density ranges. The density achieved is
based on an analysis of environmental constraints and on design criteria.
Environmental Assessment Requirements
An environmental assessment is required for each development project. The site-specific
• assessment is tiered from the Master Environmental Assessment ("MEA") that was prepared for
the 2000 update of the General Plan. (A new environmental assessment is being prepared for
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 2 April
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A 73
the 2009 update of the General Plan. Any new information that becomes available prior to •
certifcation of the new environmental assessment will be corisidered in the drafting of the
2008 Housing Element. Hillside Development Regulations (§17.24) were enacted to address
grading and design issues on parcels with slope issues. In most instances, these instruments
clearly set the environmental constraints on the site, including the potential maximum density,
and serve to expedite development. Where additional site-specific information is needed,
special studies are requested.
Design Criteria
Design- criteria are established under the Basic Development. Standards and Optional
Development Standards. A subdivision designed to meet the City's Basic Development
Standards will be permitted to develop at densities that are at the lower end of the density range
appropriate to the zone. In order to qualify for the Optional Development Standards, a developer
may provide such features as a larger percentage of open space, more than the minimum
requirement for landscaping, and more than the minimum requirement for recreational facilities.
Such projects will be allowed to develop at the higher end of the density range appropriate to the .
zone. Further, under the Optional Standards, many of the basic development requirements such
as setbacks and lot coverage may be reduced to accommodate the higher densities.
Specific Plan Designations
Standards for the Terra Vista and Victoria planned communities are more innovative than those
contained in the Development Code. For example, cluster development is automatically
assumed in the higher density categories, but in the planned communities it is also allowed in
the Low-Medium and Medium residential categories. Both plans were designed to allow
flexibility in trading densities among different areas within each plan without requiring a General
Plan Amendment, as long as the maximum density permitted by the plan is not exceeded. Both
plans permit each residential land use designation to be stepped up or down one category,
except for the Medium residential category that allows two steps up, to either the Medium-High
or High density range.
The Etiwanda Specific Plan ("ESP") and Etiwanda North Specific Plan ("ENSP") are designed to
reflect the unique community character within each of these planning areas. The ENSP
primarily serves as a pre-zone for Sphere-of-Influence land in the hillside area.
Rural character is a dominant feature of the historic Etiwanda community. Although low-density
housing is encouraged, zoning includes areas for all income levels. The rugged, natural open
character of the Etiwanda North area provides constraints to development. Safety hazards and
the high cost of extending infrastructure to the area make it most suitable for lower density
single-family housing. No multi-family housing is proposed for the Etiwanda North area.
Development Standards
There have been no significant changes in residential standards since the adoption of the
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code in 1983; minor changes have brought the Development
Code into compliance with changes in State legislation. Prior to completion of the 1989 update
of the Housing Element, Hillside Development Regulations were adopted to codify long-standing
hillside development polices. The Basic Development Standards (Development Code Table
17.08.040-B) and Optional Development Standards (Development Code Table 17.08.040-C) are
provided as Table VI-2 and Table VI-3.
Overall, development standards are based upon acceptable provisions and are not exceptional
or unusual and, in fact, are consistent with those of surrounding communities. The provisions
allowed under the Terra Vista and Victoria Community Plans are somewhat less demanding . •
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 3 April 2008
2008 Housing Element - .
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A~74
• than those contained in the Development Code and the ESP, but this reflects the unique
community character within each of these planning areas.
Building standards, such as parking and height requirements, generally do not provide a
constraint to development. Typically, building heights are permitted to increase with increased
density. Parking is based upon the unit type and number of bedrooms. Carports are permitted
in multi-family developments when approved by the Design Review Committee. The variability
of these development standards permits a wide variety of housing types, including single and
multi-family, rental and ownership, and mobile homes. Application of these development
standards to the remaining vacant land resources will continue to provide a broad range of
housing alternatives consistent with the City's share of the Regional Housing Need.
•
•
Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 4 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A ~75
Lot Area:
Minimum Net Avera e 22,500 8,000 6,000 3 ac t`~ 3 ac t`~ 3 ac /`~
Minimum Net 20,000 7,200 5,000 3 ac 3 ac 3 ac
Number Of Dwelling Units Up to 2 Up to 4 Up to 6 Up to 11 Up to 19 Up to 27
Permitted Per Acre
Minimum Dwelling Unit Size:
Single Family Attached And 1,000 sq. ft. t"~ Regardless of district
Detached Dwellin s
Multiple Family Dwellings
Efficient /Studio 500 s . ft. Re ardless of district
One Bedroom 650 s . ft. Re ardless of district
Two Bedroom 800 s . ft. Re ardless of district
Three Or More Bedrooms 950 sq. ft. Regardless of district
Lot Dimensions:
Minimum Width 90 Avg. 65 Avg. 50 Avg. N/R N/R N/R
(@ Required Front Setback) Vary +/- Vary +/- Vary +/-
10 5 5
Min. Corner Lot Width 100 70 50 N/R N/R N/R
Minimum De th 200 100 90 N/R N/R N/R
Minimum Frontage 50 40 30 100 100 100
Front Pro e Line
Min. Flag Lot Frontage 30 20 20 50 50 50
Front Pro e Line
Setbacks: 42 Avg. 37 Avg. 32 Avg. 37 Avg. N/R N/R
Front Yard rcirei Vary +/- Vary +/- Vary +/- Vary +/-
5 5 5 5
Corner Side Yard 27 27 22 27 N/R N/R
Interior Side Yard 10/15 5/10 5/10 10 N/R N/R
Rear Yard 60 20 15 10 N/R N/R
At Interior Site Boundary 30/5 20/5 15/5 15/5 15/5 15/5_
(Dwelling Unit/Accessory
Buildin
Residential Building N/R N/R Required Per Section 17.08.040-E
Se arations /"t~
Height Limitation 35 35 35 35 40 55
Lot Coverage 25% 40% 50% 50% 50% 50%
Maximum % /M~
Open Space Required: -
Private Open Space 2,000/ 1,000/ 300/ 255/ 150/ 150/ .
(Ground Floor/Upper Story N/R N/R 150 150 100 100
Unit
Common Open Space N/R N/R N/R 30% 30% 30%
Minimum
Usable Open Space 65% 60% 40% 35% 35% 35%
Private & Common
Recreation Area/Facility N/R N/R N/R Required Per Section
17.08.040-H
Landscaping Required Per Section
17.08.040-G
Amenities N/R N/R N/R Required Per Section
17.08/040-R
N/R =Not Required
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ ~ VI - 5 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
•
u
A-76
•
•
•
Notes:
(A) Excluding land necessary for secondary streets and arterials and in hillside areas shall be
dependent on the slope/capacity factor contained in Section 17.24.080-8.
(8) As measured from the ultimate curb face on public or private streets. Refer to Tble 17.08.040-C
for additional setback.
(C) Variable front yards allowed pursuant to Section 17.08.060-H.
(D) Add 10 feet if adjacent VL, L or LM district.
(E) Less than 18 feet from back of sidewalk requires automatic garage door openers.
(F) Limit one story within 100 feet of VL or L district for multiple-family dwellings.
(G) Perimeter landscaping and interior street trees.
(H) Asingle-family detached dwelling less than 1, 000 square feet maybe authorized when a
development exhibits innovative qualities in tract, plot, and architectural design through the
approval o(a Conditional Use Permit.
(I) Senior citizens projects are exempt from this requirement.
(J) To assure that smaller units are not concentrated in any one area or project, the following
percentage limitations of the total number of units shall apply: 10 percent for efficiency/studio and
35 percent for one bedroom or up to 35 percent combined. Subject to a Conditional Use Permit,
the Planning Commission may authorize a greater ratio of efficiency orone-bedroom units when a
development exhibits innovative design qualities and a balance mix of unit sizes and types.
(K) In hillside areas, height shall be limited to 30 feet as specified in Section 17.24.070-D. 1.
(L) On existing lots of record, parcels less than 3 acres or less th8t the required minimum frontage
may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range.
(M) In addition to the standards set forth in Table 17.08.040-8, development within the Caryn Planned
Community shall be governed by the standards contained in Table 17.14.040-A.
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 6 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints -
A-77
Minimum Site Area Gross 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac 5 ac
Lot Area Variation Variation 5 ac 5 ac
Minimum Net Avera a Re uired Re uired
Number of Dwelling Units Up to 4 Up to 8 Up to 14 Up to 24 Up to 30
Permitted er acre
Minimum Dwelling Unit Size:
Single Family Attached and 1,000 sq. ft. tci regardless of district
Detached Dwellin
Multiple Family Dwellings
Efficienc /Studio N!R 550 sq. ft. Re ardless of district
One Bedroom N/R 650 s . ft. Re ardless of district
Two Bedroom N/R 800 s . ft. Re ardless of district
Three or More Bedrooms N/R 950 s . ft. Re ardless of district
Lot Dimensions:
Minimum Width Variation pi Variation N/R N/R
Re uired Front Setback Re uired Re uired
Minimum Depth Variation Required In Single Family N/R N/R
Revisions
Setbacks: 42 Avg. 42 Avg. 42 Avg. 47 Avg.
Local Street Va +/-5 Va +/-5 Va +/-5 Vary +/-5
Private Street Or Driveway 32 Avg. 15 Avg. 5 5 5
Va +/-5 Va +l-5fEi
Corner Side Yard 17 10 5 N/R N/R
Interior Side Yard 5/10 10 N/R N/R
At Interior Site Boundary 20/5 15/5 20/5 20/5 20/5
(Dwelling Unit/Accessory
Buildin
Residential Building Required Per Section 17.08.040-E
Separations: 25 25
Front To Front
Other 10 10 Re uired Per Section 17.08.040-E
Hei ht Limitations 35 35 35 40 55
Other Space Required:
Private Open Space 1,000/N/R 300/150 225/150 150/100 150/100
Ground Floor/U er Sto Unit
Common Open Space 5% 10% 35% 35% 35%
Minimum Percent
Usable Open Space 60% 45% 40% 40% 40%
Private & Common
Recreation Area/Facilit N/R Required Per Section 17.08.040-H
Landsca in Required Per Section 17.08.040-G
Front Yard Landsca in Re uired Per Section 17.08.040-F
Ener Conservation N/R Required Per Section 17.08.040-I
Amenities N/R N/R Re uired Per Section 17.08.040-R
N/R =Not Required
Notes:
(A) Excluding land necessary for secondary streets and arterials and in hillside areas shall be
dependent on the slope/capacity factor contained in Section 17.24.080-B.
(8) As measured from the ultimate curb face on public and private streets. Refer to Table 17.08.040-
0 for additional setback information.
(C) Limit one story within 100 feet o/VL or L district for multiple-family dwellings. _
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 7 - April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
•
•
A-78
•
•
(D) Add 10 feet adjacent to VL, L, or LM district.
(E) Less than 18 feet from back ofsidewalk within condominium, townhouse, or apartment requires
automatic garage door openers. Garage setback is 10 feet minimum if side entry garage used
per section 17.08.040-M within single-family detached/semi-detached development.
(F) Perimeter landscaping and interior street trees.
(G) Asingle-family detached dwelling less than 900 square feet will require the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit per section 17.08.030.
(H) Zero lot dwellings permitted pursuant to Section 17.08.040-P.
(1) Refer to Table 17.08.040-C1 and Table 17.08.040-C2.
(J) Senior citizens projects are exempted from this requirement.
(K) To assure that smaller units are not concentrated in any one are or project, the following
percentage limitations of the total number of units shall apply: 10 percent for efficiency/studio and
35 percent for one bedroom or up to 35 percent combined. Subject to a Conditional Use Permit,
the Planning Commission may authorize a greater ratio of efficiency orone-bedroom units wheh a.
development exhibits innovative design qualities and a balance mix of unit sizes and types.
(L) In hillside areas. heiohts shall be limited to 30 feet as soecified in section 17.24.070-D. 1.
Parking Standards
Parking standards are currently similar to those utilized in other cities and is based on a
standard requirement of 2 spaces within a garage for single-family detached units, and a sliding
scale, depending on the number of bedrooms per unit, for cluster development (condominium,
townhome, apartment, etc). Multi-family conventional parking standards are based on the
following:
,-
Studio
1.3 s ~ -~
aces
er unit
One Bedroom 1.5 s aces er unit
Two Bedrooms 1.8 s aces er unit
Three or More Bedrooms 2.0 s aces er unit
Four or More Bedrooms 2.3 s aces er unit
t Sdurde::`.;Randho~.Gucamdn aiDevi=lo-inenh~Code'~v T.=~r7x fir=-_.~ -'.» <..~~^. .1: , s _..: :: ..,- -_.-. '~- ,-v~. .. -.-t~,> ~-~ ~•
Under these standards, for studio, one and two bedroom units, one space is required to be in a
garage or carport and in three and four bedroom units, two spaces are required to be in a
garage or carport. Guest parking spaces are required in a ratio of one parking space for each
four multi-family units.
To mitigate the impact parking requirements may have upon affordable housing projects the City
adopted Affordable Housing Incentive/Density Bonus Provisions, discussed supra. Under these
standards parking requirements do not hinder the availability and affordability of housing as the
City permits a reduction in these on-site parking requirements, among other standards, in the
development of affordable housing projects. The implementation of the Affordable Housing
Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions permits the following reduction in parking requirements to
accommodate development of affordable housing projects.
•~
.•
0 - 1 Bedrooms ~
.
1.0 on-sites aces er unit
2 - 3 Bedrooms 2.0 on-sites aces er unit
4 or More Bedrooms 2.5 on-sites aces er unit
., Raricho:Cucamonga.Development Code §1T40:060(D)
Source ~ ~' - a `" _
i
~
~
~
_
Parkui 'pis inclusive of handica "ed antl nest"arkni re "uirement g
: ~- r
s „-1 ~
i
~~
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 8
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A ~79
Annexation Potential •
The City's Sphere-of-Influence is located north of the City between the City limits and the
National Forest Boundary in environmentally hazardous and sensitive areas. The resulting
constraints limit the range of potential residential development. Annexations have added "Low"
and "Very Low" single-family residential development areas to the City.
The ENSP was adopted on April 1, 1992 as a pre-zone for future annexation. Land in the
Sphere-of-Influence lacks urban infrastructure, and much of the area is expected to remain as
open space. Developable areas have slopes in excess of 8 percent and are subject to the City's
Hillside Development Regulations. Residential development in the sphere areas will be more
expensive and at lower average density than residential development within the current City
boundaries; this is because of expected lower densities due to slope constraints, costs to extend
utilities, and the cost of land. Consequently, any future annexations are expected to provide
sites for move-up rather than for affordable housing.
B. BUILDING CODES AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT
Building Code Requirements
The City has adopted the 2007 California Building Code ("CBC"). Under State law, this code
can be amended by local governments only due to geological, topographical or climatological
reasons. Adoption of the CBC incorporated the International Building Code, the California
Mechanical Code incorporated the Uniform Mechanical Code, the California Plumbing .Code
incorporated the Uniform Plumbing Code, the California Electrical Code incorporated the ~
National Electrical Code, and the California Fire Code incorporated the International Fire Code.
These codes are considered to be the minimum necessary to protect the public's health, safety,
and welfare, and are not considered an unnecessary constraint to housing. •
Through the use of the State Historic Building Code (Health and Safety Code §18950, Et seq.)
the City encourages the preservation of significant historic structures. The State Historic
Building Code permits the use of original or archaic materials in reconstruction with the purpose
of providing "alternative regulations and standards for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration
(including related reconstruction), or relocation of qualified historical buildings or structures".
The City has also enacted a Mills Act ordinance to provide tax incentives for preservation of
historic homes.
The housing stock is in relatively good condition. Based upon the current year housing uhit total,
22.6 percent of the City's housing stock was built between 2000 and 2007, 9.2 percent was built
between 1990 and 2000. Significantly, 59.3 percent of the City's housing stock has been built
since 1985. For those structures that do need repair, the City enforces those standards and
regulations that ensure reasonable and adequate life safety. The application of these standards
allow for the exercise of judgment, as permitted in the code, so that older buildings built under
less demanding regulations are not unduly penalized.
Housing for Persons with Disabilities/Reasonable Accommodations
Local governments are required to analyze potential and actual constraints on housing for
people with disabilities, demonstrate efforts to remove governmental constraints, and include
programs to accommodate people with disabilities. During the 2000 Housing Element cycle the
City adopted an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ("AI") (adopted December
2002) to provide an overview of the laws, regulations, conditions or other possible obstacles that
may affect an individual's or a household's access to housing. The AI provided the following
conclusions and actions, which are summarized below: •
-City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 9 ~ ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A-80
• Expanding Affordable Housing Opportunities .
Housing affordability alone is not necessarily a fair housing issue. However, when
housing affordability issues interact with other factors covered under the fair housing
laws, such as household type, composition, and race/ethnicity, fair housing concerns
may arise. Moreover, the fair housing equation has two sides. On the one side is the .
availability of a range of housing choices and on the other side is equal access to those
choices. A city must ensure that it has a range of housing choices to meet the various
-needs of all income segments in the community.
Action 1: Continue to provide homeownership opportunities in the community by
promoting the First-Time Homebuyer Program. Focus outreach efforts towards lower
income households, particularly to Black, Hispanic, and Asian households.
Action 2: Continue to facilitate the development of housing for all income groups within
the community. Focus on facilitating affordable housing development through a
combination of financial and regulatory assistance. Provide affordable housing
throughout the community.
Action 3: Develop a monitoring system of the Redevelopment Agency's lending
practices for the First Time Homebuyer Program.
• :Rehabilitation Assistance
Action 4: Continue to provide rehabilitation assistance for owner-occupied and investor-
owned single-family housing in the community.
Action 5: Ensure that Spanish speaking staff is available to assist residents regarding ;
• code enforcement, housing rehabilitation, and other housing services.
Action 6: Continue to rehabilitate substandard multi-family housing.
• Access to Information
Action 7: Expand the City website to provide additional links to housing services and
resources, such as the Fannie Mae Foundation.
• Public Policies and Programs .
Action 8: Provide developers with Federal fair housing guide information regarding
accessibility requirements as part of the land use entitlement process.
Action 9: Continue to pursue affordable housing development programs identified in the
Housing Element. To the extent feasible, facilitate the development of housing
affordable to lower and moderate income households based on the RHNA.
• Outreach to Lenders
Action 10: Work with .local lenders and government institutions to provide outreach to
lower income residents about government-backed financing.
Action 11: Encourage lenders, particularly local lenders, to hold home buying workshops
by local lending institutions.
i
Action 12: Explore regional effort to study predatory lending issues and support State
and Federal initiatives to address predatory lending practices.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 10 April
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
~ A-81
• Fair Housing Services •
Action 13: Continue to conduct fair housing workshops for residents, apartment owners,
and property managers. Ericourage the fair housing service provider to coordinate with
the real estate associations regarding fair housing training.
In addition to those actions summarized in the AI, and in an effort to remove potential constraints
and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for persons with disabilities the
City established an action program (Section XI-Program 2.D.2) as part of the Housing Element.
This program aims to enforce and regulate the disabled accessibility and adaptability standards
contained in Title 24 of the CBC as they apply to apartments and condominium/townhouse
projects. This program is applicable to new construction projects and in doing so applies all
Americans with Disability Act regulations and Title 24 of the CBC.
Code Enforcement
The Code Enforcement Division enforces the Municipal Code. Areas of concern include
property maintenance and aesthetics, land use and zoning compliance, parking control, animal
regulation, permits and development compliance, weed abatement, vector control, and graffiti
removal. The Code Enforcement Division primarily operates on a complaint response basis.
Once a violation is reported, a Code Enforcement Officer makes contact and issues notice.
requesting correction of the violation. If progress toward compliance is not observed within a
specified amount of time, amulti-step process begins that involves additional notices. As a last
resort, a formal nuisance abatement process is followed, an Administrative Citation may be
issued, or criminal proceedings may be sought. The overall emphasis of the Code Enforcement
program is to ensure that progress toward correction of violations is achieved on a voluntary
basis. One focus of the Code Enforcement program has beeri toward ordinance improvement in •
order to provide a strong foundation in law to backup requests for code compliance.
Overall community awareness is a goal of the Code Enforcement Division. Toward this goal
proactive programs are initiated. Neighborhood conservation programs focus on specific
neighborhoods, which though sound, are beginning to show signs of deterioration. Community
education, neighborhood cleanups, yard maintenance, and abandoned vehicle abatement are
emphasized during such programs. These neighborhoods are often low-income neighborhoods
eligible for CDBG funding for capital improvements, including street resurfacing, storm drains,
streetlights, and water and sewer upgrades.
C. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
New construction within the City triggers Ordinance 58, which requires as a condition of project
approval, the completion of all street frontage improvements. These improvements are primarily
street and storm drain improvements; although the undergrounding of utilities may also be
required. With undergrounding of utility lines there is an aesthetic benefit, but there is also a
public safety concern. Because the area is subject to extremely high winds, hazardous
conditions can be created when utility poles snap or a utility lines breaks. Therefore, site
improvement requirements are the minimum necessary for public safety and cannot be viewed
as a constraint to development.
D. FEES AND OTHER EXACTIONS REQUIRED OF DEVELOPERS
Building Permit Fees
The City and other public agencies charge fees that may affect the price of housing. However, •
the fees such as drainage, transportation, water, and sewer are necessary for public health and
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 11
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A-82
• safety, while other fees provide for public amenities, including park development and
beautification. Finally, processing fees reimburse the City for a portion of the cost of processing
development review applications.
A new fee imposed on the development of single-family homes is the fee associated with the
plan check of a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP"). The WQMP plan check may be
included as part of a separate grading plan check or combined with the building plan check. The
fee is based on an hourly rate of $114.84 and may amount to several hours time depending on
the level of review. Fire Department plan check fees are incorporated into the Building and
Safety Plan Check fee and are not assessed separately.
Table VI-6 compares fees levied in 2000 with fees levied in 2007 for a hypothetical typical
residence of 1,265 square feet located on an 8,000 square foot lot; based on this fee analysis
building permit fees have increased 64.4 percent during this period. Although some fees have
increased significantly, the Beautification Fee applied to residential development has not
increased. Based on an analysis of the existing home market, the median price of existing
homes has increased from approximately $173,000 in 1999 to approximately $545,000 in 2007;
an increase of 215.0 percent. Assuming the median price reflects the price of a new home, in
2000, fees represented 10.5 percent of the tgtal cost of a new home, and in 2007, fees
represented 5.3 percent of the total price. This decrease in the percentage is primarily the result
of a significant increase in the cost of a home, both new and resale, and although development
fees have also increased significantly, the rate of increase was far below the rate of increase in
home value during the same time period.
Water and Sewer Service '
Water and sewer services are provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District ("CVWD"). Based
• upon CVWD's Water Master Plan 2003 Update (this document is currently being updated)
current water supplies and delivery systems are adequate and present no immediate constraint
to housing development. Rancho Cucamonga accounts for approximately 75 percent of
CVWD's 47 square mile vvater service area, but about 90 percent of the customer service base.
Total water deliveries (including residential, commercial, and agricultural) was 47,435 Acre
Feet/Year ("AFY") in 2000, 55,320 AFY in 2005, and is projected to be 83,500 AFY in 2030.
Total water use '(including water deliveries, sales to other agencies, and water loss) was
50,717 AFY in 2000, 55,856 AFY in 2005, and is projected to be 86,000 AFY in 2030.
Water usage increases are directly attributed to increases in residential and commercial growth
during the planning period. Average day demand is approximately 50 million gallons per day
("mgd") and is expected to increase to 76.8 mgd by 2030. CVWD's Master Plan addresses
water supply and water delivery capability and provides a schedule for increasing capacity to
keep pace with development.
Water and sewer fees have increased 35.9 percent since 2000. New development is charged a
facilities fee and connection charges, these fees reflect a need for increased capacity in the
District's capital improvement requirements. .The water service fee for single-family residential
development is $4,783 per unit; this fee was $4,250 in 2000. There is a $330 per unit fee for the
meter and meter box; this fee was previously $1,500 per unit, or $300 for the meter and meter
box if installed by the property owner. Where no water supply infrastructure exists, the
development is required to provide master planned facilities. Water supply is not expected to be
a constraint on development.
Sewers are provided by CVWD, while the Inland Empire Utility Agency ("IEUA") provides
wastewater treatment facilities. Based upon CVWD's Master Plan 2003 Update, planned
• expansion, upgrade, and timely maintenance of the sewer system will provide adequate sewer
service through the build-out period. For the typical dwelling unit, CVWD charges $2,700 in
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 12 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A-83
sewer connection fees. Where no sewer infrastructure exists and is required as a condition of
development, the development is required to provide master planned facilities. Sewer capacity •
is not expected to be a constraint on development.
CVWD passes along the IEUA facilities fee of $4,450 per dwelling unit as a sewer system
capacity fee. In 2000 this fee was $3,530, a 26 percent increase. The increase reflects the
need for increased wastewater treatment capacity through build-out. Wastewater treatment
capacity is not expected to be a constraint on development.
.. ~• ..
.~ •
Buildin Permit
trr
$582.50
It
$770.95
32.3%
Plan Check $436.87 $1,008.12 130.7%
WQMP $0.00 $229.68 100.0%
Draina a $918.27 $3,184.57 246.8%
Trans ortation $1,710.05 $4,654.00 172.5%
Beautification $253.00 $253.00 0.0%
Park Develo ment $2,757.72 $3,932.00 42.6%
Water & Sewer CVWD $9,019.00 $12,263.00 35.9%
Chaffe Joint Union Hi h School District $759.00 $1,846.90 143.3%
K-8 School District $1,682.45 $1,872.20 11.3%
Total $18,118.86 $30,014.42 65.7%
Fees tiased on a..Proposed T265'§quare,fooh residence 2-c`ar garage :8'000 square-fgot lot`no decks or patio
"~LowrDerisi ResidenhaFD~sfrict:WDMP..ass'urnis a,2~houureview.,.a--.... _~~' -'~ k<Yxx~s~:''~-~ N~ ,.r .¢~,,. a, m s Wand located:m the ~-
o~ " ., :r ^+~'
Source..;.,Randho Cucamonga4007 City FeeSchedule -, ~ ~- . ~ ,r y.y„ K;' ~ ~ , x~r oas+~ s `y .,.- ~,
'. ~. Cucamgnga Valley Water Distract "~:i," k ,, -; -~,i ~, s , '~yA , „ ss c" r ; ~, ; ,' -
~;nChaffey Joint Union Higfi School Distiict _ ~`~- , :''~ t - zr W ~~ ~, ''~ ~ , -
KBSchodrDistn Ns "the'AIta.Lo`rrma''School District fee was used to com ute>, ~, ' ~ ,
School Facilities •
Five school districts serve the City. As a result of the rapid growth prior to incorporation the local
school districts have faced severe overcrowding. The present concern among the school
districts continues to be the inability to finance construction of new school facilities in the post-
Proposition 13 years. Under AB 2926 (1989), the State requires written certification regarding
classroom availability prior to project approval. As an absolute policy, the City requires that
school facilities shall be provided. The Development Code (§ 17.08.050(C)(1)) states in part,
"[t]he project includes school facilities or adequate school facilities exist which are or will be
capable of accommodating students generated by this project". AB 2926 also regulates the
collection of developer fees by the school districts under subdivision processing. When a
legislation action, such as a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, or Development
Agreement is requested, a condition may be added to require completed school facilities or
provide in lieu fees.
Although there has been an increase, State mandated fees produce insufficient revenue to buy
land and build new schools. The timing of collection virtually guarantees that students will need
classrooms before funds are available to build them. State authorized fee increases are not
indexed to inflation and lag the general inflation rate. Two elementary school districts
(Cucamonga and Etiwanda) impose a per unit fee on new construction and. one elementary
school district (Etiwanda) utilizes a variety of measures that include both Mello-Roos and
Community Facilities District bond financing for new schools (Table VI-8).
In general, schools in the City are at capacity or are experiencing declining enrollment. In terms
of overall school capacity, a total of 6,920 new students have been added since 1999 (Table VI-
9). Of the four elementary school districts, only the Etiwanda School District reports being below
capacity, but only as a result of new school construction. Alta Loma School District has •
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ VI - 13 April 2008
2008 Housing Element ~ -
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A-84
• experienced a declining enrollment for the past few years and does not have plans for additional
schools. Cucamonga School District has been experiencing declining enrollment, yet
experienced a slight increase in the current school year. Central School District reports that they
are experiencing a district wide decline in enrollment and do not anticipate. adding any new
facilities. As most of the vacant land available for residential development is located in the
northeast section of the City, the Etiwanda School District has been and will continue to be the
school district most impacted by future residential development.
Chaffey Joint Union High' School District added Rancho Cucamonga High School in 1993 and
Los Osos High School in 2002. There are currently no plans for additional schools in the district
as overall enrollment within the district is projected to gradually decline. If all 2,817 units that
have Tract approval from the Planning Commission were built by the year 2013, then an
additional 1,866 students could be generated, this is based on a student generation factor of 0.4
for K-8, and 0.2626 for high school.
Financing for Required Infrastructure
Generally, the cost to extend urban infrastructure and services continues to serve as a constraint
on development, including residential development. This is especially true in Rancho
Cucamonga, which incorporated post-Proposition 13 where the City's share of the property tax is
very low compared to surrounding cities. Other sources of funding for capital improvements and
operating and maintenance costs are extremely limited. Tax increment financing for areas within
the City's Redevelopment Area has provided some facilities, for example fire stations.
Mello-Roos.Community Facilities District ("CFD") financing is an alternative. Through the Mello-
Roos mechanism a property owner/developer can use bonded indebtedness to finance capital
improvements needed for development. The new homeowners will be obligated to repay the
• bonds. One school district'(Etiwanda) uses Mello-Roos bond financing in portions of their
district. The City has supported two developer initiated CFD's. CFD 88-1 provided for the
construction of a new fire station in the northeast area of the City. CFD 88-2 financed facilities to
remove flood hazards required to protect the public's safety prior to development of three
subdivisions located in the northeast area of the City. '
Based on the previous experiences, the City expressed several concerns about Mello-Roos
financing. The total burden on any individual's property tax should not exceed 1.8 percent of
assessed value. There is a potential for perceived inequity when one family pays 1 percent of
assessed value and another family is obligated to pay 1.8 percent as a result of Mello-Roos
obligations. As a result, the potential for an unintended increase in tax burden on homeowners
may occur when the market absorption schedule exceeds the absorption rate.
The City has supported the use of Mello-Roos financing for more expensive, low-density
residential development. The Mello-Roos districts for schools impact all new housing and
therefore have a potential impact on development of new affordable housing. Mello-Roos
Community Facilities bonding is a potential constraint on housing. In general; lack of funding for
capital improvements will remain as a potential constraint on future development.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 14 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element - _
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A ~85
..~
.~
.. ~ rr rt
Alta Loma $0.214 $0.00 $1.33 $1.48 Additions under 50o sq ft
fee exem t
Central $0,214 $0.29 $1.33 $1.81 Additions under 500 sq ft
fee exem t
Cucamonga $0.214 $0.29 $1.33 $1.81 Additions under 500 sq ft
fee exem t
Etiwanda $0.214 $0.29 $2.51 $3.25 51.81 for additions
Chaffey Joint Union $0.96 $0.13 $0.60 $1.46 Additions under 500 sq ft
Hi h School fee exempt
-Source:S:~ScFooPDisfncts°Feesla~e era iiare foot.. --.a,':,..:-. - ,"' ~-°- - -, -~~
~..
.• ~
Alta Loma
.-
None
Central None
Cucamon a $2 933.91/dwellin unit
Etiwanda $2,823.95/dwellin unit
Chaffe Joint Union Hi h School None
"Sdurce::.:;Scliool!Distncts ::~r::;~~a r , a .:=~ .~ .;., -.:...: ~. . , ., .,: ,-:_ ._~.. , .~:..-.., r, ,,.
.. .. r
..
Alta Loma`Schobl Distract ~*`~~~ ; >,
r
'Public:"e ~
..•
..
, A ~
iK -<8:
rtt
..
:' s 'i;7*,629~ '"`
rr tr:
..
``6~7n18? ""~"
Central~School~Distnct.;`xv~,'"=, ~~.
~F . Publib~~'• K~'.8. ,- "`. ~"- .x5;1':16 "- . ~:.4~`85Z,-, :_
Cucamon 'a';Scti"ooI Distiict' , ~. ,, ' :?. P.tibllct, r K -~B~ _, `` `2,~7-70 - f . ;.:2'856'• •~'
Etiv/antlaSdhoofDlstncf~'; `. _ ~?. _Publlc:_~.. :K. 18 .• _'7;400 ~ 12-'340: ,r.,
.Alta--Loma:Hi"hiSchbdl. ~,`i- ~ •i, .P.utilic.x~' ;9_`:12 ; ;; -;=2`891 `'"x 2+<Z04;':i
'Etiwanda=Hi IiSchodl 7,:; . .-.;'1 :Ptibhb,: .., 9 =_,12 -;- `; :~;3;237~ .- , fi :';: 3 347; _=,--
LosOsos:Hi tiSchooL_ r>• _ _ ^i?ulilic7~~. ~ 9= 12 ~0 = 3`161 ° "
Rarichd:Cucamdn aHi li'School :.. ~~_ ;.Public:::. ' 49_:12 -;2;894 r 2`932.:.. '-
Alta Loma Christian School Private P - 8 278 240
Cross and Crown Lutheran Private K - 3 0 42
Harvard Place Private School Private K - 8 161 161
Kindercare Private P - 6 260 185
Montessori School House Private P 8 K 60 90
Sacred Heart Elements Private K - 8 285 268
Total £?.,~',~ 32,981 39,901
Source ~ Schobl:Distncts 9nd.f?nvate Schools = ,x , `~~ , `
P Preschool; K=:Kindergarteri'"'~~ '-'.. ~ - • ~a`~'> ,- -
. -= ~ ~ -_ -
-
E. LOCAL PROCESSING AND PERMIT PROCEDURES
u
The City uses a standard development review process to ensure that residential projects are of a
high quality design. The standard review process, from the time of formal application submittal
through review by the Planning Commission is typically a 12-week process. Per the Permit
Streamlining Act (Government Code §65920, Et seq.), the City has 30 days to deem a project
application incomplete or complete for further processing. Once the completeness
determination is made the project is scheduled for committee review. This includes review •
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 15 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A~86
• before the various recommending committees including Grading, Technical Review, and Design
Review Committees, as well as Trails Committee when applicable. The process is designed so
that all of the necessary reviewing departments, including Planning, Building and Safety,
Engineering, Community Services, Sheriff, and Fire are involved in project review from the
earliest stages. As a result, City Departments function in a coordinated manner and the
applicant is appraised of any concerns early in the review process.
The development review process provides a minimum 30-day notice to the public prior to a
project's first public hearing by the Planning Commission. For infill project and large projects,
neighborhood meetings are scheduled early in the application process in order to identify and
address community concerns.
The same review format is used for all types of projects including industrial and commercial, and
residential. The actual review process may extend beyond the 12-week period. For example, a
complex project, significant unresolved environmental issues, or inadequate application
submittal may lengthen the review period. The resolution of design issues and scheduling
review by the Design Review Committee frequently extends processing time. The Planning
Department encourages apre-application conference for large projects. Also, a preliminary
review procedure permits an applicant to discuss a major project with the Planning Commission
prior to formal project submittal.
In the 1990's, the Planning Commission requested a process to streamline review policies. In
:the first revision of the development review process, the Planning Director may consider and
decide routine matters, for example, tentative tract proposals for less than 10 acre sites which
are not located on an arterial street and non-construction Conditional Use Permits. The
Planning Director provides a public notice of meeting and conducts a hearing prior to making a
decision on such projects.
• F. REMOVAL OF GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions
In 2002 the City adopted Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions to assist in the
development of affordable housing opportunities in accordance with Government Code §65915-
65918. These provisions allow a density bonus and other regulatory concessions to provide
incentives for "the production of housing for very low income, lower income, moderate income,
and senior households" to "facilitate the development of affordable housing" within the City. 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, very low, and senior households, the applicant
may request a density bonus and/or other regulatory concessions to facilitate the development.
Regulatory concessions act as incentives, which 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. However, the caveat regarding
the density bonus is that the development incentive granted shall contribute significantly to the
economic feasibility of providing the target units.
When implemented the Density Bonus Provisions act to reduce potential for governmental
constraints regulating the development of housing by allowing for an increased project density
when site conditions would normally warrant a reduced project density. Depending on the
number of units held for low or very low income households, the applicant may request up to
• three incentives and a density bonus. When properly implemented, a density bonus may
increase the maximum allowable residential density of a project by up to 35 percent. The
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 16 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A-87
following table demonstrates how the density bonus, provisions have assisted in the
development of affordable housing in the City.
.. r ~-
Northtown Housing Development 180 225 `
Cor oration San Sevaine Villas
Workforce Homebuilders (Rancho 147 166
Workforce Housin '
Total 327 391
Sourcer. Ranchd.Cucamoriga:Planning Departments , -', °-.? ..?~- ,*~.': -~ ~'" az -
Due to`prolect zoning a density bonus was.hot necessary ~biit protect held 80 percent ands as affordable and could have requested-~
a:densif .bonus - :.,~.~.3.r s, - - ^. ~ . - ' ' ~ " "-
Second Dwelling Units
In 2003 the City adopted code requirements relative to second dwelling units identifying that
these units are permitted subject to certain development standards (maximum unit square
footage, minimum lot size, and building height, occupancy, entrance, and parking) and design
standards (match the architectural style of the primary residence design features including
materials, color, scale, and details). To assist in informing the public of these standards, the City
prepared a public information handout identifying the purpose, permitted zone, and applicable
development standards relative to the placement these units.
When implemented the second dwelling unit provisions act to reduce potential for governmental
constraints regulating the development of housing by allowing for an increased residential
density on existing single-family lots when site conditions permit the second unit.
Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance
The City is considering the implementation of an Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance to
assist in addressing Redevelopment Agency affordable housing obligations. Despite
tremendous efforts, which have produced over 1,700 units of affordable housing, the Agency is
currently providing approximately 68 percent of its requirement affordable housing requirement.
The Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance could include-the following key points, which
when implemented would function to reduce constraints on the creation of affordable housing
opportunities:
Require up to 15 percent of any proposed residential development to include affordable
housing units at various income ranges if a discretionary approval is required to allow 1) an
increase in density, 2) an increase in the permitted percentage of residential development
allowed for amixed-use development, 3) a change in zoning regulation from a non-
residential designation to a residential designation, and 4) the conversion of rental units to
condominium ownership.
• Income and Affordability Restrictions would be applied as follows:
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 17 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VI -Governmental Constraints -
A ~88
•
u
•
• Provide exemptions for: 1) applications deemed complete prior to the effective date of the
ordinance, 2) residential projects that have a Development Agreement which excludes the
• inclusionary requirement, 3) projects that have an approved Regulatory Agreement with the
RDA, and 4) projects which contain 5 residential units or less.
• Provides the following alternatives to producing units within the project: 1) constructing or
substantially rehabilitating units on another site, 2) purchasing equivalent affordable housing
covenants for units in existing multi-family projects, and 3) payment of an in-lieu fee for
projects with 20 or fewer units, and projects of more than 20 units upon approval of the City
Council based on findings that the cost of providing the units on-site would substantially
exceed the amount of the applicable in-lieu fee.
U
L,J
City of Rancho Cucamonga VI - 18 April 2008
2008 Housing Element -
Section VI -Governmental Constraints
A-89
Section VII -SPECIAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE NEEDS GROUPS
California Government Code §65583(a)(7) requires "(a]n analysis of any special housing needs, •
such as those of the elderly, persons with disabilities, large families, farmworkers, families with
female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter." The
following are the highlights associated with this section.
• According to the 2000 Census, there are 17,292 persons (14.8 percent of the population) aged 5
years and over that have at least one disability. Over two thirds of the adult disabled population
is employed, with 63.2 percent of those persons with at least one disability being employed. For
the low-income disabled, assistance with the installation of special equipment and availability of
affordable housing are primary needs.
• According to the 2000 Census, there are 7,788 persons 65 years of age or over who reside in
the City. A large portion of available community resources is allocated to seniors who have
incomes less than 80 percent of the median family income for the, Riverside-San Bernardino-
Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA").
• According to the 2000 Census, there are 6,770 large families (5 or more persons) residing in the
City, an increase of 1,676 households since 1990. Of these, 34.2 percent pay more than 30
percent of their income for housing.
• According to the 2000 Census, the incomes of 653 female-headed households, representing
12.4 percent of the 5,279 female headed households with no husband present were below
national poverty level of $17,050 for a family of four. In comparison, the incomes of 691 married
couple families, representing 2.8 percent of the 24,753 married-couple families were below the
national below poverty level.
• Less that 0.2 percent persons living in the City are employed as "farmworkers." •
This section discusses assistance needs for the various special needs populations in the City,
including disabled, elderly, large families, female-headed households, homeless, and farmworkers.
It is consistent with the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan (adopted by the City Council on May 4, 2005),
which was prepared by the City for the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") program. A
similar need shared by a large number of each of the special need groups is their low-income.
A. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
From a housing perspective, there are three different types of disabilities that create varying housing
needs: 1) the physically disabled; 2) the developmentally disabled; and 3) the mentally disabled.
The 2000 Census identifies four different disability categories: 1) sensory, 2) physical, 3) mental,
and 4) self-care. Persons with disabilities often require public assistance, including housing needs.
The 2000 Census identifies that a total of 17,292 persons (14.8 percent of the population 5 years
and over) have a disability. This includes 3.8 percent (962 persons) of those aged 5 to 15, 15.3
percent (12,919 persons) of those aged 16 to 64, and 44.1 percent (3,411 persons) of those aged
65 and older. In absolute terms, the 16 to 65 age group has the highest number of disabled
persons, but in relative terms as a percentage of the population, the population age 65 and older
has the highest number of disabled persons with almost half of the population having at least one
disability. Over two thirds of the adult disabled population is employed, with 63.2 percent of those
persons with at least one disability being employed.
The City's disabled population needs a range of facilities and services. Facilities include physical
access to buildings and transportation. The minimum requirement is set forth by Federal legislation.
Specially equipped housing units are needed. Special equipment includes lifts, ramps, grab bars,
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A-90
• extra-wide doorways, special kitchen equipment, and special bathroom design. Such equipment is
generally privately provided on a case-by-case basis. Handicapped renters are permitted to install
special equipment, but low-income disabled persons may need public assistance to achieve a
livable dwelling unit. Specially equipped units may be included in senior housing designs.
u
•
As indicated by the census figures many disabled persons work and live independently. According
to social service professionals, housing assistance is often needed when disabled individuals
.complete rehabilitation programs. For low-income disabled, assistance with the installation of
special equipment and availability of affordable housing are primary needs.
The range of services for the disabled includes full institutional care, transitional. care, and
independent living. Transitional care may be provided by families or through group quarters. The
latter may include on-site professional or paraprofessional.support (see Exhibit VII-1 ).
.. - •~ ' •-
•~ ~•. ...
,~ -
r
~ -a,
1,
dult:Da Care ' '°""~"~€
:Ty`~ ~
r
~~
`~
~
r~ ,
~" ~' '~-` se ~:
~'
#"
-
~
~
'
~'
~
~
~'
'~
'
"
~~''
-
,~
.
..
,
.C_ ~
5.
^k
k:. rc., .4
. aflYmcvt
i_- Y..r
,:rx~
.,~as
;M6i--.`+^`a
,
k.._
::.
v£
„
~,
a5
~:2:' :~-.
_
.nun
~
Crossroads Adult Day Care
945 Cartilla Avenue, Suite A Capacity = 60
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
951 481-9663
Horrigan Cole Enterprises Non-ambulatory, developmentally disabled adults ages 18
DBA Cole Vocational Services and over.
8520 Archibald, #20 Suite A Capacity = 45
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909 980-9598
Inland Adult Developmental Center Licensee may be licensed for ambulatory and non-
10221-B Trademark Street mbulatory developmentally disabled adults.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Capacity = 50
909 483-1310
OPARC ADC-Rancho Cucamonga Licensee prefers to serve ambulatory developmentally
8333 Rochester Avenue, #112 isabled individuals ages 18-59 years. Restricted health
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 are services provided.
909 948-5592 Ca aci = 75
dult=Resident1a13Facilit`.;~.,,,;...,~,~~~~,;kr~~ ~a~'~"~',~t?~ ~ a.rn "::~a:5r~~a,~ *=h: ~; :~~~<~~~F..^~3_`-~;
Balsa Home, The ~ mbulatory and non-ambulatory disabled adults, ages 18-
9684 Balsa Street 59.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Capacity = 6
909 989-1058
Casa De Amelia ARF
7650 Jadeite Avenue Capacity = 3
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730
90 476-1938
Campbell Foundation
8515 Ramona Avenue Capacity = 4
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909 980-9967
Garden mbulatory only. Licensee prefers to serve
9212 Garden Street evelopmentally disabled adults, ages 18-59 years.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Capacity = 6
909 941-4449
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008 Housing Element -
Seciion VII -Special Housing Needs
A-91
Grosso's Adult Residential Facility
7019 La Lanza Court Capacity = 3
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 944--1630
Monte Vista Family Home
8820 Monte Vista Capacity = 4
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 483-4254
M. O. Unity mbulatory. Licensee prefers developmentally disabled,
9388 Valley View ges 18-59 years.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 Capacity = 4
909 944-0298
Noah's Ark Residential
179 Ramona Avenue Capacity = 4
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 477-2528
Red Hill mbulatory only. Licensee prefers to serve
7628 Alta Cuesta Drive developmentally disabled adults, ages 18-59 years.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Capacity = 4
909 982-7550
Rose Manor mbulatory only. Licensee prefers to serve
9254 Kirkwood Avenue evelopmentally disabled adults, ages 18-59 years.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 apacity = 4
909 481-9898
Rose Villa Licensee prefers to serve ambulatory developmentally
9204 Apricot Avenue isabled adults, ages 18-59 years.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737 apacity = 4
909 989-4887
inmar Care Home, Inc. mbulatory only. Licensee prefers to serve
8614 Vinmar Avenue evelopmentally disabled adults, ages 18-59 years.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 apacity = 6
909 -981-2096
.-,.e., ~~;v a' uz -.. ~, -n'` u: Y °'~3.$-
Grou ;Home,., ~.. v , . .:.~. ~,»M, _ '~.~~ x.~~~...z;., .,~.:~' a~ , n2- sz-w m , .~"s ~ -~ a=y§n "~:_. { .. _'
,«~.. ~~k ~ ~.i,~r . - ~.,~~.~,~, ...,.~..;~ ~ ~u6. m
Camry Group Home II mbulatory only. Children ages 9-17 years.
1061 Holly Street Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 484-1116
asa De Amelia Group Home II mbulatory only. Ages 7-17.
7750 Vineyard Avenue Capacity = 3
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909 987-2038
Corinthians Helping Hang Group Home mbulatory only. Ages 7-17.
11519 Carlisle Place Capadity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909 484-7259
Corinthians Helping Hand Group Home II mbulatory only. Ages 7-17.
7839 Patriot Place Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730
909 948-2898
Fields Comprehensive Youth Services mbulatory only. Males aged 13-17 years.
7062 Napa Street Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
(909 466-8685
City of Rancho Cucamonga - VII - 3
2008 Housing-Elemen6~-
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
•
•
A ~92
•
•
Horton Small Family Home mbulatory only. Ages 7-17.
10206 Chaparral Way, Unit F apacity = 3
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909 944-3155
.... ~ -c ~ rw.v .. n .. ~
Residential Care~forhthe.~Elderl ~~~~~~"'~~=,a. r ., c-s "X ! y'~,~1- } 1 3~'+ Cy a.Vy . `Mx - i
>,. ~ ~ ~-~~, ~, ~.., ~.~~ts,.,.~s~ ~ ,,,..,. ,,,..~,.,, .: .;
Ita Loma Board and Care
368 Moonstone Avenue Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 941-8459
methyst Board and Care for the Elderly Non-ambulatory clients ages 60 years and above.
7705 Amethyst Street Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909 484-3984
ngel Care Guest Home mbulatory and non-ambulatory clients ages 60 years and
7979 Teak Way Bove.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Capacity = 6
909 941-7970
trig Del Rey mbulatory and non-ambulatory clients, ages 60 years and
8825 Base Line Road bove.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Capacity = 145
909 989-4346
Cameo Elderly Care, Inc
879 Cameo Street Capacity = 3
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 987-2517
Genesis Manor mbulatory clients ages 60 years and above.
354 Sacramento Avenue Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 262-9802
Genesis Manor II
440 Opal Street Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 01701
909 262-9802
Ivy Cottage
369 Vineyard Avenue Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 476-7416
Marsha's Manor mbulatory clients ages 60 years and above.
7816 Henbane Street Capacity = 5
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
909 980-1089
Mountain View Cottages - VI
619 Amberwood Drive Capacity = 6
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
sos sso-ao2a
Palm Delight
461 Hellman Avenue Capacity = 4
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909 948-6777
Sunlit Gardens Assisted Living
9428 19`" Street Capacity = 62
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
909 481-2600
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 4 Aprii 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A-93
Sunrise Assisted Living at Alta Loma mbulatory and non-ambulatory clients, ages 60 years and
9519 Base Line Road bove.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Capacity = 77
909 941-3001
Summer Dream Assisted Living mbulatory and non-ambulatory clients, ages 60 years and
7434 Henbane Street bove.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Capacity = 6
909 980-8191
..... . ,.
rtroalhEarritl nNomes~.i.''`>~,,,-+~ ya:,,...~.xM.`1,r"~,~ ~ ~.r;;=.'.,,=:s: ..~?.,m~,;<..,~ _;. ,,~ .,~~;; ~.
Carol Grosso's Small Family Home mbulatory Clients: Licensee prefers to serve
019 La Lanza Court developmentally disabled clients, 0-17 years of age.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Capacity = 4
909 944-1630
Downtain Home, The Non-Ambulatory Clients: Licensee prefers to serve
8599 Hillside Road evelopmentally disabled children, ages 0-17 years.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 apacity = 3
909 989-7549
ource::.Cahforma-Department of Soaal Services Community Care Licensing Divisions..' ,.~; ~ ~ ,. --_'
"' -htt :/Iw~w,%.-ccld:ca. 'ov/does/ccld°search/ccld=seardh as 'x~~~~ "" " ~ ~ ~. ~ " -S4 -
B. ELDERLY
u
According to the 2000 Census, 7,788 persons 65 years of age and over reside in the City; this
represents a significant needs group. A large proportion of elderly renter and owner households
have incomes below 80 percent of the area median family income. Within the elderly population,
73.4 percent of all elderly renters and 39.8 percent of all elderly homeowners are within the lower
income categories. A cost burden greater than 30 percent of their income is experienced by 65.7
percent of all elderly renters and 35.3 percent of all elderly homeowners. Additionally, 36.9 percent •
of all elderly renters and 17.4 percent of all elderly homeowners experienced a cost burden greater
than 50 percent of their income.
Many senior citizens have reached their retirement years without adequate resources to meet their
needs. For renters, the problem of living on fixed incomes in a housing market where costs
increase faster than inflation can be difficult. Even those seniors who prepared well for their
retirement may have had their savings depleted as the result of declining interest rates or a lengthy
illness.
Social service professionals who work with seniors stress that while the elderly do not mind living
alone and often prefer it, they want to be part of a neighborhood where they feel an attachment, a
sense of belonging, feel reasonably safe, and have easy access to basic services. However,
housing costs and living expenses may increase and threaten their ability to continue to live in
neighborhoods where they may have spent substantial parts of their lives.
As shown in the previous data, the elderly need assistance with rental housing. Local senior
housing projects and Federal Section 8 rental assistance programs address the elderly rental need.
Those seniors who own their own homes may have difficulty when non-housing expenses increase
and their income does not. In such cases, home maintenance needs are often deferred. Elderly
homeowners often need housing rehabilitation services. Local repair and rehabilitation programs
address the elderly homeowner need. In Rancho Cucamonga, the allocation of public resources to
assist seniors with their housing needs is higher than for any other special needs group.
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 5 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A-94
• C. LARGE FAMILY
According to the 2000 Census there were 40,863 households in the City. Of these, 6,861 were
single person households and 27,232 were 2 to 4 person households. Large families are defined as
five or more persons; there were 6,770 large family households representing an increase of 1,676
households since 1990. In 2000 large families comprised 18.3 percent of all owner occupied
households arid 16.6 percent of all households.
•
u
Extreme) Low 0-30%
~-
1,355
11.1 ~
~-
930 3.2 ..
.-
2,285 5.6
Low 31-50% 1,139 9.4 1,203 4.2 2,342 5.7
1~-` -~ ,:.Subtofal° EL/L x+:`?2;494 ,~_"'?20"5 :, :~-: 2,133:-'.3; :7.4' ` '4;627, . `''11.3°-
Moderate 51-80% 2,263 18.6 2,258 7.8 4,521 11.0
Subfotal EL/LIM ' , ,~, -4`,7,57 +~!t39 1_, ", .4;471."::. ::;,15:2 "'`9;148"'.: = 22J3
Middle 80% and above 7,419 60.9 24,443 84.8 31,862 77.7
~~~~~TjS"ta`I~ ~.~~12?,1i76~'~' ~c1;00"O~,u~t ~~-.x,28;843' `~~-"100~Of~ "~4'I`019 x;100:0
~Soureei?5t20001HUDiState;of;the?Citi es'DatafS stemt "SOCDS; Com rehensiJe;Housin -?AHorda6ilit :'S frate "': "CHAS'!'-Data.. ~~~~:'-
Family Type/Tenancy
Among both renter and owner populations, the elderly make up the largest population of persons
with incomes below 50 percent of the area median family income. Among renters, the elderly have
incomes somewhat equally distributed among income categories with approximately 48.7 percent
having incomes below 50 percent of the area median income. Within elderly owner households,
21.8 percent have incomes below 50 percent of the area median income.
As a percentage of each housing/family category, large family households makeup 14.8 percent of
the total households; however, 11.6 percent of these households earn less than 30 percent of the
area median family income, and 21.3 percent earn less than 50 percent of the area median family
income (Table VII-4). Further, 12.5 percent of large family renters live in overcrowded quarters
(Table VII-5).
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 6 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A-95
In renter households, approximately 20.5 percent are low-income, 11.1 percent are extremely low-,
and 9.4 percent are low-income. In owner households, 7.4 percent are low-income and 3.2 percent
are extremely low- income and 4.2 percent are low-income. Citywide, 11.3 percent of all households
are considered extremely-low and low-income.
..
~;RENTER#'[*,~~sr.~,~i-.fed',r,;
a~-.ae~..7,:z,4.".t^~'-.e,: . .
',tt:~c'c`~.sAw_~;,~+
'~~h~,r=":a"?rA.~,~.
~t~..~°;~~ ~~... ~;,..~:._
Elderl 328 29.2 219 19.5 278 24.7 299 26.6 1,124 9.2
Small 444 7.5 520 8.8 1,100 18.8 3,810 64.9 5,874 48.2
Lar e 209 11.6 175 9.7 330 18.3 1,085 60.3 1,799 14.8
All Other 374 11.1 225 6.7 555 16.4 2225 65.8 3,379 27.8
Total 1,355
:OWNER ..,µ_... ~:m~ ..~._ 11.1 1,139
. ~.,yxs`~a"~''~jETda'
- 9.4 2,263
a_ :.:<'~v~, ~~c~`~s~ 18.6 7,419
i?~t.:: r.+s~~.~~~',~-n. 60.9 12,176 100.0
3,r:<-.-. '~ ._,-.
Elderl 335 ~9.7 420 12.1 624 18.0 2,088 60.2 3,467 12.0
Small 320 1.9 435 2.6 989 5.8 15,300 89.7 17,044 59.1
Lar e 55 1.1 158 3.2 395 8.0 4,340 87.7 4,948 17.2
All Other 220 6.5 190 5.6 250 7.4 2,715 80.5 3,375 11.7
Total 930 3.2 1,203 4.2 2,258 7.8 24,443 84.8 28,834 100.0
;Source:--.2000'SOCDS:CHAS ~Data=fiousehold~Aiea?MedianlF.ainir !Income` :HAMFI °' ~- - ~ - "~-'~"` ---`-
Cost Burden
Large proportions of renter households experience cost burden. In renter households 34.2 percent
experience cost burden and 12.5 percent experiencing severe cost burden. Elderly renters
experience the most severe cost burden as 65.7 percent pay more than 30 percent and 36.9
percent pay more than 50 percent of their income on rent. The majority of all extremely low- and
low-income renter and owner households are cost burdened: 72.0 percent of all extremely low- and
82.6 percent of all low-income households pay more than 30 percent of their income on rent and
65.0 percent of all extremely low- and 56.6 percent of all low-income households pay more than 50
percent of their income on rent.
- ~
r l~
r 1
~rRENTER~Y;n~"~^.s,.~~~~~,~..aY~- ..
l~ :r~
1 ~ 1 I r
~'~~?~mi:~~`~'c...:c+~~~ii"~'Y~_''~~'~"_. _ .^~s.`~
r
~~r'.~s~,'v~.
•
r r
z:«-'~~a~t~T ~`'=
Elderl 83.8 76.2 91.3 66.2 86.0 7.2 8.0 0.0 65.7 36.9
Small 76.6 61.9 90.4 51.9 69.5 6.4 11.4 0.8 34.2 11.0
Lar e 86.1 76.6 77.1 25.7 59.1 6.1 9.7 0.0 34.2 12.5
All Other 62.8 56.1 84.4 66.7 72.1 6.3 13.0 0.4 33.0 12.0
Subtotal 7a6y[.50 6"6.1
..OWNER ~#~T3 x t K°,
1_ ~rMm....._,..~.hfv9i'~Y?~:'.t~.~'~k?'Flrv 87.4 53.6 S%~70.7 Y6.4 11.5
~tr{ T .4 ~I~ ~ ~ Y. {Sw.±Y +.,.•,§§n '. sU735~
;"`~~`:,''.~!`w'4, "~~?`'zt~~ 0.5
~r~>7•`~}4.'".`i 36.8 13.9
7 ~'
`b+Kx.'~Y.r~. +d }s~~' eF
Elderl 62.7 55.2 65.5 42.9 39.1 23.9 23.7 4.3 35.3 17.4
Small 68.8 68.8 82.8 66.7 82.4 48.5 24.7 2.6 30.4 8.1
Large 81.8 81.8 82.3 60.1 77.2 24.1 23.7 3.8 30.5 8.1
All Other 63.6 63.6 92.1 78.9 70.0 70.0 36.1 4.8 43.6 16.3
Subtotal 66.1 63.4 78.1 59.4 69.7 68.2 25.7 3.2 32.5 10.2
TOTAL 72.0 65.0 82.6 56.6 69.4 22.1 22.4 2.6 33.8 11.3
Source:'""2000SOCDS CHAS-Data "~ "`~" t ~-"-' "' ' -~ ~"
?. >
`S Perceritaoe~of total!numtier of households 12`~176'renle~ houseFiolds, and 28;834"owner tiouseholds~`=
-
~~
f~,
~`'~
-
Overcrowding and Substandard Condition
•
In order to provide analysis of many of the factors considered previously, the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") cross-tabulated SOCDS CHAS data to address
households experiencing "housing problems" (Table VII-6). The three areas include the number of
households that: 1) occupy units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or plumbing
facilities), 2) live in overcrowded conditions (1.01 or more persons per room), and 3) a cost burden •
greater than 30 percent of household income.
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 7 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A-96
• The incidence of housing problems is higher for renters than owners and is significantly higher for
extremely low-income large-renter families (5 or more members) and low-income small-renter
families (2 to 4 members). The majority of all large renter families in the extremely low- and low-
income categories are overcrowded. A significant housing statistic is that 46.4 percent of renter
occupied units and 35.6 percent of owner occupied units (or 38.8 percent of all households)
experience some type of housing problem.
An estimated 696 renter occupied units and 1,619 owner occupied housing units are considered to
be in a substandard condition (Table VII-7); of thes"e units, 83 percent are suitable for rehabilitation
(577 renter units and 1,343 owner units). A majority of all extremely low-, low, and moderate-income
households, occupied by both renter and owner, have some type of housing problem.
•
P~RENTER~°~ rw
.,-..,~~+;'x' ..
t t~
+,maat.?r,~,~ .~~5
'r'i~__nl?~ry. ~:i-4Z~;;q"~u ..
r~ :r~ :t~
x'~*~f*~-ter-°x°^ v5 ,.T~`-S "~~x~`~+°r,`,p;~" , ,,aa~,:;a"~~ "Ta~."?~~„~'"*~:_
':rn*sn ~,`e*.,:vYV+r;."'~..~z... ~.. ~,~..sr°.... .~..,,. _.. as....___.,,...,. . _.»e~ .y'+.d-".th
Elderl 85.1 91.3 86.0 11.4 66.9
Small 80.9 92.3 80.5 23.0 44.2
Lar e 93.3 88.6 86.4 42.4 60.9
All Other 63.9 84.4 76.6 15.7 35.6
Subtotal 79.1 90.0 81.0 23.2 46.4
x; G 3s
~10WNER:.as~c~a.tk;' ~'~'
'.v€>:~.i`>i•,°x.~~'>~ '~ Std rcli x`pr'~x "1-u
~.~_ ~`~t»~~~t~i:t;~~..'~;,t-'~a~~..~- m~. ;,ze,. s:.
Elderl 62.7 65.5 39.1 23.9 35.4
Small 68.8 82.8 83.8 26.6 32.1
Lar e 81.8 97:5 82.3 36.2 42.3
All Other 63.6 92.1 70.0 36.1 43.6
Subtotal 66.1 80.1 69.7 29.1 35.6
~~~TOTAL''K 's%" ,~~ zf'~73;8~~ x'84' 9.~ ~ '~' 75+4 9~~a ~~'+27f7~ ~~~-r38~8,`r-~r
~~~
Source:. 2000:SOCD S~CHAS-Data + : :: -~= ~~-%: -'~ ~~,-'-= ~' -'
~ ~ ~. .
~~ ~:~ti-:
'~~Factorr
~~
y"
ek`~`~:~~`"
~'k'I~~ w
'~
~
^
:f2ENTEF2~$t`~
~ .~ . ~
WNER~
'' "~
~O
~L"
"
~
~>"<
`
~
,
.
,
.
c=r
E ~t
~ _
.
.
f
,
.
e
v
Possible Lead Paint 524 1,222
Lackin Com lete Plumbin Facilities 35 79
Lackin Com lete Kitchen Facilities - 46 106
No Tele hone Service 66 154
No Heatin Fuel Used 25 58
Total Substandard 696 1,619
Substandard But Rehabable 577 1,343
Sources= t ^'"- "CHAS'Databook~.Table:9 adii~HUD TechnicaF Bulletin 1 .:;, ~. ~ -+", ° : "-' -- := `~ - :>
:° 2, lhru_5i ~ Census2000 Percentage of Renters and Owners'calculated based on overall citywide proportion-(30% Renters,
~
r . ~ and 70°/'Owners) - - - .a ...- ~ ' -4 .. _
_'
6. - , `Assum tio`n that 83°%of alUunits are ~swteble:for~iehablldAtiori:^ - -
D. FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
A mother with her own children constitutes afemale-headed household. According to the 2000
Census 3,847 households, 9.3 percent of all households are female-headed and 4.1 percent of all
households are male-headed. Thus, 13.4 percent of all households are single-parent families. In
comparison, the 1990 Census counted 9.2 percent for all single-parent households of which 7.0
percent were female-headed.
• In 2000, the mean income for female-headed households was $43,198. Female-headed
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 8
2008 Housing Element
Section VII-Special Housing Needs
A ~97
households have substantially less income than other household categories. For comparison, the •
mean income for married-couple families was $86,060.
According to the 2000 Census, poverty level is based on the national average income and was at or
below $17,050 for a family of four..The incomes of 653 female-headed households, representing
12.4 percent of the 5,279 female headed households with no husband present were below national
poverty level. In comparison, the incomes of 691 married couple families, representing 2.8 percent
of the 24,753 married-couple families were below the national below poverty level.
In addition to housing assistance, it is reasonable to assume that all households that fall below the
poverty level are in need of social service assistance, including childcare and healthcare, and that
many need assistance with education and job training. It is also reasonable to assume that high
proportions of poverty level households, particularly single-parent households, are at risk of
homelessness.
E. HOMELESS
In 2003, the San Bernardino County Homeless Coalition completed a census and survey to address
the prevalence of homelessness in the County. Prior to the use of this survey, the City relied on
three surveys prepared for the 1990 Consolidated Plan (CDBG program). Two of these surveys
were prepared by the San Bernardino County Homeless Coalition (Febru,ary and November 1992)
and a third was conducted by the Center for Community Affairs of California State Polytechnic
University, Pomona (May 1993).
The San Bernardino County Homeless Coalition is organized into five local coordinating groups;
District 2 encompasses the immediate regional area and includes Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga,
and Upland. The estimated daily number of homeless residents in San Bernardino County in 2002
ranged between 5,270 and 8,351 persons. The survey identified 1,668 homeless persons within the •
five districts, 279 of those persons were located within Rancho. Cucamonga.
More than two-thirds of the homeless counted in the census were individuals, most of which were
individual adult males. Homeless women accounted for approximately 25 percent of those
.individuals counted. Further, 116 unaccompanied children under the age of 18 were also counted.
Statistics include 300 homeless families, representing 1,118 family members, and 21 percent of all
persons counted. Of those family members, 15 percent were adult males; 29 percent were adult
females, and the remaining 56 percent were children under the age of 18.
Overall, the homeless census summary results for District 2 results in a count of 503 persons, 260 of
which were located within Rancho Cucamonga. This total resulted from a count of 345 homeless
individuals, consisting of 282 adult males, 57 adult females, and 6 youth. Additionally, homeless
families consisting of 39 family units containing 13 adult males, 39 adult females, and 76 youth were
counted; an additional 30 individuals were identified through an informant count. These resulted
from combining the counts from street counts, informant counts, emergency shelters, transitional
housing, and miscellaneous locations.
A summary of the number of individuals assisted through the area's homeless shelters and facilities
is provided (Table VII-9). Comparing this data with information on available shelters and facilities
the number of persons in need far outweighs the available shelter capacity.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 9 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A~98
•
.•
NO. HOMELESS .
.,
785 .~
413
329
.,
156
39
25
..
260
Male 59% 53% 80% 65% 67% 96% 78%
Female 41% 47% 20% 28% 33% 4% 23%
CHILDREN 34% 40% -- 26%. 23% -- 0.3%
ETFINICITxY_ ~'. .P ~~u~ -~"
x~ ~'~sc'-~rew~. ~'i.s.nL ~S•Y a
~. "~ ~~"' ~
l..hn4l`h...~:.~w~'wS-ar--:~-5 ri
~~ [. ~ ~ ~ ~." a.?i
a3rS!. '~+ A X!=Yr ~~p"aT~?oY~ ,`+...~!*x ~• i. ~:~
Black 13% 12% 26% 3% 3% 16% 20.4%
White 40% 46% 29% 21% 38% 16% 52.2%
His anic 45% 38% 27% 38% 56% 60% 19.9%
Native American 1% 3% 5% 1% 0% 4% 3.0%
Asian/Pacific Islander 0% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0.5%
Unknown 2% 5% 37% 3% 4% --
2)'AGE{'~~;'i,~~ .~sz~ r1,~u~.~~.'i~~ r~s~''3;2~~'~'~~"~°'x`" ~pt^~~'~",'~;'~ tM~:%x?.-`"v,~t~"',3 o-~`.s3'`~'!y;?.
0-5 13% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% --
5-18 22% 20% -- 26% 23% - --
NOT IN SCHOOL 27%
[;WItERESLEPT° ~,r.;~.;a~a~s.e.~?!t~ 19% --
~,«~~~~t~~~~:~ -- 33%
~~:~k`~~'f~=x,~'t~€.~ --
.,:~_ ~~z 100.0%
~ ~..x.~;<Y~
Relative/Friends 26% 31% 18% 31% -- 36% 30.8%
Motel/Shelter 39% 34% 18% 0% - 9% 22.9%
Car/Van/Etc. 16% 11% 12% 28% -- 5% 9.3%
Vacant Buildin 8% 4% 0% 19% -- 0% 8.6%
Outside 10% 20% 36% 14% -- 36% 28.1
Other 0% - 15% 8% 14% --
uREASONI!FIOMELESS"Yki~""'~,°"s~... +'~s'w~„~'.' rt~~-'<~ ~`~.~4-`Rai't~~~;~_~*~?~~ ~ ~~'x`f~°,
Lost Job 213 110 70 N/A N/A N/A 28.4%
Illness 57 46 46 N/A N/A N/A 1.7%
Evicted 118 136 51 N/A N/A N/A 3.5%
Moved/No Work 70 40 13 N/A N/A N/A --
Lost Benefits 30 26 10 N/A N/A N/A --
Asked to Leave 78 91 12 N/A N/A N/A 3.5%
Alcohol/Dru 209 54 58 N/A N/A N/A 17.1
Domestic Violence 28 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.3%
Rental Sold or
Condemned 14 18 0.04 N/A N/A N/A -
Source February._1992 and-No_vember.1992 SanBernardmo County.Hom
Polytechnic University Survey`> ,'~~ " J4 4 ~ ' r
'a .... 2003-San Bemardirio.County.Homeless Coalition '' ..- . , - eless-CoahtiomSurveys and May:1993 California-Slate ~:
~r ~ "' °I-
' ~; _' ->l r -
F. FARMWORKERS
According to the 2000 Census, there were 117 persons employed in farming, forestry, and fishing
occupations (Table II-8B), which is less than 0.2 percent of the 61,950 employed persons living in
the City. There is no information available to desegregate farmworkers from the category "farming,
fishing, and forestry." Based on the absence of agricultural production in the City, it is assumed that
there are very few such jobs. Citrus and vineyard agriculture was declining at the time of the City's
incorporation and there are currently no agricultural zones in the City. A few orchards and vineyards
remain in production during the transition years before urban buildup. As a consequence of the
• small population and rapidly declining agricultural production, no statistical need for housing has
been identified for farmworkers.
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 10 - April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A 99
G. EMERGENCY SHELTERS •
Government Code §65583(a)(4) requires "(t]he identification of a zone orzones where emergency
shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use permit or other discretionary
permit". As part of the City's 2000 Housing Element, the City established Program 2.C.2, which
stated "[e]valuate existing code requirements to determine those conditions and standards where
various types of shelter facilities may be located, including review and evaluation of industrial
districts. Research and evaluate special requirements for location of shelters for abused women
and children, specifically the need for anonymous address."
In 2002 the City amended its Development Code to identify those zones where an emergency
shelter may be located with the intent of the code revision being to address opportunities for
establishing emergency shelter facilities, not to provide long-term transitional housing opportunities,
which typically allow for an extended stay. When permitted, emergency shelter facilities were
allowed in various commercial (General Commercial District citywide) and industrial districts
(General Industrial District, Subareas 1, 3, 4, and 5), subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit, but were not permitted within any residential districts. Since the adoption of this amendment,
the applicable Government Code section has been amended to identify that emergency shelters
should be identified as a permitted land use in certain districts without a conditional use or other
discretionary permit.
In developing the current emergency shelter provisions the City determined that a conditional use
permit was necessary to properly analyze shelter requests because issues relating development
(i.e., size of facility, hours of day time operation, capacity, length of stay, parking, environmental
issues, etc.) need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis specifically relating to the individual
characteristics of each proposed project site. These are standards that are typically evaluated with
the development of any conditionally permitted use, placed in a new or converted building, because •
the applicable planning criteria are evaluating the use of the property, how it is designed, what the
impacts to the neighboring property could be. These standards encourage and facilitate the
development of emergency shelters by evaluating the placement of the shelter itself, not the
individual users of the shelter.
Because City Codes establish that emergency shelters are permitted subject to approval of a
conditional use permit, a revised Program 2.C.2 is included in the 2008 Housing Element
establishing that the City amend its Development Code, consistent with Government Code
§65583(a)(4) to identify "a zone orzones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use
without a conditional use or other discretionary permit." This item will be added to the Planning
Department work program and completed within one year from adoption of the Housing Element.
H. TRANSITIONAL SHELTERS
The City does not permit the development of transitional housing opportunities, but instead has
amended Development Code requirements to allow for the placement of emergency shelter
facilities. Transitional housing typically allows for an extended stay (longer than an immediate need
for housing) and support services for the occupants (i.e., medical aid, employment, and housing
counseling, etc.). Although the City does not permit these land uses directly, the City does support
several transitional housing facilities through the City's Community Development Program as part of
the Homeless Strategic Plan of the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
The City established an activity under the Homeless Strategic Plan, Objective 7, Program 7.1,
Activity 7.1.1, which states "[t]he City supports a variety of organizations that provide immediate
assistance, advocacy, and short-term shelter to homeless individuals and families. The City will
continue to address priority needs, and will continue to evaluate the provision of transitional shelter •
assistance." These facilities include:
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 11 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A100
• House of Ruth: House of Ruth provides shelter, programs, education, and opportunities for safe,
self-sufficient, healthy living for battered women and their children who are at-risk of
homelessness. Services provided include 24-hour emergency safe shelter (up to 30 days), 24-
hourcrisis intervention hotline, 24-hour emergency transportation, outreach offces, and children
programs. House of Ruth is located in Claremont, at P.O. Box 457, Claremont, CA 91711.
• Inland Valley Council of Churches -West End Hunger Prop~am (BONA): SOVA offers a 5-day
food supply (15 meals) for all members of a household. SOVA helps families maintain their
health and avoid homelessness by providing emergency food assistance and support services.
SOVA is located at 635 South Taylor Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761.
• .Project Sister: Project Sister provides sexual assault and violence prevention by working with
teens addressing date rape, sexual harassment, and personal safety awareness; and working
with seniors, who are vulnerable sexual assault, robbery, burglary, and financial exploitation.
Project Sister is located at P.O. Box 1390, Claremont, CA 91711.
• Foothill Family Shelter: Foothill Family Shelter operates a 90-day transitional shelter for
homeless families with children. Support services are provided to enable families to obtain
independence and permanent housing. Foothill Family Shelter is located at 1501 West Ninth
Street, Suite D, and at 230, 238, and 294 North San Antonio Avenue in Upland, CA 91786.
•
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga VII - 12 ~ Aprtt 2008 ~~
2008 Housing Element
Section VII -Special Housing Needs
A101
~x(/I
~tW
m"E s ;
C'~-
[1 C1 ~
o ~o o
~-.a
N
~ --
-N::o
'
'
,
v.i~'7:'
d..'v
e
Q
-L
'
~
rn:;
.U'o _~._.:..
.
'o.._
3 J_.
~
~
W
_
'- _
O:'p : r.5
ms '
Q:;mt :
~ ~
.i'
.
IQ~T
1G,:(0>:= a
is -
~
T~_C`.`" ~`
Z'
• L~~
~
YiLe,
~'T"Ry s
:
(O w..
:~:~' r
u N ALL`' T'_.~ ...
c cr
`~'-`-Ong---
N`
ad
r Ory.._ i
=I: Q-.:;
~
'~..-r
V..m ~
~2
M ~ °p W M u) OO p_:O
~ l7 r NtN~
.
'.C t:.;'il.
..~_'O ~„=
1
..:
L
_ _
-
M O i0 O ~O _
.
U^O_:.
r:3t-~' _
...
~"
n m r rn r p
~G~r .
_x
;3
O _:~
' -
:a~3-
~~
~ N
~
N O N
~
~ M~ ~~,-
d"T ='
ro= .
'i
=rn,~`„_
C Cc
. .`
y
_ ~._
~ v M o
N f") f7 U W `^
rL_
O
v
i
~.~' .N
a,~: v
C~
_~_
~
_
°
Qr. w1N rrn
<c
m:~_a 0
`m
M a ~ W ~fn:tl: y' d~
O ~
N V N h Qt'.p1(p :'c
Nr c.N
o
'
~!~
' o
-6
.
,
ai
-
N_ ~' ~
-
~ D E ~~°° Ji: r~:
a
~ C N - .~,~ . . _.
~
U
~ ~ C O -
L~ N N U d lU N N L.
C ',V
~ V
i (p
>
a E y
E c m m ,
C O L O O L t0 N J m O N O Q O; o -o
C U U = LL (n U = S U= mo d N) ;~ f n'
•
O
N
Q
•
m
N
Z
m
~ c
~ N
~
C
O ~
E~=
~ °~m
vE~
~ v
owr~
U ~ I
C N-
N 7 ~
Y ° c
= o
•
O U
T
,
,
~oN
A102
• Section VIII -ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES
California Government Code §65583(a)(8) requires ''(aJn analysis of opportunities for energy
conservation with respect to residential development." The following are highlights of this section.
• The City's Development Code requires that landscaping and irrigatioh be designed to conserve
water and energy.
• Enforcement of State energy requirements (Title 24) as part of the building plan check process.
• Optional Development Standards encourage energy conservation appliances and features and
an alternative solar energy system in appropriate situations.
• Solar access rights were incorporated into the Development Code.
• Water and energy conservation requirements serve to reduce monthly utility bills and therefore,
contribute to the affordability of housing.
Consideration of "green" development principals.
A. WATER CONSERVATION
In 1990, the City adopted a Xeriscape Ordinance and implemented guidelines as a means of
improving water conservation efforts in multi-family residential, commercial, and industrial
developments. The Development Code (§17.02.135(A)) requires all developments to design
landscaping and irrigation to conserve water using the principals of Xeriscape." This is
accomplished through the use of drought tolerant plant materials and low volume irrigation, such as
• drip and trickle irrigatidn systems.
Single-family homes, except model homes, are exempted from these requirements, but the
developer must provide educational materials about Xeriscape landscape techniques to potential
buyers. A reduction in water use and energy consumption should increasingly reflect positive results
through implementation of the Xeriscape Ordinance.
B. TITLE 24
The City's Building and Safety and Development Codes are in compliance with Title 24 of the
California Building Code. The California Energy Commission has established and adopted energy
improvement specifications for both single-family and multiple-family structures under four stories.
These specifications require both active and passive energy features for all residential
developments.
As of January 1, 1993, the requirement for 1.6-gallon flush toilets was added to previous Title 24
requirements, such as installation of ceiling insulation. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Building
and Safety Division enforces State adopted Energy requirements for Climate Zone 10.
C. DEVELOPMENT CODE/ ALTERNATIVE ENERGY
In addition to the State requirements, the City incorporated passive and active solar energy
requirements into the Development Code. Under the City's optional development standards (Table
17.08.040-C) a project may obtain a density increase at the higher end of the density range for
energy conservation design above the minimum requirement.
To qualify under the optional development standard the project must meet the requirements listed in
• §17.08.040(1) as follows:
City of Rancho Cucamonga VIII - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VIII -Energy Conservation Opportunities
A1o3
1. New residential development shall be provided with an alternative energy system to provide •
domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa. Solar energy
shall be the primary energy system unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to
be of equivalent capacity and efficiency.
2. All appliances and fxtures shall be energy donserving (e.g., reduced consumption shower
heads, water conserving toilets, etc.).
In addition, a solar access requirement is included in the Development Code (§17.08.060(H)). For
example, the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object shall be
prohibited. The provisions encourage the placement of residential structures to take advantage of
shade and prevailing breezes. The ideal orientation for most of the City places the long axis of the
house just east of due south. Solar energy is also a practical, cost efficient and environmentally
sound way to heat and cool a home. In Rancho Cucamonga, with its plentiful year-round sunshine,
the potential uses of solar energy are numerous. With proper building designs, this resource
provides for cooling in the summer and heating in the winter; it can also be utilized for heating
domestic use, swimming pools, and generating electricity.
The City supports the utilization of alternative energy sources as a means of providing for energy
efficiency. This can include building designs that consider natural lighting to significantly reduce or
eliminate dependence on interior lighting with the use of proper design and properly located
skylights. Finally, tree plantings when required in various residential areas, not only provide beauty,
but the trees are also recognized for their utility in providing shade, cooling, screening, and air
filtering.
These provisions encourage energy conservation in a context of flexibility and creativity in residential
building design. Because they tend to reduce the cost of monthly utility bills, they contribute to the
affordability of housing. •
D. GREEN DEVELOPMENT
The City is currently in the process of updating the General Plan and as part of the update the City
will be focusing on Sustainable Development, Green Buildings, Healthy Communities, Smart
Growth, and Global Warming (AB32). Throughout the General Plan update process, the City will
determine "How green do we want to be?" The update will review a broad range of green programs,
both aggressive and non-aggressive from a variety of cities. The Planning Commission and City
Council will develop policies to address these elements in the General Plan, which may also comply
with the Green Valley Initiative Program.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga VIII - 2 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section VIII -Energy Conservation Opportunities
A104
Section IX -STUDY OF UNITS AT-RISK OF CONVERTING TO MARKET RATE
California Government Code §65583(a)(9)(A-D) requires "(a]n analysis ofexisting assisted housing
developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years
due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage payment, or expiration of restrictions on use."
The study must include units at-risk during the next two five-year Housing Element update periods.
The first five-year period extends from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 and the second period extends
from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015. The following are the highlights of the units at-risk study:
• A total of 313 units restricted to low-income households are at risk of conversion to market rate
prior to June 30, 2015. All the units at-risk were produced by private owner participation in multi-
family lower interest bond-financing programs and are under regulatory agreements with the
County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing ("CDH").
• As of January 1, 2008, the City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency ("RDA") had
executed 6owner-Agency agreements to preserve the affordability of 670 units at-risk.
• Funding resources for conservation or replacement of units at-risk are primarily limited to the
RDA's housing set-aside fund. Approximately $99.8 million will be available for all affordable
housing production and conservation during the period July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013.
• Five programs are recommended for conservation of identified units at-risk:
Program 1. Contact owners;
Program 2. Assist owners with analysis of conservation options;
Program 3. Assist private nonprofit agencies with purchase;
Program 4. Enter into agreements with owners for conservation; and
Program 5. RDA purchase, or assist with purchase, of projects that include units at-risk.
•
A. INVENTOR Y OF UNITS AT-RISK
The inventory of affordable housing projects within the City is listed in Table IX-1. This inventory
must include all multiple-family units which are assisted under a variety of Federal, State, and/or
local programs, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")
programs, State and local bond programs, RDA programs, and local programs, including but not
limited to: in-lieu fees, density bonus, or direct assistance. The inventoried units are those eligible to
change to market rate housing due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or
expiring use restrictions.
The inventory was compiled by the Planning Department through discussions with the Rancho
Cucamonga RDA, the County of San Bernardino CDH, the California Debt Limit Allocation
Committee ("CDLAC"), the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee ("CTCAC"), and a review of
"Listing of Notices Received Pursuant to Government Code 65863.10 and 65863.11" prepared by
the California Housing Partnership Corporation.
Units at-risk of converting to market rate prior to June 30, 2015, were assisted by County of San
Bernardino CDH with participation in the County's mortgage revenue bond program, State bond
financing, and HUD. Affordable units were restricted for 30 to 40 year periods. All of the units not
at-risk of conversion to market rate after July 1, 2015 were restricted through regulatory agreements
between owners and the Rancho Cucamohga RDA, with funding by 20 Percent Set-Aside funds and
CTCAC financing. Affordable units assisted by the RDA were restricted for a period up to 99 years.
The level of assistance of these units is set to benefit low-income families earning 80 percent, or
less, of the area median family income ("MFI") for the San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario
- Metropolitan Statistical Area ("MSA").
City of Rancho Cucamonga IX - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IX -Units At Risk
A105
..
Heritage Park Apartments Senior Mortgage 1/1/2005 ~ 47 At Risk
9601 Lomita Court 91730 Revenue Bond
Parkview Place Apartments Family Mortgage 1/1/2007 31 At Risk
10930 Terra Vista Parkwa 91730 Revenue Bond
Mountain View Apartments Family Mortgage 1/1/2007 54 At Risk
10935 Terra Vista Parkwa 91730 Revenue Bond
WaterbrookApartments Family Mortgage 1/1/2008 76 At-Risk
10400 Arrow Route, 91730 Revenue Bond
Sycamore Terrace Family Mortgage 1/1/2009 ~ 26 At Risk
10855 Terra Vista Parkway 91730 Revenue Bond
Evergreen Apartments Family Mortgage g/1 /2010 79 At Risk
10730 Church Street, 91730 Revenue Bond
Subtotal -Units At-Risk: 313 -
~„
Rancho Verde Village Family RDA Set-Aside 2025 104 Not at
Ri
k
8837 Grove Avenue, 91730 s
Sycamore Springs Apartments Family RDA Set-Aside 2025 gg Not at
7127 Archibald Avenue, 91701 Risk
Monterey Village Apartments Family RDA Set-Aside 2025 112 ~ Not at
10244 Arrow Route 91730 Risk
Mountainside Apartments Family RDA Set-Aside 2025 192 Not at
9181 Foothill Boulevard, 91730 Risk
Villa Pacifica Senior RDA Sel-Aside 2027 158 Not at
Ri
k
9635 Base Line Road, 91730 s
Villa Del Norte Family RDA Set-Aside 2051 gg Nol at
Ri
k
9997 Feron Boulevard, 91730 s
Heritage Pointe Senior RDA Set-Aside 2056 qg Not at
k
Ri
3590 Malven Avenue, 91730 s
Olen Jones Senior Apartments Senior RDA Set-Aside, 2092 96 Not at
7125 Ameth st Avenue, 91701 HOME, &CTCAC Risk
Rancho Verde Expansion Family RDA Set-Aside 2104 qp Not at
8837 Grove Avenue, 91730 Risk
Sunset Heights Family RDA Set-Aside 2104 117 Not at
Ri
k
6230 Haven Avenue 91737 s
Peppenvood Apartments Family ' RDA Set-Aside 2105 228 Not at
9055 Foothill Boulevard, 91730 Risk
San Sevaine Villas Family RDA Set-Aside & 2107 225 Not at
Foothill Boulevard, 91739 CTCAC Risk
Rancho Workforce Housing
Family RDA Set-Aside &
2107
131 Not at
Foothill Boulevard, 91730 CTCAC Risk
Subtotal -Units Not At-Risk: 1,636
Total Subsidized Units 1,949
Source =Rancho CucamdogaRedevelopmenGAgency ~ - - ~? `~ `
.:,, County _of,San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing (CDH) ,';
Calfornia DebCLimiPAllocaUpn~6ominittee (CDL'AC)
'
.
.i' California Sax Credit Allocahbn.Committee (CTCAC).-
B. ANALYSIS OF PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS AT-RISK
The following discussion examines the cost of preserving units at-risk and the cost of producing new
rental units comparable in size and rent levels as replacementforunitswhich converttomarket rate.
The discussion also includes a comparison of the costs of replacement and new production.
Preservation Costs
•
The cost of preserving units includes purchase costs, any rehabilitation costs, and the costs of on-
going maintenance. The condition, age, and maintenance record of housing play a major role in
rehabilitation and maintenance costs. The subject units range in age from newly constructed to 20 •
to 30 years old and are well maintained.
City of Rancho Cucamonga IX - 2 - April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IX - Unils At Risk
A106
• The accepted standard for major rehabilitation is 30 years or more. Based upon this standard, and
based upon the good condition of the projects, it is unlikely than any major rehabilitation would be
required in the next five years. Thus, rehabilitation costs for the projects are considered negligible.
Maintenance costs are likely to be low for all projects given their young age; therefore, building
., income should cover maintenance costs.
•
Within the City there are a total of 1,949 subsidized multiple-family housing units. This includes 313
units at-risk of converting to market rate, and 1,636 units not at-risk of conversion. Discussions with
the County of San Bernardino CDH indicate that of those units at-risk of conversion to market rate,
the subsidy agreements maintaining the affordability on 208 of the 313 units at risk have expired.
Although the subsidy agreements may have expired, the mortgage revenue bonds are still valid and
the County of San Bernardino CDH is maintaining the affordability of those units as long as the
bonds are valid. To maintain the affordability of those affected units, the property owner would have
to renew the mortgage revenue bonds, and pay the County administrative fee for each bond.
Based upon a review of assessed values and comparable sales, the average per unit market value
of the existing units is estimated to be $77,000 per unit. During 1993-1994 the RDA conserved 46
units at-risk with a loan of $3,750,000, or approximately $81,522 per conserved unit and assisted
the acquisition of 104 restricted, affordable units with a loan of $4,888,500, or $47,000 per unit.
Most recently, in 2005 the RDA assisted in the acquisition and conservation of 117 units with a loan
of $9,000,000, or $76,923 per unit; however, total acquisition costs were $17,556,034 or $150,051
per unit, supplemented by a private loan. Therefore, in actuality the RDA has effectively provided
roughly 50 percent of the funding for the conservation or acquisition of restricted, affordable units at
an estimated current average cost of $150,000 per unit. Table IX-2 lists the estimated market value
of units at-risk for each project with units at-risk prior to 2015.
-.
Herita eParkA artments'
~r
47
•.
$7,050,000
Parkview Place A artments ` 31 $4,650,000
Mountain View A artments ` 54 $8,100,000
Waterbrook A artments 76 $11,400,000
S camore Terrace A artments * 26 $3,900,000
Ever reenA artments' 79 $11,850,000
Total 313 $46,950,000
;iSoo~ce: RanpFio:CucamongapPlanning Department , ~
'~~ ~ 'Pio'ect is'located'withiir.the~,RDAPro ec['Area' ~` ~~~' '~'- -
~- "'~ ~ - --'~- ~"''- "`..
Unit Replacement Cost
The cost of developing new housing depends upon a variety of factors including, but not limited to,
density, number of bedrooms, location, land costs, and type of construction. In general, land costs
in Southern California are quite high. Unit replacement cost (Table IX-3) provides a range of costs
estimates depending on unit size for multi-family rental housing. Based on the range shown, it
would cost approximately $257,892 to construct one new multiple-family housing unit. As an
example, in 2008 the RDA entered into participation agreement for $27,600,000 for construction of
the Rancho Workforce Housing multi-family housing complex at $166,265 per unit; however, total
development costs for this project amount to $45,663,320, a cost of $275,080 per unit.
For the identified 313 units at-risk, new construction would range between $80.7 million and $88.2
million total cost to replace all the units at risk of conversion to market rate priorto 2015. The capital
required varies from a state or Federal insured mortgage of 5 percent of project value to a
• conservative private lending requirement of 30 percent of project value. Therefore, in theory a
capital investment of between $4.03 million and $24.2 million would be required; at 100 percent
City of Rancho Cucamonga IX - 3 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IX - Unils At Risk
A107
funding up to $88.2 million would be required.
.. -.
.~
Land Ac uisition $36,092 $59,864
Fees/Permits & Studies $33,433 $33,433
Direct Construction Costs $151,220 $151,220
Indirect Construction Costs $19,474 $19-,474
Rent-U /Marketin $4,302 $4,302
Financin Costs $13,371 $13,371
Total Develo ment Cost $257,892 $281,664
Source : Rancho CucamongaPlamm~g Department ~ ' x; w -- .- h ~ -.::';~~ --_ ~ r ;`
NOTES'"c Land cost ag esLmated'at 511 60 peg square foot to acgwr e~ a_ 5 acre residentially zoned sde and $19 24 to acquire.a.
.:F_ comme}ciall -'zoned site:.-.They ro eot;~ rovides;70~units~ al'~14'du/ac ~~anii 1;000 s uaie feet er umt "°- -
Comparison of Preservation vs. Replacement Costs
Preservation of units at-risk is more effective than new construction. The preservation of existing
units is estimated to cost approximately $150,000 per unit were as the construction of new
residential units is estimated to be approximately $257,892 per unit. At these rates, 1.7 units could
be preserved for the development of each new unit. Overall, the RDA has participated in the
conservation of 670 affordable units, citywide.
.. - ~.
S camore S rin s
240
.,
96
Mountainside A artments 384 192
Montere Villa e A artments 224 112
Rancho Verde A artments 248 104
Herita e Pointe Senior A artments 49 49
Woodhaven A artments 117 117
Total 1,262 670
Source'."-'Raiichb'Cucamdri 'a@lanhiri 'rDe'artment H fS.,.,;~ ~;1`.t,ar~.' ~ '~~ ' '
Other factors also make preservation of units at-risk preferable to new development. Consistent
with the General Plan, the existing units are scattered throughout market rate housing available in
the community. Existing units have been accepted in the neighborhoods where they exist. City
policy directs that affordable housing be dispersed throughout the City at a ratio not greater than 40
percent of the total units in a project. Because the 313 units at-risk are already integrated into the
community, preservation is preferred over replacement.
C. AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR CONSERVATION AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF UNITS AT-
RISK
Resources for preserving or replacing units at-risk include public and private agencies. Funding
sources are the primary resource for conservation and are summarized below:
• Owner refinancing as allowed under terms of the County's bond program;
• Owner refinancing under a City bond program;
• Sale to non-profit entities with the interest and ability to purchase and/or manage affordable
housing units;
• .
•
• Sale to public entities with the interest and ability to purchase and/or manage affordable housing
units;
• RDA funding to purchase, or assist in purchase, of existing units, or to develop replacement •
units; and .
City of Rancho Cucamonga IX - 4 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IX -Units At Risk ~ -
A108
• RDA investment in projects that have affordable units in exchange for preservation of
affordability restrictions.
County of San Bernardino Bond Program
On a case-by-case basis, the County of San Bernardino bond programs have structured their
regulatory. agreement to permit refinancing with an extension of the term of affordability for the
conservation of affordable housing. Current low interest rates make refinancing a viable option;
where this option exists, it should be encouraged.
City Bond Program
When the City reached a population of 50,000 it exercised its option to directly receive state and
Federal grants, including Community Development Block Grants. By becoming an "entitlement city,"
Rancho Cucamonga became ineligible to participate in the County's multiple-family bond program
for the development of affordable housing. However, the City gained the right to institute a local
bond-fnancing program. Bond programs can beinstituted on aproject-by-project basis. This option
is typically used as a leveraging strategy in conjunction with private financing. It is contingent upon
the availability of state and Federal funds.
Private Non-Profit Agencies
Two non-profit agencies are working with the RDA to construct, purchase, and/or manage low
income housing units. Other nonprofit agencies are expected to express interest and work with the
City on affordable housing development.
National Community Renaissance ("National CORE") (previously Southern California Housing
Development Corporation): This organization was incorporated in 1992 forthe purpose of acquiring,
• constructing, maintaining, and managing housing units for low-income households. Their office is
located at 9065 Haven Avenue, Suite 100, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
National CORE, with assistance from the RDA, acquired 6 apartment complexes with a total of
1,262 total units and 670 held as affordable (Table IX-6). The complexes include: Sycamore
Springs Apartments (96 of 240 units), Mountainside Apartments (192 of 384 units), Monterey Village
Apartments (112 of 224 units), and Rancho Verde Village Apartments (104 of 248 units), Heritage
Pointe Senior Apartments (49 of 49 units), and Woodhaven Apartments (117 of 117 units with an
additional 40 units proposed). The RDA has committed $1.8 million a year for 30 years to National
CORE for the acquisition of affordable housing. National CORE, with funding commitmerits from the
RDA, is also working in partnership with the NHDC.
Northtown Housing Development Corporation ("NHDC"): The RDA assisted members of the
Northtown neighborhood with the formation of a 501(c)(3) non-profit in 1993. The purpose of the
organization is to establish, maintain, and operate housing units for low-income households in the
Northtown Neighborhood of Rancho Cucamonga. Their office is located at 8599 Haven Avenue,
Suite 205, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
In 1994 the NHDC developed Villa del Norte, an 88-unit family apartment complex located at 9901
Feron Boulevard. In 2004 the NHDC developed the Olen Jones Senior Apartment Community, a
96-unit low income senior apartment complex located at 7125 AmethystAvenue. In December 2007
the NHDC received entitlements for the San Sevaine Villas, a 225-unit (100 percent affordable)
multi-family housing complex located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East
Avenue.
Workforce Homebuilders: This organization incorporated in 2005, with the purpose of establishing,
maintaining, and operating housing units for lower-income households. Their office is located at
• 8300 Utica Avenue, Suite 173, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. '
City of Rancho Cucamonga IX - 5 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IX -Units At Risk
A109
In February 2008 Workforce Homebuilders, in a joint venture with National CORE, obtained •
entitlements for the Rancho Workforce Housing multi-family housing complex, a 166-unit (80
percent affordable), located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Center Avenue.
LINC Housing: Since 1984, LINC Housing has had a hand in building more than 6,000 affordable
homes throughout California. LINC provides housing for people uhderserved by the marketplace.
Their office is located at 110 Pine Avenue, Suite 500, Long Beach, CA 90802. LINC worked with
the City to acquire and rehabilitate the 228-unit Pepperwood Apartments located at 9055 Foothill
Boulevard.
Public Agencies
Due both to the high cost of purchasing and developing housing and the limitations on use of funds,
financing for preserving, replacing, and/or maintaining units at-risk will likely have to include multiple
sources. The following funding sources have been identified for use in purchasing the units at-risk
in Rancho Cucamonga. It should be noted that new funding sources will become available over
time and that the following discussion does not represent an exhaustive inventory of funding
sources.
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency (RDA): State -law (Health and Safety Code
§33334.2(a)) requires redevelopment agencies to set aside at least 20 percent of tax increment
revenues for increasing and improving the community's supply of low and moderate income
housing, unless certain findings are made to exempt a project from the requirement. The RDA is
committed to participating in preservation and/or replacement of units at-risk.
County of San Bernardino Department of Communitv Development and Housing (CDH): Because
the City elected to become an "entitlement city," County sponsored bond funding is not available to
development projects within the City.
Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (HACSB): The HACSB serves as the local .
Housing Authority and currently operates over 5,000 Section 8 housing units and has developed, or
is in the process of developing, approximately 151 affordable units. HACSB currently owns 16
single-family homes within the City and rents them to qualified households at affordable rents.
State Department of Housing and Communitv Development (HCD): HCD's Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP) provides loans forthe rehabilitation and new construction of affordable multi-family
rental housing, and the preservation of existing subsidized housing that may otherwise convert to
market rate.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Subject to annual appropriations, HUD
provides financial incentives necessary for acquisition of Federally subsidized, at-risk projects by
non-proft organizations, tenants, and local governments.
HUD incentives include the following:
• Project-based Section 8 contracts, for example, providing subsidy for rents set at levels high
enough to provide an 8 percent return to owners who retain the project.
• Grants to non-profit buyers that would fill any gap between fair market rent or local market rent
(whichever is higher) and allowable rents.
• Mortgage insurance both for equity take-out loans and acquisition loans. Insured equity take-out
loans are limited to 70 percent of equity, while acquisition loans are available at 95 percent of
equity.
Communitv Development Block Grant (CDBG): Through the CDBG program, HUD provides grants
and loans to local governments for funding a wide range of community development activities.
CDBG resources are limited. Available funds are committed to neighborhood preservation and •
rehabilitation of existing single-family housing stock for low-income homeowners. The City's block
City of Rancho Cucamonga IX - 6 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IX -Units Al Risk
A110
• grant for fiscal year 2007-2008 is $1,051,491. The City committed approximately 35.7 percent
($472,878) to existing owner-occupied rehabilitation programs. The remaining funds were
programmed for capital improvements that berieft lower income persons, a variety of public services
benefiting low- and moderate-income persons, and administrative costs.
CDBG funds are not available, or directly applicable, at this time for the units at-risk program.
Redevelopment Agency Funding
The Redevelopment Agency 20 percent set-aside fund is the primary funding resource for
conservation or replacement of units at risk of conversion to market rate.
The 313 identified units at-risk represent approximately 30 percent of the RDA's mandated
affordable housing production requirement. The RDA's affordable housing set-aside fund will total
approximately $99.8 million for the period July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013. Most ofthese funds
are committed to acquisition and construction of new affordable units. On a case-by-case basis
RDA funds will continue to be used for conservation of units at-risk.'
D. QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS AT-RISK
The goal of the City is to conserve all restricted, affordable units at-risk of conversion to market rate.
Consistent with the City's goal, the objective of this study is the conservation of 313 total units at-risk
of converting to market rate. This includes 234 units between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2010, and
79 units between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2015. Consistent with the Housing Production Plan,
the RDA assumes the primary responsibility for conservation of units at-risk.
E. PROGRAMS FOR PRESERVING OR REPLACING UNITS AT-RISK
• Programs for preservation or replacing units at-risk for the period July 1, 2005, through
June 30, 2010, and forthe period July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2015, are discussed below. Ofthe
313 units at-risk, 237 units are located within the Redevelopment area, and may qualify for RDA
assistance.
July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2010
Consistent with the Housing Production Plan the RDA shall implement the following programs in
order to conserve 234 restricted, affordable units at-risk during this reporting period:
The agency shall keep in regular contact with the owners of the projects with units due to convert to
market rate prior to June 30, 2010 to determine the status of projects with respect to expiration of
regulatory agreements. Further, the RDA shall indicate to the owners a continuing commitment to
work with owners to preserve units at-risk affordable to low-income households.
At the same time, Government Code §65863.10 and §65863.11 require owners ofthese affordable
housing units to keep the City and tenants informed of the status of the units at least one year in
advance of the conversion date.
Implementation: This program is underway. Continue to contact the owners of all projects at risk of
conversion to market rate prior to 2010. Contact between the RDA and owriers are ongoing and
shall continue on not less than an annual basis.
2008 Housing Element
Section IX -Units At Risk
zoos
A111
The,RDA shall discuss with owners a variety of options to retain restricted affordable units, including •
but not limited to the following:
Encouraging owners who. have the contractual option of extending the regulatory agreement
under the bond program to do so.
Identifying financial and organizational resources available to preserve these units; and,
• Assisting interested nonprofit agencies and tenants groups in forming partnerships and gaining
access to financial and technical assistance resources.
Implementation: This program is underway. Continue to contact the owners of all units at risk and
discussed options for retaining restricted affordable units. Contact between the RDA and owners
are ongoing and shall continue on not less than an annual basis.
The RDA shall maintain regular contact with private non-profit agencies interested in purchasing
and/or managing units at-risk, including but not limited to 501(c)(3) Housing Development
Corporations. On a case-by-case basis, the RDA shall provide technical assistance to these
organizations with respect to organization and financing.
Implementation: This program is underway. The RDA has developed a list of interested 501(c)(3)
Housing Development Corporation's and entered into participation agreements with National CORE,
NHDC, and Workforce Homebuilders for the acquisition and development of affordable housing
units.
•
On a case-by-case basis as opportunities arise, the RDA shall enter into agreements with property
owners to preserve existing affordable housing units.
Implementation: This program is underway. Through January 1, 2008 the RDA had entered into
RDA-owner agreements to preserve 670 units at-risk. As opportunities arise negotiations with
additional owners shall be undertaken.
As opportunities arise, the RDA shall purchase, or assist in the purchase, of projects that include
units at-risk.
Implementation: This program is underway. The RDA shall continue to explore opportunities for
purchase existing multiple-family projects for the purpose of preserving affordable units.
July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2015
The goal for the City and the RDA will be conservation of the 79 units for which affordability
restrictions will expire during this second reporting period.
Prior to June 30, 2010 the above conservation programs will be reviewed. Successful conservation
programs shall be continued for the July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2015, conservation period and
new programs will be considered.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga IX - 8 - ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section IX -Units Al Risk
A112
• Section X -REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S HOUSING PRODUCTION PLAN'
Consistent with Health and Safety Code §33413(b)(4), the Redevelopment Agency ("RDA") must
adopt a Housing Production and Plan ("HPP") that demonstrates how the RDA will meet its
State-mandated affordable housing requirement. This section includes the HPP in its entirety;
following are the highlights:
• State law requires that 15 percent of the housing constructed in a redevelopment area must
be affordable.
• The lifetime of the RDA extends from December 23, 1981, through August 6, 2027. During
which 20,280 units are expected to be built within the redevelopment area. ,
• The mandated 15 percent production requirement for the lifetime of the RDA would,
therefore, require 3,042 restricted, affordable units.
• Consistent with existing and projected units, the Health and Safety Code (§33413(b)(1))
requires that a total of 396 restricted, affordable units be available by June 30, 2013.
• A total of 1,338 restricted, affordable unit counts have been produced through January 1,
2008; an additional 396 affordable units will be available by 2013. The HPP's goal is
production of 396 new affordable units and conservation of 313 units at risk of conversion to
market rate prior to June 30, 2013; 190 of these units are located within the redevelopment
project area.
• RDA assisted affordable housing production is defined by a 'legal settlement with the
Western Center for Law and Poverty, which is more restrictive than State requirements.
• Between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013, the RDA's projected 20 Percent Affordable
Housing Set-Aside Fund is approximately $99.8 million. The RDA's funds must be leveraged
with other public resources, as well as private effort, in order to meet the Health and Safety
Code mandate.
• The 69 acres of uncommitted vacant land zoned for residential use within the redevelopment
area are expected to yield 1,117 dwelling units. To meet the Health and Safety Code
§33413(b)(1) affordability requirement from all new construction, 30 percent of these new
units would need to be affordable. Therefore, a combination of programs aimed at new and
existing units will be needed to meet the RDA's goals.
The HPP focuses on housing production within the City's Redevelopment area (Figure X-1 ).
The purpose of the HPP is to provide a strategy and time frame for meeting the minimum
affordability needs of the City as defined by the State. The HPP covers the five-year time period
that corresponds to that of the Housing Element, which runs from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013;
the current RDA Implementation Plan covers the five year time period from 2005 to 2009 and will
be updated to reflect the 2010 to 2014 time period.
Section A presents the estimated housing production within the redevelopment area during the
lifetime of the RDA. The production requirements for two time periods are emphasized: the first
from the organization of the RDA in December of 1981 to June 30, 2008, and the second for the
next five-year reporting period of July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2013.
Section B identifies resources for meeting the RDA's affordable housing goals, including funding
resources, vacant land resources, and existing land bank resources.
Section C sets forth the policies, programs, and implementation measures needed to meet the
• RDA's mandated production of affordable housing. Where applicable, these programs will
include quantified goals. This section will set forth numerical housing goals through
Cify of Rancho Cucamonga X - 1 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X-Housing Production Plan
A113
June 30, 2013. •
Section D reviews the State's legal requirements. The HPP must meet the requirements of
Health and Safety Code (§33000, Et seq., and §33413). In particular, §33413(b)(4) sets forth
requirements for affordable housing, including the requirement that a HPP be prepared. In this
section, policies, programs, and implementation measures are set forth which respond to State
legal mandates indirebtly related to housing production.
Section E reviews the consistency requirements. The HPP shall be consistent with the City's
General Plan, Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG's") 2007 Regional
Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA"), the City's Community Development Block Grant
("CDBG") 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan, the City's Units at-Risk Study, the RDA's 2005-2009
Implementation Plan, the settlement between the RDA and the Western Center for Law and
Poverty, and Public Housing Project Law -Article XXXIV of the California Constitution.
A. HOUSING PRODUCTION: QUANTITATIVE REQUIREMENTS
This section addresses historical and projected housing production within the RDA's project
area. It identifies units built and total number of units projected to be built. It identifies the State-
mandated production requirement, which is the number of low and moderate-income units that
must be built. It then identifies the number of required units in place through June 30, 2013.
Residential Units Produced and Projected to be Developed
The Planning Department estimates that during the lifetime of the RDA, 20,280 new housing
units will be constructed within the redevelopment area (Figure X-1). Build-out is estimated to
occur between 2015 and 2020. The lifetime of the RDA extends through August 6, 2027.
Approximately 18,957 housing units existed within the Redevelopment area on January 1, 2008.
Between 2008 and 2013, another 206 units are projected in the redevelopment area. •
Production Units Required Within the Redevelopment Area
Consistent with the State Mandate that 15 percent of new construction within a redevelopment
area be affordable, a tonal of 3,042 low and moderate-income units are projected to be required
within the project area over the lifetime of the RDA (Table X-1 and Figures X-3).
Of the total 3,042 requirement, 1,216 units (40 percent) shall be affordable to very low-income
households (below 50 percent of the median income) and 1,825 units (60 percent) shall be
available to low- and moderate-income households earning between 50 percent and 120
percent of the median income). All units meeting State-mandated Housing Production
Requirements or Affordable Housing Goals shall use the latest Riverside-San Bernardino-
Ontario Median Family Income ("MFI") published by HUD.
According to the intent of Health and Safety Code (§33413(b)(1)), redevelopment agencies must
meet their affordable housing mandate in a timely manner. Performance will be monitored every
five years. The next performance monitoring will occur in 2010, and again in 2015, to coincide
with updates to the RDA Implementation Plan. By June 30, 2010, the RDA's goal for affordable
housing should be production of 15 percent of the then constructed housing units within the
Redevelopment area.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 2 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A114
•
•
a
m
N
c6
N
Q
m
C
C
l0
d
X
N
c
m
a
0
u
v
0
`ca
v
E c
m ~
wo
m=
~i
o X
= C
O
m U
O ~
O N
A115
~'
- _~
~~
a ,~ n =__
,. = S r e
FIGURE X-2: Existing Units and Projected Comparison Single-Family and Multiple-Family •
Development December 23, 1981, to Build-Out
zs,ooo
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
20,260
16,957 9, T63
13,181
t 2,099
11,893
7,064
6,602 ~64
0-
7,064
662
a 662
d 862
o
2006 2013 2019 •
~TOtal Units Total MFR Units -~-Total SFR Units ~ New MFR Units -tr-New SFR Units
As indicated in the RDA's Implementation Plan, the primary beneficiaries of affordable housing
will be wage earners residing in the City. The very low-income category is defined as below
50 percent of median income. While the State defines persons and families of low- and
moderate-income as at or below 120 percent of the median, as a result of the legal settlement
with the Western Center for Law and Poverty, the RDA's target is at or below 90 percent of
median.
The RDA's affordability. goal is 15 percent of the units constructed within the Redevelopment
area. State law identifies two different housing development scenarios with differing production
requirements for each. The first (Health and Safety Code §33413(b)(1)) establishes that "at
least 30 percent of all new and substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed by an agency
shall be ... affordable" and the second (§33413(b)(2)(A)(i)) establishes that "at least 15 percent
of all new and substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed by public or private entities ...
shall be ... affordable". Typically a redevelopment agency does not build units. The RDA does
not plan to build units; therefore, the 15 percent rule applies. The 15 percent mandate can be
illustrated as follows: for every 100 dwelling units developed or rehabilitated by entities other
than the agency, 15 shall be affordable, with 6 available to persons of very low-income and 9
affordable to persons of low- ormoderate-income.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 4 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A116
. - . ~-
12/23/81 -6/30/91
557
.r
835 1,392
7/1!91 - 6/30/94 20 30 50
7/1 /94 - 6/30/99 107 160 267
Subtotal 12/23/81 -6/30199 684 1,025 1,709
7/1/99 - 6/30/09 266 400 666
7/1/09 - 6/30/19 266 400 667
Subtotal 7/1/99 - 6/30119 532 800 1,333
TOTAL Inclusionary Requirement
RDA Lifetime 12/31/81 - 8/6/27 1,216
, 1,825 3,042
Source:. RDA --., _, .. - .._, ,._, .. _
-.,:
FIGURE X-3: Production Units Required December 23, 1981, to Build-Out
3500
3000
2500
2000
• c
lsoo
1000
500
0
- ~ - I
3042
2579
2405
2231
2055
_
i __
-
__.-
_
1709 7882
--__-
- __ _
- _
1825
1575 7549
1442 1444
1339
1233 1216
1080 7728
1025
961 1030
945 892
~ 865 822
720
648
432
577
I
630 684
I 753 _ - ---
~~6
432
0 288
, 144 ,
1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Years
-Very Low ~-LOw/MOtlerate -~-Total Units
Production Units Provided
As of January 1, 2008, a total of 1,700 restricted, affordable unit counts have been provided to
meet the RDA's affordability obligation (Table X-1 ). Of these 1,700 units, 1,338 units are located
within the redevelopment project area. Figure X-3 illustrates the relationship of units provided
compared to units mandated. The RDA's affordability targets have been refined as a result of a
legal agreement between the RDA and the. Center for Western Law and Poverty. State
requirements are less restrictive than the settlement targets.
• State categories are divided into "Very Low" (below 50 of.the MFI), "Low" (50 percent-80 percent
of the MFI), "Moderate" (80 perceht-120 percent of the MFI), and "Above Moderate" (above
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 5 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X-Housing Production Plan
A117
120 percent of the MFI). State affordability targets include "Very Low," "Low," and "Moderate" •
income levels.
The settlement agreement with the Center for Western Law and Poverty as follows: "Income 1"
(below 35 percent of the MFI), "Income 2" (36 percent-45 percent of the MFI), "Income 3"
(36 percent-45 percent of the MFI), and "Income 4" (61 percent-90 percent of the MFI). If the
RDA allocates resources to 100 units of housing, 17 must be for households with incomes below
35 percent of the MFI; 34 for households with income between 36 percent and 45 percent of the
MFI; 34 for households with income between 46 percent and 60 percent of the MFI, and 17 for
households earning between 61 percent and 90 percent of the MFI. .
FIGURE X-4: Redevelopment Area -Mandated Production Units Provided Compared with
Mandate, December 23, 1981 to Build-Out
3500
3000
2500
zooo
1500
1000
500
_
-
--
-_
--_
__ 3042
--.__
- 2.232.
-
- ~82b--
1,709
1,441
1625 1216
__- - 1_ L_ - -
319
-
~
~ -
i -
1 ______
____. _
0
I
~
~ 101
~
1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018
Years
-~-Very Low Units -F Low/Moderate Units ~Tolal Unit Development
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RESOURCES
Having examined the RDA's production requirement and actual production through
January 1, 2008, attention must be turned to RDA resources, including funding resources, land
bank resources, and vacant land resources.
RDA Funding Resources
•
Between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013, approximately $99.8 million dollars will be generated
by tax increment funds for affordable housing development (Table X-2). These funds are
available to assist in the production of restricted, affordable housing units. Consistent with the
Implementation Plan, the RDA in combination with other public and private funding resources
will .fund housing production .programs. (Leveraging strategies are included in the Program •
Recommendations.)
City of Rancho Cucamonga X-6 ~ ~ ~ Apri12008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A118
• RDA Land Bank Resources
As of"January 1, 2008, the RDA had purchased 31.16 acres of residential land bank resources.
Consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Ordinance, up" to 267 affordable
units could be located on these land bank sites (Table X-3 and Figure X-5).
•
C~
Redevelopment Area Vacant Land Resources
Table X-3 lists the vacant land resources available within the redevelopment area. The City's
residential land use designations seta possible range of density development for each
residential category. Within the redevelopment area, there are 69 acres of vacant land zoned
for residential use for which no tract approvals exist or are pehding (Figure X-6). At 62.5 percent
of the range, this acreage could yield 1,117 units. Therefore, with redevelopment area vacant
land resources, including RDA land bank resources, there is sufficient land to meet the
estimated RDA lifetime production requirement of 3,042 affordable units. However, if the
affordability requirement were met only by new construction at 62.5 percent of the allowable
density range, the ratio of restricted affordable units to market units would need to be
91.6 percent. In fact, implementation of the City's Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus
Provisions, or the proposed Inclusionary Workforce Housing Ordinance, may change this ratio
somewhat. This fact"suggests that the private sector will also need to contribute affordable units
along with market rate units, as it has done in the past. '
.~ •~. r .-
2008-2009
$19, 834, 227
2009-2010 $20, 000, 000
2010-2011 $20, 000, 000
2011-2012 $20, 000, 000
2012-2013 $20,000,000
Total $99,834,227
"-Source>:Rancho~Cucamoh aReHevelo mehbA en "~-.~ -""" '-~" °" -`"
~v,~:
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 7
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A119
April 2008
1 ..-
11.75
LM 4-8 du/ac .-
.~
6.5 ~.
76
2 11.65 H 24-30 du/ac 27.75 323
3 21.41 MH 14-24 du/ac 20.25 433
4 18.13 LM 4-8 du/ac 6.5 117
5 6.06 H 24-30 dulac 27.75 168
Total 69.00 1,117
29.88 LM 4-8 du/ac 6.5 193
21.41 MH 14.24 du/ac 20.25 433
17.71 H 24-30 du/ac 27.75 491
Source ~,'_-,Rancho`Cucamonga.Plannmg Department ;: --: :~ --, .!
Propertes~with applications pending; r„~~;,t ,_a xu, ,, - v =.
Reflects resultant vac'aritaand minusRDA properties which are counted as committeii lendiin Table 8'i=
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 8 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A120
•
•
a
m
C
O
m
U
O
J
Y
C
(0
0]
C
c0
J
X
W
'~
V
C
O
E
O
C
O
C
O
M
X
a
m
F
0
C
N
a
c
0
U
0
2a`
v
E °c~
d N
W O
m=
N I
oX
S ~
0
~ V
O ~
A121
T
_ T
•c ~ _ =r
z p o _
m
~ ~
u ~ u o
p a o ,~ y u
Q J _
C
O
~.
E
`o
c
m
0
C
O
v
x
0
•
a
m
U
O
V!
N
C
m
J
C
c6
U
(6
1
X
W
_~
LL
A122
c
m
a
c
0
u
v
0
Ea`
v
E ~'
w ._
w~
m°
~_
~ I
oX
S ~
0
w ~.
°oN
•
~ N r
c7 y - z
D. U g .° d
L O
r ~ m
O O
Z o o=
V1 m u c
*- =
U N- =, z N ;, u
7 d' < _ ~ _ o
• C. PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES
Having examined the mandatory production requirement and the resources available to meet the
requirement, programs and quantitative goals for the period July 1, 2008, through
June 30, 2013, are set forth below. These programs shall be consistent with the General Plan,
the settlement with the Western Center for Law and Poverty, and with Article 34 of the California
Constitution. As stated previously, the projected production requirement from the formation of
the RDA through June 30, 2013, is 396 units. As of January 1, 2008, a total of 1,338 units have
been provided.
The discussion of programs, including aerogram-by-program quantification and timetable for
implementation is included below. Twelve programs are recommended.
To meet the needs of specific neighborhoods, the RDA shall facilitate the development of Non>
Profit, 501(c)(3), Neighborhood Housing Development Corporations. Special neighborhood
needs may include areas of long-term residential overcrowding, special infrastructure needs, or
historic neighborhood identification.
Implementation
This program is underway. During the 1992-1993 fiscal year, the RDA facilitated incorporation
of the NHDC to serve the Northtown neighborhood. The RDA shall continue to work with the
NHDC through the 2013 reporting period.
• The RDA continues to seek non-profit Housing Development Corporations to assist in the
development of affordable housing on property that the. agency has banked to date for
affordable housing. No new land bank purchases are planned since the program has not met
planned expectations.
Implementation
This program is underway. As of June 30, 2008 a total of 31.16 acres of land capable of
accommodating up to 267 affordable units had been purchased by the RDA (Table X-5 and
Figure X-5). The RDA continues to seek non-profit Housing Development Corporations to assist
in developing these properties. Additionally, at two other locations within the City the RDA has
assisted local non-profit Housing Development Corporations in developing affordable housing
projects. This includes, Northtown Housing Development Corporation ("NHDC") receiving
approval to develop a 225-unit multi-family housing complex 12.87 acres at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue acres and Workforce Homebuilders and National
Community Renaissance ("National CORE") receiving approval to develop a 166-unit multi-
family housing complex on 10.54 acres on the north side of Foothill Boulevard west of Center
Avenue.
The RDA shall work with property owners, financial institutions, public agencies, non-profit
housing development corporations, and for-profit corporations to construct new restricted,
affordable rental units within the redevelopment area. The RDA shall also work with private for-
• profit corporations to achieve affordable housing goals.
Consistent with the Implementation Plan, priority for project development and property
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 11. April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Produclion.Plan
A123
management shall be given to City-based housing development corporations, then to non-profit •
housing development corporations with experience in the area. Also, tax credit participation
shall be encouraged as the primary, but not the only, role of for-profit corporations.
Consistent with the State Density Bonus Requirement for Affordable Housing, the RDA
anticipates that affordable housing will be developed at 125 percent of the maximum density for
the residential zone. Consistent with the Implementation Plan, a minimum of 40 percent of the
units shall be restricted, affordable units.
Implementation
This program is underway. The goal for this program is development of a total of 396 units of
restricted, affordable rental housing units between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2013. The RDA is
assisting in the development of San Sevaine Villas, a 225-unit multi-family hdusing complex
where 100 percent of the units are held as affordable, and Rancho Workforce Housing, a 166-
unit multi-family housing complex where 131 units (79 percent) are held as affordable, and the
addition of 40 units to the East Rancho Verde multi-family housing complex.
The RDA shall identify and purchase, or facilitate purchase, of existing multi-family projects that
become available for sale. On a case-by-case basis, the RDA shall lease, purchase, or by other
means secure affordability restrictions for individual units within existing and new construction
multi-family units. The purpose will be to increase the supply of restricted, affordable units.
Consistent with the Implementation Plan policy, 40 percent of the units shall be affordable to low
and moderate income renters.
Implementation •
This program is underway. By January 1, 2008, the RDA had assisted the National CORE with
acquisition of 1,262 units. Consistent with the Implementation Plan policy, 670 units
(53 percent) are restricted, affordable units for low- and moderate-income families.
Implementation
This program is underway. As of January 1, 2008, the RDA has conserved 670 units at-risk.
The RDA shall enter into discussion with property owners regarding acquisition and/or
conservation of units. at risk during the next reporting period. Of the 313 units-at-risk of
conversion, 190 are located within the redevelopment area.
The RDA shall assist non-profit agencies with the purchase of existing single-family homes that
may then be offered for resale with affordability restrictions on future sales. Under this program,
opportunities shall be explored to acquire homes that become available through mortgage
foreclosure. Toward this goal, the RDA shall open communicatioh with FHA, as,well as with •
banks and mortgage companies, ihdicating interest in suitable purchases. In instances where
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 12 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X-Housing Production Plan
A124
As required by law, the City has completed a study of the restricted, affordable multi-family units
that are at risk of conversion to market rate. The RDA shall enter into discussion with property
owners regarding acquisition and/or conservation of the 190 units-at-risk that are located within
the redevelopment area.
• rehabilitation is required as a condition of resale, acquisition and resale may be coordinated with
the City's Housing Rehabilitation Program.
These homes shall be incorporated into affordable owner or renter programs. Owner programs
shall be combined with limited equity strategies to maintain affordability for the lifetime of the
project.
Implementation
This program is underway. Three units have been purchased, substantially rehabilitated, and
sold with restricted affordability provisions.
The goal of this program is to assist with the purchase and, if necessary, substantial
rehabilitation of up to 6 units between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2013, which shall then be
rented or resold with affordability restrictions.
The RDA shall facilitate new construction single-family ownership programs, including but not
limited to, single-family infill projects, as well as condominium and townhouse developments.
These projects may be rented or sold. Owner programs shall be combined with limited equity
strategies to maintain affordability for the lifetime of the project.
Implementation
The goal of this program is 10 units of single-family new construction between July 1, 2008 and
June 30, 2013. These units may be rented or sold with restricted affordability provisions.
•
The RDA shall continue to provide down payment assistance to qualified households through
several programs, first-time homebuyer programs including the program administered by the
Neighborhood Housing Services and NHDC. The NHDC operates a first time homebuyer
program where homes are offered to buyers earning up to 90 percent of the area median
income.
Implementation
The goal of this program is to assist 50 qualified single-family homebuyers July 1, 2008, and
June 30. 2013.
The RDA shall investigate the feasibility of establishing an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone
using the Senior Horasing Overlay Zone. The purpose of an overlay zone would be to facilitate
the siting of affordable housing.
Implementation
Between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013, if adequate funding is available, or upon request by a
developer, the RDA and the City Planning Department shall investigate the feasibility of
establishing an Affordable Housing Overlay Zone to facilitate the siting of affordable housing.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ . X - 13 - April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A125
The RDA and the City shall investigate the feasibility of a mixed-use overlay zone to facilitate the
development of affordable housing. The primary focus shall be to introduce residential use into
commercial and possibly industrial districts where design opportunities would allow residential
units above ground level in multi-level commercial buildings or behind commercial strips. Also,
part of this study would investigate the feasibility of rezoning industrial areas for mixed industrial,
commercial, and residential use. The study for this program may be combined with the
Affordable Housing Overlay District Study.
Implementation
Between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013, if adequate funding is available, or if requested by a
developer, the RDA and the City's Planning Department shall research and develop a mixed use
overlay zone, including an analysis of the benefits of a mixed use overlay zone compared with
rezoning.
The RDA shall utilize a variety of financial mechanisms to assist development of affordable
housing units including, but not limited to, the following: Loan write-down, mortgage revenue
bonds, State tax credits, on-site improvement costs, off-site improvement costs, and City fee
waiver, and as well as a school fee waiver for Senior Housing.
Implementation
This program is underway. Between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013, the RDA shall continue to •
use the above financial mechanisms to assist with the development of restricted, affordable
housing units.
~. •
A Community Outreach Program is desirable. An outreach program goes further than legally
required public participation and notice. It can serve as an educational tool to inform the
community of the RDA's legal obligation to provide affordable housing as well as to inform the
community of the RDA's past actions which resulted in affordability to first time owners and first
time renters. Further, a Community Outreach Program could enlist community direction on
which programs and actions should be emphasized to reach mandated affordability goals.
Implementation
Between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013, if adequate funding is available, or if requested by a
developer, the RDA, and the City's Planning Department shall oversee a community outreach
program.
D. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
State Mandates
The RDA has adopted a number of policies and programs required by State Law. Following is a
review of State requirements and the RDA's programs to comply with State mandates. In most
cases these are existing programs. In a few instances new programs are recommended in this
HPP. Programs A through E below are designed to comply with State mandates.
The California Community Redevelopment Law and Health and Safety Code §33000, Et seq., •
states that one of the fundamental purposes of redevelopment is to increase and improve the
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 14 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A126
• community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing. This is accomplished in part through
three different but interrelated requirements imposed on a redevelopment agency by California
law. These three requirements provide for the production, improvement, and preservation of
housing for low- and moderate-income households. These Health and Safety Code
requirements are established by the following:
• 20 Percent Set-Aside (§33334.2(a)): "Not less than 20 percent of all taxes that are allocated
to the agency ... shall be used by the agency for the purposes of increasing, improving, and
. preserving the community's supply of low- and. moderate-income housing available at
affordable housing cost";
• Replacement Rule (§33413(a)): "Whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of
low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the' low- and moderate-income
housing market as part of a redevelopment project ... the agency shall, within four years of
the destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop, or construct, or cause to 6e rehabilitated,
developed, or constructed, for rental or sale to persons and families of low or moderate
income, an equal number of replacement dwelling units that have an equal or greater
number of bedrooms as those destroyed or removed units at affordable housing costs within
the territorial jurisdiction of the agency"; and
• Mandated Production Rule (§33413(b)): "At least 30 percent of all new and substantially
rehabilitated dwelling units developed by an agency shall be available at affordable housing
cost to, and occupied by, persons and families of low or moderate income. "
Health and Safety Code §33413(b)(4) requires that each redevelopment agency adopt a plan to
comply with the requirements of the Mandated Production Rule. In addition, §33413.5 and
§33334.5 require replacement-housing plans for compliance with the Replacement Rule.
• Housing Replacement Rule
Health and Safety Code §33413(a) requires that whenever dwelling units housing persons and
families of low- or moderate-income are destroyed or removed from the low- and moderate-
income housing market as part of a redevelopment project subject to a written agreement with a
redevelopment agency, the RDA shall, within 4 years of the removal of the dwelling units, cause
to be developed an equal number of replacement dwelling units. When dwelling units are
destroyed or removed on or after January 1, 2002, 100 percent of the replacement dwelling units
shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons in the same or a lower income category
(low, very low, or moderate), as the persons displaced from those destroyed or removed units.
The RDA shall replace housing units removed or demolished as a result of an RDA project as
required by law. This is an existing program.
Implementation
No units under the definition of §33413(a) were removed prior to September 1, 1989. Further,
no affordable units under the aforementioned section have been removed prior to
January 1, 2008. .
Housing Replacement Requirement
Health and Safety Code §33413.5 requires each redevelopment agency to adopt by resolution, a
"replacement housing plan indicating how the agency will comply with the requirements of the
replacement rule as provided for in §33413(a). The replacement housing plan shall include: (1)
• the general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed (2) an adequate
means of financing such rehabilitation, development, or construction, (3) a Ending that the
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ X - 15 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A127
replacement housing does not require the approval of the voters pursuant to Article XXXIV of the •
California Constitution, or that such approval has been obtained, (4) the number of dwelling units
housing persons and families of low or moderate income planned for construction or
rehabilitation, and (5) the timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation, and
replacement housing objectives."
Health and Safety Code §33334.5 requires that '(eJvery redevelopment plan adopted or
amended to expand the project area after January 1, 1977,- shall contain a provision that
whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income are destroyed
or removed from the low- and moderate-income housing market as part of a redevelopment
project, the agency shall, within four years of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop,
or construct, or cause to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed, for rental or sale to persons
and families of low or moderate income an equal number of replacement dwelling units at
affordable housing costs, as defined by §50052.5, within the project area or within the territorial
jurisdiction of the agency, in accordance with all of the provisions of Sections 33413 and
33413.5." Irrespective of the January 1, 1977, implementation date expressed in §33334.5,
§33413(d) imposes the Replacement and Production Rules on any Redevelopment Plan
adopted on or after January 1, 1976.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Redevelopment Plan was adopted on December 23, 1981.
An amendment to the RDA approved August 6, 1987, did not change the area of the RDA's
boundary, but did extend the term of the RDA. The 40-year term of the RDA ends in 2027.
The RDA shall meet the Replacement Requirement under the Health and Safety Code
(§33413), consistent with the agency replacement policy adopted December 23, 1981. •
Implementation
Not less than 30 days prior to the execution of an agreement to remove or demolish any
affordable housing unit, or units, the RDA shall prepare a Housing Replacement Plan. This plan
shall include housing replacement guidelines to meet the requirement under Health and Safety
Code §33413, and as stated in Section 402 of the RDA's Articles of Incorporation. As further
stated in Section 402, a dwelling unit whose replacement is required by §33413, but for which no
Replacement Housing Plan has been prepared, shall not be removed from the low- and
moderate-income housing market.
The RDA does not anticipate that any low or moderate income housing units will be removed as
a result of projects or programs proposed in the Implementation Plan. If, however, some
unforeseen activity does require removal of units, the RDA will comply with Health and Safety
Code §33413.5, which requires that the Agency adopt a replacement housing plan 30 days prior
to entering into any agreement which results in the destruction of units affordable to low and
moderate income families. Additionally, there are no prior replacement housing obligations that
the RDA is required to address as part of past Agency projects (Implementation Plan, page 63).
As of January 1, 2008, the RDA has not removed any units under the Housing Replacement
Requirement.
u
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ X - 16 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A128
• Term Length of Affordability
Health and Safety Code §33413(c) requires that replacement and production units shall remain
available at affordable housing cost to the income levels indicated for the longest feasible time,
but not less than 55 years for rental units, 45 years for home ownership units, and 15 years for
mutual self-help housing units which include, but is not limited to, unlimited duration.
Health and Safety Code §33334.3(f) states that when housing units are developed or assisted
with money from the RDA's 20 Percent Affordable. Housing Set-Aside Fund, the RDA shall
require that those housing units remain affordable for the longest feasible time, but for not less
than 55 years for.rental units, 45 years for owner occupied units, or 15 years for mutual self-help
units. Health and Safety Code §33334.13 requires that very low-income and lower income units
developed with assistance from a homeowhership residential mortgage revenue bond program
or a "California Housing Finance Agency home financing program shall remain available at
affordable housing cost for at least 30 years. Finally, Government Code §659159(c)(1) states
that lower income units provided pursuant to a density bonus-shall remaih affdrdable for 30
years. The Implementation Plan states that "any units assisted by the RDA remain affordable for
the longest period allowed by law" (Implementation Plan, page 61).
Very low-income, lower income, and moderate-income units developed pursuant to the
previously mentioned affordability sections of the California Government Code shall remain
affordable for the longest feasible period of time, up to and including the useful economic life of
the project, with a minimum term of at least 30 years.
• Imp/ementation
Length of affordability shall be negotiated on aproject-by-project basis for the longest feasible
period of time, up to and including the useful economic life of the project with a minimum term of
at least 30 years.
Low-Income Housing Production Rule
Health and Safety Code §33413(b)(1) requires that "at least 30 percent of all new and
substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed by an agency shall be available at affordable
housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families of low or moderate income,"and not less
than 50 percent of the affordable dwelling units required to be available to, and occupied by,
persons of low or moderate income shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and
occupied by, very low income households.
Section 33413(b)(2) requires that "at least 15 percent of all new and substantially rehabilitated
dwelling units developed within a project area under the jurisdiction of an agency by public or
private entities or persons other than the agency [but including those developed pursuant to a
written agreement with the RDA] shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied
by, persons and families of low or moderate income," and not less than 40 percent of the.
affordable dwelling units required to be available to, and occupied by, persons of low or
moderate income shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low
income households.
The RDA and the City of Ranchd Cucamonga shall complete a schedule for housing production
. that will meet the Production Requirement of §33413(b)(1) and (2) of the Health and Safety
Code:
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 17 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X-Housing Production Plan
A129
As required by law, this requirement shall be met within the legal boundaries of the RDA upon •
completion of this HPP.
Implementation
This HPP shall set forth a five-year schedule for meeting the State-mandated Housing
Production Requirements.
Mandated Housing Production Plan Requirement
Health and Safety Code §33413(b)(4) requires "~e]ach redevelopment agency, as part of the
implementation plan ... shall adopt a plan to comply with the requirements of this subdivision
(the Mandated Production Rule]. The plan shall be consistent with, and may be included within,
the communities Housing Element. The plan shall be reviewed, and if necessary, amended at
least every five years in conjunction with either the housing element cycle or the plan
implementation cyc/e."
The Plan shall include estimates of the number of new or rehabilitated residential units to be
developed within the Project Area and the number of units for very low, low, and moderate
income households which will be developed in order to meet the requirements of the Mandated
Production Rule, paragraph (b)(2), for units developed by entities other than the agency. The
Plan shall also include estimates of the number of agency-developed residential units which will
be developed during the next five years, if any, and the number of units for very low, low-, and
moderate-income households which will be developed during the same period of time to meet
the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) for units developed by the RDA.
Section 33413(b)(2) requires that "at least 15 percent of all new and substantially rehabilitated
dwelling units developed within a project area under the jurisdiction of an agency by public or
private entities or persons other than the agency (but including those developed pursuant to a •
written agreement with the RDA] shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied
6y, persons and families of low or moderate income," and not less than 40 percent of the
affordable dwelling units required to be available to, and occupied by, persons of low or
moderate income shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low
income households.
The RDA and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall meet the requirements of §33413(b)(4).
Implementation
Through completion of this HPP and any necessary amendments of the City's Housing Element,
the RDA shall provide a plan to meet State-Mandated Production Housing Requirements.
E. CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS
Housing Element of the General Plan
The HPP builds on the goal, objectives, policies, and programs identified in the 2008 update to
the Housing Element. Objective 2 of the Housing Elements states:
Provide housing opportunities that meet the needs of all economic segments of
the community including very low, low-, and moderate-income households and
special needs groups.
Programs include Residential Mortgage Revenue Bonds, density bonus programs, SCAG's
RHNA goals, HUD's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy goals, Mobile Home Park •
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 18 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A130
• voluntary rent stabilization, and the RDA's 20 Percent Set-Aside Fund (consistent with provisions
of the Western Center for Law & Poverty Agreement).
Units At-Risk Study
The HPP retains the programs identified in the Units-At-Risk Study. In particular the RDA shall
work with Property Owners, Financial Institutions, Public Agencies, and Non-profit Housing ,
Development Corporations to retain the availability of units currently restricted 'to .low- and
moderate-income households, with special emphasis on those units that are within the RDA
project area (Section C, Prbgram 5).
Implementation Plan
The HPP shall be consistent with the RDA's Implementation Plan relative to issues to relating to
affordable housing. The Implementation Plan establishes one goal relative to • affordable
housing programs and that is "[t]o provide, preserve, and promote decent and sanitary housing
affordable to low and moderate-income families" (Implementation Plan Goals & Objectives,
page 12).
This can be accomplished through the following general affordable housing objectives:
• Granting a density bonus to leverage the affordability of new units.
• Establish the term of affordability as the useful economic life of the affordable housing units
with a minimum term of at least 30 years.
• Units affordable to low-income owners and renters shall be scattered throughout the City.
Multiple family projects that include affordable 'units shall be located within appropriately
zoned areas of the City.
• All affordable units shall be of comparable quality, design, and appearance to market rate
housing.
• Encourage mixed income and mixed-use projects.
• Encourage a variety of housing types and tenure including garden apartments, town home
apartments, and condominiums, as well as limited equity cooperative ownership.
• Housing assisted by the RDA shall comply with Article 34 of the California Constitution. No
more than 49 percent of the units, in a rental housing project developed by the RDA for
households at 80 percent of the median or less, shall be assisted units. (Article 34 does not
apply to cooperatives, condominiums, and single-family homes assisted by the RDA.)
• All residential development, including affordable units, shall be consistent with the General
Plan.
• All units meeting State-mandated housing production requirements or affordable housing
goals shall utilize the latest Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA median income
published by HUD.
Western Center for Law and Poverty Settlement
In compliance with the Western Center for Law and Poverty Legal Settlement, the RDA's
resources shall be allocated as directed by the settlement. The income levels, adjusted for
family size, are as follows:
Level I: Families earning less than 35 percent of the area median income.
• Level II: Families earning less than 36 percent and 45 percent of the area median income.
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 19 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A131
Level III: Families earning less than 46 percent and 60 percent of the area median income. •
Level IV: Families earning less than 61 percent and 90 percent of the area median income.
The Agreement further requires that not less than 50 percent of the units assisted by the Agency
must be available for very low income households, of which one-third must be available to
Level I families.
The allocation for each income level is as follows:
• At least one-sixth for households with incomes not more than 35 percent of the area median
income.
• One-third for households with income not more than 45 percent of median.
• One-half for remainder (divided one-third for incomes between 46 percent and 60 percent of
median and one-sixth for incomes between 61 percent and 90 percent of median).
In other words if the redevelopment agency allocates resources to 100 units of housing, 17 must
be for households with incomes below 35 percent of the median income; 34 for households with
income between 36 percent and 45 percent of median income; 34 for households with income
between 46 percent and 60 percent of median income, and 17 for households earning between
61 percent and 90 percent of the median income.
California Constitution: Article 34 -Public Housing Project Law
Article XXXIV of the California Constitution states, "(n]o low rent housing project shall hereafter
be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority
of the qualified electors of the city ... in which it is proposed ... voting on such issue, approve
such project by voting in favor thereof." And that "the term 'low rent housing project' shall mean
any development composed of urban or rural dwellings, apartments of other living •
accommodations for persons of low income".
If the majority of the units in a multi-family development are market rate, the project is
considered to be a market-rate project. However, in the actual development of affordable
housing projects up to 100 percent of the units within the project are restricted, affordable units
available to persons earning 80 percent or less of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MFI.
Consistent with the City's General Plan, the RDA shall observe the scattered sites policy for
assisted affordable owner programs.
City of Rancho Cucamonga X - 20 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section X -Housing Production Plan
A132
• Section XI - EVALUATION OF THE OBJECTIVES; POLICIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR THE 2000
HOUSING ELEMENT
California Government Code Section 65588(a) requires '[e]ach local government [to] review its
housing element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
• The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and policies in contributing to the
attainment of the state housing goal.
The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the community's housing goals and
objectives.
• The progress of the City ... in implementation of the housing element."
Since 1981 the overall goal of the Housing Element has been consistent with the State's goal that
"the City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of housing types for
economic segments wishing to reside in the community regardless of race, religion, sex, orincome
group." The Housing Element identifies 9 objectives as well as policies and programs that
contribute to the pursuit of the City's overall housing goal. State Housing Element guidelines require
all jurisdictions to include an evaluation of their previous Housing Element's action plans to
determine their success. The following is a review of each action plan of the 2000 City of Rancho
Cucamonga Housing Element.
•
The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of
housing types for, all economic segments wishing to reside in the community
regardless of race, religion, sex, orincome group (emphasis added.
Housing production increased dramatically between 2000 and 2007 producing a wide range of
housing types. As of January 1, 2008, there were 55,180 residential units within the City, 12,864
were multi-family units.
Action: Continue to provide opportunities and incentives for housing for all economic segments.
POLICY 1.A: Through land use distribution and implementation of development standards,
encourage a mix of housing types, including, mobile home, and apartments within a variety
of price ranges in order to ensure a range of housing alternatives and enable the City to
achieve its share of the regional housing need as determined by the 1999 Regional Housing
Needs Assessment ("RHNA").
Evaluation: Affordable housing is defined as housing affordable to households earning
120 percent of less than the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area
("MSA") median income. Households earning 80 percent or less have the greatest housing
affordability problem. According, to the 1999 RHNA, the goal for households earning
80 percent or less of the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA median income was
30 percent of the RHNA production requirement, or 705 housing units. Of these 705 units,
identified as new housing production, 8 units were identified as rehabilitation, and 334 units
• were identified as conservation.
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - i April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A133
Evaluation: This objective addresses the range of housing types clause ofthe housing element goal:
An estimated 12,971 new dwelling units were produced between January 1, 2000 and •
January 1, 2008, which is approximately 550 percent of the 1999 RHNA production goal of
2,344 dwelling units. Another 2,871 units were in the processing stream and were either
under staff review or had received approval by the Planning Commission.
The mix of housing types is important to the City. In the late 1980's the City Council began a
study of the relationship between the number of multi-family to single-family housing in the
City at build-out and concluded that planned land uses would yield a higher ratio of multi-.
family tosingle-family than planned for by surrounding cities. In February 1991, the Council
adopted the goal that at build-out the ideal ratio ofmulti-family development tosingle-family
development would be 32:68. As indicated in the Vacant Land Inventory (Section IV),
current zoning provides ample vacant land to meet the objectives of the Southern California
Association of Governments ("SCAG's") 2007 RHNA production requirement.
Action: The City shall continue efforts that facilitate a variety of housing types to meet the
housing needs for all income groups who wish to work and reside in the community.
Further, the City's goal for multi-family hdusing in relationship to single-family housing shall
be a 32:68 ratio.
Program 1.A.1: Facilitate opportunities for a variety of housing types through the
implementation of the Land Use Plan, Development District Map, and Community
Plans on the remaining vacant land resources of the City.
Evaluation: As demonstrated by the Vacant Land Inventory (Section IV), zoning is in
place to support a variety of housing types. A comprehensive inventory of vacant
uncommitted land was undertaken as part of the Housing Element update and the
results identify vacant land in all residential districts, with 343 parcels providing
868.50 acres. This acreage could potentially support an additional 3,066 to 3,633 •
units beyond those units currently in the processing stream.
Action: Continue to implement the Land Use Plan, Development District Map, and
Specific Plans to provide a variety of housing types and housing opportunities.
Program 1.A.2: Review and amend provisions of the Development Code pertaining
to mobile homes, consistent with §65852.3 of the Government Code, to allow
manufactured homes in all residential districts.
Evaluation: The Development Code (§17.08.030.E.4) provides that one mobile home
is permitted on a lot in a residential district, except in the Very Low District. The
City's Code has been superseded by Government Code §65852.3, which identifies
that a city "shall allow the installation of manufactured homes ... on a foundation
system ... on lots zoned for conventional single-family residential dwellings."
Action: As resources become available, the Development Code should be amended
to conform to Government Code §65852.3.
Program 1.A.3: Continue to discourage the conversion of existing mobile home
parks to other uses, consistent with Government Code §65863.7, in order to
maintain a valuable source of affordable housing.
Evaluation: Consistent with State law, mobile home parks are permitted in all
residential districts in the City with a Conditional Use Permit. Eight mobile home
parks are located in the City providing 1,380 mobile home units. Although the City
has not enacted a Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance, the City promotes the
conservation of Mobile Home Parks. No mobile home park conversions have
occurred in the City through December 31, 2007. •
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ XI - 2 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A134
• Action: Continue to discourage conversion of existing mobile home parks to other
uses, consistent with Government Code §65863.7, and to allow manufactured
homes in all residential districts in the City.
Program 1.A.4: Continue to maintain and administer a condominium conversion
ordinance which establishes a maximum annual limit, defined as no more than one-
half the number of multi-family rental dwellings added to the City's housing stock
during the preceding year, for the number of multi-family rental units that may be
converted to gwnership type.
Evaluation: This objective addresses the affordability clause of the housing element goal:
Evaluation: As of January 1, 2008, there were 51 multi-family complexes (including
apartment and condominiums) in the City with a total of 12,864 rental units; this is an
increase of 13 apartment complexes and 4,604 units since January 1, 2000. The
City supports conservation of rental units through a Condominium Conversion
Ordinance (Development Code §17.22) that was adopted in 1980 with revisions in
1983 and 1999.
Market conditions discourage conversion of existing rental apartments to
condominiums, thus it is not surprising that no condominium conversions occurred
during the 5-year reporting period. However, since Condominium Conversion
legislation was enacted by the State most multi-family projects have been recorded
as condominium maps. This occurs where apartment complexes are recorded as
condominium maps, managed as rentals, but could convert to owner units at any
time in the future.
Action: Continue to discourage the conversion of apartment complex rental units to
owner units.
OBJECTIVE"2:' PROVIDE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES THAT MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL
ECONOMIC. SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY INCLUDING VERY LOW, LOW-, AND
MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS.
,...,
The City shall provide opportunities and incentives for the provision of a variety of
housing types for all economic segments wishing to reside in the community
regardless of race, religion, sex, or income group (emphasis addecq.
Normally the market provides an adequate supply of housing for moderate and upper income
groups. From 1996 to the present, there has been a steady increase in new housing production for
all groups. Additionally, there has been a steady supply or resale of homes for a variety of income
ranges. Further, the RDA is using Housing Set-Aside funds to assist in conservation and
development of rental housing for the very low and low-income groups.
In addition to the needs oflow-income households in general, this objective also addresses special
needs of the elderly, handicapped, and homeless. Together these groups typically have the most
difficult time acquiring adequate housing.
Action: Continue to promote housing opportunities that meet the needs of very low, low, and
moderate-income households and special needs groups.
POLICY 2.A: Protect and expand the range of housing opportunities available by location,
price, and tenure to lower and moderate-income households.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 3 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A135
Evaluation: City resources, primarily the Redevelopment Agency's ("RDA") 20 Percent Set- •
Aside funds, are being used to expand the range of housing opportunities for lower and
moderate-income households.
Action: Continue to protect and expand the range of housing opportunities for lower and
moderate-income households wishing to reside in the City.
Program 2.A.1: Continue.to offer Development Agreements in order to offer
incentives for development of senior and/orfamily affordable multi-family rental units.
Evaluation: City resources, primarily the RDA's 20 Percent Set-Aside funds, are
being used to expand the range of housing opportunities for senior and/or family
affordable multi-family rental units. During the reporting period, RDA-funds were
utilized to assist in the acquisition of the 117-unit Woodhaven Apartment complex
and the development of the 49-unit Heritage Pointe Senior Apartment project.
Action: Continue to offer Development Agreements in order to offer incentives for
development of senior and/orfamily affordable multi-family rental units to expand the.
range of housing opportunities for lower and moderate-income households wishing
to reside in the City.
Program 2.A.2: Continue to administer a Residential Mortgage Bond program where
low interest loans are available to first-time home buyers making up to 140 percent
of the median family income.
Evaluation: The Redevelopment Agency administers a Home Buyer program using
down payment assistance loans. The loan provides up to a maximum of $80,000, as
a silent second loan. The loan is forgiven if the buyer remains in the unit for 45
years. Through the past two years the program has assisted 9 households with •
home buyer assistance.
Action: Administer the Home Buyer program as Set-Aside funds are available. This
program is included in the Consolidated Plan and accomplishments are reported to
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") through the
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report ("CAPER").
Program 2.A.3: Monitor restricted, affordable housing production within the
redevelopment project area assisted by the Redevelopment Agency.
Evaluation: When the population exceeded 50,000 in 1980, Rancho Cucamonga
was designated an "entitlement City" and subsequently became ineligible to
participate in the County's Mortgage Revenue Bond Program for the construction of
affordable housing units; however, this program is available for the preservation of
affordable units.
Action: This program was not utilized during the reporting period and will be
discontinued under the adoption and implementation of the 2000 Housing Element.
Program 2.A.4: Develop an ordinance within the annual work program schedule or
within 90 days of receiving a project proposal utilizing density bonus provisions,
whichever comes first, to implement density bonus requirements, consistent with
Government Code §65915.
Evaluation: In 2002 the City adopted Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus
Provisions (RCMC §17.40) to assist in the development of affordable housing
opportunities in accordance with Government Code §65915-65918. These •
provisions allow a density bonus and other regulatory concessions to provide
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 4 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A136
• incentives for "the production of housing for very low income, lower income,
moderate income, and senior households" to "facilitate the development of
affordable housing" within the City.
Action:. No further action regarding the implementation of this program is required.
The Affordable Housing Incentives/Density Bonus Provisions have been used
successfully on several projects proposing the development of affordable housing.
The City's intent is to continue to work with for-profit and non-profit developers to
provide affordable housing opportunities in the City. The City and its RDA are
aggressively pursuing the production of affordable housing, have awarded density
bonus provisions to qualified projects in conformance with code requirements, and
will continue to do so. -
Program 2.A.5: Continue informal discussions with private developers and multi-
family apartment managers encouraging use of Federal rental assistance programs
to assist lower income households residing and/or working in the City and continue
to support the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino ("HACSB")
applications for additional Federal vouchers to meet the needs of low-income
households now residing in the City.
Evaluation: This program has been implemented informally. A high ratio of lower
income households residing in units developed under the City's Senior Housing
Overlay District benefit from owner participation in the Federal Section 8 program
administered by HACSB. As of June 30, 2007, 170 households residing ih the City
utilized certificates or vouchers distributed by HACSB.
For the 2000 to 2005 period, the HACSB operates 6,257 Section 8 units of which
• 170 are located within the City. The agency also operates 16 public housing units
and rents them to qualifed households at affordable rents. The City will continue to
support at least 170 Section 8 applicants and 16 public housing applications,
annually. The City supports the annual applications by HACSB for additional Federal
vouchers that is consistent with the City's policy that assisted, affordable housing
units be scattered throughout the community and indistinguishable from market rate
housing.
Action: Continue informal discussion with private developers and multi-family
apartment managers regarding Section 8 participation. Continue to support HACSB
requests for additional Federal vouchers to meet the needs of low-income
households now living in the City.
Program 2.A.6: Continue to support the Mobile Home Park Accord voluntary rent
stabilization past the current expiration date of February 2002, as a means of
keeping rents at reasonable levels to allow continued affordability of this method of
housing.
Evaluation: The Mobile Home Park Accord has been extended until February 2009.
Action: In 2009, renegotiate this contract between the City and the Mobile Home
Park owners.
Program 2.A.7: Develop, implement, and monitor an affordable housing strategy
utilizing the Redevelopment Agency's 20 Percent Housing Set-Aside Funds
consistent with the Western Center for Law and Poverty Agreement and the
Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan.
~ J
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 5 -April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
' A737
Evaluation: The RDA completed the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan to provide
baseline information for the Housing Production Plan required by Health and Safety •
Code §33413(b). A revised Housing Production Plan was prepared as part of the
technical update to the Housing Element and is included as Section X.
Action: The RDA shall complete and adopt a HPP in accord with State law. Further,
the RDA shall establish an affordable housing monitoring program and prepare an
annual report on affordable housing production.
POLICY 2.6: Promote efforts to define both the size and composition of the homeless
population in order to assess existing and future needs and support.a multi-jurisdictional
comprehensive approach toward addressing those needs.
Evaluation: In addition to the 2000 census, non-profit organizations have undertaken census
surveys with widely differing results in the City.
Action: Continue to support efforts to better define both the size and composition of the
City's homeless population.
Program 2.6.1: Conduct an annual survey of area non-profit service providers to the
homeless in order to determine the level of need within the City.
Evaluation: The most reliable indication of homeless need in the City comes from
providers of assistance to the homeless. The level of assistance appears to be
highly correlated to the level of need in the City. Change this program to emphasize
reporting by non-profit agencies to establish homeless need in the City. .
Action: Continue to conduct an annual survey ofnon-profit providers to the homeless
in order to determine the level of need within the City.
POLICY 2.C: Assist providers of temporary emergency shelter and transitional housing •
opportunities.
Evaluation: CDBG funds have been allocated to non-profit agencies that provide temporary
emergency shelter and transitional housing opportunities.
Action: Continue CDBG funding to non-profit agencies that provide shelter and support for
homeless persons in the City.
Program 2.C.1: Continue to assist the efforts of local organizations, and community
groups to provide temporary emergency shelters, transitional housing opportunities,
and services to the City's homeless population.
. Evaluation: This program is implemented through allocation of CDBG funds to
support non-profit agencies that provide temporary emergency shelter, transitional
housing opportunities, and services to the City's homeless population.
Action: Continue CDBG funding to non-profit agencies that provide temporary
emergency shelter, transitional housing opportunities, and services to the City's
homeless population.
Program 2.C.2: Evaluate existing code requirements to determine those conditions
and standards where various types of shelter facilities may be located, including
review and evaluation of industrial districts. Research and evaluate special
requirements for location of shelters for abused women and children, specifically the
need for an anonymous address.
Evaluation: In 2002 the City amended its Development Code to identify those zones •
where an emergency shelter may be located with the intent of the code revision
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 6
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A138
being tc address opportunities for establishing emergency shelter facilities, not to
• provide long-term transitional housing opportunities, which typically allow for an
extended stay. When permitted, emergency shelterfacilitieswere allowed in various
commercial and industrial districts, subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit, but were not permitted within any residential districts. Since the adoption of
this amendment, the applicable Government Code section has been amended to
identify that emergency shelters should be identified as a permitted land use in
certain districts without a conditional use or other discretionary permit.
Action: Amend the Development Code, consistent with Government Code
§65583(a)(4) to identify "a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a
permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit." The
Development Code shall be amended within one year from the adoptiori'of the
Housing Element.
Program 2.C.3: Participate with adjacent communities toward the provision of a
subregional shelter program and encourage the County to develop a comprehensive
homeless program.
Evaluation: The goals of the San Bernardino County Homeless Coalition are to
identify needs, develop policies, and implement programs for the homeless.
Volunteers accomplish mast of the work of the coalition. Private and/or non-profit
providers offer most of the homeless programs in the County and neighboring cities.
Action: Continue this program and participate with neighboring cities and the County
as opportunities arise.
• 'POLICY 2.D: Recognize the unique characteristics of the elderly and handicapped
households and address their special needs.
Evaluation: The public supports this policy and programs benefiting seniors and
handicapped have been implemented.
Action: Continue to promote programs to meet the special needs of elderly and handicapped
households.
Program 2.D.1: Continue to allow for the establishment of secohd units on single-
, family residential lots to provide additional elderly housing opportunities pursuant to
State law and established zoning regulations.
Evaluation: The Development Code (§17.08.030(6)) permits, subject to specific
development criteria, the development of second dwelling units in all single-family
residential zones, consistent with the Government Code §65852.1 and §65852.2.
Action: Continue to allow for the establishment of second dwelling units as an
accessory building or attached to the primary residence on a parcel in asingle-family
residential district.
Program 2.D.2: Continue to enforce and regulate the disabled accessibility ahd
adaptability standards contained in Title 24 of the California and Uniform Building
Code as they apply to apartments and condominium/townhouse projects.
Evaluation: Title 24 applies to new construction. The Building and Safety
Department continues to enforce all American Disabilities Act regulations.
Action: The Building and Safety Department shall continue to enforce Title 24 of the
• California and Uniform Building Code. ,
City of Rancho Cucamonga - XI - 7 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A139
OBJECTIVE 3: PROMOTE EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL ECONOMIC
SEGMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF RACE, SEX, OR RELIGION.
Evaluation:.This objective addresses the non-discrimination clause of the housing element goal:
The City shall provide opportunities and incentives far the provision of a variety of
housing types for all economic segments wishing to reside in the community
regardless of race, religion, sez, or income group (emphasis added).
The purpose of this objective is to affirmatively support the fair housing laws of the State and'
Federal governments to ensure that all residents have access to a decent home in a suitable living
environment.
CDBG funds are allocated to anon-profit agency for proactive community education to further fair
housing, as well as for case-by-case investigation of alleged violations of fair housing.
Action: Continue to promote fair housing opportunities.
POLICY 3.A: The City shall pursue programs that will reduce the incidence of housing
discrimination within the City.
Evaluation: The programs developed under this policy, especially proactive educational
programs, promote efforts to eliminate discrimination in the sale and rental of housing and to
ensure that the rights of all parties are protected. Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board,
a non-profit agency, provides fair housing counseling services with funding through the City
CDBG program.
Action: Through the implementation of the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan a total of 322
residents received fair housing assistance underthis program; implementation of the 2005- •
2006 Consolidated Plan appears to assist a comparable number of residents. Continue
CDBG funding for fair housing services, with emphasis on proactive education programs, for
the purpose of eliminating discrimination in the rental or sale of housing.
Program 3.A.1: Continue CDBG funding for fair housing services, with emphasis on
proactive education and voluntary compliance, as well as through legal enforcement
on a case-by-case basis, including, but not limited to; assistance with the resolution
of tenant/landlord disputes and housing discrimination complaints.
Evaluation: Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board receives numerous inquiries
regarding landlord tenant and housing discrimination, and pursues discrimination
cases when conditions warrant. In addition, on a complaint basis, the service
provider conducts on-site testing, with appropriate follow-up. Finally, the service
provider conducts community education programs. regarding fair housing and
landlord/tenant rights.
Action: Through the implementation of the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan a total of
1,033 residents received assistance underthis program; implementation ofthe 2005-
2006 Consolidated Plan appears to assist a comparable number of residents.
Continue CDBG funding for landlord/tenant services, with emphasis on proactive
education and voluntary compliance.
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 8 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A140
OBJECTIVE 4: PROVIDE QUALITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO
AWELL-FUNCTIONING COMMUNITY BY ENSURING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS
NOT ONLY ATTRACTIVE IN DESIGN, BUT WHICH FUNCTIONS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND WELFARE, AND PROVIDE BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY.
Evaluation: Design excellence and a safe community remain priorities for development in all
neighborhoods, and all socio-economic groups. The City has received national recognition as a
safe place to live; for example, in 2006 Money Magazine rated Rancho Cucamonga as the 42nd
safest city in the United States.
Action: Continue this objective with emphasis on excellence in housing design and neighborhood
safety.
POLICY 4.A: Promote the use of development techniques that foster a continued high
quality of residential design and construction and ensure the appropriate development of
hillside areas.
Evaluation: Design excellence, includirig residential design, remains a high priority in the
City. Appropriate development on slopes exceeding 8 percent is addressed in the Hillside
Development Regulations, Development Code (§17.24), adopted March 1990.
Action: Continue to encourage excellence in housing and community design, and the
appropriate development of hillside areas.
Program 4.A.1: Continue to implement the City's Hillside Development Regulations
to ensure that residential development in hillside areas is appropriate to the carrying
capacity of the land, avoids development in environmentally sensitive areas,
• minimizes adverse grading impacts through architectural and structural techniques,
and preserves the natural landform characteristics.
Evaluation: The Hillside Development Regulations continue to guide development on
slopes of 8 percent and greater. As a result of seventeen years_experience with
~, implementation of the ordinance, suggestions for changes have been made. When
staff resources are available, the Hillside Development Regulations should be
revised to protect the environment and to facilitate development in hillside areas.
Action: Continue to document suggestions for change. When staff resources are
available, the Hillside Development Regulations should be revised to protect the
environment and to facilitate development in hillside areas.
Program 4.A.2: Through the project development design and technical review
process, continue to evaluate residential projects for safety concerns, including
lighting, pedestrian movements, parking lot configuration and design, as well as unit
design and orientation, particularly with regard to multi-family development.
Evaluation: The development review process, which includes staff review and the
Grading, Technical Review, and Design Review Committees, evaluates multi-family
residential projects for safety concerns. The development review process reviews
development proposals for safety concerns that include project lighting, pedestrian
circulation, parking lot design and configuration, and residential unit design,
placement, and orientation.
Action: The implementation of this program is an ongoing process and is utilized on
a daily basis as development plans are reviewed for consistency with the
• Development Code, and established City policies.
City of Rancho Cucamonga ~ XI - 9 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element -
A141 -
Program 4.A:3: When funding resources become available, use Crime Prevention •
Through Environmental Design ("CPTED") concepts to evaluate single-family and
multi-family residential developments and write CPTED design guidelines to improve
the safety of new residential developments.
Evaluation: In addition to existing Development Code requirements, in the 1990's,
the City utilized a study on CPTED. CPTED provides a method for systematic
measurement of public, -semi-public, and semi-private areas in relation to intended
and unintended uses. The CPTED study was utilized. to focus on commercial
development. The study emphasized that its purpose was proactive because at that
time crime was not considered a problem for commercial development in the City.
CPTED goals include data collection, particularly crime analysis capability, as well as
increased communication and coordination among all private and public entities
engaged in crime suppression.
Evaluation: Protection of the historic roots of the community continues to be a priority, as does
elimination of causes and spread of blight.
Informally, CPTED methods are being incorporated into design reviewfor all projects
in the City, including residential projects. Implementation of the CPTED study
included the adoption of design guidelines for commercial projects, as well as
applicable ordinance revisions.
Action: Continue informal use of CPTED principles through design review phase of
residential project development. When staff time and funding become available the
CPTED study should be formally expanded to include residential projects, followed
by adoption of CPTED design guidelines for residential projects.
OBJECTIVE 5: CONSERVE AND IMPROVE THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK, INCLUDING
STRUCTURES OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE, AND ELIMINATE THE CAUSES AND SPREAD
OF BLIGHT, BY ENCOURAGING THE INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FUNDS IN
HOUSING REHABILITATION AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.
Action: Continue protection of the historic fabric of the community and continue to eliminate the
causes and spread of blight.
POLICY 5.1: Recognize the unique contribution to the City's heritage by historic structures.
Develop programs to encourage the preservation and maintenance of these structures.
Evaluation: Preservation of the historic fabric of the City has been a priority of the Planning
Department during the reporting period. In the early 1990s, budget reductions resulted in
excusing the 7-member Historic Preservation Commission and designated the 5-member
Planning Commission as the Historic Preservation Commission. Historic preservation
remains a high priority and the City's preservation programs are continuing.
Action: Preserve the City's historic fabric through the rehabilitation and preservation of
historic structures.
Program 5.A.1: Continue to encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic
residences through participation in Mills Act contracts.
Evaluation: During the reporting period the City has actively been involved in the
historic preservation and restoration of 2 residential structures, the Cfiaffey-Isle
House and the Norton-Fisher House, and 1 commercial structure, the Etiwanda
Railway Station; all activities have been funded through the City's CDBG program •
(Table XI-1 ). Activities at the Chaffey-Isle House are on-going and a significant
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 10 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A142
• amount of work has been completed. Activities at the'Norton-Fisher House are
complete and the structure is occupied. Activities at the Etiwanda Railway Station
are in the initial stages of restoration.
No requests have been received for loans for restoration of private property.
However, aloes-income owner-occupant could utilize the existing residential loan
program for the purpose of maintaining historic properties, including repairs
Necessary to meet State requirements for seismic retrofitting.
The City encourages owner participation in State authorized Mills Act contracts in
orderto facilitate rehabilitation of historic properties. Following the formal listing of a
property as a Local, State, and/or National Landmark, a property owner may enter
into a Mills Act contract setting a timetable for property improvement and in return
receive a reduction in the property tax rate. The first Mills Act contract was signed in
1990 and a total of 34 have been completed.
Action: Emphasize the rehabilitation and preservation of historic residences through
participation in Mills Act contracts, and when possible, the utilization of CDBG
funding.
POLICY 5.6: Continue to promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard
residential structures.
Evaluation: In order to ensure a continued supply of quality affordable housing, departments
cooperate to promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of substandard residential
structures, when feasible. Responsible departments include the Building and Safety
Department, Fire Safety Department, Code Enforcement, Planning Department, Police
• Department, and RDA. CDBG and RDA funds support rehabilitation efforts; however, in
many cases the only alternative is demolition.
The RDA actively assists non-profit agency rehabilitation activities. In 1993 the RDA
assisted in the formation of the NHDC, which has undertaken the rehabilitation of existing
homes as well as development of new affordable units in the Northtown area. Between
2000 and 2008, 2 homes were rehabilitated and offered for sale to low-income households
with affordability restrictions on future sales, whereas during the proceeding 5 years 17
homes were rehabilitated and offered for sale.
Action: When feasible, continue to promote the revitalization and rehabilitation of
substandard residential structures.
Program 5.B.1: Continue to evaluate and identify areas of the City with
concentrations of older or deteriorating housing units that may be targeted for
rehabilitation and improvement programs.
Evaluation; RDA funds and CDBG funds have been utilized in the Northtown and
Southwest Cucamonga areas, as well as the Monte Vista Street Target Area, which
was qualified- as aloes-income target area by the quartile method. Public
improvements continue to be directed to the Northtown and Southwest Cucamonga
target areas for any necessary street and drainage improvements.
Action: Continue to evaluate and identify older areas of the City in need of
rehabilitation and improvement and continue to target funding for rehabilitation and
improvement of identified areas.
Program S.B.2: Continue to operate a repair grant program for all lower income
• (including disabled or handicapped persons) single-family home owners and mobile
home owners. The repair program will address minor housing needs by providing
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 11
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A143
grants up to $7,500, and loans up to $30,000, for labor and materials.
Evaluation: This highly successful program has met or exceeded its annual goal. A •
total of 240 owner occupied units were assisted under the 2000-2004 Consolidated
Plan, which is 120 percent of the goal for the entire Home Improvement program
(Table XI-1 ).
Action: Continue to allocate CDBG funds for the highly successfully repair grant
program for owner-occupied single-family homes and mobile homes of seniors and
disabled or handicapped persons. The 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan identifies a
target of 200 residences under the Home Improvement Program (this program
includes both repair grants and loans).
Program S.B.3: Continue to operate a housing rehabilitation and repair loan
program that offers both deferred loan payments and low interest loans to lower
income households, excluding mobile homes.
Evaluation: This worthwhile program has proven to be extremely successful and
affected by the availability of funding rather than the number of requests for service.
A total of 10 loans were completed for the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan (Table XI-
1).
Action: Continue to allocate CDBG funds for the highly successfully repair grant
program for owner-occupied single-family homes and mobile homes of seniors and
disabled or handicapped persons. The 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan identifies a
target of 200 residences under the Home Improvement Program (this program
includes both repair grants and loans).
.~ -
• .. ~: ~ .~
~r ~ rrr
r ~ r rr
r r ~ r- r• r
5.A.1. Historic Preservation 1 0 0 1 1
5.B.2. Home Re air Grants 48 42 46 54 50
5 B.3. Home Rehabilitation Loans 2 2 2 0 2
='Source: 'SRaricho:Cricamori""a~~Plahnih 'De~-arimeril:~-'f-: 15; <. - '?'~'
-._i,r `-
a9, es'~
M-.- """"~ " ''~` ""' -
POLICY S.C: In order to improve living environments and prevent neighborhood
deterioration, the City shall promote efforts to ensure that all neighborhoods of the City,
including older ones, have adequate public/community facilities and services.
Evaluation: The residents of Northtown and Southwest Cucamonga continue to promote the
improvement of these older neighborhoods that are part of the historic fabric of the City. In
turn, RDA and CDBG resources continue to be invested to bring public service and
community facilities up to contemporary standards.
Action: Continue to invest in older neighborhoods to ensure that all areas of the City have
high quality public services and community facilities.
Program 5.C.1: Continue to provide public improvements/community facilities such
as street improvements, streetlights, sidewalks, parkway landscaping, as well as
park facilities in qualifed target areas.
•
Evaluation: CDBG and RDA resources continue to be expended on this highly
successful program to improve the public infrastructure of older, lower income
neighborhoods. During the 5-year reporting period, CDBG resources have been
focused on areas of low- and moderate-income as identified by the census. The
implementation of the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan provided opportunities for
sidewalk improvements, wheelchair ramps, street improvements, and park •
City of Rancho Cucamonga
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
April 2008
A144
• improvements, providing some much needed improvements to low-income
residential neighborhoods.
Action: Continue to fund public improvements and community facilities for qualified
target areas.
POLICY S.D: Promote the maintenance of existing housing in sound condition.
Evaluation: Residents have the primary responsibility for maintenance of existing sound
quality housing. They are assisted by the Building and Safety Department and the Code
Enforcement staff, which investigate complaints and pursue compliance with City Building
Codes and Ordinances.
Action: Continue to promote the maintenance of existing sound quality housing.
Program 5.D.1: Utilize concentrated Code Enforcement programs to target specific
areas or problems when the need and community support warrant such activity.
Evaluation: Between 2004 and 2008, Code Enforcement conducted 8 extremely
successful neighborhood clean-up programs. This includes: two in the Etiwanda
Boulevard area south of Foothill Boulevard; two in the Southwest Cucamonga area
at Grove Avenue south of San Bernardino Road, and Hellman Avenue south of
Arrow Route; three in central Rancho Cucamonga on Henbane Street south of
Church Street, Vineyard Avenue south of Church Street, and Stafford Street west of
Center Avenue; and finally one in the northern Rancho Cucamonga area on
Buckthorn Avenue south of Hillside Road. These programs focused around aone-
day educational everit that included free pick-up of large items such as appliances,
water heaters, and beds.
• Action: Implement this program when need arises and when residents support
neighborhood clean-up efforts, provided funding and staff are available.
Program S.D.2: Develop an outreach referral program whereby City workers
encourage owners of properties which may have structural or maintenance problems
to contact the CDBG coordinator for assistance under existing CDBG repair and
rehabilitation grant and loan programs.
Evaluation: This program has been implemented informally by both Code
Enforcement and the Building and Safety Department.
Action: Encourage all City workers including the Police Department, the Fire Safety
Department, the Maintenance Department, the Building and Safety Department, and
the Code Enforcement group to refer qualified owners to apply for CDBG repair and
rehabilitation program assistance.
For the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA, and the City as well, employment has increased
steadily from 2000 to 2007, with the City experiencing a 23.4 percent increase in employment. The
• City maintains an unemployment rate below that of the region, with a high of 6.5 percent in 2003 for
-City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 13 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A145
Evaluation: The intent of this objective is twofold. The first is to provide employment and adequate
housing for persons who wish to work and live in the City. The second is to provide employment
and housing in proximity to shorten the commute to work. This objective is responsive to SCAG's
1999 RHNA and to jobs/housing balance goals as stated in SCAG's 1994 RCPG.
the region and 4.0 percent for the City. In 2006 unemployment decreased to 4.8 percent for the
region, and 3.0 percent for the City. •
Action: Continue to promote the location of business and industry to the City, promote a wide range
of housing types under Objective 3, and when opportunities arise, promote living in the City for
people who work in the City.
POLICY 6.1: Promote efforts towards ajobs/housing ratio consistent with the goals and
objectives of SCAG's 1989 Growth Management Plan ("GMP") and the projected regional
jobs/housing balance.
Evaluation: Retail activity has increased substantially from 2000 to the present. Terra Vista
Town Center, including Target and Mervyn's, provided the first regional retail development.
The development of the Victoria Gardens Regional Mall in 2004 has become a significant
catalyst for further retail development in the eastern portion of the City. Additionally, other
major retail developments include Costco, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Best Buy, and Lowe's.
Action: Promote a favorable jobs/ housing balance ratio by implementation of Objective 3
and by encouraging the location of new business and industry in the City.
Program 6.A.1: Continue to encourage the location of new business and industry in
the City through promotional activities and through removal of governmental
constraints on development.
Evaluation: The RDA encourages new businesses and industry to locate within the
City through the economic development activities. Economic development goals
focus on job creation, improving the quality of life to residents and businesses,
increasing the City's tax base, and providing opportunities for public and private
partnerships, including private investment in the community. Economic development •
activities focus on two basic efforts: business retention and business attraction.
Currently, the Redevelopment Agency has successfully implemented a variety of
marketing and promotion strategies suggested in the strategic plan that have
leveraged the community's attributes as well as establishing a positive business
related image.
The removal of government constraints is accomplished through variable land use
controls, a housing stock in relatively good condition, permit streamlining, public
safety improvements, building permit fees, and alternative means of financing
infrastructure.
Action: The RDA and the Planning Department will cdntinue to encourage new
business and industry to locate in the City through promotional activities and through
removal of governmental constraints on development.
Program 6.A.2: Maintain and update the City's database management system,
which monitors proposed residential, commercial, and industrial projects.
Evaluation: This monitoring system is in place and the database continues to be
updated frequently.
Action: Continue this program. Update the reports for staff and public use as
frequently as possible, retaining the goal of weekly and quarterly updates.
Evaluation: Expenses for energy and resources consumed in the home are major factors added to •
mortgage or rental costs contributing to overall housing cost. Costs for water and for dispdsal of
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 14 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A146
• municipal solid waste have increased substantially during the last five years. Therefore, efforts to
reduce water consumption and landfill dumping of municipal solid waste will not only conserve
energy and resources, but will also help reduce the overall cost of housing.
Although savings of electrical energy have not been quantified, solid waste reduction programs and
water' conservation programs have demonstrated success.
Action:, Continue to require energy efficiency.
POLICY 7.A: Increase public awareness of and encourage the utilization of energy and
resource conservation measures through the enforcement ofthe State energy code and City
development regulations, as well as through the development of public information and
policy statements.
Evaluation: Code enforcement, education, and voluntary effort have proven successful in
conserving energy resources.
Action: Continue the policy of code requirements, education, and voluntary effort.
Program 7.A.1: Continue to enforce and regulate the existing State Residential
Energy Design Guidelines through existing State legislation and Uniform Building
Code.
Evaluation: The City adopted the California Building Code ("CBC")which establishes
building code requirements for all development. All development, including
residential development, are required to comply with the requirements of the CBC,
specifically Title 24 which relates to energy efficiency.
Action: The Building and Safety and Planning Departments shall continue to enforce
• energy effciency requirements of California State and Uniform Building Codes.
Program 7.A.2: Through the Development Code, continue to implement energy
efficient design procedures and specification for such things as solar techniques,
landscaping standards, house orientation, and sun angle exposure.
Evaluation: Sections 17.08.040(1) and 17.08.060(H) of the Development Code
addresses efficient energy design guidelines and requirements.
Action: Continue to implement efficient energy design guidelines and requirements.
Program 7.A.3: Continue to increase the public's awareness and utilization of
energy saving and resource conservation techniques through the use of public
information brochures, the Model Home Landscape Policy, and the Xeriscape
Ordinance.
Evaluation: The City adopted the Xeriscape Ordinance on January 17, 1990. The
purpose is to promote conservation. All new residential, commercial, and industrial
projects must comply, except single-family yards. Where there are two or more
model homes for new single-family residential development, one-half the models
must demonstrate the use of water saving landscaping material and irrigation
techniques.
Action: Continue water and energy conservation education and regulation efforts,
including brochures and implementation of the Xeriscape Ordinance.
•
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation o(the Housing Element
15 Aoril 2008
A147
• : r r r • • r ~ . ~ r - . r . ~ ~ . •
Evaluation: The State Government Code- (§65583) requires that local jurisdictions provide an
analysis of 'potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or
development of housing for all income levels" and where possible to remove those constraints.
The City has adopted process streamlining measures and enacted changes in the Development
Code to reduce governmental constraints on all development.
Action: Continue to review and evaluate processing procedures and the Development Code to
eliminate governmental constraints on housing development.
POLICY 8.A: To promote efforts to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in
the process regarding development costs, and to charge only those fees necessary to
adequately carry out needed public services-and improvements. ,
Evaluation: Fees are necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and
improvements necessary for urban development. In 1985 the City determined that specific
fees would be necessary to promote the general welfare of the Community. Further, a
portion, but not all, of the cost of processing new development is incorporated into project
application and processing fees. A comprehensive list of fees is maintained and available to
the public, this list is updated annually to correspond to increases in the consumer price
index.
Action: Continue to review and evaluate fees and charge only those fees necessary to
adequately carry out needed public services.
Program 8.A.1: The City shall continue periodic review and update of City fees and
the methodology on which the fees are based in order to determine the necessary •
costs for the provision of adequate public services and improvements to ensure the
continued health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Evaluation: A fee ordinance, which establishes fee methodology, is reviewed
annually and fees are updated to correspond to the consumer price index. This is
applicable to all application fees, including application review and plan check, as well
as development fees, which include Building and Safety, Transportation, Drainage,
Park Development, and Beautification fees.
Action: Continue the annual review and update of City fees and the methodology on
which the fees are based.
Program 8.A.2: Continue to facilitate development processing through multiple
techniques, including staff assistance and handouts at the public counter, articles in
the City's newsletter, informal meetings with applicants, Preliminary Review
applications to address technical issues, and Pre-Application Review to address
policy issues.
Evaluation: Articles in the City's newsletter and handouts continue to provide
information about City standards and procedures. Information is also provided at the
public counter in City Hall. Further, informal meetings with proponents are
encouraged at the early stages of project development.
The Planning Department has instituted two formal procedures to facilitate project
review, Preliminary Review and Pre-application Review. Preliminary Review focuses
on technical issues at the staff level. Pre-application review takes the application to
the Planning Commission for non-binding comments and usually focuses on •
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 16 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A148
• potential policy issues. These less formal preliminary review procedures are
intended to save time and money for an applicant with a complex proposal.
Action: Continue to facilitate development processing through multiple techniques,
including assistance and handouts at the public counter, articles in the City's
newsletter, informal meetings with applicants, Preliminary Review to address
technical issues, and Pre-Application review to address policy issues.
Program 8.A.3: Continue to evaluate processing procedures for all residential
developments and whenever possible recommend streamlining procedures.
Evaluation: The Planning Department has a responsibility to evaluate processing
procedures. In August 1994, the City adopted aproject-streamlining ordinance that
reduces the optimum processing time from eleven weeks to eight weeks for
applications that require Planning Commission review. Also, under the streamlining
ordinance projects which require public notice but are substantially routine in
character may now be approved at a Planning Director hearing in as short a period
of time as six weeks. These procedures are available for all.applicarits, including,
but not limited to, applications for low-income housing.
Action: Continue this program. The Planning Department will continue to evaluate
processing for all residential developments and whenever possible recommend
streamlining procedures.
•
Action: Continue periodic update of the Housing Element.
POLICY 9.A: Update the Housing Element in order to incorporate new information, such as
data from the decennial Federal Census, as well as to comply with new State legislation;
annually monitor progress toward attainment and implementation of the goal, objectives, and
policies of the Housing Element.
Evaluation: The technical update of a Housing Element is an important but staff intensive
task. The update following the decennial census incorporates new data and is crucial to the
review of housing production efforts. Since an Amendment to the Housing Elementtriggers
the State review and certification process, a;less than five-year update of the Housing
Element causes funding hardship.
Government Code §65588 established that local governments within the regionaljurisdiction
of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) were to complete updates to
their Housing Elements by December 31, 2000 forthe third revision, and through adoption of
SB 491 (Ducheny), by June 30, 2006 for the fourth revision. In 2005, SCAG requested an
extension so that the regional housing need determination ("RHED") and allocation
("RHNA") in the SCAG region could be coordinated with the Regional Transportation Plan
("RTP") process. As a result, the deadline for adoption of the fourth revision was extended
to July 1, 2008.
Action: Continue to comply with the State mandated five-year update of the Housing
Element in a timely manner. Support legislation to limit State review of Housing Element
• Amendments to the mandated periodic update following the decennial Federal census.
Support State legislation which accepts as a City's "annual report" as either, or both, the
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 17 April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A149
Evaluation: Update of the Housing Element is a Planning Department work program priority.
CDBG Consolidated Plan (or its successor report) and the RDA's annual report consistent •
with the adopted Housing Production Plan.
Program 9.A.1: Preserve restricted, affordable units which are at-risk of conversion
to market rate between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2005, as identified with the City's
Units-at-Risk Study and included in the Technical Appendix of the 2000 Update of
the Housing Element, consistent with the requirements of Senate Bill 1282, revising
Section 65583 of the Government Code.
Evaluation: AUnits-at-Risk study has been prepared and incorporated into the
Housing Element (Section X). As of January 1, 2008, a total of 352 units are at risk
of conversion to market rate prior to June 30, 2010. The RDA has entered into an
agreement with the SCHDC, anon-profit agency, to purchase or enter into contracts
for the preservation of restricted affordable units.
Action: This program now enters an implementation phase. The RDA shall continue
discussions-with owners of units at risk of conversion to market rate. On a case-by-
case basis, the RDA will purchase, assist purchase by anon-profit agency, or enter
into contracts to preserve restricted affordable units.
Program 9.A.2: Implement the Redevelopment Agency's Housing Production Plan
adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in January 2001, and is included in the
Technical Appendix of the 2000 Housing Element Update.
Evaluation: The RDA's AHS has been incorporated into the State mandated Housing
Production Plan, and was adopted in 2001. This update of the Housing Element
shall be consistent with the Housing Production Plan.
Action: With the adoption of the State mandated Housing Production Plan, programs •
are in place to implement the AHS.
Program 9.A.3: In fulfillment of the State mandate to report annually on the Housing
Element, continue to provide the State mandated RDA report on the Housing Set-
Asidefunds and the CDBG report on implementation of citywide low- and moderate-
income housing programs.
Evaluation: The RDA prepares an annual report, including 20 Percent set-aside
achievements, which is forwarded to the Council. The CDBG program prepares
reports that are reviewed and/or adopted by the Council: Program Application,
Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan, and CAPER. The Council adopts an annual
budget, and annually reviews and adopts the City fee schedule.
Action: Revise this program to specify that CDBG annual affordable housing
reporting requirements along with the RDA's annual affordable housing reporting
requirements fulfill the City's annual affordable housing reporting requirements. The
Planning Department shall forward copies of these reports to the State HCD as
required by law.
Program 9.A.4: Complete the next State mandated 5-year update of the Housing
Element consistent with the requirements and schedule adopted by the State
Legislature.
Evaluation: The Planning Department prepares the mandated updates to the
Housing Element. The process for adoption includes Planning Commission
consideration, HCD review, response and/or correction, and City Council adoption.
City of Rancho Cucamonga _ XI - 18 ~ April 2008
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A150
• Action: The Planning Department will complete the next mandated Housing Element
update consistent with State reporting requirements and the submission schedule
adopted by the State Legislature.
SUMMARY: The 9 existing objectives will be continued, modified, or eliminated as discussed. New
programs will be added as necessary to further assist in obtaining the goals and objectives of the
Housing Element.
•
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga XI - 19
2008 Housing Element
Section XI -Evaluation of the Housing Element
A151
'~ Y ENVIRONMENTAL
- ..V: .
INFORMATION FORM
• - J ~'=' (Part I -Initial Study)
Clry of Rancho Cucamonga (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the nett line.)
Planning Division
(909)477-2750
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basiacom,ponents of the proposed
project so that the,City may review the project pursuant to City.Policies, Ordinances,`and
Guidelines; .the California Environmental Quality .;Act; ,and: the City's..:Rules and- .
,.
Procedures to.rlmplement GEQA. It is irriportanf that the':infocmation:requested>.in this
application be :provided in full::. ' -r '.-
Upon'r'evlew of the completed. Initial: Study Part I and the de~elo,pment application,
additional informatiorrsuch as,`.but not~mited~to, tra'ffic,;,noise,,bological, drainage, and
geological reports maybe=required The~prolecfapplicationwilhriotbedeemed complete
unless the identified special studies/reports are, submitted for.review.arid acce,Pted as ;
complgte and atlequate' The project application will not be scheduled for Commrt#ees' ; •.
..
review' unless `a11 required reports are `submitted and'.=deemed: comjilete for staff to
prepare~khe initial `Study;Part II'as requred~by CEQA' ;In addition to the filing fee, the"
`applicant will be responsible to payyor`r•ermburse the.City, its agents, officers,.and/or~'
consultants ,for=Fall costs for- the preparation-,' revrew;xanalysis, recommendations, '-~
.. r a: a
+ ;
`. mitigations etc , Af:any,special studies or reports A s
• INCOMPLETEAPPLICAT/ONSWILL 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 staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing
information.
Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: ~GYI(.r•U! Y wY~ /~+~~^~~^'I'~' ~' Vti ~~ Of3~~ 7
Project Title: ___'L00g
Name & Address of project owner(s): ~hgij Ol- KAneno t,UcA1-74n~v
I oSoO Qv~ ~,rr:, pr. el
Fp'~ (.µc.RYYllhLtiC.l !^it. R~7~o
Name 8 Address of developer or project sponsor:
-~tD~15 ~rghn~ ~iCPj ~OC
raHt ~i•rnnc~,
~~ of ~'arrchD L}~camanq~.
(~o~) 4~~-~.~~ x BIZ
EXH 16IT B fudy Part1 docPage 1 of 1 ~ Rev. 3!17!04
A152
Contact Person 8 Address:
v1 dt~
Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above):
Telephone Number: ~nq)1~'~~ X~g
Information indicated by an asterisk (*) is not required ofnon-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff.
'1) Provide a fu/I 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 Locafion (describe).' ~ ~ ~ -
C~{ u~de
J
~J
4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet it necessary):
"5) ,rocs Site Area (adsq. ft.).'
V' ~D Sglulrf ~~ IP,S
`6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed `
dedications):
N/~
7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site
(attach additional sheet if necessary).•
~lOP~ ZpO $• ~{'O6Cyl'Iq Qkmwlr u~C•
•
I:\PLANNING(FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.docPage 2 of 10 Rev. 3/17/04
A153
8) Include a description of a!I permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and othergovernmental
agencies in order to /ully implement the project
G'titr~v~n+a 1?e~r~maar o~F -t+ous~n~ ~ Cornrnun~t~ ~vetopmcr-~{~
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 allsources ofinformation (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological
surveys, traffic studies):
- ~2 par+ ~ pf ~h¢. Ctvt rerwxar~hcQ Chectl rs} ~ I:h.eQ Sfrxtq `Par~F1C
- Sea ~nv~ronmutihc.Q CheekUs-F ~ni-fu.Q-~-udu Q~ir~-~
f0) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite afl sources ofinformation (books, published reports
and oral history): .
ice abeam"
•
I:IPLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTcR\Initial Study Part7.docPage 3 of 10
Rev. 3177/04
A154
11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadwaynoise, etc.) and how they will affect
proposed uses:
s~ prevfOUS Cnrry
~~ •
12) Describe the proposed project ih detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use
that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development, the extent of
development fo occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if
necessary:
~~
•
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 ofdevelopment (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.):
-~~
14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area o(fhe project?
- ~0
' •
I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Ini6al Sludy Panl.docPage 4 of 10
Rev. 3/17!04
A155
15) Indicate the type ofshort-term and long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. How will these noise
levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed?
-'(hL~a"op0i~d x008 ~kst'?'I ~'Icvrtrn+ is aonl)cu ~-fr~..rn>mn1
'16) Indicate proposed removafsand/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: ~
s]P,~ ~ q
- 'i'he propa~d Z~S N-pusinq Szwunf Ps a bolrcy de~.ctmcn-F
v
17) ~~In''dlIicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains:
d~-~ Q
'(h.e pro pab~d Zna S ~Fe u a l n .( ~Eiertl,cnf- is cz po I r cy d a cu me n.}-
.- 18J Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please
contact the Cucamonga Va//ey Water District at 987-2591. ~ ~ //~
• a. Residential (gal/day) NSA Peak use (gal/Day) 1~f//~
b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) ~ NIA peak use (gal/mi~n/acJ -~
19J Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ^ Septic 'rank ^ Sewer.
H 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 Valley Water District at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gal/day) ~/~`
b. Commercial/Industrial (gal/day/acJ ~/~
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
2t1) Number of residential units:
Dtte''tached (indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum !ot size:
1`t /~
Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): ,
• N /~
I:IPLANNING4FINAL\FORMSICOUNTER1lnitial Study Partl.docPage 5 of 10 Rev. 3117/04
A156
21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents:
Sale Price(s) $ N!~ to $ N ~ .
Rent (per month) $ H ~. to $ ~ ~ ~ •
22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type:
h1~4
23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type:
24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School
- Districts as shown in Attachment B:
a. Elementary: N /~
b. Junior High: N ~ •
c. Senior High
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:
I:IPLANNINGIFINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.docPage 6 of 10 Rev. 3/17104
A157 '
29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications, including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication ofthe rate o/
hire for each classification (attach additional sheet if necessary):
r~
L_J
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 airpollution emissions. (Data should be
verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283):
ALL PROJECTS
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, p/ease indicate their response.
~-IVirOr111tdYf#+lp QIeGk.l}S}' L~rt(f~i~ ~LL~~ ~qr} ~'
33) In the known history of this property,. has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic matehals?
Examples ofhazardous and/or toxicmaterials include, but are notlimited to PCB's; radioactive substances; pesticides and
herbicides; fuels,' oils, solvents, and dthertlammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage ofany ofthe 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.
rr,cn.Kp ~i~+
._
I:\PLANNINGIFINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.docPage 7 of 10
Rev. 3117/04
A158
34) loll the proposed project involve the temporary orlong-term use, storage, or discharge ofhazardous and/ortoxic materials,
including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an inventory of all such materials to be used and
proposed method o/disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas, shall be shown and
l((a~~b~~eled on the application plans. - •
1~
I hereby ceRify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for
adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statemen and information presented are true and correct
tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional inf afion may be required to be submitted before an
adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ~
Date: 3- ~~ g Signature:
Title:
J
I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Initial Study Partl.docPage B of 10
Rev. 3117/04
A159
ATTACHMENT "A"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
• ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
(Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003)
Water Usage
Single-Family
Multi-Family
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Office Professional
Institutional/Government
Industrial Park
Large General Industrial
Heavy Industrial (distribution)
Sewer Flows
Single-Family
• Multi-Family
General Commercial
Office Professional
Industrial Park
Large Geheral Industrial
Heavy Industrial (distribution)
705 gallons per EDU per day
256 gallons per EDU per day
1000 gal/day/unit (tenant)
4082 gal/day/unit (tenant)
973 gal/day/unit (tenant)
6412 gal/daylunit (tenant)
1750 gal/day/unit (tenant)
. 2020 gal/day/unit (tenant)
1863 gal/day/unit (tenant)
270 gallons per EDU per day
190 gallons per EDU per day
1900 gal/day/acre
1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government
3000 gal/day/acre
2020 gal/day/acre
1863 gal/day/acre
Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District
Engineering & Water Resources Departments,
Urban Water Management Plan 2000
I:IPLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER\Inilial Study Partl.docPage 9 of 10
Rev. 3117/04
A160
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
6061 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
u
I:\PLANNING\FINAL\FORMS\COUNTER1lnitial Study Partl.docPage 1D of 10 Rev. 3/17/04
A161
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2008-00115 - 2008 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
3. Description of Project: State mandated Housing Element update in accordance with Article 10.6,
Section 65580-65589.8 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's
Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at-risk of
conversion to market rate through June 30, 2015.
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
5. General Plan Designation:
Residential
• Very Low (<2 Dwelling Units [DUs]/Acre [AC])
Low (2-4 DUs/AC)
Low-Medium (4-8 DUs/AC)
Medium (8-14 DUs/AC)
Medium High (14-24 DUs/AC)
High (24-30 DUs/AC) ,
Commercial
Office
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
General Commercial
Commercial Recreation
Mixed Use
Mixed Use
Industrial
Industrial Park
General Industrial
Heavy Industrial
6. Zoning:
Residential
Estate Residential (1 DU/AC)
Very Low (<2 DUs/AC) .
• Low (2-4 DU's/AC)
Low-Medium (4-8 DUs/AC)
Medium (8-14 DUs/AC)
A162
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -City of Rancho Cucamonga
Medium High (14-24 DUs/AC)
High (24-30 DUs/AC)
Commercial/Office
Office/Professional
Office
Office Park
Commercial/Office
Community Facilities
Village Commercial
Community Service
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
General Commercial
Specialty Commercial
Freeway Related Commercial
Recreational Commercial
Regional Related Office/Commercial
Regional Related Commercial
Regional Center
Mixed Use
Financial
Hospital
Mixed Use/Retail
Mixed Use/Office
Industrial
Industrial Park
Light Industrial
General Industrial
Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Regional Description
Rancho Cucamonga is located in the Inland Empire of California - in San Bernardino County. It is
located 37 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. Direct freeway access to the City may be taken
from Route 210 and I-15 Freeway. The County of San Bernardino (unincorporated areas) and the
City of Fontana are located east of Rancho Cucamonga. Upland is located west of the City.
Ontario is adjacent to the south and southwest portions of the City. The County of San Bernardino
(unincorporated areas) is located to the north of the City.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga encompasses a total planning area of approximately 50 square
miles. Thirty-eight square miles constitute the incorporated area, augmented by a 12 square mile
Sphere-of-Influence that generally extends from the City's northern border up to the
San Bernardino National Forest.
•
J
The predominant City pattern for commercial activity is characterized by the commercial corridor
along Foothill Boulevard, accented by the planned clusters of commercial and service businesses
at many of the intersections. The northerly two-thirds of the City is predominately residential, •
while the southerly one-third is largely industrial. Commercial centers are mostly located along the
main easUwest spine of the City, Foothill Boulevard. The northerly edge of our
Sphere-of-Influence is dominated primarily by open spaces of various types - a transition from the
Rev. 5/24106
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
A163
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2008-00115 -City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3
• San Bernardino National Forest and Mountains that frame this part of the West Valley area of the
San Bernardino County.
Area Description
Not applicable. The proposed project involves the adoption of the 2008 Housing Element update.
This project does not involve a site specific development.
Site Description
Not applicable. The proposed project involves the adoption of the 2008 Housing Element update.
This project does not involve a site specific development.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga; CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rina Leung
Senior Planner
(909) 477-2750
c
• 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement):
California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
GLOSSARY -The following abbreviations are used in this report:
CVWD -Cucamonga Valley Water District
EIR -Environmental Impact Report
FEIR -Final Environmental Impact Report
NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOx -Nitrogen Oxides
ROG -Reactive Organic Gases
PM,o -Fine Particulate Matter
RWQCB -Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD -South Coast Air Quality Management District
SWPPP -Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
URBEMIS7G -Urban Emissions Model 7G
•
Rev. 5/24/06
A164
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DRC2008-00115 -City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," or "Less Than-Significant-Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
(X) Aesthetics
(X) Biological Resources
(X) Hazards & Waste Materials
()Mineral Resources
()Public Services
()Utilities & Service Systems
()Agricultural Resources
(X) Cultural Resources
(X) Hydrology & Water Quality
(X) Noise
ORecreation
(X) Mandatory Findings of
(X) Air Quality
(X) Geology & Soils
(X) Land Use & Planning
(X) Population & Housing
() Transportation/Traffc
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
() I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(X) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or
agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
() I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
() I fnd that the proposed project MAY have a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
() I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Prepared By: Rina Leung Date: 3!5/08
~r
Reviewed By: ;' Date:.~~s~D~'
•
•
•
Rev. 5/24/D6
A165
•
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
Less Than
SiB^ir~canl Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Pptanlially
SiBnifranl w~tn
Milipation Than
Sipnd¢ant
No
Impact InwmoreleE Imoacl Imoacl
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. AESTHETICS. Would fhe project:
a) Have a substantial affect a scenic vista? () () () (/)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but () () () (/)
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State Scenic Highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or () () (/) ( )
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, O O (/) O
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
Comments:
a) Although the proposed 2008 Housing Element update could result in an increase of
residential units, it is anticipated that these changes will not negatively impact scenic
vistas. The Housing element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts to
meet existing and projected housing'' need through it goal, objectives, policies, and
programs. No impacts are anticipated.
•
b) There are no State Scehic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Please see
1.a above.
c) Any future project indirectly resulting from this Ordinance will be required to be designed
so that they have minimal impacts to surrounding uses. Also, Design Review will be
required for future projects (subdivisions and multiple-family units) to ensure good
architectural design as well as compatibility with the surrounding development. City
standards require that developers underground existing and new utility lines and facilities
to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in
accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said
Resolution. Thus, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
d) -Since all future projects indirectly resulting from this project will require a separate review
by staff, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and/or City Council, impacts to
light and glare would be reviewed at a later stage. Each project will be required to
undergo a review of the photometric lighting plans to ensure impacts are light and glare is
minimal. If it is found that the project would increase the number of stteetlights and
security lighting used in the immediate vicinity, they will be required to comply with City
standards, which require shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Therefore,
impacts to light and glare are considered as less than significant.
Rev. 5/24/06
A166
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 6
Less Than
SiBnifcant Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: se~cl~lm Mil8a6on Sigru(wnl No
Imoad Incorooraletl Imoad Imoad
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project'
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or () () () (/)
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a () () () (/)
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, () () () (/)
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
a) The 2008 Housing Element update does not create a demand for new housing, but
attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal, objectives,
policies, and programs. Designated Open Space areas will continue to be preserved far
recreation and grazing areas. There are approximately 1,300 acres of Prime Farmlands,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City, of which about
one-third is either developed or committed to development according to General Plan
Table IV-2. The major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern
and eastern portions of the City that is characterized by existing and planned
development. Further, two-thirds of the designated farmlands parcels are small, ranging
from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not
intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) identified the conversion of farmlands to
urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council.
b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no
Williamson Act contracts within the City. Please see 2.a above.
c) Please see 2.a above.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the () (/) () ( )
' applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute () (/) () ( )
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of () () () (/)
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant () () () (/)
concentrations?
Rev. 5/24/06
•
•
J
A167
•
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
Less Than
Sipnifiwnt Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sen~rca~ ~ MR Ration Slgrufrnant No
Impact Inrgrporeletl Impact ImpeG
e) Create objectionable- odors affecting a substantial () () () (/)
number of people?
Comments:
a) The proposed 2008 Housing Element seeks to achieve a more favorable jobs/housing balance
in the City; thus, City creating opportunities for people to live and work within their community.
Multiple-family and subdivision developments will be required to undergo a separate
entitlement, which involves a separate environmental review with an air quality analysis. The
following Green House Gases (GHG) mitigation measures will be implemented on
future residential projects to reduce the amount of emission cause by a project:
1) Contractors shall be required to use alternative fuels, new technology, lower
emission engines arid other methods as may be feasible, and shall specify the
anticipated GHG reductions.
2) Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use; all diesel delivery trucks
servicing the multiple-family developments shall not idle for more than five
minutes per truck trip per day. '
LJ
b) Redevelopment or future project indirectly resulting from this Housing Element would involve
on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and
energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust is associated with grading and
construction activities: While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller
particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding
area. Future projects would be required to comply with air quality rules and regulations to
minimize impacts to air quality. The following mitigation measures will be implemented
on future projects to reduce potential impacts:
1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition
so as to reduce operational emissions.
2) The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly
serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance
records shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
3) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit
construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected
equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low
emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was
investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also
conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff.
4) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or
high-volume, low-pressure spray.
f•
5) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1108.
Rev. 5/24/06
A168
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 8
Less Than
sigmo~am ~eaa
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 Fo~entially
SiBni6wnt wpm
Mitigation titan
SigniLwm
No
Impact IncorDOretatl Imoecl ImOeq
6) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403.
Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering.
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time.
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods.
Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of
hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of
construction.
Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds
exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover
payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
7) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved
by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality. Control Board (RWQCB)) daily to
reduce PM,g emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
8) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be
applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or
more to reduce PM,B emissions.
9) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-
powered equipment where feasible.
10) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans
include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate
high efficiencyllow polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water
heaters.
12) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate
thermal pane windows and weather-stripping.
c) The proposed 2008 Housing Element seeks to achieve a more favorable jobs/housing
balance in the City; thus, creating opportunities for people to live and work within their
community. Multiple-family and subdivision developments will be required to undergo a
separate entitlement, which involves a separate environmental review with an air quality
analysis: If a future residential multiple-family/subdivision project occurs as a result of this
•
•
•
Rev. 5/24/06
A169
•
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
Las. rnan
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g ralamiauY
Significant w,tn
Mitigation r"°"
Significant
No
Im aG InmrporalaC ImpaG ImpeG
proposal, it would require a separate environmental review along with the implementation
of the applicable air quality modeling and mitigation measures. Negative impacts are not
anticipated.
d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of
pollution than the population at large. The SCAOMD identifies the following as sensitive
receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers,
retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic
facilities. According to the SCAOMD, projects have the potential to create. significant
impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air
contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. Site specific future residential projects
would be reviewed for capability with nearby land uses to ensure that sensitive receptors
are protected. Negative impacts are not anticipated.
e) Residential uses tend to not create odors; therefore, negative impacts are not anticipated.
J
u
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or O U (/) ( )
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status ~
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish I
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat () () (/) () I
or other sensitive natural community identified in local I
or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally () () (/) ( )
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the ,
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native () () (/) ( )
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () () (/) ( )
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat O O (/) O j
Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plan?
Rev. 5/24/06
A170
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 10
Lass Than
Sipndicam Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: s9~ia~~lm mu ~np~ s. mfmnem Np
' ImpaG InWfporBlaG Impact Impatl .
Comments:
a) Nearly all the areas within the City limits is either developed or previously disturbed;
however, some areas within the City's Sphere-of-Influence are still relatively undisturbed
and covered with native vegetation. Recently, residential development has extended into
the foothills parts of the undeveloped portions of the Sphere-of-Influence 'area support
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (APBs). AFSS is a subtype of Costal Sage Scrub, which is
habitat for the California gnatcatcher. Other sensitive species potentially occurring within
the City include the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF) and the San Bernardino Kangaroo
Rat. A few remaining parcels of land contain Delhi solids, which could provide suitable
habitat for these species, although surveys have not identified any DSF within the City
boundaries or in the Sphere area.
General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, includes a map that
depicts the area of sensitive biological resources. If it is found that a new residential
project resulting from this proposal occurs in areas designed for sensitive biological
resources; care will be taken to coordinate all new projects with California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG). and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to avoid impacts
to the species or to develop mitigation measures. Therefore, impacts to biological
resources are considered less than significant.
b) Please see Section 4.a above.
c) There are also numerous streams, drainages, and a bog within the canyon areas in the
Sphere, some extending down into the City boundaries. The proposed 2008 Housing
Element update does not include a site specific project. Any new residential project
indirectly resulting from this Housing Element update in the aforementioned areas in the
Sphere, would be required to undergo a separate environmental review, which can
include coordination with CDFG and USFWS to develop appropriate mitigation measures,
if it is located in areas mentioned above. Many of these properties have been designated
as Open Space and Residential development so that the land would maintain some or
most of its natural conditions, thus maintaining the connectivity of that parcel of land with
the surrounding natural habitations. Therefore, impacts to biological resources are
considered less than significant.
d) Please see Section 4.a above.
e) Any future residential project that occurs .indirectly as a result of this project would be
analyzed for impacts to'heritage trees. All new projects would be required to comply with
the Tree Preservation Ordinance in Chapter 19.08. Therefore, impacts to biological
resources are considered less than significant.
f) Please see Section 4.a above.
Rev. 5/24/06
•
•
•
A171
•
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 11
Less Than
Signifcanl Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po~enlially
Signifcanl wm
Mitigation man
SigniFlCant
No
f00aCl OCOf OfetB(I Im ad Toad
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) -Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () (/)
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5? ,
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () (/) () ( )
significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological () (/). () ( )
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred O O (/) ( )
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
a) Implementation of the goal, objectives, policies, and programs that encourage the
preservation and maintenance of historical structures have been successful. These
programs will be revised and retained in the 2008 Housing Element update and are
expected to result in a positive impact on the City's cultural resources.
•
b) The Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans
according to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11). Any future project will be required
to implement the following mitigation measures: ,
1) tf any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during
grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor
construction activities to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve
them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga will:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or
significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisidns to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new developments, using their special
qualities as a theme or focal point. ,
• Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to
eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique
prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the
project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original
illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
•
c) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on
an alluvial fan. According to the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological
Rev. 5/24/06
A172
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 12
Lesa Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 Pctentiaov
Significant wtn
Mitigation man
Significant
No
Impact Incorpweted Im ad Im act '
sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the
Sphere-of-Influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity
rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which would have been
deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ago during the
Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last "Ice Age" and the
appearance of modern man occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The
project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium per General Plan Exhibit V-2. The
following mitigations measures will be included on site specific projects:
1) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered
before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to
monitor construction activities to take appropriate measures to protect or
preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings
that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation
measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where
mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid
removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time
during the interval ofearth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert
earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed
salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading
contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor
of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the
summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San
Bernardino County Museum).
• Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga.. Transfer collected
specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum.
d) The California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 states that if human remains are
discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made
a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code §5097.98.
As adherence to State regulations is required for all development, no mitigation is required
in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on-site. Impacts are considered less
than significant.
Rev. 5/24/06
•
•
•
A173
•
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 13
Less Then
' Slgnlficanl Less
Issues and Sup
ortin
Information Sources: Folamielly wln Tnan
p
g Significant Mitigation Signi9canl No
Im08d Incofporalatl Im act Im ed
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () () () (/)
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42. '
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? O O O (/)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including () () () (/)
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? () () () (/)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? O (/) O ( )
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, () () () (/)
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site '
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table () () () (/)
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use () () () (/)
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
a) -The 2008 Housing Element does not create a demand for new housing, but attempts tc
meeting existing and projected housing needs through its goals, objectives, policies, and
programs. Any future residential projects that occur from this project would be reviewed
for impacts to geology and soils. Furthermore, future residential projects will be required
to comply with Building and Safety Codes and Ordinances to ensure impacts are at the
mihimum.
•
b) Future residential development projects may require the excavation, stockpiling, and/or
movement of on-site soils. The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana
wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and
creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts
of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however,
development projects would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as
pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following
fugitive dust mitigation measures will be implemented during the environment
review process for future residential projects to reduce potential impacts:
Rev. 5/24/06
A174
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 14
Less Than
$Ign111CdO1 Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Paianliaily
SignHlcant wm
Miligalion Than
SlgniM1rant
No
plpaCl InWf nfdlatl TpaCI Ipl aCl
1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved
by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PMIO emissions, in accordance with
SCAQMD Rule 403.
2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by
the City to reduce PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-
site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction.
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to
minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes.
4) Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be
applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or
more to reduce PMio emissions.
c) Please see 6.a above
d) Please see 6.a above
e) Please see 6.a above
7. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (/)
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (/)
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or () () () (/)
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () () () (/)
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (/)
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (/)
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an () () () (/)
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Rev. 5/24/06
•
•
•
A175
•
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 15
Less Tnan
( ~ Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Fptenlianv
Significant wnn
Mitigation Tnan
Signifcanl
No
(11 Bcl nLn( OIBIBtl Ilfl act mpeGt
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () (/) ( )
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments: ~
a) Although the proposed 2008 Housing Element update does not yield a site specific
project, it provides more opportunities for future housing projects. The 2008 Housing
Element serves to meet existing and projected housing needs. Residential uses tend to
not be associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. No
adverse impacts are anticipated.
b) The proposed project will not involve the transport, use, and dispensing of gasoline and
diesel fuel. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered
a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in
the state. -The City has developed ah Emergency Operations Plan to meet State and
Federal requirements. The City has approved a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which has
received State and,Federal approvals.
c) Please see 7.a above.
•
d) Please see 7.a above.
e) The nearest airport is a least 2 1/2 miles away from the City. There are no airports within
the City boundaries in the plan. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
f) The nearest private airstrip to the City is Cable Airport, is located approximately
2 1/2 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
g) The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies
and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
(RCFPD) in the event of a disaster. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
h) The RCFPD reviews construction and landscaping plans for new residential development
projects to ensure that they comply with the applicable District requirements; thus, less
than significant impacts are anticipated.
•
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge () (/) () ( )
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or intertere () () () (/)
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
Rev. 5/24/06
A176
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 16
Less Than
SiBnifiwnt Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g amernlanv
SiBmficanl wun
Miligalion Than
Significant
No
Im ad Incur orated Imoad Imoed
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the O ~ O O (/)
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a,manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (/)
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed () () () (/)
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? () () () (/)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as () () () (/)
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures () () () (/)
that would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () () (/)
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? () () () (/)
Comments:
a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD).
The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act. The General Construction Permit treats any construction activity over 1 acre
as an industrial activity, requiring a permit under the State's General NPDES permit. The
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) through the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWOCB), Santa Ana Region, administers these permits.
Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction permit include
removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity for new development or
significant redevelopment. Prior to commencement of any future construction project, a
discharger must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General
Permit. The General permit requires all dischargers to comply with the following during
construction activities, including site clearance and grading:
Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that
would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would prevent construction
pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of
erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters.
Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other
waters of the nation.
Rev. 5/24/06
•
J
A177
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 17
- rB56 T11dn
$IBnI~Ldnl ~QSS
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
pp g pmenlislly
$ignifiwnl w"n
MihBption ."a"
$igni(ranl
No
TOBd nCAfpOr318E IIIIpOLY R1p3Cl
Perform inspections pf all BMPs.
Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction project discharges.
A construction project for new development or significant redevelopment requires an
NPDES permit. Any future construction project proponents will be required to prepare a
SWPPP: To comply with the NPDES, the project's construction contractor will be required
to prepare a SWPPP during construction activities, and a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) for post-construction operational management of storm water runoff. Runoff
from driveways, roads and other impermeable surfaces must be controlled through an
on-site drainage system. The following mitigation measures may be required for any
future project generated indirectly by this proposed Ordinance to control additional
storm water effluent:
Construction Activities:
1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to
Building Official for approval, SWPPP specifically identifying BMPs that shall
be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering
the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical.
•
2) An erosion control plan shall be prepared, included in grading plan, and
implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to
control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities
are initiated through completion of grading. This erosion control plan shall
include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of
grading and construction to minimize soil exposure, to rainy periods
experienced in southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance
program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either
on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a
remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame.
3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes
must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when
there is rainfall or other runoff.
4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be pertormed
prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order
to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site.
Posf- Construction Operational:
5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in any WQMP to reduce
pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum
extent practical.
6). Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing
the use of fertilizers/pesticideslherbicides. Landscaped areas shall be
monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage
and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for
Rev. 5124/06
A178
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 18
Less rnan
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 FDlenlielly
SiB^iliram wm
Mitigation rnan
SiBni(wnl
No
mpaCl InfAtDwatetl Impatl Impact
a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b) According to CVWD, 43 percent of the City's water is currently provided from ground
water in the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CVWD has adopted a master plan that
estimates demand needs until the year 2030.
c) Any future housing projects may cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and
hardscape proposed on a site. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities,
which have been designed to handle the flows. A grading and drainage plan must be
approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits for
future site specific residential projects. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is not considered signifcant.
d) Please see S.c above
e) Any future housing projects may cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
and the rate and amount of surface water runoff due to the amount of new building and
hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain
facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A grading and drainage plan must be
approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits.
Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No
impacts are anticipated.
f) Any future residential projects would be required to be reviewed for any potential impacts
to hydrology and water quality as part of the plan check process. Any future grading
activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in
the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus
resulting in surface water quality impacts. The following mitigation measures may be
implemented on future residential projects:
1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City
Engineer for approval of a WQMP, including a project description and
identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm
drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the
structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for
New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga in June 2004.
2) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice
of Intent to comply with obtaining coverage under the NPDES General
Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste
Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building
Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit.
g) Any future residential projects would be required to be reviewed for any potential impacts
to hydrology and water quality as part of the plan check and/or entitlement process.
•
•
L
Rev. 5/24/06
A179
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 19
Less Than
SignR¢ant Less
! Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
pp g 1=nten[iauy
Significant WRh
Mitigation Than
$IBnI(ICant
No
Impact Incorporatetl Im act Impact
h) Any future residential subdivision and/or multiple family projects would be required to be
reviewed for any potential impacts to hydrology and water quality as part of the plan check
and/or entitlement process.
The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system
designed to convey a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and
provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing
system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds,
concrete-lined channels, and underground storm draihs as shown in General Plan Exhibit
V-6. No adverse impacts are expected.
j) There are no oceans, lakes or reservoirs near the project site; therefore impacts from
seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of
the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain
streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow
impacts to the level of non-significance within the City. This existing system includes
several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and
north of the City.
•
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project.
a) Physically divide an established community?
O
O
(/)
( )
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or () () () (/)
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, a general plan',
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan () () () (/)
or natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
a) Implementation of the proposed 2008 Housing Element would not divide an established
community. While new development and redevelopment would be located on vacant and
underutilized parcels, those parcels would not be large enough to physically divide areas
within the City. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The proposed 2008 Housing Element was prepared in a manner that is compliant with
State Law. The City is in the process of a comprehensive General Plan update. Although
the proposed Housing Element will move forward prior to the comprehensive General
Plan update, these two documents will be prepared in a manner in which consistency is
maintained. Therefore, impacts to land use and planning are not anticipated.
c) The City does not have any established Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community
Conservation Programs; therefore, no negative impacts are anticipated.
•
Rev. 5/24/06
A180
Initial Study for.
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 20
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g P°'a"sour
Sigmfcanl w"°
MLLigalion Tnan
Significant
No
Im act Inror orated Imoad Im ad
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral () () () (/)
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the State? ,
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important () () () (/)
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
a) Since the proposed 2008 Housing Element is a policy level document, it does not include
any site specific development that would enable an assessment of potential site specific
impacts related to mineral resources. Any future residential project generated from the
proposal would be required to be reviewed for any potential impacts to mineral resources
as part of the application, plan check, and/or entitlement process. During this process, the
site would be analyzed for impacts to mineral resources; thus, no impacts are anticipated
at this time.
b) Please see 10.a above.
11. NOISE. Would fhe project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in O O U (/)
excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive () () () (/)
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise () () (/) ( )
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in () Q (/) ( )
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (/)
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () (/)
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments•
a) The noise exposure contours project for the City at year 2020 build-out conditions are
provided in Exhibit V-13 of the General Plan, Future Noise Contours. Future contours are
also presented in Table V-6 of the General Plan. The contours depict the noise exposure
for vehicular traffic on local streets, arterials, and highways, assuming a clear line-of-sight
Rev. 5/24/06
•
•
•
A781
1~
u
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 21
Less Then i
SigniLCant Less 'I
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sgnirwo~ Mi Ba6on slprN Cane Nc
Imoeq Incomoratetl Imoect Imaad
between receptors vehicular traffic. If the proposed 2008 Housing Element update results
in future a residential project on a specified site, projected future noise contours should be
considered as a guide to identifying potential land use/noise compatibility issues and will
be used to determine the requirements for project specific noise studies and mitigation.
b) Residential uses in general tend not to induce ground borne vibrations. As such, no
impacts are anticipated.
c) Ari' analysis of potential impacts associated with permanent increases in ambient noise
level brought about through implementation of the 2008 Housing Element update would
be conducted as part of the review required for individual residential developments. Also,
adherence to applicable City noise standards would reduce potential impacts to levels of.
less than significant.
•
d) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.7) indicates that during the construction phase, on-site
stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will
generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures will be provided in
any future environmental documents to mitigate the short-term noise impacts:
1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m.
and 6;30 a.m, on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday.
2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified
in Development Code §17.02.120(D), as measured at the property line. The
developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as
specified in Development Code §17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be
required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to
the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the
above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building
Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction
activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above
noise standards or halted.
3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed
100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the
developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction
traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes
that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
•
e) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2 1/2 miles to the west
of the City's westerly limits. Hence, there are no airports within 2 1/2 miles of the City. In
addition, future residential development anticipated by the proposed 2008 Housing
Element update would be individually evaluated to identify how such development would
be potentially impacted by airport related noise. Compliance with applicable City and/or
Federal noise standards would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
f) Please see 11.e above.
Rev. 5/24/06
A182
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 22
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
pp g
Fc~an,iany
Signipranl
Imoad Lesa Then
Significant
WiU
Mitigation
Inwmoratetl
Less
Than
S~Bnifaenl
Imgad
o
ImoacY
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either () () (/) ( )
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, () () (/) ( )
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? ~
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating () () (/) ( )
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
a) The addition of the
help to increase th
balance. Therefore,
significant.
housing units proposed in the 2008 Housing Element update would
e number of housing units in the City and improve the jobs/housing
the impacts to population and housing are considered as less than
b) Implementation of the housing conservation objectives of the 2008 Housing Element may
result in the repair and rehabilitation of the City's housing stock. ~ The Housing Element
continues programs for repair and rehabilitation of existing housing, which is expected to
result in the positive impact of preserving and maintaining the useful life of the existing
housing stock. Please see above 12.a.
c) The 2008 Housing Element update contains policies and programs rather than specific
projects. Future development anticipated by the Housing Element update would be
constructed on vacant and underutilized land in the City and existing housing would not be
displaced; therefore, this Housing Element would have less than significant impacts
related to the displacement of existing housing.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmenfa/ facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? () () () (/)
b) Police protection? () () () (/)
c) Schools? () () () (/)
d) Parks? () () () (/)
e) Other public facilities? (.) O O (/)
Comments:
a) Residential development proposed by the 2008 Housing Element update would be served
by the RCFPD: Future development may require improvement to existing facilities, new
facilities or increase in staffing and equipment. In order to ensure minimal impacts, the
Rev. 5/24/06
•
•
•
A183
•
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 23
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su
ortin
Information Sources: Pplennaor wen than
pp
g
_ $IBpITIWpI Miligabon Significant No
Im ad IncpmOr8letl Impact Impact
City requires that future residential subdivision andlor multiple-family projects resulting
from this proposal undergo the entitlement process, which requires a separate
environment review. Without specific details regarding each development, the adequacy
of fire protection is impossible to determine with any precision. Standard conditions of
approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on individual site
specific projects in the future so that no impacts to fre services will occur. No impacts are
anticipated.
b) During this process, the site would be analyzed for impacts to public services (police
protection). Please see 13.a above.
c) During this process, the site would be analyzed for impacts to public services (schools).
Future projects resulting from the project may be required to pay school fees as
prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of building permits. Please see 13.a above.
d) Please see 13.a above.
l J
e) The General Plan FEIR identified the cumulative impact on library services as a significant
unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
ultimately adopted by the City Council. After the adoption of the General Plan, the City
built a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately
22,000 square feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at
build-out of the City. Please see 13.a above.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and () () () (/)
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or O O O (/)
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Comments:
a) Any future residential subdivision and/or multiple-family project generated from the 2008
Housing Element update would be required to be reviewed for any potential impacts as
part of the entitlement process. During this process, the site specific project would be
analyzed for impacts to recreation. The Development Code requires that projects located
in the Medium, Medium High, and High zoning designations include common open space.
These projects will be required to include a large open lawn area, enclosed tot lot with
multiple play equipment, aspa/pool, and a barbecue facility equipped with a grill. A
standard condition'of approval could be applied on any future site specific project that will
require the developer to pay park development fees. No impacts are anticipated.
b) See 14.a response above
Rev. 5/24/06
A184
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 24
Less Than
SigniM1Cant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
- pp g - aotem~any
Signiricant wrth
Miligalion man
Sipni4canl
No
Im act Incomoralad Im acl Im act
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in () () () (/)
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) .Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of () () () (/)
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including () () () (/)
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature () () () (/)
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) dr
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () () (/)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? () () () (/)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs () () () (/)
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Comments:
a) The proposed 2008 Housing Element update does not involve a site specific project at this
time; therefore, it will not create any potential transportation/traffic impacts. The Housing
Element is intended to provide additional housing units. It is anticipated that the project
could support residents that work in the community, thus creating ajob/housing balance in
the community. Any future residential project that might result from this project would be
analyzed for transportation/traffic impacts at the time a site specific proposal is received
by the City. Future residential projects will be required to pay a transportation fee prior to
issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to
support adequate traffic circulation.
b) In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension, which
requires local jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on development for their fair share
toward regional transportation improvement projects. On May 18, 2005, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga adopted a Comprehensive Tfansportation Fee Schedule updating
these development impact fees. As a result, the San Bernardino County Congestion
Management Agency waived the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Traffic Impact
Analysis reporting requirement. Any future project resulting from this Ordinance will be
required, as a Condition of Approval, to pay the adopted transportation development fee
prior to issuance of building permit. Please see 15.a above.
c)
d)
Rev. 5/24/06
Please see 15.a above.
Please see 15 a. above.
•
•
•
A185
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 25
Less Than
' Significant -Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Fclenra~ro
Significant wnn
Mitigation Than
Significant
No
Imoad Incnf Walatl Im ad Imoad
e) Please see 15 a. above.
f) Please see 15 a. above.
g) Please see 15 a. above.
•
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the () () () (/)
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or () () () (/)
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm () () () (/)
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the () () () (/)
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment O O O (/)
provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted () () () (/)
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and () () () (/)
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
a) Any future residential subdivision and/or multiple-family projects indirectly resulting from
the 2008 Housing Element update would be analyzed for utilities and service systems
impacts at the time a site specifc project proposal is received by the City. Future projects
would be required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB regarding
wastewater. Various services are discussed in the 2008 General Plan Update Technical
Appendix. No impacts are anticipated.
b) Please see 16.a above.
c) Any future projects resulting indirectly from this project may require a grading and
drainage plan to be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance
of grading permits. Please see 16.a above.
J
d) Please see 16.a above.
Rev. 5/24/06
A186
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 26
Less Than
Slgni9canl Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 P°'a"rally
Signircant w""
Miligatipn r"'"
SigniOCant
No
Im act Incp pratetl Im ad Impel
e) Please see 16.a above.
Please see 16.a above.
g) Any new residential subdivision and/or multiple-family projects will be required to comply
with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of
Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with
AB 939. Please see 16.a above.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the () () (/) ( )
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually () () () (/)
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will () () () (/)
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Comments:
a) The current project does not involve a site specific project. Any future project indirectly
resulting from the 2008 Housing Element update will be required to undergo CEQA
review, which includes analyzing impacts to sensitive biological resources. The
information provided in this Initial Study demonstrates that the implementation of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga's standard policies and codes, along with adhering to
environmental review procedures where applicable, would reduce potential impacts to a
level of less than significant.
b) Although the intent of the 2008 Housing Element update is not to create a demand for
new housing, but attempts to meet existing and projected housing needs through its goal,
objectives, policies, and programs. Implementation of the proposed Housing Element
may increase the amount of traffic on local roadways, emission of pollutants and
particulate matter; generate noise within the project limits; and affect the amount and
distribution of biological resources. Without the exact number of units to be constructed or
specific details regarding each project, the effects on the environment, either directly or
indirectly, is impossible to determine with any precision. Through the City's environmental
review process, future development projects would be evaluated individually for potential
direct and indirect impacts. Where needed, appropriate mitigation measures would be
Rev. 5/24/06
•
•
A187
r1
LJ
Initial Study for
DRC2008-00115 -The City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 27
required to reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than sigriificant; therefore, the
impact would be considered less than signifcant.
c) Please see 17.b above.
EARLIER ANALYSES/TECHNICAL STUDIES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier -EIR or Negative Declaration per
§15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses
were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive:
(/) General Plan FEIR
(SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001)
•
•
Rev. 5/24106
A788
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00115
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the above-listed project. This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components -This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
• 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management -The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the Planning Director, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures -The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and
to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will
be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the
project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga -Lead Agency
Planning Department
• 10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
A189
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
DRC2008-001 15
Page 2
•
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as
determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation
activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting .Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring.no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation.
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed bythe project planneror responsible City department
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring afterwritten
notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the
authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached •
hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authorityto
hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8: Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division. The Division shall require
the applicant to post any necessary funds (or-other forms of guarantee) with the City. These
funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and
report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether
the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall
conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
•
A190
f
- City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00115
Public Review Period Closes: April 9, 2008
Project Name:
Project Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga
Project Location (also see attached map): City of Rancho Cucamonga (Citywide)
Project Description: State mandated Housing Element update in accordance with Article 10.6,
Section 65580-65589.8 of the California Government Code, a revision and update of the City's
Housing Element, including the State-mandated analysis of restricted, affordable units at-risk of
conversion to market rate through June 30, 2015.
FINDING
• This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has
conducted an Initial- Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the
environment and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following
finding:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report
will not be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the
attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at
the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive
(909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the
review period.
April 9. 2008
Date of Determination Adopted By
A191
.RESOLUTION NO. 08-14
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2008-00115, TO REVISE AND
UPDATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
10.6, SECTIONS 65580 TO 65589.8, OF THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for General Plan Amendment No.
DRC2008-00115 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 April 9, 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 April 9, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds,as follows:
a. The proposed Housing Element Amendment is in substantial conformance with the
provisions of Article 10.6, Sections 65580 to 65589.8 of the California Government Code; and
b. This proposed Housing Element is consistent with the other elements of the
General Plan as provided through the organization and construction of the General Plan into super
elements in which the goal, objectives, and policies contained in these elements are interrelated and
dependent upon one another, and as a result of the technical update to the General Plan adopted
on November 17, 2001; and
c. The proposed amendment furthers the attainment ofthe City's overall housing goal.
through the development and implementation of the 5-year action program and quantified objectives
that promote the preservation, maintenance, and development of housing opportunities for all
economic segments of the community.
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 draft 2008 Housing Element is in conformance with the General Plan; and
A192
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-14
GPA DRC2008-00115 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
April 9, 2008
Page 2 '
b. That the draft 2008 Housing Element will not have significant impacts on the
environment; and
c. That the draft 2008 Housing Element is in substantial compliance with the
provisions of Article 10.6, Sections 65580 to 65589.8, of the California Government Code..
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and 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, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of
the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, 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. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment
period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
•
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record
before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; •
and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a signifcant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further
recommends that the City Council find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the Planning
Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
c. The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission therefore
recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation is based is the City Planner 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 Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. DRC2008-00115.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2008.
•
A193
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-14
GPA DRC2008-00115 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
April 9, 2008
• Page 3
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 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 9th day of April, 2008, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
u
w
A194
•
\J
•
~~
I^L
lL
0
`~
r
J
Q
F_
Z
~_
J
Y
U
~.~..~
2
IUn
v
NZ
LL.
0
Z
Z
Q
r
C
w
U ci
w
w ~
C 0
~a
U
.Q
Q
Q
O T
O ~
N
U ~
f4
Q
z a
d a
i~ ~
w
.-~ y
U _
~~ R
w
a ~
e 1~^
k,7 j~ ~~d.?~ ~j~~A
~'~ ~ .~ N i~ N
3. ~~: ,
Mw rvg
11 a"rdtxs-,
a u _
`
'
~.r4
~~.~
MLa f~
=~vG
~.. ~-S,
~
Vie. y !.?_
y~u
-'. '
1
~2y~.
A7
F
J
°
rr. y
iL'Lw:'
F' a
.
,
aYFtx`, `y
yS~R
~ ~.A
i
~
M^
~,~
-~~",i~
"'L^~
y ~
v
~~
~:i
~`i
:~;
~ U
a
Q U
a
Y.. ~ ~ N
C V!
C
a~ (a O
s;
~3.
:
'r
al
~
c n
~
3
N
C
O
v
n
O
3
;, 4,,,
. ~ a~
~
Y~
.*41C ~^^"~''
.k!x~?2
~ ~
~ N
C ~
~
~ ~ ~~'~
A
i*~. :"ty
~$
;
;
~
:~-i
tt
y
~
.
M':~3'A. ~*FJt
'3„'R r~k ~S~i
541 S.; k ~5:
~4
~i~~ry
~ ,
~
s~ ~d5
_
r ~~
d O
n ~
a ~
a
ru?: re
~~k .
~~
~3 ~
F $!r~
~`s
{~
~~j
V) ~ y
~
f6 >• ~
'O N c W to .T
o~om~-
''
3 k ~
~` C
ul U
7.
a ~
~~
~
E C (O ~ C N
.
O
'~Yyii~~ ~`e if
r
~ > C N C
O C N
- Q- ~ O
.O N in
n C C
ay,'$ !S 4~! t0 f0 n j O
U~
~~ Li'.~
.I sY ~
~
~ ~'
5r
+~ N ~ t9 'O
L N C ~ C N N
N
C
~ 4~ , N F N N.L.. O N C ~
,
"-~*a`
''~"Pmx f~~
a ~`
F u~i v~
3 C= 3L N
y O E ~ ~a~ `
N N N
.viz-*5_i ~
C
~ ~;"
~ O O ~ CJ C ~ E ~ O ~ ~ V m Ul
cy
may.-?} ^
~
•.~°_y~ Gv."e
4eir.;
to
'O to
~ O O fn ~ c C
N N ~ O
L
r ~ r, ~
~ E. m N Z N
m~ T~
tP1`s'~'~ y~,'~
- O' N~ N ~ N p
° C L N"~
U
°~ y m
~
-' x N4
N ~ h ~ Ul Y C
` n
~ n
..
~ NA.°~ a
.
AUDI .
;,. r::~
~ E N O
N .Q .
O U n O
l6
C Q. N
kJ ~ - D- ~ N O) N
}X,-,s~ "V1J n"t'i t m E N L N~ C~ C N N
,~~
' .~'~ ~=w o~ U NUN N>
=<
~~ xis;
;7
t'
X y
to > ~.~
~
~
0) C O O
ids ~
~
Ol <m;
.~.0
. `~-om
O o -a
Onu
O ~~oEm~m
`A _ g - `
.-
`"/Nr'~. n O)i F:~~(; /O N O C ~ N~ - n E Q' N L
O
0
r
A195
Q
N N N N N N N N V
'
U a a a a a a a Q
N V1 Vl (n N N N N N
C C C C C C C C C
m o m m m m m m ~
o. a oa oa a a n a n
`o `o `o o `o `o `o `o `o
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
m m v m a~ a~ rli rli m
d o v a> rli d m a~ a~
U U ¢l U U U U U U
O ~
m
o O O O O O O O O
d d m m m m m m m
N w 'O N C W C >. ~ ~ to ~- N
. U) C 'O
" U ~ .~ '... 3 .O '.... N U
J N ~ ~
c ~ ~ L
`~ C ~
m ~
c J
°
y a~.,~ ~
O~
L O Q
u
O x~
O ~ Q tq O rn
' ~ ~ a
i ~ m
..
_...
N
N to N L
U p
U O
N O ,
+~
T J O
O L
~ 10/1
.
.
d Ul 'O V! U '- U 0 U .~ N y ~ ~ to N N E
Ol N N E L~ >` N 3
O .J N~ L (9 3 C O L O- O
l O N f0
C a O
0 /q 0 l9
U
U 0 (J 0 E O
O 0
~ 0 N
U ~~ N tq
L]
(0
O
C ~ N O E • .
E
- ~ O_ N N U
~ C
L
O U ~ t T L N N -O j
C~ U C ~ O 'C O Cn O to -
O O ~ C O C y 0 C J N~
.o ° c
Q
m ~ N o . O
d
~ a1 1n N
~ o L .
w ~0
4 N
> m c >< E a O
N
°
O rn N L O~ U
~ rn O L N X~ .
'O m
~
y m
O
3 O O N
> O '~ N
U ~ `'E'1=1 ° ° ~ m c m J v `- ci Q
>
a U a
i -- ° ~ m ui
U
O •_ V1 .. 0+~-O O >~
.
L .
3 tnL N
N 0
O O`
E ~ ~ 0
> 0
O' p
N N O
d
O U
.
C N
U O to ~ y1 to
o J d C ip
~ ~ E U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ m a a01 ~
' ~ ~ O1 ~ > rn ~ ~
,~w°_ ~ O
E v .
o
~ 3 m. >. 01.0
crn '
US in
-o loop
N
_
O. ~om
3
y
0 ~
G" O D
L N N
0
0
= 0 N y 3 (9 m
...
E 0
1p N
LQ O f6 O N N lD N~ 0 0
N 0
C'
y U ~. C C N N
~0 m N C'O E .N. ~ ` N Q) N~ O. O ~ N d y es N
U
O Q 0) N U N f0 ~ N~ m C O Q? L N V' L N J N O
N m N O y a `O ,C
"o~EcE°-'m~rn.~ '~E o C
Q c o 00 > m° Lo_ ,~UO1
c
aloes°o_in: mcc nOC m
g °
°
? ~~ ~ am ~axi3 oma
i
r i
a c
>a-
i
a`-0o~ a~i a>i a~i.~U Ewa Q adt Q °c ¢~.~
0
o •
N
A196
•
V M V V
V V ~ V V 7 N N N N
' _ ~ '
Q a ~~ Q Q a s a U
N N N N N
C C C C C
(0 (9 (6 f6
- (6
0 0 ~ 0 0
~ oa n oa
` a n
`
~ ~ ~
_ ~ ~ o o o o o
m2 rn2 m,
~., m2 - m2 3 3 3 3 3
C N
~ C~
~ C N
~ C~
~ C y
~ O
. N
. ~
. O
~ N
~
~ p ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ v ~ a~i a>i
^ U ^ U ^ U ^ U ^ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
^ ^
U U U U U U V U U U
O O O O O O O ^ O O
m m m m m m m a m m
~- U
O) O ' L_
N~ ul
L 'O T C
C '
.- ~ C O
C O •• C
IQ s'
L N N Ol
L C '~ OJ 'O
D C
L .D O ~
L O f6
~°-mT -N
° 00 o^"-'c ^2° Um m '°~ m=a19i mw
YO C L O
C C O m .~
~ E N E O 'N ~ L N N d L N 3
N O ~
o N O N O
U N
N ~' C U m ] +'
c ~ O
~O
a°i~
o
= LO `~ ~~O.
~
E UFO
_ m
m i?
ca
° m Nam
0 N
C
~
o~E m~ a V
i
a (na~~ o Ec L 3
X ~
3
O
~ C
L O O O)
C .C N O C
a ' 'O ° a~ L N~ N C N E N O U
E~
y; m d. ~ a N N
N~ ~
~
L m
d V ~ . _ C L
N f0 C - Vl ~ N Ul d
_ O
>
m v = ~ ~
U
~ N
U _
m O N~ N E E L~ N
' N O _ "O L ~ N f0 N
' f9 f0
'
~~~a~ o1O~
N c-° a>o°m~
~ p-oo
d
+ ro_
N' 0~3
U _o
an ~Lm vE
°~'C C
C
N -
O
f0 O) ~ T
V N C
m ..
~ '
j O
6
` C C
~ N d
U C N Old
E L d N N
E
L
~ U
'O U U~ ~
N C a
N ^
(0 n 0
N f0 U~ g O
.~ ' O
U~
C C E
O j
E m .
.
E
°N°-o n~r> Ear «"
T
O `
md~ui ro~ om_n E ohm o~'
V~
' O Z' O p 0
m O R O>
O .
a~
....- Q
N C ry (d .N d C C
_ N~ O
C N U n O
~ E O U (9 C
4 'C U f0
O
~p .-
N S X O E
U N
' a
O a 3 O)
C
O O
U m ~ n O C d
N>
N
'+ O O C ~
~
d U O C N
'
~ ~ U
d C
_
~~~ C
' _
.~ O)
_- N /4
~ O m
E
O __ (6
- N
N-EE C
o ~6O D
cY N O
~~ m O
c
~~~ucao
E . ~
=o ~^ N
E
Y
c cv pmr
N °' m a 3 '
r °~ o u r U
2 °'r m a m - o ~.
~ .- a
v
M U L
Ol ` C n~ c
i
~ N 'N N
> o
N N `~ IA N ~ .
C O Q C O~C
~ UJ O ~ N N CJ. ~ ..+ I] N U
N _ ~ ~ N C ~~ _ ~ Ul .m N N
E N
9 c
- U '
3>,°
o °~V mm~ ~
~
o m om N ~° ~mm ~ ~~
cna~t-U (n 3(n ~LN ~ N.4vo
o
rn E~NU
a~ m ~ UE in
3 c~
>
> ~
-
L O N
UUU L ~'O o
L~ °
01
L _
N _
D- O -
D- O
n . O _ _ _
0
0
M
A197
7 _: : s
s'-
~~ ,. :
~ y .
sw '
~ ,
' ""-> i ~"r;~r
V V d V
M M M M
°h*"r ~~ '
~~ w
~=..
~ f ~ i.
t
::
`,.
-
.
fs...-
~_ ~~~ x "~
~~
:_~:.~:
.W~. .
~~-: O
a D
a ~
a - ~
a
s~;.: r
~.~ ,
"
°~~ ~ o a a a
;~
~ P
~;
~
'hi .
N
N
N
N
§. ~nT. ,
.
'
~~'br' _ {[ T
{ld~ O O O O
~y o ~ o 0
~''.' ~' ~ a~ o a~
,..n,°1
-~ n.
ltFS"l,
r.> ~
r~_,
`yin •"'
>u` p
,sa,,,~,z;i
~~
rif ~
~ti M
„~~ U U U U
Y: iw
r =
~
...
3
~
~~ r
~
¢ +
i
.
t
~
.
y_
P:lL~~'
d s`
it :"T
~ A4
u
.R :_ '-{h
" yw=~', m m m m
A
i'-~~:
;
~ r
4 a n. ~ a
. `
x:
~~ E N
L N m
~~ -- N P C N
`
3 0~ R C N
~ o ~' N ?~ ro N
L 'O U N Q
c
J
~~ J.
..
ro>
~ c
a
w
N _ o
QCN o
U
O'CW
C - . CN
0)'C ~ C N E
E d J U
h 7
;sus` O
E~ N U N Y; s
J N O 0 0~
E~ ~ ap 1]
v o n ~~ o ° w
~
N
~ ;?<wc ro v
` >
':~-~ U1
N ~, C
O C a
~ N N O N y E
N
` J ~ ~O N~ O' -O ~ O`
~ ~ _
~ O ~ ~ 3 ~ U .a O N ro ~
0
~
~ ~ ~
m
E
U
U
~ ~ 'U
ro N ~ N N l
C
-
:: ~ N
.N ~~
...
of
~ C
t6 ~ U
'O)'o O N C
d O)~ ~
O .~ N d ro
N N
p~
N
a C
L ,
C
s
f0
, O
E« p u! .... Q ~ E
N '- E >i
`_ 16 C
° ' N
-'
3 3
"~ U
O O) V/
m~ ~ o O ~
° t o ro
N m m °'Oi N
° a
~~ a
igy; o
- ~
o~ o a
-o N ..
o n
~
L
m
C
J J N O w
.
~'u` c- a N~ m'>L~=; v o~ m N U E E a> m `o a ~ L ~ a m o
;
`~• sUr o o-
Y°~ E-a p U ~ v
N -o ~
~o-, m ~.~
~~ a d
>. o
~ a~ ~
` i c
a
o c o
d ' E
E ° c
'aNi` a `m m ~
m c o .Od t~ -.% E
i m E c o °~
`
E o m o.~ vi
~.,
. >.oa
cvl ~roN `~N`
o, n
a~v~O~
am
m co roo
-
~ a~
~
`o
o p 0 oc m
°
0 5
~~_,
,ro,
- ~.
U o ro
' W
~ ro ~`, J
m o' ~ o~ ,
~ o
~ N o m ;o
N E- ~ m
E m o
ro -~
N
°o
~ '? °~
:`.U J
O O) N t6 ro T C ro N O W L L
~ U C O> L _
C N L -p
>:~Ol~
ti=0:; W ~ ~ C>~ fx`L_
O '~s C J C ... O ro
ro O ~- C
W w~ ro O U O N
S ~
L
U J ~
d f0 ~ O~ ~ J
d U N d 0
> m L .
..
. 1
"0]b Z O W W~~ U ~. w N~ ro d [0
u
O
O •
•
A198
•
•
.~
M V V V C) M
' ° ° °
a a a a o 0
0 0 o a o 0
n a n n n o_
~ a~ v d ~ ~
o `o o `o `0 0
3 3 3 3 3 3
° a~ ~ m a~ a~
~
o ~
° ~
a~ ~
o ~
v ~
o
m m ~ m m ~
U
U m m t~ ~ ~
a om a m a a
n
.
.L..T C
'C -O U m N ~O O in N C N N N ~ L N -O V/ S O N O T m~
,
Qm. i J
c ~..
E ~ N O)> T 3 E
m Ol ..
>
N C
l
' L
L
U J
.
O
~
~Uf6 .
d 0 m
°
'E
c
'
~ N ~- m
~
°
~~ ~
O
U
u,N`m m3U
_n
O ~ c
'
°
Jpa°
Eo i
~O"N~a i
c
u~
~
N V/ C Q' Ul
C
~ N C O
~ N C
O N~ m O O E m n'O N N w .~.
C m . C
Ol m N> >.;~ `
O f0 O C
.
n N O u! ~ n~
N y
~~ O d .- C ~ O m 0 .O ~ m N O
o
~~c~~
0
O ~m
Emma~ ~E
L
m
n 'yam
~ O ~m~Nm~
'
' °c
C f
.U ~
m
01 la L
'
c ~.- ._
O
=
m O)
c o~~
'3 ~
a
`-
° m mr m C
p
O
amid E
m`o N m
>
~ ~ ac
c a
~ 3 a
o~
m _
.
o
s
J ~
aF-
°"` o
-- >
"
~ a~
~ ~ E
°
m o a
U
n U w
v
NEmc
E ° ai :oc
o
iam
c
-'
° cO
f N° E
c
~ i -
°'a
i -o
m
o c o
N ~E U mU ._
_
E ~ c
"`o ~ nD a o o ~ o
°~
E~ N ._ m
c
c~ m~ o - a
m Z'~ ° ~
ohm c
a
c
~ o nm~ mm E E
m
~ >:m
. mr
~rL E'o E
J
.
`
v m
E Z' c
~ m
r
m
~ O
J
w
o>°'o~' pv u, c
m c~
J wY ~~vo m
v~~~ m
m
_
o
3a~. mss ~
E° o
°U
~~oa-°E ~~m~~'c~°m-°'o oa,cami ~ ocN.~ °u'io °~o
~
C O to O
O N J O E ~O .O O .~ J
+ O ~ O ~`p J 'C E VOi O C N n
O to C
m N O
C
c
`-'~' o
~ ~
- O C' U
~mmN~rmoEc C
o3~m ~> N ~ C
~°U m~
c-O C O
Z'~n
o
C m C .
L OlOia i C C .~ O -O N N ~j
... N aC
OI N ~ ~ ~ o
.O ~ - n ~ ~
C ~' ~- E
C~ m ~
E~
s
~ J
~
n ° c
°O J
c
EE~"o,
~~
' gov"~w
LEr'n
E
> "oo~
U -o
'u~vJ~
U U O i'~Qj
a
'O Jo~~
N
_
m
C-O~-Om
°~
N ON=mO~QN m
3
°
~
~ ~
m~ O'p~` 'U Cpc~
~°~ C
°
m~a~~
E 0°~
o
-
-~mE
Ea°i
~ cam -o~.~mm?
p1 °
aw ,-'~
~
~
aJ a~.Ssr
m
° u o~ ~ ~ mm
o.~ ~
J
o rnnE ~
N'9 'c ' m
3 oa w
o d a~ m c
S E m >,o
a o
.w
o v.
`
~
o
` . `,,,
U o c
a o
N ~- J °-
~ c
N o-~- J o m c
L w m U
o c o n
J
J J
d-onm
oQm o
>,
3
.c~ min°-'~NOa Qa~E~o o
u)`oa~`-o~U m-omU o
cnUU~
' m N.> c pm o ~ na, o
ago Lo. a
°
• '~O-oUaNNEmw
0
O
u7
A199
~t~N is ~. y, ~,4
y~
%;
~ ~ kfe.:l
~
~x~
'iJ.
~ T'l ~
a X
i~i
~ ~ ~:
Y1n:~~ i
" y„vq
~~ f- t•
~
3'. v v V' v ?'+..~ ~~~
'
nM,.,
~
iwR
K "~7
1V°i
~y~++ N ~~,y,~
rLV W H4_ti.l
L~~[i
S.' e; {~
rr :
C +
~ ~
~ 4
h;~~: ~ y;~°y
~~'y h .4 '~~~a
i~
~~
~: 44'^'N
16'`1
'{:1 Sh~yy.,,~~ Y%
N[y1..
% _
`a Q Q Q Q *~a 3 ~'~+
y. ~~j
_!~
• C C C C
-
spry OYtk O.
Fy "' a O
P
J O
^ J O
^ J O
^ ? O
^ ~ .
~
~ N
K
p~
&:A£a~`' U U U U ~
X
~
•
U
U
U
U ~
~ U
m
, ~~
x
~~ ~ ~ '
`~f~3
~~ ~yy`~X"~
;
r-, k
'"'~''
~ ~°
F
6+ ~
a ~{ ~
m ~
m ~
m ~
m ~7
,W~ t
t
hi
e~9 ~
m
tiF;hha „
w':+4~M1at ,
~r.,,qa
d`~~
'sl~.i~
~ ~
C U
o
c m
N a.0
o~ N
T
'O N
c o
'O C O
~ '° t1~;;
~v1L:~
" 'd"Rk~"
r+ ~
'
C E T N O) O
m
~,
Y„ m
m
a
~ . ~
v ~ ~
~
~' ~ g
=~ E
U
N ,.
-
~
as, U m ~ O -Ja S .~ 3 a~ ~ a o ~h~~ ~" ~, ".' > w ~ ~ c
~~ ~ U .~ ~ U
~
~ m .3~u
f+
^
~`
~
Q.
'
N ~
`
,.k~, .
'Rrv _.
3~ ~~ a N
y
N O
Q U1
~ d (n j
J u
.
.
a~~ 5ti
,kx.„,.~ O
.
N
-
o. Q d
~?"~ T O C N
N Q~
N J C
N T y p
.f] U
L 'i`~~
~"~ 5':jr"ea
;lii.+ N O d U O_ E
L
s~+?i~
~ L ~ N O
3 ~_ ~
~
d .N
U C
sg~-(v
A:.3,`,~ .
+
~ In N O N
iy 3 aai E a> m
> U mU aLi
O ~
N w c v o ~~ ~,'f ~~ E.m co--JO.L°'.
m
~ .
N> O k ~ U
~~ ~ ~.~ O 00 N w ~ 4 O ~O_ ~ r N ~f6~f t 4.7C d ~ ~ U
~ L O
y s? "
U V f0
J ~
-O
~ > N O" J N O' N V!
O
C .(6.1
"~ ~CI~
' (0 ~~
f0 .~ O ~
-
O
Q
~~!4~~
• '
Ol
L N N N C N
N
~ L T
N E N
N ' C
,N
= N- O ~
`N~_ aiu
~:
F';~d.--~ O
C N Ul
01 -> 16 N
`~
C
yx(q£ O) ~ O.
~ m .u1 'O C ~ ~
~ ~ N C N
m ' ~N,d
Cmii ~ !0~
` N
~
O m
c O ~
_ ~o~ ~ ~
~ ~ '° y m
c -o ~
N 'O ~
N'~
N :~~
"
'O v o
aXi
O
}~
} L O) -
N ~
~ ~ N
N O
J _
E .~
d U ~ - (p y
N ~
p y. „e{
C r
.,
'
+ C
N N (6
~ _
m j C ~
~ N
(7 f0 O- t
d h~
~ RO'.
; ~
U C
a
°U Ol- O
i O) O U mL.. .e N4 w0.: J R._ O) U ~X
~~_o^ :
Cn~v
N d m-p N e
c
~ c
~
C
~
E
u
*Oj
~'O:x O
L ,UI
L ~O ~ ~ ~ C N V1
E
E N ~
~ (6 o E
O f0 J
N
L ~ ~ ~ ~`N,..
g. N
~ :y~
~.~n. ,
-
O -
N f9 ~ f0 C N
^U` ; f- N~ 3~ U
LL w d O O d
U` a .k U l m ~ ;~
2:1 2±! d m~ ~O_ N~
•
O •
•
A200
•
N N N N N
'
a a a a a
N N IA N y
C C C C C
f0 f0 (0 - (U t6
o- a a n n
o ~ o `o `o `o
~ ~ ~ ~
v ~ w a>> a>i a>i
~ ~ K ~ ~
~
' D ~ O O
U V U U U
m m m m m
m m m
m m
C ~ C Of ~ 01 O O 'O N ~ N E
L
L u! C N
O ~ 'O O C '6 C ~ - O (Q
O O
0 0 !0 ~ Ot
'O 1~ O C C C
3
a: U
N
N
m°' -U= N N
> N~ N
`
~ ~ `1 0 p
m~
w N
~ ~o C
~O
ago
9 d o
O
O
N
`J C J~ N O 3 ~ ~
C N m
Vl In 'O N ~x
~ Q ~
N C .~ (0
J O ,
,
.
~.noro ,
tq L N
E
ua ,
C
U d
° C N
° ` N
w U N
C tl!
N 19 N O U Ol
~
c °-
o n o~v
" a J
N~ ~
L. cninE
' o ~na~>,aN°
J
o _
o° o E a 'o o 3 c m '.. E ~ a o `= ~.°-
m
O `
o
°'a?
Ea3~w
'u J
~ ~ C
o
Om ~
m
m ~ U O_~
~~
~
-
' J
C a~
N c 0~
'N L E N
O
E o
U
C
r -O _
N
L O) E
a N
Q ~
C E E
N :F. O O.
..
~ J C .N = O
Cn L
~'... O C .
> `~ O~ .
.
N
r N C O ~ ~
N S W ~C L -
~°~ Eopm .
,-.S°mooic
~ m=` °o°N
'- w~
C ° c°'~°aov~
~
' L
~
- E ..L. L L C N O
(0 E
N
0 O C
E E
~
O C- E
N
p - O `
N
N_ Vi
~ .
~ UI .~ OI u!
E
' C .
.
N
o '-
m
C
~ N
O. N
- N O p O
E
a u
- O N N O~
E O
L d
°E o c
U
° ~
_
.
m
~
~O
f6
w E (n E
- -o ~ v,
a~U E
,
a~
N
L ~ c
c
E
o
~ m
a~
~-~~d Eca
a
i
i
m
w
JOUE ~ ~m
°
s
~ o
E
~ °°
a~~
v' .
~~
~
s
E~
o'
m 4
m E
. y
~° =
` c c
m Q
~
o a
v ~ ~ s ... d o
~
'
o
~
`
o ~
~ c ~ 'm
m 'm a~ S
i .
a
~ ~ .
°Na~o cJ c N E oJ
o~ c'tdo _~oa~~ ~ `
LE>a °
= m
` o ca c _
E i
n t0 ~ oL .
,y ~° 0 r ~ m y v-
~ ~
c
~ n
~~ U ~
L N
E .3 m o E
N .J Q p
c
i >.
C
~ C
~
a
_
N Ol .C U
/9 U J ~
O N O ~
U D)
N L
N ' .`-~ .D O N
O
~ m
O
U (6 2
N O_
U a 'N N C N U N~ O .U
~ ' O O N_ L O J
N N -O J L N
C oI ~~ ~ p O 9 N 0' ~ O 0 0 0
` C y
o O Cl 'O N ~ N N~ N
o
o
~y~ a
~o
o m oa_,_,w a
t0~
c
~
`~ o
U
o
rn= t
o3J_
o
-° ~
>a`>~ ~
~ mao
v
cw
m ~
m
m ~n
~c °'w d
aca
a~
i
J °'o-' o m ~
mo
`
~ ~o
01
c
Y
°'~
m
~ ._
m E
~ o .
~
w U
O 0= N
'
N~ >~ C~ N N .C
¢ .
o
c
~ L
.C
p .
~ C U
~ w
~ o
~
_ N J O E
E
L ~
E
N
Q Od
UL O~C
UL. L
f
~
~ JCN~
~ JNNN NO
d`
L
c C C~
yN.E >
~
~ a ~ m f- E rn
° ~ .S
m °
3 O u
i a .'? o ~ m a - ~ .n a
i o_
F ~ ° °? ~ ~ ~ E °' a
o_
.,-.
O
A201
w La
~p `~„
~
'~~ i
t
Aid m
iiryp~
' ~c--: ~ ~'
i:4
s~
!. ~...
~ _ ~ ,nm
~_
~
yy ~
~.
`S
N N ~~~ '~~' ~f V
~.ny I "'"~ p-~F;
4,q`~t~ s
{~:~
y~
.
~ r5~~.yu ~A'3.M
~'
~i
~~Y
]axa
~ Ui ~
?Y a
3 '~•y@
,a.et
'
'
_d ~
$~y ,~~
,y
'
3~ 3
~=
~~i
f Fy~~
~i /~ ~~'
*
:~
.^4'~
'
P ~
_a
u
'Wi
t: -
"
_ _U U ~'`~ ~~_
a
r'14C
a .~yK
}V
±'zl
µ
q
Q
~ u
1.~
~~
(n
N - U) .mil $
t0 YaS&
'M'~ •q^Eay
Yrr
ti3 ~~" ~
O
3 O ~~
3 a-
~ `~~~
~: = U
~>
~> h'~al
°
' a =
M.r.'~ E
N
~ d
~ ~5
H
~ ~~% ~ U
~ °-s-''-~'3 U~:
i
a
U
0] U v~
99'~~
0] ~iw
`„~
U
~
a~~lP ~^~ ~
c~"~"' '~'~k ~ .4
+t~ ,S
. n£
~r
~.:.:
~
~ p-
~
y..Yi'~S a
,~
F.SC"A
FHS '
'.1~~ N^J. L... i'!
way d
'
~ ~'ty '.
y+lt1
p ,Pan Via--;
~n:mELm3o
cL.cm~aci-`~~m x"
~`,r„ i
~„
wTm
N~ +~ O F- ~, Z :Z' r
U C M {
V 3~
~ +~ r Y' C E O
Ol ~ N ~ O N F
C >
L m
O_ a O ~ N f0 L 'C (J ~Y9'{ .%.,
~.~ ..mai N N (9
U~m~mN Y mEa mNNpw ~ r~k fry, ~3~
CL u- O) ~ .U O N L r ~ Ol (n ~ L ^ p ~y~.~j
~ a'~i`,r.' Cam,. sr
~ L J
~ O C C U C C'O L
E C W Ol "" Old ~^ -'~ u~~ w
`' O) C ~
a~ > ~ a -o a~ o.
o
~c c ~ ~ r Z ~. t~ ~
a=m
N
?P ,x..
` ~~
- m
n o
'
o_
~o
a ~° c `6 E -p
`o E
EaI
,j.~
m O Z Z o o >m s~ ., 1, .,
y
~~._.
~ ~' al E al
a
aN.. Q ~ 0) f6 U f9
~ C Z •r U > J S?4F'i
C N N '~- ti''
" ~
- ~` '' Y f6 E
~
f6~
N O
N
C Q N V
N >.~O ...
p
~ k~3'.a
CL" N E~ y
n~5' -
O M T
L
O _
L ten:
m Ol 1. J N~ O C CAC N m O O CD 3"-' y :,yak .>,L< l9 _
C '- N
3
'O 'm v m ~
a>i c ~ o J c m `m Q.-. ~ ~rn; - •' ~„ m m
L ~ j ~ E .~` ~ ~ f9 m U Ol ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ .i -:C~3
~ iii 4~' 'O E
O T ~' .~ L C N c
"'
.. U
-O `o
o ~ .~ E o E o E ~m~
l9
` N'-
Oly _'_ m d m
'
~
O) N C O
O) '- N
C U '~ C Q~ C (0 E y
Ol Z ~ E O .
~ J _ N .an=
C
. Z
>- (n
a
~ W y~: "-~+
~
" :y_o:
?
? CA
O
N Y a 0 E- O C U ~
D
.
O
O O W C U N C U C!°CN
'
' 1
x.
•aO¢ .
~~ O ~ y 07
C O5 ~
~
h- O7 O) 41 L O) J
N O
N N N
d U ~ O
.C O _~SN>,
N .C O N
N
O U '
yO
U .~d~
~ ~y
~' ^' O
!n O
V
L
j
Cn ?
O ....C to d J O L U 'O N
~°fn°=
S
] ~~
0 0 .C m~ J O) U m` p~:a ~
fl
.O~ ~~ ~ 0)
` C
`O ~ J L .S OS > C
N u' QI
O N U C Ul ~ C 'O C *;~'.
~
N ~
!!l
,o-`C
. N~
`^ C
C J J O
J U=
N N
a` N.E 3-0~ Eon J O ..~
O N E
.C ~
a` N o~UK o~mU `~ s
~~ ~On
*'z` O p U~
UL ~ c
~~
•
O
O •
•
A2O2
•
u
•
J ~~ ~.i
y~9
Sy
i i
}Ty, i h~~~R~ ~ .~
t ~- k°~
-
±
om; ~
{.~ , ~ r
'
4.
t~ .
v
~ .
~ ~
~ z
~
~}
~:_
~~
Y ~~
i ~ ~~~..
a : J
L
~Z ).^'T3 Wito
.~, h `"
~
a .
g.j '~'.:
h ~
€.:z-mss yy~v
4 ~~,'s~le~.'
. ~ ~ ~~.if.~ I~j"]
gi~ :'.
~. ~i
~,` ~ ~
_ ~ .Ly
x
k . k, ,~.F..~
~
'
tii -N?9 ~rK
a x
C ~~
` N
C N
C
.:.
Q O O O ~_ ~
:i~Ce~
fir F~ k
~
!F...-3"~
Ate. t r+N' {
~~
~ z ,, :°t
"
'+ ~
F
+
~ 3
U U e
~ y, e'
1 ~ b.,~ ~'"3r..3
M<"~-
~
U O
Q]
O __
_x,
'y
v'=~.
~~
~`~i"
Vic..
m a
'~
~~ - ''"~'
N N T -~ N- v N N 'n N
a N Y ~~ m N> '~ > N f~ N m o o d ~~ a '
w ~'
..
~ ~j
O C N °~ L o o p U~o
-O U N E T N C 1] C L O C m ~L m~ N
C 'O O -O N N Q ~ ,7
S
v r 3 o E ~:~ m?~~ v m a°'i v co ~~ acO1m o ~' ~.~='
N ~ >
~co-E>aNi~3rm~.n~°
o`oN
0 N m c '"~
a~i3cNC~'o~ ~'_<~
~~ N
o ,~~
'°'t~#~.i
roi„i
N
Nf
v
+
C E n
O
N C
x
a
x S ~
' N ..
p'.... N
N
L
o_
c U N I X w.
o F
N O ~ -O -O
O)
~ c.. o
N~ c NaMH E '
„~;~# jy
3
.
p
m
~ NL.. ~ -O L..
N N
N ~pE`~
a E
N.L. N
L
pp,~g3 4i
}
~
t6 Os N
N N
> N O N
~
N ' .
..
N N
Q C N >i h~
Y N
N dF
-O ~"
~
~~~5~
~~~' ~ '
{
x s
:Q N L
> C
N ~ N C
> y6 ~ f0
N ~ N ~
.
4,+
L ...
N O '.' ~
~ > ~ ,x
2'
y M N~s
N
~ m N °~'~ m m
~ T
N
c ~
-
m
:
°° ~.-~.+
~
'
E
.
m N
c
N ;
r
~ .o ~
o om ~ >:
3~
C
~ k,
,
?
" ~;r
4
~
~
O ~ N "
N O ~ 'N
O O
OC N C N N C U„ ~
N
'y N>> O z
N C N O O C :
. L ~j y_:ry
l.' rw
: n.
~.p ~ N 0) O~ O O
O w ~ O _
O E O N N ~~s
N N •
"
' 1
C O 'p -O
E ~
,
,
' 3t
~ ~U N L .~ .~ ~'- N (9 C > -O
N
l N
. >.Q N ..- N C N 2i0~
d (6
N N
N ,.~
ii
!~
' ~; ~~,z
C O CD C - U U w
O~ N ._
X N
4
N
'O
= '
` ..
rr. "M:µ
O N ~ L ~ N~~ N L U L O L ~
a
N O 'O' '00 R U C
` ~p 'yN,~ •~'•"-•'~>.-4,~
O O N N O T- 3 .J ~" T O ~~ O p p f6 O N f6
C .L,,~~ ^Lux~.~,'-_.
C'
~ ~ r a a>i n -o ~ L -o -o ~ '~n -NO Y
_
^
;
2 o mL 3 ~ U c N wok
rN~ g
..
_;o
`
N ~ O N N N .`- C N -O p] -O ~ ~ ~ `'O C C N Q." 'O`:
O
E ',?U? u'N..
2
'
C C ~ > ,U! ~ ~ O ] C C C C
O N ~ N p 0 ~ O- O ~0 N fb '- ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 'O d C C `.'Q.
m
(p O U (0
'S O
~
N '~~
3[ ~~ .
liU
: N
U (/1 t/h U C U ~~ L N~ U/ C N ,
(4 C
O
N
S L .C C L N d U~ N dy
?~O:"~ t_
=:~,:
O
O
A203
PA}
a
s
~ .~
~~
3
-
e
yt~
h
.
;
.ly f.s y
i 1
;
e k'iti
^F. i
e
'~
k rr »3~_y-, F
~
' y ~ ? ~
~i
~?
a~'S 3 .~R
ti' ~
s
~~
' ;
=
&G~ '
,t ufi<
.
~
•" .~
~ _
.-fir ?
~
:
' : 5
~e~ ..
~;
' ~ ear
~, :
w
~~ #: ~ „H~
~~~ rts <
~ { .j3.: ~ xry ~ +
i L~+.a~~ ~ 3X~ r ~.1
~'
~ '?
~W
~ ~=
1 1
k
L ; ,y
Yb~Kf
~
~` 6
.
~~ ^
" }.l Y~
. :
~58~3`
'
'~ ~
~~+' ~ i ~~ '+f
f
E F
Mrs . .
~i5 S, r~;t~'x
`~ ~~~
~ 'kts 9.~'~
aa7,~'
kn~
~#" ~{~
*
'
~
~
7x ~^S.,
~ ~ ~iv
~~ ~5
5 aF,
F ~ 3 ~~
;~
~
V M
~
~_ Y
l
y j
i
-j_ c
'~
awe a~
Y
~~t 'is??~
~ ~ ~ A.;
~
~~
i
i
~
S
+'
~ g..
l,
1j~41
;.
~ ,
.i
,z
,~?+~`
.~ ~ ,
~~Y
~ Y~
~.~t' Y
~:A y, ..~ ~~' 1 F~
~
"iV `'1 Gay" ~
P
f"~1. ~~'i
~
.
~ f iZLI
bk (. hr'i
S`iU'
.y
~
L
s.~re'S
~ ;~
1~
1
[ .C
" C"
f1".
.
f .1
h
,~
fi (~
:
F
sn~ ~
j w~;
d
f.j A i~~~.
N$ .~:
rn`
w
i'.Uh d(n.~ -.O't
~:~ :: U;d `001
'c~
~Y09 :n"O:~
~~ a~k;
; E
~ 3N ~ ,'o .
Syr $~N;a +^N:
5iN-i'
~ ~,Y ~N%
°~
~ i-mss :_~`r
~- E >,
O U
m
a ,`o
m rn a
c c ~
LL U U
0 ] ~ N
c m O 9
O ~ m
m
~ ~ U N O
o
v " v o ~ ~
~ ~ U s
a a o o p U
t t t~ c s o
3 3 ~ ~ ~ v
N M V h ID r
~ E
o a
U U
UI
N ~ U ~
C ~ v ~
o ¢ U ~
~? d c ~
c $ ~ p0i
O o a vi
m U o
3'a
~V. d
O ~
O
tC#
~3G1; N C
~ o U
`
k"O" p
~ c
3LL Z c U
>.~.
~Ci t o
U U o
=
a
or
'~~ m I-o O1 0
u0; t o 'o U w
_~
~
~ a`
F c
O a
O
~O
~~~`. Q m U O w
iw: U
53" O
]*
. v
W
~
C
~
C~ e c
m l~
Y W ~
kt' ~
f
P o
O N
s+
N j
~
N
C t~. .
O~# _ ~
p d ~
N
~? r `m .m v o
c v L
~~ N
a v W
m ~
N ' C
h
N
E
~ -
~o" ,
o
"
°
~
~
~ w
m
E
a
Q
y' >
U
~ O
W ~p
O
.= V O
` N C
~
O ~
a =d m
~ m om ' m v
d _
C p N
rn
m N O f0
~ .D E m U r
t i,N~ E
_!~
o "E
c T a-o coi U o~
=
U Oc U m . .. ~ . o v c
~
¢' ~
0 a U m a i i c
.
.~
~` 'd' p p w O 0 U ~
Y ~` U d U m a LL o-
O
0
0
•
•
•
-,, ~:~:_
,~~;:r; rvgt~~..
• 3 3_ ~'!
r ,~e
T H E C I T Y O F
RANCEIO CoCn*toncn
Staff Report
DATE: April 9, 2008
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
BY: Donald Granger, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18032
- PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC - A residential subdivision of
23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the Low Residential District
(2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the
west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive - APN: 0225-161-65
and 71. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00871 and Variance
• DRC2007-00097. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2007-00097-
PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC - A request to allow up to 10.5-foot
perimeter wall heights for sound attenuation purposes for Lots 1 through 6 and to
allow up to 7.5-foot combination retaining/freestanding sideyard wall heights for
grade differential purposes for Lots 1 through 6 of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18032, where a maximum 6-foot wall height is permitted, for a residential
subdivision of 23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located
on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive -
APN: 0225-161-65 and 71. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032
and Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00871. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
BACKGROUND: These two entitlement requests were originally scheduled for Planning
Commission review on December 12, 2007. On Wednesday, December 5, 2007, the Planning
staff received written correspondence from Charles Blankson, Ph.D., of the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) noting that the air quality modeling cited in the Initial
Study for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 is no longer used by the SCAQMD. Mr. Blankson
stated that SCAQMD staff would need the Urban Emissions Model 7G (URBEMIS 2007) model
run for the above proposed project to confirm the lead agency's conclusion that project
emissions would not violate any air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality.
Accordingly, the Planning staff- contacted the applicant and directed the preparation of an
• URBEMIS 2007 air quality analysis. The URBEMIS 2007 air quality analysis has been
completed and circulated to all appropriate agencies.
Items B & C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 2 •
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Density: 2.97 dwelling units per acre
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Vacant Land and Single-Family Residential; Low Residential, Rancho Etiwanda
North Specific Plan and Etiwanda Planned Development (2-4 dwelling units per
acre)
South - I-210 Freeway/Westbound On-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard
East - Day Creek Boulevard and Single-Family Residential; Low Residential, Rancho
Etiwanda Planned Development (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West - Single-Family Residential; .Low Residential, Etiwanda Planned Development
(2-4 dwelling units per acre)
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - I-210 Freeway/Eastbound On-ramp at Day Creek Boulevard
East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
D. Site Characteristics: The project site is located south of Vintage Drive, on the west side of •
Day Creek Boulevard. The site is vacant with no structures and native vegetation and
weeds covering the majority of the site. To the west, are single-family dwelling units, and
to the south is the westbound I-210 Freeway and on-ramp. North of the project site is
vacant land and single-family dwelling units, and to the east, across Day Creek Boulevard,
are single-family dwelling units.
The 23-lot subdivision has an average lot area of 12,600 square feet, with the smallest lot
(Lot 19) having 8,180 square feet, and the largest lot (Lot 5) having 23,991 square feet.
2:1 manufactured slopes are proposed just north of the rear property lines along Lots 1
through 4. Along the east property lines of Lots 5 through 11 along the Day Creek
Boulevard frontage, 3:1 manufactured slopes are proposed. All slopes will be planted to
the City requirements to retard erosion and ensure slope stability. The Engineering
Department has reviewed the conceptual Grading Plan and has indicated that the slopes
within the LMD area along Day Creek Boulevard are acceptable. There are no heritage
trees on the project site.
Access will be from Saddle Tree Place, a north to south local street that connects to
Vintage Drive, an east to west collector street. Vintage Drive connects to Day Creek
Boulevard, a Major Divided Arterial. Although the project only has one point of access, it
has been designed with a stub street ("B" Street) that will ultimately provide a connection
point and two points of access when the parcel to the north develops. Implementation of
the proposed 23-lot single-family subdivision project will generate 220 average vehicle
trips daily. The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each single-family •
dwelling unit will generate 9.57 trips daily. The proposed project is consistent with the
General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in
B&C-2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• April 9, 2008
Page 3
an area that is substantially developed with street improvements existing or included in the
project design.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The governing land use document for the project is the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan, Day Creek Neighborhood. Land planning for asingle-family subdivision must
effectively balance the adopted Development Standards while concurrently respecting the
Design Guidelines and Design Policies. In order to accomplish this, the existing built
environment from the previously approved subdivisions must be taken into account.
As noted, the site falls within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, just outside the boundaries
of the Rancho Etiwanda planned development, a 1,238 residential unit development
approved by the County in May 1991 and subsequently annexed into the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The streets surrounding the project site were installed when the Rancho
Etiwanda area was mass graded, infrastructure was installed, and adjacent subdivisions
were built. The proposed subdivision (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032) is bordered to
the west by Tract 14522 and to the north, across Vintage Drive, by Tract 14493-1. Both of
these subdivisions received Tentative Map approvals in the County of San Bernardino and
after the Rancho Etiwanda area was annexed into the City and a Development Agreement
was executed, both maps received final approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
• -were recorded in 2002. Since the project site is surrounded by developments that were
not processed under the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Development Review process, the
City has been processing subsequent projects in the Day Creek Neighborhood per the
goals and objectives of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, the Development Code and the
City's General Plan, balancing the objectives of these documents while being guided by
existing infrastructure (circulation, drainage facilities).
Section 10.2.4 in Chapter 3 of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) discusses the
importance of master planning. In that Section, the ENSP notes that "the intent of a
master plan is to provide for integrated development at the earliest possible time in the
review process. Through a master plan, there is an opportunity to coordinate the efforts of
single or multiple property owners and discourage piecemeal development" (ENSP III-17).
In Section 11.1, Design Guidelines of the ENSP state that "access shall comply with City
access regulations and shall not conflict with other planned or existing points of access.
Two points of access shall be provided for all residential developments. Cul-de-sacs and
temporary (partial streets) shall not be permitted to exceed 600 feet in length"
(ENSP III-21). Using the similar language and having parallel goals, the General Design
Guidelines in Section 17.08.090C-3 of the Development Code under Access and
Circulation states the following:
The access and circulation should be designed to provide a safe and
efficient system for vehicles and pedestrians. Points of access shall
comply with City access regulations and shall not conflict with other
planned or existing access points. Two points of access shall be provided
• for all but the smallest residential developments. The circulatioh system
should be designed to reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian
B&C-3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 4
traffic, minimize impacts on adjacent properties, combine access where
possible, and provide adequate maneuvering areas. Curvilinear streets
are encouraged whenever possible.
Additionally, Development Code Section 17.08.090C-17, under Subdivision Design,
indicates the following guidelines: 1) Provide two means of ingress and egress;
2) Curvilinear streets are to be used whenever possible. Avoid a grid pattern; 3) If the tract
is bordered or surrounded by undeveloped land, prepare a conceptual subdivision plari for
those properties to indicate that logical circulation and drainage can occur; 4) Avoid
four-way, local-to-local intersections; 5) The maximum length for cul-de-sacs is 600 feet.
Development Code Section 17.08.050C-4 under Absolute Policies requires that "the
project provides adequate access for emergency vehicles." Section 2.6.1.5.5 of the
General Plan states the following policy: "Development for properties of sufficient size
should be designed through some form of master planning device."
As discussed above, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 must balance multiple policies,
design guidelines, and meet specific standards and absolute policies, while at the same
time working with the constraints of the surrounding built environment and circulation
patterns. Where possible, improvements to the existing built environment should be
made. Listed below are the design components of the proposed subdivision that meet the
guidelines discussed above: •
• Logical connection to the existing circulation patterns
• Curvilinear streets; no grid pattern
• Adherence to natural topography and drainage patterns
• Lot layouts and sizes matching or exceeding the surrounding area
• Master planning of adjacent 3.6-acre parcel with logical stub street that will ultimately
provide two points of access for the proposed subdivision and a portion of two
nearby subdivisions
• Provision of Alternate Method (Fire Sprinklers) in lieu of two points of access
Listed below are the design components of the subdivision that do not meet the above
discussed goals:
• Provision of two points of access for the proposed subdivision at onset
• Stub street with length in excess of 600 feet.
Since the subdivision has two components that do not meet the Design Guidelines of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the onset, an alternate method must be provided in order •
to ensure public safety and fire prevention and suppression. Under the Administrative
B&C-4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• April 9, 2008
Page 5
Section of the 2001 Fire Code, Section 103.1.2, authorizes the Fire Chief to "approve
alternate materials or methods provided that the Chief finds that the proposed design, use
or operation satisfactorily complies with the intent of this code and that the method of work
performed or operation is, for, purpose intended, at least equivalent to that prescribed in
this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety." The
applicant has designed the subdivision to provide a stub street connection so that when
the parcel to the north is developed at some point in the future, two points of access will be
provided for the proposed subdivision (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032), a portion of
Tract 14522 to the west, and for a future subdivision on the adjacent parcel to the north.
In the interim period between development of the vacant parcel to the north and
development of the proposed subdivision, an appropriate alternate method must be
provided.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Fire Protection .District (RCFPD) has adopted
Ordinance 39 and by extension as cited in Ordinance 39, the 2001 California Fire Code as
the governing documents by which Fire Construction Services, the plan check arm of the
RCFPD; establishes guidelines and policies. In Ordinance 39, Section 8 governs the Fire
Department Access, which refers to Article: 9 of the 2001 Fire Code and the RCFPD
Standards for Fire Department Access. RCFPD Standard 9-7, under Section A(11)
specifies that a second means of access shall be provided when roadways iri single-family
residential (SFR) developments exceed 600 feet. Since the proposed subdivision
• proposes a roadway with a single point of access that measures approximately 890 feet,
approval of an alternative method from the Fire District is required in order for an
exception to be granted.
The applicant applied for an "Application for Alternate Method" because of the subdivision
having only one access point in excess of 600 feet. The Fire Construction Services staff
(Senior Plans Examiner and Plan Check and Inspection Manager), acting in accordance
with the Administrative Section of the 2001 Fire Code, Section 103.1.2, placed a condition
of approval (FSC-13 Alternate Method) requiring the installation of fire sprinklers in all
homes and garages of the proposed subdivision. This Alternate Method Approval (fire
sprinklers) will provide adequate fire protection in the event of a fire. This additional fire
protection provision is considered a standard. mitigation measure when two points of
access are not immediately available. The Fire District's policy for a maximum street
length of 600 feet in cul-de-sacs serving single-family dwelling units is standard operation
policy; this policy is consistent with other Fire Departments. Beyond that length, either
two points of access or an alternate method acceptable to the Fire Chief must be provided.
The applicant has obtained a Fire Hydrant Flow Letter from the Cucamonga Valley Water
District citing that the normal static operating pressure ranges from 46 pounds per square
inch (p.s.i.) to 36 p.s.i. for this location; at the time the test was performed, the residual
water pressure was 36 p.s.i. Afire flow test was performed on June 14, 2006, with a
4-inch outlet that yielded 1,873 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). The calculated fire flow at 20
p.s.i. would yield 3,137 g.p.m. Section 4.1 and Table A-III-A-1 of Division III, Fire
Protection, Appendix III-A of the 2001 California Fire Code requires a flow rate of
• 2,000 g.p.m. for single-family dwelling units up to 6,200 square feet. The flow requirement
can be reduced up to 50 percent when the building is provided with an approved automatic
B&C-5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 6 •
sprinkler system (Section 4.1, Exception). Since the proposed subdivision has been
conditioned to provide fire sprinklers on every lot, the fire flow requirement of 2,000 g.p.m.
can be reduced to 1,000 g.p.m; at a calculated rate of 3,137 g.p.m. at 20 p.s.i., the
available fire flow rate exceeds 300 percent of the minimum requirement.
Fire Construction Services, Planning, Engineering, and Traffic Departments concur that
the proposed subdivision with its master-planned stub street connection provides the best
approach to community design for the following reasons: 1) Ultimately, when the parcel to
the north undergoes development in the future, there is a real opportunity to provide two
points of access for enhanced fire safety and optimum circulation for the proposed
subdivision, a portion of the existing subdivision to the west and for any future subdivision
on the adjacent partial to the north; 2) The proposed layout incorporates a master plan
concept that logically incorporates the adjacent vacant parcel, thereby meeting the goals
and objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; 3) The
proposed subdivision makes good land planning sense and will minimize the amount of
.four-way local-to-local intersections on an adjacent local street; 4) the proposed lot layout
of the subdivision and the master plan for the vacant parcel to the north reflects a
circulation pattern that would be sought after if the entire 11.3-acre area were being
subdivided; 5) the density of the proposed subdivision. is 2.97 units to the acre; the density
of the 12-lot master plan for the adjacent parcel is 3.31 units to the acre, thereby providing
a development density ratio at the upper end of the allowable range for the vacant parcel;
6) the condition to provide fire sprinklers for all homes on every lot as an Alternate Method .
will provide adequate fire suppression in the event of a fire.
Although the subdivision could be redesigned to provide a loop street that provides two
points of access to Saddle Tree Place, this would require afour-way, local-to-local
intersection, which would not be consistent with stated design guidelines. Additionally, a
loop street for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 would result in the 3.6-acre parcel to the
north having no future opportunity to connect to a stub street and fulfill the two points of
access requirement in a logical manner. As the Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires, the
3.6 acre parcel would be required to have two points of access. Because of site
constraints, one point of connection would be from Saddle Tree Place and the other at the
midpoint of Vintage Drive, which is less than ideal for land planning and traffic circulation
reasons. The Traffic Department will not permit a connection to Day Creek Boulevard.
Therefore, the master plan design will ultimately provide two points of access for the
proposed subdivision and for future residential development on the parcel to the rSorth
without compromising public safety in the interim period. Also, the master plan design
with a stub street connection will also promote good traffic circulation by preventing an
unnecessary four-way local-to-local intersection that would otherwise occur if both sites
were to independently provide two points of access.
B. Variance: The applicant has applied for a Variance to allow up to 10.5-foot perimeter wall
heights for sound attenuation purposes for Lots 1 through 6 and to allow up to 7.5-foot
combination retaining/freestanding sideyard wall heights for grade differential purposes for
Lots 1 through 6, where a maximum 6-foot wall height is permitted. The Variance is
necessary for sound attenuation purposes from Day Creek Boulevard and the I-210 •
Freeway, and for grade differences along the side property lines between the lots.
B&C-6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• April 9, 2008
Page 7
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The purpose of a variance is to provide flexibility from the strict
application of development standards. 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. ,
Fact: Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would cause a physical hardship and
practical difficultly for development of the property because of the presence of sound
levels from the I-210 Freeway and Day Creek Boulevard that exceed the standards of
the Development Code. Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would preclude
development of the property in accordance with the Low Residential District standards
since the sound levels would exceed the allowable limits as prescribed by the
Development Code.
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: There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not
apply to a majority of the properties in the immediate surrounding area, since the
subdivision is located adjacent to a major arterial, an on-ramp, and the I-210 Freeway.
Further, the acoustic engineer for the project has calculated that building surfaces will be
exposed to noise levels of 67.5CNEL along Day Creek Boulevard and 74.5 CNEL along
the I-210 Freeway. These sound levels thereby create exceptional circumstances with
regard to achieving an adequate level of sound attenuation.
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: Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would deprive the applicant of
development enjoyed by other properties in the Low Residential District by requiring the
applicant to significantly alter the proposed design of the subdivision by using alternative
design and construction methods that are not feasible for the subject property and would
substantially reduce the development potential of the property. Alternative designs and
reductions of density by other properties have not been required of other properties in
the Low. Residential District that are affected by high sound levels from the
I-210 Freeway.
4. Finding: That the granting of the Variance will not constitute of a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone.
-Fact: The granting of the Variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the same zone in that Variances for wall heights
B&C-7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 8 •
have been granted for other subdivisions because of high sound levels from freeways
and arterials.
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: Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare; conversely, the Variance will provide the means to promote public safety and
welfare by providing the necessary entitlement for wall height that will provide sufficient
sound attenuation for the subdivision and meet the required exterior noise level
standards for properties in the Low Residential District.
C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed on October 16, 2007, by the Design
Review Committee (Munoz, Stewart and Nicholson). At the meeting, the applicant
presented a revised layout that shifted the street alignment of the stub street, thereby
enabling the vacant property to the north of the subdivision to potentially yield up to
12 lots. The Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and recommended approval.
D. Grading Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on
October 16, 2007. The Committee recommended approval.
E. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on
October 16, 2007, and recommended approval subject to the Standard Conditions
outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval.
Environmental Assessment: The project site is within an area of noise levels exceeding
City standards at build-out, according to General Plan Exhibit V-13. According to
Table V-6 in the General Plan, the project site is subject to noise levels of 60dBA within
3,155 feet of the I-210 Freeway, and to noise levels of 65dBA within 1,464 feet of the I-210
Freeway. The project will also be exposed to noise levels of 60dBA or greater along Day
Creek Boulevard. Because the project is subject to the noise levels that exceed City's
exterior standard of 60 dBA from 7 a.m to 10 p.m. and 55 dBA standard from 10 p.m. to
7 a.m., an Exterior Noise Analysis was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates
The exterior noise level can be mitigated to less than 65 CNEL with masonry walls ranging
in height from 5.5 feet to 9.5 feet along the project frontage along Day Creek Boulevard
and the I-210 Freeway, respectively. Since only a subdivision is proposed at this time,
and based upon the recommendations of the study by Mestre Greve Associates that
building surfaces will be exposed to noise levels of 67.5CNEL along Day Creek Boulevard
and 74.5 CNEL along the I-210 Freeway frontage, any necessary mitigation measures to
reduce interior noise levels to City Standards will need to be evaluated when a house
product is submitted.
Since the project site is adjacent to the I-210 Freeway, a supplemental analysis by
Mestre Greve Associates (May 8, 2007) was prepared using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM •
methodology). TMN methodology is the standard utilized by Caltrans. The TNM model
yields the same results as the previously discussed CNEL study, stating that masonry
B&C-8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• April 9, 2008
Page 9
walls of 9.5 feet would provide the necessary sound attenuation to achieve 65 CNEL for
Lots 1 through 5.
Mestre Greve Associates evaluated the effect on sound attenuation for access gates in
order to maintain the slope areas for Lots 1 through 4. Mestre Greve Associates
completed an addendum, with a pedestrian gate design. The addendum and gate design
completed by Mestre Greve Associates (August~24, 2007) concludes that with the 5' 0"
access gate design by MGA in a closed condition and header above with masonry walls
maintaining the prescribed height by the CNEL study, the efficacy of the sound wall would
not be detrimentally diminished.
Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga protocol, both sound studies (CNEL and
TNM methodology) completed by Mestre Greve Associates were evaluated by an
independent third party, Marlund Hale, P.E., Ph.D of Advanced Engineering Acoustics.
The independent third party's evaluation recommended that MGA re-evaluate the affect of
the grade of Day Creek Boulevard on the required sound mitigation measures and confirm
the pad elevations of the subdivision. The report by Mr. Hale additionally recommends that
the noise mitigation measures be re-evaluated with more realistic ADT/vehicle speed
combination that coincides with the Caltrans build-out lane volume at the posted 65 mph
speed and the pad elevations be verified.
In response to Mr. Hale's comments, MGA adjusted its analysis fora 5 percent grade on
Day Creek Boulevard. MGA found that the total CNEL noise level increased by .2 percent
dBA for lots along Day Creek Boulevard. Utilizing the updated data, MGA found that the
height of the recommended noise barrier did not change. The final report by MGA states
that the Caltrans build-out lane volume tends to under predict noise levels when there is a
high level of nighttime traffic. In conclusion, under most conservative variables, the final
analysis by MGA recommends the same wall heights as stated in their first analysis,
ranging in height from 5.5 to 9.5 feet, in order to provide the necessary sound attenuation.
MGA's final report and recommendations were forwarded to Marlund Hale for review.
Mr. Hale's report indicates that although it might be possible to achieve adequate
mitigation with slightly lower wall heights than recommended by MGA, it acknowledges
that sound modeling requires assumptions and projections to be made. Mr. Hale's report
states that the conservative modeling used by MGA may be the "appropriate modeling
strategy," and further acknowledges that "MGA's traffic noise predication and mitigation
along the I-210 Freeway is conservative, because of the stated uncertainties about future
traffic projectidns and from TNM modeling assumptions and simplifications." Mr. Hale
concludes his report by noting the following with regard to the conservative modeling used
by MGA: "These are not considered to be errors, but result from a conservative approach
to modeling." Because of the proximity of the I-210 Freeway and Day Creek Boulevard,
the Planning staff concurs with the conservative modeling utilized by MGA and affirmed by
the third party reviewer. Sound walls in accordance with the height recommendations
made by MGA and a requirement for an interior noise analysis when future house product
is submitted are proposed as conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032.
• Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA
Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the
B&C-9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 10 •
project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that,
with the imposition of mitigation measures related to Cultural Resources, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Noise, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, there would be no substantial
evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on
that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff
provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared
to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant held one neighborhood meeting to discuss the
proposed project on July 25, 2007, at Day Creek Park. Approximately 17 residents, the project
applicant, Mr. Greg Lukosky of Peninsula Retail Partners, and the property owner of the vacant
3.6 acre parcel to the north, Mr. Tony Tannourji, attended the meeting. The residents had
questions about the subdivision layout, points of access, and several questions regarding the
development potential of the vacant parcel north of the subdivision. The applicant was able to
answer general questions regarding the layout of the subdivision, noting that only a subdivision
is proposed at this time with no house product. Planning staff responded to the residents'
questions regarding circulation and points of access, pointing out that the applicant has
provided a conceptual layout for the vacant parcel to the north. Planning staff mentioned that
should the parcel to the north be subdivided in the future, access will be taken from Saddle Tree
Place and connect to the stub street. Residents asked if the City would be favorable to
"B" Street connecting to Vintage Drive upon development of the parcel to the north. Staff
responded that that conceptual layout shown by the developer is preferred, since Vintage Drive
is a collector for the neighborhood and connecting directly to Vintage Drive would create more
opportunities for circulation conflicts.
Residents inquired about what plans Mr. Tannourji has for his parcel. Mr. Tannourji responded
that he does not have any specific project in the works or a timeline for development. For the
remaining questions that Plahning staff was not able to answer at the meeting, staff consulted
with the Fire Prevention Section of the Building and Safety Department and the Land
Development and Traffic Sections of the Engineering Department and contacted the residents
by phone.
MEETINGS WITH THE PROPETY OWNER OF THE 3.63-ACRE PARCEL TO THE NORTH:
At the neighborhood meeting on July 25, 2007, and at an additional meeting at City Hall with
Planning staff, Mr. Tannourji indicated his opposition to the location of the stub street. Mr.
Tannourji stated the location of the stub street would limit his property's development potential.
He stated that the master plan proposed by the applicant indicates 9 lots, and that he was
confident that the site could yield additional lots, potentially up to 13 with a cul-de-sac layout
taking access from Saddle Tree Place. The Planning staff responded that a cul-de-sac design
would not be supported by Planning and Engineering staff, either concurrently or independent of
the applicant's request for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032. The Planning staff indicated to
Mr. Tannourji that any proposed subdivision of his parcel would 1) need to take access from
Saddle Tree Place and 2) connect to the stub street at the northerly boundary of Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT18032. Additionally, the Planning staff indicated that the location of the stub street
for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 was requested by the Engineering Department in order to •
provide for two points of access into the project when the parcel to the north develops. The
B&C-10
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008 r
Page 11
Planning staff stressed the importance of maintaining good planning practices, adherence to
master planning, and ultimately providing two points of access and good vehicular circulation'
independent of the ownership and timing of the development of each parcel. Mr. Tannourji
again reiterated his opposition to the proposed layout of the subdivision and how it would
negatively impact his ultimate development potential.
On October 4, 2007, the Planning staff, the applicant, and Mr. Tannourji met to discuss the
proposed subdivision and to attempt to find a solution that could be supported by both property
owners. Again, Mr. Tannourji was unsupportive of the proposed subdivision, citing that the
location of the proposed stub street would negatively impact his property's development
potential. The Planning staff reiterated that a cul-de-sac design for Mr. Tannourji's parcel
would not be supported, independent of the applicant's proposed subdivision. The Planning
staff stated that a subdivision of either parcel would need to provide a stub street that ultimately
provides good, comprehensive circulation and adheres to good planning practices.
Following the meeting with the Planning staff and Mr. Tannourji on October 4, 2007, Mr. Greg
Lukosky of Peninsula Retail Partners indicated to the Planning staff his desire to reach a
consensus with Mr. Tannourji, if possible. Mr. Lukosky contacted his civil engineer and inquired
if the stub street to Mr. Tannourji's pace! ("B" street) could be shifted to the east, thereby
increasing the development potential from 9 lots to 12 (Exhibit C). The civil engineer shifted the
alignment of the street to the east and modified the master plan for Mr. Tannourji's parcel to
indicate development potential for 12 lots. At 12 lots, the density of Mr. Tannourji's parcel is
3.31 dwelling units to the acre (dwelling units. per acre), and the density of the applicant's
proposed subdivision is 2.97 dwelling units per acre. The Design Review Committee reviewed
the revised layout on October 16, 2007, and recommended approval.
On January 9, 2008, the 12-lot master plan for Mr. Tannourji's parcel was presented to
Mr. Tannourji and his development consulting team at a conference meeting at City Hall. At the
meeting, Mr. Tannourji requested that a copy of the master plan be e-mailed to his team in order
to allow his consultant team ample time to analyze the 12-lot layout. On January 13, 2008,
Mr. Tannourji's consulting team, via e-mail, acknowledged receipt of the 12-lot master plan. On
January 29, 2008 Planning staff sent an e-mail to Mr. Tannourji's consultant team outlining the
benefits the master plan provides regarding satisfying the two points of access requirement for
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and for future development on Mr. Tannourji's parcel.
Planning staff requested that the consultant team review the master plan, provide input and
suggestions. The Planning staff sent three e-mails (e-mails dated 02/13/08; 02/25/08, and
02!25/08) to Mr. Tannourji's development consulting team requesting that Mr. Tannourji review
the master plan and provide input and comments. At the time of the writing of this Staff Report,
the Planning staff has not received a response from Mr. Tannourji or his consultant team
regarding the 12-lot master plan.
CALIFORNIA EDISON AND CALTRANS: Since SCE and Caltrans own property located
adjacent to the I-210 Freeway right-of-way southwest and south of the proposed subdivision,
respectively, the Planning staff sent a-mail notification to both agencies requesting input. On
October 24, 2007, SCE responded with an e-mail from Genie Sanders, Senior right-of-way
agent, to The Planning staff stating the that proposed project "has no impact on SCE's
B & C-11
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SUBTT18032 AND DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 12
property." Since the project drains to an existing trapezoidal channel within Caltrans'
right-of-way, Caltrans has issued approval for, the developer to initiate the necessary
encroachment permits. The triangular parcel located south and southwest of Lot 1 that is
owned by Caltrans is a remnant piece of land from the I-210 Freeway right-of-way acquisition.
This remnant parcel has always been landlocked since the construction of the freeway. The
Planning staff and the developer have contacted Mr. John Hotchkiss, right-of-way agent for
Caltrans, about this situation. Mr. Hotchkiss has acknowledged that the parcel has been
landlocked and inquired if the City would be requiring access to it. In response to this issue, the
Planning and Engineering staff contacted the developer and requested that a provision be made
to ensure access to Caltrans parcel. To resolve the access issue, the developer has designed
Lot 1 to be wide enough to allow Caltrans access through the implementation of a lot line
adjustment prior to final map recordation (Exhibit G). The Engineering Department has
reviewed the solution proposed by the applicant and has included a condition of approval
requiring the lot line adjustment be completed prior to final map approval.
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 that the Planning Commission approve Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 through the adoption of the attached
Resolutions of Approval with Conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
JT:DG/ge
Attachments: Exhibit A -Aerial Photo
Exhibit B -Site Utilization Map
Exhibit C -Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032
Exhibit D -Grading Plan
Exhibit E -Wall and Fence Plan
Exhibit F -Landscape Plan
Exhibit G -Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 with Caltrans Access
Exhibit H -Design Review Committee Agenda and Action Comments dated
October 16, 2007
Exhibit I -Neighborhood Summary Letter from Applicant
Exhibit J -Initial Study I and II
Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 with
Conditions
Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2007-00097 with Conditions
B&C-12
~i~
~~~
~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~
A N A f d 6
~~
~~
o ~T<
a <U
m
F
a H~ ~~~
~vZ
Q Q
~ W
S
O
U
exHisir a
NN
Y & ~ ~Z
~ ~ ~ H
~ z ~
~W t W N ei I
&~~'~ ~ < lea!!
n. U ~1~~1
-= ~ EZ-f a` !7 v
5 ~ ~ ~~3~~ ~ V, m
,....c : -~ Z ~
~ ss=~~ ~ N ~ • a
o..QZ
w
EXHIBIT B
•
•
•
- 74
•
~i
E;
1
~~ u ~ _
? I~~~ ~ 1'~ ~ ~ 3R4
~ ~ ~a
r;E
t
l:ii!i:~i~~ ~ ~ a iiga ~e~i
Iii~~~~iE~`g ~t
,! ~ ;fig ~, .~aR
~l~i~@Ort•~~( ° ip B
~d i ft! ~~ != 1 ffi. ~AiO '~t ~i! ~ ~'''~
~ , 1r
i!t r . ~ =e yet i 9s i!@ ~ ~ f1
ail ~ : !e ~~ [~e~ 9tfl,E~pS"f 1 ~ e ~ t~~ ~I~ 1'~'~
~1~1 iii irl~E~~~I~f ltl~u~tllt ~' ° t~° ~!: eE ~ ~~l~
h ~
f~~i~l~~l~f~i°~:il9x s ~~t°i~l~~ie ~Er Ali i ~~
~_
~, ~, ~-'
? °
..at~~
~~
a~
1
r ilia
~ F- LL~LL
r ~ O
Z
a
I-
W
~~
a,
re ,
I
Tq~ ~-~ ~! -III~g II~~.
itt ~
tl ~ ~ ~ ~
cE~l~FB~t;~~~~lEitit9 IE
F ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ Q t ! ! ! ! 1 e if
E~~tIE~E~~E~~E~I{{~~~
C 4 q e ! ! ~ ®I ! (7
~!ll~tl~[IEl~~~15~ti~~i
~iiiiiiii~EEEEI~1E~si:E~
~: ~~~I ~~
~~: IE~! tg
.pig „~' ~~
g E.te E
eae ! ! Fni FQ~! ~~~
' Is~~ i ~ [::: ~~i stl
~ - ~ ~~
~~~! I i ~ ~~Il~ °.;d
~_. ...
t
uj M
~ ~~.
~ N
g ~ a
a
g ~ _
~ d<
~~y
~_x
¢~_
~~~
~,~
z~;3
~uaoN ~ "' :L
Fez
~ ;NZ~ f1
I ~
t~~QU~
~o~~~~
Vac~~~_
~Q`
~~~
WQ
a C~ ~
~a
W
U
Z ~
O~
•
inn ~ o~ ~ v ~ -,6
•
CJ
..7
v7
t~]
N
U
,•y~ Q
~~~
~~~
~ ~.:. O
ZN3
z~,y
~~z
NN
r
V
Q
r~r
V
;7
~~~
~ ~ ~
~~ ~~
iQefi ~~ ~ ~ I
!I
1
i
~~
~~~
~g ~
N 1 15
III~g~r'
88
>>>>f1~~'~1
~~EEl~flllff
6
e
e
N1ilON
V
~~
w
N
U
~FS
~U
~~Lai7
~ L m
~y~..
~--,
~,
7 ~r..y.
~ e 'I_
Q~W
~~U
>~~
Q
Q
Q
J
J
Q
:7
•
•
L~ - I
i•
.. _ -- - -
~ a~ ~a~ ~ ~a ~~' ~ c.~
~~~~~~ ~~~~a~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~
~ I +
G
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
C
o ~y~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~g ~
U
a
o - ~.,
C b 6
~j 333 ~ zN3 ~ j
m G _ v- ~ ~ ~ a. v Z a. ~ -
o a
`o i ~ ~ ~ :~,~„ ~ ' ~'
i ~
II 6 d Q ~ 6 ~ `
I~
x x x x x x x _
~~~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~
~,.
E - i ~
~ ~ ~ •'
~~ ~ i I,
~ ~,
o ~I ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~ g~
_E ,. I
.~ I ~.
aavn~noe ~3~~ Ava
. .
i
rI ~ a.
T1~) O~,GI fs1
`,J ~ ,~ ~ r`-~.,. t~
---_ _ ~%I o0'~oi ~~.
` ~,~ ~ may"-~
,~~:~~.:~~~~~ ~ ,_`~__ _J CIO.
`tom"- _` ~ ---- ~ --~-
i _~ __ ~
1 ~
N o ~~W
•1
3
g
~2
~,
~ ~ ~,
v
~`~ ~ N
Mt'
EXHIBIT F
J _ \ ~y I~
_`\` 14.'
a
'~i ~ ^~ obi ~\ ~ ~~ ~ -
v (pl~~l ^ ~ I~..
~l ~
9 '+
N(c~i; ~ ic~\ io
J O( ~~ ~~ ~r ~ 1 ~
1- N~,r~) rti o ~I
~n~ T ~n 1 .
.... _ T _ J T ... .... _ . 11 q ~ _
__ X~.. _ _
° 3~Md 3~ X31i.LJ~3lO4`d5
~~
~~
~~
~~
~i
~ ~
~~ ~`J 3 ; 1
1 .`~` 1
~ ~~
~ _
~ v
~ N =I
1
1 .n
1 ~
r o
I 1~
H Q Way
QZ~ o
c~oQ
~~U ~
WW m
~~~ Z
~ ~~
Q O
W
U
d
a
Q ~
U
U
O
U
a
W¢
U~
Z "
0
U
i
;~
5 ~
J
111`r.~~ I II ~ I
N
~ ~9'~!~
E~
°E n
B
s~s ~Y S °`!td
_
IIIpMYq tltl;
4E
i~
~~ E ~
~ ~
~~ 1 g'~Q
~
a
9I
S
iiiiiiaP~aF ~~~ e~ i
° i
~i.~d f
say
b i ¢
Kif b j~ii
~°~
t
ra ~ a
aY
9a __~_ -~/ ~; s
3ov-e
J Y
~_-_.
i, ~
3~113100VS ` I., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~,~
_ .:
i:~
~~f ~ a[ ~ sI ~F~ •
Y
•-- i , , 1 it
i ~ ' " in~____ ~l:~ffi ~ ~EeIII ~ e z
~.
.. ~ I ~ y.L...._r
~h ~~\ L
,'~:
~-- ' i _.
....*.~
~.,
1.
I1
I
I
1
~ti
' !_
i
y l p
~? C
~_ _.~~ .~
_J ._' _....i ~I S~
b
~'~ -~ ~
~' , ~ °a
i
-- ~---- ,T~ - ~_ ~_ _ . __
E
SS q, l'l+~I __._...
m ~ c~ ~1 !. '.4 i
~ ~ ~ ~ .
:xHiBrT G ~;~~ =~~~
B&C-20
~i
Z
`W
1
• DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 p.m. Donald Granger October 16, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18032 - PENINSULA
RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC - A residential subdivision of 23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the
west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive - APN: 0225-161-65 and 71. Related Files:
Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00871 and Variance DRC2007-00097. Staff has prepared a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration.
Design Parameters:.The site falls within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, just outside the boundaries of
the Rancho Etiwanda planned development, a 1,238 residential unit development approved by the
County in May 1991, and subsequently annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The streets
surrounding the project site were installed when the Rancho Etiwanda area was mass graded,
infrastructure was installed, and adjacent subdivisions were built The site is bordered by single-family
homes to the north and west.
The applicant is proposing a 23-lot subdivision, with no house product at this time. Development of the
site with single-family homes will occur at a later date. Because of the proximity of the 210 freeway and
.Day Creek Boulevard, a sound wall ranging in height from 6 to 10.5 feet will be required around the
boundary of the subdivision. The applicant is concurrently processing a Variance to accommodate the
.necessary perimeter wall height.
Immediately north of the site is a 3.63-acre parcel owned by another party. As such, the applicant has
master-planned this subdivision to include a stub street ("B" Street) that will connect to the north when a
subdivision application is filed in the future. "B" street has been designed with stub connection that
accommodates the property to the north with a knuckle design that curves westerly and connects to
Saddle Tree Place. The Traffic Division and Fire Construction Services have reviewed the stub street
and master-plan layout and concur with the conceptual design prepared by the applicant. Since the
proposed subdivision will only have one point of access until the parcel to the north develops, the
applicant will be required to provide mitigation in the form of house sprinklers on Lots 1-12, 14, 16, 18, 20
and 22. The project applicant has estimated that the parcel north of the subdivision could yield nine lots.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion.
1. Decorative perimeter walls shall be provided along the boundaries of the tract and along streets.
Perimeter walls fronting Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive shall adhere to the approved wall
design and materials palette for Day Creek Boulevard and Rancho Etiwanda.
2. Perimeter walls shall be placed at the top of slope, with a 2-foot bench.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of
the oroiect.
EXHIBIT H B & ~-2,
DRC ACTION AGENDA
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
October 16, 2007
Page 2
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson
Staff Planner: Donald Granger
The applicant presented a revised tentative tract map that provided greater lot plotting options for the
vacant parcel north of the project. The Committee reviewed the revised map and recommended
approval.
•
•
•
8 & C-22
PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• July 17, 2007
Donald Granger
Associate Planner
Cir}' of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: WRITTEN REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL t15SESSMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT7 8032-
PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC - a residential subdivision of 23 single family
lots on 7.74 acres of land in the L,ow Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the
Etiu~anda North Specific Plan, located on the west side oEDay Creek Boulevard, south of
Vintage Drive - APN: 225-161-65 and 71. Related Files: Tree Removal Pernit DRC2006- ~
0087, land variance DRC2007-00097.
Dear Donald:
The following shall be our written report that documents the results of our neighborhood
• meeting for the above referenced project.
1. Notification Method:
\Ve sent written notice to the surrounding residents and owners for a meeting at the Day
Creek Park on A4ondap, June 25, 2007 at 6.OOpm. The public u~as invited to discuss our
proposed project.
2. Attendence:
We had approximately I5-18 residents and adjacent owners attend the meeting.
3. Summary of questions, concerns and issues expressed at the meeting:
The number one concern was vehicular traffic into the proposed project. The residents
proposed various arterial access. The access to the project was discussed at length. The
residents wanted the applicant to consider access from Vintage, or another street. Another
concern was wildlife and pest control when construction commences. The neighbors wanted
dust control and construction traffic controlled. The last issue was the adjacent owner to the
north wants the city to approve the same amount of units for his propert}~ in relation co the
size of the parcels.
•
EXHIBIT 1415 29T" STREET, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663
TEL: 949-723 ~J~6U23FAX: 949-723-9505
4. Applicant addressed concerns aad issues: •
City staff met with city xrafEc engineers regarding access into this project and it has been
determined that the City Engineer recommends access as proposed b}~ the applicant.
Applicant agrees to provide Pest Control prior to construction. In addition, applicant agrees
to adhere to all city codes regarding dust control and construction traffic.
\k%e look font-ard to working to meeting with you.
Thanks for vour time and consideration.
Sincerely,
PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
Gregor}' S. Lukosky
Partner
•
•
B & C- 24
City o/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 APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicanf to ensure that
the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing
information.
Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Tentative Tract 18032
Project Title: Tentative Tract 18032
• Name & Address of project owner(s). Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC
415 29`h Street
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
NameBAddressoldeveloperorprojectsponsor Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC
415 29`h Street
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Contact Person 8 Address: Brett Del Valle
415 29`h Street ,
Newport Beach, CA. 92663
Bob Zoller
Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above): MDS Consulting
17320 Redhill Avenue, Suite 350
Irvine, CA. 92614
Teleohone Number. I 949) 251-8821
Page 1 Created on 5/22/2002 4:09 PM
EXHIBIT J B & ~-25
ln(ormation indicated by an asterisk () is not required ofnon-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff.
'1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 x 11) 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 pdmary 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): East of the Intersection of Quarry Court and Saddle Tree Place
4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet it necessary): 225-161-65, 225-161-70
`5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. tt.): 7 74
`6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets 8 proposed
dedications): ~ 7.74
7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site •
(attach additional sheet if necessary):
None
8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City o(Rancho Cucamonga and other
governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project:
City Grading Permit, Tree Removal 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 of information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies,
biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies):
Partially cleared and natural vegetation with a few non-matured trees and there exists no structure on-site.
The rectangular site slopes from the northeast property boundary to the southeast property boundary.
The existing elevation along the northwest boundary is approximately 1518 and falls to an approximate
elevation of 1489 at Jh southeast boundary, a change of 29 feet. The adjacent streets, Quarry Court and •
Saddle Tree Place are fuly improved. Day Creek Blvd., located along the site's eastern boundary, is fuly
improved except westerly parkway. There is an existing waterline and sewer line within an existing 20
foot easement which runs along the project's southerly boundary.
EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 2 Created on 5/22!2002 4:09 PM
B & C- 26
• 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information (books, published
reports and oral history):
No known cultural and/or historical aspects. Parcel is vacant land surrounded by development and the
210 Freeway
11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site (aircraft, roadway noise, etc.) and how they will
affect proposed uses:
Interstate 210 Freeway isadjacent to the site. Noise sources will be mitigated with a sound wall and
construction standards.
12) Describe the proposed project in detail. this should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate
use that will result /tom the proposedproject. Indicate if 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:
The project will entail 22 single-family detached residential units fronting onto two proposed local streets.
At the time the Tentative Tract Map submittal, the project is proposed to be constructed under one phase.
Environmentalln(oForm.doc Page 3 Created on 5/22/2002 4:09 PM
B&C-27
13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, histodcal, 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.):
Zoned Low Density residential
East: Day Creek Boulevard (existing )
South: Vacant /State Hichwav 210
West: Existing Single-Family residential (Zoned Low Density residential )
14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project?
No
15) Indicate the type o(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. What methods of soundproofing are proposed?
The proposed short-term noise will be generated by the construction activity, yet there is no long-term
noise anticipated. Refer to submitted Accoustic Report.
`f6) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements o(mature or scenic trees:
Refer to the submitted Arborist Report.
17) Indicate any bodies of water (including domestic water supplies) into which the site drains: None
EnvironmeniallnfoForm.doc Page 4 ~ Created on 5!22/2002 4:09 PM
•
•
B & C-28
18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please
contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gal/day) 15.510.00 Peak use (gal/Day) 30,020.00
b. Commercial/Ind. (gal/day/ac) Peak use (gal/min/ac)
19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ^ Septic lank ®Sewer.
//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) 5,940.00
b. Commercial/Industrial (gal/day/ac)
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS:
20) Number of residential units: 22
Detached (indicate range o(parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size:
Minimum Lot Size: 7,200 SF
• Maximum Lot Size: 13,840 SF
Average Lot Size: 8,865 SF
Attached (indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): N/A
21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents:
Sale Price(s) $0.00 to $0.00
Rent (per month) $0.00 to $0.00
22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: N/A
•
23). Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: N/A
EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc ~ Page 5 Created on 5/22/2002 4:09 PM
B & C- 29
EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 6 Created on 5/22/2002 4:09 PM
B & C-30
24J 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: 10
b. Junior High: 8
c. Senior High 6
COMMERCIAL. INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS
25/ lQescribe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial or institutional uses:
26) Total floor area otlEommercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type:
27) Indicate hours ofoperation:
• 28) Number of employees:
Maximum
Total:
Time of Maximum Shift:
29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications nclud~
rate of hire for each classification (attach addition sheet if
wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the
of workers to be hired that currently reside in the
30) Estimation of the
City:
'31) For commercial
be ved(ed throt~
•
11ndustdal uses only, indicate the source, type and amount o(air pollution e 'ssions. (Data should
the South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283):
EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 7 Created on 5!22/2002 4:09 PM
B&C-31
ALL PROJECTS
32J Have the wafer, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to
provide adequate service to the proposed project? I(so, please indicate their response.
CVWD -
SBCFCD -
Rancho Fire District -Okay
33) In the known history of this property, has there been any use, storage, or discharge ofhazardous and/or toxic
materials? Examples ofhazardous and/or toxic materials include, but are not limited to PCB's; radioactive substances;
pesticides and herbicides; fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage
of any o(the above. Please list the materials and describe their use, storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well
as the dates o(use, if known.
34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary orlong-term use, storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic
materials, including but not limited to those examples listed above? If 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
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the~aehee'-
adequate evaluation of this project to the best ofmy ability, t he facts, st<
tot he best of my knowledge and belief. 1 further unders nd that additional
adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Ra ho Cucamonga.
Date: 8/21 /06
Tit/e:~Bir~Ctor of
present the data and information required for
~, and information presented are true and correct
!ion maybe required to be submitted before an
J
•
•
EnvironmentallnfoForm.doc Page 8 ~ Created on 5/22/2002 4:09 PM
B & C- 32
m
' . -I', I ~' S' '°:,
~, 3. .o ~.,.,
e
e'9
I 6 r
P I ~
h
<
-. I ~
n
MI ei I 6- ~
I i' ~~ I .I
Oe ''r~
,
I'/' ~ .~ '~' I
~ ~"
~~ ~ I 1 f
Y ~
\ ~ 1\ _
'
t I I l i L/
tP 6':
~
I
I ~I i'
~ lit - ~ I
I
I
! .I
~:
1 ~ I
~ I
~ 'l 9 ' , , IFtt Il ~'~~~1~ ~.. C~ y 1.
'
f
''
,'~ ItPlro~e c~'Nau~e
~
,
.
I I Q~ II ''
11k
/~ , i N+P '. I~
T!;' _ 1
~,~ ~ 2919 I rt.. I
ICI ,~ -.\ V~- _ - I l
I _ - ~b/A ( I, I,
( % { 'n 411 \ f. /1
I\~ L ~, I ,~ ,~ i t,
I .gOA4 c ~~ ~ -~.1 ~~f II jji r~( Vn~ I 11 I n v I. ~ 1
u I~t/ ~Y~ .. hI1 it
~ I ~ I
= ~~~ , tii ~ ~ ~,v t~,~~J ~ ~_ t ~~,~.~ I
c
_' ~ I tnr a Iin~~~i,~/)~ tSvrano '-~ '~f ~ti i1 i 1~.:
at~ve Tract,1~:803~° f't"+:~ ~ ~ f'
y~ f t? ~ _ ~ ~. - - VA s -' A ~ ~ J 11~ I
~'~t~catiori~9,~HeR,vaR~r>u~ -_ Cit3~ of3ta~clio Cucamon~a~'~~;~ ° =-~,~~,
s T- ~. ~ ,~ _ , ; t
> r/ ~ z I hAT flit-~ \. ~~~~--- -~ 1 °~ J /~ r ~ ~ `.~ ~ n `~A,
1 ~ v
Y - ..,y BM 2127 I ~ -
\ .'i " i ~ _ ~ ~li_
_ ~ u 1 ~ -, I _ ._-- -
~_~ ~ 1
If '. ii ~ /. ~~ ~ ~1 i ~~ ~- ~ ae~
~ t ~ I ~ - I ~ ~ ~ _. ~ .
° ~ I
I J~._ 1f ~ _. r II ~ - ~ ~ ' ~.
a ,o _ Jil ~ ~ zooo-.
It~ ~/..
i t
I I`~ 19 - ICI `'_ ~ ~. i t
__ ~ - ' ~ /
~ '
I i- ~y~
. =J ..,li 1 ~'~ .... "iii I _ ~.? i
3 ~ ~ F
-i ]II ~..._ (~~_ ~- ~31 I 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~
~ ~ ii'~, - ~. .I _Iii f - __ it e Tanker ~ ~ / ! ~ v'S J~//-
t ~ I~, .~,. ,I A _ A - ~
,.~._ . iU V ~ ~_.. I n _.~- II I ,a I ~~ ..
ii~l I -~ ~~ 0 11 __,_ li __ ~ _ , ~ j'~ .IJo , `
3v 11 II ~ ~ rL /7/ J
v - J t/ dy ~~-, .~ \ -IBJO" 3( - / !/ V ~ Jam'
~'_ ~ ~7~ w lil II . ~' ~/ A i ~ ~.-r.
IIf~~ i ~ I I = / .+1
J'~ 9 ~~ 1~ I _ _ ~ -~ - ~1F _ - ~ __ _ ~ f/b~ _ __- ~ _
- ~ ; ' i f`
~ ~~ G
..
~~r '~ i ttt ._'_' ._.~Jtf OO(f0W ~ II /.
It "II
1 ._~ `. i/- ~~ v j ~lt i' .co __i ~--- I ~ .Sunvnit Ave
~ ~~ ~ IE f. ; ~~ro~ectJ~ocation,i ~5eh
r
..__. -~
30 € - iZo Ivs~- ~~ fsos'^
1(. F ~ I _ Zpl..
I^~''
i II
n q
__,~ i
/ ~~ 1 .3r Station ~ ~ ~_ ~I ~ .I
I. aei 11 I ~. i ~{ li
-mot- ~~~ _L- :3? '
I, ~ ~ .3f1 ~~~ II - lJ I-- - ~ LOQ ...
'€s~ If ;I f ~ _ ~ _
l~ ~ ~.
_ ~.. ~3t ~,~,~~pF G7mlrnl $GLIOn ~~ I ~ w~ ~ r
•
loo a nzov dell e... =3F5q ;,^'~ ( '.- ~[ ~. ",.~i= rvo'a.
. s.~. oso 4 rFl r
Eor EN ~... 4"~'csax0u -/~ I ...^3F- "~2 ..:I ,. ~',. ~•C. •. ~!j,
1 1 ~ _ -'359 ~ : ( i
P L A N N 6;0. 6 E N 61 N /- .R'. to est etlt (` lp, ° i _ - ~ --'---~
'FCNYt l {Uf1 9~9 ]II V51A ~ I'~ ': ~~ 1•••••• ` • '
3F' ~ -~%
[FRf EORYEYORE ~ ~f ~ ~ t~/ a~
a~~~_ --B-''& C 33 ••~~Etiwanda fs
•apeland ~' 11 ( €. e~~ I Iu - ppppp '.~ ~
. -,-c~_ ~t ~, all _
TENTATIVE TRACT No. 18032
RESIDENTIAL LOTS 1-22
PHOTOGRAPH No. 24
Date Prepere~ JULY 26, 2006
Cltt OF W~NCFq CUCAMOlgq CpRJIY OF 8AN B9YW[7ND, SfAIE OF CNFOff~A
Asap
`~; ,,n.....
.... - .r -,'. r. .i
TENTATIVE TRACT No. 18032
RESIDENTIAL LOTS 1-22
PHOTOGRAPH No. 25
Date Preperetk JULY 26, 2006
B & C- 35 arc of w~cfa cucaeor+nq coum of snN eeawoNO. eras of ca.FOr-u
`~~NL,lL~~ &~'
i„~. `:
~~: ~ ~ slsi~ aw
_ ~~
fl
4 ~ ~ B ~~~~ ~~~ ~ >¢Q~ ~
I ~ ~ va F- •
~~3 F N(O ~
ZJ=LUL i ~~~~a o„ ~<<"Z Z 1
~~
~_
------------- L ---- - ~
,- ~ - ---_
~ u ('~} - s --= s ~/ ~.
~~.]ryryy `
5 4 / / ® ~~ .e J At1 ~ ~~ ~~
~ r ~ S
1 i e R __~ - ' f S1
I - +
__ 1
~ ~~
C B a y t 1
i ~ Vi ~~7nr ~~ \< <j t 1»~. ~~,~ t ~ ms I ~ ~ ~ar - ~ 1
f {~~ l1. ~ ~1 ~~vti~ 1 ~ ~-0 ~ ~ ~ T 1
ti ; J \ t ~ h~ 1
~ ~ ~ l 0 i'
- _$ a - eC Itil ~~L: ~-' ~ ~~,~ , ~ ~j ~i~~ yifit~~~~ N~~~ g~g1~~ ~ 1 'r ~ ~ ~S"'~~~~ ~Il~ys~®~~ 11 _
s a ~ 4 c At ~\~\vr' ~ ~' ~ ~J ~~S~Irx ~" , l'J~1°'~S, ~ , I,~R~~~{~~. ~ 11
II r ~l1`~i7i ii l~~~s~- ~~ ~~ ~ ~ulzti~'' ~~t. . ~~ i~.~:~~ i k~' ~ :~ ~hi,~~ 1
a / ~ 1 i
\\ ~ , I
4 S t' I
7 ~ ,~ I. ,:, ~ h , ., ~; ~ ,,~ ~ d,~hg5h~ - ~ ..~.~y ~~ I
R .~ ~`4 ro.~ I7yIl ~~aykV but ~ ~~ )~fi. I
_ _ 'v` ~
y ~~
ll~i/l is tiu~n YOUO
•
•
•
B & C- 36
•
•
Y !i!
~E~1
S File
,,ls~,
I,lh!'
IIIIEI'
IIY I ~~tl~ ~~ (~ 4 ~ ~ fY' ~ ~ ~
k {{ a
is ~~lsil- o3ui
~J ~ ~d I
i., o
I,I~ly99~t~I °'E E'
!vll.9v!!._ ! 1194 Iv v!
e
! l
it
l
q1
' la '°g,55
I~ ~!!q Id!
,
l b
q
~
ied9l4~ 9S '
E l4 '
~
I
ti
i c
n~i~
~l
~ ~!~
i!
l
~ I!~
®j ie
~ 1
~1
I
I el E
S 5 ~ IBI:
L EiF
I iQ
9=
~, ~,
. ~la°!_~!a°°..!
~SS9~
n
yE ~E!!b
YYYY FF=
de
I`! qA=9o~
~1, i 9~ii I
el! 1 9~
t f~
..,vu
I
1' I
11119
Rc7N &
~^~U~
~T~SS
Z ~`~~
Ha~-~<
Q~U
~~~LL~IIIl~Q
~~r LL~
H ' O
Z
~~
..
ti~a;~
~"~
~'.
~~
d
y:
n
U
BACKGROUND
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
Project File: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18032 -
PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC - A residential subdivision of 23 single-family lots on
7.74 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive -
APN: 0225-161-65 and 71. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00871 and Variance
DRC2007-00097.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL
PARTNERS, LLC - A request to allow up to 10.5-foot perimeter wall heights for sound attenuation
purposes for Lots 1-6 and to allow up to 7.5-foot combination retaining/freestanding side yard wall
heights for grade differential purposes for Lots 1-6 of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032, where a
maximum 6-foot wall height is permitted, for a residential subdivision of 23 single-family lots on
7.74 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive -
APN: 0225-161-65 and 71. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Tree Removal
Permit DRC2006-00871.
•
2. Related Files: Tree Removal Permit DRC2006-00871
3. Description of Project: The 23-lot subdivision has an average lot area of 12,600 square feet, with
the smallest lot (Lot 19) having 8,180 square feet, and the largest lot (Lot 5) having 23,991 square
feet. 2:1 manufactured slopes are proposed just north of the rear property lines along Lots 1
through 4. Along the east property lines of Lots 5 through 11 along the Day Creek Boulevard
frontage, 3:1 manufactured slopes are proposed. All slopes will be planted to the City requirements
to retard erosion and ensure slope stability. The Engineering Department has reviewed the
conceptual Grading Plan and has indicated that the slopes within the Landscape Maintenance
District area along Day Creek Boulevard are acceptable.
There are no heritage trees on the project site. Soil types on-site consist of Soboba stony loamy
sand, with slopes ranging from 2 to 9 percent, according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3.
Soboba stony loamy sand soils usually have slow runoff, and the hazard of erosion is minimal.
Access will be from Saddle Tree Place, anorth-south local street that connects to Vintage Drive, an
east-west collector street. Vintage Drive connects to Day Creek Boulevard, a Major Divided
Arterial. Although the project only has one point of access, it has been designed with a stub street
("B" Street) that will ultimately provide a connection point and two points of access when the parcel
to the north develops. Implementation of the proposed 23-lot single-family subdivision project will
generate 220 average vehicle trips daily. The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that
each single-family dwelling unit will generate 9.57 trips daily. The proposed project is consistent
with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an
area that is substantially developed with street improvements existing or included in project design.
•
4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC
415 29th Street
Newport Beach, CA 92663
5. General Plan Designation: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
6. Zoning: Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
B & C-38
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 2
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located south of Vintage Drive, on the •
west side of Day Creek Boulevard. -The site is vacant, with no structures and native vegetation and
weeds covering the majority of the site. To the west are single-family dwelling units, and to the
south is the westbound I-210 Freeway and onramp. North of the project site is vacant land and
single-family dwelling units, and to the east, across Day Creek Boulevard, are single-family dwelling
units.
8. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
9. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Donald Granger
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): Caltrans
GLOSSARY -The following abbreviations are used in this report:
CVW D -Cucamonga Valley Water District
EIR -Environmental Impact Report
FEIR -Final Environmental Impact Report
NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOx -Nitrogen Oxides
ROG -Reactive Organic Gases
PM,o -Fine Particulate Matter
RWOCB -Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD -South Coast Air Quality Management District
SW PPP-Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
URBEMIS7G -Urban Emissions Model 7G
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," or "Less Than-Significant-Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
(/) Aesthetics (/) Agricultural Resources (/) Air Quality
(/) Biological Resources (/) Cultural Resources (/) Geology & Soils
()Hazards & Waste Materials (/) Hydrology & Water Quality (/) Land Use & Planning
()Mineral Resources (/) Noise ()Population & Housing
()Public Services (/) Recreation () Transportation/Traffic
()Utilities & Service Systems (/) Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(/) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by, or
agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Prepared By'[/~/~J^+~~'-~^-+- Date: P~J124o8
Reviewed By://~j/ Date: nc, oZ-~J'O~
B & C- 39
•
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 3
•
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 5°te;ca°Y
grn M,,"'ahpn
g siThi any
grn ~,p
Impact Inmr orated Impact Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial affect a scenic vista? () () (/) ( )
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not () () () (/)
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a State Scenic Highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or () () () (/)
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which () () (/) ( )
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
a) There are significant vistas of the local mountains within and from the adjacent area
surrounding the project site. The project site commands views of the local foothills, located
approximately 3.5 miles north of the project site. Although the project site is within a view
corridor according to General Plan Exhibit.lll-15, the project will not inhibit scenic views from
Day Creek Boulevard to the local foothills because of generous setbacks and landscaped
slopes along Day Creek Boulevard. Further, immediately to the south is the I-210 Freeway,
• and the proposed project is of similar density as the surrounding area. The impact is
considered less-than-significant.
b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a'State Scenic
Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
c) The project site is located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive.
To the west, are single-family dwelling units, and to the north is vacant land. To the south is
the I-210 Freeway, and to the east is Day Creek Boulevard. Single-family subdivisions of
similar lot size and density are located in the immediate vicinity of the project. The visual
quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. Design review is required prior
to approval. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility
lines and facilities to minimize the unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility
enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted
by said Resolution.
d) The project would increase the number of street lights and security lighting used in the
immediate vicinity. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on the site plans,
which require review for consistency with City standards to avoid glare through the use of
shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting. The lighting will be .selected and located to confine
the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland () () (/) ( )
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a () () () (/)
Williamson Act contract?
B&C-40
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 4
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin InfOrmaUOn Sources.
PP g Pofenvany
Slgnihcanf Wifh
Mitigation Than
Significant
No
Impact Incur oratetl Im act Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, () () () (/)
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. The project site is located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of
Vintage Drive. To the west are single-family dwelling units, and to the north is vacant land.
To the south is the I-210 Freeway, and to the east is Day Creek Boulevard. Single-family
subdivisions of similar lot size and density are located in the immediate vicinity of the project.
There are approximately 1,300 acres of Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of which about one-third is
either developed or committed to development according to General Plan Table IV-2. The
major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern and eastern
portions of our City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Further,
two-thirds of the designated farmlands parcels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres,
and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as
farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FEIR identified the
conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which
a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The
proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and
impacts evaluated.
b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no
Williamson Act contracts within the City.
c) The project site is located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive.
To the west are single-family dwelling units; and to the north is vacant land. To the south is
the I-210 Freeway, and to the east is Day Creek Boulevard. Single-family subdivisions of
similar lot size and density are located in the immediate vicinity of the project. There are no
agricultural uses located within 1 mile of the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
3. AIR DUALITY. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable () () () (/)
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially () (/) () ( )
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any () () () (/)
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
- attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant () (/) () ( )
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number () () () (/)
of people?
•
•
•
B&C-41
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga_
Tentative Tract Map SUBTTt 8032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 5
•
- Less Than
significam Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Poremially
Significant w~~n
Ml+igaLOn roan
significant
No
Irroact Incorooratetl Imoaa Imoaa
Comments:
a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 6.6), continued development will contribute to
pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State
standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a
significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations
was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the
General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated.
I
Ta61c I
Construction ~rrrissims' Qmundsida}')
b) During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty
construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions.
In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities.
While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site, smaller particles would remain
in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an
on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment
work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete, thin they then
transfer to a different site where the process begins again. Therefore, the emissions
associated with construction activities are not new to the Rancho Cucamonga area and
would not violate an air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality in the region.
Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on aproject-specific basis. As
prescribed by SCAQMD, a.focused air impact study was' prepared that utilizes the Urban
Emissions Model 7G (URBEMIS 7G) methodology. As shown in Table 1, the unmiiigated
emissions associated with the construction of the project are below the regional significance
thresholds. Table 2 indicates that the unmitigated emissions associated with the operation of
the project are below the regional significance thresholds.
,
RC~IOnal f%^115FInn5
Mas Site Grading (months) GO
Building EroctionrFinishing (mnntl»; g
Aiuzimmn Rc;iunal Emissimu 60
Regional Consuuetion Daiiq
Significance lhreshoid l0O
overltUnaer) (~f )
Exceed Tlveshold? iVo
vttC I'P~li.n~._ _PM<< Cq, St1,~„
'_I _ 3 Zi til
?I 14 ~ 29 <I
7~ ISO >> ~SO li0
So \n 1'o Nn \o
" C~rmpHed using the (iRBF'AllS _'DO'cnrissions inrenrnrr model.
' PA~/rp ernissinn.c esrirnr;ras ore hrurd ou compliurrce +nirh SC9t7A1(~ Ru/c 403 requirements Jnr iu,irrrc' rlusr
suppression.
,Source: PCR Services Cnrpnraovn '00'.
•
B & C-42
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 6
Less Than
Slgni4cant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g I=ptentiany
Significant °'""
Mpigetion Than
Significant
No
Impact Incorporated Impacl Impact
Table ?
i'rnjcct-R cla ted Opcr :rtiunal Ftnis>inns'
_ _P:missiun Sourer
1'rupuyed live!°_mis<innc
,41uUilc-,
Arc:+
Stntinnm'Y
I'otuh'
SC]AQA•Ip tiignificauee'l"b rrchold
Uiffcrence
Si$ni(icnnt:'
i'OC ~'Or._.... .__ C(1__ SQL 1'\i,r, 1'~i.:
5 .31 G !
5 I I() ~i .. ~ 1
<I ^LI ~c.a <1 <1 <I
t: 6 -al tl 5
jj .i? .i 5(1 lilt litl ?5
{07t (a4) (i09) f150) {laYr (?3f
M14r Ao Nn An D'o IAo
'aJi:ile and arar. cn:is.rinnr ore ::aluria:eri urng tiro L%l2RE,11/,S?Orr'. ^orr!.tian.e model. .9rca ,~'nruc~-r nrr'udr
vauu'al gns t'onsurnprinn, /mrdscape (ref [-nnc:mrprinn. r:rirlentirtl emaunutr prorlue[s and nns!-v;Ln: rove
simrctts (r. F; . en;nq~ ntircr :hi:rg s, cen:ns+reial sohrcnt rrsayr, urcl+uerhern( conrirrgrJ. iar,;x:vinmr dur !o
Rrijee,-refsl ~rl ~lcaa'r['in- genrm;fou ,xrr arlnrln:cr!.Smmd nn _Guidnucr• prv:ir/cr/ in the SC-0Q.4~ii: <CQJ .-tit
Ouafitp Hn+nA:nr. A.
f Tn1cL may nm ndf, up acacth' rhrt ro ro+ardln_g.
Bourne: PC'H Set nhtes C}umrrtron, 3L0?
In addition, localized significance threshold (LST) were adopted by the SCAQMD in 2005.
LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the most stringent federal or state ambient air quality standard at the nearest
receptor. LSTs are set based on ambient concentrations in the project area, and the distance
to the closest sensitive receptors. Localized construction impacts were not analyzed in the
City's General Plan EIR. The URBEMIS 2007 focused air quality impact study includes a
localized analysis. Local construction emissions are shown in Table 3. As Table 3 illustrates,
the emissions associated with the construction of the project are below the localized
significance thresholds, and impacts at the nearest off-site receptor are expected to be
less-than-significant.
Tnhlc Z
titaec__
Localized t:mi55imrs
\lnss tiitc Gr, iin~ imontitst
ituiW ing GceainltlFinishing rnxmt!tsr
~Issimum Localized F.misciunc
Localized Si_enificancc ~ hrc ShnldS'
O:'cr fl Undo) 'hlu csho id
hsceed "rhre5hohl?
Cnn,ctructiou Emisciuns' (pound Fldar)
\O~ \'C1C 1'\i n•~ __ I'o\l; ~-__ CQ SOS
a5 j la ? ?1 <1
;h zn ? Iv ~!
a~ 'o la - n n
a 7'_ ~ ~iG 9 i.SSR -
(a»t (J iSl {1.£i71
\o' - Nn ;\p ~n -
("mnpilr;d uc6tg the i fRifLSi1LS ?007emise torn irtventonr model.
I'+lfrp rmrstvians estimnr<,c rrr,^ hrtcrd nn compliance uidt SC•7 ~I,1•177 Halt, 403 rerpuremenrs /nr r: +,:/r rr Jrr-cr
lire ,$C;1~lAdU L<rnnli:[•d .Shr,:jr~unrc T!u'esirvlda (LS'T.q aR- hns<: rl nrr .Source lfeceptor Area r4'r. ~_ r 'o rrl: ,ra•sr
San Darnadinn 6'rrflc vl jrn' a lit+' r.Crr• sYC +oith n ?5 meler' reeeptur di,vtunte.
.Sr+nrrrr: PC~H Sruviccf C~nrlu,n-r«ryr ?r+l)1
B&C-43
CJ
•
•
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 7
•
Less Than
Signi6cam less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
Pp g Pmanrany
Significant wun
Miligalion Than
Significant
Np
Impact I"cpmpmtetl IrtpaC~ Impdpt
Therefore, as required by the SCAQMD, an URBEMIS 2007 study was performed to
calculate project emissions, and the model results indicate that the construction and
operational emissions of the proposed project would not be significant. The construction and
operational emissions of the project are below regional and localized significance thresholds
for criteria pollutants as indicated in Tables 1, 2, and 3. The full text and citation of the
URBEMIS 2007 focused air quality study can be referenced at the end of the Initial Study
Part II.
Even though the construction emissions will be less than regional and localized standards,
the project will be conditioned to implement the following mitigation measures, per the City's
General Plan FEIR in order further reduce actual emissions:
•
1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so
as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all
construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per
manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the
construction site for City verification.
2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit
construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected
equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that
low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use
was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall
also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air
Duality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff.
3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or
high-volume, low-pressure spray.
4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1108.
5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403.
Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering.
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time.
Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods.
•
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances
and use sound engineering practices.
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of
hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction.
B&C-44
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 8
Less Than
Slgnihcant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Pp~enrally
Slgnilicam wan
Mitigation Than
SiBnilicam
No
Impact OCpmO~aletl Impact mpdC~
Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds
exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover
payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by
SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWOCB]) daily to reduce
Fine Particulate Matter (PM,q) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAGIMD and RWGICB) shall be applied to
all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to
reduce PM,B emissions.
8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative
fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include
a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
Even though the operational emissions will be less than regional and localized standards, the
project will be conditioned to implement the following mitigation measures, per the City's
General Plan FEIR in order to further reduce actual emissions:
10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate
high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water
heaters.
11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate
thermal pane windows and weather-stripping.
c) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6), continued development would contribute to
the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State
standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a
significant and' adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was
ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General
Plan, which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated.
d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of
pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive
receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers,
retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities.
According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they
are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants
identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located within 1/4 mile of a sensitive
receptor. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety
Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is
the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures
listed under b) above will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels.
e) Typically, single-family subdivisions do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts
are anticipated.
•
•
•
B & C- 45
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga'
Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Paqe 9
•
•
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Pmanfially
Slpnilicant wun
Mnigafion man
Signilicant
No
Impact nCOfpofaled Impact Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or () () (/) ( )
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or () () () (/)
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected () () () (/)
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
iriterruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native () () () (/)
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors„
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites'?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
()
()
()
(/)
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat () () () (/}
Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat
I conservation plan?
Comments
a) The project site is located in an area substantially developed with residential and commercial
uses. The site has been slightly disrupted from construction of infrastructure and surrounding
developments. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General
Plan FEIR, the project site is within an area of sensitive biological resources. According to
Exhibit IV-3 of the General Plan, the project site is located in an area that has been identified
as potential Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Habitat, which has been known to support several
sensitive species including, but not limited to, the California Gnatcatcher and the
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat.
The project site is fragmented from much larger parcels of land to the north that have been
specifically identified as prime Alluvia Fan Sage Scrub habitat and set aside for open space
and conservation purposes. The City, in cooperation with the County of San Bernardino, has
set aside approximately 1,900 acres of land for conservation purposes for Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub Habitat. Further, an additional 1,000 acres has been proposed for conservation
purposes. Since the project site is small (7.74 acres) and surrounded by either single-family
• dwelling units, local roads or the I-210 freeway, the parcel does not represent prime Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub habitat, and, therefore, is not a good or necessary area for conservation.
Also, the project site is not subject to active flooding, which is necessary for Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub to maintain itself. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect rare or
B & C-46
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 10
Less Tttan
S gnilicant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g awnnuauy
S9 lhcant was
Mitigation than
SiBrnticant
No
Imoac~ Incomoratetl Impact Impact
endangered species of plants or animals because of its fragmentation and lack of
connectivity to other prime parcels that have been set aside for conservation purposes. The
impact is considered less-than-significant.
b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat
exists on-site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. Further, the project site is not
subject to annual flooding.
c) No wetland habitat is present on-site. As a result, project implementation would have no
impact on these resources.
d) The majority of the surrounding area has been or is being developed, thereby disrupting any
wildlife corridors that may have existed. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
el There are no heritage trees on the project site; therefore, the proposed project is not in
conflict with any local ordinance. Although there are ten olive trees on the project site that
meet the size criteria of a heritage tree under the City's Ordinance, all ten trees are exempt
since all fruit or nut bearing trees are exempted under the Ordinance. All of the trees on the
project site were evaluated by an arborist, and the arborist concluded that all trees on-site are
either exempt from the Ordinance or do not meet the definition of heritage tree.
fhe project site is not iocated within a conservation area according to the General Plan,
Opel Space and Conservation'Plan, Exhibit IV-4. No conflicts ~.vith habitat conservation
plans will occur.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance O O O (/)
of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance () (/) () ( )
of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological () (/) (~ ( )
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred () () () (/)
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
a) The project site has not been identified as a "Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24 (Historic Preservation). There will be no impact.
b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however,
the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans
according to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11). Construction activity, particularly grading,
soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential
archaeological resources. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during
grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor
construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them
for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga will:
•
•
•
B & C- 47
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 11
•
Less TClan
SigniLCane Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Pptenliany
Signiiv ant wpm
Mitigation Tnan
SigniLCant
No
Impact InWtpomletl Impact IfOWCI
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or
significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological
sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or
focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to
eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique
prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the
project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original
illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
c) The General PIal7 FEIR (Section 5.11) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an
alluvial fan. According to the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or
resources have bean recorded within the, City of Rancho Cucamonga or the
sphere-of-influence, including the project site; however, thi: area has a high sensitivity rating
for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which would have been deposited during
the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ayo during the Late Pleistocene
epoch of the Quaternary period. when the last "Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man
occurred, may contain significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is uriderlain by
Quaternary alluvium per General -Plan Exhibit V-2; therefore, the following mitigation
measures shall be implemented:
2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered
before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to
monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or
preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings
that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation
measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where
mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid
removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time
during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
Should fossils be found within an a
earth-disturbing activities elsewhere
salvage. If construction personnel
contractor should immediately divert
of the find.
rea being cleared or graded, divert
until the monitor has completed
make the discovery, -the grading
construction and notify the monitor
Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the
summary -report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e.,
San Bernardino County Museum).
B&C-48
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Pape 12
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su
ortin
Information Sources: Pplantially w,fn man
pp
g S,gnificant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incprporatetl Impact Impxcf
Submit a summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer
collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County
Museum.
d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The
project site has already been disrupted by construction of infrastructure and surrounding
developments. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No evidence
is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health
and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on-site, no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin
and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State
regulations is required for all development, no mitigation is required in the unlikely event
human remains are discovered on-site. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project
a) Expose people or s?ructures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated () () () (/)
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
__ Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? O O O (/)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including () () () (/)
_ liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? () () () (/)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? () (/) () ( )
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or () () () (/)
that would become unstable as a result of the projec?,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B () () () (/)
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of () () () (/)
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
•
Comments:
a) No known faults pass through the site and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone; however, the
project site is located in the Buried/Uncertain segment of the Red Hill Fault, according to the
General Plan Exhibit V-1, and Section 5.1 of the General Plan FEIR. Although the project site •
is located in the Buried/Uncertain segment of the Red Hill Fault, subsurface exploration found no
evidence of its existence (General Plan V-23). Because the data cannot support the existence
and/or location of this segment, designation of this segment will be applied to critical facilities
only. The Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 2.5 miles to the north. This fault is
B & C- 49
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 13
fi•J
Less Than
Signihcani Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sgn;o m M~ pa(on Sib n'z ant Np
Impad Incur oratetl Impact Impact.
capable of producing a M„, 6.0-7.0 earthquake. Also, the San Jacinto Fault, capable of
producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is approximately 7.5 northeast of the site and the
San Andreas Fault, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is approximately 10 miles
northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong groundshaking. Adhering to
the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less-than-significant.
b) The proposed project will require the excavation, stockpiling, and/or movement of jon-site
soils. The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during
September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems.
Construction activities may temporarily exacerbafe the impacts of windblown sand, resulting
in temporary problems of dust control; however, development of this project under the
General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads,
buildings, and landscaping are established. Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation
measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels:
1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by
SCAQMD and.RW~CB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions, in accordance with
SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as
possible.
•
2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established 'by
the City to reduce PMio emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil
off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction.
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph So
minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such episodes.
4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWGrCB) shall be applied to
all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to
reduce PM~o emissions.
c) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.1) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with
large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. The project would not withdraw
water from the existing aquifer. The site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or other
unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 5.1-2. Soil types
on-site consist of Soboba stony loamy sand, with slopes ranging from 2 to 9 percent,
according to General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. Soboba stony loamy sand soils usually have
slow runoff, and the hazard of erosion is minimal. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil
deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on-site consist
of Soboba stony loamy sand, with slopes ranging from 2 to 9 percent, according to General
Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. Soboba stony loamy sand soils usually have slow runoff, and the
hazard of erosion is minimal. No adverse impacts are anticipated. ,
e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system (Cucamonga
Valley Water District) for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal is proposed.
8 & C- 50
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 14
Less Tban
SigniLCant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Finamiauy
&gnifmant With
Mitigation Than
Significant
No
Impact Inco oratetl I an Impact
7. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (/)
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () (/)
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or () () () (/)
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () () () (/)
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Secti:,ri 6:;962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public .or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (/)
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the protect area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would f) () () (/)
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an () () () (/)
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, () () () (/)
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
a) The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City
participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service Hazardous
Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the state. The City is in the
process of developing an Emergency Operations Plan to meet State and Federal
requirements. The City has approved a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which has received
State and Federal approvals. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations
concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the
potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. Further, single-family dwelling
units do not create objectionable odors, produce or emit hazardous waste or require the
routine transport of large quantities of hazardous waste. No adverse impacts are expected.
u
•
b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The
City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service •
Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the .state. The
City is in the process of developing an Emergency Operations Plan to meet State and
Federal requirements. The City has approved a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which has
received State and Federal approvals. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations
B&C-51
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 15
1~
u
Less Than
Signilicanl less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g. Polanaany
Signilsant wln
Mitigation rnan
Signilicanl
No
Irt'patl Inpptpplaletl ngacl Impatl
concerning the storage arid handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the
potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. Further, single-family dwelling
units do not create objectionable odors, produce or emit hazardous waste or require the
routine transport of large quantities of hazardous waste. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
c) There are schools located within .25 mile of the project site. The project site is located within
25 mile of the nearest existing or proposed school. Typically, single-family dwelling units do
not create objectionable odors, produce or emit hazardous waste, or require the routine
transport of large quantities of hazardous waste. No adverse impacts are anticipated. No
impacts are anticipated.
d) The proposed subdivision project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials
site. Recent site inspection did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal
dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated.
e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public
airport. The project site is located approximately 5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and
is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated.
f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of
the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated.
• g> The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies
and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a
disaster. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Fire Protection District has adopted
Ordinance 39 and, by extension as cited in Ordinance 39, the 2001 California Fire Code as
the governing documents by which Fire Construction Services, the plan check arm of the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFD), establishes guidelines and policies. In
Ordinance 39, Section 8 governs the Fire Department Access, which refers to Article 9 of the
2001 Fire Code and the RCFD Standards for Fire Department Access. RCFD Standard 9-7,
under section A(11) specifies that a second means of access shall be provided when
roadways in single-family residential (SFR) developments exceed 600 feet. Since the
proposed subdivision proposes a roadway with a single point of access that measures
approximately 890 feet, approval of an alternative method from the Fire District is required in
order for an exception to be granted.
'fhe applicant applied for an "Application for Alternate Method" because of the subdivision
having only one access point in excess of 600 feet. The Fire Construction Services staff
(Senior Plans Examiner and Plan Check and Inspection Manager), acting in accordance with
Administrative Section of the 2001 Fire Code, Section 103.1.2, placed a conditiomof approval
(FSC-13 Alternate Method) requiring the installation of fire sprinklers in all homes and
garages of the proposed subdivision. This Alternate Method Approval (fire sprinklers) will
provide adequate fire protection in a fire event. This additional fire protection provision is
considered standard mitigation measures when two points of access are not immediately
available. The Fire District's policy for a maximum street length of 600 feet in cul-de-sacs
serving single-family dwelling units is standard operation policy; this policy is consistent with
other Fire Departments. Beyond that length, either two points of access and/or alternate
method acceptable to the Fire Chief must be provided.
The applicant has obtained a Fire Hydrant Flow Letter from the Cucamonga Valley Water
District citing' that the normal static operating pressure ranges from 46 pounds per square
inch (p.s.i.) to 36 p.s.i. for this location; at the time the test was performed, the residual water
pressure was 36 p.s.i. Afire flow test was performed on June 14, 2006, with a 4-inch outlet
B & C- 52
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 16
Less Than
Significam Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Fpfantially
SiBnilicam wnh
Mitigalipn Tnan
SigniLCant
No
Impact Incomoratetl Impact IrrDact
that yielded 1,873 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). The calculated fire flow at 20 p.s.i. would yield
3,137 g.p.m. Section 4.1 and Table A-III-A-1 of Division III, Fire Protection, Appendix III-A of
the 2001 California Fire Code requires flow rate of 2,000 g.p.m. for single-family dwelling
units up to 6,200 square feet. The flow requirement can be reduced up to 50 percent when
the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system (Section 4.1,
Exception). Since the proposed subdivision has been conditioned to provide fire sprinklers
on every lot, the fire flow requirement of 2,000 g.p.m. can be reduced to 1,000 g.p.m; at a
calculated rate of 3,137 g.p.m. at 20 p.s.i., the available fire flow rate exceeds 300 percent of
the minimum requirement.
u
Fire Construction Services, Planning, Engineering and Traffic Departments concur that a
master-planned stub street connection provides the best approach to community design for
the following reasons: 1) Ultimately, there is a real opportunity to provide two points of
access for enhanced tire safety and optimum circulation for the proposed subdivision, a
portion of the existing subdivision to the west and for any proposed subdivision on the
adjacent parcel to the north; 2) The proposeo layout incorporates a master plan concept that
analyzes the entire 11.3 acre area comprised of three parcels, thereby meeting the goals and
objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda.North Specific Plan; and 3) The
proposed subdivision makes good land planning sense and will minimize the amount of
four-way local-to-local intersections on an adjacent local street (Saddle Tree Place). When
the parcel to the north of the subdivision is developed, a stub street connection will be in
place that will provide an opportunity fcr two points of access to Saddle Tree Place for the
proposed subdivision and any future residential development on the vacant parcel to the •
north. For the reasons outlined and discussed above, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from awind-driven fire in the Urban
Wildland Interface area found in the northern part of the City according to the Fire District
Strategic Plan 2000-2005. In anticipation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopting the
State of California's new Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSV) Map in [he Spring
of 2008, the Fire Marshall has evaluated the subdivision accordingly. Once the map is
adopted, the proposed subdivision will be within a VHFHSV. As such, the Fire Marshall has
placed the following conditions of approval: 1) A general fire protection plan for the
subdivision will be required to be submitted and approved prior to the approval of building
permits; 2) Landscaping design and plant selection will be limited by the Fire Code and the
' District's Wildland-Urban Interface Standard; 3) Parcel/home specific fire protection plans or
an Homeowner's Association specific fire protection plan will be required and 4) Homeowners
or an HOA will be required to maintain the landscaping as approved in the original plans.
Homes will be subject to annual vegetation management and defensible space inspections
by the Fire District. With conditions of approval, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge () () (/) ( )
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere () () () (/)
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
u
B & C-53
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Paqe 17
•
•
Less Than
S gnilicam Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
pp 9 an+e"'iany
Significant w""
Mitigation Than
Significant
No
Impact Incomoratetl Impact Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern pf the site () () () (/)
or area,'including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site () () () (/)
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the () () () (/)
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? O O (j (/)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as () () () (/)
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that () () () (/)
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures tb a significant risk of loss, O O O (/)
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? O O (j (/)
Comments:
a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (OVWD). The
project is designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. The State of California
is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The General
Construction Permit treats any construction activity overt acre as an industrial activity,
requiring a permit under the State's General NPDES Permit. The State Water Resource
Control Board (SWRCB) through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Santa
Ana Region, administers these permits.
Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction permit include
removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity for new development or
significant redevelopment. Prior to commencement of construction of a project, a discharger
must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General Permit. The
General Permit requires all dischargers to comply with the following during construction
activities, including site clearance and grading:
•. Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) that would
specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would prevent construction pollutants
from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from
moving off-site into receiving waters.
• Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other
waters of the nation.
B&C-54
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 18
Less Than
Slgnificant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
. pp g I'p+enraor
Significant wah
Mitigation Than
Slgnificant
No
Impact Incomoratea Impact hnpect
Perform inspections of all BMPs.
Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction project discharges. A
construction project for new development or significant redevelopment requires a NPDES
permit. Construction project proponents are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SW PPP). To comply with the NPDES, the project construction contractor
will be required to prepare a Siorm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) during
construction activities, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post-construction
operational management of storm water runoff. The applicant has submitted a WQMP,
prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2006, which identifies Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage
system after construction. Runoff from driveways, roads and other impermeable surfaces
must be controlled through an on-site drainage system. BMPs include both structural and
non-structural control methods. Structural controls used to manage storm water pollutant
levels include detention basins, oil/grit separators, and porous pavement. Non-structural
'controls focus on controlling pollutants at the source, generally through implementing erosion
and sediment control plans, and various Business Plans that must be developed by any
businesses that store and use hazardous materials. Practices such as periodic parking lot
sweeping can substantially reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system.
The following mitigation measures would be required to control additional storm water
effluent:
Construction Activities:
1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit tc
Building Official for approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),
specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs), that shall be used
on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm
drain system to the maximum extent practical.
2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and
implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control
on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are
initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include
the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and
construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern
California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to
ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of
this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program
within a specified time frame.
3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must
be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is
rainfall or other runoff.
4) ,During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be pertormed
prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to
prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site.
u
•
B & C-55
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 19
•
Less Than
Signilicam Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
pp 9 Pp~eptiany
Sipnifiwnt Wnh
Mltipatipn than
Slgnilicant
No
mpdLl IOW rypfa~etl Impact rt1paC~
Post- Construction Operational:
5) The developer shall implement the Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified
in the Water Quality Management Plan (WOMD) prepared by MDS Consulting,
October 2006, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain
system to the maximum extent practical.
6) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the
use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored
and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable
growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of
two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the
issuance of grading permits.
7) Runoff from residential structures will generally be conveyed through grass
areas prior to entering area drains and parkway swales, allowing for
sedimentation, infiltration and filtration, as well as reduce velocity of runoff and
C-factor.
r1
U
b) According to CVWD, 43 percent of the City's water is currently provided from groundwater in
the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CVWD 'nos adopted a master plan that estimates
demand needs until the year 2030. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater
supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within an area designated as a
recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Exhibit IV-2. The
development of the site will require the grading of the site and excavation; however, would
not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 288 to 470 feet below the ground
surface. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9), continued development citywide
will increase water needs and is a significant impact; however, CVWD has plans to rneet this
increased need through the construction of future water facilities. No impacts are
anticipated.
c) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and
amount of surtace water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape
proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All
runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle
the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent
erosion. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City
Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The impact is not considered significant.
d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and
amount of surtace water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape
proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All
runoff will be conveyed to proposed and existing storm drain facilities, which have been
designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the
Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase
in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated.
• e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and
amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape
proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities,
which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial
B & C-56
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 20
Less Tnan
Sipnilicent Less
Issues and Su orfin Information Sources:
PP g Fplentiaoy
SlpniLCam w~ln
Mitigation man
Significant
No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
additional sources of polluted runoff. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the
Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase
in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on- or off-site. No impacts are anticipated.
Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase
in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus
resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is for new development; therefore, it is
required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to
minimize water pollution. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
8) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City
Engineer for approval of a WOMP, including a project description and identifying
BMPs that wit! be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system
to the maximum extent practicable. The WOMP shall identify the structural and
non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development
and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004.
•
9) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys[em (NPDES) General Construction Storm
Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this
has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) •
shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES
General Construction Permit.
gj The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan
Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected.
h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan
Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected.
The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system
designed to convey a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and
provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system
includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined
channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General Plan Exhibit V-6. The project
site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5.
No adverse impacts are expected.
There are no oceans, lakes, or reservoirs near the project site; therefore, impacts from seiche
and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep
eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams.
Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the
level of non-significance within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams
and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City.
•
B & C-57
•
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 21
Less Tnan
S gnificam Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 Potentiany
Significant wim
M,Ogalion Than
Sipnillcant
No
Impact IfICO Dldtatl ImDOM ImpaCl
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
()
()
()
(/)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or () () () (/)
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or () () (/) ( )
natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
a) The project site is located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive.
To the west, are single-family dwelling units, and to the north, is vacant land. ~ o the south, is
the I-210 Freeway, and to the east, is Day Creek Boulevard. Single-family subdivisions of
similar lot size and density are located in the immediate vicinity of the project. The visual
quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. This subdivision will be of
similar design and size to surrounding development to the north and west. The protect will
become a part of the larger community known as Rancho Etiwanda. No adverse impacts are
anticipated.
b) T'he project site land use designation is Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The
proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not intertere with any policies
for environrrlental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated.
c) The project site is located in an area substantially developed with residential and commercial
uses. The site has been slightly disrupted from construction of infrastructure and surrounding
developments. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General
Plan FEIR, the project site is within an area of sensitive biological resources. According to
Exhibit IV-3 of the General Plan, the project site is located in an area that has been identified
as potential Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Habitat, which has been known to support several
sensitive species including, but not limited to, the California Gnatcatcher and the, San
Bernardino Kangaroo Rat.
•
The project site is fragmented from much larger parcels of land to the north that have been
specifically identified as prime Alluvia Fan Sage Scrub habitat and set aside for open space
and conservation purposes. The City, in cooperation with the County of San Bernardino, has
set aside approximately 1,900 acres of land for conservation purposes for Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub Habitat. Further, an additional 1,000 acres has been proposed for conservation
purposes. Since the project site is small (7.74 acres) and surrounded on all sides by
single-family dwelling units, local roads and a freeway, the parcel does not represent prime
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat, and, therefore, is not a good or necessary area for
conservation. Also, the project site is not subject to active flooding, which is necessary for
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub to maintain itself. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect
rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of its fragmentation and lack of
connectivity to other prime parcels that have been set aside for conservation purposes. The
impact is considered less-than-significant.
Further, the subdivision will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or
animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan.
B & C-58
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 22
Less Than
Signilicanl Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Petenuany
Sgnificant wnn
Mitigation Tnan
Slgnilicant
No
Impact Incoreoratetl Imeact Imeact
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral () () () (/)
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the State?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important () () () (/)
mineral resource. recovery site delineated on a local -
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Comments:
a) The project site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City
General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-1; therefore, there is no impact.
b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-1, as a valuable
^ineralresource recovery site;therefore,thereis no impact.
t 1. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in () (/) () ( )
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive () () () (/)
ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
cl A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels () () () (/j
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) .4 substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient f) (/) () ( )
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (/)
where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would () () () (/)
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
a) The project site is within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to
General Plan Exhibit V-13 at build-out. According to Table V-6 in the General Plan, the
project site is subject to noise levels of 60dBA within 3,155 feet of the I-210 Freeway and to
noise levels of 65dBA within 1,464 feet of the I-210 Freeway. The project will also be
exposed to noise levels of 60dBA or greater along Day Creek Boulevard.
Because the project is subject to the noise levels that exceed the City's exterior standard of .
60 dBA from 7 a_m. to 10 p.m. and 55 dBA standard from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., an Exterior Noise
Analysis was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates (MGA, June 22, 2007).
B & C- 59
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTI'18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 23
u
Less Than
Sgnificam Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: spfei~~a~~
9^i Mi~aapn
g signf czm Np
Impact Incorporatetl mpacl mpaL1
Since the City's Development Code utilizes a dBA scale, the study by Mestre Greve
Associates includes the following analysis:
Typically, noise standards for new developments impacted by transportation
noise sources are defined in terms of CNEL noise metric. CNEL (Community
Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24-hour time weighted annual average noise
level based on the A-weighted decibel. A-weighting is a frequency response
of the human ear. Time weighting refers to the fact that noise occurs during
certain noise-sensitive time periods is given more significance because it
occurs ai these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the
evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 d6, while noise
occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) is weighted by 10 dB.
These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased to
sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating and relaxing.
"The State of California Government Code Section (Section 65302(f))
requires that Noise Elements of the General Plans quantify noise sources in
4erms of the CNEL metric and present noise contours in terms of the CNEL
metric. the CNEL noise contours are to be 'used as a guide for establishing
a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of
community residents to excessive noise.' Further, the Uniform Building Code
establishes an indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL for 'new lfofels, motels,
• dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached
single-family dwellings.' Many municipalities have adopted the 45 CNEL
interior standard for single-family dwellings."
Section 17.02.0120-D-1 of the Development Code states the following: It is unlawful for any
person at any location within the city to create any noise or allow the creation of any noise on
the property owned, leased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such persdn, which causes
the noise level when measured on the property line of any other property to exceed the basic
noise level as adjusted below: a) Basic noise level for a cumulative period of not more than
fifteen minutes in any one hour; or b) Basic noise level plus five dBA for a cumulative period
of not more than ten minutes in any one hour; or c) Basic noise level plus fourteen dBA for a
cumulative period of not more than five minutes in any one hour; or d. Basic noise level plus
fifteen dBA at any time.
The study by Mestre Greve Associates continues:
Further, in a simple reading of Sections 17.02.120 and 17.08.080 as
quoted above, it is clearly stated that they are presenting limits on noise
creation rather than reception. 17.02.120(E) defines noise sources that are
exempt from the standards. Item 7 of the exemptions includes 'any activity
to the extent regulation thereof has been preempted by state or federal
law.' State law prohibits municipalities from enacting regulations to limit
noise generated by motor vehicles on public roadways. Note that this does
not prohibit the City from adopting noise standards for new developments
that are exposed to traffic noise. The City's land use policies can regulate.
development based on the noise level at sensitive receptors proposed by
• the development. It cannot regulate the noise levels generated by traffic
on public roadways. The City's Development Code and Noise Element
define standards for sources of noise rather than- standards for new
development.
B&C-60
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 24
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
pp g Pmemiauy
Significant wan
Mitigation Than
Slgni4cant
No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
As discussed above, the State interior noise standard is 45 GNEL. While the
State code does not apply this standard to single-family homes, most
municipalities apply this standard to single-family homes. The typical
outdoor residential noise standard defined by most municipalities in Southern
California is 65 CNEL, .although some municipalities have adopted a
60 CNEL noise standard. Using the Leq noise levels that would be permitted
under the limits of defined in Sections 17.02.120 and 17.08.080, a noise
source could generate an outdoor CNEL noise level of 70.8 dB and still
comply with the standards. A home could be exposed to an indoor CNEL
noise level of 55.8d8 and the noise source would comply with the standards.
These • levels are well above the typical standards applied to new
developments impacted by transportation noise sources. For this analysis,
an outdoor noise level of 65CNEL and an indoor noise level of 45 CNEL will
be used to demonstrate compliance with the City's noise standards.
The exterior noise ievel can be mitigated to less than 65 CNEL with masonry walls ranging in
height from 5.5 feet to 9.5 feet along the frontage of the projects along Day Creek Boulevard
and the I-210 Freeway, respectively. Since only a subdivision is proposed at this time and
based upon the recommendations of the study by Mestre Greve Associates that building
surfaces will be exposed to noise levels of 67.5CNEL along Day Creek Boulevard and
74.5 CNEL along the I-210 Freeway frontage, any necessary mitigation measures to redure
interior noise levels to City Standards will need to be evaluated when house product is
submitted.
Since the project site is adjacent to the I-210 Freeway, a supplemental analysis by Mestre
Greve Associates (May 8, 2007) was prepared using the Tratfic Noise Model (TMN
methodology). TMN methodology is the standard utilized by Caltrans. The TMN model
yields the same results as the previously discussed CNEL study, stating that masonry walls
of 9.5 feet would provide the necessary sound attenuation to achieve 65 CNEL for Lots 1-5.
Mestre Greve Associates evaluated the effect on sound attenuation for access gates in order
to maintain the slope areas for Lots 1-4. Mestre Greve Associates completed an addendum,
with a pedestrian gate design. The addendum and gate design completed by Mestre Greve
Associates (August 24, 2007) concludes that with the 5-foot access gate design by MGA in a
closed condition and header above with masonry walls maintaining the prescribed height by
the CNEL study, the efficacy of the sound wall would not be detrimentally diminished.
Consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga protocol, both sound studies (CNEL and
TMN methodology) completed by Mestre Greve Associates were evaluated by an
independent third party, Marlund Hale, P.E., Ph.D of Advanced Engineering Acoustics. the
independent third party's evaluation recommended that MGA re-evaluate the affect of the
grade of Day Creek Boulevard on the required sound mitigation measures and confirm the
pad elevations of the subdivision. The report by Mr. Hale additionally recommends that the
noise mitigation measures be re-evaluated with more realistic ADT/vehicle speed
combination that coincides with the Caltrans build-out lane volume at the posted 65 mph
speed and that the pad elevations be verified.
In response to Mr. Hale's comments, MGA adjusted its analysis fora 5 percent grade on
Day Creek Boulevard. MGA found that the total CNEL noise level increased by 0.2 percent
dBA for lots along Day Creek Boulevard. Utilizing the updated data, MGA found that -the
height of the recommended noise barrier did not change. The final report by MGA states that
the Caltrans build-out lane volume tends to under predict noise levels when there is a high
level of nighttime traffic. In conclusion, under most conservative variables, the final analysis
•
\J
•
B&C-61
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 25
•
Less Tian
' ~ SiBmhcant Less
Issues and Su Orfln InfOrmatlOn Sources:
PP 9 Polenoally
SlpniLCam Wnh
Mitigation Than
Sgnilicanr
No
Impact Incor oratetl Impact Im act
by MGA recommends the same wall heights as stated in their first analysis, ranging in height
from 5.5 to 9.5 feet, in order to provide the necessary sound attenuation.
MGA's final report and recommendations were forwarded to Marlund Hale for review.
Mr. Hole's report indicates that although it might be possible to achieve adequate mitigation
with slightly lower wall heights than recommended by MGA, it acknowledges that sound
modeling requires assumptions and projections be made. Mr. Hole's report states that the
conservative modeling used by MGA may be the "appropriate modeling strategy," and further
acknowledges that "MGA's traffic noise predication and mitigation along SR-210 is
conservative, because of stated uncertainties about future traffic projections and from TNM
modeling assumptions and simplifications." Mr. Hale concludes his report by noting the
following with regard to the conservative modeling used by MGA: "These are not considered
to be errors but result from a conservative approach to modeling."
The mitigation measures recommended by MGA will be adhered to. Mitigation measures
listed below would reduce exterior and interior noise levels to less-than-significant levels:
Exterior:
1) A masonry wall, ranging in height from 5.5 feet to 9.5 feet, shall be constructed
along the perimeter of the project for Lots 1 through 11 along Day Creek
Boulevard and the I-210 Freeway frontage in accordance with the sound study
• and Exhibit S7 by Mestre Greve Associates.
Interior:
2) Upon submittal of a Development Review application for house product on the
subdivision, an interior noise analysis will be required demonstrating
compliance with the City's noise standards. The noise analysis shall include any
necessary mitigation measures to reduce interior noise levels to City standards.
b) The proposed subdivision will not induce ground borne vibrations. As such, no impacts are
anticipated. '
c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The proposed
activities from the 23-lot subdivision will not significantly increase traffic; hence, are not
anticipated to increase the ambient, noise levels within the vicinity of the project.
d) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.7) indicates that during a construction phase, on-site
stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment, will
generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to mitigate
the short-term noise impacts:
3) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and
6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday.
4) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in
. Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The
developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as
specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring. at other times may
be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to
B & C-62
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Paqe 26
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g P°'°"tiauy
Significant w""
Mitigation Than
Signitsant
No
Im act Incor orated Im act Impact
the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above
standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If
noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be
reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or
halted.
5) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase.
The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site
construction equipment; however, do not address the potential impacts because of the
transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then
be required:
6) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p. m. and
6:30 a.m. on weekdays. including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed
100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the
developer shall prepare a Noise Mitigation Plan denoting any construction traffic
haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not
pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
ej The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public
airport. The proposed project is located approximately 6.5 miles northeasterly of the Oniario
Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated.
The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of
the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either () () () (/)
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through exterision
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, () () () (/)
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the () () () (/)
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
a) The project, a 23-lot single-family subdivision, is located in a predominantly developed area
and will not induce population growth. To the north and west, are existing single-family
dwelling units constructed on lots of similar size. Construction activities at the site will be
short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. No impacts are anticipated.
b) The project site contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected.
c) The project site is vacant land. No impacts are anticipated.
•
J
•
B & C-63
Initial Study for
Tentative Tract
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga
SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 27
less Than
Slgnilicant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Pwe"navy
signuicam w""
mitiganpn Than
Significant
No
' ~ Impact Inwrp°rated Impact Impaq
13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
er physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? () () () (/)
b) Police protection? () () () (/)
c) Schools? () () () (/)
d) Parks? O O O (/)
e) Other public facilities? () () () (/)
Comments:
•
a) The project site, located at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive,
will be served by Fire Station 173, located approximately 1.25 mile to the south. The project
will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or
cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new
facilities.
l-he City of Rancho Cucamonga's Fire Protection District has adopted Ordinance 39 and,- by
extension as cited in Ordinance 39, the 2001 California Fire Code as the governing
documents by which Fire Construction Services, the plan check arm of the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFD), establishes guidelines and policies. In
Ordinance 39, Section 8 governs the Fire Department Access, which refers to Article 9 of the
2001 Fire Code and the RCFD Standards for Fire Department Access. RCFD Standard 9-7,
under section A(11) specifies that a second means of access shall be provided when
roadways in single-family residential (SFR) developments exceed 600 feet. Since the
proposed subdivision proposes a roadway with a single point of access that measures
approximately 890 feet, approval of an alternative method from the Fire District is required in
order for an exception to be granted.
The applicant applied for an "Application for Alternate Method" because of the subdivision
having only one access point in excess of 600 feet. The Fire Construction Services staff
(Senior Plans Examiner and Plan Check and Inspection Manager), acting in accordance with
Administrative Section of the 2001 Fire Code, Section 103.1.2, placed a condition of approval
(FSC-13 Alternate Method) requiring the installation of fire sprinklers in all homes 'and
garages of the proposed subdivision. This Alternate Method Approval (fire sprinklers) will
provide adequate fire protection in a fire event. This additional fire protection provision is
considered standard mitigation measures when two points of access are not immediately
available. The Fire District's policy for a maximum street length of 600 feet in cut-de-sac
serving single-family dwelling units is standard operation policy; this policy is consistent with
other Fire Departments. Beyond that length, either two points of access or and alternate
method acceptable to the Fire Chief must be provided.
The applicant has obtained a Fire Hydrant Flow Letter. from the Cucamonga Valley Water
District citing that the normal static operating pressure ranges from 46 pounds per square
inch (p.s.i.) to 36 p.s.i. for this location; at the time the test was performed, the residual water
pressure was 36 p.s.i. Afire flow test was performed on June 14, 2006, with a 4-inch outlet
B&C-64
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 28
Less Than
' ~ SlgniUCarn Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Pnie"tlauy
SigniLCant w""
Mwgation Than
SigmLCant
No
mpdC1 OCOmOla~ed Impact ImoaQ
that yielded 1,873 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). The calculated fire flow at 20 p.s.i. would yield
3,137 g.p.m. Section 4.1 and Table A-III-A-1 of Division III, Fire Protection, Appendix III-A of
the 2001 California Fire Code requires flow rate of 2,000 g.p.m. for single-family dwelling
units up to 6,200 square feet. The flow requirement can be reduced up to 50 percent when
the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system (Section 4.1,
Exception). Since the proposed subdivision has been conditioned to provide fire sprinklers
on every lot, the fire flow requirement of 2,000 g.p.m. can be reduced to 1,000 g.p.m; at a
calculated rate of 3,137 g.p.m. at 20 p.s.i., the available fire flow rate exceeds 300 percent of
the minimum requirement.
Fire Construction Services, Planning, Engineering, and Traffic Departments concur that a
master-planned stub street connection provides the best approach to community design for
the following reasons: 1) Ultimately, there is a real opportunity to provide two points of
access for enhanced fire safety and optimum circulation for the proposed subdivision, a
portion of the existing subdivision to the west and for any proposed subdivision on the
adjacent partial to the north; 2) The proposed layout incorporates a master plan concept by
analyzing the entire 11.3 acre area comprised of three parcels, thereby meeting the goals
and objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and 3) The
proposed subdivision rnakes good land planning serise and will minimize the amount of
four-way local-to-local intersections on an adjacent local street.
When the parcel to the north of the subdivision is developed, a stub street connection will be
in place that will provide an opportunity for two points of access to Saddle Tree Place for the
proposed subdivision and any future residential development on the vacant parcel to the
north. For the reasons outlined and discussed above, no adverse impacts are anticipated.
b) .Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not charlge the
pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in
property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled.
c) The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District serve the
project area. Both school districts have been notified regarding the proposed development.
A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay the Schodl Impact Fees.
With this standard mitigation, impacts to the School Districts are not considered significant.
No impacts are anticipated.
d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
nearest park is located approximately .5 mile from the project site at the northeast corner of
Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street. The project will not require the construction of any
new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service,
which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will
require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated.
e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area,
currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the
construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in
the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Cumulative
development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According
to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9.9), the projected increase in library space under the
General Plan will not meet the projected demand. The General Plan FEIR identified the
cumulative impact on library services as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The
proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the EIR was prepared and
•
J
•
B & C-65
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Paae 29
•
Less Tnan
$iBmlicant Less
Issues and Su ortrn Information Sources:
PP g Pp~anrany
Signilicant With
Mitipauon Than
significant
Nc
Impact Inver orate0 Impact Impact
impacts evaluated. Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City has planned a new
library within the Vii;toria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square
feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at build-out of the City.
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional () () (/) ( )
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require () () () (/)
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities,
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Comments:
a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
nearest park is located approximately .5 mile from the project site at the northeast corner of
Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street. The proposed single-family subdivision will not
cause a significant increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. A standard
condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. The impact
is considered less-than-significant.
r1
LJ
b) See a) response above.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: --~
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in () () () (/)
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, cr congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of () (j () (/)
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either () () () (/)
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature () () () (/)
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () () (/)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? () () () (/)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs () () () (/)
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Comments:
a) Implementation of the proposed 23-lot single-family subdivision project will generate
220 average vehicle trips daily. The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each
single-family dwelling unit will generate 9.57 trips daily. As noted in the General Plan FEIR
B & C- 66
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 30
Less Than
Significam Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Pma"tiauy
Significam w""
Mitigation than
Sgnificant
No
Impact Incor orated Impact Im act
(Section 5.5), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho
Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the
FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is substantially
developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will
not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, traffic volume, or congestion
at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb,
gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. In
addition, the City has established a Transportation Development Fee that must be paid by
the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway
improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No impacts are anticipated.
b) The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that the proposed 23-lot, single-family
dwelling unit will generate 23 two-way peak hour trips daily. In November 2004,
San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension which requires local
jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on development for their fair share toward regional
transportation improvement projects. On May 18, 2005, the City of Rancho Cucamonga
adopted a Comprehensive Transportation Fee Schedule updating these development impact
fees. As a result, the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency waived the
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis reporting requirement. This
project will be required, as a condition of approval, to pay the adopted transportation
development fee prior to issuance of building permits. The project is in an area that is
substantially developed with all street irprovements existing. The project will not negatively
impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will he required to
provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site.
No impacts are anticipated.
c) Located approximately 6.5 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the
flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated.
d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide
street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. The
project design does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses.
The project will, therefore, not create a substantial increase in hazards because of a design
feature. No impacts are anticipated.
e) The governing land use document for the project is the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Day
Creek Neighborhood. The land planning aspect of a single-family subdivision must
effectively balance adopted Development Standards and respect Design Guidelines and
Design Policies. In order to accomplish this, the existing built environment from previously
approved subdivisions must be taken into account.
As noted, the site falls within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, just outside the boundaries of
the Rancho Etiwanda planned development, a 1,238 residential unit development approved
by the County in May 1991, and subsequently annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
The streets surrounding the project site were installed when the Rancho Etiwanda area was
mass graded, infrastructure was installed, and adjacent subdivisions were built. The
proposed subdivision (Tentative Tract 18032) is bordered to the west by Tract 14522 and to
the north by, Tract 14493-1. Both of these bordering subdivisions received Tentative Map
approvals in the County of San Bernardino, and after the Rancho Etiwanda area was
annexed into the City and a Development Agreement was executed, both maps received final
approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and were recorded in 2002. Since the project
site is surrounded by developments that were not processed in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga's Development Review process, the City has been processing subsequent
•
u
B & C-67
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 31
•
Less Than
' Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g omemiany
Significant w,tn
Mnigavon Tnan
slgnircam
No
Impact ncolpolaled Impact Impact
projects in the Day Creek Neighborhood under the goals and objectives the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, the Development Code and General Plan, balancing the objectives of these
documents while being guided by existing infrastructure (circulation, drainage facilities).
Section 10.2.4 in Chapter 3 of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) discusses the
importance of master planning. In that Section, the ENSP notes that "the intent of a master
plan is to provide for integrated development at the earliest possible time in the review
process. Through a master plan, there is an opportunity to coordinate the efforts of single or
multiple property owners and discourage piecemeal development" (ENSP III-17). In Section
11.1, Design Guidelines of the ENSP states that "access shall comply with City access
regulations and shall not conflict with other planned or existing points of access. Two points
of access shall be provided for all residential developments. Cul-de-sacs and temporary
(partial streets) shall not be permitted to exceed 600 feet in length" (ENSP III-21). Using the
similar language and having parallel goals, the City's Development Code in Section
17.08.090C-3 under Access and Circulation states the following:
'The access and circulation should be designed to provide a safe and efficient system for
vehicles and pedestrians. Points of access shall comply with City access regulations and
shall not conflict with other planned or existing access points. Two points of access shall be
provided for all but the smallest residential developments. The circulation system should be
designed to reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minirrlize impacts on
adjacent properties, combine access where possible, and provide adequate maneuvering
areas. Curvilinear streets are encouraged whenever possible.
Additionally, Development Code Section 17.08.090C-17 under Subdivision Design indicates
the following guidelines: 1) Provide two means of ingress and egress; 2) Curvilinear streets
are to be used whenever possible. Avoid a grid pattern; 3) If the tract is bordered or
surrounded by undeveloped land, prepare a conceptual subdivision plan for those properties
to indicate that logical circulation and drainage can occur; 4) Avoid four-way, local-to-local
intersections; 5) The maximum length for cut-de-sacs is six hundred feet.
Development Code Section 17.08.050C-4 under Absolute Policies requires that "the project
provides adequate access for emergency vehicles." Section 2.6.1.5.5 of the General Plan
states the following policy: "Development for properties of sufficient size should be designed
through some form of master planning device."
As discussed above, Tentative Tract 18032 must balance multiple policies, design guidelines,
and meet specific standards and absolute policies, while at the same time working with the
constraints of the surrounding built environment and circulation patterns. Where possible,
improvements to the existing built environment should be made. Listed below are the design
components of proposed subdivision that meet the guidelines discussed above
t
• Logical connection to existing circulation patterns
• Curvilinear streets; no grid pattern
• Adherence to natural topography and drainage patterns
•
• Lot layouts and sizes matching or exceeding the surrounding area
B & C-68
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 32 .
Less Tnan
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 Ppfemiany
Significant wnn
Mitigation man
Significarn
No
Impact Incpmorated Impact Innact
Master planning of adjacent 3.6 acre parcel with logical stub street that will ultimately
provide two points of access for the proposed subdivision and a portion of two
bordering subdivisions
Provision of Alternate Method (Fire Sprinklers) in lieu of two points of access
Listed below are the design components of the subdivision that do not meet the above
discussed goals:
Provision of two points of access for the proposed subdivision at onset
Stub street with length in excess of 600 feet
Since the subdivision has two components that do not meet the Design Guidelines of the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, an alternate method must be provided in order ±o ensure public
safety and fire prevention and suppression. Under the Administrative Section of the 2001
Fire Code, Section 103.1.2 authorizes the Fire Chief to "approve alternate materials or
methods provided that the Chief finds that the proposed design, use or operation
satisfactorily complies with the intent of this code and that the method of work performed or
operation is, for purpose intended, at least equivalent to that prescribed in this coda in quality,
strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety." The applicant has designed the
subdivision to provide a stub street connection so that when the parcel to the north is
developed at some point in the future, two points of access will be proe~ide for the proposed
subdivision (Tentative Tract 18032), a portion of Tract 14522 to the west, and for a future
subdivision on the adjacent parcel to the north. In the interim period between development of
the vacant parcel to the north and development of the proposed subdivision, an appropriate
alternate method must be provided.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga's Fire Protection District has adopted Ordinance 39 and, by
extension as cited in Ordinance 39, the 2001 California Fire Code as the governing
documents by which Fire Construction Services, the plan check arm of the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFD), establishes guidelines and policies. In
Ordinance 39, Section 8 governs the Fire Department Access, which refers to Article 9 of the
2001 Fire Code and the RCFD Standards for Fire Department Access. RCFD Standard 9-7,
under section A(11) specifies that a second means of access shall be provided when
roadways in single-family residential (SFR) developments exceed 600 feet. Since the
proposed subdivision proposes a rcadway with a single point of access that measures
approximately 890 feet, approval of an alternative method from the Fire District is required in
order for an exception to be granted.
The applicant applied for an "Application for Alternate Method" because of the subdivision
having only one access point in excess of 600 feet. The Fire Construction Services staff
(Senior Plans Examiner and Plan Check and Inspection Manager), acting in accordance with
Administrative Section of the 2001 Fire Code, Section 103.1.2, placed a condition of approval
(FSC-13 Alternate Method) requiring the installation of fire sprinklers in all homes and
garages of the proposed subdivision. This Alternate Method Approval (fire sprinklers) will
provide adequate fire protection in. a fire event. This additional fire protection provision is
considered standard mitigation measures when two points of access are not immediately
available. The Fire District's policy for a maximum street length of 600 feet in cul-de-sacs
serving single-family dwelling units is standard operation policy; this policy is consistent with
other Fire Departments. Beyond that length, either two points of access and/or alternate
method acceptable to the Fire Chief must be provided.
u
•
B & C-69
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 33
,r~
u
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP g Polontlany
SigniLCant wan
Mitigation Tnan
significant
No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
The applicant has obtained a Fire Hydrant Flow Letter from the Cucamonga Valley Water
District citing that the normal static operating pressure ranges from 46 pounds per square
inch (p.s.i.) to 36 p.s.i. for this location; at the time the test was performed, the residual water
pressure was 36 p.s.i. Afire flow test was performed on June 14, 2006, with a 4-inch outlet
that yielded 1,873 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). The calculated fire flow at 20 p.s.i. would yield
3,137 g.p.m. Section 4.1 and Table A-III-A-1 of Division III,,Fire Protection, Appendix III-A of
the 2001 California Fire Code requires a flow rate of 2,000 g.p.m. for single-family dwelling
units up to 6,200 square feet. The flow requirement can be reduced up to 50 percent when
the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system (Section 4.1,
Exception). Since the proposed subdivision has been conditioned to provide fire sprinklers
on every lot, the fire flow requirement of 2,000 g.p.m. can be reduced to 1,000 g.p.m; at a
calculated rate of 3,137 g.p.m. at 20 p.s.i., the available fire flow rate exceeds 300 percent of
the minimum requirement.
Fire Construction Services, Planning, Engineering, and Traffic Departments concur that the
proposed subdivision with its master-planned stub street connection provides the best
approach to community design for the following reasons: 1) Ultimately, when the parcel to
the north undergoes development in the future, there is a real opportunity to provide two
points of access for enhanced fire safety and optimum circulation for the proposed
subdivision, a portion of the existing subdivision to the west and for any proposed subdivision
on the adjacent partial to the north; 2) the proposed layout incorporates a master plan
concept, thereby meeting the goals and objectives of the Development Code and the
• Etiwanda North Specific Plan; 3) the proposed subdivision makes good land planning sense
and will minimize the amount of four-way, local-to-local intersections on an adjacent local
street; 4) the proposed lot layout of the subdivision and the master plan for the vacant parcel
to the north reflects a circulation pattern that would be sought after if the entire 11.3 acre
were being subdivided; and 5) the condition to provide fire sprinklers for all homes on every
lot as an Alternate Method will provide adequate fire suppression in the event of a fire.
Although the subdivision could be redesigned to provide a loop street that provides two points
to Saddle Tree Place, this would require afour-way, local to local intersection, which would
not be consistent with stated design guidelines. Additionally, a loop street for the proposed
subdivision would result in the 3.6 acre parcel to the north having no future opportunity to
connect to a stub street and fulfill the two points of access requirement in a logical manner.
As the Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires, the 3.6 acre parcel would have to be designed
with two points of access, with one point of connection midpoint at Vintage Drive, which is
less than ideal for land planning and traffic circulation reasons. Therefore, the master plan
design will ultimately provide two points of access for the proposed subdivision and for future
residential development on the parcel to the north without compromising public safety in the
interim period. When the parcel to the north of the subdivision is developed, a stub street
connection will be available that will ultimately provide two points of access for the proposed
subdivision and a future residential project on the adjacent 3.6 acre parcel, while limiting the
occurrences of four-way local to local intersections and adhering to good traffic circulation
practices. For the reasons outlined and discussed above, no adverse impacts are
anticipated.
f) The project design has adequate parking in compliance with standards- of. the Rancho
Cucamonga Development Code and will, therefore, not create an inadequate parking
• capacity. No impacts are anticipated.
g) The project design includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting
transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.).
B&C-70
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 34
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 Ppiemany
Sipnifcam wan
Mi~igation Than
Significam
No
Irrpad Incompra~etl Impact Impact
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the () () () (/)
applicable Regional Wafer Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or () () () (/)
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water O O O (/)
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the () () () (/)
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment () () () (/)
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to () () () (/)
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and () () () (/)
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
a) The proposed project is served by the CVW D Sewer system, which has waste treated by the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho
Cucamonga. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated.
b) The proposed project is served by the CVW D Sewer system, which has waste treated by the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga
and RP-1 located within the City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. The project is
required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board
regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated.
c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to
handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official
and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered
significant.
d) The CVWD provides water treatment, storage and distribution of domestic water to Rancho
Cucamonga and portions of the cities of Ontario and Fontana, and a tract in Upland. The
current daily water usage in the CVW D service area is approximately 41.7 million gallons per
day (mgd). Residential water use amounts to about 60 percent of the total water consumed.
Landscaping (public and private) is the next largest consumer of water at 20 percent.
Under Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), Water Supply Assessments are required for projects that
exceed the following sizes: 1) Residential development of more than 500 dwelling units;
2) shipping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having
more than 500,000 square feet; 3) commercial office buildings employing more than
•
•
•
B&C-71
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Pape 35
•
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: sgmr ant Mn gown sig fi zm Nn
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet; 4) hotel or motel having more than
500 rooms; 5) industrial, manufacturing, processing plant, or industrial park housing more
than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than
650,000 square feet; 6) mixed use project including one or more of the projects specified
above; 7) any other project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater
than the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling unit project; and 8) any project that
accounts for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of existing service connections
for a public water system. Under SB 221, a Water Supply Assessment is required when:
1) A project that is a residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; 2) a project that
accounts for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of existing service connections
for a public water system; and 3) applies to development agreements that Include such
subdivision.
The City has determined that the project does not meet one of the requirements; therefore, a
Water Supply Assessment is not required. The project is served by the CVW D water system.
There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to
serve this project. No impacts are anticipated.
e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga
and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which are at capacity. No impacts are
anticipated.
•
f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the
refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal
needs.
g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid
waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures
consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
•
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality () () (/) ( )
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually () () () (/)
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will () () () (/)
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
B&C-72
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Mao SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Pape 36
Less Than
Significant Less
Issues and Su ortin Information Sources:
PP 9 F^ta^tially
Signiflcant wpm
Mitigation than
Significant
No
fmpaCt InCD!^ofaletl ImDaCt Impact
Comments
a) The project site is located in an area substantially developed with residential and commercial
uses. The site has been slightly disrupted from construction of infrastructure and surrounding
developments. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General
Plan FEIR, the project site is within an area of sensitive biological resources. According to
Exhibit IV-3 of the General Plan, the project site is located in an area that has been identified
as potential Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Habitat, which has been known to .support several
sensitive species including, but not limited to, the California Gnatcatcher and the San
Bernardino Kangaroo Rat.
The project site is fragmented from much larger parcels of land to the north that have been
specifically identified as prime Alluvia Fan Sage Scrub habitat and set aside for open space
and conservation purposes. The City, in cooperation with the County of San Bernardino, has
set aside approximately 1,900 acres of land for conservation purposes for Alluvial Fan Sage
Scrub Habitat. further, an additional 1,000 acres has been proposed for cgnservation
purposes. Since the project site is small (7.74 acres) and surrounded on all sides by
single-family dwelling units, local roads and a freeway, the parcel does not represent prime
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat, and, therefore, is not a good or necessary area for
conservation. Also, the project site is not subject to active flooding, which is necessary for
Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub to maintain itself. The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect
rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of its fragmentation and lack of
connectivity to other prime parcels that have been set aside for conservation purposes.
Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and
street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site.
The impact is considered less-than-significant.
b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the
site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2001 General
Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a
Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of
build-out in the City and Sphere-of-Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the
General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to aggregate resources, prime
farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual
resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they
would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, the City adopted a
Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the
General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by
developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian friendly and conservation of valuable
natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no
further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required.
c) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies
construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact.
Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts
resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities
were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with
the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial
Study will ensure impacts are at less-than-significant levels.
•
•
B & C-73
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 37
• EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one
or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for -this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier
analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply):
(/) General Plan FEIR
(SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001)
{/) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(/) Etiwanda North Specific Plan EIR
(SCH #89012314, certified April 1, 1992)
(/) Etiwanda North Specific Plan
(Adopted April, 1992)
(/) Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 18032
{Mestre Greve Associates, June 22, 2007)
• (/) Supplemental Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 18032 (TNM Methodology)
(Mestre Greve Associates, May 8, 2007)
(~) Supplemental Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 18032 (Pedestrian Gate Access)
(Mestre Greve Associates, August 24, 2007)
(/) Third Party Review of Noise Analysis for Tentative Tract 18032
(Marlund Hale, Ph.D. P.E., August 31, 2007)
(/) Response to Third Party Review of Sound Study for Tentative Tract 18032
(Mestre Greve Associates, September 19, 2007)
(/) Third Party Review of MGA Response Report dated September 19, 2007)
(Marlund Hale, Ph.D. P.E., October 18, 2007)
(/) Water Quality Management Plan for Tentative Tract 18032
(MDS Consulting, October 2006)
(/) Arborist Report for Tentative Tract 18032
(PCR Services Corporation, September 2006)
(/) URBEMIS 2007 Study
(PCR, January 2008)
•
B&C-74
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 Page 38
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have
read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or
proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a oint where clea I no si i ant environmental effects would occur.
% /~
Signature: ~ ti Dater
Print Name and Title: l`~ re ( ~~ `-'
2r
u
•
•
B & C-75
ro: Ureg Lukosky, Peninsula Retail Partners DATE: January 3?, ZUOS
CG Bob Zoller, MDS Cons t
FRDM: tteidi Rolls, CPP ~ ~ -
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 1 -RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOCUSED AIR QUALITY IMPACT STUDY
BACI:GROUND
The C:iiy of Rancho Cucan~onga prepared an lniua] Study {IS) for the praposed prgjecl in May,
2006. The Cetitial Study relied upon the Rancha t;ucatnatga General Plan lJpdate FIR, which was
completed in .tune 1(701, to asses's the potc:ntitil regional air impacts. Tha General Plan Update .GTR
examined environmenuil impacts ai a progrannnatie, rather than a project level, idcnt.ifyin~; potential
significant impacts to air quality arising from both cansttuction activities and operation. Since dtat
EIR was' completed, URBEMIS, the modeling soft+vare that estimates air pallution, has been
updated. Charles Blanlson of the Sauth Coast Air Quality Marta<=entenE District (SCAQMD)
conunented on DE;c:ember ~, 2007 that UR$EMTS 7G is no longer accepted by the Agency, and that
• the URBEMIS 2007 made] run would be required to confirm that the project emissions would not
violate any air qualify standard or worsen existing air yuality. Conscyuently, PCK was contrac[ed to
perform a facused air quality impact swdy, using the updated ORBGMIS model. The results of
these analyses are given below.
PT20JGCT UT;+CRIPTION/ASSUA4PTIONS
Based on the data provided, the following assumptions were used as inputs to the URBEIv1iS model.
Construction
• Cansuuction will occur in two phases over six months
o Site preparation anti building foundation will require ZS months (default
assumption)
o Building erection and Fnishing will reyuire ?.~ months (default assumption)
• 13,400 cubic yards will br~itnparted during site preparation (From the Tentative Tract
Map prepared b'y MUS Consulting)
• The site will be.watered twice daily to control fugitive dust, pursuant to SC.4QMD
Rule 403 {matutatonr compliance)
• Na more than ~ acres will be ~~raded concurrently.(assumption)
• The analysis does not include the mitigation measures outlined in-the E[R; therefore,
actual consttvetion emissions will be lower. (to analyze worst-case)
B & C-76
Memorandum
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 18032- RANCHO CDCAMONGA FOCUSED
AIR QUALITY IMPACT STUDY
Operation
• 23 Single family homes (From the Tentative Tract Map prepared by MDS
Consulting)
• I.O~ acres will be paved (From the Tentative Tract Map prepared by MDS
Consulting}
AIR QUALITY ih1PACT ASSESSMTrNT
PCR conducted an analysis to determine whetlier the Project's construction or operation would
result in signifcant air quality .impacts. 'the analysis was conducted using 5CAQMD's
recotnmende8 CEQA emissions inventory model'(CJRBEAQIS 2007) and Signi6catice Criteria, in
accordance with SCAQA'ID guidance.
Regional construction emissions are based on the analysis of a worst-case day, and are given in
Table 1. As Table l .shows, the unmiti'~ated emissions associated with the I'rnject's constriction are
below the regional significance thresholds. Project operation emissions are given in Table 2, As
Table 2 shows, the unmitigated emissions associated with the Project's operation are below the .
regional sigtificance thresholds.
-rat>le t
Coustruction Emissions' (pounds/day)
Stage.__ ---~- ~0~-- VCtC__ __PR~i,o" _ PR9L CO SU~_
12egional Emissions
Masi Site Grading {mnnths) 60 6 I4 ~ ?9 <I
Building ErectiarilFinishing (mnmhs) 3S 21 3 3 27 Gl
Maximum Regional Emissions 6U 2t '1'4 5 '_9 <t
Regional C,onstittcrion Daily
SignificanceThzcshold IUU 7i 150 5a '550 150
Ovort{tlndcrj (40) (SQ) (136) (SO) (521) {i50)
Exacted Threshold? No No No No Nn No
Compiled tusiug the URBFMIS l(107emissinns inremm~~ model.
" PMja eraisciorx estimates are hared nn rnmylumce frith 5'CAQHID Ride 4(13 r¢quiremena far fugitive dust
supprecsiori.
Source: PCR Services Corpbrn«an, 10717, -
PCR Services Corporation Page 2 January 23, 20D6
B & C-77
• Memorandum
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 18032- RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOCUSED
- AIR QUALITY IMPACT STUDY
'fatrle 2
Ynijecl-Rclafed Operariunul"E missions'
F,mission Snurcc ~ VOC ...... N[)\~_ „_ __CCI.._..... _._SO~__.. _._ .Y'\Zro ~'ihzs.._
I'rnYosed Use Emissions
Ma6ile 3 5 31 D 4 l
Area 5 1 ~ tD sl ? 1
sla[1(lnar)+ 'K( K.t Ct Kt 'mot <t
Total° - S 6 ' 41 <] S 2
SCAQAtDSigniGcance Threshold SS 55 55D 150 150 55
Difference ~ (97} (49) {509) ''(150) 0145) f53j
Significant't No \o No Nb ~ No No
•
A9obile and nraa cvnicsinns m~e caletrlatarl using the UltBEA~1fS? 00? crnixciaa+' mode! A r¢a sources inc4rde
nanrral gas canvumptiarr, fmrrlscape fire! cnncunaptimt, rr~siden[i61 cunnrmer products mad naisrel/tnreates
.raurces {e.g.. anroag a[her things, comrnerera! .ruluenr u5rrge, are/nrecturtr/ coatings). Emfssiutts due ra
Prajrsci-refa[ed-electricirv generation are urzlctttaretf based as l;zr idurrce prnridsd ire [he SCAc~A~lD C'EUA Air
O(lalip' lfandf)Ft6{.
Tola(s mny rtat.arfd ap exactly r6re to rgnrrding.
Sotmre: PGRSetvicee Carpan[ion. ?01t9.
In addition, localized significance thresholds (LST} were adopted by the SCAQMD in 2005. LSTs .
represent the maxunum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedancc
of the most stringent federal or state ambient air quality standard at tire. nearest receptor. LSTs are
set based on ambient concentrations in t}ie project area, the project size, and distance 4o the closest
sensitive receptors. Localized construction impacts were not anah2ed in the City's GP E1 R.
Although the IS for this project did not include LSTs,,in consultation with Clte City, P-CR pcrfomted
the localized. ana}ysis. Local construction emissions are given in `fable 3. (~s Tab1e 3 shows, the
emissions associated with the Prgjcct's construction are hclow the localized significance thresholds,
and impacts ai dte nearest off-site sensitive receptor is expected to be lessthan si~mificant.
"I"he Project construction and operaiignat emissions are helow regional anti localized significance
thresholds for criteria potluiants. The project must implement. the mitigation measures set forth in
[he Ciri''s plans and policies, including the GP EII2, "~hich will tiirther reduce actual emissions.
• -
PCR Services Corporation Page 3 January 23, 2008
B & C-78
Memorandum-
RE: TENTATIVE TRACT 18032- RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOCUSED
AIR QUALJTY IMPACT STUDY
Table 3
Construction Emissions' (pounds/da?•)
Stagc ~ _... --_ ---NO~_ _ VOC 1'A1ro _ YMds__. ---CO--- ~ ---5~~ -
Locatized Emissinns - -
Mass~SiteGrading{mortlu} 45 5 I4. ., ?t <I
Buildigg Eeeetiow'Fi~nishing (months} 36 20 3 3 ~ 17 <I
ilSaximutn Localized Emissions -05 20 1'4 S Zl <I
Localized Signifcance Threshn(ds` §72 - 1.6 9 1,858 -
Oved(Undcr}Th[eshold, (42?j - (2) (5} (1,837} -
L-xcetdThreshold?~ ~ No - - ~ No No No -
Crimpfled using the URBF.MIS ?007enrissions im~cnrnm +nndel-
t• PA~ra emissions estimates are bawd ai courplhrnce xvlh SGl QrY1D Rule 4U? requirenrenAc for fiigi6ve deist
.rupprerrinn.- ~ ~ •
` The SCAUbII) L.ocnli~ed Significance ~Tlvresholds ILSTs/ a+•a hoa•ed on Source Rece~ntnr Ares Nn. ?? {Nnrtlnvesr
San 13er•uadino Palley} for a five acre site widr a ? s meter receptor distance.
Snui•cz: PCR Services Corymratiem, ?0U7.
•
PCR Services Corporation Page 4 January 23, 2008
B&C-79
11!'SS Drtesa PM
II~UAm:s ~'~fl Jws,o ~ ~:
%omDlned VV'1nr0.r Ern5issland REports (pr-untlsiDay!
Fits Name V-.viON01$E DIViSIONiActive Prajecl5`32anr;tttr Gut:;imgnpatUrbCmr55Cnristrrciion and Operatigns uro9
Project Nsnte Ran.hq Gucanatngo ?enE~tivc-Tract No TR032
Pcapect LdE:atlan San BErnadirKi Ccurny
On-Road Vehrt~e Errattse~ts easarl un VerA!rsn Emtx.2t107 V2 3 NOV 1_7006
Ost•R4ad Voh,Cle Ernistsiorts Based nn' OFFROAD200T
ConaeucVOn Oerdlr Reporr
CONSTRUCT ION EMtSStON ESTIMRTES tVrsaer Op+ntL PR Dar. Re165a!aC
T rnr Sbce 4tlAp0eay73r)ODa ActrvC
rw. tit
M+rGS OrJdaip Odf01fj004
nMY:JXYW
Mass C:radiry DuBt
tAasd firadin0 UE FkwW Dn•.atl
Mars GrrxS.lg On Road Dberl
Mass fMarLnp WMM tnpa
T,mr sacs Ivlrv2uoE.art424oD
Ww. rM.r. RS
tSuWYp O6'16r20C1&09402QY!
Bu1cLp OE RaW O.vae
BYAIOUtp VandDr Tnpa
61~p Wwux Trtpr
-,m, S+rcr ry'7ROft/`Y'30'1005 Acwc
~ 4tisri-~'.: T•i/111DOB~OL'k~~r-IDd
a.~i~-p (SD-C.a
a. ... .,- ,nom.
E,.riWry 09 RW11 Diesti
BWdnq Vmtlol 7nps
atwdrq WoMa Tips
COaUrt9 E9'O1t2008~09~'762008
ArtY`ibeLrd Cnaaey
Coaellp WnMd Trtaa
R~ W2• ~Q iaQs °~~P,S•4 ~?I'2.i,k!RL9f PMf9 w.t2`Dust RI L SENwan ?*d:d x~7w'
5 66 99_91 ~,]z Q ~ t t J® ~ t~ '~1 ~7 ~-S? S~P,_~Q.03
Ddb 9A 01 1!917 R.SY1 f1JE 286 !s 3a 3.3L $'2 51} 5.E5U 0:7
044 noo oar a44 it 3t 4m tlat z7s D00 xlr 6x1
5 32 44 $7 21.0? R.t13 n W Z.11 233 O trD 2 76 2 /6 .3.Ad&.7D
t.q6 t60B S.bt U02 DDG 0017 fled OR2 057 U.59 i.; &<^.92
309 b16 25n Ono 40f 04+ 702 O.Oa 0.01 O.Ot 76&.16
s is DES +a E4 oas 442 I u t 60 ac+. t u , 66 2.1~t; 30
dt? 7?!H 1069 001 002 t56 76U AUt 145 !d6 2,9f5'77A
3.87 ?1 70 11 de 0d0 000 756 7 St 000 t t2 t d2 1.9ED.Q_'
006 OED 052 406 680 :)0.7 70.1 don 00(5 001 t6E :?
Opt U26 t2E D40 002 601 00."! O4t 041 0:T tt: 26
Jf5.51 7'OCI 2'75 OC•; OiM 202 :.d6 U01 Z59 2d1 3.lt0t 4!'~
X86 16 gp 9Ea OtXt 30: 1 26 t 13 a-UD + td t 1a i,2r 62
4,fe 000 000 OOa 640 000 Upr 17.00 GW nfYl OtA7
234 ti 15 'ki D00 D00 13S t:~ ().R7 lil 111 111LS..'.t
On1 R!52 42:1 000 4U0 007 OA't OIF1 OQ2 042 :?0?
0:07 D76 2N+ OOri 7n7 001 402 0!X~ 40t OOt oti78
6.:2. 22 Hd !669 001 002 t.;,A 160 OCR ids la4 2.&'377c
3.42 7'! 7G '1 /~ 4.00 000 1.56 ' Sf O.Ct1 : 62 t a2 t.998 D:'
4 L10 080 OL^ DIA 440 0.07 043 U47 OW 007 +0812
D,6 cgs t_~e o64 b47 Dnt 4D3 oot eo5 047 tltzd
53.ffi 005 9&' O(A 740 0.00 007 O.OA 0.00 D00 7A.E6
13 rb 400 ow DoD nob 4Od Oeq r: ba o07 bqo Db4
407 005 O~ 000 000 U[>0 DU' 000 OO:I O00 7D ~'
;~~?tus*rs..3ata9u^: _Mi!gr+t~~MS.3~r,
TtYC MUwnry m1ly~aapn nraYU+rs atrpy a' F`h0u. Mac Grad.+9 47t 21tiJE ~ 675r?64D irrtault Mn54 Sr-^ Cs'Pz•eaaUCn Dascr~r+Jar
frx Snd Suiidmp Mr•.snVres Itr_ wmn nt»soc swta!ss 7x r1u.H wNlifmt0 naNa!,bn rkgJCea ~xss+dnS Or
I'e.7 tEi 55W. ah!25 55'*
•
B&C-80
~>~~,Q t
tJ:.31700p 02~ta:56 PirS
~. a:r a;• rc u ; n+megatevl Dxtad Raport
. _ _ _.~ ,. %. EMIS5K1H7 ESTIMATf.S W+rtlrr Pa~K. Prrr : ,wv. tlnnutganA
SuryS6 34Sr 9!t?* C4 ~QY Ek?)0 °.?~.5 ~SY.
.....~n ..., ~ s1.W 6-37 0 f6 t700 017(! OUI> d?D.?G
••: v7n 3.81 03! t3 tX) OD3 , 55 t Jn 6375b
,,,:+rtscaprtQ 'lo Ways Emtmory.
..~cn;arw Prgykt{ 1 t{
_ __. ..rct» _ ,_ ;tr.r.irdti
i:i,watsnrs :1nrTVlSihtM1 6ep.:at7 RDpnn
LS~iTA f1i~NAL EMtSStON E''aTiMAT$b Waflst Ppwtlc per P ay. SManWatcO
~Sg rye RPG NPY CO $02 PMt(1 PrK15 C43
~: a pc tvnry'ri+rvip 2ID 4 !N Y! 47 Q,OC 3 9D 0 ~r j, t 738.9b
.,:+r.s na*~. um9ugle•e) 2.90 • b7 >a •D 0~ D ao n e6 t+t5.o6
'AYlSIO1 W ~Itgi
:.-'11S .YN VICIaf)C t'On![bOn b t7~ $1lr
~`9A lOladtAl QJIQ170 ReNa,p J~CWt Bill'fy11!'7TYN SnW
.:'k"YYLb YO#f Zn•IW Ter7varaox! (F7 d0 - 1Aiarllr
Emtae Yawn Emtae7DDT VZ.3 NO+• ZODB
!a'e V•:e ),t.,. a.crragt.' 'nn ka« lJ nii Type No Un3 s 7n W Trrpc talAt vMe.
. .,,r. s . ~..., i :,. a 3' dne9 arp ifs _ 2]-W ?30 t' 2.Y'3 )7
izD )' :,223 73
,.. n4 '.Le- G{:I:r!" rp ('Wn•CAUMYS' [Satrtnu P1t!bd
.;^.t aac J" 19 7n 9 D2
_..~., T~„~r,-3750 t[q 7n+ SO 40 (' S0
_..;:y frt,U, I751~5T50 IEf 2a! t.0 9LS.5 OS
. *•,. Truer 5)St.~AQ 17M 17 : 09 A6 t 4(7
••. r+aaw Tnri RSM.tO G'007b6 7', DU 7A9 Y,
..ru•-r,;,y:.,[rnrn. iOODt•tL000 b,. 06 D.L' Spo 50D
0..r•F MIYVy ~tnq{ 1617D7.13 (CIQ 71}F 09 Db 111 89.Q
-'.~:,:, „p,,.), roar 3),nOt •aO.DOd ro. r ~ o e n n :m n
a~.e,.: n' :.n nn ,t77cra
rnwr Bra. DO 0.0 U.0 OD
C3a4xGVU[ • ' ~ Q 261 D_t)
Ref.dsrlri ~~.l rtTlfC~Y
(t'S~TP.vf OAt F10a1F SrC(+ Yb R~-~Rtl~ ~O ~arTJ(P Hp-~'ND~R (~1gSJrf1!!
. ..~"*w, ~ru'c ~r•su•vr 127 Tn 9.5 ri3 !d B.5
~,=:Misr<+!a.,Dm rn•k!si t)b t; t N.9 756 96 12$
:: .[>"";rn,prti 3D0 Y)r, 36.D 30.0 ]CO 50.0
RC•,brattrNl 12 D t5 L 64 t
i . ... .. n...c,:r' 1.. INnn user
r-~
U
•
•
B&C-81
t~ 02x4:62 PM
UrDem~s ~ '0? V'eryur ~. y.
GcnlWited Summer Emissions RepoRS iPOUrtasni ay i
Filce Naar YWOMOISE DIVISIgNWctive PrUN1CtslRarfCtq CucarnongafUrbemistEonstrucuat and Operaipns urD9
Pr01eCl Name Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Trace No 18032
P~geC Location. San Bem3dirtp Courtly
Qr~-Road vehicle Emissiats Based on Venwn F.rttfac?D0~ V23 Nov t 2006
pN-Road vehicle Emissi4r+s Based on OFFRQAD200T
mnaixtmn tdrtgatn7 Oefail RcpM
C?NSTtaUCTIpN EhIP55tON 6TNA4TL'S 5rnme Pa nm Px+ D:ry. 4NYppeO
t ma Sins u117a0tl-S4tJYl(ge ACt•.e 6a6 SS.~ 19.77. ~ t, t~.i$ 2:~ Lf..3i •~...~4 2~ ,'fit ?. ~,gSO. Q~
r>•,.. Ra
Man S-,raWy Oa+W.'2006-
M
1
'
t• 6 at5 59 n, 29 12 Pat t i 36 $.L4= 14.3A 2.99 2 ?2 5 11 :.dri0..09
f
V
4:
Mn
enaxsGrx9nl;Dwt ooD o~ aoo O.ari t?.at rix It at 236 aoD ISD a.DD
Mass Crtueprq D8 RnBtl Diesel 5:12 a; 87 21 02 a QO 000 ? :L3 233 O.OU 2 t4 2. t4 3.)t48.?R
Mans Grot9np On Roo6 Lhesel 106 t a Dtl 5 9s 002 a # 0 2'~ O ti8 O.tk' o.ST 059 1, 752 412
Masx; C,aaOr+tl Y4atkte 7trpR 0 tl9 tl t0 2 O9 0,00 a at G .!'t 0 a2 L' Oa 0 P7 0 Ot 348 Sa
7rmt: Sw:e Er16+iKtDd~&29fCfK1B 412 22,M tOWO OOt &CG ? 5A 1 K: 00f 7 45 t 4D 2.50± J8
ANiyn rmvc SF
6Wf+ri.'t[}06a!&'IOOfl-OQrx0t2t%}D 41'2 :a. 64 t6b'H D.D? +~02 `•SA tQ0 UOi t. 45 146 7.50?.3N
St~tUn'j paRo:M Dx.78F 377 2t .TO t t J!8 0.00 0 Ot7 ! 5.t I 'rA D.DD t 42 112 t.UBtl.OL
'1sAlWq Yer+bx TS{DF U.C6 068 U32 0.00 OpD OC:: q07 900 7.03 0.07 100 f7
~t3ng sYUn:a raps Ut4 D26 428 D.DO 002 QO! 0fi3 C01 OU• DO2 ;tt 7;
Torte Stcr &-tQ^d1}.9:7Q'Yt7U6 R[tivC x0~ 3100 Z" 95 D qt C O4 2 t!_' .8h 9 4t 2.59 7 8t 7.86 t N6
. N.>~x--~ txcti'?roF-t1496?'JOB 2 W u.g0 9.61 D.00 Om ,.2; 1 Z5 0-07 1 +e t fa t?;S4
... ~. ;v~.,a~,
-.~ : 0t7 0.00 0.00 0.00 POD 0OC OW 0r>t? 040 000 GUG
~..acl Dresm
^
~ Ll9 a t5 735 0.00 0.00 + a • 2t 000 t t, t n 9(8.51
R~;;b Duel
~t D4; 06": 023 O.DO ODC G'w7 043 C. of 002 P02 72.65
',~ .-•_.-7r•ps OD' CU 2.18 OW 031 Fi a: UC2 Oaf On? 001 'tti 29
::.;-~.., •F.tsra>ao9~wzaas . f2 22 a tt 6e o Dt o x *.:~+ , Da Dot ? as t a6 Iso? >s
s.Axs„W+an Rosd Dmr,N 3 92 21 ro ,tee o 00 P of t Sa + v aDD ~ 42 t .2 : ge6 02
9tatdstO Yeroor 7nJ6 DD6 C66 032 O.W OOU 0:,^. OC3 000 007 003 108 f:
&r14nO tY0tta Tn66 Oti 026 a28 0.07 U.ff2 OO? O:J DOt 00! DN 4t12a
~oitrtq 04YC1.^ea060P302006 131LS 006 0 ~ 0.00 a.(>o 0 4" U Ut 000 000 D 00 ~ 78 ffi
J~dsfeary Coolrt0 19 83 0 OD U 00 0 UD a 00 U OU i7 n0 U 00 O 00 000 000
~.,neb/S7 Wpr4er Trgs O a3 COS 092 Q OD V 0.t C.' n7 O Ot 000 O W 000 7p 8%~
Y<xtstn,ctrOn Re4tletl ~L9SIhC+~uSP~!»"'3
*nr rNbwmtp tidtga9pr nk`ura+ea appiY b Wia9e Af iM Ciredlllp of f. X006 - (J7 S'1008 • DQ1dUM M64: S~k` GrA7utg7E R_OVlrhon DN:cTq;c='ns'
Fn! ;xM Smt4.evg r4tu;ues, 6r0 9Y(IIP mpOtiRRt SUltet.YA• 3a Owly waNennV 1?tlt7D.llbn tcQuteS 9ntt5itOtn W
pAitO SCig, pR125 55"/u
•
B&C-82
':'a~8
v2372008 02 ~ 10 12 PM
~~cr .;ur.~ ~,;~mWa'.fY7 C:ebn kraMt
• .... .. ~.:~ _~ EMISSK?tV fST+MArFS Srrm ,er q'Ylde Par DaY. lJrrnapau!C
~^flrSS ~~t ~ 4~ ,~Z.Z t'rnt0 PM?.5 L9,Z
Nn+wn .'.n- OW 077 0'.5 000 Ofl4 OOO 17928
rtcar^ N~.. ~....+rv,rr Enusaxx.
~a.tesc:s~e ono o m + t t o m a ~c7 r. oo , a
:,mntnrter P;apfICK 1 18
T[~; 4: az•as, ~.~ ,~;ir<n. t 51 o a. ., _.. __ ., :..
i:hl:'a:r.~r~~t~ nor s. r; l'~-.I : k'~~' lei.::!-ri
-,:'€~al ~_,~•~t, Eb,htirtNa F~1~MATE•:v StarKn err Prk/MS F"er Tar. lrmwWattxi
~s`tMS; RCXi NQX_ ~ S02 PM1U PM25 CrJ7
~!rq;.r^cu-,..-. ;srn,rvS 2-E5 d2'f 37 IY-+ 202 7-~ O.SD 2~45,7t
'^rTAC:IW:1t1>,v~:r':rtnpalaVl 26a <J'1 :7 ~. M7 :?Dl 33F7 C. Y.6 t79b Tt
3:M5 rot rc1Ck>]! ConuRtxr br PiU W/ Vta6
i)O['S IIM rtR'lu(IP pQ111ir~ W W!tlfPi II~eMatldtl kY MMat(Ir ~{
+:~ys3 ti~ex 2008 : dMl#lMtYt If} 8U Sa)Wa: 6HnrMr
[,ntaC Vcsebrr kmrx2007 V2 3 NPV 1 200G
S~nrs~l+xs~ .ua:xs
,.~'.i4e'-nr Acre Mn Trrz•Prm ~,re~ r~,n. rb 4'*TC To ~.r Tnpi ta 4T<YM;
- , ,.. :.. n 2 13373
__;. +t 2 .22373
i ;n• Ay•<, <7 7 , 9 979 02
,. yN~Tnrcw ~:iT:F fay 1Dt 50 90D 5.0
..•:A'Tnrt><]: ~I-STAb Za.C t0 i~5 U,5
sta: tn,a~ 5?!,-45W an 11 2 OB 99 t 0.0
. •P-teav.Trtca,4xf~7o.oaotc, to 40 784 zs t
. sw lMAVV Trunk ,4A(:1-u,000 V1x 04 QO 500 50.0
,•F=}elsarry Trxk t<nn:.:s't,rxn ax 6.9 60 tt1 4180
r.~,u,~,.~avy 7aY;i 330M-6D tX101M t e ae a.o t4o.o
~: ~.a.cr 4s o t oo an tcna
~.~rr~; 4.r. n u oa a c, o a
Ainkl+c}ck t r 7r,b 2« QO
~cttw+~ir n+ co an laoo
K rrsx1mt14M ~;tvraaerp,N
!krwr,ut•. r+nx~5+,u0 }bngOA~ Cart+„nur rJ.~rNWrnx LuSrontCY
_,r.. ,.. .,r, t_"'\r!?~iruN•a. 1i' 7U 9.5 B"s 7< 8.9
f»~.g}p !rq, Lr'Y]Vr br+MFi 1T.4 ,: 1 t<.9 !54 O4 /•L6
'~,t`. aPeem lP+M: 30.0 3Ufi 100 300 3U0 300
?- nt rrp6 . R1!s10lxraY' 32.9 tt1.0 <y e
C~
•
~J
J
B&C-83
_ City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with
the California Environmental Qualify Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18032 AND VARIANCE DRC2007-00097
Public Review Period Closes: April 9, 2008
Project Name:
Project Applicant: Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard,
south of Vintage Drive - APN: 0225-161-65 and 71.
Project Description: A residential subdivision of 23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the
Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and a
request to allow up to 10.5-foot perimeter wall heights for sound attenuation purposes for Lots 1-6
and to allow up to 7.5-foot combination retaining/freestanding side yard wall heights for grade
differential purposes for Lots 1-6 of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032, where amaximum 6-foot wall
height is permitted.
This project was originally scheduled for Planning Commission review on December 12, 2007.
Planning staff received written correspondence from SCAQMD requiring URBEMIS 2007 air quality
• study. An URBEMIS 2007 study has been prepared.
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted, the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Reportwill not
be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial
Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration duringthe review
period.
Aoril9 2008
Date of Determination Adopted By
B&C-84
RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP SUBTT18032, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 23SINGLE-FAMILY
LOTS ON 7.74 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(2-4 DW ELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OFTHE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC
PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD,
SOUTH OF VINTAGE DRIVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 0225-161-65 and 71.
A. Recitals.
1. Peninsula Retail Partners filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. SUBTT18032, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on December 12, 2007,
and was continued to an unspecified date.
3. The item was re-advertised and on April 9, 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 hearing on December 12, 2007, and April 9, 2008, including written and
oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
a. The application applies to the property located on the west side of Day Creek
Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive with a street frontage of approximately 510 feet on Saddle Tree
Place and a lot depth of approximately 530 feet and is presently vacant land; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant arid is zoned Low Residential;
the property to the south is the I-210 Freeway; the property to the east, across Day Creek
Boulevard, is developed with single-family residences and is zoned Low Residential; the propertyto
west is developed with single-family residences and is zoned Low Residential; and
c. All lots of the proposed subdivision meet the minimum 7,200 square foot area
minimum; and
• d. A sound study was completed in order to assess the sound levels because of the
proximity of the I-210 Freeway and Day Creek Boulevard. The sound study concludes that with the
construction of perimeter walls ranging in height from 5.5 to 9.5 feet, exterior noise levels will be in
compliance with City's Development Code. The sound study additionally recommends that when
B & C- 85
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OS-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008 •
Page 2
house product is submitted at future date, a detailed interior noise analysis be completed.
Accordingly, the requirement to install perimeter walls and complete an interior noise analysis upon
the submittal of house product has been included as conditions of approval. Therefore, together
with the conditions applicable thereto, the subdivision will meet the noise requirements of the
Development Code and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
e. The Design Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan state that cul-de-sacs
shall not exceed 600 feet in length. The proposed subdivision includes an 890 foot stub street
design; accordingly, the applicant has applied for an "Application for Alternate Method" because of
the subdivision having only one access point in excess of 600 feet. The Fire Construction Services
staff, acting in accordance with Administrative Section of the 2001 California Fire Code,
Section 103.1.2, has placed a condition of approval (FSC-13 Alternate Method) requiring the
installation of fire sprinklers in all homes and garages of the proposed subdivision. This Alternate
Method Approval (fire sprinklers) will provide adequate fire protection in the event of a fire. This
additional fire protection provision is considered standard mitigation measures when two points of
access are not immediately available. Therefore, the proposed subdivision with the stub street will
ultimately provide two points of access for Tentative Tract 18032 and for future residential
development on the adjacent vacant parcel without compromising public safety in the interim period;
and
f. The applicant has obtained a Fire Hydrant Flow Letterfrom the Cucamonga Valley •
Water District citing that the normal static operating pressure ranges from 46 pounds per square
inch (p.s.i.) to 36 p.s.i. for this location. At the time the test was performed, the residual water
pressure was 36 p.s.i. Afire flow test was performed on June 14, 2006, with a 4-inch outlet that
yielded 1,873 gallons per minute (g.p.m.). The calculated fire flow at 20 p.s.i. would yield
3,137 g.p.m. Section 4.1 and Table A-III-A-1 of Division III, Fire Protection, Appendix III-A of the
2001 California Fire Code requires a flow rate of 2,000 g.p.m. for single-family dwelling units up to
6,200 square feet. The flow requirement can be reduced up to 50 percent when the building is
provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system (Section 4.1, Exception). Since the proposed
subdivision has been conditioned to provide fire sprinklers on every lot, the fire flow requirement of
2,000 g.p.m. can be reduced to 1,000 g.p.m; at a calculated rate of 3,137 g.p.m. at 20 p.s.i., the
available fire flow rate exceeds 300 percent of the minimum requirement. Therefore, adequate fire
flow is available in order to provide public safety; and
g. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan
FEIR, the project site is within an area of sensitive biological resources. According to Exhibit IV-3 of
the General Plan, the project site is located in an area that has been identified as potential Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub Habitat, which has been known to support several sensitive species, including, but
not limited to, the California Gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. However, the
project site is fragmented from much larger parcels of land to the north that have been specifically
identified as prime Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub habitat and set aside for open space and conservation
purposes. Further, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in cooperation with the County of San
Bernardino, has set aside approximately 1,900 acres of land for conservation purposes for Alluvial
Fan Sage Scrub Habitat. An additional 1,000 acres has been proposed for conservation purposes.
Since the project site is small (7.74 acres) and surrounded on all sides by single-family dwelling •
units, local roads and a freeway, the parcel does not represent prime Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
habitat, and, therefore, is not a good or necessary area for conservation. Also, the project site is not
subject to active flooding, which is necessary for Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub to maintain itself. The
B & C-86
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
. April 9, 2008
Page 3
proposed subdivision will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals
because of its fragmentation and lack of connectivity to other prime parcels that have been set aside
for conservation purposes; and
h. The proposed subdivision (Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032) is bordered to the
west by Tract 14522 and to the north, across Vintage Drive, by Tract 14493-1. Both of these
subdivisions received Tentative Map approvals in the County of San Bernardino, and after the
Rancho Etiwanda area was annexed into the City and a Development Agreement was executed,
both maps received final approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and were recorded in 2002.
Since the project site is surrounded by subdivisions that were not processed under the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's Development Review process that would have required master planning, the
City has been processing subsequent projects in the Day Creek Neighborhood underthe goals and
objectives of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, the Development Code, and the City's General Plan
balancing the objectives of these documents, while being guided by existing infrastructure
(circulation, drainage facilities). The proposed subdivision is consistent with the surrounding area
with regard to density, circulation, and lot plotting; and
i. The proposed subdivision falls within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, and the
Design Guidelines state that two points of access shall be provided for all residential projects. The
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, under Development Regulations, also discusses the importance of
master planning in order to discourage piecemeal development. The proposed subdivision is
• adjacent to a vacant 3.6-acre parcel that is under different ownership, and the proposed subdivision
includes a master plan with a stub street design and a conceptual 12-lot layout for the 3.6-acre
parcel. With the master plan and development of the adjacent 3.6 acre at a future date, both the
proposed subdivision and the adjacent parcel will ultimately have two points of access that will
provide a logical circulation pattern that would be sought after if the project site and the adjacent
parcel were to be subdivided atone time. Therefore, with due consideration given to the benefits of
master planning and the requirement of two points of access, the proposed subdivision, with the
stub street design and master plan, will ultimately fulfill the two points of access requirement in a
manner that balances several Design Guidelines and incorporates good planning practices without
being detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity; and
j. The Design Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan state thattwo points of
access shall be provided for all residential developments. Although the proposed subdivision will
not meet this design guideline at the onset, the proposed subdivision with its master-planned stub
street connection provides the best approach to community design and master planning for the
following reasons: 1) Ultimately, when the parcel to the north undergoes development in the future,
the proposed subdivision includes a stub street that will provide two points of access for enhanced
fire safety and optimum circulation for a portion of the existing subdivision to the west and for any
future subdivision on the adjacent partial to the north; 2) The proposed layout incorporates a master
plan concept that logically incorporates the adjacent vacant parcel, thereby, meeting the goals and
objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; 3) The proposed
subdivision makes good land planning sense and will minimize the amount offour-way local to local
intersections on an adjacent local street; 4) the proposed lot layout of the subdivision and the master
• plan for the vacant parcel to the north reflects a circulation pattern that would besought after if the
entire 11.3 acre area were being subdivided; 5) the density of the proposed subdivision is 2.97 units
to the acre; the density of the 12-lot master plan for the adjacent parcel is 3.31 units to the acre,
thereby, providing a development density ratio at the upper end of the allowable range forthe vacant
B&C-87
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 4
parcel; and 6) the condition to provide fire sprinklers for all homes on every lot as an Alternate
Method will provide adequate fire suppression in the event of a fire. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision and the accompanying master plan effectively harmonize and balance the multiple
Design Guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
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 Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan, Development
Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
C~
e. The Tentative Tract Map is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with any easement acquired •
by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence thatthe project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
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 an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the
project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, 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. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment
period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record
before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission furtherfinds •
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
B&C-88
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• April 9, 2008
Page 5
c. The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission therefore
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
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 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 Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Department
1) The subdivision will be developed in accordance with plans on file in
the Planning Department, as approved by the Planning Commission.
• 2) The final design of the retaining wall on Lot 12 that runs parallel to the
north property line shall be subject to Planning Director and City
Engineer review and approval during grading plan check. Efforts shall
be made in the final design of the wall to be as low as possible and to
eliminate a wall at back of sidewalk in order to preserve line-of-sight for
vehicles. In order to accomplish this condition, the Planning Director
and City Engineer will consider slight modifications in the plan check
that are in substantial compliance with the subdivision approval
including, but not limited to, adjusting slopes, pad elevations, and street
grades.
3) All retaining walls visible to public view shall be decorative, such as
split-face block or an alternative design, subject to Planning Director
review and approval.
4) A perimeter wall shall be constructed around the subdivision in
accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures made
in the acoustical reports by Mestre Greve Associate, on file with the
Planning Department under SUBTT18032. All perimeter walls and all
walls exposed to public view shall be decorative. Perimeter walls
fronting Day Creek Boulevard and Banyan Street shall adhere to the
approved wall design and materials palette for Day Creek Boulevard
and Rancho Etiwanda including, but not limited to, river rock pilasters.
• 5) The Developer shall providewritten notice, in the form of a disclosure,
to each prospective buyer of the Fourth Street Rock Crushing Facility
located northwest of the project site. The disclosure shall inform the
B & C-89
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 6
homebuyer of the use of Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard as a
truck route to and from the rock crushing facility and the occurrence of
truck traffic noise.
6) Perimeter walls shall be placed at the top-of-slope with a 2-foot bench.
7) Where slope conditions require retaining walls to achieve 15 feet of
usable rear yard area, provide a logical transition to allow access onto
slopes for maintenance purposes, such as stairs, ramps, etc. The final
design shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning Director prior to
issuance of grading permits.
8) The developer shall provide each prospective buyer of corner lots
written notice of maintaining the landscaped parkway. The written
notice shall be signed by the prospective buyer prior to acceptance of
cash deposit on the property.
u
9) The precise grading plan submitted for plan check for development of
the subdivision shall indicate a neighborhood entry monument wall at .
the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive. The
entry wall shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Design
for the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Development. •
10) Provide a 5-foot minimum landscape area between the back of the
sidewalk and 6-foot block wall on all corner side lots.
11) When an application for development of the subdivision is filed, a
detailed indoor noise analysis by a registered engineer shall be
submitted to determine the required building upgrades necessary, if
any, to meet the City's indoor noise level requirements.
12) The cul-de-sac street name is not approved by this application and
shall require separate submittal for review and approval pursuant to the
Street Naming Ordinance (Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Chapter 12.12).
13) During all project site excavation and grading on-site, the project
contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with
properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with the
manufacturers' standards.
14) The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment
so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest
the project site.
15). 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.
B & C-90
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032-PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 7
16) Future house product for the subdivision shall adhere to the
architectural guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
Engineering Department
1) "A" and "B" Streets to be improved in accordance with City "Local
Residential" standards including, but not limited to, the following:
a) Provide curb and gutter, asphalt pavement, knuckle, drive
approaches, property line-adjacent sidewalk, curbside drain
outlet, and street trees as required.
b) The retaining wall near and parallel to the north property line of
Lot 12 is unacceptable, due primarily to the line-of-sight hazard it
will pose for the Lot 12 driveway when "B" Street is extended.
Redesign the grading in a manner acceptable to both the
Building Official and City Engineer.
c) "B" Street to be lengthened upon future development shall have a
stub ending at the tract boundary. The permanent perimeter wall
should stop at building setback lines on Lots 11 and 12.
• d) "B" Street interim stub should be designed so its future extension
will cause minimal disruption to the frontage of Lots 11 and 12.
Provide a retaining wall, for future removal, across the entire
60-foot right-of-way, extending to meet the permanent perimeter
wall.
e) Funds shall be deposited for removal of the above-mentioned
retaining wall and on-site drainage facilities and replacement with
street improvements to extend "B" Street upon development to
the north.
f) Regarding "B" Street and its future northerly extension, grade
breaks greater than 0.5 percent require a vertical curve and no
street grade shall exceed 12,percent.
g) Provide 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights, as required.
h) Provide traffic striping and signage, as required.
2) Day Creek Boulevard to be improved in accordance with City "Modified
Major Arterial with Median" standards and Etiwanda Specific Plan
standards including, but not limited to, the following:
a) Provide curvilinear sidewalk as required.
b) Provide curbside drain outlets as required.
B&C-91
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008 •
Page 8
3) Install Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) improvements along
project frontage on Day Creek Boulevard.
a) Improvements shall conform to the Day Creek Boulevard
Beautification Master Plan and be consistent with the existing
improvements to the north and east side of the street, including
the alternating Palm and Pear trees and transition to
curb-adjacent sidewalk along the right-turn lane at a point
mirroring the east side.
b) LMD plans shall incorporate attractive, low maintenance designs.
Whenever possible, slope widths should be minimized through
the use of 30-inch maximum height freestanding retaining walls
and up to 4 feet of retaining beneath perimeter walls. Retaining
wall treatments should match the existing LMD improvements to
the north and east.
c) The maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape areas
shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 1-foot flat area behind the
sidewalk shall be provided. Slopes higher than 6 feet shall have
a 2-foot wide flat shelf at the top, along the base of wall.
d) Retaining walls adjacent to sidewalks, if any, shall not have weep •
holes. Provide and show on the LMD grading plans an alternate
method for relieving hydrostatic pressure.
e) .Provide, at a minimum, mow strips to separate public and private
maintenance areas.
4) Saddle Tree Place to be improved in accordance with City "Local
Residential" standards including, but not limited to, the following:
a) For the intersection at "A" Street, install ADA ramps on the
northwest and northeast corners, relocate street lights, and
connect sidewalks. Provide stop signs, limit lines, and stop
legends for Saddle Tree Place southbound and Quarry Court.
eastbound. Provide a drive approach for Cucamonga Valley
Water District (CVWD) and City maintenance vehicle access.
b) Replace sidewalk with aproperty-tine-adjacent one. Provide a
5-foot sidewalk easement to obtain the necessary 12-foot
parkway width.
5) The developer shall make a good faith effort to obtain dedication of the
small portion of land southeast of the Saddle Tree Place -Quarry
Court knuckle necessary to connect to "A" Street including the
sidewalk. If unable to acquire, shift "A" Street 10 feet north. The shift •
will allow a parkway with a 6-foot wide curb-adjacent sidewalk.
B & C- 92
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 9
6) Remnant of the knuckle at the intersection of Saddle Tree Place and
Quarry Court shall be vacated.
7) Per the City's Planning Commission Resolution No. 79-07, provide
access to Street "A" across Lot 1 for the vacant Caltrans parcel to the
south and west. Record a lot line adjustment prior to final tract map
approval. With the lot line adjustment, retain a grading right of entry.
a) Access shall include a 26-foot wide flat area at the bottom of the
side yard slope.
b) Provide an easement in favor of the CVW D across the new "flag"
portion of the Caltrans parcel.
8) Install local storm drains to convey all development drainage to the
existing trapezoidal channel north of the freeway. The cost of local
storm drains shall be borne by this development with no fee credit.
a) Provide a final drainage report addressing the design and sizing
of all drainage facilities for the project.
• b) Extend the local storm drain system as far on-site as needed to
contain Qzs within tops of curbs, Q,oo within rights-of-way, and
provide a 10-foot dry lane in Q,o.
c) For sump conditions, the storm drain from the sump area shall
have a total outlet capacity to handle Q,oo and at least 2 Q,oo
catch basins and laterals.
9) Provide a catch basin on the east side of Saddle Tree Place north of
Street "A."
10) Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall address the
following:
a) No structures will be allowed within the 12 foot public storm drain
easement in the side yard of Lot 4, including trees, walls,
swimming pools, gazebos, etc. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet
of the outside diameter of the storm drain pipe, measured from
the outer edge of a mature tree trunk). CC&Rs shall contain an
exhibit clearly showing the easement location.
b) Owners of Lots 1 through 5 shall have maintenance responsibility
for the 2:1 slopes and the CVW D easement at the south of their
properties.
• 11) For slope maintenance access by homeowners, Lots 1 through 5 shall
have gates in the rear perimeter walls as well as stairs. The LMD shall
not include the CVW D turn around. Provide a fence orwall to separate
and secure these two public and private maintenance areas. Gates
B & C-93
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 10
should be included in the freeway sound attenuation studies required
by the Planning Department.
12) The corner side yard walls on Lots 17 and 18 shall be set back a
sufficient distance for the homeowners to be aware that side yard
landscaping, including parkways and the planting areas between the
back of sidewalk and perimeter wall, is theirs to maintain. Install
private landscaping and irrigation systems in these parkways prior to
public improvements being accepted by the City.
13) The site shall be rough graded to eliminate all cross-lot drainage,
(except in approved facilities). All slopes and retaining walls necessary
to accomplish this shall be installed prior to final map approval.
14) Provide private cross-lot drainage easements as specified below. All
drainage easements shall be delineated and noted on the final map.
Provide "weep hole" type devices in the proposed perimeter wall
constructed along the north tract boundary. Adequate provisions shall
be made for maintaining surface flows entering the site through the
existing natural drainage courses.
•
a) Provide private cross-lot drainage easement along the north of •
Lots 12 and 23 in favor of existing and future parcels to the north,
plus Lot 23.
b) Provide private cross-lot drainage easement along the north of
Lot 11 in favor of existing and future parcels to the north.
15) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top-of-curb to 1 foot behind
the sidewalk along all street frontages.
16) Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the
issuance of grading permits. Public improvement plans shall be
100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an
improvement agreement and bonds executed bythe developer, priorto
building permit issuance.
17) Complete the submitted Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) per
the requirements of the City Engineer including, but not limited to,
signing and recording the Memorandum of Agreement.
Environmental Mitigation
Air Quality
1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating
condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall .
ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and
maintained as per manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records
shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
B&C-94
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 11
2) Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permits, the developer shall
submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule
and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide
evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be
utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for
the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction
measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), as well as City Planning Staff.
3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards
noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113'. Paints and coatings shall be applied
either by hand orhigh-volume, low-pressure spray.
4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1108.
5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and
403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through
seeding and watering.
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility'of large areas to
erosion over extended periods of time.
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed
excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
• Sweep streets according to a schedule, established by the City if
silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a
result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of
year of construction.
• Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speed=.
exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks
or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAQMD and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
[RWOCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with
SCAQMD Rule 403.
B & C- 95
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 12
7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAOMD and RWOCB) shall
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for
96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions.
8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative
fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading
Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when
not in use.
10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to
incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning,
appliances, and water heaters.
11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to
incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping.
Cultural Resources
1) If ariy prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or
during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to
monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect •
or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,
the City of Rancho Cucamonga will:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from
demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for
the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new developments, using their special
qualities as a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of
the area.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of
approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate
CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting
the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources
within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report,
with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are •
encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a
B & C-96
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• April 9, 2008
Page 13
qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take
appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide
specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures
(i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where
mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not
be limited to, the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow
.the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to
the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded,
divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has
completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery,
the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and
notify the monitor of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for
documentation in the summary report and transfer to •an
appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).
• Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the
San Bernardino County Museum.
Geology and Soils
1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent .
(approved by SCAOMD and RW OCB) daily to reduce PM~o emissions,
in accordance with SCAOMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule
established by the City to reduce PM~o emissions associated with
vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the
time of year of construction.
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed
25 mph to minimize PM~o emissions from the site during such
episodes.
4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAOMD and RWOCB) shall
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for
96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions.
r 1
U
B & C- 97
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008 •
Page 14
Hydrology and Water Quality
1) Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the permit applicant shall submit
to Building Official for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SW PPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)
that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction
activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent
practical.
2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in Grading Plan,
and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific
measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time of ground
disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This
Erosion Control plan shall include the following measures at a
minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize
soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in southern California, and
b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure
that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result
of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration
program within a specified time frame.
3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel
dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the •
site when there is rainfall or other runoff.
4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be
performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks, to
control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from
the site.
5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water
Quality Management Plan prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2006,
to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system
to the maximum extent practical.
6) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and
minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped
areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to
ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas,
including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of
Grading Permits.
7) Runoff from residential structures will generally be conveyed through
grass areas prior to entering area drains and parkway swales, allowing
for sedimentation, infiltration and filtration, as well as reduce velocity of
runoff and C-factor. •
8) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the
City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan
B & C-98
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
• April 9, 2008
Page 15
(WOMP), including a project description and identifying Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce
pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable.
The WOMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures
consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and
Redevelopment adopted by -the City of Rancho Cucamonga in
June 2004.
9) Prior to issuance of Grading or Paving Permits, applicant shall obtain a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste
Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building
Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit.
Noise
1) Exterior: A masonry wall, ranging in height from 5.5 feet to 9.5 feet,
shall be constructed along the perimeter of the project for Lots 1
throughi l along Day Creek Boulevard and the I-210 Freewayfrontage
• in accordance with the sound study and Exhibit S1 by Mestre Greve
Associates.
2) Interior: Upon submittal of a Development Review application for
house product on the subdivision, an interior noise analysis will be
required demonstrating compliance with City's noise standards. The
noise analysis shall include any necessary mitigation measures to
reduce interior noise levels to City Standards.
3) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of
8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any
time on Sunday or a national holiday.
4) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards
specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at
the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly
noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code
Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the
Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the
Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the
above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the
Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then
construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of
compliance with above noise standards or halted.
• 5) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in
first phase.
B & C-99
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-15
SUBTT18032 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 16
6) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of
8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any
time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavytrucks used
for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the
construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation
plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent
feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 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 9th day of April 2008, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
•
•
•
B & C-100
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
`PROGRAM
Project File No.: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration) fortheabove-listed project. This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components -This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
•_ 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management -The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the Planning Director, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures -The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and
to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will
be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the
project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga -Lead Agency
Planning Department
• 10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
B & C-101
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18032 AND VARIANCE DRC2007-00097
Page 2
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as
determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation
activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written
notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the
authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached
hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to
hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall
require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City.
These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to
monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether
the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall
conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
•
•
•
B & C-102
u
C
.~
~ a o0
0
a = N
0 U N
Q' L
N Q 3
J ~
`a_` ~ LL
r O
Z o y
~/
~ N
~ ~
J ~
Y
• W c ~
2 R
U `m `°
~ ~ a
Z_ ~
m m
~ N O
O_ O N
Z °r° Q
d
m O
~ N (3
~ R ~p
a ~
U ~
H ~ ~
7 ~
i.. ~
_R
C d
Fes- ~
D.
d
~ L
z o.
• d ~.
IL „3„
U ~
d ~
O :_~
a`
.,; .
~r,
z
7
~~;
~r
;w:~~
,:,
C~
"y~
,
~
~
i.
{,
~~
~ V V V 7 V
a~~,
4i.:=, N N C~ N N N N
y!h_
y i,':
a s .,
•
ti
3..,
Ti
~~
•
y}xW~;p„
'°.TS^°
'
yg1~1 ~Y
^y"lY<
JZ~`F
~
Yd~Yuft
~~
~.'
wr U U U U U U
.~ a U a a s a s
F4!
?y
y
y
N
N
y
N
(/1
F`~~ZZ C
m C
m C
m C
m C
m C
m C
m
y oa a oa n oa n a
xr~
' ~
;
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
~~,z
''..p}}p
~~~~
~~
,
V~;4 N N N N N 4l N
H ~..
?ry ~ N N O O N N
r
~~t!
~
~^
"'"'
;~~ U U U m U - U U
r~ey~3
-;,
m
G,~, ri.
^ _
^
^
O
O
O
O
~"~i a m a m m m m
iii ~
a,=' 'o ~ - 'o ~ a~
oc~cc« o ~ -o a> c ~n ~ c ~ ~
« ~aom~o~- ~° ri `o
m~ w
-° ^ ro
~L a>
'~
~
wk; °'
' of ~c O
ry
.~ :'ma
~m«
~m m.oo
O~
~
oo
~° X
oar a
UN c
o vi
a
~
-oa «
_...
-
-~J°~~
E o >> ~
m v~° ° 0
a
~:µ C O N ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ L O
O Q ~ .
`O ~ .O d N
r~ n 0 `
'~ «
>
~,
% C U C T O) (0 t4 ~ L T C
'" O~« t0 s C
o
> O L
g~"s ~~ J o ~_ ~ c a g ~
o~ o~ o0'd E . U m
Cy2~ n L n 0 4J O O)'.J 'O C E .-
^ -~ d U O °~ C
~r
Y.~
~ O W~
.p _N J
O
O
O n
~ C
O C
~
^~ O
O
U
" C ~ U
C
C O
O `'
y -O N ttl 'j C C
,
~~ O
~
N t6
to O
_O N C O Q N N a N p N -0 O ~~ ttl
~n L C
O
f6
A O j y
C
N N
U
~ '
~« m C~ ~ C O
>i y0
~`ni?t N
C
m N ~' E Y _
O
(n
O
O
N?~- S
L N ~ ~
o Q ~
o U
a
;i E
c
~ o Y,
a O T
°
°`~ J
N~ N
o~`~
`~ o
J ~
n v
~
~ oa
i
(U
~
a o
o E
c
~
°
'
ro
a
~ ~ a
i
° -mo
a
o
o
0 aw
°O
~ ~
p O' m
m
~ Q,Y o
_
o
o ~ _
o
i ;~
a
E U
~na o
>
mc3 a
i
E .
Q v
° 3 m~ >,
~~yy~
'F' ~s~ ~o
.
C C f- O" N y
-000
N N -_ C L n
m~
m a
C U O O ~
-~
~ C a O L N
m d
h4.w
• N
oo ago oN
m~ .~
«3
E m o-
o o
mo ~n
` m
~;~~
~
: ~° c ~c
i O N C O am'
~~
~N«c
r C C N O
y B
a?
N C 'O E mU
.... I
` N N nr
t6 Ol O
Y ` v
~ N E ~ ~
~tm1
J,y
~ c
° 2 m aci E
y ° o ~ E ° E °' ` J m.~ ~
w o
n Q,~ o
c
N~ ~ ° 'm
~
CJ O
t/1 C C C C n N n W t0
C N RS C
O .
.
C
. O C m
N O O J ~
"' d
S'.
~~=> U~
`°`°
E
- ~;
_
~ U
C
O
o->oa~mm
a
a~o-' ~ L
-omm (tl
-o U
-moo
¢ o
o
o_
¢oa~oE~o ~
>
~-oa a~md~U Ewa ¢ndL Qc ¢m.5
'S
'
B & C-103
0
T
a
N N V 7 V 7 V V 7 N N
' a a Q Q Q Q ~ Q a s
fn
C y
C y
C N
m fn y
ro
°- m
a ro
°~
~
c
0
c
0 c
4
c
0
~
-
c
0
~
-
a ro
Q ro
a
`
o
a
o
.?
~?
Ol
?
~
?
~ o o
N o
N
. N
. O
. ~ N ~ m N C
y C
y O
~
'~ N
'~
~
N ~
O ~
N .` C
J O .` C
J p C
J O C
~ O C
~ O ~
N Ql N
~ Q CC O U O U O U D U D U CC ~ Q
O
U U U U U U U U U U U
O O O O O O O O O O O
m m m m m m m m m m m
d
D) 0 ~ C 'O
- C -O U~ p
N~ ' L
N .J m~
' ~ '° T C
C '~ ._ 'O "C O
C O ., C
~ ~ Y
L i0 N m uj
L C~
C O L L
0 D1 ro
O
E J ro ~ L J+ -° C ° O _ C
^ m y ~
E V
O 'L- O L h d L
. O
O
~ 0
O ro
C p C ro
. O
~ O
`~ y
O N
~
N
3~
~~o E m~ ~vod 3~ ~a O~' oo d cvi U
o-o °`m ro JmJ rU
' m~Q o >> d~ ~~- U'O
cdi ~ '. _°
C d m ~ o d~
'- m~
t~ o,~
~ ~ -off
>` ~ ~L N 3 _
ro ~ ° J ~ m
N O_
' N
N ro N
~ C L
N~ ro O C ._
j L C y
N J ~
L L p a
O ro
N C O -
_ C to C
h ro C
y
'
O
V1
D)
ro
> a
O
~
N _
~ 'D m V
~
>-~
J O
N O .
C N
N U
«~ .~.~ x ~ o o ro~ O E~ L R ~ m
~ o m o ro E o~ 3 ~L ro
~ E -o a~ 0 4 N S > o
o Q °
-- ~' J ~ o v a
>°
x' oo N° O1'm~~ J
o
ro°' .
.
moo ~aomo -
m~> o~ c
f6N a~ E ~
U U J m vi a U U m i
a
a>._ .
N ~ roU--~ y--" U c c E E~
o.> ~n-o ao~
- oyo~ a~r~ Em .~--Y=O `ma~N
C
d m~ om.o-
d J oroo~
U
C
O
° N O
.J m J
U U._ -°
~ = ° 00
~ `
' ~
° J>
E ~ U Q
~
c
~ N
°
- ro ._ .N o 3 °' m O
o
-
o
c
f ~ ~
~ ~
`~ c
-
°
x
'
c r U
a
i
cn
~
U _
o
.
o'
o'°
c m '
ro
v 3a ro`°
~
> i
-oa
-
J S
~ o mOm
_ m d U
ro._
m~ o
c o oaw
~ o _
m
oa
m~ ro
x
o ov°~ ~'~
rom3 0~~~ m~~ s
~c ~'ro~aEi _
~-°~ Lm5 mco
i
a
U).°~ C~ _
N(~L E U -U N C U _3
m
N C ro OL o_ U~ CL O O
01 O J O N
' O ro N
N -O N O) J
Q
°~ C d~ i N
ro 'N ~ LL N
U N y
~~ `
N N O N
C C
N '
N
N N ° N d
N O s
d O ~~ O J
`
~~ R C N O m
O--O d « .O
O'
~ ; ._
~ ~ ro O~
' _
U m~ a
C~ ~_ -
~ U 3 ~
~ a
ro o
L' L d
U
o y U OI ° E C
3 y C
J. U J
~ J
ro5 N ~tl C J -O
' U d
~ O ro ~
~ y d 01
~ c
~
a m x
cn a~ 3 Uc
o m o >,Y o
tn~ F- U cn 3v) ~L U yo
o
~ d `o ~ r~U
O ro J Uc N~ a
~~'
L .O O U L~ N _°
N O L 41 L C° N
U __ 6 0
~
~- tq CC ~ R U~ F- ro H U L
Q
O •
N
•
B & C-104
•
•
u
,T;•4;
fit.^-.t
c.*y_.~
i 4t1:
~~~in:
~
1 S
II
i~
SAY )
3
.
-r,~,n.
v -?;
v
v
~
v
v
~~
5~~'
[~:=v.
Xc~
't
LL
~~
iS
a
•~^
~ .:r3~Ai
iC~fft~
~~;r
_~,:~,
~,; r.
'
~
13:,
,
~
..~'~w 0 O ~ ~ ~
U ~}~ a a a s a
°
?~
~ r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0 r
0
~ ;,~~~,
~
'huA, si. n
N n
N n
N n
N n
N
a
:.
O i?n ~! O O O O O
5
d ~H
N N d N N
i4~.y~~~/'~~
~ y-'y~"~'
k
~
°
~
~
~
v
+~
~~~~
Z~
:{S
I~ ~
U ~
`r U U U U U
r
P~
~• = O O O O
~1 m m m m
,~~
m ^ 0 0 0 0
d a a ~ a n:
~~
O
~~
3°
~~
o
~
a
ro
E
~
L
~d=a
~c
r°
~
~c
L
.
3
~~
ro '~ i
a
~ i
a
c
E
~w a
i
o
a
i
ro°3o
°'~a°io
- ~~~ ~
f6 ° m
d
a
.
r3 aNio= o
3 °'~-~ EcN ~ En~~ ~
oUE
m
N O §ys.'~"
U O C
U (6 N p~ L N
~ O O O Y~ U O
.
n
mac ..-~','. oa>ioo~m ~Em o
3'~
`~ ro iJ a
U (
°~roa
` N _
a~n
E ~
a
~
`~
_ o > c
0 0
o
`
~~;~'~: a
o
ia~ou~'nE
~ ~~ N~~ a~ o m
o~roL~
E
>
~ .~ E~ ro
~ c '~ v ro Y
o ~ c '~ ~
o ~ m R o ca c a
i 3 a o~
` ro r,:'p"k.+ ro m°~ ~
yn ~
^~
SEro~'U ._
o.~U
` ~
v,mo .o E
°ro ro ro
y~r~ ro v, E m
E oo
c
.
~.
_ j~:fi~ ~~ a o m ~ p
oa m m
D o a
p- d
E' oa c ca
i
° ~. °° ro U
`-° `° st"~ o ttl ESL o ° ~ no ~ y ~ E 3 ~ ° o ~~
`E ~„~s; ow~n° ~
m'm
may
~
~'
yp
`o ~
p~
m
Lo
rod'-o c
ocv~ ago
>
'o~
~
ro
,Ys
ro
C O
L _
N o«
0) ~ °O _o o
°
ro
.
-
~ ~4i `'~on
~ °o>. ro
cL N
°' Emm
; N C O
°'-`oa.-E
~,
'`' ro a ro D a O
0 0 ` ro"
> ~
LU1 A C C OI ~
' a
C D .~ N C~ (n O
,
U ro :~~~ L n~ ~ >
O-
O r f6 ro 'y .-
O C
C
N O O
d C
~ t6 N O C .~
C
U
N
O ~.~; O` n y
a> ro U
a
~ ;M~i,-
Y E E a> L J
m o n ~ L ~
id n m o Y L..
O
c ro c
.
.
n
~i~^ oo
°'°
mom~`^ ~ ~`°
" °ro °~m~m ~ _~O`°
`°
.o
„
s
C
~
N
~ E
ov ic
a
c
a
o c
i
i
'
1
~
.-
U
iF
~
O
~,~, ~m _
`~ m °-oo i~
a E c
o n
r
EE
m
~
a:,y;; EamoYu'
°
" ~oroo m`°a`o 0 oc
oQ1 =om
a~a~a~
~
`
yy"¢~ii o-~~
m
o
as ~-...t~: vi o o ~mm
i~ y o ~QOO
a~ E ~~ o~ww~
a'o o=- mEo
mm:>
n~ n~~ LL
N~ L t6~i C j ro~ ~ p L
C~ L U ~~~ O `L
U o
O ~~ N ~ ~ 0 O N~` O
~~ '_s~~' ro o .c '> m t w '~ ~3 ro U .~ a~ ]
a `m p
d U m `oa m a a a~ o Q ro
~ N +'~~; C ~ ~U ~ ~
Q 3~Us -m roam
B&G105
.iN a•
1
~iC
5
~a
,
$
~~t.
S~µ
s hie.
~fn
M
m'~i
L
SM~~ _
~
;t
~
~
}
~
f.
Y+lh'
~
y
i
:xhi~sy
L~;,~
tr
r~~
a a a ° a a
~::a
~~a
r r a o ~,
a a a a a
,,.,~ o
O' O O ~ U
O I
3 O
3 3 3 3 ,xM1
~ m2
m a> a~ o o . ~,c m
a~ m m d a~ 1N~.~ ° o
CC Q CC Q CC ° v
c~j.
Yti
iw
m m m ~ ° ~~.'°t~
~~~~ U
n
O ° O o o ,r.~'~ O
n. m m a. ~ ~:
k'n3`z m
mLO°u'~o
n~s .°
~E m~m~d °~~ ~=c ~ L~U~
. c ~
~ o a °' E o °
cco °' -o =' ~
~ co
~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ c c ¢ o
U ~
~
~`~
~
' ° o ~a
E
O
E _ i
.~
~ ro O ro O f
~ ,
,,~
~~,
.~p
~
' O
~ O N
ro d N
O (6 Y
N _
' C O N .?
R ,
-O O~
y1 U N
-O -O m O
O C
E Y~
k
m.T d U'C..
(6
..
~m'L'Emma~ N
E
~ -yro
'~ `o ~moNR~
=
` ECC :o
~ ~
''~ ~Uc~ ~
m ° a= r ~._ -
ro m
~co>
°~.
o
m
m roc
o
o
°~~
mo o m ro
o ~ ~
~
n ~~,}
,}1
a m
N~~
~
o
m
°-c
F moo. ~
~ Y
o
p ~ d
ro~o~Eo oU
~n E
U
a'm _
,
~,~ ., .
., 3
>.oc y
cn
o
ai-o E.
U _
~ m
o :~ m
~~ o
0 o w m.c o E o c o.
~
c~ -
~ ~ ~
.+. ~
N a
"`omQ-a~,~ooo~ Ems' ~'
- ~~~ro-o°
E `°~c- RUC
~ F~;s~
~ 3~'E~ ~n
ro
~~o_ro~p~ro~E~ ~o~
° rr ES o o
in ~ ~~
0. N -O O U p~
O~ O U~ O~ ~ N~ N L ~ t6 E~ O OU `~x O~ ~ O O
y
t~ ~-~ O C N .o ~N ~
" O N a O C N ,.~- U (=i1 NO N ~: ~ a d M N
O
d ro C O~
~ O O E O O O ~~' O U/ C
~ ~ O O -
=
N E N `
O D
C
N ` '~
N ~C'~
'.~ ~ ro O
... U V N
ro
~~ N
m m m v~.c ~ m o E c
-
'
0 3 f0 p
O
°~~ a"-o ~
_
c~O
i C O
E `° ~
n
m ~-'o a>
m
..
O o m
c c.~ o
vi
~
o°~
m
mm
> ro° Z
mmmo ~ - m e
~
m .
a~ E
om
= EF
o n,,;»
;av~
^: ~ m m ~
m
~ .
ro
~
~
~
~
m
°
' y
~oc
- c
s
a v
i o {
~ _
o °
c~°'~NroE
_
~Eoi °$~ °i~~°o
wa a~a3 roo~~ t~,§
's ~,°
%o~ v
i
Q_o°_' Ea`°i
°'.3 ro
~ ~ °ro~' mroa~ °oE ~'~~ .
N.N~ m
~
c
°> 4 Ea~`~a'roE
~
Nm c°-`°o~
E m`
~-°ol~~~
3 mEo_~ "E ~
E
°1 ':1ro`r,
i d
~-~¢ -
~~ ~
`~ ~ olo_
c
y '~ 'c . ~
m
o
° m a~roc ro~,
a 3 .~TV _~m
~
° ~
~ v, 0 2 ~ of °
° c
o--~
¢ N
c
r
° E U o
-O
m ~ ~
° ~ ctom; ~ ro U m
`
rno
c .- ~ ~, ~ _ ~
a 3 ro E ~ m o ~ - m a
U
O cn U doh `~ ~ .
~
~
u
m
~ •
d
B & C-106
•
•
m
~~
~
.
a_
fjk~4g
r
7 V a ka
s'~ N N N
w~:
~;~:.
,~
#y'•
~ ~~~
~~°_.
ra
;;:~'§
y~,
~
~
.x t!
ii3_,
.;~<
^~^~[~'-
U
U
U
Q Q Q a~µ a a a
3ri!r
~. ~.
N
N
m
u C C C
O O O a
O
O
O
mi Of ~ Ol~ ~
C ~
` y
C y
i= N m N
~
~ o J o ~ o .'~~°.~ ai a~i a
i
~
D U O o D U ~~` ~ 0-
3
^
t^~=
.
,
~
;yy~~~~
~" i
~ U U U
U U U m m m
~:
~
~;
v.r
m m m m m m
• is
m ~_
° -om -oco ~
~" cE?^mo~o c-oa-o ooo~o~a~~a~E
~ m
(d ~a~
O~ N C C C O C N C ~ C D
~
E om._
o ~ L o
U ~°
-N
a n
~ "
O
N N L
o-JO
o mt 3m oo
U° ~
~ ~~-
-
C C
E
_mm'm i
~a
E
. C
E.
''axiE
-
O'oo
°
'
m
"
° 3
F
-
~
a~
m sc
"o -°~ mmm ,.-~
,
_~~::.. o
~ a
?- DYm
m" _
v-.-
Ln
-
"moa
~
`° m
E o
m'N
Q° ~n
-~ ~ ma
'6 >> 3qa
,~; .
o
o.aam
0
°'a~°'
E ~
0
Js
m m
m
o>m°-m o~LYo
tndUo ~ mm
J
N
N m 0
N ~~r
t0 s-`'`« Q
?
'U O ~
N 'D
N
' C m =~ E n
9 Y
N
~ U ~ a °. E vi m o m ~ 4~§ )
vi o to c°`o c°i ~ O
a c E o C
.~ a ~~ r m o~ p ~ ~ o
m a~ m ~a o m ~ E m c -o ~ m
r- co
e
a
.o~ m
>n
'Eo
a
o :;•.;,
~t;Nr.
~'o`°
a~o'- ~
~
-Ew J
m
o~ca~Eo
°Q
° J
c
~ ,J
L N o
L .n o
n.~
,3,(,Ti c
°,:,.. d N C U _
e
N~ U°
~
n E
(0 C C ~ T N ~~
C o_ Ea
i
L T ~ ~
3 - O ° ~ -° d ~~<
J ~~ C E O N ~
°
m Q
m
N
Emo ~C ° ~
O'O .C R m ~ N
. UE.-
m~' ~ m'O
s
~~ m
> racLi mn~
` `
vi~,
a~ ~m
~mc
m
mc
a c.
~
m _
om
E
E
m
m °`
-°`"o
~~
a~ a
~ ~. m J
E m a
>n~
!~ `°~ „
c
°
A ~ro__
.
~ ~
°'~' _
~m
~
a L~
m
o
~
m.
`° ~
'"
E o °
~
? 4
~ E m
N
~ -
da c
ro ~
m m
_o
~ ~
~
~ .
-
o .
o
~ m a ~
y N ~~
E~ ~ m d ~ ° ' X ° c ~ w
cro ~' w °' o fl ~ ~ ~ o>~
~
J o 2 ~ ~ a~
g
m m
°
N C~ ~
R O '°
-
N N
O !FOB o o c N-o ~ m
c O O N (0 w
° d '- O >
x m J~
. y e a N C C O
w mmL
'O r
m
f0
E
N N
n U ~ _
O L
° C"=
ro
N ,~ m E
J
'- 7 m
U _
I Q
U L C m O O N U
O
O R 0
_
° 0
a m C
NFo
O~~m m m
m ~
~i
~ ~`` J
J O
°' E
n C C
N~
o-~ S U O 'm '.' Q
F-
a> E~om - O
U 0
mm
m01 0 ° m
i mmY d ~°n ~
o
Jd.c m ~~X
~ cc
.N 'o om
c o~c n-o ~ o
i mo>~
m J . Yi
O 'n «
°
_ ~ U o °5
~ o m ~'° 2 m o t° ~ a~ m a~ o° `~
9 o'.S a
n
C 'p
m
`m
a
C O to 'tA -O N E ~ ~ N '.'-i0~
J ,~ m C - y E
i0 _ w CS p~ ~N ~ ~ O E T ~
~ d L C ~ U `
°
LL T CS a ~ U~ R E ~2ti >>
~ N °U ~
d N Q d O "6 m~ O ro Q C N °U ~ ~ N~ y
t
il N O >
O
B & C-107
a ~ ~ a a
N N N N N
'a a a a a
N UJ VI N t/1
ro ro ro ro _N
d d d d d
O O O O O
d N N d N
N N d N N
~ ~ ~ ~ Q
O ~ ~ ~ ~
U U U U U
m m m m m
m U
m U U
~a°
~ c?•U~L
d
~ ~ oom°oroo°'
~ L a~~~
~ m~mELm~o
L ~ ~
~
T
~ ro
i
N ro
E J~ ro y y Ta
N
C~= ro ~
~` ro t6 ~- O H
Z .
.
~ Q N y U
n N a
N
N O 0
O C'J y
C ro
C N ro 0~ U
N >' ~
~
ro~ C O
C ro U
C > a N O~
> ~
O
y
~ E
ro S O N
C O
J ro N
N ' U
L- ~ N
L..
C N ~«. E
o [6 ~ 7~
~ ro ~>
~~ N O N
° O C a O
m d m 01 O .U C m >~
°
~ v ° c
~ E ~ ~ o ~ a' o>" U ro ro U ~
-o
a
a`
o m roao ~
m a~
= o
°~
~ _3 o E ~
°'~ o 0
~
m
~ o
~
~ f
i
a
y
-o
tl
N '
~ ~
a
CS`6
~
~~o ~
°~a
O mt
ro~~' m
a
~ v
ro~~~`°
°
0 0 0 ~ ~~ ~ ~ C
mJ p Al p WL ~ ° o - E c a ~ ~ ° ~
o
ro
~'Q° o
~-on- o o .
.-
N vi-o~ c~ o N
~~ m 3 U Y
a° c° E? EN
~
' O ro
E
Y
~- N ro
i `~
°
~
~
"- ~:~
cri ~_ i
~
° ~ a
m
~ u
m m~
~-~
~ J
o_~ E
~E~~ am~o~~
N w~~~ro~~' mviro - --°~cidmr3a>ic
C L N~
~ a
~ N
y L E> a ~ <tl
N m~ .~ _
9 W ~ O E w ~ m ro
'
O N O
d ro O
~ C
O.
L N ro D d C W O> >
t6 'O Ql -O U V N O -O T R
L f6 .`J
O O N N' ~ m
O T .J _~ C N C
j 0
O). UJ d a ~ C C
O a~ a C O C A O.
V ro _
N j~ Y `- U U U E N O 'p W a O
` L O f0
~
°'~ N N
~
0]cU
x
O ro 3 4
m~`~ ro
°1
N O "O ~
~
m
~ C O O"_ O ro
"c"
E
~~a
_
03~~ c
.
o a~~o° i
a
c
o_o~~o~ C
E~
-
o a -o ~
.~
°J
° roro~L
°
-O ~
c
ro
' °
~
o
o~= a>i~o~`~J ~
cmm~
`~
~ --~ro~ro o
JVTia~o,L
Q.
m.
~
ro ~ E
o
o
c ~ ~~
d
~
a
i =
mmocm >E
~r
Na
~
°i
c ?~~
o °
~~ro
~a>iro
`
~~`m `o_ Fd~U°E ~°`'~a
i~E°'a ¢°-a~2 o~Eo[[
d~~3-
O •
B & C-108
•
•
`?
_.-~~.,
~~
~;rr:
~~~;~fi~
~zrr:s.;-.
:~F,v:;
t.,,
~n~
;
~
N .
9F-~y_.yG.
a'fi'rf ~
(~
N
V
~NX .ih
n 2'~nN
+':
H
Jcy
ei~yr:Y;f-i
~~£,
~ '~F~r~^'~'
°f. ....
A ~'
i
':.°_~.:
i~~i~
ti"`4~~ ~
a ~ a ~ Q
~~h ~~
~~,;;a
Fnn
}:
N ~
?~y.:~. nz C
C
m
"~~`~;~
m
_ O) C _
O ~-µ.~~'
;~u~~ O j U
~ O U
3 ~
~,;f
~' 3 0
ro y 3 m 2
ro
" .
~ y ~
' c
N
>
Q ~_
~
~?a' > C C
¢ n U >
~ O
.:
,~~~.:fi
~
~°':
~
m s
"~
~°'
c-
.,;..„ U m U
?=Y=
T
~
-a
p
~
~~
"'~ ; O
m
O
m izz~' +i
"`~"~+~ ~
a ~
d O
m
La~m~~~~ro z" ~oaYic~ ~~o~NO~ Y~ro
~ G'iv
'W~ ~
Y O O N
N m Y N
aU ,
:~
~ ~ O C.~ ~~
E CC ~ in N '_~ O
~
L T
~
o
m
Eo
~L° ~
NO
`'
'
' E
roc~ -E
>ol
c
N ~a
i-
o
~
w
a~^m ~v_,
a~ c cn Y O a p F
~
r:
~~ r~ oa~os
~.: x a
i'oE a
i
E .n a~ v~ Z. > ~
~
a~ c c~
mZ ~°- p~ io
m ~
z ~"7',z==. m
L L C T W
~ °- y -o -a m~
~
o ro o c
_
_
"> c Z w E~ `n E m
m
z ~''?~.z'
.. "a
i o>m ma °i~ N m
i a~ a
a a
E
L Y
m 0
O N
0. ... N `~,r U ~ O ~.,.?~.5~
~~~h ~h
' L C ~ m
O
~ > L .~ ~ V .N
d ~- ~ N
O
s E
~ _
0o
E
~
ma cu z
'"
= m -o
Ol _OLLL~
° °'
°
a
iE
~
m N 'p N 01 > L O ~
~~`~s
O~ N C O N m
U O 'N-O C O
L oc
hT
C ~p C
C U C T d L1J m O)
-O O O (n
O
- ,
!{
~ ~u-4'!i
'~
' N` O -O
N O a
C m~
- N C ro m
L ~°
~ ~
L (`
`~ Z m
T N O
~ ~
:
~S+° `c
'
t
am"
-'- O fn
_ ~
C _ O
1
4 tQ O
.. d 3 >. N
' m
N ro
c
O) C ro ro
m ro 0 O °' ~>
~ y
5-.r
.f~ft ..
.
ro o ms O N m .
0 0
E N S (~ ~ O'
O C ~ ~~
m ~ ~ $ ..:
Eo
>
`
E ?:~~~:";
~ >, " N L L 'U
~
'- ~ to T N U ~
~ _
~ E
m~
S
E_
o
o m „ c
J
~vNi mL~'"
~ o~°'a
~ m O1w
~ a
U °? ~
'S" N -° m 3> a~ m 3 r o ~ m o
c ._
c ~^, E c
c m° ~-o m U xbwF .. ~.~ ro mp o- c c N m'o o m
°mo`mE~~_,~°-°'2
~ Lino. N `~xvr'-,~,[,x~
m.tr
` `o_ °>~m
u)am ..
om `-°~ym`m
~o~aTV~-o Sm
~~~c
~
w
L
~ ~
~ m
O N N
~
dl
_...
Q,
O N L N
O
d m 3 0 0 0 O~ ~] U O
;_iZ;^`, x
N O
W ~L.. CD m~ Q
(0
O C
C ro C U m E w p O U m
U L C C
B & C-109
W
O
n '
a
V Q
Q Q ¢
0 0 0
U
O)~ U
01~ U
01 ~
G y C y C y
~ O ~ O Q O
U U U
m
m d
~ d
N C 41 J. "" T'~ C N T O "6 N T Q1 ' ro O= T~ tq
~~Nayi°'E~°~o~oocoio m ~~`~Ltm:nm
O 'p .- to d
ro -6 C
O N ~ d~ N 3 ro > y O Y T N 9 N 0) N •.•
.
X~ C N~ CO _N N N E ~ j ro ~ U _O J OI O_ C~ C
ULmO~a~i~R=
~U
~
~ ~ moU>>a>>ax~a
a
ia
i
C O fn O) N E U L ."
d O
... ~
U C '~ O -O UI ro O
_
t6 .-. O C X E X N~ iq ro O T~ U N L-
waci`o_°~m~°o-Nma~ o °-Em>ma~~=
3
NO_t C`~J Um NL UjC O y
YroEL~N~~~'O
~
O N C
C~ N ~ ro
'O y O y OC
O ro
-
ro C
a ro C 0 c '~ ~ L~
J U
~~ m e o_ ~ o
m~
ro m L
ro a i0 N
N ro
,4~ ~
~
~
_
m -O - U in O
3
N o
'a~
o a
-
O
O
O N
~~ ~_ l0 N N C - N ~ C> "O y
U :_ y
,` L
O
~ E T¢ O O U C O
^ mss ~
- >~.~ N C '~ C N ro
N ro~ O .
U d
~° ~ 3 o O U O`
E -
C .~ O~~ O' O Z ro
O
'O U ... ~ -O
N O -
r
c
C (nom N_ O U=„ L
p 'O L Ol '-' O N
N- O
t0 ___
a te O O O N ro
L t6
(!1
ti O j U~ O Vi .C N .~ N
~-oNrooo~-o.`-oa-oy'o E~
~ L
Y
~o~-~.. ~cp
-
c ~ o ~ w -oo ~ ~ r ~ m -OC ~ -OC ~ oa ~ 3
? ~O ~ 'o ~ c
~
oro~a~oomrv~a~ro"-ro
L Ly o
rooproroc o a~
U in .-- -O C U LI y N y
- y C y F- ro = L C C L N O. U= f/1
N
C
p
.~
.;
d
n`
Q
N
Y
v
d
L
U
0
a
Y
'~
~
7_ a
m E ~.
~
•_
°~
m ~
a
p~ C ~ V
3..; u' ~ v
O
~
zx'S~SY
YY II C m Q 'O
.~', O
O
O O
m
~y~! ~ ~ J ~ O
~,s,15:? U t0 t rn d
aiN~ . o p U
~
';+~'~' a
0 s
0 o
0 C Y O
(y"Oq L_ L_ L_ 6 _
N ~ ~
~C"~ ~ ~ ~ uJ ~ ~ U
N
iTitiA:.
~yrs~
~k
.
y,
~
i'
N
W
~'~~~ c
m
~ a
'~,F~
Y4
~~ m
a
~
1 ~ V1
O r
C
' a
a
~
~
M ¢
~
o
,. ~
V~" c E m
~ a
U T
U L
7
F>
.~: y'
C C
~ ~ V1
~
N
¢ d
L N
N
rY` O O a in
Ssd .
J~ ¢ m U ~
;ev:
w~.
c
~~~
~
B o
~T
U'
~~`sC~ .
o
c c
~
Y ~"
,. N
~
E U
3 c
i$
S~'~ a
i
Z m
o ~j o
m
~!'
C ~ U ~
o a m
y
YBC m
w o
~ m
~ E
o
~
F~~~
l4-n t
3 o
a o
F U
c
O
a
O
.
qf;0~
~~~
Kt' ¢ m U O W
~
34
m
m
c
~*~F' m
r~~K
3
N
D
~
}~ O
!~~
RnT jl O
(J
yy~J~ ~
,
Y~!h~i Q N
~
'°1 N
C C
~
y
r'.
E
~ N
c m
.y C
m
r~fl o -° '~ a ~ °~'
~'a9
k ~ o a
O a ~
~
~ii
~~ O
~ O
V
~
m o
C u~
~ a
~d' ~ m S O m o
pa~ E ~ 'm m U s
~
Ng
o
W C
-
~
U
'
~~~ U c
m >, -°
.~ .o m
p:. ~ a U m a u.
4 O
eN U W O O U
~~ U a U m a W
•
O •
•
B & C-110
~4
Ott,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: TENATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18032
SUBJECT: 23-LOT SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
LOCATION: APN: 0225-161-65 AND 71
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
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. 08-15, 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) Mitigated Negative Declaration - $ 1,876.75
B. Time Limits
1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the
• date of the approval.
Completion Date
-/-/
-/-/-
/ /
/ /
B & C-111
Project No. SUBTT18032
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, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan.
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 streeTimprovement 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 c~ 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.
Street names shall be submitted far Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the •
_/_/_
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
9. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the _/_/_
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning
Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and
every year and whenever said information changes.
10. 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.
11. 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 forcommunity concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
12. 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.
13. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than _/_1_
wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. •
B & C-112
Project No. SUBTT18032
Completion Date
14. 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.
• 15. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. _/_/_
16. 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. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development _/_/_
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
5. 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.
6. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering /_/_
sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Dav Creek
Boulevard.
7. 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.
8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the _/_/_
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department.
E. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock _/_/
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the 210 and I-15 Freeways _/_/_
in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on
• any property.
B & C-113
Project No. SUBTT18032
Completion Date
3. Noise levels shall be monitored after construction to verify the adequacy of the mitigation / /_
measures. Noise levels shall be monitored by actual noise level readings taken on- and off-site.
A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final
occupancy release. The final report shall also make recommendations as to additional mitigation •
measures to reduce noise levels to below City standards, such as, residential exterior noise
levels to below 60 dBA and interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA.
4. 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 wilt be checked
for conformance with the mitigatioh measures contained in the final report.
5. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of _/_/_
the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and
exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be
submitted to the Building & Safety Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected
homes.
6. 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 forteit.
F. 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)
G. General Requirements
1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / /
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
a 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, undergrdund diagrams, water and waste
diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air
conditioning; and
g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., SUBTT18032) clearly identified on the outside
of all plans. .
B & C-114
Project No. SUBTT18032
Completion Date
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a sails 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 W orkers' Compensation coverage to _/_/_
the City prior to permit issuance.
4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. _/_/_
" 5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can / /_
contact the Building and Safety Departmeht staff for information and submittal requirements.
H. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be /_/_
marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT18032). 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 tracUparcel 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.
I. New Structures
1. 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. _/_1_
3. Roofing material shall be installed per the mariufacturer's "high wind" instructions. _/_/_
J. 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, _/_/_
submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building
permits.
•
B & C-115
Project No. SUBTT18032
Comoletion Date
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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
25 total feet on Saddle Tree Place.
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
L.
Street Improvements
1. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 88-557, no person shall make connections from a source
of eriergy, 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.
3. 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
Saddle Tree Place X X X X
Day Creek Boulevard (c) X (e)
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. (e) Curbside drain outlets.
4. 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
/ /
/ /
/ /
-/-/-
/ /
/ /
-/-/- •
-/-/-
/ /
•
B & C-116
Project No. SUBTT18032
Completion Date
•
•
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
Notes:
1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified.
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
Saddle Tree Drive Podocarpus henkelii Long-leaf Yellow W ood 3 ft. 20 ft. o.c. 15-gal. Fill-in
Day Creek Select appropriate tree from the approved street tree list for Rancho Cucamonga. List
per Day Creek each street as a separate line item within this legend.
Master Plan
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 Department.
4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
-~-~-
-~-~-
-~-~-
-~-~-
/ /
-~-/-.
-~-~-
-~-~-
/ /
B & C-117
Project No. SUBTT18032
Completion Date
7. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right of-way: I-210 _/_/_
Freeway.
M. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be _/_/_
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of
building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos,
easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: No10.
2. Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble or _/_/_
other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces.
3. 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.
4. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the _/_/_
developer until accepted by the City.
5. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective _/_/_
Beautification Master Plan Dav Creek Boulevard.
N. 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.
3. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured _/_/_
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
O. 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 W ater District (CVW D), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CVW D 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.
P. General Requirements and Approvals
1. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of-way: _/_/_
Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVW D).
•
B & C-118
Project No. SUBTT18032
Completion Date
2. Anon-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs 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.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION
PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
SEE ATTACHED
•
•
9
B & C-119
`~~` Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
• - - ''I District
,~ t
Fire Construction Services
STANDARD CONDITIONS
February 13, 2008
Brett Del Valle
Peninsula Partners, LLC
SFR Tract 18032
SUBTT18032
THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.
Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal has approved a requests for
alternate method, as submitted. The request was submitted on the Fire District
"Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment
of fire review fee. The alternative method requires the installation of Fire Sprinklers in all
homes and garages.
• The subdivision is located in the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
• A general fire protection plan for the subdivision will be required to be submitted
and approved prior to the approval of building permits
• Landscaping design and plant selection will be limited by the Fire Code and the
District's Wildland-Urban Interface Standard.
• Parcel/home specific fire protection plans or an HOA specific fire protection plan
will be required.
• Homeowners or an HOA will be required to maintain the landscaping as approved in
the original plans. Homes will be subject to annual vegetation management and
defensible space inspections by the Fire District.
FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply
1. Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the
spacing and location of fire hydrants:
a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family residential projects is
500-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than
250-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed
200-feet.
U. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are:
I. At the entrances residential project from the public roadways..
2. At intersections.
3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible.
4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire
• District. .
B & C-120
FSC-2 Fire Flow
1. The required fire flow for this project is 2000 gallons per minute at a minimum residual •
pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire
Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances.
2. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to
provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire
hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow.
3. Firewater plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or
onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until firewater plans are approved.
4. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of
the proposed project site.
FSC-4 Requirement for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other
applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in:
1. All structures that do not meet Fire District access requirements (see Fire Access).
2. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure.
FSC-6 Fire District Site Access
Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets and highways, as well as private
roads, streets drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire
Department Access -Fire Lanes Standard 9-7. The approved mitigation measures must be
clearly noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application
must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan review. •
FSC-9 Single-family Residential Sales Model homes require approved Fire District vehicle
access and water supply from a public or private water main system before construction.
FSC-13 Alternate Method Application
Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal has approved a requests for alternate
method, as submitted. The request was submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate
Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of fire review fee. The alternative
method requires the installation of Fire Sprinklers in all homes and garages.
Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS -Please complete the following prior to
the issuance of any building permits:
Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan
showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire
District and CCWD Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard
# 9-8.
All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering
any combustible framing materials to the site. .CCWD personnel shall inspect the
installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the
site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services .
must grant a clearance before Building permits are issued.
2
B & C-121
2. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the
requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access
• roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road.
3. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received.- The applicant is
responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to
Fire Construction Services.
PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER
The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction
Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures".
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION -Please complete the following:
1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating
the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers".
On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road,
at each hydrant location.
2. Fire Sprinkler System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the Mire
sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services.
3. Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire
access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable
to Fire Construction Services.
The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be
recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit
• parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the
required annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways.
4. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address
with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be
internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible
from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet,
additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry.
•
B & C-122
RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVIING VARIANCE
DRC2007-00097, A REQUEST TO ALLOW UP TO 10.5-FOOT
PERIMETER WALL HEIGHTS FOR SOUND ATTENUATION PURPOSES
FOR LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 AND TO ALLOW TO 7.5-FOOT COMBINATION
RETAINING/FREESTANDING SIDEYARD WALL HEIGHTS FOR GRADE
DIFFERENTIAL PURPOSES FOR LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 OF TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP SUBTT18032, W HERE A MAXIMUM 6-FOOT WALL HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF
23SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON 7.74 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE
ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE W EST SIDE OF
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF VINTAGE DRIVE; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-161-65 and 71.
A. Recitals.
1. Peninsula Retail Partners filed an application for the issuance of Variance
No. DRC2007-00097 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 12th day of December, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing and continued the hearing to an unspecified date.
• 3. The item was re-advertised, and on April 9, 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 hearing on April 9, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to the property located on the west side of Day Creek
Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive with a street frontage of approximately 510 feet on Saddle Tree
Place and a lot depth of approximately 530 feet, and is presently vacant land; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and is zoned Low Residential;
the property to the south is the I-210 Freeway; the property to the east, across Day Creek
Boulevard, is developed with single-family residences and is zoned Low Residential; the properryto
• west is developed with single-family residences and is zoned Low Residential; and
c. The Variance request is to increase the maximum allowable wall height from 6 feet
to 10.5 feet; and
B & C-123
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 2 •
d. Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would cause a physical hardship and
practical difficultly for development of the property because of the presence of sound levels from the
I-210 Freeway and Day Creek Boulevard that exceed the Development Code's requirements. Literal
enforcement of the wall height limit would preclude development of the property in accordance with
the Low Residential District standards, since the sound levels would exceed the allowable limits as
prescribed by the Development Code; and
e. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not
apply to a majority of the properties in the immediate surrounding area since the subdivision is
located adjacent to a major arterial, an on-ramp, and the I-210 Freeway. Further, the acoustic
engineer for the project has calculated that building surfaces will be exposed to noise levels of
67.5CNEL along Day Creek Boulevard and 74.5 CNEL along the I-210 Freeway. These sound
levels thereby create exceptional circumstances with regard to achieving an adequate level of sound
attenuation; and
f. Literal enforcement of the wall height limit would deprive the applicant of
development enjoyed by other properties in the Low Residential District that by requiring the
applicant to significantly alter the proposed design of the subdivision by using alternative design and
construction methods that are not feasible for the subject property and would substantially reduce
the density of the property. Alternative designs and reductions of density by other properties have
not been required of other properties in the Low Residential District that are affected by high sound
levels from the I-210 Freeway; and
g. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with •
the limitations on other properties in the same zone in that variances for wall heights have been
granted for other subdivisions because of high sound levels from highways and roads; and
h. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare; but conversely, the Variance will provide the means to promote public safety and welfare by
providing the Necessary sound attenuation required for the subdivision to adequately meet the
required exterior noise level standards for properties in the Low Residential District.
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.
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.
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.
•
B & C-124
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
• Page 3
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.
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.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessmentfor
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
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, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of
the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, 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. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment
period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration ahd, based on the whole record
• before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission furtherfinds
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
c. The Planning Commission 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 Planning Commission therefore
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the City Planner 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 Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
•
B & C-125
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 4 •
Planning Department
1) The Variance approval shall expire if building permits are not issued
within 5 years from the date of approval.
2) 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.
3) A perimeter wall shall be constructed around the subdivision in
accordance with the recommendations made in the acoustical reports
by Mestre Greve Associates on file at the Planning Department under
SUBTT18032. All perimeter walls and all walls exposed to public view
shall be decorative. Perimeterwalls fronting Day Creek Boulevard and
Banyan Street shall adhere to the approved wall design and materials
palette for Day Creek Boulevard and Rancho Etiwanda including, but
not limited to, river rock pilasters. •
4) All applicable Conditions of Approval per Resolution No. 07-15
approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 shall apply.
Environmental Mitigation
Air Quality
1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating
condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall
ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and
maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records
shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
2) Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permits, the developer shall
submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule
and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide
evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be
utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for
the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction
measures imposed bythe South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAOMD), as well as City Planning Staff.
3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards
noted in SCAOMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied •
either by hand orhigh-volume, low-pressure spray.
B & C-126
f~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. OS-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 5
4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1108.
5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and
403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through
seeding and watering.
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to
erosion over extended periods of time.
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed
excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
• , Sweep streets according to a schedule, established by the City if
silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a
result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of
year of construction.
•
• Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds
exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks
or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAQMD and the Regional Water Quality Control Board
[RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with
SCAQMD Rule 403.
7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for
96 hours or more to reduce PM~o emissions.
8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative
fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
•
9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction Grading
Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when
not in use.
10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to
incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning,
appliances, and water heaters.
11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to
incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping.
B & C-127
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097- PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 6 •
Cultural Resources
1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or
during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to
monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect
or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,
the City of Rancho Cucamonga will:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from
demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for
the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new developments, using their special
qualities as a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of
the area.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of
approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate
CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting •
the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources
within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report,
with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are
encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a
qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take
appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide
specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures
(i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where
mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not
be limited to, the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow
the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to
the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded,
divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has
completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery,
the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and •
notify the monitor of the find.
B & C-128
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
• Page 7
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for
documentation in the summary report and transfer to an
appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).
Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the
San Bernardino County Museum.
Geology and Soils
1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAQMD and RW QCB) daily to reduce PM,o emissions,
in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule
established by the City to reduce PM,o emissions associated with
vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the
time of year of construction.
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed
25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such
episodes.
• 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for
96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions.
Hydrology and Water Quality
1) Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the permit applicant shall submit
to Building Official forapproval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SW PPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)
that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction
activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent
practical.
2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in Grading Plan,
and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific
measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time of ground
disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This
Erosion Control plan shall include the following measures at a
minimum: a) Specifythe timing of grading and construction to minimize
soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in southern California, and
b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure
that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result
of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration
program within a specified time frame.
• 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel
dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the
site when there is rainfall or other runoff.
B & C-129
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 8 •
4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be
performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks, to
control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from
the site.
5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water
Quality Management Plan prepared by MDS Consulting, October 2006,
to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system
to the maximum extent practical.
6) Landscaping plans shall include provisions, for controlling and
minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped
areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to
ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas,
including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of
Grading Permits.
7) Runoff from residential structures will generally be conveyed through
grass areas prior to entering area drains and parkway swales, allowing
for sedimentation, infiltration and filtration, as well as reduce velocity of
runoff and C-factor.
8) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the •
City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP),. including a project description and identifying Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce
pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable.
The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures
consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and
Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga- in
June 2004.
9) Prior to issuance of Grading or Paving Permits, applicant shall obtain a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to complywith obtaining coverage underthe National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste
Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building
Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit.
Noise
1) Exterior: A masonry wall, ranging in height from 5.5 feet to 9.5 feet,
shall be constructed along the perimeter of the project for lots 1-11
along Day Creek Boulevard and the I-210 Freeway frontage in
accordance with the sound study and Exhibit S1 by Mestre Greve
Associates. •
2) Interior: Upon submittal of a Development Review application for
house product on the subdivision, an interior noise analysis will be
B & C-130
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 9
required demonstrating compliance with City's noise standards. The
noise analysis shall include any necessary mitigation measures to
reduce interior rioise levels to City Standards.
3) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of
8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any
time on Sunday or a national holiday.
4) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards
specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at
the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly
noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code
Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the
Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the
Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the
above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the
Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then
construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of
compliance with above noise standards or halted.
5) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in
first phase.
• 6) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of
8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any
time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used
for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the
construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation
plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent
feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF APRIL 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 9th day of April 2008, by the following vote-to-wit:
B & C-131
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-16
DRC2007-00097 -PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
April 9, 2008
Page 10
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
u
•
•
B & C-132
•
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
•
Project File No.: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097
This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration) for the above-listed project. This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components -This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and
the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval
are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management -The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the Planning Director, shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures -The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
A fee covering all costs and expenses, including any consultants' fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and
to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will
be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the
project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga -Lead Agency
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
B & C-133
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18032 AND VARIANCE DRC2007-00097
Page 2
•
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed, as
determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation
activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions.
An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department
and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel.
The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written
notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the
authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached
hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to •
hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall
require the applicant to post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee) with the City.
These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to
monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring
results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether
the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall
conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or
Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits.
•
B & C-134
J
• Y
U
W
S
U
C7
Z_
O
z
Z
Q
C~_
G
•
C
C
~ °-I
a "
c
~ ~
U
~ Q
N a
J
Q ~
~ O
Z o
.~ n
O
Z
d
LL
U
d
O
a`
d
R
T
a
L)
R
Q
d
a
T
a
7
C
r
. ~~_..
~:~;
~
;
~;m
Y,
4ht_
_"
~ ~ a a
~~~~ N N N~ N N N N
i
f„.M1
~j''
~??
pi
~
~°:;
'
~;,: U U U U U U
a U a a s a s
.-;
y
C
m
C
m
C
m
C
m
C
ro
C
m
c
m
°~ ~~ a
` H o. a
` a
` oa
` oa
. ~~ 0 0 0 o o 0 0
~,t
' N
~ N
~ d N N d N
~:~~ a>i a>i a>i a>i a>i a>i a>i
~;; ~ ~~ Q 2 ~ ~ ~
~b~
~qr
f
C~~:
N-,r~ U U U m c:, v U
9'{`W
m
5~
fi=~. p o p o 0 0 0
o`0mc~'~ ~ a~'oocn~o~- °ri`o a m
~~ c N ° U R .N-
C O d
~ ~
ti d ° N ~ ¢ i ~ a.
.
...
.f L _
dr: -may. N O N U° ~~ L O C O Q- p CC .O O U
~~ ~ N a~ a y e w U ~~ U 3 p~ U ~
'~ in ~
i1 C U C T N O) (6 t9 ~ L~ T tU N~~ ro _
3 C O
~*~-..
'O J O B j
-
C Q O~ O H O to
`9
N (J '~
E
T p
U L
As
°i-°'~`°
Ea
o
.
ac°moio~ U
`°
E¢.a
o
°
E
o ~
~
a
'y
~ m c
°~ m
L L n J O O N S L r.
o J, L
D7 :_ '6 C E O p U o
- (n ~ N >:
O- ~ C
' - O tq L :..
•J 01 ~
U U N O _N J
O
O C f0 U- >"
ro
L
C n
a U O
to C m
O C O
T
+, -
td G` U
C
O (/J Cl cd
t
il
~O n d O7 ttl O
L .- C L° C
'CTi<~
`` m~UL CL
~ C O'ya~COU
N O UN.Oy UO to ~_~
a N .
.
j~ ~
N y t6 N O N
L O N x O 3 ~
N°~
y
E °
OJ-O O a
~ -
o`U
a
' "
CEO_C
m
~ o~Nm J
m¢ a~n
' ca m
~ ~o EQOO
a U -o
m~.ooooo
y
- o~"'
ma
app ~o°'~
av
c om
~ m
~...;~,..
'
` ~~._. m
~ a - N
J y aU c
-° m
E~ . ~ T
,
s
~. ~'
c~~ Qw ~- _~L op ia o c'o o r ~ a
~ °
~'`'?r
~T ~ U c o c
2 Noaco L ~r J a y~ ~ m
~
._ ~ c°" ai
~
ycaE yU
.~ ~
NO ~L
m
o
, m~ p
C c om
U ~ N~
O n~ 0
O _
.C ~ N~ ~
t C ~
0! ~ m
O
ty~ ` .
`
N
i
i
O~ U
m
O a N a N GJ (6 C
Sl 0
.U- >
n -
N 'O ~
C
O N E O
O
~ L >
N
a
FO~
~~~ t
A C_ c
A
/1
o a E o `° `4 0 N
Q S Q> o~ m m
'~ a>i ac -~~ m `~ o -° ~ v
~Q
~ ¢ooUE~U i
daaa~oo~UE~o= ¢ndc ¢c ¢¢.S
=
B & C-135
0
N N 7 7 O V 7 C' [f N ~ N
' a a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a a U
o- a n o 0 0 0
~ 0
~ 0.
` oa
` a
`
o
3 ~ o
3 o
3 '~
m E '~
~ E v
m~ ~
m 2 ~
m 2 o
3 o
3 o
3
~ ~ ° c N c y c y c y c y o ° o
a>i a>i a>i ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o ~ o a>i m a>i
Q ~ CC ~ v O U D U O U O U ~ Q ~
O
U U U U U U U U U~ U U
O O O O O O O O O O O
m m m m m m m m m m m
o
O O ca
- a o
'- D) O -L ~
O a?•c
O
' a c o
`~ c
~ s
r ` o m
L C N
Ol C O N~ C C U U
.J 3
-°
E
o C O
J c6 N y J O
D_ t0 T O
y U
- O
C O C
Q `~ O U O
~ ~ U N
~
N (0 ro? A
L p N
._ oo ~o ~cL` Om o° `
~my ENE o~ L yQL
~o
EY
~~ o
U N ....
oUOO
~a
` ~ to
ma o
U N
OO d C
¢oo ` C
m J ....
mcN
N3`m
~~ ~
~ E
~ om
E
'~ .c
o
°
i
~ ¢ E
~U~ m °
°
~ v
m o cap
o E ~ ~oio
>
3
d ~ o
L
~ N ~
N
~ m ~
-
L ~
t6 OI ~ (n ~ o o
> > N N ~ '_ J
.
C 'O
°m -
a
C a
ov, N
mo~~
'-' t0
arc
C .- oc_ 3 a ~'~o
L mL
~ ~ -m o U
2°~
to Q
J O N O C
L y ~ y 9 a M N =
- L UJ C U
~
N a
.
m
m ~6 O
N> a
~ o
~
°' ~-- O
m v (p
> ~ rn
J
~ ~ ~
v
m
Ya E
~
~ ~
Xc roo~J a
yEE w
sro S a
m ~o ono .
mE m o
aL ~
msc
~ ~
~ ~ o'o °a m cin
°~ oo ao°m~ o-o° L
°- °~~ ~mm
CX Ea ~ ~.O y~ .
~NJ C>. NQC~~ D_r .
NJ UCC OLa
~ o o.o y_ c J c
~ -m mQ
cm ~ m
a m ao op ma ~
. o a•
°' ~._ o
~E f a
ro
a~ -'~ Jmvi ~m
a ~
- N
` ~mU_~
"
`
D N~ ~ ~ E°
Q> m a. o- o ~ ° N° d
U . c-
O co
O m
E
> ~-
~
-
O a~ °- m ~i
D
C w~ o m o_
UQJ o m m
U C
°
°c NN
"io J.
NLU °
~=0~ HO
°i"~ J
E~ ._U¢
~rU
~
c N
_C
-`°~ .° a3 °'a~i aao
°'° ~ m .~ `o " ~' N m a axi °~ ~c ~
~ a
i
m0 m~ ~~ ~ y
~ U o o ~.~ c o:-
~
cm ~°v>
x _
a
o
' ~'=a~>~ myJ Eo~ -`~ ~L y cO
E ca
° ~ ~o '
~'o
ro~ i o
~ a
' c .~ ~~ m m o o~ ~ ~ m s E r m °1 ~ '3
~ - m h o
o m
o J `o~ gy m' o
~-
m o a
~ N
d f0 N ~ V t E ~
p~ J a o
C a ~ c o
` N ~ c
~_
LL N L o
to u1
` "- c L
in t/1 o 0
C .. ~_
U O
Y d O .C ~ L O ~iA y-a ~ t6
C ~ 4 (tl U ~ U m L ~ C ? O
O "~ ~ a R
~ (
O
L~ Q
L
U N U
°i 3
U E ¢
J C U .
~
~
~ .
N t6 C J -p U" N O f0 U
~ ~ N OI
dm U X
cno3 C
Dmm >.
O
cn.o~FU ~3cn (0
J
~.cy ~?m~o ~0~~ ~E y
om3 ~~..
a~.oo ~
L L~~a L~ LCp ~ -6~
F N ~ ~ (0 U Q (6 ~ F' f0 I- U U ¢ ~ L
O •
N
u
B & C-136
•
•
~
Y
,K; ~
>"iC:
p}\ ~ ~
~ w
Fei
4
y
1
lv~'.
~' ~ d'
N ~~~
€S~i M M c7 c") C)
t7-~1's
':.~.
zY
;
~'
& ~4e
~3'
s~5r'i
~'~r'.
'k~
°
- -U ~:~ a a a a a
~_
~, ~~~
--
--
r
r
--
C + O O O O O
t4 a P
~~ ~
! O_
a~ Q
m d
° d
o d
0
:
n
O _ ~'F,~S;h~
~x"' O O O O O
~i ~ ~ °
N ~~G£i N N N N N
Q ; Q ~ Q
~±
~v
y,
§
~
N
s
'
~"H;1
U 'A''• ' U U U U U
45a "-
~~~
~•$
`
, CO 07 [0 07
m ~ a ~ a a
~~
~N
~~~ _
oa ~KU, m= c o m
D
a c~
~~ ro
o
a ~ oQ
.Ca ~«~ c
.
C t> ~ 3 O «
ro
U d 0 ._ N
~~ c y
t0 =
-- C N O ('J
o. a
°
W O C U' C N
ro. 3
'
'o-_
mm wa2°
` cry ~
°'c E
c
oU
o ~ °
om
aoU
L3 -
z`''. mo om3
m °~_~ y ? E
. ~
E
~
ap 6~=~
>>o~~o a°~ oy~ ~° ~`~-°~ °~°«~ca
;
~
m
o
°
~~
~
' n
?Ear --3~ ro `>roO E~ca~
3 s
'~
a~
v
i
~~
~ -
:
~ «.
` C ~f~~i C` t0 U
N U S
O vI ttl
U N
ro p C d
C p >i p. O~
ro ~o N °
in o_ ~ ~SEro°1U
°cU '°
Nma~ .n m
°ro ~ ro ro
m
am ro u, Em
E °o
c
c ca
i
~ ~ ~
~ ~ `~ o m y N ~
~€
'm
~
~ ° o_ o ~~ d
L ° o
ro N v C v°i « o 0
~ p
m
«.
~ m
m
m
Er
O
~ ~ mot o o _o
E ~
o
o >
L `
~
$ ~~
E cT
p ~L ~ roNrn ~COdSE
O U
ro as T j j
ro , N td ~ c ~'~ c O ~U U f0
C~ ~j O
"!s O L a .'
.
~U
~
o
~ N O r (0
E
> .D ~ O
Q N
~L ~ d ~c
'~
mo N
U« ~ N C C
~ ~ c
o
o Q
N
o
ro E a
N ro o a
D)
v1 .
m O
L
d
ro O~ b~{ O O a Y ~O Y
E a Oa V
N c 'N-' U
a U
O O
_
y
U
ro
~
~~.ai$o~r~~roE.: ~Ec"o 4~0 0.o ENO~v~ N
roYEEn?o
o-~m6 ma- oy
C O ~~ U
~ ~ « 6 pro
N RE
°
O
N c m
0 C
0
p ca o- m
~ N y Cn
d
C
l
}: d ~
~ .~ ~ a
p N m y
t
q . ~
:
o ro
m~,, >.crom°
~aaia~
N
~' ro~LL
C
~ co°>'E
O U
O tbL
O~ oa~La
O
` ~~o~m`~
O N .
O
i C O
U A L
O ~^r: ro 0 ~C '> N L ...
W rp >i ro N
U .~ a W ro _
~
O
d U N 0. O> O
_
W a a ro O Q ro
- ~ N ~~~ C ~ U ~ `
Q 3 C-U~~ - ro ro a m
$
.au
M
B & C-137
t.
ry
,:.
~np
,_:~,,
it
t„ ~;;.
~~
~~
a
.
A
g~
Y
~ ~,~~~
4^,T4u
S
;
~~
,
~
~
^
'
,
,
c
f~
~
~>,
:K~
' a a a o °a ~:~ Q
~~
k^ii:
O_
QI d
N
ti 'Q.
N Q
N d ~~W1i
N ~.'I'
~~ ll
C
~
, O
O O O O O +
~ V
N N N ~`
.
' a,~
~ O) ~~
N i°~ C N
N
CC N
Q N
~ N
~ O
~
~ O CO
~ U
(~
[y~4j
/ '
~
m m m O ~
~+ U
~~~
u~
~
~`.
f'mM~
Y
~ o O O ~ ~.,.~.
-~ M.. ~
a n. m a a ~ m
roL O~.NaOD~L ~='O NNULN `p OO =ro>. ~
~" ~a UL .
jO
~m
`
'
° ='
d
- m~aa
ro N
c U ~ °Q
E
O
_°
Eo ~
° c
io u
i
~ ¢N o$
~oE
a~
omo ~o~
> °iro
o~` omro ~o S"`~
. O
Z
~
L
minE
ro~ y .
.
.
~ c
a
~ U o
~
NinL
~-om
."-
o E 5 O
Y
Q ro
3
~
~
ro
~OI d= L
~
O N
~ O m~
C a s
°
ro c
ro ro c a ^
Y U v
. a~ c
U' N
O io m ~3 ~ ~ °'
oa ~-
d o `4 ~ °' a
i ~
. o ro o
E o r ~ .~;
U a ~ ~ 3 <n c ~ ~
O G n F O~ L
o
i p .n N O OL-
O
E ~ d N N S!C~~} >+ O C N
.
a
a o O r m.c ,
0
~,"-
`"oro
0 o f° ~
' .E
~ `~ ° o
O
-°m _~~
:
' O a m ~;
~ v-
s+ N m o
L~
m o. a
3
"
Q
0
00
Q~~ o
ro E Ems
~? ~
c
~L
-o E ~
mZ
o ro Uc ;;
,`
o d m :`r:;:: a
N
~~~ m
~~
E?
~ a m~ =
E ~4d;~S
~
O~ d Y N a N U O L
U~ O r
~ U) .~ N L~
~
N` E
5 ~
O OU _
~~ ~ O O
I ~.-
ro U C
~
y
'` O) `- a ro C C N ,
V O ~ ~j ro a ms O
~
N
O
L
-
°'.°
~a~o
~o -O
«o°' a
T
~"E° - N
aaNia >'yr ~~ a~m~~N
E
o
- `.'
..
0
N O
- O O Q1 y p U O L
O ~ Y
ro C O ' V fa
0
"
.-
p
ro N ro N~ C N CO E C
U p~ U ro ~ L N U C
ma
.o
a _
ro c a'^
>: N
E t` d ~
m ~ O O m
dca_
ro a
G C ._ O C N N - pj
~ oEi
O_ ..
.ny
~ - C
ro ._
N E
E r e..
N c
1] N N E"
S
> ~ O O d O j~
O p :6
~m~E L ~
op O. f6 C~
ooc N C ~~
'w -o~:_.oc C O t4 d1
rom
~ ~
tIJ N ' ~
o
in' - N O
ro
ro
p
d
~c
mNroE -BEN
oo
moroUUO n
n,_ ~~
roc r,....~;~ >.mv
i
sm-
-
3oa
1
~ 'm.- `°LNm °'ro°-~ po
~~~ NNaOm
m
°
E~
omE
L ~
a ro O
N cn.
m d E ~' a
2
O~~ ~ '-C-
y J ro C =
N ~:
E ro >
~ Ql =^ Q-
m
O
U O
~~
Q `~ O p O C
Q ,
y J C 'C
N
•'- p
O O U ro C
L N Q
O O O
O ~
.L] U Q to
m~
O ~i
.
>> U C
.N (6
U U (0
T v1 O U N :` y O
C. O N N_ "O Q~ O
Q
Q d E a O
(n 0 0= O) U O C
4- a (fl U O
0
i
(n U U~ ~p:~ N U N
roy>co~oa~~aoo
o '€d~~
' L"o~~N
ro
o°a~~°n'Em~o
-°- vC7~
aT=.: FNQ3
O •
V
•
B & C-138
•
•
:~ ~:
r-:
_
tq
~m3
3
::
F~
~~;~.
Sjoar
~ ~ ~
d' V V' ,',S~~~{,,,'%
k ~:""'+ N N N
~~~',
~
g
'
!
?
~`•~I
_u
' U
a U
a U
a
~ ~
..r
"-
f~
• m m m
O O O ~
,
~
F,
~
,
~
=
.
U
O) ~ U
O) E U
O) E ,
,
;
~
~
f »!'~?kx' O
N O
N O
N
G N C y C y K
>
~ .
~
D ~ D O R
R
e~ CC Q ~
. U o
~~
~
e
~~3
~__
~~"
Q
U U U
`
U U U ~l m m
~
;
m m m m m m
~
ro o.oo -a~ aoo
~ c~>,~aao .~~oao=o>o~~~~E ~ ~aa
N
g~
°i m~ 3o
m ro~ro
~ ,~eh
-
i~ c0 L.
~o~._~E
in:-
:-
°a
` U ro
mo~oo'"EE~_U_
-on~
~
a'~-yro~°3o
L N
>Y
O~
o:_. c Eo r
o
o. ~
.J c
rm SE E'
s
` roroad~y a
a
Y
mrno~o. y s
a~
o- o'L
~- 3 U
Q o o ,
~ "ro u,~ c c c
o°
U
o-
E E
~~ ° -o 0 0 o
3
o
m m o ~ ` ~ °av
% °
.
o- m ~
°-m
` ~' °
° _
m ~ ~ ~ as
~- i.
m a
_
~ ro
a O .J j_ 'O ~ T> 00 ', ro n a N Q E ro O y L O) to (n N U O 'C L~
3 N ~ L
3 ~
°-1 ~
N
a
N
L U L
'o c
`~
'~
~ ro U
~ ~ o o
y
n N r O N E
n c o E
E~° o ro ro
L _
~ E
_
°
U ~-° .
°Ev;
~
o °'_rn ~ ~°UEU~ ro
a~Eor~ ~LO.4•-a ~ o
m
~ ~~
> v
i'c'
6
° m ~
' Emco'~r
ro ~ro~'-~ ~~ ~comc
o Eoro `` ?'~
c
ro
_~ n
ro m E~ n °
n o hr~,^
,,,Ta m
as ~ a ~ m m mo
_Ew o
~ '~ c E o~ c ro o
n E m
L ' ~ °' `~ -° > °
~ °'O c E ° m ~y }- ° C C ~
m °. o
C
~ E ~ N E
T
any `
3 -
~=L .aa" ,m
° c o° c m -
C
rn
~° o ~U E~ m ro `° ro o m s a~iw
~~ ~n~ `
roaro uiC7u
~ ~O1c~~on c
mayaaaacm~UETo~E`
°~ -o°o
~ ~
L m >.
mroc Ern
rn ._ ~ .S ~~
g
2' ma ~ c N ~
m
c d m .~ d ~ ° m E ~ Y .N E
w
E
~' a
ro c
~ o c
~' 2
Nan '°Eo ~~
oNC ~~.S N
rnk.m;~ c.
E
om~~o.~~ .
_ N
.~
rn
o~~"m°°Ec~mEoLa '~ roN
~ ~ ° m~ '~-o ~ in- E E ~-~~'t~ c°i o c in-o ~~ ~ o ro-% o? rn N ~ axi c c o ~°'
n E `o~mL
-
~ ~ ro E ;n o
°
o 'o r ~' o ~~ti .~ ... °- m r°'n ~ E . ~ L ~ ~ ° o o a~ ° ~~
U
- c ° o
o
n c
rn F o _ c
i
--
o~ '~ m N
ro fro„
~ as °" ? > >
m o m °O- E oa~
o roF ma -~ m
o ~~ m m E °1 0~° N -o °- o
U 0
va m°
ro o c U ~. ro m D] L
°
' d m
° ~ a c a~ ~ .X
° ~° a c m e n~ c°
ro
°'
°
`° °~ o>-
`
~.o yaio c~~ -
U
E o~ om ~-
2m °
~aQC
o
~dn aa ~
m
pL ~NNN ma°'iE a
i >d> atOi -°o 'i''~.° ommcmc ~ w~oryj°~3 oac aL ~y c ~O CLim
U
LL rn Ems` N
N O T n O
('} y
` L>
U~ ro >.~
~ ~2 L O L O
d N~
6 N UL C C tq C U ._ O '-
Q n O 'O m~ O~ Q C N U ~ O
~ ro .N
to 'O y
.
` XLj:? .
- i
Lf)
B & C-139
a ~ ~ ~ a
N N N N N
'a a a a a
N N N N N
oa a a oa a
0 0 0 0 `o
3 3 3 3 3
m o 0 0 0
¢
~ ¢ 2 m
~ ~ ~ ~ ^
U U U U U
m c0 [0 CO c0
m m
U U U
~-°° ~i'~m°' o`omoomoo~
~ a~roc`o ~amE°icv3`o
orooN Eo~ro_. NNVI`OT-o ~~a~O~ y~NO~-oz.~
N (/1 -O
C
O O O
D) d N '~ N N~ C w '= ro
C N ro T~
U O) -_ ro 'U
ro~ C O CJ N U U
C> d O N E `
N
O
V1 U L
~ ro T C E
~ N
O fA N C N ,~
momo
~0 N .` N~
E> O
U ~ L ~ N .`L-
16
ro
ca
i~E mm
?~
m ro
3 ~~.
a
c Q
ictnT
p~oc
a
~-
_m N° g
a= i, o ~
~ ~~ ° coi °'a
i a
i v .~ o o
a o c
c ~ °
au~ o a
i moo-d' ~ m a~ ~ o-~ N 3 0 ~ ~ o ~ ~
-~:4 0
m
'o o
m
°~ '
N ~S
~
7ro
°~~oa ~ a~ ~ ~
ro
s~
_
~ °>
y cR
i
a
a 3 a~mC
v
o_
~ o
~E ro a
o~~
0 o U~
g
~ S ~~
~c
O o
-~ o y
r
c.
- ~
-
N o
ttl o
c
m a m o
~
y
o
~
a a
ia~°
~ `~ NaNiaaimo~o
- ~E im3
~a
` o-
am
ccQ1iE~
o
~
~ m vi N
in
ro in ~ o c
m ~ ° o
°_
° E ~ ~ m~°ot ~
o' rLn ~E~ c m mN~
d m y m o xL ~ >~
a_c
-
` N
O a
~~ N F U
d .ro >~ N _ C
C` N~ ,J QI C
m U
~ C N~~ T C N ~ro
O
O N f N c N .G ro C y E O O ro> a ~ T f0 W a N N~ d~ O)
6
d N
3 L to ro L ~ O. (6 -O O a U U O O L 0.5 ,`- YO p «T, '-' ~' Y C N C
N
O1
` N~ n- ~ C C d N~ C O C 0 0
._ N j~ y w U U N N N N~ O
o
U
~o
m
L ~ om~
~ _
'?mm
o_
3`° `o am ~oc
~croE
o
°
`°
O
~=yc
i
N o_~?c
c~
o 0 °i aNi~QUi
o ro`o-o EYQCU
ro cc
i
roLQ
E~
o a
a~ ~
°~~`o mNEcO1~E ~°-°~°-°-od c
ro
ro ~-oac~
O ~
~o`OViNmmEU
_
~
D7CLC NU0)C~J O
O-OCO
N
3 ro
.`Tro 0... ~
.Nd jp
L
-
cc a~ a'-=roNy.E -NO°N~~a~Ea
i '~ o>cro^ °a c~Na~U
E
~~o~~ tmrococ~
` cc~ Nm~~>
c jc~m=c °~~='mC7oa~im
~
o~roo_ i-a
~U°E i~E~o_
~°~ao ~°-a~2 3a~E~~
dvi~
O •
•
B & C-140
C~
•
•
?(
1i
_-
~
C z
F-~
~ ~r
V
N h"~
1~~~= N N V
~.~~ ~
~~+ Y
~..
'Yli'
1
~`Y
$
,
~~
~.
a ~ a ~ Q
~~.~~
~~~*~LL~
~~:
C
ro
O. ~`?4q
~
`- m C
C O ro
O' C
pt-.
.
R _ O
O
~ _
~
f~
fi,~ O~ U
p `
N ti O U
`
~'-.
m ~ y
~ n U ~ ~
¢ ~ '~~-~ O
°
~e-`_
p .~
U
m - U m U
w~~.
~~:
,, •:
"`
O ~
n
'~
p m
~
O
Y Q~ ~ O N~ .~ ro
_ ~'~' ~ p Y C >.
O '- .O ~ C OI O C >.
N C Ul O '~ O ro
E5 ct6~o~Uc
N
~ t~r~5 in~U°~c~ ~~m°mU aci~o
N~
N
N
~
'~" N m p _ p Y >,
~ a~
EO ioLU m
N ° W
ro
^ -- ~ ~v
~a,~ Ecmen
o a~ p o ~ >oF-Ey
'
c
a
~ 3 ~
.
= m , i
a
o E a~
o~Z .
p~ m m~ Z o
o ro
o `~ ~
~ o
°
ro
d ~ N ~
z
c
¢ ~+
1 ~~
v a
Lo>ro3 m r
n
~/1
a~
>
a -
°
0
O_
E
i
Qa
ZOa~`>>4~~
.... t
rg:. ro
O ,
ym
crov
O ~ ro ro
°
ro
C y
•~ U> _
.~ C 41 O
`
~ Q d T
C
ro a 0 0
p C Q N C C y
E
-
o roEa~oc
"O
o ,- ~aL ro ~
O
~ oc~>,
CD
W - O
C U
T
a ~ (n a O ro m ~ ."
.~ C U O O .O
~ L
C C
C O L
a- C ro ce -
ro
ro
O ~~ N m N
= VJ L- ~ O~
~ Q- y C
3 a
y C ro
OI ro 01 C ro ro a i j G.-{rtc~'`''~,' t6 C u°i
r ~ a 01 ro
o
c E .4 ~ o o ro o hs~~ 3°
ro ro .m E ro .N U c ~ ~
~
E
ocEo
~~;s; N w U
~~ L y
mom~~
`tlam
ro
o
~~
E ° ~ a
° ~ N
°- aw ~
L c _
m ~
o
~
c
m c _Z and
~~°
'w
U~ ~.:.
"'~'
=~ y ~ c. Q
Ew°`~3> y
c ro__-
3LO
°
~ o° °
°~~o
c
.c
c.~c
M L 'C O 'J O O
y ^,
i~
~ U U N y
o_
U N
= C . c
~ ~ O
~
t~
.ro m~U N ro D U
C ~
,frh Q
N N a C
~ ~
O C C N y
~~ _
U L
O~
L ~~~ U m`
O ~
~ ~ O ro N .. ro y `
N
~ D_
O a
~ ~ O
4 d L_ U C y ro C
C
ro ~
~? N.*.C$
0~4 =
U y
N m
x o
o C
O. N E ro ro
N
o C~
~
a._ ~.
o o ~
~ o
a m 3pUm o-°mU
,r~,~Z
.:~~:° . o U
w ~~m m~ ro
a.. o c
5 ro ~ U ro E y o o
~
U.c.S c
B & C-141
O
r
Q
a
0 0 0
m~ m2 m2
C y C~ C y
Q O ~ O ~ O
U U U
O
m
O o O
m a a
N C O >+ ^"' T ^-' C N T O a d T N t6 O- T fn
~~~aYi°'E~°~o>>ooc°'io
~~
' `m «~ OLr~~m
a
~'
~
a
3 ~ c~ c c
o E y~
N
O
> °~
O c a
~
~ o
L
T
N N~
N (n N
' O U C- N O S tq
O m 0 0
L L c
O
s N
_
a N
O
~
~ ~ O
C O
~
a
N N N (0 L
L ~
i C
_O U Q
O (n i 0 0
i O N~ X
m
C
RS ~ O_ C
m x E x N 3 N t6 O T O N N L
macio_°~~ro:om_N~o o aEomo
~~«
3
~m~~~>c
o
r~=~
~ ~ m
.
~mEs oa~~a
.
_
i
a
m
E
o>mN"o -' ~o m~ ocoR>.a~°o aci
~ O
^ ~ p O ~ ~ ~ N ~ 'p to ti ~ ,O
C a C O N ~ 0
_
C U~ a to O y C U - L 0
16 C~ 0 0 C '.J ~ L
_
~ _
m m~ ~ ~~- ° j O
cO1c
~ ~ ~
_
`~ ~ as ~~ ~ d
O
m
a o~ ~c ~ 07 a .- p y~
_
C
s~ O
~ a d t o
E
O N
> a
R7 01 E O N N .C
O
O
' U := UI
j, Q d N C to
U
U
p
L "
O«'~O«~~
~ ~U N _
` N Op
9L NN
O.N Uin _N
C
0
> ~ >
a 7
C C t6 (6
O ~
~ N ~ N
O
S1 L
~= E
L .. + N
p
IO
U Z
~
O
. ~
_
D_
C
_O
p N ~ y
O~ L L ~- OI' _
O _N ,C
O p ~
-
.
N O +
ro a
(0
tl
~~ O
~
O
T
QI
> U~ O._ y .- y O
-
' E 9 l
O
y
O«
U -,~ L 3 -
oaya
U a N O
~ ~aoa~~aN
o
'om ~ c m
-0' S `
~
~
.~
N ~om_ E ~ca~
~ S m w o E E m.?
m
0
m o
v~ac~i ~ o o a~_ oap~a °1a N
o_o "`~ o c.... min a~y
~cm
m~>`"ot6Lm oo_ >>
.:.cao-c c
o
o
U h r 'O C U B N N 41 « t~ C N
~ td ~
0 0
C C L N d OU « N
= L
.
C
O
.~
.>
d
a
Q
N
Y
U
GI
t
U
0
v
Y
~"
O •
u
B & C-142
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT #: VARIANCE DRC2007-00097
SUBJECT: VARIANCE FOR WALL HEIGHT
APPLICANT: PENINSULA RETAIL PARTNERS, LLC
LOCATION: APN: 0225-161-65 AND 71
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
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 Variance DRC2007-00097 is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Tract
SU BTT 18032.
3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-16, 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.
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
the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to
the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing:
a) Mitigated Negative Declaration - $ 1,876.75
Comoletion Date
-/-/-
/ /
/ /
B. Time Limits
1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or DevelopmenUDesign 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.
-/-/-
B & C-143
Project No. DRC2007-00097
Completion Date
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION
PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING •
CONDITIONS:
SEE ATTACHED
•
•
2
B & C-144
'~^~~~~ Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
~ '~~~
• s I District
,,,~,.
Fire Construction Services
STANDARD CONDITIONS
February 13, 2008
Brett Det Valle
Peninsula Partners, LLC
SFR Tract 18032
SUBTT18032
THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT
Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal has approved a requests for
alternate method, as submitted. The request was- submitted on the Fire District
"Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment
of fire review fee. The alternative method requires the installation of Fire Sprinklers in all
homes and garages.
• The subdivision is located in the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
• A general fire protection plan for the subdivision will be required to be submitted
and approved prior to the approval of building permits
• Landscaping design and plant selection will be limited by the Fire Code and the
District's Wildland-Urban Interface Standard.
• Parcel/home specific fire protection plans or an HOA specific fire protection plan
will be required.
• Homeowners or an HOA will be required to maintain the landscaping as approved in
the original plans. Homes will be subject to annual vegetation management and
defensible space inspections by the Fire District.
FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply
1. Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the
spacing and location of fire hydrants:
a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family residential projects is
500-feet. No portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than
250-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed
200-feet.
b. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are:
1. At the entrances residential project from the public roadways.
2. At intersections.
3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible.
4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire
• District.
B & C-145
FSC-2 Fire Flow
1. The required fire flow for this project is 2000 gallons per minute at a minimum residual
pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire •
Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. ,_
2. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to
provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire
hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow.
3. Firewater plahs are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or
onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until firewater plans are approved.
4. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of
the proposed project site.
FSC-4 Requirement for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other
applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in:
1. All structures that do not meet Fire District access requirements (see Fire Access).
2. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure.
FSC-6 Fire District Site Access
Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets and highways, as well as private
roads, streets drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire
Department Access -Fire Lanes Standard 9-7. The approved mitigation measures must be
clearly noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application
must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan review.
FSC-9 Single-family Residential Sales Model homes require approved Fire District vehicle •
access and water supply from a public or private water main system before construction.
FSC-13 Alternate Method Application
Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal has approved a requests for alternate
method, as submitted. The request was submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate
Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of fire review fee. The alternative
method requires the installation of Fire Sprinklers in all homes and garages.
Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS -Please complete the following prior to
the issuance of any building permits:
1. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan
showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire
District and CCWD Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard
# 9-8.
All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering
any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD personnel shall inspect the
installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the
site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services
must grant a clearance before Building permits are issued. •
B & C-146
FTATF OF CAI IFORNIA AI ICINF"CC IFANSFY]RTATON. Atilt I/rH ISIS= p _CNCV ARNpI ft Cf NWARIFNFQ!`Fa ~
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
1800 Third Sheet, Room, 450
SecrameMO. CA 95811 ~^
F9az (9 653245107
xww.hcd.ca.aov
December 13, 2007
Ms. Kristine E. Thalman
Chief Executive Officer
Building Industry Association of Orange County
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170
Irvine, CA 92614
Dear Ms. Thalman:
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding inclusionary zoning ordinances. The
Department is pleased to provide information on the requirements of State law and
Department policy. In particular, you requested clarification on whether State housing
element or other law requires the adoption of local inclusionary ordinances. In short,
neither State law nor Department policy requires the adoption of any local inclusionary
ordinance in order to secure approval of a jurisdiction's housing element. State law does
require incentives for voluntary inclusionary development (State density bonus law),
pronounces housing element law neutral relative to enactment of mandatory local
inclusionary provisions, and circumscribes the responsibilities of local governments
which do enact inclusionary policies. The relevant sections of the Government Code are
described below.
Government Code Section 65915-17, State density bonus law, requires local
governments to make incentives available to residential developers that voluntarily
propose to reserve speafied portions of a proposed development for occupancy by low-
ormoderate-income households, and indicates that local governments are not to
undermine implementation of this provision. Every local government is required to adopt
an ordinance establishing how it will implement State density bonus law, including setting
forth the incentives the local government will provide.
State housing element law requires jurisdictions to plan for their existing and projected
housing needs, identify adequate sites to accommodate their share of the regional
housing need, and, among other things, analyze local policies, regulations or
requirements that have the potential to constrain the development, maintenance or
improvement of housing for all income level. The law also requires programs to "assist
in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income
households".
Ms. Kristine E. Thalman
Page 2
Many local govemments adopt mandatory inclusionary programs as one component of a
comprehensive affordable housing strategy and have demonstrated success in
increasing the supply of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
However, some inclusionary programs may have the potential to negatively impact the
overall development of housing. As a result, local govemments must analyze mandatory
inclusionary policies as potential governmental constraints on housing production when
adopting or updating their housing elements, in the same way that other land-use
regulations must be evaluated as potential constraints.
For example, local govemments must analyze whether inclusionary programs result in
cost shifting where the cost of subsidizing the affordable units is underwritten by the
purchasers of market-rate units in the form of higher prices. Such increases can be a
barrier to some potential homebuyers who already struggle to qualify for a mortgage, and
earn too much to qualify for govemment assistance. Local govemments must also
analyze their inclusionary policies to evaluate whether sufficient regulatory and financial
incentives are offered to facilitate compliance with the requirements.
In addition, it is important to note that the adoption of mandatory inclusionary zoning
programs do not address housing element adequate sites requirements to accommodate
the regional housing need for lower-income households. Inclusionary programs are not a
substitute for designating sufficient sites with appropriate zoning, densities and
development standards as required by Govemment Code Section 65583(c)(1).
Finally, Govemment Code Section 65589.8 specifies that nothing in housing element law
shall be construed to expand or contract the authority of a local govemment to adopt an
ordinance, charter amendment, or policy requiring that any housing development contain
a fixed percentage of affordable housing units. It further states that a local govemment
which adopts such a requirement shall pennit a developer to satisfy all or a portion of
that requirement by constructing rental housing at affordable monthly rents, as
determined by the local govemment.
California has been for many years in the midst of a severe housing crisis; there are
simply not enough homes for the number of residents who need them. Continued
undersupply of housing threatens the State's economic recovery, its environment, and
the quality of I'rfe for all residents. Effectively addressing this crisis demands the
involvement and cooperation of all levels of govemment and the private sector. Both the
public and private sector must reexamine existing policies, programs and develop new
strategies to ensure they operate most effectively and provide an adequate housing
supply for all Californians. The Department is committed to working with its public and
private sector partners in this effort for the benefit of California's growing population.
Ms. Kristine E. Thalman
Page 3
I hope this responds to your inquiry. If you need additional information, please call me at
(916) 445-4775 or Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director, Division of Housing Policy
Development, at (916) 323-3177.
Sincerely,
~~9~-
Lynn L. Jacobs
Director
ATF DF GIIF(MNIA .AIISINFSS TRANSR9RTA710N.AND HOIISRJO ADFN(:Y ARNDIDFCHWARZFNF(`.fpR r wmnr
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR ,,~-
1800 71tiN Sbeet, Room, 450
Secnmwa.CA 95814 ~~
(916) 4454775
Fex (916) 3245107
Wi'W hcd ca eov
November 30, 2004
Paul Campos, Esq.
General Counsel
Home Builders Association of Notthern California
P.O. Box 5160
San Ramon, California 94583-5160
Deaz Ivlr. Campos:
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding inclusionazy zoning ordinances. The
Department is pleased to address the requirements of State law and Department policy on this
important topic Your letter requests clarification on whether State housing element or other law
requires the adoption of local inclusionary ordinances (or the amendment of an existing ordinance
to make it more stringent). In short, neither State law nor Department policy requires the
adoption of any local inclusionary ordinance (or the amendment of an existing ordinance to make
it more stringent) in order to secure approval of a jurisdiction's housing element. State law does
require incentives for voluntary inclusionary development (State density bonus law), pronounces
housing element law neutral relative to enactment of mandatory local inclusionary provisions, and
circumscribes the responsibilities of local governments which do enact inclusionaty policies. The
relevant sections of the Government Code aze described below.
Government Code Section 65915-17, State density bonus law, requires local governments to
make incentives available to residential developers that voluntarily propose to reserve speciSed
portions of a proposed development for occupancy by low- or moderate-income households, and
indicates that local governments are not to undermine implementation of this provision. Every
local government is required to adopt an ordinance establishing how it will implement State
density bonus law, including setting forth what incentives the local government is willing to make
available.
State housing element law requires jurisdictions to plan for therr existing and projected housing
needs, identify adequate sites to accommodate their shaze of the regional housing need, analyze
local policies, regulations or requirements that have the potential to constrain the development,
maintenance or improvement of housing for all income level. The law also requires programs to
"assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income
households".
While some local governments adopt mandatory inclusionary programs as one component of a
comprehensive affordable housing strategy, such programs have the potential to negatively
impact the overall development of housing. As a result, local governments must analvze
mandatory inclusionary policies as potential Qovemmental constraints on housing production
when adq~ting or u ling their housinu elements.
Paul Campos, Esq.
November 30, 2004
Page 2
For example, local governments must analyze whether inclusionary programs result in cost
shifting where the cost of subsidizing the affordable units is underwritten by the purchasers of
market-rate units in the form of higher prices. Such increases can be a barrier to some potential
homebuyers who aheady struggle to qualify for a mortgage, and eam too much to qualify for
government assistance. Even a modest increase in price, can be an insurmountable obstacle.
Local governments must also analyze their inclusionary policies to evaluate whether sufficient
regulatory and financial incentives are offered to facilitate compliance with the requirements.
in addition, it is important to note that the adoption of mandatory inclusionary zoning programs
do not address the housing element requirement for local governments to provide adequate sites
to accommodate the regional housing need for lower income households. Inclusionary programs
are not a substitute for designatine sufficient sites with appropriate zonine densities and
development standazds as required by Government Code Section 65583(c)(1).
Finally, Government Code Section 65589.8 specifies that nothing in housing element law shall be
construed to expand or contract the authority of a local government to adopt an ordinance, charter
amendment, or policy requiring that any housing development contain a fixed percentage of
affordable housing units. It further states that a local government which adopts such a
requirement shall permit a developer to satisfy all or a portion of that requirement by constructing
rental housing at affordable monthly rents, as determined by the local government.
California has been for many years in the midst of a severe housing crisis: there are simply not
enough homes for the number of residents who need them. Continued undersupply of housing
threatens the State's economic recovery, its environment, and the quality of life for all residents.
The Department is now considering new data analyzing "on the ground" application of these
ordinances and their effect on both affordable and market-rate housing production. Resolution
demands the involvement and cooperation of all levels of government and the private sector.
Both the public and private sector must reexamine existing policies, programs and develop new
strategies to ensure they operate most effectively and provide an adequate housing supply for all
Californians. The Department is committed to working with its public and private sector partners
in this effort for the benefit of California's growing population.
I hope this responds to your inquiry. If you need additional information, please call me at
(916) 445-4775 or Cathy Creswell, Deputy Director, Division of Housing Policy Development,
at (916) 323-3177.
Sinc
Luc
Director
LD:1
cc: Dennis M. Rogers
David C. Smith, Esq.
SELECTED MATERIALS
ON INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING ISSUES
August 2005
Prepared by:
California Department of Housing and
Community Development
Housing Policy Division
Cathy E. Creswell, Deputy Director
Linda M. Wheaton, Assistant Deputy Director
Compiled by:
Maggie Kauffman, MLIS
Department of Housing and Community Development
State of California
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor ~, ~ ~
„ !t~ ~a~''~~j~ - Sunrro Wright McPeak, Secrotary, ~" `~
• ~ Business, Transportation and Housing ''`~"'
~~ Lucetla Dunn, Director, HCD
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MONTEREY COUNTY: Analyzing the general plan
update and applied development economics report / Powell, Benjamin; Stringham,
Edward; Summers, Adam B -Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation, 2004
(RPPI Policy Study; 323)
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htto:!/www.rooi.ora/as323.odf
The preservation of agricultural land is also a major issue. While supporters of the old
proposed GPU and the EIA claim that the policies they advocate will aid farmers, the
truth is that restrictive land-use regulations will only reduce the value of the farmer's
chief asset: his land. Saentlfic and technological advances have increased agricultural
productivity. Partners should have the flexibility to use their properly as they see fit and
the ability to make their own land-use decisions to improve their well-being.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAWS AND LOCAL LAND USE PROCEEDINGS IN
CALIFORNIA /Abbott, William; Yamachika, Robert T; Gerken, Heather - 2004 update -
- Sacremento, CA: Abbott & Kindermann, LLP, 2004
Also available via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.aklandiaw.com/affordable%20housina%201aw.odf
Paper initially prepared for the Urban Land Institute's Jan. 17, 2003 program on
affordable housing held in Sacramento, Calif. This paper discusses in detail the various
provisions of state law regarding affordable housing and local land use regulations
inGuding legislation enacted during the 2003 legislative session.
"AFFORDABLE" HOUSING LAWS MAKE HOMES MORE EXPENSIVE / Powell,
Benjamin; Stringham, Edward /American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) -
Great Barrington, MA: AIER, 2003
Housing prices in the Untied States have risen dramatically over the last 23 years. Price
increases have been even more dramatic in particular regions of the country. In
Cal'rfomia prices have increased 280 percent and in Massachusetts the increase was
Heady fivefold (483 percent). Just over the last five years home prices have increased 38
percent in the United States. By way of comparison, the Consumer Price Index, which
includes a substantial component for "shelter," has increased about 123 percent since
1980, and only about 13 percent during the past five years. - (p. 1)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Proactive and reactive planning strategies /White, S.
Mark -Chicago, IL: American Planning Association (APA), 1992
APA Planning Advisory Service Report: no. 441
Also available for purchase via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.olannino.oro/Dasmemo~ndex.htm
Drafted in response to highly publicized NIMBY Report of 1991, which called for
extensive reforms in housing regulation almost amounting to land-use deregulation, the
author questions whether such radical change is necessary. He notes that "the
wholesale abandonment of regulatory restrictions would create no incentive for
devebpers to produce bw-income housing." He offers a review of existing aifimiative
and reactive measures, offering evidence of success where existing tools are applied
properly. A final chapter deals with the issue of comprehensive planning for affordable
housing.
Calrfomia Department of Housing and Community Development,
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
BUILDING INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY: Tools to create support for affordable
housing /The Center for Common Concerns -San Francisco, CA: HomeBase, 1996
(Guidebook) 97 p.: ill.: 28 cm.
Book includes bibliographical references and appendices.
Available for borrowing via Homebase Library at the World Wide Web:
http://homebaseccc.org/index.oho/homebase/oublications.html
Also: HD7287.96 U5 B84 1996 -Califomia State Library- Reference Collection
CALIFORNIA INCLUSIONARY HOUSING READER / Higgins, Bill [editor] /Institute for
Local Self Government -Sacramento, CA: Institute for Local Self Government, 2003
Compilation of various affordable housing reports/articles.
May be ordered via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.i Isg.org/userfi les/godoG6398%2 E I nclusionarvHousingOrderForm2002 %2E PDF
Overview: Inclusionary housing ordinances take many forms, but the basic concept is
that they set aside a percentage of new residential development for occupancy by
families of very low-, low- and moderate-income. Inclusionary housing ordinances may
not be appropriate for every community. In some communities, such requirements can
be quite controversial. Accordingly, the Reader approaches the issue from a broad
range of perspectives. These are presented in six sections: The problem of affordable
housing in Califomia -Basic policy considerations -- Pros and cons of Inclusionary
housing --Implementation issues -Legal Issues -Sample annotated Inclusionary
housing ordinance.
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE PROHIBITS EXCLUSIONARY ZONING, MANDATES
FAIR SHARE: Inclusionary housing programs a likely response !Burton, Carolyn -
[San Fernando, CA]: The San Femando Valley Law Review, 1982
San Femando Valley Law Review -Vol. 9. o. 19-46
Over the past decade exclusionary zoning practices increasingly have come under
judicial attack. - (p. 19).
Available at Califomia State Law Library
CASE AGAINST INCLUSIONARY ZONING / Rivinius, Robert -Berkeley, CA:
Califomia Continuing Education of the Bar, 1991
(Inclusionary Zoning Pro and Con)
Land Use Forum - Vol. 1. no. 1. (Fall 19911. ~. 25-26
Available at Califomia State Law Library
CASE FOR INCLUSIONARY ZONING /Brown, Marc; Harrington, Ann -Berkeley, CA:
Califomia Continuing Education of the Bar, 1991
(Inclusionary Zoning Pro and Con)
Land Use Forum - Vot. 1. no. 1. (Fall 1991). o. 23-24
Available at Califomia State Law Library
Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development, 4
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
COMMON PATHS: Connecting metropolitan growth to inner-city opportunities in
South Los Angeles I Tseng, Thomas -Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University -Institute for
Public Policy, 1999
(Davenport Institute -Research Reports)
Also available full text via the World Wide Wab:
http•//oublicoolicv oeooerdine edu/davenoortinstitute/reoorts/oaths/co odf
After the civil disturbances of April 1992, Los Angeles continues to move forward in
revitalizing the condkions of its neglected communities. This challenge assumes a
metropolitan dimension as well as a logl one. The growth and potential of South Los
Angeles are directly related to regional growth and development, and South Los Angeles
offers the metropolitan region new opportunities to address challenges of unfettered
sprawl.
CREATING A LOCAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON REGULATORY BARRIERS TO
AFFORDABLE HOUSING / Hanes, Gary -Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Housing and
Urban Development, Regulatory Reform for Affordable Housing Information Ctr, 1992
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
http://www.huduser.oro/Publications/odf/HUD-6125. odf
This report is designed to help local officials increase public awareness of regulatory
barriers and improve housing affordability in their community. It defines affordable
housing and regulatory bartiers and explains the need for their provision and removal.
To identity and address the needs of the community, the report suggests that an
advisory commission on regulatory bartiers to affordable housing be organized.
DENSITY BONUS ZONING TO PROVIDE LOW AND MODERATE COST HOUSING /
Fox, Gregory Mellon; Davis, Barbara Rosenfeld -San Francisco, CA: Hastings School
of Law, 1977
Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly -Vol. 3. no. 4. o. 1015-1071
Article includes appendices and bibliographical references.
"A housing density bonus program has two main goals. The principal goal is to help
meet the critical needs of low and moderate income people by expanding the supply of
moderately priced housing in the community. The secondary purpose is to assure the
dispersal of such housing throughout the developing areas of the community. - (p.
1016).
DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING MANDATES WORK? :Evidence from Los Angeles
County and Orange County / Powell, Benjamin; Stringham, Edward -Los Angeles,
CA: Reason Public Policy Institute (RPPI), 2004
(RPPI Policy Study; 320)
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.ropi.om/os320.odf
Overall, in the 27 years that inGusionary zoning has been implemented in Los Angeles
and Orange counties, the policies have produced 6,379 affordable units. And of those, a
whopping 4,469 were in Irvine, which built a number of the units to settle a IawsuH. Thus,
the average is just 236 affordable units per year, with 165 in Irvine and 71 in all other
cities combined. Controlling for the length of time each program has been in affect; the
average jurisdkxion with inclusionary zoning has produced just 34 units earth year since
adoption of its inclusionary zoning requirement.
Callfomia Department of Housing and Community Development,
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
DOES THE COSTA-HAWKINS ACT PROHIBIT LOCAL INCLUSIONARY ZONING
PROGRAMS? / EI Mallakh, Nadia I. -Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley,
Boatt Hall, 2001
Cal'rfomia Law Review -Vol. 89. no. 6. f December 20011. o. 1847-1880
Article includes bibliographical references.
Available for purchase full text at Westlaw.com:
htto://web2.westlaw.com/sionon/default.wl?newdoor=true
AN EGALITARIAN'S MARKET: The economics of incluslonary zoning reclaimed /
Dietderich, Andrew G - [New York, NY]: Fordham University School of Law, 1996
Fordham Urban Law Journal - Vol. 24. no. 1 (Fail 1996) D. 23-84
Available for purchase full text at Westlaw.com:
http://web2.westlaw.com/sionon/defautt.wl?newdoor=true
"Inclusionary programs come in a variety of forms: some require construction at high
density, some at low density; some set prices for the rental or sale of the Inclusionary
units, some let the market decide; some occur in areas with strong demand, some in
markets with few interested buyers; some onerous to developers, some developers
lobby for & happily accept.° - (p. 31)
EVERYONE'S VALLEY: Inclusion and affordable housing in Silicon Valley /
Bhargava, Shalini, [et al.] /Working Partnerships USA -San Jose, CA: Working
Partnerships USA, 2001
(Policy Briefs: Silicon Valley Equity Series; June 2001)
Also available at the World Wide Web:
htto://www.wousa.oro/oublications/comolete/wpusa evallev.odf
Report includes executive summary and foreword by Amy B. Dean, Founder of Working
Partnerships USA. "Produced by Working Partnerships USA [this report] is a very
thoughtful and important work that will add to the many ideas already on the table to help
meet our regional housing crisis " - (p. i)
EXPANDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGH INCLUSIONARY ZONING:
Lessons from the Washington Metropolitan Area /Brown, Karen Destorel -
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2001
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htto:!/www. brook.eduldvbdocroot/es/urban/oublications/inclusionarv.odf
Many jurisdictions are looking for new ways to house not only low-income residents, but
also working families who fill critical positions in the labor market. One of the ways in
which jurisdictions are meeting this challenge is through Inclusionary zoning, a program
that principally requires developers to include affordable homes when they build a
particular number of market-rate homes.
Calffomia Department of Housing and Community Development,
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
EXPANDING HOUSING OPPORTUNITY IN WASHINGTON, DC: The case for
inclusionary zoning /Fox, Radihika; Rose, Kaiima /PolicyLink -Oakland, CA:
PolicyLink, 2003
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
http://www. oolicvli nk.ora/odfs/DCIZ.odf
Washington, DC is in the forefront of older cities experiencing a resurgence of economic
investment. The city is, in many ways, leading a new era of urban growth that is
producing robust central city revitalization across the country after decades of decline.
The District's downtown is newly vibrant with nightlife and starting to be repopulated with
affluent young professionals and empty nesters.
EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS THROUGH INCLUSIONARY ZONING / Fischer,
Paul; Patton, Jo -Chicago, IL: Campaign for Sensible Growth, 2001
Ideas (a2 Work -June 2001 -Volume No. 3
Available full text at the World Wide Web:
http:/Jwww.orowincsensibly.oro/cmapdfs/ideasv3.odf
"Many inclusionary housing programs offer incentives that reduce the developers project
costs. This can be accomplished with such methods as reduced or deferred developer
fees, density bonuses, land purchase assistance, bond financing and reduced traffic /
parking provisions" - (p. 1).
EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT / Nowak, Jeremy -
Washington, DC: National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), 1998
Sbelterforce - Jan./Feb. 1998. p. 4-
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
http://www. nhi.oro/online/issues/97/nowak.html
"The social geography of metropolitan regions requires the community development
movement to expand its strategies and perspectives to both reduce the isolation of the
urban poor and participate in the broader effort to support regional economic
competitiveness. Strategies designed to maximize social mobility and integration -such
as strategic investments in business sectors, fair housing enforcement and inclusionary
housing strategies, regional revenue sharing, and subsidies for city residents to travel to
jobs in the suburbs -have the potential to transform the meaning of neighborhood or
community development in important ways." - (p. 4)
FINAL COMMENTS TO THE MILLENNIAL HOUSING COMMISSION -Washington,
DC: National Multi Housing Council, 2001
Available full text via the World Wide Web:
http://www.nmhc.oro/Content/ServeFile.cfm?File) D=1067
An NMHC/NAA task force developed the recommendations contained in this thirteen-
page letter submitted to the Commission. The recommendations cover a wide range of
issues and call for the Congressionally-chartered Millennial Housing Commission.
California Department of Housing and Community Development,
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
HOUSING SUPPLY AND AFFORDABILITY: Do affordable housing mandates work?
/ Powell, Benjamin; Stringham, Edward -Los Angeles, CA: Reason Public Policy
Institute (RPPI), 2004
(RPPI Policy Study; 318)
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htto://www. rooi.oro/as318. odf
Executive summary: "In this paper we use data from communities in the San Francisco
Bay Area region to evaluate the effects of inclusionary zoning and examine whether it is
an effective public policy response to high housing prices. We chose the Bay Area
because inclusionary zoning is particularly prevalent there; today more than 50
jurisdictions in the region have inclusionary zoning. These communities have various
sizes and densities with different income levels and demographics, so they provide a
good sample to tell us how inclusionary zoning is probably working nationwide." - (p. [i])
IN DEFENSE OF INCLUSIONARY ZONING: Successfully creating affordable
housing / Kautz, Barbara Ehrlich -San Francsco, CA: University of San Francisco
School of Law, 2002
Univ. of San Francisco Law Review -Vol. 36. no. 4 (Summer 2002) o. 971-1017
Available for purchase full text at Westlaw.com:
htto:/lweb2.westlaw.com/sionon/default.wl?newdoor=true
"A Cal'rfomia Court of Appeal has decisively upheld the constitutionality of incusionary
zoning - a progrem that in the past twenty-five years has housed over 50,000 low- and
moderate- income families in new homes that would otherwise have been unable to
afford " - (p. 971)
INCENTIVE ZONING: meeting urban design and affordable housing objectives /
Morris, Marya -Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 2000
(APA Planning Advisory Service Report: no. 4941
Report includes bibliographical references and appendices.
Available for purchase at the World Wide Web:
htto://www.olannina.oro/bookservice/browse.htm
Incentive zoning has received renewed attention as communities implement smart
growth principles into planning and development processes. incentive zoning allows a
developer to build a larger, higher-density project than would be permitted under existing
zoning. In exchange, the developer provides something that is in the cbmmmunity's
interest that would not otherwise be required (e.g., open space, plazas, arcades, etc.)
THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING DEBATE: The effectiveness of mandatory
programs over voluntary programs / Brunick, Nicholas J. - [Chicago, IL]: American
Planning Association (APA), 2004
Zoning Practice -Issue No. 9 (September 2004)
Also available for purchase from the World Wide Web:
htto://www.olannino.oro/zoninooractice/index.htm
In crafting an inclusionary housing program, every community faces a major decision:
Should the program be mandatory or voluntary? This issue of Zoning Practice is first in a
two-part series on inclusionary housing and examines experiences and studies from
across the country.
California Department of Housing and Community Development,
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA: 30 years of innovation / California
CoalRion for Rural Housing (CCRH); Non-profd Housing Association of Northern
Cal'rfomia (NPH) -Sacramento, CA: NPH, 2003.
Contents: Executive Summary -What is Indusionary Housing -Research and
Methodology -Key Findings - Conclusion - Endnotes -Appendices.
May be ordered via the World Wide Web:
[Report] examines the increasing prevalence and impact of inclusionary housing
programs as one of the most promising ways to address the affordable housing crisis in
California. - (p. ii)
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA AND NEW JERSEY: A comparative
analysis / Calavita, Nico; Grimes, Kenneth; Mallach, Alan -Washington, DC: Fannie
Mae Foundation, 1997
Ho~sina Policv Debate - V. 8. no. 1 (o. 109-1421
Also available full text via the Wodd Wide Web:
htto•//www fanniemaefoundation orglorograms/hod/odf/had 0801 calavita odf
Many people have argued that inclusionary housing (IH) is a desirable land use strategy
to address lower-income housing needs and to further the geographic dispersal of the
lower-income population. In an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of IH, this article
examines the experiences of New Jersey and California, two states where IH has been
applied frequently over an extended period.
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE SURVIVES CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGE IN POST-NOLLAN-DOLAN ERA: Homebuilders Association of
Northern California v. City of Napa / Curtin, Daniel J.; Talbert, Cecily T.; Costa, Nadia
L -Chicago, IL: American Planning Association (APA), 2002
Article includes bibliographical references.
Land Use Law and Zoning Digest -Vol. 54. no. 8 (o. 3.81
Available for purchase full text at Westtaw.com
htto://web2.westlaw.corn/signonldefault.wl?newdoor--true
The commentary discusses judicial treatment of Indusionary housing programs, Napa's
inclusionary housing ordinance, and the future of inclusionary housing ordinances. The
authors' state: "Inclusionary housing ordinances, such as Napa, are legislative acts
entitled to deference in the courts. Therefore, the challenger bears the heavy burden to
establish that the law is arbitrery or capricious. If a locality has properly adhered to all
procedural requirements in enacting an inclusionary housing ordinance, it will likely pass
constitutional muster." The authors conclude by offering guidelines to enhance the legal
defensibility of such ordinances.
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS /National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) -Washington, DC: State, Local, 8 Environmental Affairs Division of NAHB,
1983
May be purohased by contacting NAHB at the Wortd Wide Web:
h~://www.nahb.oro/landino.asox?sectionl D=4
Contents: Bibifogrephy -Appendix containing samples of Indusionary housing
ordinances appears at the end of this paper -1982 Model Dwelling Unit Law (Maryland)
- Merit Point System (Colorado) -1978 Model California Indusionary Ordinance.
California Departrnent of Housing and Community l~evebpment,
Housing Policy l>evelopment Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS: Issues and outcomes /Smith, Marc T.;
Delaney, Chades J.; Liou, Thomas - [Boston, MA]: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, 1996
Real Estate Law Joumal - V. 25, no. 2 (Fall 1996) o. 155-165
Article includes bibliogrephical references.
Available for purchase full text at Westlaw.com:
htto://web2.westlaw.com/sionon/default.wl?newdoor=true
"An inclusionary housing progrem is a regulatory policy, often achieved through a zoning
ordinance, employed by state or local govemments to encourage or mandate the
production of affordable housing units." - (p. 155)
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAMS: Local govemments respond to
California's housing crisis / Talbert, Cecily T; Costa, Nadia L -- [Newton, MA]: Boston
College of Law, [2))03]
Joumal article available full text via the World Wide Web:
http:!/www.bc.edWschools/law/lawreviews/meta-elements/ioumals/bcealr/30 3/06 FMS.htm
Abstract: As anti-growth sentiment increases across the country, two laudable goals -
affordabie housing and environmental protection -are coming into conflict. This tension
is most evident in Cal'rfomia. Nine of the ten least affordable communities in the country
are in California. California also has one of the most complicated and expensive
environmental regulatory processes for development. This results in builders being
unable to produce housing to keep up with demand, and an increase in the cost of those
units that are available. "Smart Growth" is often proffered as the answer to this dilemma:
by promoting more compact development, mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods,
and creating jobs near housing and transportation, housing production will be available
to meet the demand at affordable costs.
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING: Proven success in large cities / Brunick, Nicholas J. -
[Chicago, IL]: American Planning Association (APA), 2004
Also available for purchase via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.alannino.oro/abstracts/details.aso?Num=2086
Zoning Practice -Issue no. 10 (October 2004)
This issue of Zoning Practice-the second in a two-part series on inclusionary housing -
discusses why large urban centers are examining and adopting inclusionary housing
stretegies. Until recently, no large U.S. city had adopted an inclusionary housing
progrem. With the 1990s resurgence of many urban centers as vibrent locations for new
investment, inclusionary zoning has surfaced as a policy solution to rising housing costs
in big cities. In the article, author Nicholas J. Brunick presents five case studies of
recently enacted inclusionary housing progrems in Boston, Denver, Sacramento, San
Diego, and San Francisco. Lessons that other log) govemments (large or small) can
drew from the large-city inclusionary housing experience will be proposed and
examined.
CalHomia Department of Housing and Community Development, 10
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
INCLUSIONARY ZONING AND HOUSING ORGANIZING -Washington, DC: Center
for Community Change, 2004
Housing Oroanizina -Issue 2. Sorina 2004
Newsletter available full text via the World Wide Web:
The Center for Community Change (CCC) is convinced that many of the solutions to the
nation's affordable housing problems lie in the vision, strategies and tactics adopted by .
community groups that embrace organizing as their primary means for social change. In
this newsletter we will highlight some of the effective work that focal organizations are
doing around affordable housing. The pages of this newsletter aim to inspire, and when
necessary, challenge, the organizing sector and other sectors of the social justice arena
to replicate this work and to consider innovative ways of achieving a broader and deeper
impact on America's housing crisis. - (p. 1)
INCLUSIONARY ZONING: A viable solution to the affordable housing crisis /
Burchell, Robert, [et al.] /Center for Housing Policy -Washington, DC: National
Housing Conference, 2000
New Century Housinc: V. 1, no. 2 (October 2000)
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
httn://www.olanninocommunications.cominhc inclusionarv zoning viable solution.ndf
Includes: Inclusionary Zoning: Pros & cons /Robert W. Burchell & Catherine C. Galley -
Bibliogrephy.
INCLUSIONARY ZONING: Is it helping or hurting housing? / Coyle, Timothy L. -
Berkeley, CA: Califomia Continuing Education of the Bar, 1991
(Inclusionary Zoning Pro and Con)
Lan Use Forum. Vol. 1. no. 1. (Fall 19911. o. 27-28
Timothy L. Coyle was Director of the Califomia Department of Housing and Community
Development upon publication of this article.
Available at Califomia State Law Library
INCLUSIONARY ZONING: Legal Issues /Western Center on Law & Poverty (WCLP) -
Los Angeles, CA: WCLP, 2002
Co-published by: The Califomia Affordable Housing Law Project of the Public Interest
Law Project
Report includes bibliographical references.
Available full text via the World Wide Web:
ham://www.wcla.oro/advocates/housinc/IZLEGALF I NAL. December2002. PDF
This report was made possible by a grant from the San Francisco Foundation.
Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development, 11
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
INCLUSIONARY ZONING: Policy considerations and best practices / Western
Center on Law & Poverty (WCLP) -Los Angeles, CA: WCLP, 2002.
Co-pubiished by: The Califomia Affordable Housing Law Project of the Public Interest
Law Project
Also available full text at the World Wide Web:
htto://www.wclo.org/advocates/housing/IZBestPrecticesFl NALDecember2002. PDF
This report was made possible by a grant from The San Francisco Foundation
INCLUSIONARY ZONING AROUND THE U.S.A. / Siegel, Joyce -[Baltimore, MD]
Innovative Housing Institute, [2000]
"March 2, 2000"
Electronic format only at "News° page at the Institute Homepage:
http://www.inhousing.oro/
"This compendium was assembled to assist a community preparing to develop an
inclusionary zoning progrem." - (p. 1).
INCLUSIONARY ZONING GUIDELINES FOR CITIES & TOWNS / Netter, Edith M. /
Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund -Boston, MA: Massachusetts Housing
Partnership Fund (MHP), 2000
Electronic format only available via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.mho.net/termsheets/inclusionarvzoning.odf
Introduction: Following a May 31, 2000 conference on inclusionary zoning sponsored by
the Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund (MHP), it was clear that Massachusetts
communities wanted ongoing guidance on how to draft inclusionary zoning ordinances
and by-laws. These guidelines, dratted for MHP by Edith Netter, gland-use attorney,
seeks to assist municipal officials by posing key questions and providing useful answers
that address the various steps of drafting, implementing and ensuring maximum benefit
from inclusionary zoning. - (p. 1).
INCLUSIONARY ZONING /MIXED INCOME HOUSING: selected references /Urban
Land Institute -Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, [1999]
(ULI Information Service Infopacket Series; no. 307)
Available for purchase at the World Wide Web:
Photocopied materials on specific real estate and urban development topics ... magazine
articles, unpublished reports, sections from ULI books and reports, project descriptions,
title/table of contents from relevant books, and Web-based resources.
Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development, 12
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
INCREASING HOUSING OPPORTUNITY IN NEW YORK CITY: The case for
inclusionary zoning /Rose, Kalima; Lander, Brad; Feng, Karoleen / PolicyLink --New
York City, NY: PolicyLink, 2004
Co-published by: Pratt Institute for Community & Environmental Development
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htto://wvrvv.~icced.orgl~ubs/izreoort.~df
New York City stands at a crossroads of opportunity. Like many metropolitan areas of
the country, New York City's rental and home ownership costs have marched
dramatically upward, making it increasingly difficult for many New Yorkers to afford
housing. Changes undervvay across the city can either deepen the challenges of
affordability, or can set a new course toward insuring a diverse, stable housing stock
that serves the needs of the spectrum of New Yorkers. Inclusionary zoning offers New
York City an important opportunity to create mixed-income communities.
JUDGES AS AGENTS OF SOCIAL CHANGE: can the courts break the affordable
housing deadlock in metropolitan areas? / Haar, Charles M -Washington, DC:
Fannie Mae Foundation, 1997
Housing Policv Debate - V. 8. no.3 - o. 633-650
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
http://www.fanniemaefoundation.oro/oroorams/hod/odf/hod 0803 haar.odf
Thus far, public policy efforts to introduce metropolitan perspectives into local land use
regulations have been unsuccessful. The series of New Jersey Mount Laurel decisions
lays out a possible path for introducing comprehensive regional planning by deploying
the constitutional power of state courts. Relying on the allied professions of economics
and city planning, the New Jersey Supreme Court eliminated the legal barriers to
affordable housing in the suburbs.
LOCAL REGULATIONS AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY /Downs, Anthony -
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2002
"Speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts -
Odober 7, 2002'
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
http://www.anthonvdowns.com/m it. htm
Simply urging local governments to change their behavior because doing so would
benefit society as a whole will have no effect whatever. That is what all past housing
investigatory commissions have done for over 40 years -including the Millennial
Housing Commission -with no visible impact. - (p. [1 ])
MAKING MIXED-INCOME HOUSING WORK: The low-income uniffi must look good
- Ithaca, NY: New Urban Publications Inc., 2002
New Urban News -Vol. 7. no. 7. (October/November 20021. o. 10-11
May be purchased via the World Wide Web:
http://www.newurbannews.com/
Features interview with: Raymond Gindroz, principal in Urban Design AssoGates in
Pittsburgh, and Willie Jones, senior vice president of The Community Builders in Boston.
California Department of Housing and Community Development, 13
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
MIXED-INCOME HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS: Promise and reality /Smith, Alastair /
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University -Cambridge, MA: JCHS, 2002.
Paper co-published by: Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.ichs.harvard.edu/oublications/W02-10 Smith.odf
"Despite recent policy changes and the excitement surrounding mixed-income
developments, most housing programs are not well designed to facilitate the financing of
mixed income developments. Some developers are finding ways to arrange the
financing of mixed income developments under federal programs, but many report that
they are limited to financing all low-income developments "- (p. 6)
POLICY CLAIMS WITH WEAK EVIDENCE : A critique of the Reason Foundation
study on inclusionary housing policy in the San Francisco Bay Area / Basolo,
Victoria; Calavita, Nico -Irvine, CA: [University of Cal'rfomia at Irvine] 2004
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htto://www.nonurofithousinc.pro/actioncenter/campaigns/downloadllH counterinc critics.odf
The Reason Foundation study of Inclusionary Housing (IH) in the San Francisco Bay
Region claims to examine "the economic and real-world consequences of inclusionary
zoning." In reality, the study does not provide the empirical evidence necessary to
assess the merits or demerits of IH. The narrow scope of the research, the flawed
research design, the data limitations and the weaknesses of the analysis are so
consequential that few, if any, of their conclusions are useful to policymakers.
REFLECTIONS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND A RENEWED LOOK AT ITS
VIABILITY / Padilla, Laura M - [Hempstead, NY]: Hofstra University School of Law,
1995.
Hofstra Law Review - V. 23. no. 3 tSDrina 1995) o. 53915
Available for purchase full text at Westlaw.com:
htt~://web2.westlaw.com/sianon/default.wl?newdoor-true
"The issues raised by inclusionary housing require a fresh review in light of changes to
the United States Supreme Court and current trends favoring private property rights. The
inclusionary housing issue is also timely because California is considering adoption of a
mandatory statewide inclusionary housing program, which, ff adopted, would be the first
statewide program in the country." - (p. 540)
Cafrfomia Department of Housing and Community Development, 14
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
REMEDIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FROM FAIR SHARE TO GROWTH
SHARE / Payne, John M - (Chicago, IL]: APA, 1997
Land Use Law and Zoning Digest - V. 49 (June 199710.3-9
Available for purchase at the World Wide Web:
htt0://www.plannina.orc/abstracts/details.asp?Num=1076
[Professor Payne] begins by asking why other states have not adopted the fair share
approach, and answers-because the fair share approach has not worked. It has not
produced the needed housing, he says, beceuse R focused on "faire rather than "share of
what " In addition, he explains, the fair share approach has done positive harm under the
two categories of bad planning and bad politics. After delineating these negative
impacts, he proposes and elaborates on his concept of "growth share" which avoids the
fair share's pitfalls and is realistically based on a community's capacity to accommodate
housing.
SAN DIEGO ADOPTS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING I Calavfta, Nico -Chicago, IL:
American Planning Association, 2002
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
The San Diego City Council on August 6 voted 7 to 2 to adopt an inclusionary housing
strategy. The city joins a long list of California cities and counties that have approved
indusionary housing, most recently San Francisco and Pasadena. But with a population
of more than 1.2 million, San Diego is probably the largest city in the country to do so.
SMART GROWTH FOR NEIGHBORHOODS: Affordable housing and regional
vision / Kalinosky, Leah -Washington, DC: National Neighborhood Coalition, [2001]
Indudes bibliographical references (p. 22-23)
Also available full text at the World Wide Web:
http://www.neiohborhoodcoaiition.oro/0dfs/hso%20re0ort%20copy2.0df
"Smart growth for Neighborhoods: Affordable Housing and Regional Vision" examines
how communities can promote both affordable housing and smarter regional growth.
Recommendations from the report include addressing exclusionary development
practices, encouraging regional planning for affordable housing and smart growth,
increasing funding for affordable housing, and building new alliances.
STUDY OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING INITIATIVES /Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA) - [St. Paul, MN]: MHFA, 2002
Also available full text at the World Wide Web:
htt0://www. mhfa.state.mn.us/about/I nclusionRe0ort.0df
This report is the result of the [MHFA Indusionary Housing] Advisory Group process. It
provides a definition of the concept, based on experience around the country. It provides
information on the first and still the best known program, Montgomery County, Maryland.
It provides information on programs that have recently been or are in the process of
being developed in several does around the nation. It summarizes the findings of the
Advisory Group created to work with the Agency in the conduct of the study. Finally, it
provides the recommendations that the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency was
directed to present to the 2002 Legislature. - (p. 1)
California Department of Housing and Community Development, 15
Housing Pdicy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED AAATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
SUBURBS UNDER SIEGE: Race, space, and audacious Judges / Haar, Charles
Monroe -Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996
Available for purchase at the World Wide Web:
http://www.historvcoooerative.orgQoumals/Ihr/19.2/br 10.html
'The courts' piecemeal decisions requiring the provision of affordable housing in the
suburbs opened up avenues that, one hopes, will lead to more equitable and efficient
metropolitan communities ... the Mount Laurel experience offers a signal lesson for
reducing the economic and soda) chasm arising from the isolation of the poor in the
central cities of this land of plenty." - (p. xiv)
WHY NOT IN OUR COMAAUNITY: Removing barriers to affordable housing / U.S.
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development - [Washington, DC]: HUD -Office of Policy,
Development & Research (PD&R), 2005
"An update to the report of the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to
Affordable Housing" - On cover
Also available full text via the World Wide Web:
htt~://www.huduser.oro/Publications/odf/wnioc.ndf
Thirteen years ago, the Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable
Housing submitted its report, "Not In My Back Yard": Removing Barriers to Affordable
Housing (the 1991 Report). Its basic finding remains true today: exclusionary,
discriminatory, or unnecessary regulations constitute formidable barriers to affordable
housing. Understanding that government should help, not hinder, the creafion and
rehabilitation of affordable housing... Recommendation 6-16 of the 1991 Report
suggested creating an Office of Regulatory Reform to develop ways to reduce regulatory
barriers at the state and local levels, former Secretary Martinez and then-Deputy
Secretary Jackson ... ordered senior staff immediately to undertake a department wide
initiative entitled America's Affordable Communties Initiative: Bringing Homes Within
Reach Through Regulatory Reform (the Initiative).
ZONING AFFORDABILITY: The challenges of inclusionary housing /Ross, Lynn M -
- [Chicago, IL]: American Planning Association, 2003
Zoning News (August 200310. 1-6
Available for purchase via the APA at the World Wide Web:
httg://www. ola n ni ng. org/abstracts/deta i Is.aso? N um=2102
In this era of federal cutbacks, municipalities have been forced to do more with less. The
provision of affordable housing is no exception. Localities are relying on a number of
tools and programs to ensure that the national epidemic of inadequate affordable
housing does not overwhelm their communities. Among them is inclusionary zoning.
Indusionary zoning is not a new tool in the provision of affordable housing- the first
such ordinances appeared in the early 1970s In Cal'rfomia, Maryland, and Vrginia cities.
However, in recent years inclusionary zoning has gained popularity across the nation.
Cities including Boston, San Francisco, Boulder, San Diego and Santa Fe, New Mexico
have adopted programs within the last five years. Although no definitive survey of these
programs exists, available IRerature suggests that today there are between 50 and 100
jurisdictions nationwide with some type of indusionary housing program. Even in the
absence of a comprehensive survey, one point is dear about these programs: they are
not without challenges.
California Department of Housing and Community Development, i 6
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
SELECTED MATERIALS ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ISSUES
ZONING FOR ALL: Using Inclusionary zoning techniques to promote affordable
housing / Morgan, Jennifer M - [Atlanta, GAJ: Emory University Law School, 1995.
Emory Law Journal - V. 44. no. 1 (Winter 199510. 359-387
Available for purchase full text at Westlaw.com:
h~tt ://web2.westlaw.comisianon/default.wl
"The relationship between an adequate supply of affordable housing and the public
welfare has been recognized by various courts and governments. Several state courts
have invalidated traditional zoning and land use regulations because of their
exclusionary effects. State and local governments have implemented 'inclusionary'
zoning techniques, zoning and land use regulations which encourage the development
of affordable housing." - (p. 359)
California Department of Housing and Community Development, ] ~
Housing Policy Development Division (Revised August 2005)
~,~ t
S u~~ R
~' ±~' d
Y "~
Y
r..+q IIII('~I'Y{
~b.J,
~,
HJ':3.~ Cx ,~ .
''bbii , Selected Calitnrnia Ubraries Contact List
~ Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development
Housing Resource Center - HCD/HRC
```" 1800 Third Street, Rm. 430, Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 322-9648; mkauffma(~hcd.ra_aov
„
~L,~,
,, . Califomia State Library -General Collection
.
.
,~ Library and Courts Building, 914 Capital Mall, Rm. 300
~ Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 654-0261
h ttn:ll wwW libraN. ca. gel
,
t:
California State Library - Govemment Documents
- Library and Courts Building, 914 Capital Mall, Rm. 304
Sacramento, CA 95814 - (916) 654-0069
~p.llwWw I%braN. ca. aov/
UC Berkeley -Environmental Design Library
Moffitt Library, 5th floor, UC Berkeley, 94720
(510) 642-4818; anvi librar..berkele~t:edu
~" UC Berkeley -Institute of Govemment Studies
Library, 109 Moses, UC Berkeley, 94720
`
(510) 642-1472; h~tnalwwwlib.berkalP,ygdul
,~
~.,
,F.
£
(C) o h 005, Califomia Dept. of Housing and Community Development, Housing Resource Center
'Lin to web tes do not constitute endorsement from The Califomia Department of Housing and Community
Development. These links are provided as an infortnebon service only. It is the responsibility of the user to
evaluate the content and usefulness of infonnetion obtained from these sites.
Memorandum
Date: April 2, 2008
To: Mr. Tom Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner
From: Frank Williams, CEO, BIA/Baldy View Chapter
~~ Baldy mew Chapter....
Building Industry Associalidt .
B'~ of Southern California, Ino.
8711 Monroe Court, Suite B -:
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91'730
Subject: Discussion Regazding the Proposed Goal, Objectives, Policies and
Programs for the 2008 Housing Element -Objective 2: Providing Housing
Opportunities that meet the needs of all economic segments of the
Communty including very low, low, and moderate-income households and
special needs groups -Program 2.A.7
The BIA/Baldy View Chapter requests and recommends that Program 2.A.7 be eliminated from
the Housing Element of the 2008 General Plan.
Neither State law nor Department of Housing and Community Development for the State of
California policy require the adoption of any local inclusionary ordinance in order to secure
approval of a jurisdiction's housing element. State law does require incentives for voluntary
inclusionary development (State density bonus law), pronounces housing element law neutral
relative to enactment of mandatory local inclusionary provisions, and circumscribes the
responsibilities of local governments which do enact inclusionary policies.
While some local governments adopt mandatory inclusionary programs as one component of a
comprehensive affordable housing strategy, such programs have the potential to negatively
impact the overall development of housing. As s result. local eovernments must analyze
mandatory inclusionarv policies as potential sovernmental constraints on housine
production when adoptine or updatine their housine elements.
Attached please fmd a letter dated December 13, 2007 from the Director of the California
Department of Housing and Community Development, Lynn Jacobs, and a letter dated November
30, 2004 from then Department of Housing and Community Development, Luceta Dunn setting
out State Law and Department Policy.
Also attached is a document entitled, "Selected Materials on Inclusionary Housing Issues" with
websites that will allow you to access the referenced material. Also review the materials
submitted to the Planning Director on March 14, 2008.
Regulatory policies designed with good intentions to promote orderly growth, protect public
safety, and preserve the environment have backfired and negatively affected the supply side of
the housing market by discouraging housing construction and increasing the cost of building a
home.
In short, Inclusionary Zoning ordinances represent a failed public policy.
BINGHnM
Boston
Hartford
Hang Kong
London
Las Ana alas
New yorh
Orange County
San Francisco
Santa Monica
Silicon Valley
Tokyo
Walnut Creek
Washington
Bingham McCUtchen LLP
Plaza Tower, tB(h Floor
boo Anton Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA
9zbzb-t9a4
T 7tG.8go.oboo
F 714.Byo.o7o0
bingham.com
Marguerite P. Bettersby
Direct Phone: 714.830.0635
Direct Fax: 714.830.0700
peg, battersby@bingham.com
December 6, 2007
SENT VlA E-MAIL 8
U.S. MAIL
Donald Granger, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT 18032 8 Variance DRC2007-00097 (the "Project")
Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC (Applicant)
Dear Mr. Granger:
On behalf of the owners of the property immediately to the north and adjacent to
the Project referenced above, we have reviewed the environmental assessment
for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097, which we
received a copy of on December 4, 2007. At this time we have not received
copies of the draft conditions of approval for the Project, or the Staff Report for
the December 12, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Please accept this letter
as our preliminary comments on the environmental assessment for the Project
and the Project.
Our preliminary review has noted a number of deficiencies and false and/or
unsupported assumptions, leading to our conclusion that.the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and associated Initial Study are inadequate and in violation of the
California Environmental Quality Act. Our conclusions at this time are based on
the following:
Protect Description
Proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 (the "Subdivision") is described on
Environmental Checklist Form, Initial Study Part II (the "IS" at page 1), as "a
residential subdivision of 23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive -
APN 0225-161-65 and 71." This description of the Subdivision does not
adequately describe the Project. The IS fails to fully identify the details of the
Subdivision regarding the net and gross area of the lots, proposed slopes,
existing vegetation, access to and from the proposed 23 single-family lots, and
Al72342035.1 vf-~)
Donald Granger, Associate Planner
December 6, 2007
Page 2
the number of vehicle trips to be generated by 23 new single-family dwelling units
upon build-out.
The proposed Variance DRC2007-00097, also described in the IS as "a request
to allow up to 10.5-foot perimeter wall heights for sound attenuation purposes for
Lots 1-6 to allow up to 7.5-foot combination retaining/freestanding side yard wall
heights for grade differential purposes for Lots 1-6 of Tentative Tract Map 18032,
where a maximum 6-foot wall height is permitted, for a residential subdivision of
23 single-family lots on 7.74-acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive - APN 0225-161-65 and 71." (IS at
page 1.) However, it fails to discuss the proposed deviations from the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire District requirement to have two points of access and a
maximum cul-de-sac length of 600-feet.
In addition, the Environmental Checklist Form, Initial Study Part II, does not have
attach as exhibits alocation/site map and the proposed Subdivision as required
by the California Environmental Quality Act.
7. Hazards and Waste Materials tIS page 13)
The comment for Subsection 7(g), provides "the City's Multi-Hazard Disaster
Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be
administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a disaster.
Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is
required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances,
no adverse impacts are anticipated." (Emphasis added.) This last statement and
conclusion are inaccurate and false. The proposed Subdivision does not provide
two points of access, nor does it meet the City's Fire District requirements for
access. Further, the street "stub out" for "B" Street does not satisfy the City's
requirements for cul-de-sacs, as to length or turn around capability.
13. Public Services (IS page 25)
The comment for Subsection 13(a), provides "the project site, located at the
southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive, will be served by
Fire Station 173, located approximately 1.25 mile to the south. The project will
not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing
facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need
to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval for the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to bre
services will occur. No impacts are anticipated." (Emphasis added.) This
comment fails to discuss the variance or deviation of the requirement of two
points of access. The purpose of two points of access for a subdivision of this
size is not only for emergency and public safety personnel to gain access to the
dwelling units, but to also permit ease of egress by the residents of the
Bingham McCu[chen LLP
bingham.com N72342035.1
Donald Granger, Associate Planner
December 6, 2007
Page 3
Subdivision in the event another point of access becomes impassible. To state
''no impacts are anticipated" is without any supportive facts. A complete analysis
of the deviation from the City's guidelines and standards for access and length of
a cul-de-sac must be conducted before any conclusion can be made.
15. Transoortation/Traffic (IS Pape 27)
The comment for Subsection15(e) provides "the project will be designed to
provide access for all emergency vehicles and will therefore not create an
inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated." (Emphasis added.)
The proposed access to the 23 single-family lots does not comply with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's access and circulation requirements as follows:
Etiwanda North Speck Plan, Chapter 11.0 Design
Guidelines/Section 11.1 Site Planning (Page III-21) provides that
access shall comply with City access regulations and shall not
conflict with other planned or existing access points. Two points
of access shall be provided for all residential developments. Cul-
de-sacs and temporary (partial) streets shall not be permitted to
exceed 600 feet in length.
Street "A"P'B" of the proposed Subdivision is estimated to be 890
feet in length. To comply with the City's guidelines, proposed
Street "A"f'B" can be resigned as a cul-de-sac or a through street,
to be constructed within the boundaries of the Project.
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department Standards/Fire Department
Access Roadways Standard A(11) provides that a second means
of access shall be provided when roadways in single-family
residential (SFR) developments exceed 600 feet.
The proposed Subdivision has been designed such that it does
not comply with the City's access and circulation standard.
Proposed Street "A"f'B" has a length of approximately 890 linear
feet and is designed as "stubbed street" for a future street -- not as
a cul-de-sac - to extend through the undeveloped property to the
north. This secondary point of access has not been analyzed.
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Engineering Division, Public
Improvement Plan and Subdivision Map Guidelines, Street design
Policy 6.2.c states the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 300
feet for high density residential projects (i.e. condominium,
apartment, attached multi-family) and 600 feet for others.
Street "A"/"B" of the proposed Subdivision exceed the maximum
length of 600 feet. To comply with the City's guideline, proposed
Street "A"P'B" can be resigned within the Subdivision as a cul-de-
Bingham McCutchen LLP
bingham.com A/72342035.1
Donald Granger, Associate Planner
December 6, 2007
Page 4
sac. The redesign of Proposed Street "A°!"B" to a cul-de-sac
would comply with City's standards.
Therefore, the determination that no impacts are anticipated is questionable,
without additional analysis.
It is our overall conclusion the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
are factually inaccurate and based on false and misleading conclusions. Our
continuing review of the IS and Mitigated Negative Declaration will likely result in
further comments to be addressed at the public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
As indicated in my previous correspondence with Kevin Ennis, Assistant City
Attorney, we are requesting that the Planning Commission take no action on the
environmental assessment or the Project at its meeting next week, and that the
City's Planning staff conduct the appropriate analysis of the issues addressed
above and recirculate the environmental assessment for public review and
comment, and/or instruct the applicant to revise the Subdivision map to comply
with City requirements.
Sincerely yours,
Marguerite P. Batte by
~~ ~~ Q~~
MPBlmlp
cc: (all via a-mail)
Kevin G. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney
Rick Hartmann
Mike Poland
"Clients'
Bingham McCUtchen LLP
bingham.cam A/72342035.1
Land Use-Planning-Entitlement Consulting Services
Rick C. Hartmann: Phone; (909) 263-6923, E-Mail; rick hartmann(a?att.ne
Michael E. Poland: Phone; (949) 481-5020, E-Mail; meooland(a~cox.net
April 9, 2008
Chairwoman Stewart and
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT 18032 & Variance DRC2007-00097
Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC (the "Applicant")
Dear Chairwoman Stewart & Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of the Mansour ("Tony") Tannourji, et al (the "Partners"), owners of the.
property to the north and adjacent to the project referenced above, we have
completed a thorough review of the Planning Commission Staff
Report/Resolution and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Variance DRC2007-00097 (the "Applications")
scheduled for public hearing on April 9, 2008.
We have several issues that we feel should be brought to your attention and
included as part of the public record regarding the approval process for the
Applications. Our issues at this time relate to: 1) the timelines between the City
and the Partners referenced in the Staff Report, 2) the lack of acknowledgement
on the City's part of referencing our letter dated December 6, 2007, commenting
on the inadequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Initial
Study dated October 31, 2007, and 3) the single-point of access of Tentative
Tract Map 18032 onto Saddle Tree Place.
Timelines between the City and Partners
The Staff Report refers to various dates of when City staff and representatives of
Applicant met with the Partners to discuss the Applications and the proposed
future street through the Partners' property. Although the meeting dates appear
accurate, the statement that Planning staff has not received a response from the
Partners is incorrect. At a meeting with City staff on January 9, 2008, the
Partners and their consultants were informed that the tentative tract map before
~~
SENT VIA E-MAIL &
FACSIMILE
Letter to Chairwoman Stewart
TTM 18032
April 9, 2008
Page 2
you this evening was not the map originally submitted. The map before you
realigned Street "B" to the east, resulting in a conceptual 12-lot subdivision on
the Partners' property. Since the meeting on January 9, 2008; and at staffs
suggestion, we have requested an engineering document from Applicant's civil
engineer that provides us with verifiable calculated lot sizes and area averages
for the Partners' conceptual 12-lot subdivision in order for City staff and the
Partners to determine if the lot sizes would comply with the City's development
standards. Without the street extension into the Partners' property, it is clear
that a 12 lot cul-de-sac configuration would be possible. It has consistently been
our position, however, that the Applicant's project should not benefit directly at
the Partners' expense. Both City staff and the Applicant have assured us that
this will not be the case, and that even with the street extension, 12 lots will be
achievable on the Partners' property.
If the Partners were to be supportive of the Applications before the Planning
Commission tonight, they would need to have an AutoCAD or dwg format file
showing lot and street dimensions, curb radiuses, etc., to be checked by their
own civil engineer. This has not taken place even though the Applicant has
suggested this would in fact be provided to the Partners. The notion that the
Applicant would provide the Partners with the necessary files was first suggested
on March 19, 2008. The Applicant responded to us that their engineer would
have the plans completed within a week and that the plans would include a lot
study, a preliminary grading plan, and all initial engineering for the project. It
would also be in AutoCAD format, and will include all of the information we
requested and that the Applicant would pay the cost of the lot study, estimated at
$3,000, for the lot study.
On March 25, 2008, the Applicant informed us that the lot study would take about
two weeks to complete at a cost of $3,600, which they would pay. However, on
March 31, 2008, the Applicant informed the Partners the cost of the lot study had
increased to $6,600 and the Partners would have to pay 50 percent of the costs
to prepare the lot study. The Applicant's estimated time to prepare the lot study
was then two weeks, which would extend well beyond the date of Commission's
hearing on the Applications. The Applicant further informed the Partners that
they had full support of staff for their project, with the clear message that they did
not feel they had to "prove" anything with respect to development potential, or
potential damage to the Partners' property.
Thus, the Partners have been left with the dilemma of hiring their own civil
engineer to prepare a lot study. This preparation of this 12-lot study is currently
underway at this time and will not be completed for another 30 days.
We do not feel it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to proceed with
consideration or approval of the Applications, without knowing what the potential
damage to the adjacent property, and legal ramifications, of the approval will be.
Letter to Chairwoman Stewart
TTM 18032
April 9, 2008
Page 3
One thing is clear, however.
Environmental Determination
The Staff Report indicates that the project was previously scheduled for Planning
Commission consideration on December 12, 2007. However, the Public Hearing
was continued to an unspecified date due to Planning staff having received
written correspondence from Charles Blankson of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) which noted that the air quality modeling cited
in the Initial Study for Tentative Tract Map 18032 is no longer used by SCAQMD.
on behalf of the Partners on December 6. 2007, noting a number of deficiencies
and false statements leading to the clear conclusion that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and associated Initial Study are inadequate and a violation of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). We would like to have our
written correspondence, dated December 6, 2007, attached, included as part of
the public record for this Public Hearing on the Applications.
The Partners' December 6 correspondence noted a number of deficiencies and
false statements pertaining to the Description of the Project, Hazards and Waste
Materials, Public Services, and Transportation/Traffic. In that most of the
deficiencies and false statements brought forth in the previous Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration have be addressed and/or corrected in the
latest version, we believe for the record that the previous Public Hearing
scheduled for December 12, 2007, was continued also to address our concerns
on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration previously prepared.
Single Point of Access
The Staff Report and Initial Study references Chapter 11.0 Design
Guidelines/Section 11.1 Site Planning (Page III-21) of the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, which states that access shall comply with City access regulations
and shall not conflict with other planned or existing access points, and that two
points of access shall be provided for all residential developments. Cul-de-sacs
and temporary (partiaD streets shall not be permitted to exceed 600 feet in
length.
The Applicant's map proposes a single-point of access, and relies on a
determination by the Fire Chief that an "Alternate Method" of achieving fire safety
within the proposed subdivision is appropriate. It is our opinion the Fire Chief
does not have legal authority to override the City's established land use
regulations, and that the proposed determination of the Fire Chief constitutes an
improper delegation of legislative authority, and also results in an unsafe project.
Letter to Chairwoman Stewart
TTM 18032
April 9, 2008
Page 4
There is no assurance that the road will ever be extended into the Partners'
property and there is absolutely no turnaround provided for emergency vehicles.
The proposed single-point of access and "future" street across the Partners'
property is inconsistent with the City's General Plan, Specific Plan and
developmentlzoning regulations, and the Fire Chief is without authority to amend
these regulations, particularly where such unilateral amendment causes
immediate health and safety risk to future residents within the proposed
subdivision. The proposed exercise of legislative authority by the Fire Chief
interests of adjacent owners.
violation of state and federal laws.
Conclusion
Until such time the Partners can complete the 12-lot study as suggested by the
Applicant and City staff can verify the 12-lots comply with the Etiwanda North
Specffic Plan, the Partners can neither specifically object to nor support the
Applications of Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC. Until such time that the Partners
have precise data to substantiate that a 12-lot subdivision of the Partners'
property would comply with the City's Development Standards, and City staff has
confirmed this to be the case, we would more than gladly work with City staff and
representatives of Peninsula Partners to formulate a Master Plan between both
properties.
Res ec^tfull~
/ TT ~`I~~
ick"C. Hartmarih
nd
ichael .Poland
Attachment: Letter dated December 6, 2007
pc: Donald Granger, Associate Planner
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney KEnnis@rwg.com
Mansour Tannourji, et al.
Marguerite P. Battersby, Attorney at Law
BINGHAM
~..
Boston
Hartfa rd
Nang Kong
Landon
Los Angeles
New York
Orange County
Sen Francisco
Santa Monica
Silicon Valley
Tokyo
Walnut Creek
Weshingtan
Bingham McCUtchen llP
Pleze Tower, sgth Floor
boa An[an Boulevsrd
+ Caste Mesa, CA
\~ yz6z6•syxq
T Isp.83o.0600
F 7iq.87o.e7ao
bingham.com
Marguerite P. Battersby
Direct Phone: 714.830.0635
Drect Fax: 714.830.0700
peg.battersby~bingham.com
December 6, 2007
SENT VIA E-MAIL &
U.S. MAIL
Donald Granger, Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT 18032 &Varlance DRC2007-00097 (the °ProJecY)
Peninsula Retail Partners, LLC (Applicant)
Dear Mr. Granger:
On behalf of the owners of the property immediately to the north and adjacent to
the Project referenced above, we have reviewed the environmental assessment
for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18032 and Varlance DRC2007-00097, which we
received a copy of on December 4, 2007. At this time we have not received
copies of the draft conditions of approval for the Project, or the Staff Report for
the December 12, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Please accept this letter
as our preliminary comments on the environmental assessment for the Project
and the Project.
Our preliminary review has noted a number of deflclencles and false and/or
unsupported assumptions, leading to our conclusion that.the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and associated Initial Study are Inadequate and in violation of the
California Environmental Quality Act. Our conclusions at this time are based on
the following:
Protect Description
Proposed Tentative Tract Map SUBlT18032 (the "Subdivision") is described on
Environmental Checklist Form, Initial Study Part II (the °IS° at page 1), as °a
residential subdivision of 23 single-family lots on 7.74 acres of land in the Low
Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan, located on the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive -
APN 0225-161-65 and 71.' This description of the Subdivision does not
adequately describe the Project. The IS fails to fully identify the details of the
Subdivision regarding the net and gross area of the lots, proposed slopes,
existing vegetation, access to and from the proposed 23 single-Family lots, and
A/72342035.1
i' Donald Granger, Associate Planner
` December 6, 2007
Page 2
the number of vehicle trips to be generated by 23 new single-family dwelling units
upon build-out.
The proposed Variance DRC2007-00097, also described in the IS as "a request
to allow up to 10.5-foot perimeter wall heights for sound attenuation purposes for
Lots 1-6 to allow up to 7.5-foot combination retaining/freestanding side yard wall
heights for grade differential purposes for Lots 1-6 of Tentative Tract Map 16032,
where a maximum 6-foot wall height is permitted, for a residential subdivision of
23 single-family lots on 7.74-acres in the Low Residential District (2~ dwelling
units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Day Creek Boulevard, south of Vintage Drive -APN 0225-161-65 and 71.° (IS at
page 1.) However, it fails to discuss the proposed deviations from the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire District requirement to have two points of access and a
maximum cul-de-sac length of 600-feet.
In addition, the Environmental Checklist Forth, Initial Study Part II, does not have
attach as exhibits alocation/site map and the proposed Subdivision as required
by the California Environmental Quality Act.
7 Hazards and Waste Materials (IS oaoe 13)
l_ _ The comment for Subsection 7(g), provides "the City's Multi-Hazard Disaster
Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be
administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Flre Distrlct in the event of a disaster.
Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is
requirod to comply with all applicable City codes, including local frre ordinances,
no adverse impacts are anticipated.° (Emphasis added.) This last statement and
conclusion are inaccurate and false. The proposed Subdivision does not provide
two points of access, nor does it meet the City's Fire District requirements for
access. Further, the street "stub out" for °B° Street does not satisfy the City's
requirements for cul-de-sacs, as to length or turn around, capability.
13. Public Services (IS page 25)
The comment for Subsection 13(a), provides "the project site, located at the
southwest comer of Day Creek Boulevard and Vintage Drive, will be served by
Fire Siation 173, located approximately 1.25 mile to the south. The project will
not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing
facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need
to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval for the Uniform
Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts fo fire
services will occur. No impacts are anticipated." (Emphasis added.) This
comment fails to discuss the variance or deviation of the requirement of two
points of access. The purpose of two points of access for a subdivision of this
size Is not only for emergency and public safety personnel to gain access to the
dwelling unfts, but to also permit ease of egress by the residents of the
gingham McCUtchan LLP
bingham.com A/72342D}5.1
Donald Granger, Associate Planner
December 6, 2007
Page 3
Subdivision in the event another point of access becomes impassible. 7o state
"no impacts are anticipated" is without any supportive facts. A complete analysis
of the deviation from the City's guidelines and standards for access and length of
a cul-de-sac must be conducted before any conclusion can be made.
15. TranscortationfTrafflc'(IS Dees 271
The comment for Subsectlonl5(e) provides "the project will be designed to
provide access for all emergency vehicles and will therefore not create an
inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated." (Emphasis added,)
The proposed access to the 23 single-famiy lots does not comply with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's access and circulation requirements as follows:
Etiwanda North Specific Plan, Chapter 11.0 Design
Guidelines/Section 11.1 Site Planning (Page III-21) provides that
access shall comply wfth Cfty access regulations and shall not
conflict with other planned or existing access points. Two points
of access shall be provided for all residential developments. Cul-
de-sacs and temporary (partial) streets shall not be permitted to
exceed 600 feet in length.
Street °A"/"B" of the proposed Subdivision is estimated to be 890
feet in length. To comply with the City's guidelines, proposed
Street "A"f'B" can be resigned as a cul-de-sac or a through street,
to be constructed within the boundaries of the Project.
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department Standards/Fire Department
Access Roadways Standard A(11) provides that a second means
of access shall be provided when roadways in single-family
residential (SFR) developments exceed 600 feet.
The proposed Subdivision has been designed such that it does
not comply wfth the City's access and circulation standard.
Proposed Sfreet "A"P'B" has a length of approximately 890 linear
feet and is designed as "stubbed street" for a future street -not as
a cul-de-sac - to extend through the undeveloped property to the
north. This secondary point of access has not been analyzed.
City of Rancho Cucamonga - Engineering Division, Public
Improvement Plan and Subdivision Map Guidelines, Street design
Policy 6.2.c states the maximum cul-de-sac length shall be 300.
feet for high density residential projects (i.e, condominium,
apartment, attached multi-family) and 600 feet for others.
Street "A"P'B" of the proposed Subdivision exceed the maximum
length of 600 feet. To comply with the City's guideline, proposed
Street "A°/"B° can be resigned within the Subdivision as a cul-de-
Bingham Mdohhen LLP
bingham.aom M2342035.]
Donald Granger, Associate Planner
December 6, 2007
Page 4
sac. The redesign of Proposed Street "A"/°B" to a cul-de-sac
would comply with City's standards.
Therefore, the determination that no impacts are anticipated is questionable,
without additional analysis.
It is our overall conclusion the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study
are factually inaccurate and based on false and misleading conclusions. Our
continuing review of the IS and Mitigated Negative Declaration will likely result in
further comments to be addressed at the public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
As indicated in my previous correspondence with Kevin Ennis, Assistant City
_ Attorney, we are requesting that the Planning Commission take no action on the
environmental assessment or the Project at its meeting next week, and that the
City's Planning staff conduct the appropriate analysis of the issues addressed
above and recirculate the environmental assessment for public review and
comment, and/or instruct the applicant to revise the Subdivision map to comply
with City requirements.
Sincerely yours,
'~~ ~~ era
Marguerite P. Batte by
MPB/mlp
cc: (all via a-mail)
Kevin G. Ennis, Assistant City Attorney
Rick Hartmann
Mike Poland
"Clients`
Bingham McCUtchen LLP
bingham.com A/72342035.1