Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-04-13 - Agenda Packet - PC-HPC
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF AR CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION �, � N THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2016 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 11 I. CALL TO ORDER 11 Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly _ Vice Chairman Oaxaca Munoz _ Macias Fletcher II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ` - AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CR,N O APRIL 13, 2016 Page 2 ra L-J III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION Consideration of regular meeting minutes dated March 23, 2016 Consideration of Workshop meeting minutes dated March 23, 2016 11 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00114 — SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to amend the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga by revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the General Plan, and change the land use designations of parcels that are currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing, private golf course of 160 acres that is located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, from Open Space to Mixed Use, in conjunction with a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, -22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -64, -65, -67 through —69, -71 through -74, -78, -79, -84 through -88, -89, -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210-591-02 through -14, and 0210-623-66. Related files: Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00040 — SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, a Specific Plan that applies to properties located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, to delete text, graphics, and exhibits relating to the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing private golf course of 160 acres that is located within the subject Specific Plan area, and insert text, graphics, and exhibits that will describe the design and technical standards/guidelines for a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO APRIL 13, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 3 -22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -64, -65, -67 through -69, -71 through -74, -78, -79, -84 through -88, -89, -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210-591-02 through -14, and 0210-623-66. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 - SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to amend the Development Code of the City Rancho Cucamonga by revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the Development Code that applies to properties, including the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing, private golf course of 160 acres, within the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan ([ASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, a Specific Plan that applies to properties located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, and insert text and graphics in conjunction with a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, -22 through - 28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -64, -65, -67 through -69, -71 through -74, -. 78, -79, -84 through -88, -89, -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210-591-02 through -14, and 0210-623-66. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040. An Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES G. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS 11 VI. ADJOURNMENT 11 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 7, 2016, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO APRIL 13, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 4 ®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. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. 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 $2,597 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). 19 Ba Foc An Vicinity Map Planning Commission AP RI L 13, 2016 Tl� • a c d E ' r E d rl a i.1 a 2 x I d BB3 I i d thks't*;�i_ /BaseUne i >e Line 1 J j1 Church Church 1 1 :thill• E c ,Foothill � ow A � E d i Arrow c — m J rsey t 8th a0 W ! > C7 6th�= Q N 6th W a v ppN C 14th C_ D. E 4th ' a x x P �}9 A Meeting Location: Yi City Hall/Council Chambers 10600 Civic Center Drive Items C, D & E: GPA DRC2015-00114, SPA DRC2015-00040 AND DCA DRC2015-00115 —SC DEVELOPMENT CORP (Lewis Operating Corp.) NOTE: THIS MAP IS NOT INTENDED TO EXACTLY DEFINE THE PROJECT AREA —IT IS FOR GENERAL REFERENCE AND LOCATION ONLY t RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 13, 2016 Page 5 Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitVofRC.us. THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2016 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Pledge of Allegiance 7.03 PM Roll Call I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias X Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Senior Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Dominick Perez, Associate Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Donald Granger, Senior Planner II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Item A —1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO MARCH 23, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 2 Stewart Schwartz spoke in opposition of the Empire Lakes project proposal. He said it should be a no project"and open space use alternatives should be explored because there is not much open space left. He said the project is not consistent with what has made Rancho Cucamonga a desirable city such as recreation, open space. He said our development patterns have been smaller and not mega urban developments; he expressed doubt about the City needing them. He said he believes few residents will be new users on the Metrolink. He said the project will have a negative impact on public transportation with many more cars and congestion. He doubted the appeal to professional millennials because there are no jobs here for them; we should build business infrastructure first. He said we don't need 4,000 housing units. He said the Planning department is not objective. He said all the studies involved Randy Lewis and are biased. III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration of Regular Meeting minutes dated March 9, 2016 B. Consideration of Pre -Application Workshop minutes dated March 9, 2016 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried (4-0-1 Oaxaca absent -late arrival) to adopt the Consent Calendar. 11 IV. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS/PLANNING COMMISSION 711 C. RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK FEASIBILITY AND TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STUDY — SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA: A study, prepared by AECOM, to determine a recommended transit -oriented development concept for the existing Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink San Bernardino Line station and the feasibility of introducing a potential future station with associated development at Haven Avenue. Dominick Perez introduced and summarized how the study came about and the award of the grant that funded the study. Veronica Siranosian with Aecom presented the study (copy on file). She thanked staff for their assistance, leadership and guidance. Vice Chairman Oaxaca arrived at 7:20 PM Item A —2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C=jlexc eo MARCH 23, 2016 0-:4c' Page 3 Commissioner Fletcher asked if the study supported Haven Avenue as a good location for the Metrolink station. Ms. Siranosian said it could fit but is not an ideal location. She said Metrolink would not support a 2nd stop there because it is so close to the other station on Milliken and they have made recent improvements and investment at the Milliken station. She also mentioned a track realignment, platform conflicts with an active rail spur, existing land uses and grading and the future vision for Haven Avenue as an office corridor. Commissioner Fletcher indicated the report seems to be transportation oriented and little is mentioned about the loss of open space or alternative uses and the loss of the golf course is not mentioned either. He expressed concern that it seems to have one goal,- to develop Empire Lakes. He said there is little information on the 10-acre TOD site and how that can be developed and help ridership. Ms. Siranosian said evaluating for the Empire Lakes development was not in the scope but they wanted to see how the 10 acres could be incorporated. She said the scenarios section contains more explanation. She said they looked at how Metrolink is used now and not how to improve ridership. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney noted that although there is a proposal to develop Empire Lakes, this study is a separate document. Commissioner Fletcher noted that this affects that site. He said there are many apartments along Milliken Avenue and he would like to know how many units are there now and also along 4'h Street near Milliken Avenue. He said there may be perhaps 5, 000 units near the current station and he would have liked to know that information with respect to ridership. Ms. Siranosian said they did not look at the existing apartments and the focus of the study was the immediate 112 mile area around the station. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said it is a detailed report and he understood the focus was to look at different scenarios with an innovative eye and integrate those ideas. He asked if the team looked at the commuting distance to the station. He noted he is a daily commuter on Metrolink. He said there are many apartments near and/or adjacent to the station but he observes very few walking to and from those apartments to the station. He asked what the catchment area is and if that would that help convince anyone. He asked if they looked at Fullerton and the Orange station in retrospect to see how many folks made buying/leasing decisions based on the proximity of the rail station. He said his involvement with it at the time indicated it was not as high as they had hoped for. Ms. Siranosian said the catchment area/distance for light rail and BRT is about 112 mile;, biking 3 miles and driving about 10 minutes. She said the case studies included market analysis and favored a mix of uses incorporated near the station to create a mix for people Item A -3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WNCHo MARCH 23, 2016 CLV"ONcu Page 4 to walk through. She said there is good potential for BRT that would supplement the Metrolink line. Commissioner Fletcher asked if they surveyed actual riders. Ms Siranosian responded that the survey included 2 days at Chaffey College and on the Metrolink platform; and there was an on-line survey of City employees. She said they received a total of 239 responses - a small percentage of those ride the Metrolink. Commissioner Munoz asked if the same presentation will go to the City Council. Ms. Siranosian said the blue areas are the 10-acre and 14-acre parcels. She said they would clarify the drawings for the City Council. Mike Smith, Senior planner clarified that the scope of the study was just to evaluate the feasibility of a Metrolink station at the Haven Avenue site and for TOD at the Milliken Avenue Station. It was noted that AECOM was directed by City staff to show how the TOD site could be integrated with Empire Lakes in the conceptual drawings but that Empire Lakes is a separate project. Chairman Wimberly added that this is only conceptual and it was not just focused on the blue areas shown in Figure 5. He suggested they tailor the presentation for the Council so they get the real feel of what the study focus was. Commissioner Macias said the consultant's scope was in response to staffs request and it is incumbent on staff to explain the scope and what we asked them to also conceptualize. The Secretary received and filed the report. 'V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. please sign in after speaking. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18908 - RICHLAND VENTURES, INC. -A proposed subdivision of approximately 10.6 acres into 30 single-family detached lots within the Low (L) Residential District in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and Wilson Avenue - APN: 1087-081-25. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Item A -4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES l!�t RANCHO MARCH 23, 2016 ClI AMONCA Page 5 Dominick Perez, Associate Planner reported that correspondence was received from Fish and Wildlife noting concerns about the biological section of the environmental documents. Staff requested a continuance of the item to an unspecified date to adequately respond to the letter. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and hearing and seeing no comment, closed the public hearing. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 5-0 to continue the item to an unspecified date to allow time to adequately address the concerns noted in the letter. TIME EXTENSION DRC2015-01110 - PACIFIC SUMMIT -FOOTHILL, LLC - A request to allow for a one (1) year time extension of a previously approved 8-lot Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16605) residential subdivision for condominium purposes on 21 acres of land in the Mixed Use (MU) District, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard, between Red Hill Country Club Drive and the Pacific Electric Trail; APN: 0207-101-13. On April 12, 2006, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract 16605. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Chad Studnicki stated he is the applicant. He thanked staff for the project review and consideration of the time extension request. He said he looks forward to submitting a detailed proposal next year. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Renee Massey, a Red Hill resident, expressed concern about water usage and suggested we have a pause in building to conserve water. Mr. Grahn said water is part of the review of the project. He said staff received a certification from CVWD the available supply of water for the project. He said staff has only received letters of support from CVWD and no requests from them for a moratorium. He confirmed that this request on the agenda tonight is for the map time extension and not for a future project on the site. Item A —5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO MARCH 23, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 6 F G. Richard Davidson said he is a resident of Red Hill and lives in the condos north of project area. He said 315 units were originally planned. He asked how many are proposed now. Mr. Grahn recalled the original count was 206 units but that application expired - it was also on only 21 acres. He said the new proposal includes a new area and is now 24 acres with about 175 units. He confirmed it is a bigger area with a reduction in units. Chairman Wimberly closed the public hearing. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0 to adopt the Resolution approving Time Extension DRC2015-01110; VI. COMMISSION BUSINEWHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Fletcher commented on current mandated water restrictions/reductions and how that relates to the approval of new development, time extensions with respect to future CEQA review, and certified water supply letters provided by CVWD. Mike Smith, Senior Planner said staff would look into it. Commissioner Macias asked if additional CEQA review would be required once the applicant moves forward with his tract (referring to Item E on the agenda). Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, commented that additional CEQA review may not be required if no significant changes to the project have occurred, however, in some cases it may be needed. He indicated there is a difficult nexus with respect to water usage, the current restrictions in place and the approval of new development. Vice Chairman Oaxaca suggested staff be more specific in their reports about how the determination of available water supplies for new development rests in the jurisdiction of the water districts and not with the City. Mr. Smith noted that staff is aware of this and staff report preparation will be more thorough in the analysis with respect to water. Item A -6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C ONHo GA MARCH 23, 2016 Page 7 Commissioner Fletcher asked if a presentation by the water district could be scheduled to explain how they are handling these requests. He said there is a perceived disconnect with the public in this area. Mr. Smith said staff will look into that. Commissioner Macias reported two Code Enforcement issues of possible unpermitted sales of items during the weekends. Mr. Smith noted the locations and issues and assured the Commissioners that they would be referred to Code Enforcement. Mr. Flower said they could be illegal but could also be a temporary use or a special sale. He said the Commissioners in general can bring these types of reports to staff but there is no role for staff to direct Code Enforcement. He suggested staff check it out the report and forward it on to Code Enforcement as appropriate. Mr. Smith said staff is comfortable with that approach. Commissioner Fletcher noted that when he has informed staff of his concerns, Code Enforcement is prompt in responding. 11 VII. ADJOURNMENT 11 AT 8:30 PM THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED TO THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-00142 — DR HORTON. 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 March 17, 2016, 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 Item A —7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES WNCHO MARCH 23, 2016 C` ONGA Page 8 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. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. 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 $2,584 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. -Iftta'7eW3 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP MINUTES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 23, 2016 - 7:00 PM* Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ***RAINS ROOM*** 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 11 I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call 8.35 PM Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias X Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Donald Granger, Senior Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Senior Planner 11 II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP DRC2016-00142 — DR HORTON -A request for a Planning Commission Workshop review of a conceptual site plan and architectural elevations for a proposed 28.4 acre mixed -use project consisting of 398 residential units, a 52-room hotel and two restaurant pads totaling 12,000 square feet including a change in land use from Regionally Related Office/Commercial (RROC) to Mixed Use (MU) for a site located within the Victoria Community Plan (VCP) at the southwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road —APN: 1090-331-05. Related File: Preliminary Item B —1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES jjANcao MARCH 23, 2016 CIACAMONOA Page 2 Review DRC2015-01102 Donald Granger, Senior Planner gave a brief introduction and overview of the Pre - application process. He gave a brief summary of the proposed project and proposed uses and their locations on the site. He noted the applicants have taken staff comments thus far seriously and this is third or fourth iteration of the conceptual plans. He reviewed the items for discussion noted on Page 5 of the staff report (Page A-5 of the agenda packet). He introduced Dan Boyd of DR Horton and Jaime Stark (Architect). Mr. Boyd noted their excitement for the project and said it is a great opportunity for a spectaculardevelopment and Mr. Horton is reviewing this himself. He said they plan on bringing in upscale restaurant eateries and a boutique hotel although they would greatly prefer a larger hotel as this smaller hotel will be difficult to market and to pencil out. He said the project has 5 areas, A-F and each has a theme; there are 4 distinct products. Mr. Stark noted that although some of the 3-story row homes have tandem parking, the tandem space is not included in their parking count. Some units have roof deck and all walkways are organized so pedestrians can easily move from one village to the next. Vice Chairman Oaxaca asked for more information regarding the mix of residential and commercial uses. Mr. Boyd said there is a 3 acre balance for commercial uses per a staff request. He said the layout is market driven and they are looking for multiple levels of buyers- fire/police/teachers and the millennials that want pizazz and families as well. He said the development is not heavily geared towards kids -there is more here for adults. He said their plan is to achieve build out in 3-4 years. With respect to phasing, they will have models for all the products -they plan to do the infrastructure, grading etc. all at once. He said they meet the parking requirements and they know guest parking is critical. He said they may re -visit that after the recreation amenities are finalized. He said it will not be an issue. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said they are not "real" streets that they can use for parking. Commissioner Munoz noted recreational amenities are lacking. He said the architecture looks pretty good; eclectic. He said the massing of the multi -family buildings could be overpowering; they need to be careful with that. He said the wall proposed by staff is probably a good idea —they should make it look special. He asked about the timing of the construction for the commercial portion in relation to the residential. Mr Boyd said there is no timing yet — they will get the infrastructure in place first. He said the challenge will be a boutique hotel at 52 rooms. He said they need to find a boutique operator for this; they will have to compete in the market. He said he knows Item B —2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO MARCH 23, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 3 this is very important to the mixed use component and staff wanted it in this range. He said he proposed 100 rooms but that impacted parking and another chain hotel was not desirable either. He said they would like to push this part of the development out to the end. He said Ayres hotels could be considered. Mike Smith, Senior Planner asked the applicant if they are taking advantage of the mixed use standards for setbacks. He asked if fronting the buildings to Day Creek was considered. Mr. Stark indicated they do front Day Creek. Vice Chairman Oaxaca asked if they considered a smaller commercial use along Day Creek to reflect the Sprouts center across the street. Mr. Boyd stressed that they want the focal point for the residents to feel like they are arriving in a residential project. He said the layout meets the mutual goals of mixed use. Commissioner Fletcher said the work so far is good. He said he supports the land use change, it has good walkability, the architecture looks good and is a little different than the norm. He said he agrees with staff with respect to it lacking active amenities. He expressed concem about the tot lot located adjacent to the rear yards of otherresidents- he suggested it be moved. He said he likes the mixed uses that are proposed and the layout. He supported staffs recommendations in the staff report with respect for adequate parking. He said with respect to phasing, there are new mixed use development standards and he wants to see the commercial portion built by the time rest is completed. Mr. Boyd agreed that the tot lot should be relocated. He said with respect to active and passive uses, Irvine created forums that are hugely popular,' he said they want to see gardens. He did not want a basketball court. He said active amenities all add to the HOA dues. He expressed concern about breaking up the residential community with additional commercial uses on Day Creek. He said they do not want to lose the entry or sense of arrival and he did not want residents to drive through a retail component to get to their homes. Chairman Wimberly agreed with Vice Chairman Oaxaca that they could maximize their opportunity along Day Creek with more mixed uses. He said overall he is pleased with the development. He said he feels strongly about the phasing and that the commercial piece should not be added at the end. He said the commercial must be there to justify the mixed use ordinance. Item B -3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP RANCHO MARCH 23, 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 4 11 IV. ADJOURNMENT 9:35 PM 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 March 17, 2016, 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." Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. 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 Item B —4 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANOHo MARCH 23, 2016 (uUCAMONOA Page 5 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 $2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us Item B —5 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT RANCHO CUCAMONGA Date: April 13, 2016 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director By: Mike Smith, Senior Planner Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00114 - SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to amend the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga by revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the General Plan,, and change the land use designations of parcels that are currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing, private golf course of 160 acres that is located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, from Open Space to Mixed Use, in conjunction with a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, -22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -64, -65, -67 through -69, -71 through -74, -78, - 79, -84, -88 through -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210-591-02 through -14, and 0210-623- 66. Related files: Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00040 - SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.); A request to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan ([ASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, a Specific Plan that applies to properties located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, to delete text, graphics, and exhibits relating to the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing private golf course of 160 acres that is located within the subject Specific Plan area, and insert text, graphics, and exhibits that will describe the design and technical standards/guidelines for a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, - 22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -64, -65, -67 through -69, -71 through -74, -78, -79, -84, -88 through -90, 0210-581-01 through -06, 0210-591-02 through - 14, and 0210-623-66. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 - SC Rancho Development Corp. (Lewis Operating Corp.): A request to C,D,E - 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 2 amend the Development Code of the City Rancho Cucamonga by revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the Development Code that applies to properties, including the Empire Lakes Golf Course, an existing, private golf course of 160 acres, within the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, a Specific Plan that applies to properties located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, and insert text and graphics in conjunction with a proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development that is proposed to replace the golf course; APNs: 0209-272-11, -15, -17, -20, -22 through -28, 0210-082-41, -49 through -52, 0210-082-61, -64, -65, -67 through —69, -71 through -74, -78, - 79, -84, -88 through -90, 0210-581-01 through -06; 0210-591-02 through -14, and 0210-623- 66. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20150410083); and 2. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions recommending the City Council approve each of the following: a) General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114; b) Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040 (with Staff recommended revisions/amendments as included in Exhibit DD); and c) Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 BACKGROUND: A. The General Plan: The City's 2010 General Plan establishes goals and policies for important issues such as circulation, economic development, housing, land use, and resource conservation. The following are the policies described in the General Plan that are relevant to the discussion and analysis of the proposed project. 1. Land Use - Policy LU-1.2: Designate appropriate land uses to serve local needs and be able to respond to regional market needs, as appropriate. 2. Land Use - Policy LU-1.6: Encourage small -lot, single -unit attached and/or detached residential development (5,200-square-foot lots or smaller) to locate in areas where this density would be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. C,D,E — 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 3 3. Land Use - Policy LU-2.1: Plan for vibrant, pedestrian -friendly Mixed Use and high density residential areas at strategic infill locations along transit routes. 4. Land Use - Policy LU-2.2: Require new infill development to be designed for pedestrians and automobiles equally, and to provide connections to transit and bicycle facilities. 5. Land Use - Policv LU-2.3: Provide direct pedestrian connections between development projects where possible. Land Use - Policy LU-2.4: Promote complementary infill development, rehabilitation, and re -use that contribute positively to the surrounding residential neighborhood areas. Land Use - Policy LU-3.7: Encourage new development projects to build on vacant in -fill sites within a built -out area, and/or redevelop previously developed properties that are underutilized. Land Use - Policy LU-3.8: Implement land use patterns and policies that incorporate smart growth practices, including placement of higher densities near transit centers and along transit corridors, allowing Mixed Use development, and encouraging and accommodating pedestrian movement. 9. Land Use - Policy LU-12.3: Support development projects that are designed to facilitate convenient access for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles. 10. Economic Development - Policy ED-1.5: Support housing opportunities for workers of all income ranges. 11. Economic Development - Policy ED-3.4: Improve internal circulation for all modes of transportation, consistent with the concept of "Complete Streets." 12. Economic Development - Policy ED-5.1: Engage in regional transit planning efforts. 13. Public Safety - Policy PS-12.3: Encourage development of transit -oriented and infill development, and encourage a mix of uses that foster walking and alternative transportation. 14. Public Safety - Policy PS-12.4: Provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit, including public bus service, the Metrolink, and the potential for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). B. Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan GASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan: According to the text in the existing Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Empire Lakes Specific Plan" or "Specific Plan") that was adopted in 1994, "In 1993, a multitude of discussions were held with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to strategize on the regulating of the General Dynamics property with the City. The pending vacancy of approximately 1,000,000 square feet of office space required a creative approach for encouraging future reuse of the buildings, as well as a strategy for development of 300 acres of adjacent vacant properties. The discussions resulted in the preparation of a conceptual land use plan identifying the C,D,E — 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 4 development potential of a championship quality golf course as the central theme, with a variety of supporting land uses surrounding the golf course. A Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in September 1993. The applications for a specific plan, general plan amendment, and environmental impact report were submitted in October 1993. The draft Specific Plan for Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan and a draft Environmental impact Report (EIR) were made available for public review on January 26, 1994. The final EIR was certified and the Specific Plan approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in June 1994." C. Previous Amendments to the Specific Plan: Following the adoption of the Specific Plan in 1994, it was amended multiple times. According to the text of the Specific Plan, "In November 2000, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council approved an amendment to the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in the mixed use Planning Area IX [related file: Specific Plan Amendment 00-01, Ordinance #638, Exhibit D]. In May 2001, the Council approved an amendment to permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in Planning Area VI [related file: Specific Plan Amendment 00-04, Ordinance #656, Exhibit D]. In September 2002, the Council approved an amendment to permit market rate senior housing in Planning Area VII as an additionally permitted use [related file: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2002- 00464, Ordinance #690, Exhibit D]. In June 2003, the Council approved an amendment to the Sub - Area 18 Specific Plan to also permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in Mixed -Use Planning Area VII [related file: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, Ordinance #714, Exhibit D]." D. Policy and Regulatory Background: The City Council has adopted policies and regulations with the intent of encouraging mixed use development. For example: General Plan Update: On May 19, 2010, the City Council adopted the City's 2010 General Plan. As part of this update of the General Plan, the land use designations for several parcels were changed to "Mixed Use". The parcels are generally grouped in "Mixed Use Areas" at various locations in the City as shown in Figure LU-3 of the General Plan (Exhibit J). There are a total of thirteen (13) Mixed Use Areas. Included in one these Mixed Use Areas are the existing apartment complexes located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan. 2. Council Goals: In January 2015, the City Council accepted several goals for the City during an assessment of the City's objectives. Two of these goals, A24 and A25, are relevant to mixed use development. The objective of Goal A24 is "to address 1) mixed use, high density, transit oriented development (TOD), and 2) underperforming or underutilized areas." The objective of Goal A25 is "review the City's zoning districts and evaluate/investigate creating overlay districts or specific plan areas" that will create districts in order to revitalize underperforming or underutilized areas. Mixed Use Development Standards: On August 12, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 to provide development standards for density, building height, parking, setback requirements, etc. that will apply to mixed use development projects throughout the City. These amendments were reviewed and adopted by the City Council on October 21, 2015. C,D,E — 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFI (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 5 C Studies and Field Activities: The City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff have participated in studies and field activities with the intent of acquiring a better understanding of mixed use development which, in turn, would assist in establishing the framework and foundation for mixed use development in the City. For example: Foothill Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Study: On June 19, 2013, the results of this study were presented to the City Council. The study was prepared in partnership with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). It evaluated where transit -oriented development (TOD) was viable and whether Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) could be supported along Foothill Boulevard. It also included an analysis of the City's General Plan and Development Code to incorporate policies and housing opportunities to support future BRT opportunities consistent with regional transit plans and TOD principals. 2. Design Tour: On October 30, 2013, Planning Department Staff conducted a "Design Tour' with the City Council and the Planning Commission. The purpose of the tour was to show how mixed use, high density development and single use, low density development were compatible and could function harmoniously. The tour included a visit to three (3) cities — Santa Clarita, Pasadena, and Monrovia — where several projects, of different densities that consisted of a mix of land use types, were observed to be well -integrated within the existing built environment that surrounded them. It was also determined from this tour that high quality architecture and high -density development were not mutually exclusive. Similarly, interesting design elements that would be impractical or unusual in low density development were well -suited to high density development. Lastly, small, compact spaces can be effective for creating welcoming and active pedestrian -scale gathering areas. 3. Economic Development Strategic Plan: In February 2015, the City adopted its Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP). The EDSP serves as a guide for the City's economic development goals over the next 3 to 5 years. One of the goals identified was the creation of an environment that would be attractive to a workforce and customer base demographic that was born generally between 1980 and 2000. To accomplish this, the City would need to facilitate pedestrian -oriented development, and encourage the use of non -automotive transit (trains, buses, and bicycles), within an environment where there are a variety of land uses in relatively close proximity to each other, i.e. mixed use development, compared to conventional single -use development. This type of development would be consistent with the City's goal to encourage a healthy and sustainable lifestyle for residents and visitors as envisioned in the Healthy RC initiative. As an added benefit, it could contribute to the revitalization of underperforming existing retail centers. F. City Goals for Development Proiects: As described in the City's General Plan (Chapter 2, page LU- 4), "vacant land has become a scarce resource and land use decisions must be carefully crafted to protect established residential neighborhoods and plan for appropriate in -fill development while connecting land uses and transportation modes." The City's location near major freeway corridors and the Metrolink rail line allows it to serve both local and regional needs. In addition, the type and quality of development in the City is attractive to both residents and employers. The City is predominantly developed with single-family residences, and while it is important to retain that C,D,E — 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 6 character, it is understood that providing for a variety of housing types and densities, in appropriate locations, is important for economic and environmental sustainability. Areas of the City have been identified in the General Plan that are appropriate for mixed use development. They are generally located along Foothill Boulevard and within the industrial areas in the southern part of the City. To encourage the integration of uses and sustainability, and, flexibility is allowed in the uses and density in mixed use development. The General Plan encourages development that is surrounded by other residential development, i.e. in -fill development, in order to maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure and to address housing demand. As in -fill development locates additional people near existing and new commercial uses and recreational amenities, it increases the vitality of a neighborhood and the economic viability of businesses. In -fill can create more sustainable development that improves infrastructure and land use and, over time, improve energy efficiency. Sustainable development emphasizes accessibility where the activities people use frequently are located in close proximity. It integrates transportation and land use decisions by encouraging compact, mixed use development within existing urban areas and along mass transit corridors. Higher density development provides equal accessibility for pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles. If located along mass transit corridors, it could result in less automobile usage as residents choose transit use. The City strives to have a strong, diverse economy. To achieve this, workers from all age groups, with a variety of education, skills, and incomes are required. Therefore, a goal of the City is to support the development of housing for the widest variety of household types and needs. The City also strives to have a healthy community - a "Healthy City". By minimizing traffic and enhancing opportunities to walk, bike, and use transit, air pollution is reduced and the quality of life in the City is improved. Potentially, transportation costs for local residents and workers could be reduced which will create economic sustainability. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning (relative to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan): North - Industrial Logistics and Manufacturing Buildings; Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) District South - Commercial Center; Ontario Center Specific Plan (2254-SP) (in the City of Ontario) East - Industrial Offices/Logistics Buildings, a Commercial Center, and Hotels; General Industrial (GI) District, Industrial Park (IP) District, and Industrial Park (IP) District, (Industrial Commercial Overlay District ([COD)) West - Industrial Offices/Logistics Buildings and Vacant Land; General Industrial (GI) District and Industrial Park (IP) District B. General Plan Designations (relative to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan): Project Site - Open Space North - Heavy Industrial South - Mixed Use — Ontario Mills (in the City of Ontario) C,D,E — 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 7 East - General Industrial and Industrial Park West - General Industrial and Industrial Park C. Site Description: The project site is the Empire Lakes Golf Course, a privately owned and operated 18-hole golf course that was designed by professional golfer Arnold Palmer, located in the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Empire Lakes Specific Plan" or "Specific Plan"). The golf course is comprised of four (4) parcels with a combined area of 160 acres. The overall area of the Specific Plan is 347 acres. The Specific Plan is bound by 4th Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the west, and 81 Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north (Exhibit B). The golf course is generally located at the center, and covers about 46%, of the Specific Plan. Both the Specific Plan and the golf course are bisected into north and south halves by 61 Street. To the east of the golf course are multi -family residences within four (4) apartment complexes - "Village at the Green", "Reserve at Empire Lakes", "Ironwood at Empire Lakes", and "AMLI at Empire Lakes". Adjacent to the northeast corner of the golf course are office buildings and the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station. To the west of the part of the golf course located south of 6th Street is an office complex comprised of multiple tenants including Southern California Edison (SCE) and Inland Empire Health Plan (IEHP). To the west of the part of the golf course located north of 6th Street are logistics/manufacturing buildings. To the north of the golf course, beyond the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, are additional logistics/manufacturing buildings. To the south, on the opposite side of 4th Street, is vacant land within the City of Ontario. The Specific Plan, as it was originally approved in 1994, consists of eleven (11) "Planning Areas" which are identified with Roman numerals, i.e. Planning Area IA/IB through X (Exhibit C). The golf course is within "Planning Area IA", "Planning Area IB", and (partly) "Planning Area III" of the Specific Plan (Exhibit B and Figure 7.2, page 7-3 of Exhibit G). GENERAL: The applicant, SC Rancho Development Corp., an entity of Lewis Operating Corp., recently purchased the privately owned property that is improved with the aforementioned Empire Lakes Golf Course. The applicant proposes to replace the existing golf course with a new mixed use, transit -oriented, high development project (referred to as "Planning Area 1" or "Empire Lakes"). In order to do this, the applicant submitted applications on January 8, 2015 for amendments to the General Plan, the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, and the Development Code. A. General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114: This proposed amendment to the General Plan will change the land use designation of the subject property from "Open Space" to "Mixed Use". The amendment is necessary as the limits on the number of dwelling units per acre and population density within an Open Space designated area do not permit the applicant's proposed project. Furthermore, the Open Space designation generally applies to areas that are for preservation of natural resources and outdoor recreation. In order to fulfill their economic objective for the property, the applicant is requesting the change in the land use designation to Mixed Use as it will allow a greater number of dwelling units per acre and more intense land uses. C,D,E — 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 8 As the City faces build -out, a shift in this type of land uses will be more common as underperforming, under-utilized, or underdeveloped properties change to support future housing and business needs. The General Plan identifies Specific Plans as a useful tool for allowing flexibility in design while maintaining the high quality the City has enjoyed. The General Plan Amendment proposes to replace the prior golf course use under the original Empire Lakes Specific Plan with a new Specific Plan laying out a more urban scale community which includes a variety of smaller public and private open space areas. These new urban scale open space opportunities are intended to support a pedestrian -oriented and walkable community. While not the same scale or method as the golf course being replaced, they are a vital element of creating a new, livable urban community. The proposed amendment also includes revisions to Figured LU-2 (Land Use Plan) and LU-3 (Mixed Use Areas). Text in the General Plan that refers to the project site as a golf course and describes the development characteristics within the Specific Plan will be deleted and revised (Exhibit W). B. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040: This proposed amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan will re -designate "Planning Area IA", "Planning Area IB', and part of Planning Area III" of the existing Specific Plan as "Planning Area 1 (PA1)". The amendment will also revise and/or delete existing text, graphics, and exhibits that are associated with, or refer to, the above -noted Planning Areas and the existing golf course (Exhibit F). In addition, new design and technical standards/guidelines will be created and incorporated, as a new section (chapter) that will be used to govern development within Planning Area 1 (PA1). This new section will be identified as Section 7 (Exhibit G) in the proposed amended Specific Plan, and follow the existing six (6) sections (chapters) of the existing Specific Plan. C. Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115: This proposed amendment to the Development Code will revise text and graphics that apply to the existing Specific Plan so that they reflect the amended Specific Plan (Exhibit X). In addition, a new land use table that will apply only to Planning Area 1 will be incorporated. At this time, no development applications, such as tentative tract/parcel maps and/or conceptual site and building plans, have not been submitted by the applicant for review by the City. If the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code are approved by the City Council, then these applications will be submitted at a future date by the applicant and/or by other developers. Each of these applications will be subject to the review processes described in the Development Code and will require a public hearing and approval by the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS D. Proposed Proiect: "Empire Lakes", as proposed, will be a mixed use, transit -oriented, high density development where residential and non-residential (office, commercial, etc.) uses will be permitted to be located in close proximity to each other. In this setting, a set of houses, for example, could be located 'next door' to an office building. Similarly, in a building with multiple floors, there could be a restaurant on the first floor with apartments on the floors above it. The density, i.e. number of residential dwelling units permitted per acre ("du/acre'), in Empire Lakes will be relatively higher than the density of a conventional residential subdivision. The mixed use characteristics of Empire Lakes are intended to encourage walking and bicycling, thereby reducing the reliance on an automobile, for C,D,E — 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 9 travel between destinations. These characteristics are also intended to facilitate the use of the Metrolink regional passenger rail system via the aforementioned Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station. Empire Lakes will be comprised of six (6) "Placetypes". These Placetypes will function similarly to zoning districts. They are further divided into "Planning Areas": N-1 through N-15, north of 6ch Street, and S-14 through S-24, south of 6'h Street (Figure 7.6, pages 7-16 and 7-17 of Exhibit G). The overall net density range of Empire Lakes will be between 19.7 — 25.7 du/acre. Within each specific Placetype, the actual allowable density range will vary. Generally, the Urban Neighborhood (UN) and Core Living (CL) Placetypes, which are located along the south side of 6ih Street and near the Metrolink station, will have the highest allowable density range. The Placetypes with the lowest allowable density range will be located south of 6ch Street. The land use(s), density range, and/or maximum floor area for non-residential uses that will apply within each of the Placetypes are as follows (listed in the order in which they are described in the amended Specific Plan - Section 7.3.2, pages 7-18 through 7-31 of Exhibit G): • Transit (T) — transit -oriented services, 25,000 square feet (maximum) of non-residential uses; • Mixed Use (MU) — medium to high density residential (14-55 du/acre) and 110,000 square feet (maximum) of non-residential uses; • Urban Neighborhood (UN) — high density residential (24-80 du/acre); • Core Living (CL) — medium to high density residential (18-35 du/acre); • Village Neighborhood (VN) — medium to high density residential (16-28 du/acre); and • Recreation (REC) — common private and public recreation amenities The overall number of residential dwelling units that are proposed for Empire Lakes will range between 2,650 — 3,450 units depending on market conditions and housing types. The housing types within Empire Lakes will include apartments, condominiums, and single-family residences. These will be directed towards, for example, entry level homebuyers, individuals 'downsizing' to smaller homes, and seniors. There will be a combination of "for rent" and "for sale" residential dwelling units. All housing types will be sold or leased at market rates. Subsidized housing in the amended Specific Plan is not proposed nor is it being required by the City. Empire Lakes will have up to a maximum of 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses (Table 7.1, pages 7-16 and 7-17 of Exhibit G). These types of uses will be generally concentrated within the Mixed Use (MU) Placetypes. Non-residential uses also will be permitted anywhere within the Mixed Use Overlay. The actual amount of floor area within the Overlay devoted to non-residential uses will vary due to market demand. The proposed minimum is 50,000 square feet (with no less than 20,000 square feet each in the south and north halves of the project site). The proposed maximum is 85,000 square feet. Land uses within Empire Lakes will be regulated by Table 17.38.070-1 (Appendix E, pages A-78 through A-82 of Exhibit G, and Exhibit X) that is proposed to be incorporated into the City's Development Code as part of Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. The layout of this new table will match Table 17.30.030-1 — Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Base Zoning District — of the Development Code. The corresponding land use classifications/categories, descriptions, and the entitlement/permit requirements also will be consistent with the Development Code. The principal difference between the two tables will be that the permitted land uses within C,D,E — 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 10 Empire Lakes are more flexible and, consistent with the mixed use intent of the project, residential and non-residential uses will be allowed to be in close proximity to each other. Also, unique land uses (Appendix E, pages A-76 and A-77 of Exhibit G, and Exhibit X), including live/work units, "start- ups", and small-scale businesses, that would not be allowed elsewhere in the City will be allowed within Empire Lakes. Conversely, automobile -related land uses such as gas stations, drive-thru facilities, car washes, etc. will not be permitted anywhere within Empire Lakes as these uses would be contrary to the non -automobile -centric intent of the proposed project. Staff notes to the Commission that special restrictions and/or regulations that apply to uses such as adult -oriented businesses, marijuana dispensaries, and massage establishments that may be proposed elsewhere in the City will also apply within Empire Lakes. E. Circulation: The street network within Empire Lakes will consist of a combination of public and private streets. At the direction of the City, the general layout of all streets will be required to be in a grid pattern — this requirement will apply wherever it is practical. The objective of the grid pattern to provide multiple direct, 'straight line' travel routes between destinations throughout the Empire Lakes. This street pattern will also allow for a more efficient use of land as each neighborhood block, and the corresponding lots within them, will be square or rectangular in shape. To further these objectives, curvilinear streets will not be permitted and cul-de-sacs only will be permitted in limited circumstances (Section 7.3.6.E9, page 7-54 of Exhibit G). Staff notes to the Commission, and therefore recommends, that this requirement apply to drive aisles, as well. Although they are not technically 'streets', they serve the same purpose — vehicle circulation and access (regular and emergency). The drive aisle network should be required to follow a grid pattern with multiple direct, 'straight line' travel routes between destinations (similar to the street network) with direct connections to the street network (particularly The Vine). Furthermore, multiple points of vehicle access to The Vine from each development within Empire Lakes shall be provided (Exhibit DD). The primary street through Empire Lakes will be a centrally located street identified as "The Vine" in the proposed amended Specific Plan (Figure 7.6, page 7-16 of Exhibit G). This public street will be aligned approximately along the north -south axis of Empire Lakes and will serve as an uninterrupted connection between 4ch Street and the Metrolink station. It will be 60 feet wide with one vehicle lane per direction, and include a bicycle lane and sidewalk on both sides of the street. Parallel parking spaces also will be provided on both sides of the street (Figure 7.5, page 7-64 of Exhibit G). Vehicle access from outside the boundaries of Empire Lakes will be via intersections with The Vine at 4ch Street, 6th Street, and extensions of 7ih Street. The Vine will also connect with the parking lot at the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station. Additional, interior streets will be provided, depending on the final layout of development within Empire Lakes. All streets will be designed per the standards described in the amended Specific Plan (Section 7.3.6, pages 7-70 through 7.76 of Exhibit G). Although these standards differ from the City's conventional standards, and are intended to allow, for example, wider sidewalks, street parking, and minimal landscaping, the design of all streets will be required to meet the minimum dimensions necessary to ensure access by emergency vehicles. The proposed amended Specific Plan states, "the street network is designed to provide low speed circulation and efficient movement throughout the community," and will include a variety of traffic calming measures such as bulb -outs, chicanes, mid -block pedestrian crossings. Also, there will be roundabouts at three (3) street intersections with The Vine (Figures 7.22 and 7.32, pages 7-53 and 7- 65 of Exhibit G). These roundabouts will reduce speeds while still allowing efficient traffic flow through intersections. At regular intervals there will be raised pedestrian crosswalks (Figures 7.27 C,D,E — 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 11 and 7.28, pages 7-60 and -61 of Exhibit G). Referred to as "tabletop crossings", the surface of the crossings will be about 3 to 3.5 inches higher than the adjacent road surface, on either side of it, in order to emphasize its presence and enhance pedestrian safety. In addition, there will be standard, mid -block pedestrian crosswalks. Staff notes to the Commission, and therefore recommends, that pedestrian crossings be provided at street intersections and at mid -block locations at intervals that are no greater than 350 feet apart in order to reinforce the pedestrian intent of the project (Exhibit DD). F. Fences and Gates: A goal of the proposed project is to provide an open, walkable community. Fences and gates are proposed only where they are necessary to secure 'private' spaces such as a patios, private yards, etc., or features such as pools where safety fencing is required by the Building Code. Staff notes to the Commission, and therefore recommends, that gates and fences should not be permitted anywhere within Empire Lakes, except where required by Building Code and/or to secure private spaces/amenities to facilitate and encourage walking and bicycle use throughout the project, minimize physical barriers to regular and emergency access, and prevent housing developments (single-family residential tracts, condominium/apartment complexes, etc.) within Empire Lakes from becoming isolated and enclosed 'sub -communities' (Exhibit DD). G. Design Guidelines and Standards: The proposed amended Specific Plan will have design guidelines and standards to encourage aesthetic variety and flexibility in design solutions (Section 7.4, pages 7- 77 through 7-115 of Exhibit G). The intent is to minimize architectural monotony and large blocks of buildings with the same architecture. The guidelines/standards describe methods for building scale, massing, and articulation in order to aesthetically "frame" the street and create an interesting pedestrian environment where there will be opportunities for "active" spaces such as small-scale "pocket parks" and "parklets", plazas, outdoor dining areas, etc. To further emphasize the 'urban' nature of Empire Lakes, all buildings within the Mixed Use Overlay will be required to have a massing that is predominately two- to three -stories (two to three floors) in height. Varying heights will be permitted in order to create articulation and points of visual interest. Single -story elements will be limited to, for example, pedestrian -level spaces and small-scale architectural elements such as covered porches and entryways. H. Technical Guidelines and Standards The amended Specific Plan will also have technical guidelines and standards to encourage efficient use of land. The minimum building setback along the public streets will vary between zero (0) to ten (10) feet, depending on the street (Figure 7.17, page 7-40 of Exhibit G). For example, along The Vine the building setback will be 5 feet while along 6t1 Street the setback will be 10 feet. Rear and side setbacks will be according to the California Building Code (CBC) (Table 7.3, page 7-35 of Exhibit G). These reduced setbacks are more flexible than, but similar in intent to, the development standards that apply to mixed use projects in other parts of the City that were reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 12, 2015 and adopted by the City Council on November 4, 2015 (related file: Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421). To ensure that a building, especially a multi -story building, does not physically and/or visually dominate the adjacent sidewalk, the sidewalks will be about eight (8) to eleven (11) feet wide — about three (3) to six (6) feet wider than typical suburban sidewalks. I. Parking: Although the project is a mixed use, high density development, it is recognized that automobiles will continue to be useful and/or necessary for the foreseeable future. Thus, development of all types within the project will be required to provide parking for the residents, C,D,E — 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 12 guests/visitors, and non-resident workforce of Empire Lakes (Section 7.3.5, pages 7-45 through 7-51 of Exhibit G). For all non-residential development, and residential development with a density of 30 dwelling units (or less) per acre, the number of parking spaces that is required to be provided will be based on the parking requirements described in the Table 17.64.050-1 of the City's Development Code. For residential development with a density of 30 dwelling units (or more) per acre, which most likely will be within the Placetypes located near the Metrolink station, the number of parking spaces that is required to be provided will be based on the proposed parking requirements described in the proposed amended Specific Plan (Table 7.6, page 7-46 of Exhibit G). These parking requirements are lower than the requirements in the Development Code as it is expected that the residents within these Placetypes will be less likely to rely on an automobile and, therefore, the demand for parking spaces will be reduced. Staff notes to the Commission that a parking study will be required for all development that is a) within the Mixed Use (MU) Placetypes, b) within the Mixed Use Overlay (and are mixed use, i.e. a combination of residential and non-residential uses), or c) are residential and have a density of 30 dwelling units (or more) per acre. The parking study will be used to establish that the amount of parking that is proposed for the development will fulfill the parking demand of that development. To verify that the parking study is accurate, a consultant will be contracted by the City to conduct a peer review of it. Both the parking study and the results of the peer review will be included, as an exhibit, with any Staff Report that is prepared for the Planning Commission during its review and consideration of any project that is submitted in the future and fits one or more these criteria. J. Recreational/Open Space: In addition to the standard private yards, recreational/open spaces, and common area, Empire Lakes will have various public recreational/open spaces. Conceptually, the applicant proposes various outdoor amenities within the Recreational (REC) Placetypes at the intersection of The Vine and 6'" Street including a large "Urban Plaza" at the northeast corner of The Vine and 6"' Street. Also, along The Vine are proposed a series of "pocket" parks while throughout the project will be a variety of enlarged pedestrian pathways. "Grand Paseos", in addition to the network of basic pathways. There will also be "Gathering Spaces" such as bark parks and pocket parks. Lastly, there will pedestrian connections to neighboring properties adjacent to Empire Lakes. All of these recreational/open spaces will available to the public and access will not be limited to only the residents of Empire Lakes. K. Joint Use Public Facility: The proposed project includes a "Joint Use Public Facility" that will be used by the City's Library Services and Community Services Departments, and the Police Department. The facility is identified as a required mitigation in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the increase in demand for these public services. Although the facility will be open to the general public, it will largely be used to provide services to the residents of Empire Lakes. There also will be space within the facility for ancillary use by the Public Works Department. The facility will have a floor area of up to 25,000 square feet. The facility will be generally located along The Vine, north of 6'" Street. This facility is shown at the intersection of The Vine and 71 Street (Figure 7.3, page 7-5 of Exhibit G). However, the exact location of the facility has not been established. The final size, site layout, operational requirements, and design features of the facility will be determined at a later date. Staff notes to the Commission that the proposed amended Specific Plan does not include specific C,D,E — 12 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 13 details for the Joint Use Public Facility, and therefore recommends the incorporation of text that provides this information (Exhibit DID). L. Maintenance and Financing: Improvements and facilities within Empire Lakes will be maintained by either public or private entities depending on the type of improvement or facility (. All public streets (The Vine, 41h Street, 6` Street, and extensions of 7th Street), traffic signals/signs, water, sewer, and drainage facilities within the public streets, lighting within the public right-of-way, and water quality facilities for treatment of water in public streets, will be maintained by the City, a new community facilities district (CFD), and/or a utility service provider. Homeowners' or property owners' associations will maintain, for example, all private streets and drive aisles, traffic signs on those streets, open space areas and trails, parks and recreational facilities, and common area landscaping and lighting. Financing for the construction of improvements will be provided by private sources and/or new community facilities districts (CFDs) or special districts. M. Grading: The Empire Lakes Golf Course is located on terrain that, prior to the construction of the golf course, was relatively level and matched the topography of the surrounding terrain. The north and south halves of the project site currently slopes from north to south by about 2 and 1.5 ,percent, respectively. The east and west sides of the project site are generally at the same elevation. The elevations at the north and south perimeters of the project site are about 1,120 feet and 1,032 feet, respectively, resulting in an elevation change from north to south of about 88 feet. Existing features of the golf course, such as the sand traps, ponds, and other depressions were created when soil was excavated and relocated elsewhere on the property to create the mounds, berms, and other elevated ground features. As the soil was not significantly compacted (nor wasit necessary for the golf course), it is not stable enough to support structures. Therefore, the proposed project will require mass grading. Grading of the will be done in a manner where excavation and fill within the project site will be balanced, i.e. the amount of soil imported to, or exported from, the site will be zero (Appendix A, Section 1.0, page A-2 of Exhibit G). The applicant anticipates that any excavation from the north half of the site will be moved to the south half of the site. According to the proposed amended Specific Plan, grading is expected to occur in three (3) phases. However market conditions may require grading to occur over two or more areas concurrently. Grading in the first phase will occur in the entire area of the project site located between 411 Street and 6th Street within Planning Areas S-14 through S-24 (Appendix A, Figure A-1, page A-4 of Exhibit G). The first phase also includes grading of the "Urban Plaza", an open recreational area of 1.43 acres which will be in Planning Area N-15 located at the northeast corner of the future intersection of 61 Street and The Vine. Grading for Phase 2 will occur within Planning Areas N-6 through N-9, and N-13 (Appendix A, Figure A-3, page A-6 of Exhibit G) while grading for Phase 3 will occur within Planning Areas N-1 through N-5, and N- 10 through N-12 (Appendix A, Figure A-5, page A-8 of Exhibit G). N. Phasing: Construction of Empire Lakes is expected to occur over a timeframe of about 8 years. As noted previously, no development applications, such as tentative tract/parcel maps and/or conceptual site and building plans, have not been submitted by the applicant for review by the City. If the proposed amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code are approved by the City Council, then these applications will be submitted at a future date by the applicant and/or by other developers. According to discussions with the applicant, the Planning Areas east of The Vine and south of 6th Street will be developed with "for sale' homes (single-family residences or similar) C,D,E — 13 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 14 while the Planning Areas west of The Vine and south of 61" Street will be developed with "for rent' homes (apartments or similar). All phases of the project should have connectivity to the Metrolink station in order to fulfill the intent of the project. To ensure direct access to the station from Phase 1 (while either Phases 2 and 3 are being graded and/or under construction, or are dormant/inactive due to market conditions), and to fulfill the intent of the project, Staff recommends that the construction of the segments of both The Vine and 7'" Street, between 41" Street and the existing intersection of Anaheim Place and 7'h Street near the Metrolink station, be completed prior to occupancy of the first unit in Phase 1 to the satisfaction of the City (Exhibit DD). 0. Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis: During the Public Scoping meeting conducted by the Planning Commission on June 10, 2015 for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and during the Planning Commission Workshop conducted on December 10, 2015 to provide an overview of the proposed project, the Planning Commission requested information about several topics. One of those topics was the fiscal impacts to the City caused by the proposed project and the alternatives to the project (including a "no -build" alternative, i.e. the private golf course remains as is). In response to this request, the City contracted with independent economic consultant Keyser Marston Associates. The consultant prepared a Fiscal Impact Analysis and submitted their findings on March 31, 2016. The analysis evaluated the following. 1. The project as proposed by the applicant (with a maximum of 3,450 dwelling units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses); 2. A "lower density" alternative (with a maximum of 2,650 dwelling units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses); 3. A "higher density' alternative (with a maximum of 4,000 dwelling units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential uses); and 4. A "no project' alternative (with the private golf course remaining as is) The annual revenue generated from, for example, property tax, sales tax, fees, and assessments, and the costs for government services including, for example, police, animal care, community development, public works, and other general government functions were analyzed. The annual revenues/costs in the calculations in the analysis are based on the project when it, or the alternatives, is fully constructed and completed. According to the analysis, the total revenues, costs, and net benefits (or costs) are as follows: Alternative Annual Revenue Annual (Cost) Net Benefit or Cost Proposed Project $2,440,017 $1,966,184 $473,833 Lower Density $2,136,190 $1,552,117 $584,073 Higher Density $2,573,718 $2,245,459 $328,259 No Project $9,319 $4,215 $5,104 Based on the analysis, the highest annual revenue and highest annual cost will be generated by the "Higher Density" alternative while the lowest revenue and lowest cost will be generated by the "No C,D,E — 14 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 15 Project" alternative. Overall, the proposed project and the alternatives all will have a net fiscal benefit to the City. It can be expected that the proposed project will have a net economic benefit to the City, and that this net benefit will exceed the net benefit of the private golf course remaining as is. The full analysis is attached (Exhibit V). In the analysis, "incremental assessment revenues" were identified: Alternative Incremental Assessment Revenue Proposed Project $433,936 Lower Density $317,352 Higher Density $514,087 No Project $0 These revenues represent the project's contribution to Park District 85 (PD85), Landscape Maintenance District 1 (LMD1), and Street Lighting District 1 (SLD1). These revenues would not occur without implementation of the project. This substantial, additional revenue from the proposed project would reduce the need for General Fund contributions to these assessment districts. Beyond the direct fiscal impacts, other economic benefits are expected to accrue as a result of the project. The EIR identifies the underserved and unmet housing needs in the region. It has been suggested that the Southern California region may have a deficit of as many as 1,000,000 housing units necessary to meet the public's housing needs for safe and affordable housing. The availability of new housing opportunity allows businesses to grow by providing additional housing for new and existing workers. Providing these housing opportunities in close proximity to the City's business and industrial core will facilitate an environment where individuals who work in the community will also reside in it, and support existing businesses. Due to the transit- and pedestrian -oriented approach of the project, environmental costs are lowered and a healthier environment is created. Higher value industrial businesses are increasingly relying .on being near a supply of housing for potential employees when determining new locations for their operations. This proposed project represents an opportunity to provide the needed housing in rental and price ranges that are affordable to early career workers. Also, an option is created for older residents looking to "downsize" and select a location which requires less driving to reach services. PUBLIC MEETINGS: A. Public Scoping Meeting: The City conducted a noticed Public Scoping meeting during a Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2015 (Exhibit O). The intent of the Public Scoping Meeting was to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as it relates to the project and environment. Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments were received from the public and the Commission (Exhibit Q). Issues that the public and the Commission wanted to be discussed in the EIR included the loss of the private golf course as a recreational amenity and open space resource and impacts of the project on traffic, public services, and water supply. The public and the Commission also requested that alternatives to the project be considered and analyzed in the EIR, and an economic analysis be conducted of the project and its alternatives. C,D,E — 15 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 16 B. Planning Commission Workshop: On November 10, 2015 a workshop was conducted to provide the Planning Commission and interested members of the public an overview of the project and its progress (Exhibit R). During the workshop Staff received comments and questions from both the Commission and the public (Exhibit S). As at the Public Scoping meeting, the loss of the private golf course as a recreational amenity and open space resource; increased traffic; increased demand on public services; increased water usage; and the suitability of the proposed project at the project location were raised as issues of concern. Staff noted these comments and questions, and stated that these issues had been analyzed in the EIR and/or would be evaluated throughout the review of the proposed project. The general comments, and responses to those comments and questions, are provided below. C. Community Meetings: As the proposed project is of substantial size and scope, is surrounded by existing development (and, therefore, is an in -fill development), and has the potential to have significant effects on the surrounding community, the City required the applicant to conduct community meetings to inform, and gather input from, the public. To ensure that interested members of the public had sufficient opportunity to attend, the applicant was directed to conduct four (4) meetings. The meetings were conducted on December 10, 2015 and January 14, 21, and 28, 2016. The first meeting was conducted at the Courtyard Marriot located at 11525 Mission Vista Drive while the other three meetings were conducted at the Four Points by Sheraton located at 11960 Foothill Boulevard (Exhibit Q. During each meeting the applicant provided an overview of the proposed project (typical presentation, Exhibit M), discussed the design and technical attributes of the project, and answered questions from those in attendance. The comments and questions from the attendees were similar to those made during the Public Scoping meeting (conducted on June 10, 2015) and the Planning Commission Workshop (conducted on November 10, 2015). The applicant and their technical and design consultants responded to the questions with illustrations and data showing how the proposed project would function. However, the majority of the attendees were not satisfied with their explanations and expressed opposition to the proposed project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The applications for the amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code were submitted on January 8, 2015. Since then, the City has received comments from the public at the above -noted meetings, via mail/email (Exhibit Z), and telephone. Also, an on-line petition, "Save Empire Lakes Golf Course", was signed by 1,024 individuals (as of April 6, 2016) who are opposed to the project (Exhibit AA). As at the Public Scoping meeting and Planning Commission Workshop, the loss of the private golf course as a recreational amenity and open space resource; traffic impacts; demand on public services; water use; the suitability of the proposed project at the proposed location; and public notification process were raised as issues of concern. The following are Staff's general responses to these issues. a. Loss of Recreational Amenity. The golf course is a privately owned and operated recreational facility. Although it is a business that is open to the public, it is not a public park or public facility. The General Plan C,D,E — 16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 17 identifies both Red Hill Country Club and the Empire Lakes Golf Course as important recreational amenities that also provide the community with valuable open space. However, according to the General Plan, both golf courses are privately owned and are not included in the acreage calculation of parks. The City cannot prevent a private property owner from ceasing business or closing their facility. Although identified as Open Space in the General Plan, this would not preclude the golf course from closing or being sold for another similar use permitted by the Open Space designation such as a private soccer field. For this project, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment to amend the underlying General Plan and Zoning designation's to allow the proposed mixed use development project. Although this is a loss of one type of recreational amenity, the proposed project will provide a series of private and public parks, gyms, creative spaces, and other similar recreational amenities. As noted previously, the golf course is a recreational amenity but it is not a public park. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has identified 338.3 acres of improved parkland and special use facilities. General Plan, Chapter 5 — Community Services (pages CS-4 and -5), indicates that as of 2009 "regional multi -purpose and community trails account for approximately 294.6 acres of land. The City also owns or leases several sites intended for parks or special use facilities, as well as a number of private parks ... [which] ... total approximately 120 acres." As the Empire Lakes Golf Course is not calculated in the acreage of parks, it is not included in the City's calculations for complying with State law (the Quimby Act) which requires a minimum 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons (Exhibit H). b. The proposed project will result in a loss of an open space resource. Open Space is a land use designation of the General Plan (Chapter 2 - Managing Land - Use) that includes Hillside Residential, Open Space, Conservation, and Flood Control/Utility Corridor. The proposed Empire Lakes project is with in the Open Space designated area. This land use category is generally to establish protection areas from natural hazards and for recreational use. Golf courses are considered an acceptable use in the open space designations where appropriate. Additionally on private open space land the General Plan allows for one dwelling unit for every 10 acres to be constructed. Although the project area is currently designated as open space, the General Plan anticipates the future development of vacant or underutilized properties. Additionally as part of the land use strategy the General Plan anticipates the changes of uses overtime as vacant properties develop and as land use policy changes to facilitate the evolution of the mix of uses the City envisions. Per the General Plan, Chapter 6 — Resource Conservation (page RC-3), "Open space" is defined as "any parcel or area of land that is essentially unimproved and devoted to uses such as natural resource preservation, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and public health and safety." The amount of land within the City and the City's Sphere of Influence, i.e. "Planning Area", devoted to open space is "approximately 31 percent, or 8,224 acres... including parks, undeveloped parcels, conservation areas, and flood control/utility corridors, as shown in Figure RC-1: Open Space and Conservation Plan" (Exhibit K). Therefore, although the replacement of the golf course will result in a loss of open space, at 160 acres in area it is about 1.9 percent of the total open space within the City and the City's Sphere of Influence. C,D,E — 17 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 18 a. Traffic Impacts. PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. The CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project. The City's General Plan sets standards for the physical capacity of intersections and streets. In an effort to understand the impacts created by the proposed project, two forms of modeling were conducted: 1) a Traffic Impact Analysis as required by the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program and 2) a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) model proposed for future traffic modeling in the state of California. In order to evaluate the impact of the proposed project on the region's traffic and transportation system, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared in October 2015 by Fehr & Peers, the applicant's traffic consultant. The TIA was prepared utilizing the guidelines set forth in the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program and in coordination with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the City of Ontario, and Caltrans. This TIA was subsequently reviewed by Urban Crossroads, an independent traffic consultant that was hired by the City to review and verify the accuracy of the analysis and findings. Based on this analysis, the proposed project is expected to generate 25,183 total daily vehicle trips when it is completed. Of these total daily vehicle trips, 1,676 and 2,097 are expected to occur during the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The TIA analyzed 36 intersections to determine the Level of Service (LOS) for each location under six (6) scenarios including current traffic conditions (in 2014), conditions when the project is completed (the "completion year" at about 2024), and traffic conditions in the "cumulative year" (2036) for scenarios with and without the project. Level of Service (LOS) is a method of measuring and assigning a letter grade to the capacity and operation of an intersection based on the average traffic delay, and density of traffic for a roadway segment. Level of Service ranges from LOS 'A' (minimal traffic delay) to LOS 'F' (heavy traffic congestion), with an LOS 'E' being a street intersection operating at its capacity. The City's has adopted a LOS 'D' (or better) as the standard for the design of infrastructure within the General Plan. The City of Ontario, the County of San Bernardino Congestion Management Program, and Caltrans each have, respectively, adopted LOS 'D', LOS 'E', and LOS 'C'. A project demonstrates an impact when either of the following two conditions occur: 1) the traffic generated by the project causes the LOS at an intersection to drop below these standards, or 2) in the case of intersections already expected to operate at a LOS below the standard, the project causes an increase in the average vehicle traffic delay. The analysis identified project impacts at 12 intersections in the completion year (2024) and 9 intersections in the cumulative year (2036). It should be noted that of these impacted intersections, half are expected to operate at a LOS below the standard without the project. Also, after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the project's traffic impacts at 5 of the 12 impacted intersections in the completion year (2024) and 5 of the 9 impacted intersections in the cumulative year (2036) will be mitigated. The project's remaining traffic impacts are expected to occur at locations with physical constraints, or are outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the mitigation measures that would be incorporated into the proposed project, the project would require the assessment of Transportation Development Impact Fees. These fees are utilized to fund the construction of C,D,E — 18 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 19 transportation -related improvements to mitigate traffic impacts of development throughout the City. In addition to the TIA, a separate analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) was performed by Urban Crossroads in March 2016 for the proposed project. While LOS has been the industry standard for analysis of traffic impacts for many years, the use of VMT is expected to become the standard measure of traffic impacts in the State of California over the next few years. VMT is a measure of the number of vehicle miles traveled by residents, commercial patrons, and employees of a project development on a typical weekday and provides an analysis of traffic impacts of development on the roadway system of the region by evaluating not only the number of vehicles added to the region's roadways but also the length of those trips. The resulting data includes the total weekday VMT and average trip length for the proposed development. In analyzing the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, the March 2016 VMT analysis compared the total daily VMT and average trip length under two scenarios: 1) development of the project land uses as independent uses typical of suburban development, and 2) development of the same land uses as a mixed -use transit -oriented development. Given the project's mixed -use nature, designed to encourage active transportation, and proximity to the Metrolink Station and bus transit, the analysis indicates that the VMT and average trip length for the proposed project is expected to be reduced by approximately 20% when compared to the same uses designed under typical suburban conditions. The results of the TIA and the VMT analysis indicate that while there are expected to be project -related impacts at specific locations, the overall design of the proposed project minimizes the effects on the City's overall roadway system. b. Demand for Public Services. The proposed project includes a "Joint Use Public Facility" that will be used by the City's Library Services and Community Services Departments, and the Police Department. The facility is identified as a required mitigation in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address the increase in demand for these public services. Although the facility will be open to the general public, it will largely be used to provide services to the residents of Empire Lakes. There also will be space within the facility for ancillary use by the Public Works Department. The facility will have a floor area of up to 25,000 square feet. The facility will be generally located along The Vine, north of 61h Street. This facility is shown at the intersection of The Vine and 7ch Street (Figure 7.3, page 7-5 of Exhibit G). However, the exact location of the facility has not been established. The final size, site layout, operational requirements, and design features of the facility will be determined at a later date. Empire Lakes is in the service area of the "Jersey" Fire Station (#174) located at 11297 Jersey Boulevard. According to the EIR, "It is projected that the increase in property value and the resultant increases in property taxes generated by the project would be sufficient to add an additional medic engine unit to the response system and/or increase the staffing on the ladder trucks to four personnel each. As such, the project would not have a significant impact on the staffing or equipment at current fire stations since the impact would be addressed by the increase in property tax [revenue]. C,D,E — 19 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 20 The proposed/potential Development Agreement for the proposed project, or separate agreement between the City and the Property Owner/Developer or entity under common ownership, shall address the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District's (RCFPD) acquisition, at fair market value, of the property at Assessor Parcel Number No. 1077-422-58, or other site acceptable to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) for a potential future fire station within 0.5-mile of the identified fire station site. A purchase and sale agreement shall be executable immediately upon granting of any final approvals for the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan Amendment. If no final approvals are granted, the purchase and sale agreement may only be executed if both parties mutually agree." The City is in escrow for, and completing, the purchase of land owned by the applicant for the purpose of constructing a new fire station to address increased future demand on Fire District facilities. This new station will be located between Town Center Drive and Church Avenue, east of Haven Avenue. With this new property, the Fire District will have a strategic location available for a new station to accommodate future growth in the City. c. Water Use. Senate Bill 610 requires a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for certain projects. The projects that must have a WSA are defined in Water Code Section 10912 and include, for example, residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. The purpose of the WSA is to evaluate whether the total projected water supplies available to the water supplier (in this case, the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD)) during "normal, single -dry, and multiple - dry water years over the next 20-year projection" are sufficient to meet the projected water demands of the proposed project. This is in addition to the water supplier's existing and planned future uses including agricultural and manufacturing uses. A WSA was prepared by Stetson Engineers, Inc. on October 16, 2015 and submitted to CVWD for review. According to the Staff Report prepared by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) for the Water Supply Assessment for Empire Lakes, "The Empire Lakes Golf Course currently uses approximately 577 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water and approximately 2.0 AFY of potable water. With the redevelopment of the site, it is estimated that the new irrigation/recycled water demand would drop to approximately 30 AFY and a total estimated potable water demand for the Project would increase to approximately 1,446 AFY. Staff has reviewed the WSA and concurs with its conclusion that the total projected water supplies available to the District during normal, single -dry, and multiple -dry water years over the next 20-year projection are sufficient to meet the projected water demands of the proposed Empire Lakes Project, in addition to the District's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses." The WSA was approved by CVWD's Board of Directors on February 23, 2016 by Resolution 2016-2-6 (Exhibit Y). C,D,E — 20 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 21 d. Suitability of the Proposed Project at the Proposed Location. The proposed project is consistent with several of the City's land use policies as described in the General Plan. For example, Policy LU-1.6 and -2.4 discusses encouraging single-family (attached and/or detached) residential development on small -lots in areas where this density would be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The proposed project provides opportunities for the construction of single-family residences on small lots. Also, as a high density project, the proposal will be compatible with the four (4) apartment complexes located to the east of the project site. Policies LU-2.1, -2.2, and -12.3 seek to achieve vibrant, pedestrian -oriented mixed use residential development at in -fill locations nears transit routes and facilities. The proposed project will be an in -fill, mixed use, pedestrian -oriented development located adjacent to the Metrolink rail line and the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink stations. Due to the high density character of the project and its location, it will be consistent with Policy LU-3.8. As the project will have a mix of housing types for a diverse range of residents, it will be consistent with Policy ED-1.5 which supports housing opportunities for workers of all income ranges. The overall design of the proposed project will be consistent with Policies ED-3.4 and PS-12.4 which seek to improve internal circulation for all modes of transportation, consistent with the concept of "Complete Streets" and provide enhanced bicycling and walking infrastructure, and support public transit. The proposed project will reinforce the goals of the City's "HealthyRC" program. e. Public Notification Process. The legal noticing requirements for the environmental review of the project are described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Handbook. The sections of the Guidelines that apply include, but are not limited to: 1. Section 15082 — "Notice of Preparation and Determination of Scope of EIR" 2. Section 15084 —"Preparing the Draft EIR" 3. Section 15087 —"Public Review of Draft EIR" 4. Section 15088 — "Evaluation of and Response to Comments" Further discussion of the legal noticing requirements for the environmental review of the project that the City followed is provided under the "Environmental Assessment" section (below) of this report. Additional discussion is also provided in the Staff Report prepared for City Council on February 17, 2016 that provided to them an update on the timeline of the process and notification of meetings for this project (Exhibit T). These various sections describe the process that the City must follow during the preparation of the environmental documents including obtaining public input preparing the documents, the circulation and review period of the documents, and how the City responds to comments. The legal noticing requirements for the public hearings and meetings for the project are described in the City's Development Code. The sections of the Code that apply include, but are not limited to: C,D,E — 21 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT bRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 22 1. Section 17.14.050 — "Public Hearing and Public Notice." 2. Section 17.14.060 — "Approving Authority." Further discussion of the legal noticing requirements for the public hearings and meetings for the project that the City followed is provided under the "Public Notification" section (below) of this report. Additional discussion is also provided in the Staff Report prepared for City Council on February 17, 2016 that provided to them an update on the timeline of the process and notification of meetings for this project (Exhibit T). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared to analyze the potential environmental effects of the amendments to the 2010 General Plan, the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the Development Code. Under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR becomes a planning tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site. Any future proposed projects within the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan must be reviewed on their own merit. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with development of the proposed amended Specific Plan, as well as, identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. The intent of this EIR is to evaluate the broad -scale impacts of the amended Specific Plan. On November 10, 2015, the Draft EIR for the amendments to the 2010 General Plan, the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the Development Code was released for the 45-day review period, which ended on December 24, 2015. Staff has evaluated the proposed EIR for the amendments to the 2010 General Plan, the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the Development Code, and based upon that review, comments received during the public review of the Initial Study and the public scoping meeting, and the potential impacts of the proposed project, determined that a EIR would be necessary and adequate to evaluate the environmental issues raised by the amendments to the 2010 General Plan, the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the Development Code as proposed. All major environmental categories were evaluated in the Draft EIR. A summary of all of the project -related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures is provided in the Final EIR. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process: A. Notice of Preparation: A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated with the Initial Study on April 27, 2015 to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2015041083), and to public agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project, i.e. "Responsible Agencies" and Native American Governments. Also, the NOP was made available for review at the Archibald and Paul A. Biane Libraries, at City Hall, and on the City's website. Per State C,D,E — 22 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 23 law, the comment period ended 30 days after the date of circulation (in this case, May 26, 2015). However, as the Public Scoping meeting was scheduled for June 10, 2015, comments, if any, in response to the NOP were accepted until that date. The Initial Study was made available to the public during and after the comment period. The NOP serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOR CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. The City received several comment letters in response to the NOP. B. Public Scoping Meeting: The City conducted a noticed Public Scoping meeting during a Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2015 (Exhibit P). The notice for this scoping meeting appeared in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to the owners of all properties located within 1,000 feet of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan planning area. The intent of the Public Scoping Meeting was to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment. Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments were received from the public and the Commission. Public comments included opposition to the redevelopment of the private golf course; concerns about increased traffic; increased demand on public services; increased water usage during the current drought; the density of the development; and the unsuitability of the proposed project at the proposed location and, in general, in the City. The public and the Commission requested that alternatives to the project be considered and analyzed in the EIR and that an economic analysis of the project, and its alternatives, be conducted. C. Draft EIR Preparation and Circulation: A Draft EIR was prepared and was distributed to all Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who had expressed interest in the project and/or had previously requested copies. The Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on November 10, 2015, with the comment period expiring on December 24, 2015. During the 45-day public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices were made available for review at: The Archibald Library - 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; b. The Paul A. Biane Library - 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; c. The Planning Information and Services Counter at City Hall - 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; and www. cityofrc. us/cityhal I/plan n ing/current_projects/em pi re—lakes—specific—plan_project/default. asp Comment letters were received from the City of Ontario, San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, Metrolink, and several members of the public during the public comment period that specifically discussed the Draft EIR (Exhibit BB). Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised were prepared and made available in the Final EIR. C,D,E — 23 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 24 D. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP): In compliance with CEQA, monitoring program has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. E. Facts Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations: If significant unavoidable environmental impacts result with a project, the City must balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, the City may adopt a statement of Overriding Considerations. The EIR concludes that upon implementation of the project and all recommended mitigation measures, air quality (operational and cumulative) impacts, impact to the Southern California Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), noise impacts, population and housing growth, and traffic (project -related and cumulative) impacts associated with the proposed project would remain significant. Therefore the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Section 21081. A statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project. A full description of the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project and those mitigation measures being recommended to reduce the level of significance for each impact is shown in the Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: The Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed project was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, notices were posted on fifteen (15) Notice of Filing signs that were installed by the applicant along the perimeter of the golf course, and notices were mailed as follows: a) To all owners of property located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan planning area and within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Specific Plan planning area; and b) To all businesses in the City located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan planning area and within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Specific Plan planning area. Additionally, interested individuals who contacted the City and requested to be informed of the project, and individuals who attended one or more of the four (4) Community Meetings (and provided email addresses to the applicant and/or Staff) were notified by email of the public hearing. Also, Staff posted notification of the public hearing on the Empire Lakes webpage that was created on the City's website, and on social media networks including the City's Facebook page. In order to ensure that the apartment residents in the immediate vicinity of the project site were aware of the public hearing, Staff contacted via email the property management of three (3) of the apartment complexes located adjacent to the project site - "Reserve at Empire Lakes", "Village at the Green', and "AMLI at Empire Lakes" - and requested their respective unit directories. Staff obtained the unit directory for "Village at the Green" and, as Staff already had the unit directory for "Ironwood at Empire Lakes", subsequently mailed notices directly to the residents of those apartments. Although the property management for "Reserve at Empire Lakes" could not provide their unit directory, at their request Staff provided to them a copy of the notice for distribution to their tenants. No response to this request was received from the property management at "AMLI at Empire Lakes" and, therefore, Staff was unable to send direct notices to the residents of that apartment complex. C,D,E — 24 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115 — SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) April 13, 2016 Page 25 Respectfully s mitted�n Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB:MS/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Photo Exhibit C - Figure 4-3 of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Exhibit D - Ordinance #s 638, 656, 690, and 714 Exhibit E - Applicant's Statement of Purpose and Intent for Empire Lakes Exhibit F - Empire Lakes Specific Plan Draft Proposed Amendments (to Sections 1-6) Exhibit G - Empire Lakes Specific Plan Draft Proposed Amendment (Section 7) Exhibit H - General Plan, pages CS-4 and -5 (Community Services) Exhibit I - General Plan, Figure LU-2 — Land Use Plan Exhibit J - General Plan, Figure LU-3 — Mixed Use Areas Exhibit K - General Plan, Figure RC-1 — Open Space and Conservation Plan Exhibit L - Community Meeting Invitations (prepared by the Applicant) Exhibit M - Community Meeting Presentation (prepared by the Applicant) Exhibit N - Community Meeting Sign -In Sheets Exhibit O - Community Meeting Summaries (prepared by the Applicant) Exhibit P - Public Scoping Meeting Staff Report (June 10, 2015) Exhibit Q - Public Scoping Meeting Minutes (June 10, 2015) Exhibit R - Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report (November 10, 2015) {without exhibits) Exhibit S - Planning Commission Workshop Minutes (November 10, 2015) Exhibit T - City Council Staff Report - Public Notification Process (February 17, 2016) Exhibit U - Notification/Mailing List Labels Exhibit V - Fiscal Analysis (prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, March 31, 2016) Exhibit W - Proposed General Plan Amendments Exhibit X - Proposed Development Code Amendments Exhibit Y - CVWD Water Supply Assessment Staff Report (February 23, 2016) Exhibit Z - Public Comments Exhibit AA - "Save Empire Lakes Golf Course" Petition (as of April 6, 2015) Exhibit BB - Public and Agency Comments (in response to the Draft EIR) Exhibit CC - Final Environmental Impact Report (Distributed previously under separate cover) Exhibit DD - Summary of staff recommended revisions/amendments to the Draft Proposed Amended Empire Lakes Specific Plan Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040 Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115 C,D,E — 25 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK C,D,E - 26 TOPts .qii HOTELM _ FOOTHILL aL t mr COURT HOTEL { 66 k nnvrx:RE c- HOUSE - � aae<si.nm _ :`•"" ; CITY HALL .K- ■ POLICE T� m KCR STATION I JJ AK_`R PucFRR- x 'FR .Pk '- � _ caPE E .ca M T : vecreRn R�.+�ca'- ._cr.:rm �P 8 cOMI'LEX :. M.YYY CP. T0070 ARROWRT • 11800 o'� P m P_u r rraua ;tuq«eoo Y ANIMAL CARE d y an.e - 3 �tw SPAaKif::i>a m F ADOPTION CENTER n e sa AET �Oii o'v�'A E y nnv"wAr E vm�cr $ m �m D 2 'ly .UCAMONGA �' e4cr_ c e ca,¢ `^exx. sT ,iu_r._ < ''z 'IEMENTARv en - ~ ' -.� _u s' = < RANCHO n k $ CUCAMONGA MIDDLE nT^.^ -IRE4STA .+ EERniF ..x T N3 UNmET AV gMETROLINK TRAIN METRO_INDSTATON c... _ Nx u6 PMk.4',CIPML'..' i 1M6- GM yy _ HRISTMAS ssSwx.R , HOUSE 5TH sT gut+T ,-JY,R'E 7 x 3 s f _0.E::FYi CE•fERq! Sfi15! � - x1[xxR _ - nxS i CHP n" x a ewrwcn IR.Ca.4Vo<:i rR"nu.R. - y s .uTRA�nP'. � PtR.v:+ar_mx ee:usY s: � OFFICE F v-rrzrrmmcT `- 4 ^iCIT�M MIS ®. PRIIK:P 1 '.Y pfgP:AY S:::ixt HOTELS aTH ST • HOTEI CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK ARENA —n _ t 8 1181HX3 N .. Y •I..1✓ .�" � YwYW euY.. .urJ • li w��" ��.c u Ae.i �w PAREAIx • �� AREA X I A Acm I 1, � I I CANNjNG� �A � - E I = ; PUNNING v . PLANNING le I I AREA IX I AREA XI II - nX Acne le.OKm I 1 ` I SIvtM1 Sln.l PLS AYa1G I P�NINI 'I 111 P� I II T AfIEANVIIIN GI 1 1 I I UTA.n IL AREA IV _ I 1\\ \� �� •�• PLANNING PLANNING MIAcme,/ 24. Acmll a AREA V Ay I � - e I Note: This figure represents the current proposed Land Use Plan for Sub - Area to and may be subject to future refinements and/or modifications. Refer to Section 4.2 Land Use Plan, Table 5•1 Summary Land Use by Planning Area and Table 5.2 Land Use Type Definitions for types of land uses permitted in planning areas. 000, 400, 0' aoo' BEIM figure 4-3 Conceptual Development Plan EXHIBIT C Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub —Area to Specilic Plan OR Item C —29 ORDINANCE NO. 638 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00 01, TO ADD MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED USE PLANNING AREA IX OF THE SUBAREA 18 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. RECITALS. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-01 as described In the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as the "application." 2. On the 13th of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 00-93; thereby, recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. On October 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said hearing, and adopted Resolution No. 00-93. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced public hearing on October 18, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; EXHIBIT D Item D —30 Ordinance No. 638 Page 2 of 4 d. The amendment is consistent with key land use objectives identified in the General Plan including, i) encourage opportunities to mix different, but compatible land uses and activities, ii) promote land use patterns that encourage non -motorized modes of transportation; and iii) organize land uses to promote the maximal opportunity for transit usage; and e. The inclusion of multi -family residential as a permitted use in Mixed Use Planning Area IX will provide an integrated environment that will respond to evolving market conditions and will help to create a "City that functions efficiently, is exciting to live in, and makes the best use of its various resources" pursuant to the objectives of the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced pubic hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows; a. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the Empire Lakes Subarea 18 Industrial Area Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements. However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an Addendum was prepared for said project. An Addendum to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the attached Addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of Item D —31 Ordinance No. 638 Page 3 of 4 reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division The following conditions are to be reviewed for compliance by the City Planner. 'I Within 45 days of City Council approval or prior to issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, a revised Plan text and graphics, including all renumbered pages within affected sections, shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. Upon acceptance by the City Planner, a total of 25, 3-hole punch, copies of the revised Plan shall be submitted for distribution to the City Council, the Planning Commission, Library, and staff. In addition, one unbound original, and one executable copy in Microsoft Word file format on a 3.5 inch IBM formatted diskette, shall be submitted. sl Table A shall be re -labeled as Table 4-1 to replace said table on pages 4-5 of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Specific Plan. 3) Table 5-1, Residential, shall be revised to insert a footnote after the words "Multiple Family Dwellings" to read as follows: "(3) Residential permitted without industrial in same Planning Area." 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Please see the following page for formal adoption and signatures Item D —32 Ordinance No. 638 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1` day of November. AYES: Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 4'h day of October 2000, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 151 day of November 2000. Executed this 2nd day of November 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Item D —33 ORDINANCE NO.656 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04 TO AMEND PLANNING AREA VI TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT A DENSITY RANGE OF 24 TO30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-082-46. A. RECITALS. 1. Fairfield Development filed an application for Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment 00-04 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of March 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval of said application. 3. On May 2, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing on May 2, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the flexible land use concept of the Mixed Use zoning designation of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: Item D —34 ordinance No. 656 Page 2 of 10 a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan, and will provide for the logical development of Planning Area VI ; and b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan and the purposes of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is consistent with key land use objectives identified in the General Plan including; encouraging opportunities to mix different but compatible land uses and activities, promote land use patterns that encourage non -motorized modes of transportation, and organize land uses to promote the maximal opportunity for transit usage; and f. The inclusion of multi -family residential land use for Planning Area VI will provide an integrated environment that will respond to evolving market conditions, and will help to create a City that functions efficiently, is exciting to live in, and makes the best use of its various resources pursuant to the objectives of the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the Rancho Cucamonga Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements; however, because of the changes that are submitted bythis project, an Addendum was prepared for said project. An Addendum to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan Final EIR is appropriate documentation, because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project, but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling forthe preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The City Council has reviewed and considered the attached Addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known, and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows anyof the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; 2) significant effects previously examined Item D —35 Ordinance No. 656 Page 3 of 10 will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible, would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment No. 00-04, as shown in the Staff Report and attached Exhibit "A," as well as any related text, tables, figures, and maps to maintain consistency subject to each and every Condition set forth below; Planning Division 1. Within 45 days of the City Council approval, or prior to issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, a revised plan text and graphics, including all renumbered pages within affected sections, shall be submitted to the City Plannerfor review and approval. Upon acceptance by the City Planner, a total of 25, 3-hole punched copies of the revised plan shall be submitted for distribution to the City Council, the Planning Commission, Library, and staff. In addition, one unbound original, and one executable copy in Microsoft Word file format on a 3.5-inch IBM formatted diskette shall be submitted. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May 2001. AYES: Alexander, Biane Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Item D —36 Ordinance No. 656 Page 4 of 10 ATTEST: ..J. Ad City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2"d day of May 2001, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16'" day of May 2001. Executed this 171h day of May 2001, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, MC, City Clerk Item D —37 Ordinance No. 656 Page 5 of 10 FFDEVELOPMENTL.P. Telephone (858) 457-2123 Facsimile (858) 457.1121 September 26, 2000 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Empire Lakes -Parcel 6 Project Description The below text describes the proposed amendments to the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Sub -Area, 18, Planning Area VI. This amendment is proposed to allow multiple family residential development in Planning Area VI as a permitted use. This amendment to Sub -Area 18, Planing Area VI has been prepared in conjunction with an Site Location Planning Area VI of the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is located north of Fourth Street, east ,of the Empire Lakes Golf Course, west of Planning Area VII, and south of the Fifth Street extension. Amendments to LASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan The following amendments are applicable to the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to allow multiple family residential development as an additional permitted use within Planning Area VI. Section 1.4 PLANNING AREA VI - OFFICE USES/BUSINESS PARK/MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTL4L This planning area is approximately 23 acres and includes the greatest amount of golf course footage of any planning area within the Sub -Area 18. The summary land use matrix identifies a variety of uses that are compatible with the golf course including: indoor recreation/entertainment; restaurant; mixed use commercial; hotel/conference center; office/commercial; multiple family residential: and research and development/light industrial; and business park TABLE 1-1 and TABLE 4-1 (SUMMARY OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM) are amended to include Multiple Family Residential for Planning Area VI with a Maximum Development Potential of 690 residential units and a density of 24-30 du/ac. Section 4.2 Land Use Plan SOUTHEASTERN ANCHOR (Fourth Street and Millicent Avenue) Planning Area VI.- • ice/Commercial • Multiple Family Residential This planning area has both visibility from fourth Street and extensive golf course amenity frontage. It is envisioned to be a campus -style office/business park or a multiple family residential development capitalizing on the ¢olf course amenity. This parcel is also a potential Item D —38 Ordinance No. 656 Page 6 of 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga September 26, 2000 Page 2 TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY PLANNING AREA is amended to include Multiple Family Residential as a Permitted (P) use in Planning Area VI. TABLE 5-2 LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS is amended to include RESIDENTIAL use types with the following sub -category: High Residential Density High density residential development with a density of up to 30 dwelling units per gross acre. Development shall be compatible with surrounding uses. Section 5.3 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS Planning Area VI High Density Residential Site Development Standards Residential uses in Planning Area VI shall comply with Chapter 17.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code for the High Residential District (H) zone, except as modified below: A. Table 17.08.040-D - Street scape Setback Standards: Minimum building setback along Fourth Street for multiple family residential shall be 45 feet. FIGURE 5-1 CONCEPTUAL STREET SCAPE MASTER PLAN amend to remove the through street shown from Fourth Street to Fifth Street along the eastern boundary of Planning Area VI. FIGURE 5-2 MAJOR ARTERIAL DIVIDED STREET CLASSIFICATION amend to allow linear sidewalks to create a more urban form General Amendments In instances in which the Development Guidelines are inconsistent with the implementation of an "urban" development theme for Planning Area VI, as well as the Site Plan specific for this area, minor departures from the Design Guidelines are acceptable subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 1. In the event of conflict between the amended Specific Plan and the Development Code, the amended Specific Plan shall govern. 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 • San Diego, Califomia 92121 Item D —39 Ordinance No. 656 Page 7 of 10 City of Rancho Cucamonga September 26, 2000 Page 3 Fairfield prides itself on the design and construction quality of its apartment communities. This project will be a viable component to the surrounding uses, and will provide a quality living environment for our tenants. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information (858) 457-2123. Very truly yours, Ed McCoy Pre -development Manager 5510 Morehouse Drive, Suite 200 • San Dicgo, Caliromia 92121 Item D —40 I 1 Ordinance No. 656 Page 8 of 10 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Am 18 Specf6c Plan TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM This table is conceptual to illustrate and summarize the maximum development potential of the project. See Section 4.2, Land Use Plan, as well as Table 5.1 and 5.2 for permitted land uses and J C�"I— Types of uses Y . C m C p G in 9 V g rc FAR slaalmum (Floor g kk o n Development PoWftl (of Arne Ratio) Planning g Qs or Planning' Area 5lra 9 = b E +s p a cedwelling dulac ParcellFacilily Area (Acres) O c x' b g W S units) Existing Facilities • O O O O O • • Building 600 VI 27 308.000' 0.25r • • • is • • Building 601 IV 17 242,0002 0.35r • O • • • Is • • • Building 602 II 28 425,000 0.35' Subtotal 72 975,000 0.31 Goff Course (including clubhouse and maintenance facility) 1 151 • • • • O 60,000 0.01 Golf Practice Facility III' 22 15,000' 0.01' (lighted) • • • • O O. O • Sublobd 173 75,000 0.01 Cornmercietrindustrial VI, , 23 • Is • •' • • • E 425,000 0.35r Parcels VII 24 730,000 0.7M • ® • Is Is to • • 1 Is • • Wl 23 320,000 0.35 • • • • IX 21 250,000 0.35 X 24 • • Is • • • 20Q000 0.20r • • • XI 18 276,000 0.35 Subtotal 133 2,240,000 0.3g Multiple Family up to 615 du 2430 Residential IX 20.5 • dulac Subtotal 173 515 du or 2430 commercia8 dulac Industrial Total 37B' 3,000,000 of 0.50 and 30 du; or 3,280,000 sP R1R90 V •V f'nm1. arJv,1012V 1.rp! CL Development Frarneuavk Item D-41 7 7 J 7 7 7 1 I l J Ordinance No. 656 Page 9 of 10 Ranann Cucamonga ASP Sub-AmB 18 SpecHk Plan TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY PLANNING AREA -S�th �v..�f :. �. C VJ�i (��.�4 ,�.:Ftrl A.J•'4 ia4iSJY 'ri ,^. amp k�n12' rv,P'�T,,,4K jrksPb� #jlt I 1rT��T.x+11�y, �Y'a-d'6 i Jh+' x 1 i �` i i w J3r���E'4pJmtf I5-h fix. i xN *••'^^ t 'ems r u i x.l 5>y�i4r"., ="'•`dew°ex=4"'dsl -00-00-0000 -00-0�-0000 -0--0---0-Q -0--0---000 - :. ... .. •:. -0000000000 :.. �ovovoov000 �ov0000v�o� �ov0000v�o� �ovvv000�v� �raoovorao�o� �ovvvvvv�v� �ovoo©oo�o� oovvvov0000 v000vovvvvo - �a�ovvvvov�o �r�vv©oovovo .... . ........ .... raoraov000vvo �vv�os��■��v� moo©000vvoo .. :.. oov00000000 �ov00000000 �000000���� 7 RVICJv PP" S.mm amaeaJ--N 5-3 OONal6pman(GWdellnae Bed Standards Item D —42 Ordinance No. 656 Page 10 of 10 Randm Cucamonga IASP Sub-Ama 16 Specific Plan TABLE 54 (continued) SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY PLANNING AREA --[! TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONSICONFERENCE CENTER HotevMotel I P P P P P P Conference Center P P P P P F P Corporate Training Center P P P P P P MIXZ USE COMMERCIAL Mked-Use Commercial Canter P P P P P P P P PERSONAUSUSINESS SERVICES Business Support Services P I P I P I P P I P I P P P P Funeral R Crematory Services C C C C C C C C C C PersonalServloes P P P P P P P P P P Repay Services P P P P P P P P P P AUTONOBILENEHICLE SERVICES Autarwtim RemaVleasing P P P P P P Automotive Service Court C C C C Automotive Service Station C C C C C C C Wdaky AutaWtDrcyde Sales/Service C C C C C t: C C RETAIL -BUSINESS SUPPLYISERVICES Business Servicaa Retail & Services P P P P P P P P P P RETAWCONVENIENCE RELATED Comernance Sales 6 Services P P P P P P P P P P RETAIL -FOOD d BEVERAGE RELATED Food and Beverage Sales P P P P P P P P RETAIL -GENERAL Rafell-4enwral(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) !Omit in PaWW Lots P P P P P RETAIL -HOME IMPROVEMENT RELATED _ SuildingA)gMing Equipment Supplies & Sales P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) FumllureMome Furnishings/Antiques P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2), Home AppganmlElectronka P(2) I P(2) I I P(2) J P(2) I P(2) 1 P(2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL Business Suppy-RetaftServhxs P P P P P-TP-T-p7 P P P Communications Services P P P P P P P P P P Parking (commerdsto P P RESIDENTIAL MuW* Family Dweirmgs (3) P KEY: P u Permitted Uses C - Condbonwily Permitted Use Blank Box - Not Permitted Use (1) Where pre entertainment is preseaL such uses are subject to a city entertainment permit (2) Peanittod as part of a mbed use commercial or retailcenter. (3) Rmldangal permhedvdthoutindu3bislin'the same planning area. R:Wr* +JPslaot SKuwsazosm.sod 5-4 Daveklamenl Guldefines and SlarMaNs C Item D —43 ORDINANCE NO. 690 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DRC2002-00464, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN (EMPIRE LAKES) TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND TO ALLOW SENIOR HOUSING WITHIN PLANNING AREA Vill, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND 6TH STREET AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF. A. RECITALS. 1. The Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan on May 22, 2002. 2. Charles Joseph and Associates filed an application for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2002-00464 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 3. On the 28th day of August, 2002, 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. On the 2nd day of October, 2002, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption ofthis Ordinance have occurred. B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, it is herebyfound, determined, and ordained bythe City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing on October 2, 2002, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City, and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment will provide for development of senior housing serving the special housing needs of the elderly. Item D —44 Ordinance No. 690 Page 2 of 5 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code and the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and c. The proposed amendmentwill not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code and the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial. evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the. environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b-3) and Rancho Cucamonga CEQA Guidelines Section F(10). Furthermore, the City Council approved an Environmental impact Report for the Subarea 18 Specific Plan in January of 1994 (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055) and for the General Plan Update in October of 2001 (State Clearinghouse No. 2000061027), and the amendment is consistent with the Subarea 18 Specific Plan and the General Plan. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Specific Plan Amendment DRC2002-00464 by the adoption of the attached Exhibit "A." 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certif to the adoption of this Ordinance. Please see the following page for Nnral adoption, cert79ca0on and signatures Item D —45 Ordinance No. 690 Page 3 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2002. AYES: Alexander, Curatalo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: Biane, Dutton ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: I lt�Q i , AC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of October2002, and was passed at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the Cityof Rancho Cucamonga held on the 22nd day of October2002. Executed this 23 d day of October 2002, at Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia. Debra J. Adam"MC, MC, City Clerk Item D —46 Ordinance No. 690 Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" The Rancho Cucamonga Subarea 18 Specific Plan, pages 4-10 shall be amended as follows (strike thru = remove text, bold italic = added text): Section 4.2.4 EASTERN ANCHOR (6TH STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE) Planning Area Vill: Office/lndastrlal/Commercial/Senior Housing Planning Area VIII is located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue, which will become a prime intersection when 6th Street is ultimately extended to a new proposed interchange with the 1-15 Freeway. This parcel enjoys both prime arterial road frontage and golf course frontage. Possible uses include office, research and development, and light indust,al. uses market rate senior housing, as well as commercial pad sites for fast food or banking adjacent to primary roadway entrances. With the completion of the future interchange with 1-15, Planning Area VIII may also include certain types of -retail uses. Market rate senior housingis intended to facilitate the construction of rental housing units that will serve the current and long term City need forsenior citizen oriented dwelling units, while maintaining a high degree of quality in project design and construction. This type of development shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws. The primary resident population group that is intended to be served by market rate senior housing development are senior citizens who meet the following witerla: a. For tenants, residents or occupants who are married to each other, eitherspouse shall be 55 years of age or older. b. For individuals who are not married, each individual shall be 55 years of age or older with the following exception. c. Non -seniors may live in the development so long as they are 45 years of age or older or a person providing primary physical or economic support to the senior citizen. d. A non -senior guest may stay with a seniorfor up to 60 days peryear. Senior housing developments must meet the following physical requirements: a. Extra -wide entryways, walkways, hallways, and doorways in the common areas of the development. b. Walkways and hallways in the common areas must be equipped with railings or grab bars to assist persons who have difficulty with walking. C. Walkways and hallways in the common areas must have sufficient bright lighting to assist, persons who have difficulty seeing. d. Access to all common areas and housing units within the development shall be provided without use of stairs (elevators or ramps must be used instead). Item D -47 Ordinance No. 690 Page 5 of 5 e. The development must contain at least one common room and common open space. Refuse collection must be provided in a manner that requires a minimum of physical exertion by residents. g. Every effort shall be made to buffer the development from more intensive uses allowed in the Planning Area. This includes increased setbacks, intensified landscaping, creative use of walls, and other factors subject to review and approval by the City Planner. As an incentive to developers to build senior housing projects, the parking requirements maybe reduced below that required for typical multi -family development. Reductionin the number of parking spaces shall be addressed on a case -by -case basis subject to provision of parking studies and the establishment of a development agreement. Market rate senior housing development, including reduced parking requirements are predicated upon the long-term availability of the units for the target population previously defined. In order to ensure that the units remain available and affordable to this group, the developerwill be required to enterintoa development agreement with the CityperCalifornia Govemment Code Section 65864 through 65869.5.. Item D -48 ORDINANCE NO.714 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RANCHO CUCAMONGA [ASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENTMENT DRC2003-00255, A REQUEST TO ADD MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED - USE PLANNING AREA VII, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4m STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 0210-082- 47. A. RECITALS. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., filed an application for Rancho Cucamonga .IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment Is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 111" day of June 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. On the 16"' day of July 2003, the City Council 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 Ordinance have occurred B. ORDINANCE. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced public hearing on July 16, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the flexible land use concept of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Item D —49 Ordinance No. 714 Page 2 of 4 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Rancho Cucamonga [ASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for the logical development of the Planning Area VII and the General Plan and with related development; and b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Districts Chapter of the Development Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Speck Plan, and the purposes of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements. However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an addendum was prepared for said project. An addendum to the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The City Council has reviewed and considered the attached addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Item D —50 Ordinance No. 714 Page 3 of 4 c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe that shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as shown in the staff report. 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Please see the following page for formal adoption, certification and signatures Item D —51 Ordinance No. 714 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 61h day of August 2003. AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Howdyshell, Kurth, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: -bradWIE , CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 161h day of July 2003, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 61h day August of 2003. Executed this 71A day of August 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. •oi ff ` C � 'Debra J. Adan*wCMC, Item D —52 Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment- IASP Sub -Area 18 Applicant's Statement in Support of Project March 81^ 2016 Applicants Purpose and Intent: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAR 10 2016 RECEIVED - PLANNING The Applicant's proposal to re -purpose the property is a continuation of the process begun decades ago to bring the highest and best uses to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in innovative and well - conceived communities. The Project site is surrounded by well -planned and built -out properties with a mix of residential, office, commercial, and entertainment uses all within proximity to freeways and transit services. The Empire Lakes development, at build -out, is envisioned to be a mixed -use community adjacent to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station. It will be a New Place. The Project provides for higher - density homes within walking or biking distance to transit, existing local job centers, mixed use areas, commercial services, and recreation amenities. The development provides daily lifestyle elements and people -places, in a setting where the spaces for living and playing are intimate, personal, and connected within a 3rd Place network. Up to 3,450 residences and 220,000-square-feet of non-residential uses will be located within a mile of the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station. The residential development will be characterized by a combination of attached and detached, medium to high density homes. Six Placetype designations have been established to create a vibrant built environment that integrates residential and services in a mixed use urban community. Placetypes are a progressive means of regulating the built environment through integration of development principles, guidelines, and design criteria to create holistic people -centric places instead of using traditional land use -centric regulations. The proposed Empire Lakes development is a combination of individual, unique spaces, housing types, recreational, and commercial uses that together create a compelling mixed use development implementing the best design practices for infill, transit -oriented design. The Empire Lakes development complements the City of Rancho Cucamonga's existing businesses by providing new customers and housing opportunities for this job -rich city. The Applicant believes that the implementation of this Specific Plan Amendment will allow the re- use of this private golf course property into a dynamic, full -featured, purpose-built neighborhood providing enhanced lifestyles and connectivity to numerous transit opportunities. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment sets forth the Community Vision, Design Standards, Architectural Guidelines, Landscape Design, Public Safety, and Implementation guidelines for the Project. This community will be totally unique in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Proposed Project The Project site is located north of 411 Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8th Street and the Metrolink Line. The approximately 160-acre Project site is located in the Empire Lakes Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area and consolidates several planning areas into a single Planning Area, known as Planning Area 1 (PAI), the Project. EXHIBIT E Item E —53 The actual number of dwelling units to be developed in each area would be determined during future entitlement processes; however, it is expected that the number of residential dwelling units within the Project would range from a minimum of 2,650 units to a maximum of up to 3,450 units. These units would include a mixture of for -rent and for -sale units. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would also allow for a maximum of 220,000 square feet (sf) of non- residential uses. Internal recreation/open space areas, and infrastructure to serve the proposed uses, are provided in the Project. A Mixed Use Overlay designation would allow for flexible development at key locations. The Mixed Use Overlay Placetype presents locations where commercial or mixed use development could be located to converge with primarily residential neighborhoods in unique configurations. Development would comply with all requirements outlined in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and Federal Aviation Administration requirements. The maximum building height in the northern portion of the Project (north of 6th Street) would be 70 feet and the maximum building height in the southern portion of the Project would be 60 feet. Primary vehicular access is provided from 7th Street, 6th Street, and 0 Street. The overall on -site circulation concept places an emphasis on pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connectivity emanating from the .Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station and major circulation corridors. Internal circulation would be provided via a network of public and/or private residential collector roadways and local streets designed with on -street parking, street frontages and shaded pedestrian links and open spaces. Sustainability is an integral design feature of the Project with intensification of urban infill development adjacent to a transit station, resulting in reduced vehicle miles traveled. Other sustainable features that would be implemented as part of the Project include, but are not limited to, use of recycled water for landscaping, storm water management, and energy efficiency. The proposed Project would also include the installation of on -site storm drain, water quality, water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure systems to serve the proposed land uses. The on -site utility infrastructure would connect to existing utilities in the vicinity of the Project site or new utility lines that would be installed in the roadways adjacent to the Project site. It is expected that construction of the proposed Project would be initiated in 2017. The Project would be phased based on market demands, but it is expected that development would be complete by 2024. Construction activities are expected to be initiated in the area south of 611 Street followed by the area north of 6th Street. The northern and southern areas may be graded separately in phases or together, however, and there may be overlap in the timing of construction. 2 Item E —54 Regional Activity Context Exhibit History: The Specific Plan was originally adopted in January 1994 to regulate the redevelopment of the General Dynamics property. Since adoption, the Specific Plan was developed with office, medium - density residential, and golf course uses. The Specific Plan has been amended previously, over the years, to facilitate development of adjoining property in response to the changing needs of the community. This Project is a continuation of that process to establish a more purposeful master planning of the area. Item E —55 Design Concept Exhibit Potential Employment I III II II11111111Illllllilllll bFl ll ll ll Metrolink -Transit r Son Bernardino Line III1111lnhl llu ll` /y llu nlllll Metrolink Rancho Cucamonga Station rye �tr i�l 7m Sm�ei 6 ' 1 ' Urban Plaza .... fim Soren r South Pedestrian a75m to transit Londscape BuPPer r` 'nmtlO G�crhnslt 9ra Smor Legend 3rd Place Node Development y Grand Paseo Muntlppopl Joint Use Facilities Metrdlnk Ronda Cucamonga Statan '*.e Primary Entry Proposed Signal QRecreatan Pwndobout LOcatlolre O Subject to Ergln"rIn Department Rpp..? gar' Secondary Entry Conceptual Table Top ® PedeW n crossing Location The Ion R•r View Corridor 4 Item E —56 Concept Land Use Plan with Placetypes and Legend Metrollnk Son Bernardino Llne 1111"ll HHH1HHH4+44+++11ii+1 1+++r++r++H+rr++1i+++I+l+r>, +— iit'h4p Ii If i If F I I f l++ Pocket Park NT Metrolink .sR Rancho N-z — Cucamonga N 1 UN N-12 Stotlon IN tl"` a>a rc unuuxc MU S' >.tlnwc riawaMirrc. �, .,.,.N-H 1 MU CLro Cl N-6 uLPN ,eaarrt ry -10 -13 M tlGIYeC .. � i ItlH 1th $L .•. .•..� ,xs,noec �i I ........ �`o _r , REC 'I�h Street CL w e tl� N9 e sawc z.n N7 N8 VN aw North \\\ RED. " Urban Plaza 3-24 .®t SOUth S74 REC. 5�22 CL fAOM v •>f lG \ • AC iex o,xxc \ �exawc � Pockot Park VN V m Dore "m \\\ \ S-21 VN VN \\ nnxe \ KAgIML VN Call 8-20 \\\\ VN Ficxetype Legend .{ y \ "ae Aunt Transit (T) , T� \ Mixed Lim (MU) + I \ Urban NelghboNwad (UN) Core UAng (CU SAQ MU Village Neighbortood (VN) MU Recreaclon (REC) MU 0verqoW sn c . 4th Str Item E —57 Placetypes: All Placetypes may be developed as for -sale or for -rent neighborhoods. Within each Placetype, Grand Paseos and connecting pathway 3rd Place spaces promote pedestrian circulation. To maintain flexibility for responding to changing community needs and market conditions over the build -out, intensity may be transferred between parcels consistent with the Placetype intensity, provided the overall minimum required units are achieved. Where density transfers between parcels occur, development will not exceed the development total of 3,450 units of residential and 220,000 square feet of non-residential. Transit (T) The primary land use in the Placetype is transit -oriented services. This Placetype anchors the Project to the adjacent Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station. This Placetype should be designed for easy pedestrian and bicycle access through the site. It should also provide support to transit and multi -modal users with commercial, retail, and services. Transit -supportive uses may include, but are not limited to: • Transit services: car -share facilities, bike -share stations, transit pass kiosks, or concierge services. • Convenience services: day-care, cafe, bakery, or personal services. • Small -format daily commercial: grocery, specialty food stores, or pharmacy. Item E —58 Village Neighborhood (VN) The primary land use in the VN Placetype is medium density residential with various forms of detached and attached configurations. Housing types could range from small lot detached single-family to attached configurations. Layout, design, block length, and parking should be suitable for this setting. A composition of articulated building forms is required to create a varied street scene with elevations facing the street, 3rd Place spaces, and the Vine as applicable. Homes should be designed with private open space, and neighborhoods planned with 3rd Place transitional spaces connecting to adjacent neighborhoods. i Mink Sb 5lufwn —\ o. ni, S,,.a VN\� vN VN VN VN VN 41h Sm Core Living (CL) The primary land use in the CL Placetype is medium -high density residential which may include a broad range of attached and/or small lot detached neighborhoods. Parcels designated as CL should have strong 3rd Place features, pedestrian pathways within neighborhoods, and connections to the Grand Paseos and community destinations. Building forms should include articulated massing with elevations facing the street, 3rd Place spaces, and the Vine. F _ MMialink Cl�_ . SfaRon � Ah$M L °� h5ha CL p 7 Item E —59 Urban Neighborhood (UN) The primary land use in the UN Placetype is high -density residential which is located less than a 1/4 mile from the Metrolink station. Live/Work and Shopkeeper units are permitted and, if developed, are encouraged to have street front or plaza frontage to support small business development. Residential may be configured in a variety of ways, including but not limited to, wrap and podium buildings. Neighborhood design is encouraged to provide pedestrian -scaled street scenes and balance vehicular and pedestrian access for efficiency. Th S� Mixed Use (MU) The primary land uses in the MU Placetype are commercial and Medium -High Density Residential. The MU Placetype is intended to contribute to the employment/housing balance and reduce the carbon footprint of the community by allowing the location of jobs and services in close proximity to transit and high -density residential. A range of land uses may provide community -oriented retail, business services, child care, and housing. Buildings are encouraged to provide active, articulated facades close to the minimum setback line along the Vine. �41 Sew Item E —60 Recreation (REC) Primary land uses in the REC Placetype are common private and public recreation amenities. The REC Placetype is featured at three central parcels to provide a variety of resident -friendly elements that would build a healthy, vibrant community dynamic. The community REC areas may include a variety of uses including: Plaza space that ties into the Urban Plaza and Ion pedestrian connection. Public and Joint Use facilities for Public Safety, Community Services and Library Services. City of Rancho Cucamonga Joint Use Facility The Joint Use Public Facility would be implemented in the Project to accommodate the needs of the Rancho Cucamonga Community Services, Library Services, and Police departments. It is expected that the Joint Use Facility would be open during normal business hours and would offer various programs and services to the general public. This facility would be available not only to future residents of the proposed Project, but other residents in the City, including the residents in the immediate vicinity that are currently underserved by existing public facilities in the area. The location of the City's Joint Use Facility in a central location within the Northern half of the Project would lower the cost of providing services, provide convenient public access, reduce traffic, and avoid overloading existing facilities. Safety will be emphasized with an on -site police substation using modern technology and CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) isa Project feature. �r The Ion Tunnel and Urban Plaza Mh 51n A sense of place, motion and activity is what drives people to go to special places. The Applicant is planning to deliver another dynamic element to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Ion. To safely connect the northern and southern halves of the new transit orientated development, the Project includes a tunnel of Ion lights. Energy efficient LED light strands will change color to computer generated patterns. This passage under the busy 6" street will enable pedestrians and bicyclers to safely travel throughout the community along the Vine, a travel corridor leading residents from their homes to the Metrolink station and a multitude of dynamic urban recreational amenity spaces. 9 Item E —61 Recreation areas adjacent to the Ion will contain about 3 acres of open space spread on both sides of the Ion tunnel, with each side having a distinct flavor and personality. Both sides will feature a curving ADA accessible pedestrian trial promoting the use of the Ion tunnel versus the crosswalk at 6t1 street, thus reducing traffic movement signal time. The active recreation facility the 'Spa' is to the south, a sophisticated open space with cabanas and statuesque palms radiating out from the resort pool. This is the private recreation domain of the owners of homes within Empire Lakes. Proposed features include a 4,000 sf clubhouse, for social and wellness functions, spa, and outdoor kitchen. The passive recreation area, the Urban Plaza 'Camp' is to the north, a gathering place with shaded outside seating. This creative space is for adults to relax or play with their dog in the bark park. The north Camp is envisioned as a public feature available to both the For -Sale and For -Rent residents. Mixed Use Overlay The Mixed Use Overlay may be applied voluntarily to a parcel, or portion of a parcel. The Mixed Use Overlay provides market flexibility and added placemaking opportunities. The Overlay allows combination of residential and non-residential horizontal or vertical mixed use along the prime vehicular and pedestrian connections to add commercial and service elements to facilitate a more complete community. Where the Mixed Use Overlay is exercised, the non-residential uses should be carefully designed to provide an engaging interface. _ Metn,"nk Station shoat stm.1 Item E —62 77F, 7�4 y Community Framework The Vine is the backbone for multi -modal circulation. This pedestrian -scaled roadway is designed for pedestrian engagement, incorporating street trees, seating, plazas, activity spaces, and connections to neighborhood pathways and 3rd Place spaces. Design features include climate -appropriate landscape and hardscape elements that provide shade, a cooling effect, and unique gathering spaces that meld each neighborhood to the Vine and to each other. Special design features include Retail shops, Homes and Live/Work studios addressing the Vine. Traffic calming features including roundabouts and table tops will help to produce safe and welcoming circulation opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 3rd Place Spaces 3rd Place spaces form a connective network of pedestrian amenities that tie neighborhoods together by creating unique spaces throughout the community. 3rd Places include three types of unique connective spaces: Grand Paseos/ Pathways / Gathering Spaces These spaces will help to provide a unique, individualized feel to the community as part of the linkage to connect Empire Lakes both internally and to the surrounding neighborhoods. Envisioned are east/west Grand Paseos linking existing adjacent open space areas to the Vine; these may be enhanced by a bark park, gathering places, and Table Top pedestrian crossings. 3rd Place concept — Pedestrian Connection Adjacent Property I-) Item E —64 Design Guidelines The Specific Plan Design Guidelines provide a design framework that conveys an aesthetically interesting community identity within an urban living environment. The scale of higher -density buildings shall be designed for visual interest, creating rhythm and scale to the street. Composition of massing, interlocking volumes, and addition of stylized details will achieve engaged streetscapes. This may mean subtle massing offsets with a higher -level of detail, or bolder forms with more pronounced massing variation and simple to sparse detail. The design approach shall be tailored to the architectural style and context of the primary pedestrian street. Architectural detailing of building facades is a key feature of quality design. Special attention is required in the treatment of entries (doors, vestibules, porches or courtyards) using enhanced trim or details to emphasize these as primary focal points. The massing, character and detailing of an architectural style should be expressive of and authentic to that style. However, the style guidelines should be applied with flexibility to allow contemporary adaptations of traditional vernaculars. Architectural styles within the community may include: Modern Styles: Art Deco; Contemporary & Industrial Adaptive Styles: Craftsman; European Heritage; Italian; Main Street; Monterey; Prairie & Spanish Main Street Typical Elevation Example: 11 Item E —65 ilia!—�.�- Owl ya t r` x ( >C` Landscape Design Landscape design will be used as a strong placemaking element to promote the value of the community by defining, unifying, and enhancing the pedestrian realm. The urban nature of this community encourages a distinct landscape character with a creative and unique landscape aesthetic. Streets will be designed to be enjoyable, walkable, and interactive to pedestrians. In urban planting schemes, it is critical to achieve contrast between plant species. Goals and Benefits: The Goals for the Project and Benefit's accruing to the community from its implementation include the following: The Project is intended to: 1. Provide High Quality Housing to accommodate the growth that is coming to Rancho Cucamonga. The City is experienced positive economic growth and is job -rich. The Empire Lakes Project will provide the unique life-style experience not available in any other community in the City. Its combination of design, easily -accessible transit, separate pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation, and one of a kind recreation features is set to attract current City residents as well as the future highly educated workforces needed to drive the City of Rancho Cucamonga forward. Neighborhood level retail and service sector opportunities are planned to be accommodated within the Mixed Use Overlay area, along the central north south circulation element, the Vine, to provide up front and convenient places to shop, work and obtain local services. Along with these initial opportunities, buildings along the Vine are planned to be adaptable to the changing community dynamics over time. Certain residential units facing primarily the west side of The Vine will be able to be reconfigured on the street level to accommodate additional shops and retail services as the community evolves and matures and the need for these services is proven. 2. Incorporating the fundamentals of smart growth and environmental responsibility, sustainability is an integral design feature of the proposed Empire Lakes Specific Plan Amendment with intensification of urban infill development adjacent to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink station, resulting in reduced vehicle miles traveled. The concept that the location of residential and employment generating uses, and notably higher density residential uses, near transit increases transit ridership and reduces the environmental impacts associated with use of motor vehicles is the basis for numerous local, regional and state planning programs. Most notable is the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The SCS is an element of the RTP that demonstrates the integration of land use, transportation strategies, and transportation investments within the RTP. The area immediately surrounding the Project site contains light and heavy industrial uses, office uses, and commercial/retail uses. By locating housing opportunities at a location near both transit and employment -generating uses, the proposed Project will decrease dependency on the automobile and reduce associated air pollution and greenhouse gases, among other environmental benefits. Because of its location, the Project site represents an unusual opportunity to promote environmentally beneficial infill development within the City. There are few other currently developed sites in the City that can be repurposed to create new housing opportunities and mixed -use development without causing any direct residential displacement. 1'i Item E —67 The Project site also provides a rare opportunity to promote infill development on a site already surrounded by existing active development, and with significant proximity to existing employment, transit and entertainment uses. Bringing the Empire Lakes property to its highest and best use will promote regional retail services locating in the surrounding area, to the benefit of local residents that are currently underserved. Other sustainable features that would be implemented as part of the Project include, but are not limited to, use of recycled water for landscaping, storm water management, and energy efficiency. Additionally, the proposed Project includes the planting of a minimum of 5,600 new trees, reducing the net GHG emissions attributable to the Project, and use of reclaimed water throughout the community for landscaping sustainment. New construction features have considerable improved energy efficiency in homes, apartments, and commercial construction since the introduction of Title 24 in 1995. Homes built in Empire Lakes (and elsewhere) will use about 28% less energy for lighting, heating, cooling, ventilation and water heating than those built to the 2013 standards. Title 24 will continue to reduce energy consumption by increasing standards through 2020 when homes are required to have a zero net energy consumption standard. 3. Connect the community visually & physically with pedestrian crossings and landscaped 3rd Place Spaces to allow for social gatherings and respite from busy days. Immediately adjoining Empire Lakes to the east are over 1,700 existing high density apartments. The Specific Plan provides opportunities to connect these communities to the Empire Lakes' central Vine with several pedestrian connections. This will provide easy walkability from the adjoining community. 4. Provide a mix of For -Sale and For -Rent Housing opportunities for a wide range of residents and will meet the needs of school teachers, students and other professionals. 45% of existing households in Rancho Cucamonga consist of 1 or 2 persons. Many residents prefer to stay close to their previous neighborhoods. These, along with the new wave of residents, desire a broad range of housing types to serve a wide variety of personal tastes and income levels. Numerous product types will be included in this New Place to meet these existing and future demographics. The for -rent units will offer a range of housing opportunities from traditional walk-up single level units, to townhomes and live work units for professionals and shop owners who prefer the opportunity to live and pursue their businesses at home. The for -sale neighborhoods will be master planned by the Applicant and will be offered to a variety of proven homebuilders knowledgeable in producing exciting upscale urban feel communities. 5. Integrate this new housing experience with the existing transportation network. On buildout of the Specific Plan, Empire Lakes will be a multi -modal community with direct connectivity to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, integrated pedestrian and bicycle circulation with connections to the surrounding community, and expected varied vehicular transportation opportunities including Omni -Trans, private shuttles, Uber-type services and personal transportation. 16 Item E —68 Community Participation: The following is a summary of community participation and notifications Legal Noticing requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City Of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code apply to this Project proposal. State Law (Government Code 65090) and the City Development Code (Section 17.14.050) require notices to be mailed to owners of property within a minimum radius of 300 and 660 feet, respectively. Due to the size and scope of the Project, City Staff expanded the minimum radius to include owners of property within 1,000 feet of the Specific Plan planning area. This expanded radius was applied to all notices and community meetings to date and will continue to apply to future notices and hearings. Notice was provided in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin as a large 1/8 page add. The City Staff created a Project -specific webpage to ensure all public documents related to the Applicant's Empire Lakes proposal were readily accessible. Notices were also given via email to all community members who had contacted the City with general inquiries about the Project. On June 101h, 2015 a Public Scoping Meeting for the Environmental Impact Report was conducted by the Planning Commission. On November 10, 2015 the Draft EIR was circulated for a minimum 45-day review period. On November 10th 2015 the Planning Commission held a workshop on the Project proposal. The workshop was intend to familiarize the Commission and the Public with the Project prior to the release of the Draft EIR. Both the City Staff and the Applicant made presentations and answered comments and questions from those in attendance. During December 2015 and January 2016, the Applicant conducted four Community Outreach meetings. The Community Meetings were held on December 10, 2015 and January 14, 21, and 28, 2016. City Staff was present at all meetings as an observer. Financial Sustainability: The Empire Lakes specific plan is intended to be self-supporting. Various mechanisms are intended to provide Project supported funding to maintain and support the many features of the Project. The central circulation corridor, The Vine, and extensions connecting to the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, along with the Ion Public Open Space, 3rd Place Spaces and Grand Paseos will be funded by the Applicant and sustained through a combination of financing mechanisms intended to include HOA, CFD's and possibly other special districts and mechanisms to insure the Empire Lakes community is self -funded and will not be a drain on City resources. Fees and Services: In addition to the community infrastructure and features to be built by the Applicant and sustained by the Empire Lakes community, the Project will also make substantial financial contributions through impact fee payments to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Cucamonga 17 Item E —69 School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the Cucamonga Valley Water District. The Development Impact Fees payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at the maximum 3,450 unit density, will approximate $43 Million. These funds are useable by the City to fulfill and sustain a variety of its municipal responsibilities. Of the $43 Million, nearly $19 Million will be paid in City Transportation Fees for Improvements outside the Project infrastructure and impacts. Another $18 Million will be paid for Citywide Park Land Acquisition & Improvements. $4 Million will be funded by Empire Lakes towards the Cities Community Center, while another $2.3 million will go to other services including Police, Library and Animal Services. These amounts are based on the current City fee schedule dated May 2015. The Cucamonga School District will receive an estimated $8 Million in direct funding and Chaffey Joint Union High School District will receive over $4 Million in one-time fees paid on a per square footage basis as the Project develops. In addition, these School Districts will receive Property Tax revenue sharing of up to $4 million annually. The Cucamonga Valley Water District, based on current rates, will receive an estimated $30 Million in Water Capacity Fees and over $4 Million in Sewer Capacity Fees. The IEUA (Inland Empire Utilities Agency) will additionally receive up to $18 Million in Water Capacity Assessments. Empire Lakes will also pay millions for Storm Drainage and other Project related fees. Conclusion: A Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to be made for this Project due to unavoidable impacts from Air Quality, Traffic, Noise, Housing and Population Growth and Loss of Private Property designated as Open Space (a golf course). The Applicant has provided substantial support to their application, as detailed above, to justify the approval of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and approval of the Specific Plan Amendment being sought. Empire Lakes is the right Project, in the right place, at the right time 18 Item E —70 EXHIBIT F RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUB -AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department, Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Adopted January 1994 Revised November 2000 Revised May 2001 Revised October 2002 Revised August 2003 Revised June 2012 Planning Commission Draft April 2016 Item F -71 ORDINANCE NO. 638 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00 01, TO ADD MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED USE PLANNING AREA IX OF THE SUBAREA 18 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. RECITALS. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 00-01 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment isreferred to as the "application." 2. On the 13th of September 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 00-93; thereby, recommending to this City Council that said application be approved. 3. On October 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and, following the conclusion of said hearing, and adopted Resolution No. 00-93. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part 'A" of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced public hearing on October 18, 2000, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element and the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; Item F —72 Ordinance No. 638 Page 2 of 4 d, The amendment is consistent with key land use objectives identified in the General Plan including, i) encourage opportunities to mix different, but compatible land uses and activities, ii) promote land use patterns that encourage non -motorized modes of transportation; and iii) organize land uses to promote the maximal opportunity for transit usage; and e. The inclusion of multi -family residential as a permitted use in Mixed Use Planning Area IX will provide an integrated environment that will respond to evolving market conditions and will help to create a "City that functions efficiently, is exciting to live in, and makes the best use of its various resources" pursuant to the objectives of the General Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced pubic hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the Empire Lakes Subarea.18 Industrial Area Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements, However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an Addendum was prepared for said project. An Addendum to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the attached Addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes . with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of Item F —73 Ordinance No. 638 Page 3 of 4 reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division The following conditions are to be reviewed for compliance by the City Planner. Within 45 days of City Council approval or prior to issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, a revised Plan text and graphics, including all renumbered pages within affected sections, shall be submitted to the City Planner for review and approval. Upon acceptance by the City Planner, a total of 25, 3-hole punch, copies of the revised Plan shall be submitted for distribution to the City Council, the Planning Commission, Library, and staff. In addition, one unbound original, and one executable copy in Microsoft Word file format on a 3.5 inch IBM formatted diskette, shall be submitted. zt Table A shall be, re -labeled as Table 4-1 to replace said table on pages 4-5 of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Table 5-1, Residential, shall be revised to insert a footnote after the words "Multiple Family Dwellings" to read as follows: "(3) Residential permitted without industrial in same Planning Area." 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Please see the following page for formal adoption and signatures Item F —74 Ordinance No. 638 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 1" day of November. AYES: Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: 1, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 4`" day of October 2000, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 1 s` day of November 2000. Executed this 2"' day of November 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Item F —75 ORDINANCE NO. 656 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 00-04 TO AMEND PLANNING AREA VI TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY -RESIDENTIAL -DEVELOPMENTAT A:DENSITY RANGE�CF. 24 TO 30 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, LOCATED ON. THE'NORTH_SIDE"OF 4TH STREET, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-082-46. A. RECITALS. 1. Fairfield Development filed an application for Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment 00-04 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Amendment is referred.to as "the application." 2- On the 28th day of March 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a.dulynoticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval of said application. 3. On May 2, 2001, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. ORDINANCE . NOW, THEREFORE; it is hereby found, determined, and resolved -by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing on May 2, 2001, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The. proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the flexible land use concept of the Mixed Use zoning designation of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: Item F —76 ordinance No. 656 Page 2 of 4 a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan, and will provide for the logical development of Planning Area VI ; and b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan and the purposes of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is consistent with key land use objectives identified in the General Plan including; encouraging opportunities to mix different but compatible land uses and activities, promote land use patterns that encourage non -motorized modes of transportation, and organize land uses to promote the maximal opportunity for transit usage; and f. The inclusion of multi -family residential land use for Planning Area VI will provide an Integrated environment that will respond to evolving market conditions, and will help to create a City that functions efficiently, is exciting to live in, and makes the best use of its various resources pursuant to the objectives of the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the Rancho Cucamonga Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described In the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance .with certain requirements; however, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an Addendum was prepared for said project. An Addendum to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan Final EIR is appropriate documentation, because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project, but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The City Council has reviewed and considered the attached Addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects, or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known, and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; 2) significant effects previously examined Item F —77 Ordinance No. 656 Page 3 of 4 will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible, would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment No. 00-04, as shown in the Staff Report and attached Exhibit "A," as well as any related text, tables, figures, and maps to maintain consistency subject to each and every Condition set forth below: Planning Division Within 45 days of the City Council approval, or prior to issuance ofbuilding permits, whichever comes first, a revised plan text and graphics, including all renumbered pages within affected sections, shall be submitted.to'the City Planner for review and approval. Upon acceptance by the City Planner, a total of 25, 3-hole punched copies of the revised plan shall be submitted for distribution to the City Council, the Planning Commission, Library, and staff. In addition, one unbound original, and one executable copy in Microsoft Word file format on a 3.5-inch IBM formatted diskette shall be submitted. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16"' day of May 2001. AYES: Alexander, Slane Curatalo, Dutton, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Item F —78 Ordinance No. 656 Page 4 of 4 ATTEST: I, DEBRAJ. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2Id day of May 2001, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16d' day of May 2001. Executed this 17u' day of May 2001, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. • - J. Adams, GVC, City Clerk Item F —79 ORDINANCE NO. 690 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DRC2002-00464, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC. PLAN (EMPIRE LAKES) TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND TO ALLOW SENIOR HOUSING WITHIN PLANNING AREA VIII, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND 6TH STREET AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. RECITALS. I. The Planning Commission initiated an amendment to the Subarea 18 Specific Plan on May 22, 2002. 2. Charles Joseph and Associates filed an application for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2002-00464 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 3. On the 28th day of August, 2002, 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. On the 2nd day of October, 2002, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. ORDINANCE. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing on October 2, 2002, including written and oral staff reports, togetherwith public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City, and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment will provide for development of senior housing serving the special housing needs of the elderly. Item F —80 Ordinance No. 690 Page 2 of 5 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code and the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and c. The proposed amendmentwill not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code and the Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with certainty that there'is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b-3) and Rancho Cucamonga CEQA Guidelines Section F(10). Furthermore, the City Council approved an Environmental Impact Report for the Subarea 18 Specific Plan in January of 1994 (State Clearinghouse No. 93102055) and br the General Plan Update in October of 2001 (State Clearinghouse No. 2000061027), and the amendment is consistent with the Subarea 18 Specific Plan and the General Plan. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Specific Plan Amendment DRC2002-00464 by the adoption of the attached Exhibit "A." S. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Please see the following page for formal adopt" '- 'signatures Item F —81 Ordinance No. 690 Page 3 of 5 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2002. AYES: Alexander, Curatalo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: Biane, Dutton ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: AaJ.amsC, City Clerk 1, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITE CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of October 2002, and was passed at a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 22nd day of October 2002. Executed this 23`6 day of October 2002, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. De ra J. Adam , N1C, City Clerk Item F —82 Ordinance No. 690 Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" The Rancho Cucamonga Subarea 18 Specific Plan, pages 4-10 shall be amended as follows (strike thru = remove text, bold italic = added te#): Section 4.2.4 EASTERN ANCHOR (6TH STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE) Planning Area VIII: OfficeAndusWal/CommerciallSeniorHousing Planning Area VIII is located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue, which will become a prime intersection when 6th Street is ultimately extended to a new proposed interchange with the 1-15 Freeway. This parcel enjoys both prime arterial road frontage and golf course frontage. Possible uses include office, research and development, and light Rdustr;vl market rate senior housing, as well as commercial pad sites for fast food or banking adjacent to primary roadway entrances. With the completion of the future interchange with 1-15, Planning Area VIII may also include certain types of retail uses. Market rate senior housing is intended to facilitate the construction of rental housing units that will serve the current and long term City need forsenior Citizen oriented dwelling units, while maintaining a high degree of quality in project design and construction. This type of development shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws. The primary resident population group that is intended to be served by market rate senior housing development are senior citizens who meet the following criteria: a. For tenants, residents or occupants who are married to each other, eitherspouse shall be 55 years of age or older. b. For individuals who are not married, each individual shall be 55 years of age or older with the following exception. G. Non -seniors may live in the development so long as they are 45 years of age or older or a person providing primary physical or economic support to the senior citizen. d. A non -senior guest may stay with a seniorfor up to 60 days peryear. Senior housing developments must meet the following physical equirements: a. Extra -wide entryways, walkways, hallways, and doorways in the common areas of the development. b. Walkways and hallways in the common areas must be equipped with railings or grab bars to assist persons who have difficulty with walking. C. Walkways and hallways in the common areas must have sufficient bright lighting to assist persons who have difficulty seeing. d. Access to all common areas and housing units within the development shall be - ^r clairs (elevators or ramps must be used instead). Item F —83 Ordinance No. 690 Page 5 of 5 e. The development must contain at least one common room and common open space. Refuse collection must be provided in a manner that requires a minimum of physical exertion by residents. g. Every effort shall be made to buffer the development from more intensive uses allowed in the Planning Area. This includes increased setbacks, intensified landscaping, creative use of walls, and other factors subject to review and approval by the City Planner. As an incentive to developers to build senior housing projects, the parking requirements maybe reduced below that required for typical multi -family development. Reduction in the number of parking spaces shall be addressed on a case -by -case basis subject to provision of parking studies and the establishment of a development agreement. Market rate senior housing development, including reduced parking requirements are predicated upon the long-term availability of the units for the target population previously defined. In order to ensure that the units remain available and affordable to this group, the developer will be required to enterinto a development agreement with the Cityper California Government Code Section 65864 through 65869.5. Item F —84 ORDINANCE NO.714 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENTMENT DRC2003-00255, A REQUEST TO ADD MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED - USE PLANNING AREA VII, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 4T11 STREET AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0210-082- 47. A. RECITALS. 1. JPI Westcoast Development, L.P., filed an application for Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as described in. the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 111" day of June 2003, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. On the 161' day of July 2003, the City Council 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 Ordinance have occurred. B. ORDINANCE. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced public hearing on July 16, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property within the City; and b. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and c. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Flexible land use concept of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. Item F —85 Ordinance No. 714 Page 2 of 4 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for the logical development of the Planning Area VII and the General Plan and with related development; and b. The amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Districts Chapter of the Development Code; and c. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and the purposes of the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified as a Master EIR for the IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21157.1 provides that the preparation and certification of a Master EIR allows for the limited review of subsequent projects that were described in the Master EIR as being within the scope of the reporting accordance with certain requirements. However, because of the changes that are submitted by this project, an addendum was prepared for said project_ An addendum to the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan final EIR is appropriate documentation because some changes or additions are necessary to describe the proposed residential project but none of the conditions described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. The City Council has reviewed and considered the attached addendum based on the following findings: a. There have not been substantial changes in the project that require major revisions to the previous EIR because of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects. b. There have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR because of the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Item F —86 Ordinance No. 714 Page 3 of 4 c. There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as complete, that shows any of the following: 1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, 2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe that shown in the previous EIR, 3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or 4) mitigation measures or alternatives, which are considerably different from those analyzed in the final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, S. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00255, as shown in the staff report., 6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. Please SW the following page for formal adoption, certiricatlon and signatures Item F —87 Ordinance No. 714 Page 4 of 4 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 61h day of August 2003. AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Howdyshell, Kurth, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: "JtAda 1 CMC, City Clerk t, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 161h day of July 2003, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 61h day August of 2003. Executed this 71h day of August 2003, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. L&C 'be.. J. Adam1i&,,6mc, City cierk ORDINANCE NO. 854 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (IASP) SUBAREA 18 AMENDMENT DRC2010-00685, AMENDING SECTION 5.3.2 OF THE IASP SUBAREA 18 BY ADDING LANGUAGE REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS IN THE LA/ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685, a request to amend Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Subarea 18, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. The City of Ontario's Resolution No. 95-34 established the City of Ontario as the responsible agency for land use compatibility planning for the LA/ONT International Airport. 3. On April 19, 2011, the Ontario City Council adopted a Negative Declaration and approved the 2011 LA/ONT Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) by adopting Ordinance No. 2935. 4. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) that will be affected by aircraft operations as described in the Simplified Airport Diagram for the LA/Ontario International Airport, 5. State law requires that General Plans and Specific Plans must be consistent with adopted airport compatibility plans (Government Code Section 65302.3). Following adoption of the LA/ONT ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the AIA must achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. 6. On January 11, 2012, the Planning Commission approved the initiation of IASP Subarea 18 Amendment DRC2010-00685. 7. On May 9, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment DRC2010-00685 and following the conclusion thereof adapted its Resolution No. 12-22 recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt IASP Subarea Text Amendment DRC2010-00685. 8. On June 6, 2012, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application. 9. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Item F —89 B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing on June 6, 2012, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located within the City; and b. An Initial Study was prepared for the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Amendment and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and the Initial Study finds that all environmental impacts are either of no impact or less -than -significant impact; therefore, the proposed Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 Amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment; and C. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within the Airport Influence Area of Ontario International Airport; and d. Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21670.1(c), in order to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, it is necessary for each agency within an Airport Influence Area that has an adopted Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the lead agency (City of Ontario) to adopt and implement the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan in order to ensure airport safety and compatible land planning; and e. State law requires land use plans and development proposals to be consistent with policies set forth in Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. Along with each member agency being required to adopt the ALUCP, each jurisdiction within the Airport Influence Area will need to achieve vertical consistency with its land use policy documents. The proposed text amendment to the IASP Subarea 18 will provide the IASP Subarea 18 with language ensuring compatibility with the LA/ONT ALUCP; and f. The IASP Subarea 18 Amendment does promote the Land Use Policies and Implementation Actions of the General Plan by amending a specific plan within the Airport Influence Area of the LA/Ontario International Airport in order to achieve vertical consistency among land use documents in order to ensure aircraft safety and land use compatibility planning around the LA/Ontario International Airport and the future runway expansion; and g. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by ensuring that future development will not detrimentally impact aircraft operations or be a physical hazard to aircraft arriving or departing from LA/Ontario International Airport when the future runway expansion occurs; and h. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The IASP Subarea 18 Amendment will provide language ensuring compatibility with the LA/Ontario ALUCP by prescribing building height limits in order to provide airspace protection for aircraft operations; and Ordinance No. 854 - Page 2 of 5 Item F —90 i. The adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code by providing a streamlined process by which local agencies can ensure that development within the Airport Influence Area is compliant with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The IASP Subarea 18 text Amendment will provide language so that development in Subarea 18 does not adversely impact aircraft operations from LA/Ontario International Airport; and j. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan since the adoption of the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment balances the need to maintain aircraft safety without adversely impacting the full economic use of properties within Subarea 18 by allowing building heights up to 70 feet within the High Terrain Zone, which will permit buildings up to 6 stories. Additionally, the proposed text amendment includes a provision to permit building heights up to 90 feet for offices and hotels within Subarea 18, provided an exception is obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration. SECTION 3: Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the IASP Subarea 18 Amendment (hereinafter in Section 3, the subject IASP Subarea 18 Amendment is referred to as "the project") will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration 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 there was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council adopts the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. SECTION 4: Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 DRC2010- 00685 as follows: SECTION 5: SECTION 5.3.2 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section 5.3.2, Architecture, Building Height/Bulk/Massing Ordinance No. 854 - Page 3 of 5 Item F —91 The following text shall be deleted (deleted text in strikethredgM): SECTION 6: SECTION 5.3.2 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18 is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: Section 5.3.2, Architecture, Building Height/Bulk/Massing: The following text shall be added (new text in bold) Building height limits within Subarea 18 shall not exceed the height limits prescribed in the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan. For Planning Areas within the High Terrain Zone, the building height limit shall be 70 feet. Buildings or structures greater than 70 feet in height within the High Terrain Zone are subject to the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process and require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exception (Obstruction Evaluation - Form 7460). For Planning Areas outside the High Terrain Zone, building height limits shall be governed by the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan. Building or structures greater than LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan limits are subject to the ONT-IAC Project Notification Process and require a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) exception (Obstruction Evaluation - Form 7460). In cases where the LA/Ontario International Airport Compatibility Plan permits heights greater than 70 feet or the FAA has granted an exception to exceed 70 foot threshold within the High Terrain Zone, the following limits shall be applied: 1) Maximum building or structure height shall not exceed four stories or 75 feet, whichever is greater, unless approved as a Conditional Use Permit, except hotel facilities which are permitted to a maximum height of eight stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. 2) In Planning Area VII, office buildings are permitted to a maximum height of six stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. SECTION 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation. SECTION 8: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. please see the following page forfonnal adoptfon, certification and signatures Ordinance No. 854 - Page 4 of 5 Item F —92 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June 2012. AYES: Alexander, Buquet, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: X j7rcce C. Reynolds, City Clerk I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 61" day of June 2012, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 20'" day of June 2012. Executed this 2151 day of June 2012, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Janie C. Reynolds, ity Clerk Ordinance No. 854 - Page 5 of 5 Item F —93 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page 1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Planning Process and Background.........................................................................1-2 1.3 Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Scope and Format........................................................1-3 1.4 Project Description ............. .................................................................................... 1-3 1.5 Public Facilities and Services ........................ ......................................................... 1-8 1.6 Phasing Plan..........................................................................................................1-9 1.7 Processing Criteria for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan............................................1-9 1.8 Conclusions..........................................................................................................1-10 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Regional and Local Setting ................................ 2.2 Project Characteristics ....................................... 2.3 Purpose and Objectives .................................... 2.4 Issues, Constraints, and Opportunities .............. 3 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY 3.1 Relationship to the Industrial Area Specific Plan.....................................................3-1 3.2 Relationship to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan...........................................3-2 I0=1MOi.MM Item F —94 4 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK 4.1 Development Concept............................................................................................4-1 4.2 Land Use Plan .......................... ............................................................................ 4-10 4.3 Circulation and Access.........................................................................................4-17 4.4 Infrastructure........................................................................................................ 4-21 4.5 Grading Concepts/Drainage.................................................................................4-31 4.6 Public Services ................................... .................................................................. 4-33 4.7 Economic Development........................................................................................4-35 5 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Land Use Types.....................................................................................................5-2 5.3 Design Guidelines and Standards ....... ...... ..................... ...... ................................ 5-10 5.4 Development Standards ................. ......... ............. .......... ................ ....... ............... 5-34 6 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 6.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Regulatory Procedures/Development Regulations.... . ............................................. 6-1 6.3 Sources of Financing ................ ........................................... ................................... 6-7 6.4 Phasing (Land Use/Infrastructure).................................... .................................... 6-10 6.5 Marketing Strategy .......................61T Planning Commission DRAFT ADdl 2016 Table of Contents Item F —95 7 PLANNING AREA I MIXED USE INFILL AREA 7.1 Introduction .............. ............................................................... ................ I ......... ................ 7-1 7.1.1 Specific Plan Context..............................................................................................7-2 7.2 Community Vision............................................................................................................7-4 7.2.1 Design Goals ...................................................... .................................................... 7-4 7.2.2 Community Framework.........................................................................................7-10 7.3 Urban Design Standards.................................................................................................7-14 7.3.1 Development Potential ........................................ ......................................... ........ 7-15 7.3.2 Placetvpe Descriptions..........................................................................................7-18 7.3.3 Land Use..............................................................................................................7-34 7.3.4 Development Standards...............................................................................................7-34 7.3.5 Parking Requirements................................................................................................-7-45 7.3.6 Circulation....................................................................................................................7-52 7.4 Architectural Guidelines.................................................................................................7-77 7.4.1 Site Planning Criteria............................................................................................7-78 7.4.2 Scale. Massing, and Articulation ....... ......................................................... ..... I ..... 7-80 7.4.3 Roofs.....................................................................................................................7-85 7.4.4 Private Drive Aisle & Alley Treatments... ................. I ... ............ 7-87 7.4.5 Architectural Detailing .................. ......................................................................... 7-88 7.4.6 Trash Enclosures....................................................... ........................................... 7-91 7.4.7 Service and Loading..............................................................................................7-91 7.4.8 Elevations and Color Application ... ........................................................................ 7-92 7.4.9 Architectural Styles ....................... ................................ ............... ........................ .... 7-93 Item F -96 7.5 Landscape Design ................................................. ... ..... .. .... ... 7-116 7.5.1 Landscape Placemaking......................................... ..... ........ ......7-117 7.5.2 Landscape Guidelines .................................. ........... .. .. .. .. 7-130 7.5.3 Community Walls and Fencing............ .. ... .. .. ... . . 7-138 7.5.4 Urban Lighting Design ....................................... .. ... .. ........ 7-140 7.5.5 Signs.............................................................. ... ...... ......... .... .7-141 7.6 Public Safety ..................................................... .. ..... . .... 7-143 7.6.1 Fire Protection............................................................................................. 7-143 7.6.2 Law Enforcement and Crime Prevention ................................... 7-144 7.7 Implementation.......................................................... ... .... ........ .... .. 7-145 7.7.1 Intensity Monitoring Program ............................... ........ .. ............................ 7-146 7.7.2 Definition of Terms............................................................................... 7-148 7.7.3 Financing and Maintenance of Improvements .. .. ...... .... 7-148 7.7.4 Phasing.......................................................... .. ........ ....... 7-150 7.7.5 ALUCP Compliance .................................. .. ................. 7-150 7.7.6 Severability.......................................... ...... ... ......... 7-151 7.7.7 Interpretation.................................................... ... ..... .. .. 7-152 7.8 Glossary....................................................... .. .. .. .. .... 7-153 Appendix A Engineering ....................................... ..... .......... .... A-1 Appendix B Plant Palette .......................................... ... A-37 Appendix C General Plan Amendment ................... .. ... .... A-49 Appendix D General Plan Consistency........ ..... . A-63 1.0 General Plan Consistency ................. ... .. ......... .... ...... A-64 Appendix E Zoning Code Amendment ............... .... ... A-75 Plannina Commission DRAFT April 2016 Table of Contents Item F —97 LIST OF TABLES Table Pa e 1-1 Summary Land Use Development Program ..... ....... ...................................... ............... 1-5 4-1 Summary Land Use Development Program ......... ........................................................ 4-8 4-2 Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Estimated Employment....................................................4-37 5-1 5 2 Summary Land Use by Planning Area ........ ...... .......... ......... ......................................... band Ise TypePafiait'oRG 5-3 5-3 .—.-....................................... ::—........... Suggested Plant Palette by Landscape Zone, ............................................................ � 5-19 5-4 Streetscape Landscaping Theme .......... .............................. ..... .................................. 5-26 5-5 Acceptable Plant Materials for Low Level Screening..................................................5-31 5-6 Development Standards Summary .............................................................................5-34 5-T Streetscape Setback Requirements 48 ..... .. .................5 5-8 Performance Standards.............................................................................................5-57 7.1: PAI Development Program .................................. 7-17 7.2: MU Overlay Standards ......... ....... ... .. ..... 7-32 7.3: Development Standards ................................. ... .......................................... 7-35 7.4: Permitted Encroachments.......................................................................................... . 7-38 7.5: Perimeter Setbacks....................................................................................................... 7-40 7.6: Parking Standards .................................................. .. .. ........... .4...... .. . 7-46 7.7: General Tiered Landscaping Requirements ............... ...... ..... 7-137 7.8A: Specific Tiered Landscaping Requirements for Yards ........ 7-137 7 8B Specific Tiered Landscaping Requirements for Open Spaces 7 137 7.9: Intensity Monitoring Program ......................... .... ... ...... .... .... .. .. 7-147 Table B-1: Permitted Streetscape Tree List ......... .. .......... ..... A-38 Mannino Commission DRAFT April 2016 Table of Contents v Item F -98 Table B-2: Permitted Plant List............................................................................................ A-39 Table 17.38.070-1: Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements by Placetvpe.............. A-78 LIST OF FIGURES Figure pace 1-1 Conceptual Development Plan.....................................................................................1-4 2-1 Regional Location Map.................................................................................................2-3 2-2 Relationship of Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to IASP...................................................... 2-4 2-3 Project Vicinity Map......................................................................................................2-5 2-4 Area Development Context..........................................................................................2-6 4-1 Summary Site Analysis................................................................................................4-3 4-2 Area Transportation Network........................................................................................4-4 4-3 Conceptual Development Plan ...................................................... ............................... 4-7 4-4 Conceptual Land Use Plan.........................................................................................4-12 4-5 Existing Circulation Network.......................................................................................4-18 4-6 Conceptual Circulation Plan.......................................................................................4-19 4-7 Water Concept Plan ................................................... .............. ............. ............. ........ 4-22 4-8 Wastewater Concept Plan ................ ............................. ....................... ...................... 4-24 4-9 Reclaimed Water Concept Plan ......... ......................................................................... 4-25 4-10 Electrical Concept Plan..............................................................................................4-27 4-11 Natural Gas Concept Plan..........................................................................................4-28 4-12 Telephone Concept Plan. ........................................................................................... 4-29 4-13 Cable Television Concept Plan..................................................................................4-30 4-14 Grading Concept Plan................................................................................................4-32 4-15 Drainage Concept Plan..............................................................................................4-34 5-1 Conceptual Streetscape Master Plan.......................................................................-5-22 Ik17E�ILq7d[" 7F? A Item F —99 5-2 Major Arterial Divided Street Classification.................................................................5-23 5-3 Secondary Street Classification ........................................... ...................... ................. 5-24 5-4 Local Street Classification..........................................................................................5-25 5-5 City Gateway Feature.................................................................................................5-28 5-6 Streetscape Setback Requirement —Major Arterial/Special Boulevard .........................5-47 5-7 Streetscape Setback Requirement —Secondary Street................................................5-48 5-8 Streetscape Setback Requirement —Local Street .......... .............................................. 5-49 5-9 Building Setback Requirements —Rear and Side Yards. .............................................. 5-50 5-10 Building Height Setback.............................................................................................5-51 5-11 Building Projections....................................................................................................5-52 5-12 Industrial Loading Dock Requirements.......................................................................5-53 ReclaimedWater....................................................................................................... 6 43 7.1: Planning Area I................................................................................ ....................... 7-1 7.2: PAI Context..................................................................................................................... 7-3 7.3: Design Concept.......................................................................................... ............... 7-5 7.4: Regional Activity Context........................................................................... 7-6 7.5: Conceptual Vine......................................................................................................... 7-11 7.6: Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype ........................... ............. ... .......... 7-16 7.7: Conceptual Transit Placetype Plan & Sections. ................ ............. 7-21 7.8: Conceptual Mixed Use Placetype Plan & Section ........................................ 7-23 7.9: Conceptual Urban Neighborhood Placetype Plan & Section ........................................ 7-25 Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Table of Contents vii Item F —100 7.10: Conceptual Core Living Placetype Plan & Sections ........................ .. .. . 7-27 7.11: Conceptual Village Neighborhood Placetype Plan & Section ................................. 7-29 7.12: Conceptual Recreation Placetype Plan & Section .. ............. ........................... 7-31 7.13: Conceptual Mixed Use Overlay Placetype Plan ......................................... 7-33 7.14 Distance Between Building/Structure................................................... ........... ... 7-37 7.15 Minimum Building Setbacks......................................................................... ........ . 7-38 7.16: Encroachment Diagrams.......................................................... .................. ...... 7-39 7.17: Setback Locations...................................................................................................... 7-40 7.18A: Primary Edge Section ..................................................... 7.1813: Residential Edge Section ............................. .... .......... ..... .......... ... .. .. 7-41 7.19: Rail Road Edge Section............................................................ ..................... 7-42 7.20: Driveway/Garage Door Setbacks ................................. ... ............................... 7-49 7.21: Transit Circulation....................................................................................................... 7-52 7.22: Overall Circulation Diagram................................................................. ......... 7-53 7.23: Bicycle Circulation Diagram..................................................................... ...... 7-55 7.24: Pedestrian Circulation Diagram ............................ ................ ............ 7-56 7.25: Conceptual Ion Sections............................................................. 7-58 7.26: Conceptual Ion Plan................................................................................. 7-59 7.27: Conceptual Table Top Pedestrian Crossing Rendering ........................................... 7-60 7.28: Table Top Pedestrian Crossing/Tapered Street ................................................. 7-61 7.29: Vehicular Circulation Diagram .................................... ....................... 7-62 7.30: Conceptual Vine Rendering ................................. ......................... 7-63 7.31: The Vine.......................................................................................................a....... 7-64 7.32: Typical Roundabout Plan... ............................................................... .7-65 7.33: 6th Street......................................................................... .. 7-66 Planning Commission DRAFT Amf 2016 Wli Table of Contents Item F —101 7.34: 6th Street Intersection ...................... 7_67 7.35: 4th Street ............................................. 7-68 7.36: 4th Street Intersection ..................... 7_69 7.37: Secondary Entry Road 'A' . ..... .. .. 7_70 7.38: Secondary Entry Road 'B' . .... .. 7_71 7.39: Secondary Entry Road 'C............................... 7_72 7.40: Collector Road ...................................... .... 7-73 7.41: Private Drive Aisle ................................. 7-74 7.42: Private Drive Aisle at PAI Boundary 7.75 7.43: Alley Section ...... 7_76 7.44: Urban Framework Diagram... 7_79 7.45: Massing and Articulation Diagram 7 83 7.46: Material Wrapping Diagram . .. .. 7_gg 7.47: Conceptual Vine 3rd Place Space Plaza Rendering 7 118 7.48: Conceptual Vine... ..... I.7-119 7.49: Conceptual 6th Street East Urban Plaza 7-120 7.50: Conceptual Grand Paseo .................... 7-123 7.51: Pathway Diagram ...... .......... .. .. 7-124 7.52: Pedestrian Connection to Adjacent Property 7 125 Planning Commis -on DRAFT Aonl 2016 Table of Contents Item F —102 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Section 1 Executive Summary 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Executive Summary of the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP), Sub -Area 18 highlights the provisions of the Specific Plan. The intent of this section is to acquaint the reader with the major characteristics of the proposed Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan development program and the planning process that has been followed to date. A complete and thorough discussion of each component of the Sub -Area 18 development program is contained within subsequent sections of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Including the Executive Summary, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan has been organized into sk-seven sections, with each subsequent section providing additional details concerning the development concept for the project. Each section is identified below. • Section 2 - Introduction. Identifies the regional and local setting of the project area, outlines the purpose and objectives of the Specific Plan and briefly highlights the issues, constraints, and opportunities associated with the 380-acre Sub -Area Speck Plan. • Section 3-General Plan Consistency. Discusses the relationship of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Speck Plan (IASP) and identifies the relationship to the City's General Plan. A more detailed analysis of the consistency of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan with the ISAP and the City -General Plan is contained within Appendix B of this Specific Plan. Section 4-Development Framework. Section 4 identities in detail the overall development concept of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, including discussions on the Land Use Plan; Circulation and Access; Infrastructure; Grading Concepts/Drainage; Public Services; and Economic Development aspects of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. This section of the Sub - Area 18 Specific Plan identifies urban design concepts and a planning area description of the proposed land uses. A summary of proposed land uses for each planning area is contained within this section. • Section 5 - Development Guidelines and Standards. The development guidelines and standards for the land uses proposed within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan are discussed in this section. The guidelines and standards establish the regulatory requirements and development —standards necessary for subsequent planning, design and implementation of project components. • Section 6 - Implementation Program. Section 6 identifies the various types of financial programs that will be considered for the implementation of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. In addition, this section describes the regulatory review procedures, as amended, that apply to the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. A description of the phasing program and conceptual marketing strategy are also included within this section. Planning Commission DRAFT Aoril 2016 Executive Summary 1-1 Item F —103 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 1.2 PLANNING PROCESS AND BACKGROUND In 1993, a multitude of discussions were held with the City of Rancho Cucamonga to strategize on the regulating of the General Dynamics property with the City. The pending vacancy of approximately 1,000,000 square feet of office space required a creative approach for encouraging future reuse of the buildings, as well as a strategy for development of 300 acres of adjacent vacant properties. The discussions resulted in the preparation of a conceptual land use plan identifying the development potential of a championship quality golf course as the central theme, with a variety of supporting land uses surrounding the golf course. A Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in September 1993 outlining a review process that would encourage public review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applications for a specific plan, general plan amendment, and environmental impact report were submitted in October 1993. The draft Specific Plan for Sub -Area 18 Spes+iis Wan and a draft Environmental impact Report (EIR) were made available for public review on January 26, 1994. The public comment period was concluded on March 11, 1994. Three public meetings were conducted by the Planning Commission to review the EIR and Specific Plan in January, February, and March 1994. The final EIR was certified and the Specific Plan approved by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council in June 1994. Subsequent to 1994, the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan has been amended. In November 2000, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council approved an amendment to the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in the mixed use Planning Area IX. In May 2001, the Council approved an amendment to permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in Planning Area VI. In September 2002, the Council approved an amendment to permit market rate senior housing in Planning Area VII as an additionally permitted use. In June 2003, the Council approved an amendment to the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to also permit multi -family residential uses as an additionally permitted use in Mixed -Use Planning AreaVll. In 2012 Section 5.3.2 of the IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was amended by ordinance This amendment added language to the plan to address and require consistency with the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Building heights consistent with the ALUCP were added to section 5.3.2. Following changing market conditions the Specific Plan was further amended to re -purpose the Plannina Commission DRAFT April 2016 Executive Summary 1-2 Item F —104 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Section 7 for additional Droiect information related to the 2015 amendment 1.3 SUB -AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN SCOPE AND FORMAT All future development within Sub -Area 18 shall occur in accordance with the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Sections 65450-65507 of the California Public Resources Code, Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan defines the development concept for the proposed mixed -use project and applicable development regulations for the project, so that subsequent project -related subdivision maps, grading plans, and other discretionary permits can be approved. All discretionary permits with the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Specific Plan. 1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan site is located east of Haven Avenue, approximately one mile west of 1-15 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The ]ASP Sub -Area 18 is bounded on the south by Fourth Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, and on the west by Cleveland Avenue and Utica Street. The southern boundary of the project site is adjacent to the northern boundary of the City of Ontario. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is an amendment to the City of Rancho Cucamonga IASP adopted in 1981. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will provide for the development of a broad mix of uses, ias4ud+ag that may include recreation, optonal hotellconference center, retail, restaurant, and entertainment, as--welt-as-office, research and development, light industrial uses, and multiple familyattached and detached high density housing. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan provides for the adaptive commercial and industrial reuse of the three existing buildings on the site, as well as the proposed land uses. See Section 7 for the project description characteristics and development details of Planning Area I The Conceptual Development Plan for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area is shown in Figure 1-1. The statistical summary of land uses is shown in Table 1-1. See Section 7 for development plan and buildout potential of the Planning Area I The following discussion identifies the characteristics of each planning area within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Plannina Commission DRAFT Aonl 2016 Executive Summary 1-3 Item F —105 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment »xrxav xin;'a ss�K � mar .cos i I. Area 7cs 1 Ar is •-. fliar�.wU.�, Flanrdn'g y Piaaa Ana r v F'8 ca L& Lh - r 73xwuse% t�nQ^' ✓` y swWYs ----et �: F!a . "� PkarustnH ju. +FAMAyr vrlrer. "r°ix ` _ i IT i -- rem* sxnaec _ a 1 Nah: This figure repr"W" dw aw" gapoaod_— Cwroeptual bevabpnxera Plan for SWAme 18 arni inay �;a l subject to future mfrwsmanb arWw modili=wm, l Boundary of New PA1 Conceptual Development Plan Planninq Commission DRAFT April 2016 Executive Summary 1-4 Item F —106 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY Of LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM This table is conceptual to illustrate and summarize the maximum development potential of the project excluding infill development of PA1. Section 4.2, Land Use Plan, as well as Table 5.1 and 5.2 for permitted land uses and definitions. See Section 7 for land uses and development potential of PA1. Types of Uses Y `it c a F c Parceilracility Planning Planning o . o Maximum FAR Area Area Site c _ v_ Development (Floor (Acres) V. Potential (at Area a a or dwelling Ratio) units) or m u o S c x LL dula^ -- - Exisling Facilities Building Building Viiti — 27y O O O • O • • 3p8,000' 025X • 13u 6ng Still W2 17 • • ! ! • 242,000a 0 35X • BuSding 602 It 28 a 0 a • • • • • 425,00o U.35X Subtotal ( 72 975,000 0.31 Gulf Course (including Ouse an maintenance hxiVilVZ �. _._—_.. Golf Practice Facility 1114 22 • • 0 0 • O O • 15.000° 0.01° e 7g CommerciaVlnrlustdal Vill 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.984 0.35 Panels Vli1 13.4 • • ! • 173,804 0.35 av X 24 • 0 • • • • 200,000 XI 18 • I , • • 275,000 0.36 Subtotal 59.4 709,788 FALIMPIe Family VI 2'3 • 567du �du 300.. ReSI&MIRl --- +lit 20 I • 499 du 2d4-30 ufuc Vlll 9.7 �- •` 264 du dul2(l IX 20.5 52 t du `4 A3 du/au • 1,851 du Subtotal 73.2 Permitted: up to 1,888 du Plannino Commission DRAFT Aodl 2016 Executive Summary 15 Item F -107 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Total 379' 1,851 du permitted: up to 1,888 du 1. Ultimately demolished and redeveloped as mixed -use commercial: 440,000 at. 2 Could be intensi$od with parking deck and +10,000 sf addition of retbuVrestaurant/fast food. 3. Existing facility could be adaptively to, used or redeveloped.as a lansily rerrouliorllenterWinmvnt renter or mixed use commercial. 5. Alternative hotel and conforence canter site. 0. Includes 5 acres for vacated portion of Cleveland Ave. 7. ultimately could be 3,707,000 sf with overall FAR: 0.� i. 8. FAR: 0.95 for 13 acre area excluding the Mutrofink parcel (10acres). 1.1.4 PLANNING AREA I - GQ C GGI IDCC AND oEMI ATED FAGII ITICC course tacilities initially developed under the original Specific Plan See Section 7 for characteristics and development details of Planning Area I PlanniRg Area 06 approximately 150 aGFes and includes an 19 hole pl-lbliG gglf Gaur-se 1.4.2 PLANNING AREA II - OFFICEIINDUSTRIAL USES Planning Area II is approximately 28 acres and contains 602 Build Area III. This planning area will provide for a variety of potential development options, including the reuse of the building to provide a family -oriented recreation, retail, and entertainment facility. Types of potential uses permitted under this reuse option include indoor/outdoor recreation, retail, restaurants, hotel/conference center, mixed -use, development/light industrial. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Executive Summary 1-6 Item F —108 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 1.4.3 PLANNING AREA III - CENTER (Dissolved) Empire Lakes golf course. See Section 7 for the developmentplan ■ W1 INN NOWSM 1.4.4 PLANNING AREA IV -OFFICE / COMMERCIAL USES Planning Area IV is approximately 17 acres and could include the reuse of the 601 Building or redevelopment of the site to include a variety of uses. The existing building may be renovated to provide office space for 'back -office" type users. The western portion of the planning area may be used for outdoor recreation facilities or for decked parking. 1.4.5 PLANNING AREA V -OFFICE/ INDUSTRIAL USES Similar to Planning Areas II and III, this approximately 27-acre planning area contains an existing building (Building 600). Development of Planning Area V could provide for the reuse of the building for office/industrial uses. However, due to the building design, interim space configuration, age, and visual gateway location, the reuse adaptability of Building 600 is limited. Planning Area V could eventually be eliminated and development of a mixed commercial nature could occur. Uses including indoor/outdoor recreation, hotel/conference center, mixed -use commercial, research and development/light industrial, and restaurant are proposed. 1.4.6 PLANNING AREA VI -OFFICE USES / BUSINESS PARK / MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planning Area VI. Planning Commission DRAFT Aoril 2016 Executive Summary 1-7 Item F -109 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 1.4.7 PLANNING AREA VII - MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL / MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planning Area VII, located at the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Fourth Street, is approximately 24 acres and could include mixed -use commercial; indoor recreation/entertainment; an option for hotel/conference center, office; research and development/light industrial/business park, and multiple family residential. Planning Area VII is a key entry parcel to Sub -Area 18 and is positioned to respond to economic/market factors both within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario. 1.4.8 PLANNING AREA VIII -OFFICE/ COMMERCIAL / SENIOR HOUSING Planning Area VIII is approximately 21 acres; allowable uses within the planning area are office, mixed -use commercial, and market rate senior housing. This planning area has prime arterial frontage along Milliken Avenue and Sixth Street. This Planning Area also shares frontage with 1.4.9 PLANNING AREA IX -OFFICE/ INDUSTRIAL / CONVENIENCE / MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Planning Area IX is bounded by Seventh Street to the north, Sixth Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, and the €mpir2Lakes-Gelf�Mixed Use Infill Area (Planning Area I) to the west. This 20.5-acre site permits the development of research and development / light industrial / business park; office / commercial; restaurant -related; and multiple family residential uses. See Section 7 for edge conditions related to Planning Area I 1.4.10 PLANNING AREA X - METROLINK STATION / OFFICE / INDUSTRIAL / MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL Planning Area X includes the 10-acre Metrolink Station site. The Metrolink Station is located in the northeast corner of Planning Area X and extends along 800 feet of frontage adjacent to the Metrolink tracks. Uses proposed within the remaining 14 acres of Planning Area X are intended to compliment the Metrolink Station and could include convenience retail and other service -oriented facilities, as well as office, research and development, light industrial uses, and mixed -use commercial centers adjacent to the golf eearseMixed Use Infill Area frontage. See Section 7 for edge conditions related to Planning Area I. 1.4.11 PLANNING AREA XI - OFFICE / INDUSTRIAL USES Planning Area XI is approximately 18 acres and could include such uses as office/professional, research and development, and light industrial uses. Limited commercial uses are allowed, including restaurant/retail activities. This Planning Area also shares frontage with Planning Area I See Section 7 for development Plan and edge conditions related to Planning Area I 1.5 PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES A program of infrastructure improvements is proposed for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area. Water, sewer, and other concept -level utility plans have been developed to serve Phase 1 (gel€seurse) and Plannina Commission DRAFT Ai)dl 2016 Executive Summary 1-8 Item F —110 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment to serve ultimate build out of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Additionally, in response to the need for water conservation, a reclaimed water system has been incorporated into the project design for the gelfGeurse Planning Area I. The drainage system for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan has been designed to use existing and planned improvements developed as part of an existing assessment district and existing uses in Planning Areas Il, IV, and V. The drainage system will convey onsite flows through a system of public improvements ultimately discharging south of Fourth Street. The d ainage system has been The need for fire and police services will be met through existing service programs and prior funding programs developed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. An existing community facilities district encompasses Sub -Area 18 and provides for funding to cover operations and maintenance costs for fire protection services. In addition, a fire station is located directly to the northeast of the project site. Redevelopment A A circulation plan for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan has-bee4was designed to implement City planned improvements identified within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and ]ASP. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was analyzed using the required Congestion Management Plan requirements for traffic studies. The circulation plan includes -included programs, improvements, and funding concepts as required per the City's exis;i Transportation Development requirements. 1.6 PHASING PLAN E) inialude the Future improvements will occur as additional uses are planned for development. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Executive Summary 1-9 Item F -111 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 1.7 PROCESSING CRITERIA FOR THE SUB -AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will be implemented with the primary purposes of: (1) using existing standards contained within the City's Development Code; 2) using existing standards contained within the IASP; (3) creating standards that respond to the unique mix of uses proposed for the Sub - Area 18 Specific Plan; (4) creation of a processing program that streamlines review process; (5) developing a Specific Plan that allows for flexibility by encouraging creative and imaginative solutions for mixed -use commercial development; and (6) implementing the project objectives as set forth in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 1.8 CONCLUSIONS The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is designed to create a self-contained Sub -Area plan that is consistent with the IASP yet provides greater detail for future implementation. The purpose of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is to provide for the development of a more flexible mix of uses than is currently permitted under the IASP, The inclusion of the gel# seise andanduse flexibility provides the opportunity to create a Specific Plan that can respond to past economic/market conditions and be positioned to respond to future contemplated changes. Plannino Commission DRAFT April 2016 Executive Summary 1-10 Item F —112 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment SECTION 2 INTRODUCTION This Specific Plan amended the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) within the City of Rancho Cucamonga to create a new planning Sub -Area, referred to as Sub -Area 18. Sub -Area 18 is made up of portions of Sub -Areas 10, 11, and 12 of the IASP. Sub -Areas 10, 11, and 12 remain in the IASP, but with reduced acreage. Portions of Sub -Areas 10, and 11 west of Cleveland Avenue are no longer be contiguous with portions of the Sub -Areas located east of Milliken Avenue. The purpose of this Sub -Area Specific Plan is to provide objectives, standards, and guidelines for development within Sub -Area 18 of the IASP. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with California State requirements and City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements for Specific Plans. California law requires that a Specific Plan specify the type, location, intensity, and timing of development and ensure the systematic implementation of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was prepared in conjunction with an EIR. The EIR and Specific Plan provided the needed development regulations and environmental documentation for the project site so that project -related subdivisions, site plans, grading permits, and/or discretionary approvals may proceed without new environmental documentation, absent significant changes in development conditions or proposals. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is intended to: (1) be integrated into the IASP as a self-contained Specific Plan; (2) promote the purposes and meet the requirements of a Specific Plan as contemplated in the City's Development Code, (3) facilitate development of the project site in accordance with the General Plan by permitting greater flexibility and encouraging more creative and imaginative designs for commercial development; and (4) achieve the project objectives as set forth in Section 2.2 below. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is organized into sir* -seven sections, including an Executive Summary, Introduction (Section 2), General Plan Consistency (Section 3), Development Framework (Section 4), Development Guidelines and Standards (Section 5), and Implementation Program (Section 6), and Planning Area I (Section 7). 2.1 REGIONAL AND LOCAL SETTING The City of Rancho Cucamonga, located in the southwest comer of San Bernardino County, is 37 miles east of downtown Los Angeles and 15 miles west of downtown San Bemardino. The San Gabriel Mountains are to the north; the communities of Upland, Ontario, and Fontana surround the City on the west, south, and east, respectively. In a region known as the West Valley, Rancho Cucamonga is strategically located at the hub of an extensive transportation network and within short commute distance of major employment centers in Southern California (see Figure 2-1). Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate 10 (1-10) and Interstate 15 (1-15). The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a population of 171.386 44-7;993{49 2013 census prejestio ,sestimate . Introduction 2-1 Item F —113 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment The Sub -Area 18 site is located at the southern edge of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, adjacent to the City of Ontario. The site has excellent freeway access via Fourth Street, Haven Avenue, and Milliken Avenue. The site is gently sloping from the north with an elevation change of approximately 80 feet from the north to the south. There are no unique topographic features within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan site has unrestricted views to the north and northeast. Sub -Area 18 is located within the south central section of the IASP. As depicted in Figure 2-2, Sub - Area 18 is made up of portions of IASP Sub -Areas 10, 11, and 12. The Specific Plan area contains approximately 380 acres of land bounded on the south by Fourth Street, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the Metrolink Station, and on the east by Cleveland and Utica Streets (Figure 2-3). The southern boundary of Sub -Area 18 is the City of Ontario. Figure 2-4 depicts the regional development context of Sub -Area 18 by showing projects that exist or have been approved within the local area. 2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will govern the development of a 380-acre site consisting of a broad mix of uses such as gGIf GGurGelreGFeationai,-optionall hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant and entertainment, office, research and development, attached and detached high densitvmaltiple family residential, and light industrial uses. site. T#ie-At the time of initial adoption. the Specific Plan site currently -inc{udesincluded vineyards, 5 acres of vacated unpaved city road right-of-way that_4&-proposed-to be vacated, and three predevelopment buildings on 75 acres, two of which are -were partially occupied (Buildings 600 and 601) and one that is -was vacant (Building 602). In 1994, the tenant leases in these buildings reverted to the property owner, allowing for the reuse of these structures under the provisions of the IASP (i.e., industrial and limited commercial uses). Under the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, these existing buildings Gan -were slated also t provide, on an interim basis, for the continuation of the previously approved industrial and limited commercial uses for the three existing buildings. In addition, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan aNew6-was designed to allow other reuse options for the existing buildings that include uses that are only conditionally permitted under the IASP. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan also includes the Metrolink Station located on the northeast corner of the site, and recreational, commercial, multiple family, attached and detached high density residences, and other mixed -use facilities adjaGent te the PFOpesed gelf GeuFse. Implementation of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan would provide for the development of 41-10 planning areas (including the reuse of the three existing buildings) within the site. Infill mixed -use development of the vacated 2.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is to create a self contained sub -area plan consistent with the IASP (adopted in August 1981), yet can be used to determine the type, location, intensity, and timing of development within the 380 acres of Sub -Area 18; the IASP was amended to accommodate the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Plannina Commission DRAFT April 2016 2-2 Inlroducfion Item F -114 �LEGEND t �C J P"°jae Focau" Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 2-3 a a-r.. 'nC • UN ' i'0 rri 10 mi 0 araes 20 M iigure2-1 Regional 'Location Map Introduction Item F —11 S Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 1 r'] gaucho rA4 vlwrga I1 City u b 4 1 �, ; t SummBAW. S✓ Propowd Footlsdt Pl..way ' ! IN �� Ilt tr �� r1ilOY FfQ'slnld Awl�ea qh aYlliltl� RWd , t�Y �— � rroa01ll 61Yd. � I _< Amm < UU 6°I"aNim ATBSF Railroad CRY of O"Wo %WIW K s nwdw o r Illgy 6.10 ' I= 1 � I 1 I LEGEND Ptoj a Loy 1 i lUndw l u wnp Clry boor. i K-TUTRITHP-ATOW' 1 25 W to Scabs nwr•2-3 Project Vicinity Map Introduction Item F —117 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Speck Plan Amendment ;�• � tom-! �� k+7 M W y NE :.. ,.. . S . _ � t I .�_ � zap .• �.. �L • � _�� • r • wy a: a�.jr r1 �. - • :� �f r r a •, rr a x�: ►;1. I � i �� ' � � I��C��gy1r'�� _ r u1 /� � w. • iI1 • • ` ���7yjl • � 1�r�� � ru x' : r wa' x•wo 4�� ffWyp � wk�;ors��� a 'ice _ i• i . x w ■ Ii-l1T w:r x. ♦. Plannlnc Commission DRAFT April - I- 2-6 Not to ScW, tiqun 2—` Area Development Context Introduction Item F —1 18 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Many significant local and regional events have occurred since 1981 that support the implementation of the Sub-Area18 Specific Plan. Some of the regional and local changes include the expansion of the Ontario International Airport, development of the Ontario Mills project in close proximity to the project site in the City of Ontario, and implementation of the Metrolink Station at the northeast corner of the project site. In addition to these local land use changes, there are numerous other economic factors affecting the project site. One significant change in the economic landscape is changes in national defense industry, which has historically played a prominent role in the regional economy, including the Sub - Area 18 project site. The western 75 acres of the Sub -Area was used by major defense contractor businesses. Both General Dynamics and Hughes Missile Defense Systems have conducted business on the project site. These businesses supplied the local and regional economy with a substantial number of jobs. Ongoing downsizing in the defense industry has resulted in the elimination of these defense -related industries on the project site. By mid-1994, approximately one million square feet of defense industry uses within the Sub -Area was vacated. Additionally, based on changing market conditions the Empire Lakes golf course was slated for closure and infill development The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan responds to defense industry and other changes in the regional marketplace with a creative and imaginative development concept that can capitalize on future market conditions. The purpose of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is to provide for the development of a more flexible mix of uses than was permitted under the [ASP including FeGFeatieRal (golf tp Tonal hotel/conference center, retail, and restaurant and entertainment uses, as�office, research and development, multiple sidential, and light industrial uses. These uses would suFFeund the 1 8 hole Shampienship g irseThe Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan proposes a repackaging of portions of the IASP into a condensed version of the IASP; the Specific Plan's uses are generally permitted or conditionally permitted in the IASP but not all within Sub -Areas 10, 11, and 12. The inclusion of the golf3eursea broad mix of uses geared for smart growth infill development provides opportunity to repackage the permitted land uses and create a market segment for uses historically not viewed as marketable given the existing economic conditions of southern California. The objectives of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan are as follows: • Provide integrated recreational, cultural, commercial, housing, and employment opportunities through the establishment of a Mixed -Use project use. Facilitate development of the project site in accordance with the General Plan by permitting greater flexibility and encouraging more creative and imaginative design within the context of large-scale project planning. Provide a process for initiation, review, and regulation of the project area that affords the maximum flexibility to the developer within the context of an overall development program and phased subdivisions, coordinated with the provision of necessary public service san facilities. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 2-7 Introduction Item F —119 Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment • Take advantage of the project site's location at the southern edge of the IASP, adjacent to the -major arterials, by promoting a more marketable commercial focus and enhancing the potential to create jobs and revenue. • Promote local and regional transit usage by integrating the Metrolink Station with surrounding parcels and providing convenient retail/services to rail transit users. • Provide for the potential reuse of existing onsite buildings located adjacent to Utica Street. • Promote City bjectives by enhancing the development potential of the site. • Promote the cost efficient construction of infrastructure necessary to serve the project site through the incorporation of public/private financing programs identified in the IASP and the City Redevelopment Plan. See Section 7 for additional objectives related to Planning Area 1• development of this area will be consistent with the objectives of Sub -Area 18. 2.4 ISSUES, CONSTRAINTS, AND OPPORTUNITIES The combination of regional and community economic factors, improved land availability, excellent transportation, and integration of a Ghampienship 19 hele gelf Geup6e mixed -use development opportunities contribute to the market attractiveness of Sub -Area 18. The development of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is in response to regional and local economic factors that suggest that a greater variety of land uses can be compatible cew;se. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was envisioned to create greater opportunities for land uses that are creative and imaginative and that can capitalize on the dynamic local and regional location of the site. The Specific Plan will ensure the development of a high quality mixed -use area that will be well integrated with uses in the City and existing and planned uses within the IASP. In order for the concept to be successful, it must capitalize on the area's locational advantages as well as confront local economic and marketing attributes. This section provides a general overview of these issues and opportunities. The certified Final EIR was prepared for the Specific Plan to identify these issues and others in greater detail, along with suggestions on proper mitigation to minimize impacts. [Updated information from 2014/2015 environmental document to be added here] 2.4.1 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The proposed land uses within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will respect and enhance the character of land uses adjacent to the Sub -Area. The project site is adjacent to a variety of land uses, including office, industrial, business support commercial, and vacant land. The northern boundary of the Sub- Inlroducton 2-8 Item F —120 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Area is the Metrolink Station (Planning Area X). To the east of the Sub -Area is the Rancho Cucamonga Distribution Center and Bixby Business Park, The Haven Commerce Business Center and other support commercial and business uses are located to the west. To the south of Sub -Area 18 properties include vacant parcels, a part of The Ontario Center, and Ontario Mills. Due to the relative uniformity of land uses extending from and immediately surrounding the project site, potential land use compatibility issues will be minimal. In general, the types of land uses proposed for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan are similar to the uses allowed (permitted or conditionally permitted) under the IASP, with the exception of multiple single family and multi -family residential development. Moreover, no land use conflicts between industrial uses currently planned or the IASP and retail uses proposed as part of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan are anticipated. The inclusion of a championship golf mixed -use development including attached and detached high density homes into Sub -Area 18 creates an opportunity in the southern end of the IASP and the northern area of the City of Ontario to attract future business and commercial users that may not have considered the marketplace in the past. The-gelf-ceurse-prevides-aResidential opportunities in a mixed -use setting provides a competitive edge to Sub -Area 18 and surrounding land uses that will help attract future businesses and compliment existing and planned uses within the vicinity of Specific Plan area by increasing business activities and business traffic and by promoting the City of Rancho Cucamonga on a regional level:basis. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan promotes a more diverse mix of commercial -oriented uses within the Sub -Area. The commercial uses are proposed to be located within a mixed -use center that will support a variety of uses. Site design standards will ensure that land use compatibility is maximized. 2.4.2 TRANSIT The growth of the IASP and Sub -Area 18 will continue to increase commuter traffic within and out of the City. The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides regional transit services via the Metrolink Station located in Planning Area X of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The Metrolink Station is integrated into the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan and will provide for future uses that will both be compatible with and beneficial to one another. Another opportunity regarding transit emerges through the development of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The Final EIR addressed in detail the opportunity and potential issues in creating a TDM program that takes advantage of the Metrolink site and other transportation -related benefits. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a citywide transportation management program that opens up new programs for enhancing transportation systems for commuters. The Ontario International Airport provides an additional opportunity for the development of the Sub - Area 18 Specific Plan. Sub -Area 18 has excellent access to the terminal facilities at Ontario International Airport via Milliken Avenue, Haven Avenue, and 1-10. See Section 7 for additional transit considerations within Planning Area I 2.4.3 CIRCULATION A constraint that often affects planning programs is the ability to move traffic in an efficient manner. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan identifies the method and programs for ensuring that vehicular traffic Plonnioa Commission DRAFT Aoril 2016 2-9 Introduction Item F —121 Rancho Cucamonga [ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment will be accommodated by the existing and planned roadways within the Sub -Area vicinity. A detailed traffic analysis that complies with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program (CMP) is included within the Final EIR for the Specific Plan. The CMP traffic analysis will identify potential impacts and suggest mitigation to ensure that traffic flow is properly managed. The Specific Plan and Final EIR addresses regional and local improvements and programs that enhance the Sub - Area 18 location. An objective of the Specific Plan is to promote local and regional transit usage by integrating the Metrolink Station into the Specific Plan area. This transit program, as well as others identified in the CMP analysis, including a TDM program and all the associated components, will help minimize potential traffic conflicts from other uses within the region. Sub -Area 18 includes three proposed 120 foot arterial roadways. Milliken Avenue, Fourth Street, and Sixth Street are all planned to provide six travel lanes within the 120-toot right-of-way. The access to Sub -Area 18 is ideal considering that freeway on- or off -ramps are located at Fourth Street, Milliken Avenue, and Haven Avenue. This access provides an opportunity for Sub -Area 18 to attract uses that desire good freeway access and exposure to pass -by vehicle trips. An additional opportunity will emerge as the City and regional agencies proceed with the funding and development of Milliken Avenue north of Arrow Highway. Additional access will be provided by bicycle routes along Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue. The bicycle trails are intended for bicycle transportation as an alternative mode of transit. The Metrolink Station can accommodate cyclists. See Section 7 for circulation information pertinent to Planning Area I. Planning commission DRAFT April 2016 PaN Introduction Item F —122 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment SECTION 3 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The California Government Code permits the adoption and administration of Specific Plans as an implementation tool for elements contained within the local General Plan. Section 65451 mandates that Specific Plans must demonstrate consistency regarding proposed regulations, guidelines, programs with the goals, objectives, policies, and programs that are set forth in the General Plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan identifies the use of Specific Plans is an acceptable implementation tool. Section VI-2 of the General Plan states: 'These provisions enable a community to develop an area with greater flexibility that would otherwise not be possible using conventional zoning. The technique is particularly appropriate for larger development sites with a complex variety of national and man -induced conditions and land use needs. The General Plan implementation comments are consistent with the objectives of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Moreover, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is consistent withthe policies of the IASP and the General Plan. A detailed analysis of this consistency is provided in Appendix B. The Specific Plan was created to provide for greater flexibility in land use decisions and respond to complex social and economic factors affecting the southern California marketplace. 3.1 RELATIONSHIP TO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN The goal of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was to create a stand-alone document that could be integrated into the IASP as a self-contained Specific Plan. Adoption of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan required minor amendments to the IASP and General Plan. A listing of those amendments is provided below: IASP Amendments 2015 Amendment the Mixed Use Infill Area. high density residential development types with densities up to 80 units per net acre within Planning Area I. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 31 Item F -123 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 2012 Amendment permitted modifications and exemptions. Previous Amendments • IASP Sub -Area - The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was added to the IASP as a new Sub -Area subject to a new range of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. • Open Space Network - Minor revisions to the discussion on Open Space Networks were provided to include the golf course within Planning Areas IA and IS. The golf course was designated in the IASP as a permitted use within the Open Space Category. • Circulation Network - The reference to Cleveland Avenue as a secondary arterial was eliminated in the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan north of Sixth Street. Cleveland Avenue will function as a local industrial roadway and, south of Sixth Street, Cleveland Avenue will be vacated. • Categories of Industrial Uses - A new general category of us "Mixed -Use" was added to the IASP. This category will be the same as that added to the General Plan (described in Section 3.2 below), and recognizes the broader range of commercial, office, retail, residential, and recreational activities permitted in the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. • Sub -Area Figures -A variety of figures within the IASP were amended to reflect the boundaries of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The figures for Sub -Area 11 and Sub -Area 12 were revised, along with the text in each section, to reflect the reduction in Sub -Area size and the changes to Cleveland Avenue. • Limited Multiole Family Residential Uses - A new category of residential use was added to the IASP. This category allows for multiple family residential development. Multiple family residential uses are only permitted in Planning Areas VI, VII, and IX of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Multiple family market rate senior housing is only permitted in Planning Area VIII. 3.2 RELATIONSHIP TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN A thorough assessment of the relationship of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is provided in Appendix B. Notable items contained within the discussion are summarized below. Development Framework 3-2 Item F -124 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 2015 Amendment • The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan will be amended to redesignate the Previous Amendments The amendments to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan were similar to the amendments to the IASP. The changes generally related to figures being modified, changes due to Cleveland Avenue being reclassified as a local industrial collector, and the golf course being shown as an open space use. The Open Space designation includes specific regulations and standards as discussed throughout the Specific Plan. The Development Code regulations for Open Space do not apply to the golf course uses within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. LAND USE CHANGES 2015 Amendment The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan will be amended to redesignate the non-reslaentlal mixed -use and attached and detached high density residential. Previous Amendments Industrial Land Uses - The General Plan previously had three categories of industrial land uses: Industrial Park, General Industrial, and Heavy Industrial. However, it was felt that these three categories could discourage the City General Plan objective of promoting planning flexibility and the mixture of different, but compatible land uses. In order to expand the variety of commercial and recreational uses contemplated within Sub -Area 18, and to help better integrate this portion of the southern boundary of the IASP with anticipated regional market trends, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan proposed a new category of land use entitled "Mixed -Use" consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The Mixed -Use category permits a wide range of commercial and industrial activities, including medium, light, and custom manufacturing; research and development; office; recreation; residential; mixed -use commercial; retail; and general commercial uses. • Open Space - The golf course within Sub -Area 18 is designated "Open Space." "Open Space" is defined to include golf course uses within designated .. 1T ., Development Framework 3-3 Item F -125 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Soecific Plan Amendment areas adjacent to commercial, industrial, or residential uses. Residential Use -Development of a multiple family residential apartment complex is permitted only in Planning Areas VI, VII and IX of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation of Mixed Use. Multiple family market rate senior housing is permitted in Planning Area VIII consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation of Mixed -Use. Development Framework 3-4 Item F —126 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment SECTION 4 DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan identifies a strategy for future use and development of the project site. This Specific Plan has been formulated based upon an assessment of existing site and environmental factors, the [ASP, real estate market conditions, and community context, as well as discussion with City staff, community leaders, Metrolink representatives, and local, regional, and national real estate development interest. See Section 7 for development framework Pertinent to Planning Area I 4.1 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 4.1.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION As depicted in Figure 4-1, the project site is approximately 380 acres, divided into three primary tracts defined by existing major arterial roadways and railroad tracks. It was identified in the ]ASP as being with Sub -Area 10, 11, and 12. West Tract: ±74 acres Bounded by Fourth Street, Cleveland Avenue, Sixth Street, and Utica Avenue, this tract contains three industrial/office buildings, including: Building 600- t308,432-square-foot industrial building, including one-story, high beam industrial space and two-story central core office space. • Building 601- t242,028-square foot, three-story office building with large floorplate and extensive in -floor wiring distribution network. • Building 602- t424,968-square foot industrial building, incorporating t 217,612 square feet of one-story, high -beam industrial space, t 190,556 square feet or two-story perimeter office space and t 16,800 square feet in a detached structure (602A). South Tract: ±160 acres Bounded by Fourth Street, Milliken Avenue, Sixth Street, and Cleveland Avenue, this tract contains vineyards- and vacant land. As a part of implementation of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, a prior parcel map and onsite street improvements near Fourth Street and Cleveland Avenue were vacated. Development Framework 4-1 Item F —127 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment North Tract: ±151 acres Bounded by Sixth Street, Milliken Avenue, the AT&SF railroad tracks, and Cleveland Avenue, this tract is partially developed. The tract includes vineyards, an electrical substation in the northwest corner of the tract, a Metrolink Station, office development, and planned multiple family residential apartments. A major underground water line within a 40-foot-wide easement runs through the tract on an east -west axis approximately 600 feet south of the tract's northern property line. An existing 40-foot-wide irrevocable easement along a future Seventh Street alignment will be vacated to accomplish the plan. 4.1.2 ATTRIBUTES OF THE PROPERTY The property has a number of significant attributes upon which the Specific Plan is based. These attributes are illustrated in Figures 2-4 and 4-2. The attributes include the following: • Central location to major business/industrial/warehousing/distribution centers and master planned residential communities. • Proximity to Ontario International Airport (1.35 miles southwest). • Highly accessible from regional expressways including 1-10, 1-15 and the future 1-210 expressway (0.67 mile south, 0.75 mile east, and 3 miles north, respectively). • Extensive major arterial road frontage provided by Fourth Street, Sixth Street, and Milliken Avenue (3,900 feet, 3,900 feet, and 5,200 feet, respectively). • Proximity to Metrolink Station location at the northeast comer of the project site. • Large, readily developable land under single ownership and free of any apparent major environmental constraints. • Potential re -use of existing onsite buildings. • Scenic mountain backdrops to the north (San Gabriel Mountains) and the south (Santa Ana Mountains). =1 ao a MMMM Development Framework 4-2 Item F -128 lmw To (VA`N ?%T4 Wsr To E-10 Rancho Cucamonga ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment &em('111 t� Mi6- &PKENp • i ?"ice K VIEV/ To s�rvT c57eN1 PNh C MIS.xC^r To t-16 To L-15 fam Oar a -- __ K l la .lriET ..0 (_i1fM Nure 4-1 Summary Site Analysis Development Framework 4-3 Item F -129 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment �o A•e I 9: � as ��".> !�I !• t }+ II f I ( ! �p(�•I 1 r� p r' ' � ! I� �', �{{ryry{rr.' �. , � � '• 1,•� a Ij I •t 4�� 'i u,$d [ z . ` i •> t � i I , I ( fit. rq It ft ti I i �: i• C J ''hY�_ � • (6 i �.'u^c�' -`.!!- .i_�ti\ C:-..1 �'S • I "1'—'.1�y,''�' .` -, �I (� ..�- ..tom•-: r I ��.—•it: �' i. L:+l.'.-. .1 :!� „! `.'-"'_" ril i t-=.S�Srfli .. I 5 F •O CCi 0 a h Item F —130 Rancho Cucamonga [ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 4.1.3 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT / STRATEGY Overall Concept The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan envisions repositioning the property as a Mixed -Use development serving as a central amenity area for the surrounding IASP and a transition area from the commercial areas to the south and the industrial areas of the IASP to the east, west, and north. Proposed uses include recreational, hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant and entertainment, and regional transit (Metrolink Station) uses, as well as office, research and development, light industrial uses, and multiple family residences oriented to current and anticipated future market demand. The development of this property is intended to serve as a catalyst for the further development of the surrounding IASP area as a major regional employment center. Basic Strategies The primary strategies behind the development concept are enumerated below. • Provide a Specific Plan with an innovative development concept that will promote a strategic competitive advantage in today's real estate market while serving as a catalyst for the successful buildout of the surrounding IASP. • Create a distinctive Mixed -Use environment with numerous amenities which combines compatible land uses with business services, residences, and recreation, rtsluding a eharnpienshiplelf-seurse-as4s centerpiece. • Provide flexibility needed to respond to today's changing real estate market conditions, as well as opportunities created by such major developments in the immediate area as the Ontario International Airport, Metrolink Station, Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex, and Ontario Mills shopping center. • Incorporate a market -based development program of compatible and synergistic uses targeted to both immediate and long-term opportunities. • Provide expanded employment opportunities complimented by new residential development and recreation, retail, and service amenities serving the broader IASP area that will promote a sound, diversified economic base and high quality of life for the City. • Accommodate future growth and expansion of employment opportunities in the area with excellent in -place transportation infrastructure and public transit. • Provide highly attractive development parcels that are appropriately sized and configured, highly accessible, and take maximum advantage of arterial roadway visibility, gelfsearse amenity# ventage and views of scenic mountain backdrops. Development Framework 4-5 Item F —131 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment • Creatively incorporate potential adaptive reuse of the existing General Dynamics buildings and facilities to the extent feasible. • Provide an easily phased development plan that can be implemented on an incremental, project -by -project basis while being governed by an overall plan framework and coordinated with development of related public improvements. • Provide an attractive business environment that conveys a high quality of design, that compliments the design character of the site's natural setting and surrounding area development, and that relates compatibly with the existing IASP's design guidelines and development standards. • Provide a positive fiscal impact with substantial new revenues to the City and n terms of additional property taxes, sales taxes, and bed taxes; and-redeveleprReat tax -increment generated by the proposed development. 4.1.4 URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT Physical Form and Appearance The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan envisions the property as a Mixed -Use development of interrelated planning area organized as a series of linked anchors that take advantage of the extensive arterial roadway frontage and visibility, and the amenity frontage created by the golf course to maximize value and marketability (Figure 4-3). Distinguishing elements of the Specific Plan include the 18-hole championship golf course with clubhouse and related facilities, hotel/conference facility, possible family -oriented recreation/retail/entertainment facility (potential re -use of Building 602), mixed -use commercial center at Milliken Avenue/Fourth Street, Metrolink Station at Milliken Avenue, multiple family apartments, office, research and development/light industrial, and supporting commercial uses, all within a planned business park environment. Detailed information about these planned uses is provided in Section 4.2 and Table 4-1. Potential uses would be permitted or conditional uses, as specified in Section 5.2 of this Speck Plan (Tables 5-1 and 5-2). The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan integrates itself into the community fabric through a strong framework established by the existing arterial roadway network and proposed uses that compliment the surrounding IASP sub -areas. Specific Plan access intersections are consistent with City standards, including 1/4-mile spacing of median breaks and 1/8-mile spacing of "right turn in/out only" access points along major arterial roads bounding the site. To facilitate the fuller integration of uses, the Specific Plan calls for modifying or vacating portions of Cleveland Avenue between Fourth and Sixth Streets, while retaining these intersections as site access points. Vacating Cleveland Avenue as a through route between Fourth and Sixth Streets would provide t5 acres of land to the development plan. Planning Commission DRAFT Aonl 2016 Development Framework 4-6 Item F —132 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment rupee: t no n$,LIa represents ft current proposed Land Use Ptan for Sub. Ana 18 end may be subject to future rellnemenes amyor modilfcatlons. Rater to Section 4.2 Land Use P4an, Table 5-1 Summary l and Use by PArrsting Area snd Table 5.2 i.and tJse Type fJ, ginicems icv types of Ian•.1 galls pannitled In planning aloes. Boundary of New PA7 3r:m u w y aao• 1♦ figure 4-3 Conceptual Development Plan Development Framework 4-7 Item F -133 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment TABLE 4-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM This table is conceptual to illustrate and summarize the maximum development potential of the project excluding infill development of PA I. Section 4.2, Land Use Plan, as well as Table 5.1 and 5.2 for permitted land uses and definitions. See Section 7 for land uses and development potential of PA 1. Types of Uses Y E N a Parcel/Facility Planning Planning. C r ° Maximum FAR Area Area Size v ® v Development (Floor (Acres) c o to e a LL fj p a 'H Potential (at Area E K c12 or dwelling Ratio) 0 O v m T units) or EE dui K C U m 5 4 i O # g It S g Existing Facilities • building 6W V' 27 O ® O O O O • 308,000' 0.2# building 601 IV' 17 ® ® 0 • 9 242.0002 0.35" Building 602 II 28 ® O ® ® ® • ® • 425,000 0.354 Sub(ofa1 72 975,000 0.31 Golf Course (including lamissand maintenance facility) Golf Practice Facility 4 (fighted) VII 4 • • • ® is • • 60,984 03 (o.Ap Commercialdndustrial Vill 13.4 • • f 173,804 0.35 Panels x 24 • • • • • • 200,000 0.2oP xi 18 • • • 275,0W 0.36 Subtotal 59.4 709,788 VI 23 • 567 du 1424 Vll 20 • 499 du 24a0 dwae Multiple Family presidential VIII 9.7 •• 264 du 24-30 dwer, ix 20.5 • 521 du 24-30 awe 1,851 du Subtotal 73.2 Permitted: up to 1,868 du 1,851 du Total 378• Permitted: up I IT]o 1,888 Notes: 1. Ultimately demolished and redeveloped as mixed -use commercial: 440,000 si, 2. Could be intensified with parking deck and .10,04to of addition of retail/restauramifast food. 3. E during faailiN could be ad lively re -used or redeveloped as a family recreatioWentertamment center or mixed -use 01 vork 4-8 Item F —134 Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment commercial. 5. Alternative hotel and conference center site. 6. Includes 5 acres for vacated portion of Cleveland Ave. 7. Ultimately could be 3,707,000 sf with overall FAR: 023. 8. FAR: 035 for 13 acre area excluding the Metmiink parcel (10 acres). Special Boulevards Consistent with the IASP and the General Plan of Rancho Cucamonga, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan recognizes and reinforces Milliken Avenue, Fourth Street, and Sixth Street as special roadway corridors that convey a consistent design theme and streetscape image, as well as appropriate architectural and landscape edges facing onto these special boulevards. The Specific Plan incorporates the City's established landscape design theme and character for Milliken Avenue, as exemplified currently along the northeast corner of the project site. Landscape Design Landscaping will serve as a major design component of the Specific Plan fulfilling and will fulfill several important functions: • Convey the basic organization and character of the -development. Distinguish special boulevards framing the area. • Create special design accent features that enhance important places such as project entries and building entrances. • Integrate buildings into the site. • Provide amenities along pedestrian walkways and plaza, as well as shade/wind protection. • Soften and buffer parking areas. • Screen service areas. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-9 Item F —135 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan's landscape design will appropriately reflect the and climate of the setting with extensive use of drought tolerant plant materials and water -conserving irrigation techniques. Open Space Network The IASP did not contain any major public open space or regional trail network segments within the property. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan incorporates several notable open space features including: resreatienaLamerf*. • Streetscape features combined with landscaped development setbacks along major arterials linking into the areawide network. • Private open space areas, plazas, and linkages internal to development parcels. City Gateway Feature The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan incorporates the designated City gateway feature in the northwest corner of the Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue intersection as prescribed in the IASP. The gateway feature will mirror the existing gateway feature on the northeast comer of this intersection. Utilities Undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines will be consistent with the City's undergrounding policies. The existing electrical substation in the northwest corner of the property at Cleveland Avenue and the railroad tracks will remain and will be buffeFed by the gelf be considered in 4.2 LAND USE PLAN The Land Use Plan modifies the existing IASP governing the property in order to respond to: The need to promote a comprehensive planning and development strategy. • New real estate market conditions resulting from changes in the southern California Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-10 Item F -136 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment economy, and new developments in the surrounding area of the property. Anticipated future long-term regional real estate market trends. • The need for greater flexibility to respond to economic changes in a more timely, efficient, and competitive manner. • The need to promote an up-to-date and more detailed planning and development strategy for the property than provided in the IASP. • New and unique site opportunities created by infill development of the golf course. • New and unique opportunities created by improved regional access, and Ontario International Airport, the Metrolink Station, and other eminent redevelopment surrounding the property. The Land Use Plan (Figure 4-4) and Summary Land Use Development Program (Table 4-1) envision a multi -use business center composed of 1-4--10 Planning Areas, with an 18 hole golf GGUF6e as the living in a mixed use setting Metrolink Station, a series of anchor projects at prominent locations, and the potential adaptive reuse of existing General Dynamics building where feasible. All of the potential uses envisioned in the Specific Plan are either permitted or conditional uses as specified in Section 5.2 of this Specific Plan (Table 5-1, Summary of Land Use by Planning Area and Table 5-2, Land Use Type Definitions) with the exception of land uses for the infill mixed use development of the golf course. See Section 7 for Planning Area I land plan and development summary . 4.2.1 " Planning Areal: Get# 6©urseWAe Mixed Use Infill Area (formerly a Golf Course) residential within approximately one pedestrian -mile of the Metrolink station Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-1 1 Item F -137 6LM 8lxtis BLYxi Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment - � Atea» Z3pk SlaRl - "i._ Pla rlrxinf 1 1x23, WX ^1 I j<! IVY � Plasuting - MA,11m4i I Arcs 4Ct f, Arth 17C 19 ac. 19 ac. aiartntr�g F7+naxia,l; �,rea,i:Ii :u-ea gc 4 !9 ac. J Area JA PLt4ein :_ 9( fib at. Arra n;". II - Mooing Area v �~ 1� �•� Pl.,,M,n8 .G"l. 28 a— ^>r a NOW 7Mfe AgLud Mp► = MS fls CW M proposed Land Uss Plan for $lib' Alen ig ald eelsybe albred to Mlra nedltaesrrlb and/or madilliclifilaw Rehr 10 Ssdfan 4.2 Land Use PIn, Table $• I Summary Land Use by Pl nmV Msa and Table 5-2 Land Use Type Oe&Oons for types al IwW hell pennAtad in plan" area& Boundary of New PAi Plannina Commission DRAFT April 2016 F ,J Arra VUI ' 21 ac- � Ip1 .Y � I J rfaainiu:}; '� f :ter, vu to l.l. a4 ati. G 1 aBoa,x: neoa %tn 4-G Conceptual Land Use Plan Development Framework 4-12 Item F —138 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment The course also sentains--contained accessory uses, including rest shelters and a maintenance facility with outdoor storage. This tenaRGe faGility is IQGRtPGJ near the off -site existing electrical substation off Cleveland Avenue near the railroad tracks and is well GGreened aR� buffered by -the 4.2.2 WESTERN ANCHOR (Utica Street at Fourth and Sixth Streets) Planning Area If: Office/Industrial (Re -Use or New); Adaptive Re -Use Option: Family -Oriented Recreation/Retail/Entertainment Center Planning Area II, which contains the existing General Dynamics Building 602 (a one- and two-story industrial/office building), has a number of potential options including reuse of the existing building as industrial/office or redevelopment in office/commercial uses. Another potential option is either the adaptive reuse of Building 602 or its demolition/redevelopment as a family -oriented recreation/retail/entertainment facility. This option is based upon the potential market for this concept, as well as the location and character of the existing building with its extensive areas of high beam ceiling space and wide column spacing that are readily adaptable for indoor recreational and other uses. Types of potential uses in this option could include: • Sports and Recreation Center (indoor and outdoor) • Retail/Entertainment • Other Related Facilities and Services Planning Area III: Golf Driving Range, PraGtiGe FaGility and Training Center (night lighted); Long Range Redevelopment Option; Offire Go n m eFr.*a Dissolved Planning Area IV: Office / Commercial The existing Building 601 (a three-story office building) may either be reused as office space offering a large floor plate (t80,000 square feet/floor) with extensive in -floor wiring distribution capabilities or demolished/redeveloped for office/commercial use. This existing facility would be ideal for "back - office" type users on either a half -floor, full -floor, or multi -floor basis. The front half of the parcel facing •1 Jl ..l alzmasympm Development Framework 4-13 Item F -139 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Utica Street could be used either for outdoor recreation facilities or ultimately become a decked parking for the offices with a pavilion -type convenience retail facility, restaurant, fast food, or bank facility along the Utica Street frontage. Planning Area V: Re -use of Building 600 Option: Office / Industrial (Research and Development, Manufacturing, or Warehouse/Distribution) Long Range Redevelopment Option: Mixed Use Commercial Planning Area V contains Building 600 (a one-story and two-story industrial/office building) which on an interim basis could be reused as office/industrial space oriented to potential tenants desiring its unique features including clean room facility, high beam industrial space, and large photo lab. Due to the parcel's strategic location as a gateway site from Ontario Airport and the limited reuse adaptability of the existing building, Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan envisions that Building 600 would ultimately be demolished and the parcel redeveloped as a mixed -use commercial center including such potential uses as: • Office • Hotel/Conference Center • Retail/Business Services • Restaurants/Entertainment Hotel / Executive Conference Center / Residential (Planning Areas II, II[, --IV, V, VI, or VII) Reinforcing the concept of creating an amenity core area serving the surrounding employment center that is close to Ontario International Airport, a hotel/executive conference center oriented to business meetings and executive retreats is proposed. The hotel/conference center could be located in Planning Area V, VI, or VII based upon its development timing and the particular location preferences and requirements of the selected hotel operator. Multiple family residential uses are also permitted in Planning Areas VI and VII. 4.2.3 SOUTHEASTERN ANCHOR (Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue) Planning Area VI: Office / Commercial; Multiple Family Residential This planning area has both visibility from Fourth Street and exteas+ve 901f GGu se ameWshared frontage with Planning Area I. It is envisioned to be a campus -style office/business park or a multiple family residential development capitalizing on the gGIf GGuFse-amenityproximity to amenities within Planning Area I. This parcel is also a potential site for the hotel/conference facility or mixed -use commercial center. Planning Area VII: Mixed -Use Commercial / Residential ("gateway" project) This planning area is focused on the prime corner of the overall property at the intersection of Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue. It is proposed to become a mixed -use commercial center serapliment+ng complementing the 1.65 million -square -foot Ontario Mills regional retail mall and 2.5 million square Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-14 Item F -140 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment feet of office/commercial space. This site is also designated by Rancho Cucamonga as a "gateway" to the City because of its strategic location entering the City and ready access to both 1-10 and 1-15. Multiple family residential development is also permitted on this site. Potential uses for this parcel include: • Retail • Multiple Family Residential • Restaurant/Entertainment • Office • Personal, Business, and Professional Services • Health Club Hotel/Conference Center 4.2.4 EASTERN ANCHOR (6th Street and Milliken Avenue) Planning Area Vill: Office /Commercial/Senior Housing Planning Area VIII is located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Milliken Avenue, which will become a prime intersection when 6th Street is ultimately extended to a new proposed interchange with 1-15. This parcel enjoys beth--prime arterial road frontage and gelf GauFse frantage. Possible uses include office, research and development, market rate senior housing, as well as commercial pad sites for food or banking adjacent to primary roadway entrances. With the completion of the future interchange with 1-15, Planning Area Vill may also include certain types of retail uses. Market rate senior housing is intended to facilitate the construction of rental housing units that will serve the current and long term City need for senior citizen -oriented dwelling units, while maintaining a high degree of quality in project design and construction. This type of development shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws. The primary resident population group that is intended to be served by market rate senior housing development are senior citizens who meet the following criteria: a. For tenants, residents or occupants who are married to each other, either spouse shall be 55 year of age or older. b. For individual who are not married, each individual shall be 55 years of age or older with the following exception. c. Non -seniors may line in the development so long as they are 45 years of age or older or a person providing primary physical or economic support to a senior citizen. d. A non -senior guest may stay with a senor for up to 60 days per year. Senior housing development must meet the following physical requirements: Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-15 Item F —141 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment a. Extra -wide entryways, walkways, hallways, and doorways in the common areas of the development. b. Walkways, and hallways in the common areas must be equipped with railings or grab bars to assist persons who have difficulty with walking. c. Walkways and hallways in the common areas much have sufficient bright lighting to assist persons who have difficulty seeing. d. Access to all common areas and housing units within the development shall be provided without use of stairs (elevators or ramps much be used instead). e. The development must contain at least one common room and common open space. f. Refuse collection must be provided in a manner that requires a minimum of physical exertion by residents. g. Every effort shall be made to buffer the development from more intensive uses allowed in the Planning Area. this includes increased setbacks, intensified landscaping, creative use of walls, and other factors subject to review and approval by the Gity-WaFlRerPlannino Director. As an incentive to developers to build senior housing projects, the parking requirements be reduced below that required for typical multi -family development. Reduction in the number of parking spaces shall be addressed on a case -by -case basis subject to provision of parking studies and the establishment a development agreement. Market rate senior housing development, including reduced parking requirements are predicated upon the long-term availability of the units for the target population previously defined. In order to ensure that the units remain available and affordable to this group, the developer will be required to enter into a development agreement with the City per California Government Code Section 65864 through 5869.5. Planning Area IX: Residential / Office / Industrial / Commercial Permitted land uses in Planning Area IX, located at the northwest comer of Sixth Street and Milliken Avenue, are office, industrial, commercial uses, and multiple family residential. Residential uses, although not originally allowed within the IASP, were deemed to be an appropriate use by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, due to the proximity to employment, transit, shopping and freeway access. The addition of this use compliments the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area by providing a complete mixed - use development. 1:: r . Development Framework MIN Item F -142 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 4.2.5 NORTHERN ANCHOR (Milliken Avenue and AT&SF Railroad) Planning Area X: Metrolink Station/Office/Industrial/Commercial Planning Area X includes the Metrolink Station (approximately 10 acres with 800 feet of frontage). Potential complimentary uses are convenience retail and services including fast food, automotive services, and office, research and development, and light industrial uses #rentage-in close oroximity to transit and emDloyment 4.2.6 CENTRAL (Cleveland Avenue at Sixth Street) Planning Area XI: Office / Industrial Planning Area XI is focused onto Sixth Street and Cleveland Avenue and enjoys good arterial road visibility and gelf GouFGe fF~. Potential uses envisioned here include professional offices, as well as possible research and development and light industrial uses. Uses will be ssetpl mentarycomplementary to existing adjacent uses across Cleveland Avenue. 4.3 CIRCULATION AND ACCESS 7. This section of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan addresses vehicular areas and circulation, transit, and pedestrian routes within the Specific Plan site. Parking provisions are discussed in Section 5. 4.3.1 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS LSA Associates prepared a traffic analysis to assess the potential circulation impacts associated with the development of Sub -Area 18. The traffic analysis was prepared to satisfy the requirements for a traffic impact analysis established by the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Program, adopted November 4, 1992. The detailed traffic analysis is contained within Appendix B Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Final EIR. 4.3.2 EXISTING ROADWAY SYSTEM Regional east/west circulation to the project site is provided via 1-10. Access from 1-10 to Sub -Area 18 occurs at the Milliken Avenue and Haven Avenue onramps/offramps. North/south regional circulation is provided via 1-15. Access from 1-15 to Sub -Area 18 occurs at Fourth Street; an interchange is proposed at Sixth Street. An inventory of the existing Sub -Area 18 and surrounding roadway network was conducted (November 1993). The existing street network, number of mid -block lanes, and intersection traffic control are shown in Figure 4-5. 19FR7.R7 . , „ , • • , Development Framework 4-17 Item F —143 3 3 • 1 N z 4 4 4 POOTHRJ. BLVL, p I I � f� 4 1 B � ARROW Rottr>t i Project she ie P! s ..-... ..,._ . _... _» v.. �... �.. ...� .�. MST ti s+ ST S ` oLla- w �Q IIOLT Bt.vrt LEGEND } Stop Sign ! } Traffic Signet 4 Number of Alidblock Lune?. Study Area Boundary N07 70 SCALE (—�j flguro 4-5 Existing Circulation Network See Section 7 for updated circulation concepts Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment metro Unit stmion Planning _ = ; ' . Area 19 91 ac, < Planaiaal, ' Planning . Axe Atea IX 19W- Slsth 3tnest V L_LiiiiiL, giigili.�.J ar.e� - P 4 Planning _f Area $ _ 1� Areaffi I ! Arca VEX -- 2sac. 1 ��' , i 21w- ftz Planning lsinniog • : — --.. ; , :.1;. ' Area 1A Areal IV aroma„ 64 16acAM _Z- �� Planning _fj 23 ac. / 24 ac r P � Pmar.r, strccc �1 I LEGEND Boundary of New PAI Note: This SgW6 repfesente the current ►�,—�_.-.____` Proposed ConcapWal UraAab n Plan do J M* Atwai 101 1 Gty Propami Tnrviic Signal/Po mom ti i Aw4#w P p,:1 SWr/raa lB WW msu may be bject toUwe �' I1 refinetnents arc/or mudlimfim,. Sacnodaty Median Cut Rignr'Purn lal luget turn out Only , figure4-6 Conceptual Circulation Plan Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-19 Item F —145 Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Adjacent to the project site, Fourth Street is a four -lane divided arterial with a painted median. Fourth Street defines the city limits between Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario. A Fourth Street improvement plan between Milliken and Haven Avenues has been approved by the cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario that identifies the ultimate number of arterial lanes, median types, channelization, and intersection lane widening necessary to accommodate future traffic volumes. Milliken Avenue is a four -lane arterial with a raised, planted median in the vicinity of Sub -Area 18. Haven Avenue is a six - lane arterial with a raised, planted median. All intersections immediately adjacent to Sub -Area 18 are or are planned to be signalized. The majority of the intersections within the vicinity of Sub -Area 18 presently operate at satisfactory levels of service during the p.m. peak hour. A conceptual circulation plan for Sub -Area 18 is illustrated in Figure 4-6. Access locations to Planning Area XI are conceptual and may be modified as actual development proceeds. The potential roadway between Planning Areas VI, VII, and VIII is conceptual, and final alignment and design will be fixed prior to development of any of these three planning areas. The development of Sub -Area 18, in conjunction with other growth within and outside the [ASP, will have an impact on several intersections in the project area. The City has established a mitigation program, consisting of transportation development fees paid by developers, to fund improvements to the circulation system resulting from cumulative development. As a result, it is projected that roadways and intersections in the project area will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service. 4.3.3 ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS Cross sections for roadways within the region were presented in the IASP and are shown in Section 5 of this Specific Plan. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is proposing to use the same cross sections. The only modification to the standards presented in the IASP is that Cleveland Avenue between Fourth and Sixth Streets will be vacated and, north of Sixth Street will be downsized to a 66-foot wide Local Industrial Collector. 4.3.4 ROADWAY NETWORK MODIFICATIONS/TRANSIT MODIFICATIONS The following roadway and transit modifications were approved as a part of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan: • Cleveland Avenue - as discussed previously, Cleveland Avenue between Fourth and Sixth Streets will be either vacated or partially vacated to accommodate the golf course design and driving range/practice facility design. North of Sixth Street, Cleveland Avenue will be reclassified as a 66-foot-wide Local Industrial collector. • Metrolink Station - The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan identifies a portion of Planning Area X as the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station. The integration of this facility into the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan helps the project comply with the transit policies identified in the IASP by "providing for the development of alternative transportation systems." • The Vincent access point on Fourth Street will be relocated to midway between Cleveland and Plannino Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 420 Item F —146 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Milliken Avenues. Avenues wiN-be deleted. 4.4 INFRASTRUCTURE Area I. 4.4.1 WATER CONCEPT PLAN The Cucamonga 6eunty-valley Water District (GCWDCVWDI provides for all of the water supply services to the area (1994). The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area is located in Zone 1 of the GGWQCVWD, with a majority of the master water system facilities already installed through and immediately adjacent to the site (see Figure 4-7). Additionally, a 12-foot, 8-inch Municipal Water District (MWD) transmission line, known as the "upper feeder," is located in the northern portion of the site running east to west approximately 2,000 feet north of Sixth Street. A second facility is in the upper northern portion of the site and is owned and operated by the Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD). The facility is a 21-inch nonreclaimable water line, used for industrial waste disposal, located approximately 30 feet south of the Metrolink right-of-way. The average daily water demand for the project is estimated at approximately 0.985 million gallons per day (mgd) (1994). The GGWDCVWD has indicated that it has the ability to provide adequate water service to the project site by connecting the onsite distribution systems into the existing master water system transmission lines. The primary objective in the planning of the water service facilities for the project is to optimize the flexibility, conservation, and cost of the distribution system and related facilities. All proposed master water system facilities are 12 inches in diameter or larger. The water storage capacity for Zone 1 is provided for in the Zone 2 reservoir system (1994). Several pressure -reducing stations facilitate the distribution of domestic water from Zone 2 into the Zone 1 water line system. It is anticipated that the CGWDCVWD will be constructing a 9 million -gallon reservoir to gravity feed domestic water to Zone 1 by early 1995 which will enhance the reliability, pressure, and capacity of water service for the site. Historically, the onsite facilities (Hughes Missile System) consumed a large quantity of water. GGWDCVWD records indicate consumption of over 220,000 gallons per day (gpd). The Hughes Missile System facilities was vacated by 1994. All of the project's onsite water supply facilities will bewere designed and constructed to meet the current standards of the GGWDCVWD. Development Framework 4-21 Item F -147 F.Itl4l'{4';tI • SuMelatiun See Appendix A for updated PA1 concepts ,'—'� w,r•uc I � ' PP61•iYj • SM1 �` �� n6Nr Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment • / T }r�••��ppqq ATf liw•. X tRan•irta �6. i } ' �l•ea l �� '. �'.t � I7x I — A 1� —_1 1 • .aP".:: v �� 12' 12' ! al Y { 14 cmed�/.xJ LEGEND j &j,6%WmaLin Boundary of New PA1 ' F-77 Pmpmed W» Line BOW 4W fr Boo' .wa• alu ..•. • . figure 4-7 Water Concept Plan Development Framework 4-22 Item F —148 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 4.4.2 WASTEWATER CONCEPT PLAN In addition to providing the water supply services, the GGWDCVWD provides for the collection of domestic strength sewage within the project area (1994). Any industrial or brine wastewater will be discharged into the CBMWD non -reclaimable water system. Specifically, the project site is located within Area 2 of the GGWDCVWD, with the wastewater treatment for the project being provided by CBMWD's Regional Plan Number 1 (RP1) in Ontario. RPVs design capacity is approximately 44 mgd, with the plant's current discharge at approximate 38 mgd. Capacity upgrades to RP1 nable the plant to conform to the recently imposed effluent discharge standards. Under the provisions of the regional sewerage service contract, CBMWD is contractually obligated to provide wastewater treatment capacity to the GGWDCVWD for development within the district limits. Additionally, under the contract provisions, GGWDCVWD is required to provide CBMWD with a 10-year growth forecast to accurately identify the area's development. A substantial quantity of the master sewer system facilities are already installed immediately adjacent to the project site with significant available capacity in both the Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue backbone sewer lines. The backbone wastewater concept plan for Sub -Area 18 is shown in Figure 4- 8. It is anticipated that the ultimate project development will generate approximately 0.75 mgd of wastewater. GGVVIDCVWD has indicated that is has the ability to provide adequate sewer collection services for Sub -Area 18 by connecting the onsite wastewater connection system to the existing master sewer system. The onsite wastewater system will consist of gravity flow sewers connecting into the backbone wastewater system. All onsite wastewater facilities for the project site will be designed and constructed to meet the existing current standards of the C-0W CVWD. 4.4.3 RECLAIMED WATER CONCEPT PLAN The GGWDCVWD has reclaimed water available for various uses in Zone 1 and a limited existing pipeline network to facilitate distribution (see Figure 4-9)(1994). RP1 which is located at Archibald Avenue and 1-60, has an ultimate capacity of approximately 96 mgd with an available quantity of reclaimed water for customer consumption of approximately half that amount. It is anticipated that an additional regional plant (RP4) will be constructed. RP4 is to be located at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Etiwanda Avenue with Phase I anticipated to be online in 1998. If Sub -Area 18 is to use the reclaimed water that will be available from RP4, approximately 10,000 linear feet of offsite 12-inch water line will need to be installed in Sixth Street from Milliken Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue. Phase I reclaimed water capacity of RP4 will be approximately 7 mgd with an ultimate plant capacity of approximately 28 mgd (50 percent of the 28 mgd will be available to the GGWDDCVWD, and the remainder will ultimately be consumed by the City of Fontana). Plannino Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-23 Item F-149 LEGEND £gins Sewn L,,cn -� P:npnxd Scriv live Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment r+�ht STREET `- aw 4M 0' B00' I fig,.e4-f Wastewater Concept Plan Development Framework 4-24 Item F —150 SIastauon See Appendix A for updated PA1 concepts Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Fmsrt4 &"et ---] I LEGEND Boundaryof Nm Ml Fxisdag Raismaion 11nn (none) i - - Propnsod RtAdm am Lino Bar 4oa v B00' �FA:-1 tau►. 4-9 Reclaimed Water Concept Plan PlannlnpCommission DRAFT April 201dDRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-25 Item F —151 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment There are several large reclaimed water customers, one of which is the Whispering Lakes Golf Course located in the City of Ontario. The Whispering Lakes Golf Course receives approximately 0.7 to 1.0 mgd of reclaimed water from July through September from RP1. Another large customer Is El Prado Golf Course, which consumes approximately 0.45 to 0.5 mgd of reclaimed water from July through September. The Sub -Area 18 golf course irrigation system waswill-be designed and constructed to enable a conversion from domestic water, , to reclaimed water. at some point 'R the futwFe If that eptIon is The reclaimed water system will be adapted for use within Planning Area I. 4.4.4 UTILITY CONCEPT PLAN Sub -Area 18 of the ]ASP is within the service areas of the following utility purveyors: • Electricity: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) or Southern California Edison Company • Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company • Telephone: General TelepheRe Gampany erizon • Cable Television: Charter Communications Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, Verizon, and GTE Charter Communications have all -indicated that they have sufficient backbone facilities in place adjacent to Sub -Area 18 to provide for the phased and ultimate utility service demands of the project, as depicted in Figures 4-10, 4-11, and 4-12 (1994). Minor to moderate main line facility extensions will be required by three -the utility purveyors to ensure adequate service. At pFeseRt, GeFAGa6t (Gable television) does RGt have any eXi6tiR9 baGkboRe faGilities adjacent to 21 -h AFea 19 (1994). TheiF Glesest existing faGilities are located to the west of the area at thA of adequate Gable teley;s6en 6021FOGe, at. depiGted in Figure 4 13. GeFnGalst has indiGated that, with the Charter Communications has a duct bank system along the south side of East Sixth Street that has capacity to serve the development Development Framework 4-26 Item F -152 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Vactrksl 7. Sobatulmf l I 'I + .. ... •. a I IS K. •1 1 ' l7x 1 Jj U a.• lie y�. �4•: ri. ` in. t s. in,A.tir dn1` 1 J .,..vm Y.. � e � t1YOJp1AYYa lA 7.17 i. M. ✓''� ••/l�• �Il Y. 4- • ��%. � _^mot � i \ II•�' .1 �' �� i/M1 � � AM V ,may NVU 4 tll mFO �L-• UK. r=..�.�•tis - I I I Nvmrth atrM LEGEND M M Boundary of New PAl Pnlpemd flamal cAkbeme f we 4-1C Electrical Concept Plan Development Framework 4-27 Item F —153 Rancho Cucamonea IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Dtelm L nk* Statlwt {{ ` ,4•�'.f.. � 1 Aar. Akf I I +� + t IStcM Strom .I�—_ I Y,. 21. TT 77 Iy J v_ y r ,Mom v ,T ,=aa.m st"a LEGEND M M Boundaryof New PAl 5oadn5 Naunl Gaa lints Pmpmd Nm,,A C,a Lim $00, ACO, 0, s, Sguro 4- 1 1 Natural Gas Concept Plan Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-28 Item F —154 h•�-J~I ri7r'• N 11—v�.c Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Fledrieal o r. r�� 'K1 Z 7, Aem� •(8'1 •u � } It M�a l% low. •J i , 11 'A ' yJq Am, Yltl ' �r•�• 9 t4meiam U Kan >. or • .... Amy Mx. :-Y tax. LEGEND Boundary of New PA1 Evsting T&PhM C+N,/Li M 473 Pntpacd Te&phonc c",q m Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 1�5 renwh btYTel —_� aw Oar a OW %we 4-12 Telephone Concept Plan Development Framework 4-29 Item F -155 l�tam�a Area IV Itrar. I �- Amgl r _•, Am V a i 7 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment A41m U11k.Swdou -.- ' . r- ( ,i yr i11., .mot i '■ W , J. 'i 4ri ' Am vI�11 � / J --iH r-a Y✓'/ fir.. -J i�� � �� dab Ue "- t1 L-•-tea: Am V't t A.171 . 0..-_..y -NIFl Fnurth Sfmt I 1 LEGEND IMI M Boundaryof hl" PA1 Emun6 Trlmm C b6 (none) hapmnl7de.cioo GW, aw rap' 0' ear ----------- - --------- — %gun `$'« 13 Cable Television Concept Plan Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework A-30 Item F -156 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 4.5 GRADING CONCEPTS/DRAINAGE 4.6.1 GRADING CONCEPT PLAN As depicted in Figure 4-14, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan concept grading plan is designed to provide "super pad" areas for the various planning areas. The primary objective of the grading concept plan will be to minimize the onsite excavation quantities and to enable each planning area to balance individually. It is anticipated that the individual planning areas will be maintained in their existing "natural" vineyard condition until development of the particular planning area is initiated. The super pad proposed grading will be designed to accommodate the shrinkage and subsidence of the soil which may occur during the onsite grading operations. Slope gradients will be provided between adjacent planning areas (edge treatment,. n Warr The detailed grading plans for the individual planning areas will be developed to coincide with the gaff -ceufse edge conditions as defined GR the golf neurse grading Wanof the adjacent plannino areas. The ultimate vertical differential between planning area superpads will be determined at the time of precise grading plan preparation, along with the developed hydrology studies. Grading adjacent to the MWD water transmission line will be coordinated with an MWD representative in accordance with their facility's encroachment specifications. All grading within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area will comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's grading codes. 4.5.2 EROSION CONTROL Standard erosion control practices will be followed during site grading to prevent offsite transport soil from the grading operations of the golf course and the individual planning areas. The erosion control plan will be developed and submitted to the City and other appropriate regulatory agencies for approval prior to initiation of the grading operation. Additionally, the anticipated phasing of the onsite development will assist in erosion control and help minimize erosion potential by perpetuating the existing vineyards until the individual planning area is developed. r �. Development Framework 4-31 Item F —157 f2sclrkal salmnaim See Appendix A for updated PA1 concepts t v Ii snb Stan! �' •• „ f r4' p t '-' arrLe2 M AM L I H LEGEND (.'Lead[ Ekrsn Plannirinna Commission DRAFT April 2016 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Boundaryor New PA1 L 1 ;1 J •" � Mom Aw ALmM - - ..<' pabeow i, �-1 ; figure Grading Concept Plan Development Framework 4-32 Item F —158 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendrnent 4.5.3 DRAINAGE CONCEPT PLAN There are a number of master drainage plan facilities already in place adjacent to Sub -Area 18. The City's drainage policy for this area requires 25-year frequency storm flows to be conveyed within underground storm drain facilities and 100-year storm flows to be contained within public right-of-way limits (1994). The project site is not located within the 100-year flood zone of nearby drainage courses (i.e., Day Creek or Deer Creek). The drainage concept plan will provide for the conveyance of the contributory offsite flows and the onsite developed drainage runoff through, and adjacent to, the project site. The onsite drainage facilities will consist of limited private storm drain systems as required within the individual planning areas and public storm drain facilities within the street rights -of -way to ensure that the developed drainage flows adjacent to, and downstream of, the site do not have an adverse impact on other properties. Proposed drainage facilities are depicted in Figure 4-15. tienuab -and-se -the on_Me private flews, The drainage studies and final improvement plan will be designed and constructed to meet the current City standards. 4.6 PUBLIC SERVICES The following content refers to public services at time of original adoption 4.6.1 POLICE PROTECTION Police protection to Sub -Area 18 is provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department (1994). The closest police station to the project site is located on Civic Center Drive. In addition, a California Highway Patrol station is located one block away from the project site on Pittsburg Avenue. The Police Department will be able to respond to emergencies in Sub -Area 18 in three to five minutes, which is the standard response time within the City. Existing Police Department facilities, personnel, and equipment are currently sufficient to provide police services to the project site. 4.6.2 FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire protection services to the project area are provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection district (1994). The cities of Ontario and Upland provide back-up fire assistance. The closest fire station to the project area is Station #174, located at Milliken Avenue and Jersey Boulevard. Station #174 can respond to emergencies at the project site within approximately three minutes. Existing fire protection facilities and equipment are adequate to provide service to Sub -Area 18. Development within Sub -Area 18 will conform to all required fire and building codes to ensure adequate fire safety. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-33 Item F —159 See Appendix A for updated PA1 concepts `VI Siatb Sla'eN r+ r� N L 11=1 p I n n a,•. nmF ,da Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment flcfm link Station s_.._ � � - Wit'-• .. m _.. i AMx r-" � X \ � �;•�1 Plreiy Sm lO � � �, 309 it t. f l I- Ism C ,''i j tw J7 sc I s Y41afftv aa 1 ` 17moiaqyy - ,• lJmdoR AemU , I! 7 .�Sh• rim .�. it ae L �� >r' J fee f� y , r �— + ,✓ �€ Aittral'll 571 - - r EARTHEN CHANNEL - LEGEND M = Boundary of New PA1 5J Fxrmos DJauage FaaLm Proposed Drainage Fold, i�r>:ruai�,�.1 ��+nlfzlsr� eW 1M. tY BW i avin 4-15 Drainage Concept Plan Development Framework 4-34 Item F —160 Rancho Cucamonga ]ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 4.6.3 SOLID WASTE Solid waste generated in the vicinity of Sub -Area 18 is collected and transported to County landfills by private companies. Currently, waste generated in the project area is disposed of at the Milliken Landfill, which is owned and operated by the County of San Bernardino (1994). The Milliken Landfill is projected to be closed by the time the first phase of Sub -Area 18 is developed. As a result, solid waste generated by the Specific Plan area will be redirected to the San Timoteo Landfill in Redlands. In order to conserve landfill space, development within Sub -Area 18 will comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Source Reduction and Recycling Element, including the implementation of a source reduction and recycling program. This program will provide for separation of paper, metal, plastic, and glass as well as compost of green waste from the golf Gourselandscaoe and open space areas in order to reduce solid waste generation. 4.6.4 SCHOOLS Sub -Area 18 is located within the Cucamonga School District (CSD), which serves grades K through 8, and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD), which serves grades 9 through 12. The CSD has three elementary schools and one junior high school The current total capacity of these schools is 2,760 students, while current enrollment is 2,436. The CJUHSD has seven high schools within its district with a total capacity of 15,181 students; current enrollment is 15,239. All development within Sub -Area 18 is required to pay school impact fees to offset the increased number of students associated with residents and employees of the Specific Plan area. These revenues are for the construction or expansion of school facilities within the districts, thereby ensuring adequate school facilities. 4.7 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4.7.1 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS A Fiscal Impact Report was prepared for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan (December 1993) to address the fiscal and employment opportunities associated with the Specific Plan. The complete Fiscal Impact Report is included within Appendix A. The fiscal report estimated the fiscal impacts of the IASP in order to compare that entitlement/planning program with the proposed changes contained within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The fiscal impact report used project statistics that varied slightly from the remainder of the Specific Plan. These variations do not affect the findings of the report with respect to fiscal impacts. Upon build out, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will create approximately 10,000 jobs and nearly $322,280,000 of increased property valuation based on 1993 dollars. The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will have a direct effect upon the municipal budget of Rancho Cucamonga in the form of the -increased Development Framework 4-35 Item F —161 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment property one-time and annual revenue and costs. The fiscal impact report (1993) identified a number of findings pertaining to the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan including: • Will generate a positive net annual fiscal impact to the Rancho Cucamonga operating budget of greater than $1,196,024 at project buildout. • Will produce greater than $1.68 of new revenues for every $1.00 of new municipal operating costs. • The hotel/conference, retail, and restaurant uses within the project will generate the greatest positive fiscal impacts with revenue/cost ratios of 11.06, 2.72, and 2.23, respectively. • With Redevelopment Agency tax increment revenues included, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will generate a net of over $2,453,306 annually to the City. • With Redevelopment Agency tax increment revenues included, the project will produce greater than $2.39 of new revenues for every $1.00 of new municipal operating costs. The Fiscal Impact Report concluded that the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan would have a large long-term, positive fiscal impact on the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition, it was observed that the Sub - Area 18 Specific Plan would have a substantial positive, long-term fiscal impact if both the City budget and Redevelopment Agency budget are considered. 4.7.2 EMPLOYMENT Employment for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan was estimated in the Fiscal Impact Report by applying employment factors to the size of proposed development by land use type. The employment projections for retail, office, business park, warehousing/distribution, and health club uses were drawn from the Urban Land Institute 'Business and Industrial Park Development Handbook" (1988). The hotel/conference and bank employment factors were derived from the Institute of Traffic Engineers 'Trip Generation," 5th Edition (1991). Golf course, restaurant, and theater employment factors derived from actual performance of existing projects. The bowling alley employment factor is assumed to approximate employment of the health club. The above sources were used to prepare a build out projection for employment which is shown in Table 4-2. The uses analyzed in the fiscal analysis were intended to be representative of the uses that will ultimately be developed. However, the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan allows a variety of uses; the actual mix of uses that is ultimately developed will create jobs and revenues that vary from the uses analyzed in the fiscal impact report. The uses analyzed represent a conservative view of future uses permitted in the Specific Plan. �•• .�FTLiRi . .., MUM Development Framework 4-36 Item F —162 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment TABLE 4-2 SUB -AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT Square Footage Employment (generation Estimated Land Use (thousands) Factor/1,000 sf Employment Retail 855 5.08 4,343 Offire 1,245° 2.88 3,586` Business Park 600 1.61 966 Restaurant 130 3.99 519 1 lotel/Confnrenre 150 room& 0.90/room 135 Bank 30 2.10 63 Brawling Alley 60 0.97 58 Health Club 120 1.09 131 Theater 60 0.9'1 58 Total 9,902 2. 955,000 square feet if Planning Area IX is developed with multiple family apartments. 3. 2,750 employees if Planning Area IX is developed with multiple family apartments. 4. Hotel Employment Factor based on rooms. The employment factors are based upon the number of employees per 1,000 square feet improved floor space except for the golf course and the hotel/conference uses. The golf course employment is based upon employees per acre while the hotel/conference use is based upon the number of rooms (150 rooms assumed in the Specific Plan). These estimates are from the time of oriainal adontion and Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Development Framework 4-37 Item F —163 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment SECTION 5 DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 5.1 5.1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to outline the specific guidelines and standards which will be used for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan regarding the development of Planning Areas II IV, V VI VII Vill, IX X and Xl. These standards may vary depending on location and land use. The development guidelines and standards for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan consist of three components: • Land Use Types • Design Guidelines and Standards • Development Standards 5.1.2 INTERPRETATION The provisions of this Specific Plan are not intended to interfere with or void any easements, covenants, or other existing agreements. If any ambiguity or conflict should arise concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use, the application of development standards and guidelines, or land use boundaries as set forth herein, this Specific Plan, as amended, shall govern. 6.1.3 USE DETERMINATION To ensure compatible uses in each planning area, the Gitjr--RlannerPlanning Director, upon his/her own initiative or upon written request, shall determine, or shall refer to the Planning Commission to determine, whether a use not specifically listed as a permitted, secondary, accessory, or temporary use in any planning area shall be deemed a permitted use or conditional use in one or more planning areas on the basis of similarity and compatibility with uses specifically permitted, in general accordance with procedures as set forth in the Development Code. The procedures this section shall not apply to amendments to the list of permitted or conditional uses. 5.1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER REGULATIONS This Specific Plan is intended to provide most of the essential information needed to determine what City policies, standards, and regulations will guide the development of a particular parcel. Areas not specifically covered by this Specific Plan (i.e., construction standards, health regulations, variance and appeal procedures, subdivision procedures, etc.) will continue to be governed by existing City regulations, and no provision of this Specific Plan is intended to repeal, abrogate, annul, impair, or interfere with any existing City ordinance, except as is specifically repealed by adoption of this Specific Plan. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Im Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -164 6.2 LAND USE TYPES 5.2.1 INTRODUCTION Each planning area has a set of surrounding conditions. Table 5-1 uses are provided in Table 5-2. Permitted Uses Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment permitted or conditional land uses based upon its location and lists the land use types by planning area. Definitions of these land Permitted uses are those land uses allowed in a given planning area subject to the development regulations of this Specific Plan contained within Section 6.2. Conditional Uses Conditional permitted uses, because of their unusual site development requirements or unique operating characteristics, are subject to the granting of conditional approval by the City Planner and/or Planning Commission. Projects requiring a Conditional Use Permit shall be required to comply with the regulations of Section 17.04.030 of the Development Code. The City Planner and/or Planning Commission, as determined in Section 6.2 of this Specific Plan, shall make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit: • That a proposed use is in accordance with the General Plan, the [ASP, and the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. • That the proposed use and applicable conditions will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Sub Area 18 Specific Plan. Interim Uses The following Interim Uses shall be permitted, provided that such uses and their locations shall not preclude full development in accordance with the development regulations of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan: • Agricultural uses, including vineyards, roadside stands, and private parks and picnic areas are permitted uses prior to development. Parking and storage areas, park -and -ride lots, and other uses similar in character shall be permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit and to Interim Use standards contained in the Development Standards of this section. Damao Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-2 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -165 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY PLANNING AREA Type of Use — Planning Area II In IV V I VI VII Vill Ix x xi MANUFACTURING Custom P P p C P P P P LightW P P P P P P I P Medium P P p p p WHOLESALE/STORAGE/DISTRIBUTION Public Storage (indoor) C C Light P P PPMedium ±—PP P C C MATERIALS RECOVERY Collection Facilities C C C C C RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (R&D) Research & Development (R&D) P F TEE P P P P P p OFFICE Office P P P P P P P P P CIVIC Administrative Civic Services p I P P p P p P Cultural p I P p p P C P Public Assembly p F P P P p P P Public Buildings (library, post otffce, etc.) P F P P P P P P Public Safety & Utility Services C C C C C C C C Religious Assembly C q C C C C C C PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC USES Child Care Facilities C C C C C C C C C Clubs/Lodges (Private and Public) C C C C C C C C C Convalescent Facilities/Hospital C C C C C C C I C Educational Institutions (Private sort Public) C C C C C C C C C Transportation Facilities P RECREATION Golf Course Golf Practice/Training Facility P Recreational Facilities (indoor/outdoor) P I P P P P P C P C, ENTERTAINMENT Arcades C C C C C Entertainment Facilities (1) 1 P C P P P C C Family Entertainment Center (1) P p p p T Development Guidelines and Standards 5-3 Item F -166 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Type of Use Planning Area I II 111 IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI EATING & DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS — Eating and Drinking Establishments (1) P P F' I' P P I P I P I P Restaurant -Fast Food (including Drive- C C C C C C C C C Sports Bar (1) P p p p P TRANSIENT ACCOMMODATIONS/CONFE NCE CENTI R Hotei/Motol P I P P P P Conference Center P I P P P P Corporate Training Center P I P P p p MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL Mixed -Use Commercial Center p TPA p p p p P PERSONAL/BUSINESS SERVICES Business Support Services P P p P P P p p p Funeral & Crematory Services C C C C C C C C C Personal Services P p p p p p p p P Repair Services P P P I P I P I P P P P AUTOMOBILE/VEHICLE SERVICES Automotive Rental/Leasing P P I P I -P p P Automotive Service Court C C C C Automotive Service Station C C C C C C C Specialty Auto/Motorcycle Sales/Service C C C C C C C C RETAIL -BUSINESS SUPPLY/SERVICES Business Services Retail & Services P 1=1 P I P I p I p p p p RETAIL/CONVENIENCE RELATED Convenience Sales & Services P p p P p p p p P RETAIL -FOOD & BEVERAGE RELATED Food and Beverage Sales p p p p p I p p RETAIL -GENERAL Retail.-General(2) P(2) P 2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) Kiosk in Parking Lots P P P P RETAIL -HOME IMPROVEMENT RELATED Building/Lighting Equipment Supplies & Sales P(2) P 2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) 1 FumiturelHome Fumishings/Anliques P(2) P 2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) Home Appliance/Electronics P(2) P 2) P(2) P(2) P(2) P(2) GENERAL COMMERCIAL. Business Supply-Retail/Services P P P P P P P P P Communications Services P P p P p p p p p Parking (commercial) P P Aff.1.11MR-TAMAMM M.M.• r FBI Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —167 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Type of Use Planning Area it III I IV V VI VII 1111 Ix x xl RESIDENTIAL Multiple Family Dwellings (3) H= P P P Senior housing (3) (4) P KEY:P a Permitted Uses c = conditionally Permitted Use Blank Box = Not Permitted Use (1) Where live entertainment is present, such uses are subject Io a city entenainnrent permit. (2) Permitted as pan of a mixed use communist or recoil canter. (3) Residential pemritted wilhoul industrial in the same planning area. 4 Senior Housing sublect to a development agreement. • Land Use Types • Design Guidelines and Standards • Development Standards 5.1.2 ATION The provisions of Xis Specific Plan are not intended to ini covenants, or other a 'sting agreements. If any ambiguity or appropriate classification f a particular use, the application of d or land use boundaries as t forth herein, this Specific Plan, as, 6.1.3 USE DETERMINATION To ensure compatible uses in each lane own initiative or upon written request, I determine, whether a use not specificall use in any planning area shall be deemed areas on the basis of similarity and c accordance with procedures as set forth yy not apply to amendments to the list of Rear ith or void any easements, should arise concerning the ant standards and guidelines, 1, shall govern. area, a Gity Planner Planning Director, upon his/her Fmitftted e, or shall refer to the Planning Commission to permitted, secondary, accessory, or temporary use or conditional use in one or more planning ti it with uses specifically permitted, in general D elopment Code. The procedures this section shall or c ditional uses. 5.1.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHE'R REGULATIONS This Specific Plan is intended c provide most of the essenti information needed to determine what City policies, standards, an regulations will guide the develop ent of a particular parcel. Areas not specifically covered by tOrs Specific Plan (i.e., construction stain rds, health regulations, variance and appeal procedure ,subdivision procedures, etc.) will continue be governed by existing City regulations, and no rovision of this Specific Plan is intended to repe ,abrogate, annul, impair, or interfere with an existing City ordinance, except as is specifically re aled by adoption of this Specific Plan. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5.5 Development Guidelll#s and Standards Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —168 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.2 5.2.1 Each plannin area has a set of permitted or conditional land uses based upon it location and surrounding co itions. Table 5-1 lists the land use types by planning area. Definitio s of these land uses are provide 'n Table 5-2. Permitted Uses Permitted uses are those and uses allowed in a given planning areas fact to the development regulations of this Specific n contained within Section 6.2. Conditional Uses Conditional permitted uses, because f their unusual site d( operating characteristics, are subject t the granting of con( Planning Commission. Projects requiring Conditional Use the regulations of Section 17.04.030 of the evelopment C( Commission, as determined in Section 6.2 o this Specific Fj before granting a Conditional Use Permit: / • That a proposed use is in accordance Specific Plan. • That the proposed use and safety, and welfare, or mate 1p ent requirements or unique I approval by the City Planner and/or nit shall be required to comply with The City Planner and/or Planning shall make the following findings General Plan, the [ASP, and the Sub -Area 18 indition"ill not be detrimental to the public health, to properties or improvements in the vicinity. • That the proposed use will comp with each of the ap icable provisions of the Development Code and the Sub Area 18 Spe Ific Plan. Interim Uses The following Interim Uses s II be permitted, provided that such uses nd their locations shall not preclude full development 'accordance with the development regula ns of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan: • Agricultural us9d, including vineyards, roadside stands, and private parks nd picnic areas are permitted usei prior to development. \ • Parkind storage areas, park -and -ride lots, and other uses similar in cha cter shall be permift9d subject to a Conditional Use Permit and to Interim Use standards con Ined in the Develilipment Standards of this section. Development Guidelines and 5-6 Item F —169 OL L— J wall rc•, spiepuel! luawpuawV uejd :)!I!:)aciS 81 eajV-qnS dSVI a uowe:)n:) oq:uea IAICCDT TAM C G 4 !" NITJKII ICM Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Item F —171 As a condition of approval an agreement between the City and applicant shall be completed stipulating timing, installation of permanent improvements and buildings, and/or restoration of the site to its original condition. Temporary Uses The following Temporary Uses shall be permitted provided such uses and their locations shall not preclude full development in accordance with the development regulations of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, and such uses are in accordance with the City's Temporary Use Permit regulations: • Onsite plant nursery for growing of materials to be used on gGIf GGWFse 9F development-ef individual planning areas. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-9 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -172 Rancho Cucamonga ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.3 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The following Design Guidelines and Standards are intended to ensure that all development in the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan area has an attractive and compatible character and enhanced design quality. The guidelines are intended to encourage design creativity of individual projects as wal-well as provide for the overall needs of owners and users. 5.3.1 SITE PLANNING The purpose of site planning guidelines and standards is to ensure a functional, safe, and attractive environment. The following standards and guidelines shall apply throughout Sub -Area 18: Building Placement Building placement shall be designed to provide functional and attractive relationships between buildings and their site, create opportunities for plazas or other landscaped open spaces, and encourage well defined open space on the same site or with adjoining sites. Building orientation should include consideration of special view frontage visibility from surrounding streets especially special City boulevards such asthe gelfGeurse, Fourth Street, Sixth Street, and Milliken Avenue; solar orientation; and wind protection for site activities. The hArFR'Rg, IandseapiRg, and slope deSigR intended to enhance the gOIfiRg For residential development, placement of the buildings shall be done in a manner compatible with surrounding existing and planned uses and buildings. The setback from streets and adjacent properties should relate to the scale of the proposed building. Larger buildings require more setback area for a balance of scale and compatibility with adjacent uses. Buildings should be oriented along a neFth south axis, where possible, to encourage energy conservation and provided with relief and sense of variety. This could be achieved by staggering the units. The placement of buildings should relate to one another and create a variety of view orientation for increasing interest and openness. This could be achieved by skewing or angling the buildings. Buildings should be clustered around common facilities. Site Access and Circulation Site access and circulation should be designed to provide a safe and efficient system, both onsite and offsite. Points of access shall be designed in conformance with the City €ngiaeeF's DrivewayEngineering Services Department Policy. • The circulation system shall be designed to reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minimize impacts on adjacent properties, combine circulation and access areas where Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-10 Item F -173 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment possible, and provide adequate maneuvering areas. • Points of access shall not conflict with other planned or existing access points. For residential development, two points of access shall be provided for all but the smallest residential developments. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic shall be separated, to the extent possible, through the use of a continuous system of interconnected public and private sidewalks. Parking • Parking areas should generally not be the dominant visual element in the overall design of a project and should be designed to minimize visual disruption. • Parking areas should generally be screened from streets through combinations of earth mounding or berms, landscaping, low profile walls, and grade separations. • The design of parking areas should generally try to minimize traffic noise, light and glare, and moderate ambient air temperature, using techniques such as creative site planning, sound walls, well -designed lighting, and landscaping throughout the parking lot, where appropriate and feasible. • Multiple family residential parking design should include openness, reduced structure mass, and convenience of use should be characteristics of parking area design as implemented by the following: (1) Parking areas (open and covered) shall be designed to provide parking spaces conveniently located to the units they are intended to serve. (2) Long, unbroken lines of opposing garages/carports on each side of a drive aisle should be avoided. This type of design results in a Aconstricted alley§ atmosphere. (3) Free standing garages/carports should be located not to disrupt the primary view of residential structures. (4) Views to landscaped areas should be maintained at the ends of drive aisles. Vistas should not be obscured by facing garages or carports. (5) Planter breaks and special paving should be included along the parking aisles. These features add interesting patterns to the driveway/parkway area rhythm. (6) In order to open up more of the parking area to adjacent landscaped areas and reduce the "alley" effect along the drive aisle, offset facing garages/carports are encouraged on lengthy drive aisles. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-11 Item F —174 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Landscaping/Open Space • Landscaping and open spaces should be designed as an integral part of the overall site plan, and be designed to create visual interest to the streetscape, enhance building architecture, screen utilities, buffer views of parking and service areas, frame scenic views, and define and distinguish the pedestrian environment from vehicular areas. • Consideration should be given to wind protection of building and site activities by buffer or screen planting of wind tolerant trees and shrubs. Pedestrian Facilities • Convenient pedestrian circulation shall be provided throughout all projects to connect parking areas and public transit facilities with building entrances and pedestrian open spaces. • Open spaces shall be integrated with pedestrian walks and defined by landscaping and other elements to create a sense of place. • At the pedestrian or street level, the use of building materials and details that relate to human scale and activity shall be incorporated appropriately into the architectural design of buildings. • Colonnades or loggias and other covered walkways or structures that provide shade and protection to pedestrian spaces shall be utilized whenever possible. • Employee outdoor eating areas shall be provided as an integral part of site designs where appropriate. • Wherever possible, open spaces are encouraged to be accessible to the public. Site Furnishings • Site signage and lighting shall be designed and located as part of an overall coordinated program for the development. • Benches, light standards, kiosks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, and other street furniture shall be designed and located as part of an overall coordinated program development to enhance the appearance and function of the site and open space. • Pedestrian areas shall be generally visible and well lit. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-12 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —175 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Residential Fencing/Screening • Fences and wall color, material, and variation of the vertical and horizontal planes are needed to blend with the site and building design. The use of any fencing or walls should be consistent with the overall design theme. Fencing should reflect the quality and be sernplireentary-complementary to the architectural style. Fencing material should be selected for permanency. The following guidelines are suggested: (1) Provide decorative perimeter fencing (e.g., masonry) at tract edges and along streets. (2) Vary wall setbacks adjacent to major thoroughfares to increase visual interest. (3) Retaining walls exposed to public view are to be decorative masonry. (4) Wood fencing exposed to public view is to be treated with stain, paint, or water seal. (5) Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black, plastic -coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. (6) Provide a minimum 5-foot setback between fencing on corner side yards and sidewalk. (7) Return walls and corner side walls to be decorative and compatible with the architectural style. If more than one style of house design exists, then a simple wall design is preferred. 5.3.2 ARCHITECTURE The purpose of Architectural Design Guidelines and Standards is to ensure that the built environment is attractive and compatible within each planning area and the overall Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. The standards and guidelines are intended to result in a well designed environment which is attractive, safe, and enjoyable, as well as consistent with the design policies for industrial buildings within the ASP (City Ordinance No. 480) and Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-158. General Overall Character/Theme The general architectural character of all buildings and structures shall be of high quality contemporary design which is appropriate to their intended use, location, and site conditions. Within the overall bounds of compatible contemporary design, an appropriate degree of variation in architectural style, construction methods, and materials is encouraged among developments to provide variety and interest and avoid monotony. Planning Commision DR! F l_L.pril 2016 5-13 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -176 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment • Contemporary architectural interpretations referencing indigenous historical architectural styles are permitted. • Residential uses in Planning Area VI shall comply with Chapter 17.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code for the High Residential District (H) zone, expect as modified below: A. Table 17.08.040-D- Streetscape Setback Standards: Minimum building setback along 4th Street for multiple family residential shall be 45 feet. For residential development, a recognizable design theme shall be established which is compatible with surrounding planned or existing developments. Subtle variations are encouraged which provide visual interest but do not create abrupt changes causing discord in the overall character of the immediate neighborhood. It is not intended that one style of architecture should be dominant, but that the individual structures shall create and enhance a high quality and harmonious community appearance. Shadow patterns created by architectural elements such as overhangs, projections, or recession of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings contribute to a building's character while aiding in climate control. Further, changes in the roof level or planes provide architectural interest. The development should be designed with upgraded architecture through increased delineation of surface treatment and architectural details. The architectural concepts should also GGmpliment-complement the grading and topography of the site. The City of Rancho Cucamonga seeks well thought out design solutions that reflect the best of a particular style, respect the community's heritage, and relate well to their surroundings. The following guidelines should be considered: - Develop individual expressions within single buildings in harmony with the neighborhood. Refrain from architectural gimmicks that sacrifice integrity of the streetscape to a single structure. - Vary roof massing and/or heights on larger buildings. - Upgrade design treatment of carport structures to reflect the architectural design of the dwelling units. - Enhance architectural elements exposed to public view. - Vary roof designs along rear elevations of units backing up to perimeter streets to provide a pleasant and varied streetscape. - Coordinate exterior building design on all elevations from building -to -building to achieve the same level of design quality. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-14 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -177 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment - Choose colors consistent with the chosen design theme. Avoid 'trendy" colors which become quickly outdated. Low-key and earth -tone colors work best for primary colors; use of more vibrant colors should be limited to accents. - Provide lockable storage spaces. - Garages should be architecturally designed to aarnp4imeRt complement the residences; consider varying the door treatment on multiple garage structures. - Avoid identical or similar elevation schemes plotted on adjacent lots or across the street from one another. - Avoid identical color schemes plotted on adjacent lots. - Integrate screens for all roof -mounted equipment into the building design (i.e., extend parapet walls), rather than as an afterthought. - Design roof line in conjunction with building mass for consistent composition. - Use native rock or fieldstone. Other forms of stone maybe manufactured products. - Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on the house, such as brick or stone, except on interior chimneys. Compatibility with Local Conditions • Building designs and site plans shall be compatible with surrounding land uses, development plans, and architecture, and recognize the climate, the physical setting, and the best architectural traditions of Southern California. • Building orientation shall include considerations of wind protection of site activities. Building Height(Bulk/Massing • The height and bulk of buildings shall provide a pleasing overall massing and not unduly block views and solar access of adjacent or nearby buildings. • Building height limits within Sub -Area 18 shall not exceed the height limits prescribed in the I,kL171Li[ u . • 5-15 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -178 Rancho Cucamonga ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Maximum building or structure height shall not exceed four stories or 75 feet, whichever is greater, unless approved as a Conditional Use Permit, except hotel facilities which are Permitted to a maximum height of eight stories or 90 feet whichever is greater: 2. In Planning Area VII, office buildings are permitted to a maximum height of six stories or 90 feet, whichever is greater. • Buildings exceeding two stories or 35 feet in height are subject to additional setback provisions (see Development Standards). Exterior Building Elevations • All exterior building elevations and screen walls shall have architectural treatment. Articulation of the building plane is encouraged through the use of openings and recesses which create texture and shadow patterns, provide variety to a building plane or surface, and articulate building entries as focal points. • At ground level, long expanses of blank building walls should be minimized by creatively using openings, materials, textures, color, and/or building form. Exterior Materials/Colors/Finishes Colors, materials and finishes shall be coordinated on all exterior building elevations to achieve an overall continuity of design on a building by building basis. Variety within planning areas is allowed. • Building materials, colors, and textures shall be compatible and complementary with those of adjacent or nearby buildings. Variety within planning areas is allowed within the general bounds of overall compatibility. • The use of all -metal, pre -fabricated steel sheathed buildings is generally prohibited except Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-16 Item F -179 Rancho Cucamonga [ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment where architecturally designed for a specific site and approved by the Planning Director Gity PlanneF-0r Planning Commission. This does not preclude the use of metal materials and detail within architecturally designed buildings which are compatible with surrounding land use and architecture. • A minimum of two primary building materials are required per Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-158. 5.3.3 LANDSCAPE Overall Thematic Character The overall thematic character of landscaping within Sub -Area 18 is intended to reinforce and enhance the open natural setting of the site using two basic landscape zones with natural transitions between them: Oasis Zone: This landscape zone is generally reserved for special landscape areas and features suGh as the golf GGursemajor project entries and features, building entrances, and other areas associated with high visibility and pedestrian use. This zone is generally characterized by a lush green landscape incorporating turf areas, flowering annuals and/or shrubs, evergreens, and shade trees that provide a cool, inviting character with rich colors and textures, and combined, where appropriate, with water features such as lakes, ponds;-er fountains. Native Garden Zone: This landscape zone is generally the basic palette most common throughout the development parcels of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, and is composed of native plant materials rich with color and texture which combine aesthetically pleasing environments with reduced irrigation requirements. The Native Garden Zone is composed of ground covers and mounding shrubs, as well as native evergreen and deciduous trees that are drought -tolerant. This landscape zone is combined with plazas, courtyards, and water features where appropriate. Table 5-3 identifies the suggested plant pallets palette for each landscape zone. Streetscape Streetscape landscaping shall provide a strong, unifying landscape theme for the overall project and shall reflect the hierarchy of the street classification (Figures 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4) in terms of scale and character, and exhibit design continuity in landscape treatment between the street right-of-way and adjacent landscape setback. Table 5-4 describes the landscaping themes for streets. • Street trees of similar species shall establish a consistent design pattern and character within the parkway of each street (Table 5-4). • Special landscape treatments should serve to demarcate primary entry intersections while Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-17 Item F -180 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment preserving safe sight lines, in accordance with the City Engineer's policy regarding intersection lines of sight. Shrub planting and berming shall generally be used to screen transformers and switch boxes within the streetscape parkway, as well as adjacent parking and service areas. n..: _......:_ r _...-u • A beautification Master Plan for parkways along both Fourth and Sixth Streets shall be prepared for City approval. The beautification Master Plan can be included within individual master plans for Planning Area development or processed as part of the overall design concepts for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan in a separate document. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-18 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —181 Z8l— d wall spiepuelS pue wugapmE) luawdolana4 (elpnsAauoH asoueder) eo!uode!eaaoluo7 (aweu uowwoo ON) wnylueAjod wrnu!wsep (sulws[• asawud)!Ausaw wnlu!wsep (aulwessar eullono) sua?wadwas wmWesleo (61j Bu!doeao) upwnd sno!j (auIA me10 s;1e0) peo-s!n6un eyluexoo (aweu uowwoo ON) eonelbodAq snss!,,l (eulneajl ooue6ueN) eorpelue snsgq saul^ (ewsolAX 6u14s) wnisa6uoo ewsolAX (aulwser jeiS) sapou!wse!wnwedsolayoeal (e!weoaiswal) ejayleuwA6 eiwaollswal (w041meH Mul) MPIAI s!dalwyded (wo41enj) sajoads eglumeJAd (elweibawod) wnlem6 eplund (obegwnld edeo) elelnoune o6egwn!d (Pema sdalla4M 'eie6aueA '96uea0 Aoolry) epol wruodsoy!d (e!uiio4d d!1-pe)j1 pesajl eNyoyd (xelj)Mel wnluuoyd (ssejo u!elunoj eldind) wneidno wnaoeles wnlesuuad (eA11O leeMS) suer6erl sngluewso (oogweg AlueneeH) eo!Isewop eulpueN (el)jAlry enrj_) giunwwoo snpfkV (edelO uo6ejo) wmlollnbe eluoyen (lewd eseuedn) wnquodel wrulsn6i7 (aaal eel uelleaisnV) urnuedoos wnwadsolda7 (eueiue7) seloads euelue7 (iedlunr) seloads sruodwnr (AllOH) sepeds xay (IjoM su4of 'IS) wnuloAleo wnouadAH (Al!I Mai sapeds sq!eooreweH saloads ealpaao (AIII I46plioj).roloop saloi0 (sseio sedumd) eueopas euapelrop (aelseeuoloo) elelao0 (paaspuS) sn!!olunel snjn0000 (asaAooy) sopeds srupo (e!lloweo) soloods e!llemo (al!N ogl to Al! -I) snueoule sngwede6y (P!IogV),aegonoo pjrmp3 e!IagV sgns4S (agrl ndll) ndy euendil (eioweoAS elurollle0) esourem snueleld (panu!iuoo) saaal snonploa0 I!j av 1 =1 vjA4 Uo!Iwwo u.M—ela (panupuoa) 3NOZ SISVO (09al eueld uopuo7) e#o1yeoe snuelejd (043eis!d esaul40) s!suauryo e!oelgd (eejl olednl) appAp essAN (egou6eplraones)euei6uelnos plou6eyy (wnO looms) enypoiAlsjegwepnbr7 (ollaAlry adeao),aaul ue!pul, eo!pu! elwaoijiva6e7 (eejl ule!j ueploo) ele!nowed epalneileox (gall owel j sawgo) eleuwdiq epelneilao>! (lsnool XeuoH) snglueoul eysME) (4sV euozuV) eurinjaA snu!xe✓j (aerl Ails) esoioods eisuoyp (aaal 06uuj aseu!go)snsnlai sngleuo!q,9 00PIV aiMM) eyopgwogp snuly (japlV uelleil) eleWoo snuly (awl NI!,,;) wssugrin/ i ¢pgjv saail snonploaO (wled uej ueolxayl) eisngw a!uol6u!ysaM (wled ued elwollleo) erapim eiuol6urgseryl (.tadded ueipeje) sngoggpgajal snwgos (Dawns ueoulV) eaouel snyy (APO anll we47noS) eiQfduIA snorano (Heo)poo) iegns snmano (AEO AIIoH) xell snDJeno (AeO anll lse00) e!lolu6e snoleno (eu!d meA)snllAydojoew sndieoopod (euld wej) jop!oej6 sndieoopod (wnjodsoil!d puelsueen0) pjoj!gwoyj wruodsoA!d (and euolS uelleil) eeu!d sngid (quid odellV) ssuadaleg sngid (quid Ilapuolry) eouepjq snuld (ou!d puelsl Areueo) ssuaueueo smgd (Sall aA!10), ssay!ruj, eadane Belo (eonelelely Auld) eligdosou eonxelapV (Aineeg olpaILIN) ajoylpuejo epouftw (Moll!M uellejisnV) rroywed eaaGao (enenO olddeauld) euetmollas eoliej (wn0 euue!yy) srleuiWiA snldAjeon3 (Ajeg uoul poH) easoy uolbxajepis snidd1e0173 (wno uase0) slpna snldAjeon3 (teal moll!M 1310401N) llloyoru snl 10=3 (vino pallodS) eielnoew snidAleon3 (wn0 reft) xAleoopep snldAlson3 (sepalaeA snjl!O) saaads snuul!o (4snjge!Itog) saaeds uourolslyeD (eeil ellloe) snaulndod uoijgaXgDejg (ooij AuegmerlS) opueun sningjy saaal u98a6J8A3 (aA!ieu-uou 'uaaa6'4sn-7) 3NOZ SISVO 3NOZ 3dVOSONVI AS 3113IVd 1NV'1d 031S3osi iS £-S 3I9V1 luawpuawV veld ol}loa S SZ eajV-qnS dSVI a uoweonD o4oueu Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment TABLE 5-3 (continued) SUGGESTED PLANT PALETTE BY LANDSCAPE ZONE OASIS ZONE (continued) NATIVE GARDEN ZONE (continued) Vines (continued) Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Boston Ivy) Trachefospermum jasminoldes (Star Jasmine) Wisteria sinensis (Wisteria) Groundcovers Baccharis pilularis 'Twin Peaks' (Coyote brush) Campanula pischarskyana (Serbian Bellflower) Cotoneaster buxitolius (Rock Cotoneaster) Drosanthemum fforibundum (Rosea Ice Plant) Festuca species (Fescue) Gazania Hederahelix ^Needlepoint"(English Ivy) Hypedcum calcinum (Aaron's Beard) Juniperus species (Prostrate varieties) Lantana montevidensis (Trailing Lantana) Lonicera japonica (Honeysuckle) Nandina domestica "Harbor Dwarf" (Dwarf Heavenly Bamboo) Rosmarinus offrcinalis Prostratus' (Prostrate Rosemary) Verbena peruviana (No common name) Vince species (Periwinkle) Zoysia tenuifolla (Korean Grass) NATIVE GARDEN ZONE (Primarily native material, rich color and texture) Evergreen Trees Acacia famesiana (Sweet Acacia) Calocerdrus decurrens (Incense Cedar) Cercidium Noridum (Blue Palo Verde) Cercidium microphyflum (Foothill Palo Verde) Cercidium praecox (Sonoran Palo Verde) Cupressus glabra (Arizona Cypress) Parkinsortia aculeata (Mexican Palo Verde) Pidosporum rhombiloiia (Queensland Plttosporum) Podocarpus gracilior(Fern Pine) Prosopis albs (Argentine Mesquite) Schinus molle (California Pepper Tree) Washingtonia fllifera (California Fan Palm) Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) Deciduous Trees Aesculus califomica (California Buckeye) CercS occidentalis (Western Redbud) Chilopsis linearis (Desert Willow) Deciduous Trees (continued) Dalea spinosa (Smoke Tree) Piatanus racemosa (California Sycamore) Prunus cerasifera atroputpurea (Purple Leaf Plum) Sambucus mexicana (Mexican Elderberry) Shrubs Caesalpinea gilliesil (Yellow Bird of Paradise) Calfiandra eriaphylfa (Fairy Duster) Cassia artemisioides (Feathery Cassla) Ceanothus species (California Lilac) Encelia farinosa (Blue Bush) Heteromeles arbutitolia (Toyon) Justicia califomica (Chuperosa) Larrea tridentata (Creosote Bush) Leucophyllum trutescens (Texas Ranger) Prunus carofiniana (Carolina Laurel Cherry) Prunus llfcifolia (HoiWaf Cherry) Rhus ovata (Sugar Bush) Ribes sanguinium (Pink Winter Currant) Ribes speciosum (Flowering Fuschia) Romneya coufted (Matilija Poppy) Rosa californica (Caldomia Wild Rose) Simmondsia chinensis (Jojoba) Teconia stans (Yellow Bells) Vines Antigonon leptopus (San Miguel Coral Vine) Doxcantha unguis-cati (Cat's Claw Vine) Ficus pumlia (Creeping Fig) Gelsemium sempervirens (Carolina Jessamine) Lonicera japonica (Japanese Honeysuckle) Parthenocissus tricuspidata (Boston Ivy) Rosa Banksfao (Banks Rose) Tecornaria capensis (Cape Honeysuckle) Wisteria sinensis ('Wisteria) Groundcovers Arctostphilos Indian Hill' (No common name) Arctostphylos Sea Spray'(No common name) Bac,;harfs pilulans''Twin Peaks'(Coyote brush) Ceanothus griseus horizontally (Carmel Creeper) Cotoneaster buxifolius (Rock Cotoneaster) Drosanthemum foribundum (Rosea Ice Plant) Duchesnea indica (Indian Mock Strawberry) Grevillea 7Voefii' (No common name) Hedem hells Weedlepoint I (English Ivy) Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-20 Item F —183 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment TABLE 5-3 (continued) SUGGESTED PLANT PALETTE BY LANDSCAPE ZONE NATIVE GARDEN ZONE (continued) Groundcovers (continued) Hypericum calycinum (Aaron's Beard) Juniperus species(Juniper [Prostrate varieties]) Lantana montevidensis (Trailing Lantana) Lonicera japonica (Honeysuckle) Nandina domesdca "Harbor Dwarf" (Dwarf Heavenly Bamboo) Pyracantha species (Firethorn) Rosmarinus officinalis 'Prostratus' (Prostrate Rosemary) Verbena penrviana (No common name_ Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-21 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -184 Elle"Tied Subsbutil" See Section 7 for updated PAI concepts n A V� M-& sawt Arca V 29 ac "4u" 6W Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment IL Planning Area X 23 ac.A Z.- % N Planning " 91 ar— A 5 AL Plannxk�ing Area a t i I Area I Is 2C. 19 ac. PL�a3ng Arca JU PIA,nning f Area $A 64 club Area 21 a pl=ullng Area V11 r,24 ac. v' �g w. ......... dMWOCININIM Boundary of New PAI LIGM CU ld4whWlEwy MkW%WFARY Laft=41asi U*h6*GONq Sam Thda Afi* V-W whim seds N=5-1 Conceptual Streetscape Master Plan Plannina Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-22 Item IF —185 Curvilinear Sidewalk Parkway 113, Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Hike Lane Milliken Avenue Fourth Street 94 ft. Roadway 120 ft. R. O. W. Milliken Avenue Sixth Street Fourth Street trurvuinear or Linear Sidewalk IN 1 Parkway Major Arterial Divided (120 ft. R. O. W.) Planning Commision DRAFT Aoril 2016 ngtn S-2 Major Arterial Divided Street Classification 5-23 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -186 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Utica Avenue Secondary Arterial (88 ftt.:fit, 0. W.) tigura 5 m.3 Secondary Street Classification Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-24 Item F —187 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Cleveland Avenue Local Street (66 ft. R. 0.. W.) "fanning Commision DRAFT April 2010 5-25 figure 5 - 4 Local Street Classification Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —188 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment TABLE 5-4 STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPING THEME Street Tree Types/Species Planting Provisfonsrrrealments Median 1. Milliken Street Trees: v� Avenue (Special City • Braachychiton populneus (70%) • Informal drifts • Existing (in -place) Gateway Blvd.) (Bottle tree) • Average Spacing: 25 ff. on center • Liquidambarstraciflua(30%) • Plantings to be incorporated into (Palo Alto Sweet Gum) landscape setback. • Street tree easements may be Planning Areas VII and IX required outside the right-of-way (additionally permitted street trees): Planning Areas VII and IX (alternative permitted provisions): • Washingtonia filifera (California Fan Palm) Foreground: • Washingtonia robusta (Mexican • California Fan Palm or Mexican Fan Palm) Fan Palm • Formal placement Accent Trees • Average Spacing: 40 ft. on center (double row) • Albizia juirbilssen (Silk Tree) • Lagerstroemia indica (Crape Myrtle) • Cinnamomumum camphora (Camphor Tree) 2. Fourth Street' I Street Trees: Foreground (Major Arterial) • Platanus acedfolia London Plane Tree) Street Trees: Background • Pinus canariensis (Canary Island Pine) Planning Area Vil (additionally permitted foreground street tree): • Washinglonia fillfera (California Fan Palm) Planning Area VII (additionally permitted background street tree): • Platanus acedfolia (London Plana Tree) Planning Area VII (accent tree): Lagerstraernia indica (Crape Myrtle) Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Background: . Bottletree (70%) • Palo Alto Sweet Gum (30%) • Informal drifts • Average Spacing: 25 ft. on center • Plantings to be incorporated into landscape setback. • Street tree easements may be required outside the right-of-way • Semi -formal . Per Wildan Assoc. • Average Spacing; 30 ft. on center street plan. • Incorporate existing mature • Median landscape General Dynamics street responsibilities landscape to the extent possible. between City of • Locate trees to minimize conflict Rancho with overhead transmission lines. Cucamonga and • Coordinate with Edison pruning Ontario to be policies. determined, • Street tree easements may be required outside right-of-way. 5-26 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -189 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment street Tree Types/Species Planting Provisions/Treatments Median 3. Sixth Street' Street Tree: (Major Arterial) • Magnolia grandifora (Majestic • Semi-formal/regular Per City Master Plan Beauty Magnolia) • Tree spacing: 30 ft. on center for Sixth Street. Planning Area IX (additionally Planning Area IX (alternative permitted street trees): permitted provisions): • Washingtonia filifera (California Foreground: Fan Palm) • Washingtonis robusta (Mexican • California Fan Palm or Mexican Fan Palm) Fan Palm • Formal placement• • Average Spacing: 40 ft. on center (double row) Background: • Majestic Beauty Magnolia • Semi-formaftgular • Tree spacing: 30 ft. on center 4. Utica Avenue Street Tree: (Existing Street) • Pinus canariensis (Canary • Semi-formallregular N.A. Island Pine) • Tree spacing: 25 ft. on center • Incorporate existing mature General Dynamics street landscaping to the extent possible. 5. Cleveland Street Tree: Avenue (Local Street) • Pinus canariensis (Canary • Semi -formal N.A. Island Pine) • Tree spacing: 25 ft. on center a. A beautification Master Plan for parkways along Fourth and Sixth Streets shall be prepared for City approval. The beautification Master Plan can be included In individual Master Plans for Planning Area development or processed as part of the overall design concepts for the Specific Plan in a separate document. Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-27 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —190 Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment MORMON I�I i�,5PflCONNA- < A,,!.- 5-28 3c1 W11-4/ eion 5-5 City Gateway Featur( Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —191 Rancho Cucamonga ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment City Gateway (Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue) The northwest corner of the intersection of Fourth Street and Milliken Avenue shall incorporate a City "gateway" feature that generally mirrors the existing gateway feature on the northeast corner of the intersection (Figure 5-5). Development Parcels • Entries -Special landscape design features such as color accents, specimen tree planting, decorative rockscape, and pavement details should be utilized to provide visual enhancements to roadway intersections, driveway approaches, pedestrian walkways, and building entries. • Edge Conditions - Landscape treatment of edge conditions should respond appropriately to the specific site conditions and create attractive, coordinated, and compatible transitions between the development parcels and their surroundings. Particular design attention shall be placed along special City boulevards to provide a complementary streetscape character, an enhanced building appearance, and screening of parking and service areas from public view. - Development parcels adjacent to the gelfssursePlanning Area I shall, when developed, provide a minimum 10-foot-wide building and parking landscape setback that complements the ge rseadiacent landscaping. A minimum 6-6-foot high view fence may be provided that will facilitate view windows and security while restricting unwanted pedestrian or vehicular access-iate-the-Geurse. - At parking lot and service area locations, landscaping (trees and shrubs) shall intensified to screen them from view on the golf ooarseof PlanningArea rea I. At building locations, trees should be placed to help frame views of the gem the buildingsmountains. Buildings - Landscaping shall serve to integrate structures into their site and enhance the architecture. - Long building elevations should be broken up by tree planting. - Foundation planting should be utilized to help settle buildings into their site. r lannlng Commislon DRAFT April 2016 5-29 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -192 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment - Special accent planting should be used to highlight building entrances and other special features. - Tree arrangements should preserve and frame scenic views of the mountain backdrops, and other aesthetic features. - Landscape design treatments should promote building energy conservation and provide wind screening of outdoor pedestrian areas. • Parking Area - Parking lot landscaping is required for screening of large parking areas to limit their visual impact and to provide shade. - Use berming, low walls, and/or shrub landscaping to screen parking areas from public streets. - Use canopy trees within parking areas to provide shade and reduce glare. - Use landscape islands at the end of stall rows to define circulation and provide shade. • Service Area/Equipment Screening.- Use low level landscaping in combination with minimum 6-foot-high screen walls to shield outdoor service areas and equipment from public view (see Table 5-5 for appropriate landscape plant materials for screening). • Hardscape-Use special paving to create an attractive and unifying element of site development in high use pedestrian areas, such as entries, plazas, and courtyards. Plant Materials • Zone Application - Use plant materials appropriate to their particular zone application (i.e., "oasis" or "native garden' zone). • Drought Tolerance - Use drought -tolerant plant materials appropriate to the acid climate and soil conditions. Generally limit turf areas to the 'basis" zone, such as the golf course and -areas of major design emphasis (entrances, etc.). Ground covers, Xerissapexeriscape, rockscape, and hardscape that limit water consumption are encouraged where appropriate. • Tree Size/Staking - Specimen size trees are encouraged where appropriate to promote early establishment of mature plantings. Due to periodic severe wind conditions, all trees should be staked or guide wired. • Water -conserving irrigation techniques per AB 325 regulations and City water conservation regulations shall be used. Planning Commislon DRAFT April 2016 5-30 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -193 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Irrigation Automatic irrigation systems shall be required along all streetscape and landscape setbacks, the gel# seurse,-and other 'basis" zone landscape areas such as along entrance drives, pedestrian walkways, and at building entrances. • Water conserving irrigation techniques are required. • Deep root watering systems are encouraged for trees, especially in turf areas. TABLE 5-5 ACCEPTABLE PLANT MATERIALS FOR LOW LEVEL SCREENING Size at 3 Years Minimum Height x Width Spacing Botanical Name Common Name (feet) Meet on center Buxus japonicum Japanese Boxwood 5 x 4 3.0 Carissa grandiflora Natal Plum 5 x 4 3.5 Cistus ladanifer Crimson Spot Rock Rose 4 x 5 4.0 Coprosma baued Coprosma 6 x 5 3.5 Echium fastuosum Pride of Madeira 6 x 6 6.0 Elaeagnus pungens Silverberry 6 x 6 5.0 F_scailonia fradesii Escallonia 5 x 5 4.0 Hakea suaveolens Sweet Hakea 6 x 5 4.0 Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Chinese Hibiscus 5 x 5 5.0 Ligustrum texanum Japanese Privet 6 x 4 3.0 Myoporum laeturn Myoporum 6 x 6 5.0 Nerium oleander Oleander 6 x 6 4.0 Photinia fraseri Photina 6 x 5 4.0 Phorrnium tenax New Zealand flax 7 x 6 6.0 Pittosporum tobira Tobira 3 x 4 4.0 Viburnum japonicum Viburnum 6 x 5 4.0 Xylosma congestum Xylosma 5 x 5 4.0 Planning Commtsion DRAFT April 2016 5-31 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —194 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan address eight factors which include: • General Provisions • Master Plan Requirements • Minimum Parcel Size • Setback Requirements • Landscape Requirements • Parking and Loading Requirements • Interim Uses • Performance Standards • Planning Area IX Recreational Amenities Table 5-6 summarizes the application of basic development standards on a planning area basis, including minimum parcel size, landscape area requirements, maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and performance standards. The setback requirements are determined in accordance with the street classification and particular side yard and rear yard conditions. TABLE 5-6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUMMARY Standards Minimum Parcel Size (Acres) Minimum Percentage of Landscape Area (°! of Net Lot Area) Performance Standard (Schedule) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)/ Residential Density 11 it pl 1V V IX X 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 j5 15 15 15 10 10 31 10 A * A A A B B B B 0.35 1.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.70 0.35 0.56/ 0.35 I 14-24 24-30 24�30 duac Note: Where a hotel is developed, the maximum allowable FAR for the Planning Area can Increase to FAR 0.7. The FAR for the hotel, if the entire planning area is not used for such use, can exceed the 0.7 FAR as long as the entire planning area does not exceed 0.7 FAR as shown in the conceptual Master Plan, Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-34 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —197 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Conditions of Uses Generally, all business and industrial operations shall be conducted within an enclosed building, unless specifically permitted and adequately screened from public view pursuant to this section. Exceptions to this include permitted outdoor recreational facilities , aeilities. Signs Signs shall be appropriately used to provide identification and direction in a functional and aesthetically pleasing manner. The design of permitted signs shall be architecturally compatible and integrated with the building design. Submittal of preliminary site signage program and design concepts during the development review process is required. The design of signs, including location, materials, colors, copy, size, and construction details are set forth in the City Sign Ordinance (Chapter 14 of the Municipal Code). A Uniform Sign Program may be required for any development, covering all exterior site signage, including building wall and entry monument signs, to create a coordinated and attractive development with an overall sense of design cohesiveness and compatibility. Lighting Site lighting shall provide attractive and energy -conscious illumination for the safety and security of onsite areas such as building entrances, pedestrian walkways, parking, loading, shipping, and receiving. In addition, architectural and landscape accent lighting of special features such as building entries is encouraged. The following standards shall apply in all areas: • The design of light fixtures and their structural support shall be architecturally compatible with the architectural character of surrounding buildings. • Free standing light standards shall not exceed 25 feet in height for parking lot lighting and 15 feet for other onsite lighting, except lighting standards for nighttime use of outdoor golf facilities and the driving range, which shall not exceed 50 feet in height. • Architectural and security lighting fixtures shall not project above the fascia or roof line of the building. All site lighting shall confine direct light rays within the site boundaries. • Lighting of outdoor recreational areas for night-time use; driving range,, etG.-shall confine direct light rays within the site boundaries and minimize fixture Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-35 Item F —198 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment glare from the surrounding public streets. Equipment Screening Equipment screening shall allow for the effective functioning of equipment while enhancing the architectural character and integrity of the surrounding environment. Equipment is deemed to include any exterior mechanical, electrical, or other equipment, such as air condition units, fans, ductwork, cyclone blowers, cranes, storage tanks, and satellite dish antennas. The following standards shall apply: • All roof, wall, and ground mounted equipment shall be screened from public view on all sides. • All screening shall be architecturally compatible and, where possible, integrated with the building design. - Where possible, a roof parapet wall shall be used to screen roof or wall mounted equipment. - Where roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork projects vertically more than 1.5 feet above the roof or roof parapet, it shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent and consistently detailed appearance with building design. - Where roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork project 1.5 feet or less above the roof or roof parapet, it shall be painted or finished consistent with the color scheme of the building. Storage Area Screening Storage area screening shall be required for any permitted onsite storage which shall be screened from public view, both from the public right-of-way and any land used in common, and shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding environment. The following standards shall apply: • In planning areas south of Sixth Street, no outdoor storage shall generally be permitted except for fleet vehicles and light trucks (not exceeding 6,000 Ibs.). Outdoor storage tanks may be permitted at a height not to exceed 8 feet from the highest finish grade when screened from public view by a solid theme wall. • In planning areas north of Sixth Street, all materials, supplies, equipment, and operating vehicles shall be stored within an enclosed building or an outdoor storage area screened from public street right-of-ways. • Golf Maintenance Building -All materials, supplies, equipment, and operating maintenance equipment shall be stored within an enclosed building or a screened storage area. Hd'1n1no h.01111ill$IOrl DR.AF r Apnl 2016 5-36 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —199 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment • Outdoor storage area screening shall be architecturally integrated with surrounding buildings by the use of concrete, masonry, or other similar materials and not to exceed a height of 8 feet from the highest finish grade. The use of a combination of screen walls, berming, dense landscaping, and/or building mass is encouraged. • Storage of materials or equipment shall not exceed the screen height when located within 100 feet of a public street right-of-way. The Planning Director City4IanneF may waive screening requirements where future building expansion would serve to screen an abutting storage area. Security Fences; and Walls, and Golf Ball Barfier Neffin Security fencing and wall standards are intended to promote an attractive and safe environment for businesses and recreational activities within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Site planning solutions, including building configuration and placement, that create defined areas that may be adequately secured are encouraged. • E*Gep"Gr4je4f-GGur:se-and4"ng range security feRGiRg and pole mounted ball barriernetting, aAny wall or fence along a public street frontage that is over 3 feet in height is subject to the streetscape setback requirements of this chapter. EXceptfier of -course and -driving -range bail -barrier -netting, ail All fencing or walls visible from public areas shall have consistent design theme and be of wrought iron or steel picket, concrete, masonry, or other similar materials not to exceed a height of 8 feet from the highest finish grade. The use of barbed wire or similar materials is prohibited except in special circumstances as approved by the Planning DirectorSity Planner. Chain link fencing may be used in areas not visible from public areas and along railroad track frontage, when approved by the Planning DirectorGiiy44anner- Security gates are subject to review and approval by the Fire and Police Departments to ensure adequate emergency access. Utilities Utility Service standards are intended to allow for the efficient distribution of utilities in a manner compatible with the desired design character of the surrounding environment. The following requirements shall apply within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Planning Gommision DRAFT April 2016 5-37 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —200 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment All existing and new utilities less than 66 kilovolt within the project and along adjacent major arterials shall be installed underground. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers shall be located out of general public view, preferably in the side yard, and adequately screened through the use or combination of solid concrete or masonry theme walls, berming, and landscape materials. Maintenance • Property owners and/or a common tenant/property owner association or entity shall be responsible for the maintenance of all buildings, structures, yards, landscaping, signs, parking areas and other improvements in a manner which does not detract from the appearance of the surrounding area. The following conditions are prohibited: - Dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as roofs, walls, windows, fences, signs, or similar items. - Scrap lumber, junk, trash, or debris. - Abandoned, discarded, or unused objects or equipment such as vehicles, machine parts, pallets, steel drums, boxes, scrap meta!, waste materials, or similar items. - Stagnant water. - Any device, decoration, design, structure, or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or inappropriate location. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris, maintained in a healthy growing condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days. 10-TR TIORi IT-MUR ;=L'[1i QrII� 5-38 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -201 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment A ON a Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-39 Item F —202 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment provided %rbelow), TABLE 5-7 STREETSCAPF... SETBACK REQUIREMENTS (Determined from Ultimate Face of Curb) ZZ Street Ct ification Average Depth Building Setback Pa ng Setback of Landscape (feet) (feet) Major Arterial and Sfttaoal 4 ; 45 25 Boulevard Milliken Avenue adjacent to Planning Area VII between 35 5 25 Fourth Street and the Distdot Water Well Site ` Secondary 3 35 20 Local 25 25 15 Sixth Street adjacent to 44 19 Planning Area IX° a. The aXeaodepthhlb shall b ninterrupted from the face urb, except for sidewalks, pedestrian hardsand urtyards, monument signs and g course security view fences. b. Streetand fences over 3 Feet in height are subject uitding setbacks, except golf coursw fences and golf course/driving range/practice fa ' ity ball barrier netting (pole mounc. Aver setback requirements shall be averaged from the golf cc a (Planning Area 1) to er Planning Areas, but not less than the required minimum -parking setba Applies only to the JPI project for multiple -family residential uses in Planning Area 1 . e. Applies only to Planning Area Vil. Planning Commision DRAFT Aoril 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-40 Item F —203 Rancho Cucamonga ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4.5 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS Landscaping design requirements are intended to provide the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan with an attractive and cohesive design character, and promote energy and water conservation. The following requirements shall be applied throughout Sub -Area 18. The IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan permits linear sidewalks and urban scale landscaping in Planning Area IX. Minimum Landscape Coverage The minimum landscape coverage of net lot area (that area under property excluding all public right-of-way dedications and private streets): Planning Areas north of Sixth Street: 10 percent, except Planning Area developed with multiple family residential units, shall have 31 percent Planning Areas south of Sixth Street: 15 percent • The minimum landscaped coverage requirement may be reduced by the Planning Director C4ty P4anner when it is determined that the project is designed to the highest aesthetic quality consistent with the proposed land use and compatible with the surrounding area (i.e., within a Master Planned project area, variation of landscape coverage requirement may be allowed.) Piannmg Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-41 Item F —204 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment A maximum of 5 percent credit toward the required landscape/hardscape coverage shall be permitted where appropriate public art is to be displayed in a setting which enhances pedestrian spaces and building architecture. Berms • Bermed landscaping shall be incorporated wherever possible within the landscape setback and used to screen parking and loading areas. Linear sidewalks and urban scale landscaping are permitted in Planning Areas VII and IX. • Along Special Boulevards, all parking areas shall generally be screened with berms an average height of three feet (maximum slope generally not to exceed 3.5:1). • The design of the berms shall generally be undulating to provide interest and visual access to buildings and special features. Trees All required trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon size; which-sha#-have a -min um 6 game. • Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a minimum overall rate of one tree for every three parking stalls and be provided in planters. • Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to structures at an overall rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building dimension, and arranged to interrupt expansive horizontal and vertical surfaces. Tree clusters may be used to satisfy specific design objectives. • Along property boundaries, trees shall be planted at an overall rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of interior property line. Tree clusters may be used to satisfy specific design objectives. Plannina Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-42 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -205 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Screening 8erminc,_,4Landscape materials, low level walls, and building mass, or a combination thereof, shall be used to screen parking, loading, and refuse collection areas from the public view (see Table 5-5 for a list of acceptable plant materials for low level screening). Future Expansion Areas Undeveloped areas proposed for future expansion shall be kept in a weed -free condition. When feasible, the existing vineyards may be maintained until ultimate site development is eminent. Graded pad sites may require temporary seeding with appropriate ground cover and an automatic irrigation system for erosion control and mitigation of visual impact. Irrigation System All landscaped areas shall be served by automatic underground irrigation systems. Water Conservation A combination of water conserving landscape and irrigation techniques are required, including, but not limited to, drought tolerant plant species, hardscape (non -irrigated) surfaces, and special irrigation systems such as drip emitters, low volume stream rotors, deep watering of trees and shrubs, tensiometer to measure soil moisture, and automatic timers. Development and Maintenance Responsibility Property owners shall be responsible for the development and maintenance of landscaping of their onsite landscaped area and the contiguous landscape planted right-of-way. Any damage to the landscaping and irrigation systems shall be replaced and/or replanted within 30 days. Streetscape Design Consistency To promote a uniform landscape theme, the areas within landscape street medians, parkway strips, and streetscape setbacks shall have an established landscape materials palette consistent with the City's landscaping theme (see Table 5-4). Landscaping materials shall be selected for their longevity, drought tolerance, low maintenance, and heat and wind tolerance in addition to their aesthetic and functional qualities. Development Guidelines and Standards 5-43 Item F —206 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4.6 PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS Offstreet parking and loading facilities shall be provided as set forth herein to promote business, enhance public safety, and prevent traffic congestion. The standards required by this section for parking and maneuvering of vehicles establish the minimum standard necessary for such use, unless it can be demonstrated differently. The following shall apply for the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan: General Regulations Parking regulations within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan shall be as set forth in the Development Code, Chapter 17.12 (Parking Regulations), except for any special standards established herein. Location Required parking shall be located either on the same site with the main use of the building or on premises contiguous thereto, or in a location in accordance with an approved development plan. No parking shall be allowed on public streets. Number of Spaces Required The total parking space count shall be determined by the summation of individual use parking demands based upon the following rates: - Warehousing or building for storage: 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet, 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 4,000 square feet for all space in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. - Industrial/Manufacturing: 1 space per 500 square feet. - Research and Development: 1 space per 350 square feet (research services only). - Office and Administration: 1 space per 250 square feet. - Multi -use tenant industrial/manufacturing buildings where office use does not exceed 35 percent of building area: I space per 400 square feet. - The following interior building areas can be deducted from the overall parking requirements in accordance with City Ordinance 272: electrical/mechanical rooms, elevator shafts, stairwells, and multi -story lobbies. �rznr,L[ •,•r7Tt�m�:���z�i[� 5-44 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -207 Rancho Cucamonga ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment • Commercial Uses: per the City Development Code. • Multiple Family Dwellings: per the City Development Code. • Provisions for shared parking in mixed -use commercial developments are allowed per the City Development Code. Bicycle/Motorcycle Parking • Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided within all development; except the @elf GGLIFSe and -the -driviag- , and relate to planned and existing bicycle trails in accordance with the Development Code requirements. • Required onsite parking may be reduced by providing bicycle storage and related facilities to promote bicycle commuting by employees, in accordance with City Ordinance No. 480, • Multiple Family Dwellings: per the City Development Code. Screening of Parking Areas All parking areas shall be screened from public view through the use of berms, landscaping material, low walls, and/or combination thereof. Parking Decks Parking decks are allowed and subject to the parking setbacks, as well as building setbacks when above grade. Landscape provisions for parking shall apply only to the top or exposed level and may be substituted by comparable perimeter planting. Loading Facilities • Industrial Areas: - All loading facilities and maneuvering areas must be onsite with the use. - All loading facilities shall generally be permitted only in the rear and interior side yard areas. - Aisle width for maneuvering into loading docks shall be a minimum of 50 feet wide plus adequate additional width for truck parking (typically 40 to 50 feet). (Figure 5-12). Development Guidelines and Standards 5-45 Item F —208 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment - Loading docks shall be set back a minimum of 70 feet from any public street property line. - Parking stalls for trailers shall be 50 feet by 14 feet and provided at ratio of 1 stall per truck loading dock door. - Loading facilities shall be adequately screened from public view. - Minimum aisle width adjacent to loading areas without dock high doors shall be 16 feet for on -way and 28 feet for two-way. • Commercial Areas: per the City Development Code. 5.4.7 INTERIM USE STANDARDS Interim use standards establish minimum standards for setbacks, landscaping, screening, and parking which meet the intent of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, as it relates to any proposed interim use. Unless specifically modified through the Conditional Use Permit, all other development standards of the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall apply including, but not limited to, grading and drainage, and street improvements. The following standards shall apply to interim uses in all areas of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. • The minimum streetscape and parking setback requirement shall be contiguous with the ultimate right-of-way line, but in no case less than i10 feet. • There shall be no minimum landscape coverage requirements, except that which is necessary for screening purposes as determined by the Planning DirectorCfty-Planner. • All parking and storage areas shall be paved with slag, crushed aggregate, asphaltic concrete, or concrete. The location, number, and design of said parking shall be in accordance with the Specific Plan. All parking and storage areas, as well as any other interim uses which require screening as determined by the Planning Director C+tyPlanRer shall be screened from public view through a combination of landscaping and fencing. Fencing may include a 6-foot-high minimum chain link fence with slats, masonry, concrete, wood, or decorative metal. Screening must be maintained in good condition at all times. Landscaping required for screening purposes shall include, at a minimum, 15-gallon trees and 5- gallon shrubs or comparable sized plant materials to provide a dense landscape buffer affording Plannino Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-46 Item F -209 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment maximum screening from the public view, satisfactory to the Planning DirectorGity--Wanner. 9 Jr l3ft. 4 ft. ParkwayCurvlinear or Linear Sidewalk 25 ft. Parking Setback I 45 fL Building Setback Average Depth of Landscape Determined from ultimate face of curb Major Arterial / Special Blvd. (120 ft. R. 0. W.) figure 5-6 Streetscape Setback Requirement —Major Arterial/Special Boulevard Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-47 Item F —210 12 ft. Parkway 20 ft. Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Setback Setback Average Depth of Landscape Determined from ultimate face of curb Secondary Arterial (88 & R O. W.) f1pre 5-7 Streetscape Setback Requirements —Secondary Street Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-48 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -211 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Determined from ultimate face of curb Load Street (66 ft. R. O. W.) Streetscape Setback 5-49 figure5-8 Requirement —Local Street Development Guidelines and Standards Item f —212 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Golf 10 ft. Rear Setback I Golf Frontage Sideyard Abutting Street I (Same as Streetscape) Standard Frontage Lots :erfor 5 ft. f1gw05-9 Building SetbackRequirements-Rear and Side Yards Planning Commislon DRAFT April 2016 Development Guidelines and Standards 5-50 Item F -213 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment a 1:1 Additional setback +n w \ x M � � o M N Street AdditionalI Mtn. Required Setback setback 70 it. Max. Height Exceptions: • Hotel: 8 Stores or 90 8. Max. • Office in P. A. Viis 6 Stores or 90 R. Max. Building Heights Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-51 figure 5- 10 Building Height Setback Development Guidelines and Standards Item F -214 Building Setback li Property Line Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Building Protections IP% figure 5-1 l Building Projections Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —215 Loading Dock Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Loading Dock Industrial Loading Docks Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 Industrial Loading 5-53 flgire5-12 Dock Requirements Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —216 Rancho Cucamonga ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 5.4.8 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Performance standards are intended to assure basic compatibility of adjacent uses based upon their operating characteristics and provide for a healthy, safe, and pleasing environment consistent with the nature of surrounding activity. The performance standards contained within Table 5-8 are applied as follows: Class A Performance Standards are the most restrictive of the performance standards for non-residential uses. They are applicable to all Planning Areas south of Sixth Street, including Planning Areas IA, II, III, IV, and V. _Class 6 Performance Standards are employed for all Planning Areas north of Sixth Street, with the exception of Planning Area IX. These standards are intended to provide for a broad range of activity while assuring a basic level of environmental compatibility. The standards apply to Planning Areas IB, X, and XI. • Class C Performance Standards are employed for residential development, which applies to Planning Areas VI, VII, VIII, and IX. 5.4.9 PLANNING AREA VI: MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL AND SITE AMENITIES The following list of amenities, or other similar amenities, as may be approved by the Planning Director, would be included in multiple -family residential projects development in Planning Area VI: Recreation Area/Facilities 1. Spa with overhead shade structure 2. Fire pit with gas line 3. Swimming pool with beach entry 4. Overhead shade structure with seating 5. Golf -course pick up w th eRhanced-pav+ng 5. Outdoor barbecue with counter space 6. Golf reufsePlanning Area I adjacent pedestrian paseo 7. View areas with overheads and barbecues 8. Croquet lawn 9. Rose garden 10. Fountain courtyard 11. Patio 12. Palm court 13. Gazebo Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-54 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —217 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 14. Putting green 15. Exercise stations; walking paths throughout site 16. Turf area Is T-ter€ area 1O 4harea WELLNESS CENTER AMENITIES 48:17. Receptionist and message board with mail center 24. 18. Billiards 24-19. Porches 22:20. Multi -purpose classroom/theater 23-.21. Kitchen, juice bar, and cafe 24-.22. Wellness director services 2&23. Healthy strides fitness room 26:24. Research library 2-L25. Hobby and craft room 28-26. Computer stations with business center 29-27. Full service spa (massage, facials, hair care with separate men's and women's restroom facilities) 5.4.10 PLANNING AREA VII: MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL AND SITE AMENITIES Amenities associated with Planning Area VII would be provided subject to City Development Code requirements, and may include the following: 1. Concierge 2. Business center 3. Media room 4. Game room 5. Exercise room 6. Teaching kitchen 7. Large turf area 8. Main swimming pool 9. Main spa 10. Secondary swimming pool 11. Secondary spa 12. Fire pit 13. Built-in barbeque at Main swimming pool 14. Shade structure at Main swimming pool Plannina Commision DRAFT April 2016 5-55 Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —218 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 15. Gazebo at Rose garden 16. Rose garden 17. Shade structure at secondary swimming 18. Barbeque at secondary swimming pool 19. Barbeque area at paseo areas between buildings 20 @arbeque areaat-paseozFeas-between-buildings 5.4.11 PLANNING AREA IX: MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL AND SITE AMENITIES 1. Resort -style swimming pool 2. Spa 3. Three -hole putting green 4. Lawn volleyball court 5. Horseshoe pit 6. Garden gazebo 7. Poolside barbeque pit and serving areas 8. Barbeque node with picnic tables 44-.9. Personal garden area 12:10. Open space/recreational area area jkj 1. Walking trail along the Empire Lcke6 GG1f�o„ Goa,.^ Planning Area 1 4612. Par course j13. Movie theater with THX Surround Sound 14:14. State-of-the-art exercise facility j 15. Game room 2&16. Teaching kitchen 17. Community room 18. Bocce ball court Planning Commision DRAFT April 2016 61MI Development Guidelines and Standards Item F —219 d J J 3 3 3 N CLASS A CLASS A. It is the intent of the standards of this section to ensure a high quality working environment and available site for uses whose functional and economic needs require protection from the adverse affects of noise, odors, vibration, glare, or high -intensity illumination, and other nuisances. Noise: The maximum allowable exterior noise level of any use shall not exceed 65 Ldna as measured by any location on the lot occupied by such uses. Where a structure is occupied by more than one use, the noise level shall not be in excess of 60 Ldn" as measured within the interior space of the neighboring establishment. Noise caused by motor vehicles are exempted from this standard. Vibration: All uses shall be so operated as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the lot upon which the source is located or within an adjoining enclosed space if more than one establishment occupies a structure. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted from this standard. TABLE 5.8 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CLASS B CLASS B. It is the intent of the standards of this section to provide for uses whose operational needs may produce noise, vibration, particulate matter, and air contaminants, odors, or humidity, heat, and glare which cannot be mitigated are so to protect uses on adjoining sites from effects designed which could adversely affect their functional and economic viability. Noise: The maximum allowable noise level of any use shall not exceed 75 Ldn° as measured at the lot line of the lot containing the use. Where a use occupies a lot abutting residentially zoned land, the noise level shall not exceed 65 Ldn' as measured atthe common lot line. Noise caused by motor vehicles and trains are exempted from this standard. Vibration: All uses shall be operated so as not to generate vibration discernible without instruments by the average persons beyond the lot upon which the source is located. Vibration caused by motor vehicles, trains, and temporary construction or demolition work is exempted from this standard. CLASS C CLASS C. The intent of this section is to protect properties in all residential districts and the health and safety of persons from environmental nuisances and hazards and to provide a pleasing environment in keeping with the nature of the residential character. The performance standards set maximum tolerance limits on adverse environmental effects created by any use or development of land. Noise: No operation or activity shall cause any source or sound at any location or allow the creation of noise on property owned, teased, occupied, or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the Ambient Base noise levels to exceed the standards contained in Section 17.02.120 and Section 17.08.080. Noise Standards: 10 p.m. to 7 a.m: 55 dBA for exterior and 40 dBA for interior, 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.: 60 dBA for exterior and 45 dBA for interior noise maximum. Vibration: No vibration shall be permitted which can be felt with or without the aid of instruments at or beyond the lot line. Particulates Matter and Air Contaminants: In addition to compliance with the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) standards, all uses shall be operated so as not to emit particulate matter or air contaminants which are readily detectable without instruments by the average person while on the lot containing such uses. Odor: All uses shall be separated so as not to emit matter causing unpleasant odors which are perceptible to the average person while within or beyond the lot containing such uses. Humidity, Heat, and Glare: All uses shall be operated so as not to produce humidity, heat, glare, or high intensity illumination which is perceptible without instruments to the average person while on or beyond the lot containing such uses, TABLE 5-a (continued) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Particulate Matter and Air Contaminants: In addition to compliance with the AQMD standards, all uses shall be operated so as not to emit particulate matter or air contaminants which are readily detectable without instruments by the average person beyond any lot line of the lot containing such uses. Odor: All uses shall be operated so as not to emit matter causing unpleasant odors which are perceptible to the average person beyond any lot line of the lot containing such uses. Humidity. Heat. and Glare: All uses shall be operated so as not to produce humidity, heat, glare, or high intensity illumination which is perceptible without instruments bythe average person beyond the lot line of any lot containing such uses. Particulate Matter and Air Contaminants: In addition to compliance with the AQMD standards, no operation or activity shall cause the emission of any smoke, fly ash, dust, fumes, vapors, gases, or other forms of air pollution which can cause damage to health, animals, vegetation, or any other forms of property, or which can cause excessive soiling on any other lot. Odor: No operation or activity shall be permitted of odorous gases or other odorous matter in such quantities as to be dangerous, injurious, noxious, or otherwise objectionable which is detectable with or without the aid of instruments at or beyond the lot line. Heat. Cold. and Glare: No operation or activity shall emit heat or cold which would cause a temperature increase or decrease on any adjacent property in excess of 10 degrees Fahrenheit, whether the change is in the air, on the ground, or in any structure. No operation, activity, sign, or lighting fixture shall crease illumination which exceeds 5 footcandles on any adjacent property, whether the illumination is direct or indirect light from the source. Glare levels shall be measured with a photoelectric photometer following standard spectral luminous efficiency curve adopted by the International Commission on Illumination. a. Ldn: Day -night average sound level. The day -night sound level is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in the community. It results from the summation of an average noise level determined over a 24-hour time period with a weighing factor applied during the night time period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment SECTION 6 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM The following content applies to all Planning Areas except for Planning Area I. See Section 7 for the Implementation Program for PAI. 6.1 INTRODUCTION Attainment of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan objectives will require the coordinated use of the development standards and regulations, and the recognition of a multitude of financing services to achieve the stated objectives. This section of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan highlights how the regulatory procedures discussed in Section 4 will be implemented as the Sub -Area is developed. The regulatory procedures contain a mix of reliance upon existing processes described in the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code with additional procedures that are unique to Sub -Area 18 of the ASP. Included with this section is an overview of alternative financing programs that may be utilized to implement the development program. This discussion is intended to provide a broad overview which will serve as a basis for future considerations by the project applicant, City of Rancho Cucamonga, and regional public agencies. 6.2 REGULATORY PROCEDURES/DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 6.2.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT This section of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan contains the regulatory procedures and development regulations necessary to implement the Specific Plan in order to provide for consistency with the General Plan, regulate uses which have the potential to affect surrounding properties, promote a visually attractive environment, and provide flexibility in standards and requirements when special circumstances exist. The procedures outlined below are further intended to provide for better integration and coordination of subsequent approvals needed to implement the project in a manner which promotes the principal objectives of the Specific Plan, including the encouragement of flexible and efficient design reviews within the context of phased subdivisions. 6.2.2 SUBDIVISION APPROVALS 1. Phase I Subdivisions The first phase of the project was the development of the golf course and associated improvements. To facilitate the prompt construction of the golf course and enhance potential to market and develop other portions of the project site concurrently with the processing of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan, Implementation Program rs Item F —222 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment the applicant applied for a large parcel subdivision dividing the property into essentially the same land use planning areas which comprise the Sub- Area 18 land use plan. It is contemplated that these planning areas (with the possible exception of the existing building parcels in Planning Areas II, IV, and V, ), will eventually be subdivided into smaller legal parcels which will accommodate the development, sale, financing, and leasing of multiple buildings, structures, and other improvements. In the interim, the proposed parcel subdivision will serve as an initial to enhance the marketing potential of the site as a whole and implement the Specific Plan. The approval of a final parcel map reflected the re-parcelization of the property to correspond to the Sub -Area 18 land use plan and Will GGGIJF PFiGF W development Gf the 901f GGUF6e. This Phase 1 subdivikiAn will require impireverrients only as neGes6aFy to operate the golf Gewse; subsequent improvements to the property with the development of other planning areas will be deferred until subdivisions or Master Plans are prepared for individual planning areas. 2. Other Subdivisions Except with respect to the Phase I subdivision, other subdivisions of the property shall governed by the provisions of the following discussion. A. Subdivision of Five or More Parcels Proposed subdivisions which create five or more legal parcels shall generally be processed, reviewed, and approved in accordance with Chapters 16.16 and 16.18 of the City Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. Tentative and final subdivision maps shall be processed in accordance with the following schedule as set forth in the Development Agreement: (1) Within 30 days of the applicant's submission a tentative map, the Community Development Department shall the applicant in writing of any additional information which needs to be provided in to consider such application complete. If, after resubmittal by the applicant, additional information is still needed, the Community Development Department shall so notify the applicant within 10 days of such resubmission, provided, however, that such 10 day period shall not apply in the event that required soils or drainage reports are not included in the initial submission and shall not shorten the 30 day period for reviewing the initial subdivision application. Implementation Program G-2 Item F —223 Rancho Cucamonaa IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment (2) In the event no further environmental documentation is required as provided above, the Planning Commission shall take final action on the tentative map within 50 days of the date the application was submitted. B-. Subdivision of Four or Fewer Parcels Subdivisions of four or fewer parcels shall generally be processed, reviewed, and approved in accordance with Chapters 16.20 and 16.22 of the City Subdivision Ordinance and the Subdivision Map Act. the sub -division of five oF Fnere paFGels. PaFGel maps shall be PFeGessed iR ac;GordanGe with th schedule set-fe :h above. 6.2.3 Master Plan Submissions A Master Plan shall be submitted for each planning area at the time of the first subsequent subdivision within such parcel, or, absent such subdivision, at the time of the first Development/Design Review within such planning area. No Master Plan shall be required for theexisting building parcels (Parcels II, IV, and V). WAR RON NO 6.2.4 DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW 31. Projects Requiring Development/Design Review An application for Development/Design Review as set forth in Section 17 06O1GI317.20.040 Design Review of the City Development Code. PFojeGts witl;in a planning aicea for whiph a Master Plan has net been approved by t r1• • rr •r •-• •.r 1 . Implementation Program 6-3 Item F —224 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Plannino Commission DRAFT Aoril 2016 •. - Implementation Program W.. Item F —227 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Soecific Plan Amendment 6.2.5 OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS Except as otherwise provided in the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan or the Development Agreement, all permit applications, including any applications for conditional use permits, variances, minor exceptions, and recycling facilities permits as well as the regulations applicable to temporary uses, shall be governed by the provisions set forth in Section 17.04 of the Development Code. 6.3 SOURCES OF FINANCING Implementation of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan will require the usage of many financing sources as the project proceeds. At a time when public and private financing has become over -regulated and under -funded, many new difficulties have emerged during the past few years. The financial difficulties facing development in Southern California will require a creative approach to facilitate the implementation of the Specific Plan. The Sub-Area18 Specific Plan is well suited to use the financing sources outlined below as it is envisioned to be an opportunity for creating a public/private partnership. Plan will emphasize redevelopment of existing underutilized facilities and create economic opportunities for the City and the [ASP area. In order to meet the demands of higher levels of service and increased cost, most public and private agencies are using some form of public financing for capital improvements. In most cases, the necessary capital is raised through the sale of financial instruments which are repaid through the ongoing source of funds available due to implementation. The financial tools outlined below should be considered for implementation purposes. 6.3.1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Special assessments are commonly used to fund infrastructure facilities which provide a benefit that can be clearly assigned. For instance, a roadway or sewer line which reaches a parcel of land can be said to "benefit" that property by removing an impediment to its ultimate development; that parcel could be assessed on the basis of the benefit it receives. Special assessments could be used to finance public facilities needed within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. Special assessments could be used to finance most or all of the public facilities within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan and could be used to fund ongoing maintenance of street lights and landscaped areas. A city, county, or special district could be the issuing authority for the assessment Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Implementation Program 6-7 Item F —228 Rancho Cucamonoa IASP Sub -Area 18 specific Plan Amendment The purpose of an assessment district is to finance capital improvements whose benefit to specific properties can be accurately defined (this includes streets, sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, drainage facilities, underground utilities, and parking -all of which can be clearly shown to benefit a given period). Special assessments may also be used to finance the maintenance of street lighting and landscaping, but cannot be used for the ongoing maintenance of other capital improvements such as roadways. The strategy procedures for establishing an Assessment District include: (1) estimation of the costs of the improvements; (2) apportionment of the costs to the benefitiedbenefited properties; (3) notice of individual assessments to the property owners, as well as the time for protests at a public hearing; (4) confirmation of the assessments paid by the public agency; and (5) opportunity for payment prior to determination of unpaid assessments. Payments on assessments by the beReiiitingbenefiting property owners occurs as part of the annual property tax bill or as a special billing by the issuing agency. 6.3.2 MELLO -ROOS/COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 Mello -Roos financing is used as a tool whereby property owners in a given area are assessed the cost of building and maintaining any of a wide range of public improvements. The financing can used to provide for new or additional services authorized by the Community Facilities Act (i.e., police protection, fire protection, ambulance and paramedic services, recreation programs, operation and maintenance of parks, parkways, and flood control facilities). Mello -Roos financing may also be used to provide for the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of facilities to meet increased demand (i.e., parks, schools, libraries, certain utility improvements, and any other governmental facility which the agency is permitted by law to own, construct or grade). The process for forming a Community Facilities District (CFD) can be initiated by the legislative body or by a petition signed by not less than 10 percent of the registered voters (landowners) which is followed by adoption of the Resolution of Intention indicating the extent (boundaries) of the CFD and the cost of the facilities, and concluded with a public hearing allowing for protest of the CFD formation. The levy of any special tax must be submitted to the landowners for approval by a two-thirds majority. In the case of an area with fewer than 12 registered voters/property owners, the vote essentially is based on acreage with each voter getting one vote per acre of land owned. In an area with 12 or more voters/owners, the election is based on a majority of votes cast with each voter having only one vote. Special tax payments are collected by the County Tax Collector and are paid to the issuing agency. The assessments are backed by a first lien on the property along with additional reserves. A Mello -Roos CFD (85-1) is in place within the project area for the purpose of fire protection improvements; it was issued by the Foothill Fire Protection District The assessments are used to fund operations maintenance costs associated with fire protection Assessments are established annually based on square footage of development. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Implementation Program 6-8 Item F —229 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment 6.3.4-3 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a Transportation Development in place which is intended to mitigate traffic impacts of new development. Under the system, developer of a project is required to pay transportation fees to assist in the financing of citywide backbone facilities. These would apply to development in the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan site. In addition, except for major intersections, the construction of the remaining parts of the planned streets (e.g., right lanes, sidewalks, curb and gutter) is the direct responsibility of the developer. 6.3.54 LEASE REVENUE (CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION) Certificates of Participation (COP) offer the City the opportunity to use its credit -worthiness to obtain financing for private development projects at a lower rate than would generally be available to a private entity. Under this concept, the City would work with a financial institution to sell bonds for the construction of a desired private building or facility. The bonds are repaid by the City, using lease revenues from the building end user(s). The City, although relying upon lease payments to repay the bond, to commit general fund revenues and to keep an amount equal to 15 percent of the bond issue in reserve. The COP program can be used by either a city, county, redevelopment agency, parking authority, joint powers entity, or nonprofit corporation. No voter approval is required to proceed with a financing program. 6.3.6 5 PRIVATE FINANCING In addition to the public financing methods outlined above, a variety of private financing methods will be explored to implement the project. The private financing methods include traditional sources of ��-rLnrr•[Km�HL[.]crvaQ�3rII9 Implementation Program Item F —230 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment financing from lending institutions, pension funding, and partnerships, as well as many forms of nontraditional financing that are emerging, such as REIT financing, foreign financing sources, and investment capital. 6.3.7-61ASP ALTERNATIVE FINANCING The IASP outlined a variety of public financing mechanisms that were not discussed above, but will be considered. Additional public financing programs discussed within the IASP included reimbursement Districts, Drainage and Sewer Facility Fee Programs, Bridge and Thoroughfare Districts, Street and Highway Districts, and other special assessment programs. These funding programs are explained in detail within the IASP and will be considered along with the previously mentioned funding sources discussed within this Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan. 6.4 PHASING (LAND USE/INFRASTRUCTURE) 6.4.1 LAND USE The Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan phases of development and redevelopment within the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan are dependent upon the marketand the ability to attract future end -users, are subject to City review and approval. INEIiL7GU'[ . . • r Implementation Program 6-10 Item F —231 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 16 Specific Plan Amendment 6.4.2 INFRASTRUCTURE To implement the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan in an orderly manner, a variety of capital improvements are needed to ensure proper use of the land use program envisioned. Improvements include the completion of roadways, storm drainage facilities, water and sewer system improvements, and major renovation costs to existing improvements. The infrastructure program will be phased to be consistent with the development phases. The initial phase of infrastructure improvements corresponds to the development of the golf course and related improvements. Figures 6-1 and 6-2 provide a conceptual program of infrastructure improvements needed to implement the golf course. At ultimate buildout, additional infrastructure improvements will be needed as identified previously in Section 4 (Figures 4-7 through 4-13). The ultimate improvements do not identify infrastructure needed within each Planning Area. The onsite infrastructure with each planning will designed as individual projects proceed. Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Implementation Program 6-11 Item F -232 Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Planning Commission DRAFT April 2016 Implementation Program M-M Item F —233 Rancho Cucamonga 1ASP Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan Amendment Eltdrkni Sobsto"t ... 7.r 4 A �12 le. n Uvift M., to V 12 AMYd Ix 13 W. j Q21 pump" Mmkit ;j AM Vat j Amtl 2A .. L R LEGEND NoU., Ordy PrqxvAd 4aster "lan hoffifies w'e dagiCtat Proposed Ow eOp . Proposed W,,.Lim � \ng=6-1 Proposed Golf Course Infrastructure (Water Wastewater, and Reclaim Water) 6-13 Item F -234 �• f Yy A IY I� J IP , Am IV LUM1 9 Ar= 9 r , Nlwm . 0� q AmP AN re •� � f c . Aural 1 t 17u. I Ii T 1 1 f 1 rarui�.I .9 111 �1rtn 1'III .1 elnun gAmv1A y J.: i:hlh IFurfn / { A=°9;F hI 6 e'A,11rrh Mn." W' LEGEND Note: No shoal gas would be requirod for Me=1. Proposed 5wrm Drwl 'Lars prolmod Eisu d Idl ace •M pmpanlT CsbltslLirvu OW 4W 01 Golf Course Infrastructure (Storm Drains, Electricity, and Item F —235