HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-12 Agenda Packet - PC-HPC CITY OF ■ . ■ * ■
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission Agenda
August 12, 2020
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
PURSUANT TO GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM'S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 THIS MEETING WILL BE HELD
AS A TELECONFERENCE MEETING
In response to the Governor's Executive Orders, the San Bernardino County Department of Public Health
requirements,and to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could spread the COVID-
19 virus, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the Planning Commission Meetings. Members of
the Planning Commission and staff will participate in this meeting via teleconference.
In place of in-person attendance, members of the public can observe and offer comment at this meeting via Zoom:
VIEW MEETING VIA ZOOM APP OR ZOOM.COM AT:
zoom.us/join
using Webinar ID: 893 0746 0938
-or-
YOU CAN DIAL-IN USING YOUR PHONE
UNITED STATES: + 1 (669) 900-6833
Access Code: 893 0746 0938
A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Public Communications
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission on any item listed or not
listed on the agenda. The Commission may not discuss any issue not included on the Agenda but set
the matter for a subsequent meeting.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of July 22, 2020.
D. Public Hearings
D1. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 and SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Located North Of 4th
Street, South of The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, West of Milliken Avenue,
and East of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, Within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan.
The applications include a review of a proposed amendment to Development Agreement
DRC2015-00118 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and SC Rancho Development
Corp. and Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC, that was adopted on September 5, 2018,
and a review of a proposed amendment to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to delete text within
the Specific Plan document relating to street infrastructure and private open space areas.
These applications apply to a property of about 160 acres located north of 4th Street, south of
the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of
Utica/Cleveland Avenues, within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan; APNs: 0209-272-20, 0210-
102-07 through -10, 0210-102-01 through -03, 0210-102-19 through -61, 0210-102-15 and -
17, 0210-671-01 and -03 and-04, 0210-671-06 through -24, 0210-681-03 and -04 and -06
through -13, 0210-681-14 through -33, and 0210-102-11. An Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083) and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) was
reviewed and certified by the City Council on May 18, 2016. Section 15162 of the California
Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review is required for a
previously certified EIR or for subsequent projects within the scope of a prior EIR. The
Development Agreement including subsequent amendments is a contract governing timelines,
terms, and conditions regarding development of Empire Lakes/The Resort and does not raise
or create new environmental impacts that were not previously contemplated in the EIR. This
item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
D2. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2020-00192 (LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
RESORT PARKWAY, NORTH OF 4TH STREET) -THE NEW HOME COMPANY-A request
to modify an approved 135-unit multi-family development made up entirely of two-bedroom
units by adding a third bedroom/flex office for a project site on 5.18 acres of land within
Planning Area S-20 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) District of the Empire Lakes Specific
Plan, Planning Area 1, located on the east side of Resort Parkway, north of 4th Street;
APN:0210-102-06. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20241 and Design Review
DRC2018-00784. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in
connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific
Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required
in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. (CONTINUED
FROM JULY 22, 2020, HPC/PC MEETING.)
D3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2018-
00533,ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2018-00534, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00535,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2018-00536, VARIANCE, DRC2020-00232 TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2019-00218 (LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF
ARCHIBALD AVENUE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE) — ALAN SMITH FOR
ARBOR EXPRESS CAR WASH - A request for site plan and architectural review of a 5,865
square foot carwash and 1,428 square foot car detailing center, a Conditional Use Permit to
operate a carwash, General Plan and zoning map amendments to change the land use and
zoning designations on a portion of the project site to General Commercial (GC) District, a
Variance to reduce setback and landscape requirements and a Tree Removal Permit for a
1.36-acre project site in the General Commercial (GC) District and Low Medium (LM)
Residential District, located approximately 200 feet east of Archibald Avenue on the north side
of Arrow Route - APN: 0209-291-03 and -06. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts has been prepared for consideration.
HPC/PC Meeting Agenda —August 12, 2020
Page 2 of 4
E. General Business
E1. Update on Etiwanda Heights Annexation
E2. Discussion —General Plan Update: Draft Vision and Core Values
F. Director Announcements
G. Commission Announcements
H. Workshops — None
I. Adjournment
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.
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 complete a speaker card located next
to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your
comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 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.
As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill(a)-citvofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be
distributed to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CitvofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the
Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the
City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$3,206 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees
are established and governed by the City Council).
HPC/PC Meeting Agenda —August 12, 2020
Page 3 of 4
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Thursday,
August 6, 2020, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
HPC/PC Meeting Agenda —August 12, 2020
Page 4 of 4
WCITY OF ■ . ■ * ■
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission Agenda
July 22, 2020
MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
A. Call to Order
The meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on July 22,
2020. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Guglielmo at 7:00pm.
Planning Commission present: Chairman Guglielmo, Vice Chair Oaxaca, Commissioner Dopp,
Commissioner Morales, and Commissioner Williams.
Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Elizabeth
Thornhill, Executive Assistant; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Brian Sandona, Sr. Civil
Engineer; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner; David Eoff, Sr. Planner, Sean McPherson, Sr. Planner, Mena
Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner; Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications and hearing no comment, closed public
communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of July 08, 2020
Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Dopp. Motion carried 5-0 to adopt the
minutes as presented.
D. Public Hearings
D1. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019-00864, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2019-00863, TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2020-00209 (LOCATED AT 6710 BERYL STREET)—WLC ARCHITECTS
FOR CARDEN ARBOR VIEW SCHOOL— A request for site plan and architectural review of a
proposed 18,500 square foot school building, a Conditional Use Permit to operate a K-8 private
academic school, and a Tree Removal Permit. This item is exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section
15332 — Infill Development.
Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation
(copy on file).
Sean noted staff received an additional inquiry from a Commissioner about property tax. Responded, in
the event the school qualifies for property tax exemption as they are a private school, staff notes that the
annual tax revenue loss to the City, if that is the case, would be approximately $2,700 per year.
Commissioner Morales asked about comments received regarding the left turn signals at Beryl Street north
and southbound. Is that something that can be looked at.
Brian Sandona, Sr. Engineer responded traffic team did have a chance to look at the left turn signal at Beryl
Street. Although, with the applicants traffic impact analysis, there was not enough volume to require an
additional mitigation such as a left turn lane for this project.
Commission Williams stated Beryl is a very busy street and can understand residents' concerns. Is there
any chance it would qualify at all.
Brian Sandona answered that it may be possible in the future with more development increase traffic at the
intersection. With the traffic currently existing, plus the traffic proposed for this project, it just is
not required.
Commissioner Dopp asked staff are there any needed repairs on the Stoebe house. Also, in regard to
design, rather than have the north wall facing 19th Street in plain white, was there any consideration to
have the paneling match the Stoebe house.
Sean McPherson explained the Stoebe house was previously issued a building permit for the actual
conversion of the structure that involved improvements such as the ADA accessible ramp and
the exterior staircase toward the rear of the building, as it was being switched from residential to
commercial. The scope of work proposed for the Stoebe house is cosmetic and pursuant to the code it
will be defined as "ordinary maintenance and repair". Typical upkeep of a 100+ year-old home. In terms
of the wall, it will be referred to architect.
Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing.
Jim DiCamillo, President WLC Architect, expressed he is happy to be working with City of Rancho
Cucamonga. This project will be a good addition to the property and is ready to proceed.
Gabriel Herrera, applicant, stated they are eager to begin project and thanked Commissioners.
Lupe Camacho, parent and Engineer, reviewed development and studies for the project to make sure school
is compliant and did find the numbers are well within compliant.
Steve Haston, President of the School Board Carden Arbor View, expressed it will be a great addition to the
community and thanked Commissioners for their time.
Mr. Barrett, resident expressed his concerns regarding the grading near the playground, which is located
behind his home. Asked how much higher will the grade go.
Jim DiCamillo, Architect replied there will be no grade raised behind his property.
For the record, comments received by the following individuals and have been forwarded to the
Commissioners:
Harriet Quinton, Wendy Barrett, Barbara Harris, Alaine Lowell, William and Kimberly O'Neil.
Chairman Guglielmo closed public hearing.
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 2 of 10
Draft
Commissioner Dopp mentioned a private school is a great addition. It is well designed and likes the stone
elements in the front, and it will bring a lot to that corner and to our city.
Commissioner Morales stated the tree removals are critical to the function in the school. Likes the project.
Commissioner Williams stated it will be a very nice addition. Very pleased to see Stoebe house is being
saved. Great location and believes the school will be very successful at that site.
Vice Chair Oaxaca agrees with Commissioner Williams and stated the architects did a great job using
the Stoebe house to drive the design and doing it in a modern, updated way. It says a lot about Carbon
Arbor View Schools decision to relocate to Rancho Cucamonga. Great addition to the city. Supports the
project.
Chairman Guglielmo stated he had a chance to see the project at Design Review Committee. The architect
did a good job utilizing the historic property. Mentioning the design compliments the Stoebe house. It will
be a very good addition to the city.
Motion by Commissioner Morales, second by Commissioner Dopp to approve Item D1. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D2. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2020-00026 (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
6T" STREET AND HYSSOP DRIVE)—CHASE PARTNERS LTD —A request to construct a 22,870
square foot commercial warehouse shell building on a vacant site of 1.08 acres located within the
General Industrial (GI) District, located at the southwest corner of 6th Street and Hyssop Drive —
APN: 0229-284-03. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15332—In-Fill
Development Projects.
Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral presentation
(copy on file).
Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing.
Carter Reddish, applicant, stated this is the third project he is working on with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. Although, on this project they did something a little different per owner's request, created
an indoor covered area for trucks to give them weather protection and security.
Jeff Meiterm, (part of applicant's team), stated he is happy to do another project with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. Looking forward to working with staff in getting the grading permit approved soon.
No public comments. Chairman Guglielmo closed public hearing.
Commissioner Morales stated the project fits very good with the area. Likes the project.
Commissioner Dopp stated this is a very appropriate use for the site. Likes the architecture with the
glass. A big fan of industrial enhancements making the warehouses look beyond warehouse in a lot of
ways. Happy to see it go forward.
Commissioner Williams agrees with Commissioner Dopp in regard to the glass is a nice touch. Adding
some class to the warehouse. In support.
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 3of10
Draft
Vice Chair Oaxaca stated this project does check off all the boxes with a nice design and appropriate
use for the location. Great project and in support.
Chairman Guglielmo stated he was able to see the project at Design Review. Agrees the glass is a
nice enhancement. Fits the neighborhood.
Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Dopp to approve Item D2. Motion carried
unanimously, 5-0 vote.
D3. DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2020-00192 (LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
RESORT PARKWAY, NORTH OF 4TH STREET) -THE NEW HOME COMPANY- A request to
modify an approved 135-unit multi-family development made up entirely of two-bedroom units by
adding a third bedroom/flex office for a project site on 5.18 acres of land within Planning Area S-
20 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) District of the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1,
located on the east side of Resort Parkway, north of 4th Street; APN:0210-102-06. Related Files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20241 and Design Review DRC2018-00784. Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) (SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City's approval of General
Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and
Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,
no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent discretionary
approvals of the same project.
Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral
presentation (copy on file).
Commissioner Dopp asked when the project was originally being proposed, was there any conversation
with the company about their floor plans, bedrooms sizes. He does not remember it being an
issue. Was it something they addressed or was there some sort of direction coming from staff.
Tabe answered there was always the long-term direction within the Empire Lakes master
plan that there be a variety of unit types. When these for sale home projects came in, staff really did
not have to negotiate requesting that they have two bedrooms over three bedrooms. From what
he understood from the applicant, their goal was to always have the most affordable units in the
project.
Anne McIntosh, Planning Director, stated a procedural comment. The originally request to do
this came to staff as requesting an administrative decision and that would be a Director approval to
make this change and felt, in consultation with the Planning staff, that this was not something to
be decided by the Director and that is why it is before you.
Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing.
Holly Slevcove, Project Manager New Home Company, presented Commissioners with an oral presentation
(copy on file). Talked about the existing overview of the current Nova project and then the proposed new
design.
Randall Lewis, spoke on behalf of New Home Company mentioning they made a good effort, worked with
staff and created a good project but as we know as a developer, sometimes they do not always hit. This is
a case where they came up with a concept that has not had much success as they had hoped. What they
are asking for now, in a post-COVID-19 world, it's the right decision. What is happening now, more
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 4 of 10
Draft
people say they are interested in a three bedroom. Right now, in this location, at this time, the majority of
people looking are saying we are not happy with this offering and they say it's because of the two
bedrooms. Right now, the units are not occupied and it may take a long time without the changes they
are requesting. The goal in Rancho Cucamonga is we want to solve the housing problem. Having unsold
homes sitting unoccupied for 1 or 2 years does not solve the housing problem. What they are asking for is
the right thing for the customer and for City of Rancho Cucamonga.
No public comments. Chairman Guglielmo closed public hearing.
Commissioner Dopp asked what the price points are for Plans 1, 2 and 3.
Holly Slevcove answered just on average $390,00 for the three floorplans and heavily reduced to get sales.
Commissioner Dopp asked for a price point on Plan 1.
Holly Slevcove answered originally listed it around $290,00 and discount down to $265,000.
Chairman Guglielmo mentioned that he noticed on the plan there is 37 room plus a flex office and then a 37
with a 3-bedroom designated. The office has storage closet, what do think the likely hood of
that being converting into a bedroom. Will it affect the livability and parking availability.
Holly Slevcove answered the flex office has storage, no coat closest, it's not considered a
bedroom. Although, somebody can easily turn it into one. Explained the way they wanted to revise this is
Plan 1 would always be just standard bedroom; Plan 2 would have a bedroom plus a bonus; and Plan 3
would give option for a 3,d bedroom. In terms of parking, it would not have too much of an impact. All homes
have two car tandem garages and some guest parking spaces within community but have ample parking on
the street. Keep in mind, the buyer profile does not include established families. These are either couples
with no kids or couples just starting families. We do not anticipate having these buyers having more than
two cars.
Chairman Guglielmo asked in terms of the market demand, what is the feedback. What kind of demand have
you seen, excluding families.
Holly Slevcove answered the large majority have been singles and some young couples. We have not had
many families show up. The overwhelming response has been, they love these but if only offering two
bedrooms, they move on to competitors within the community that offers the same amenity. We are
struggling and had to discount prices heavily.
Commissioner Morales stated prices where reduced and they sold better. Asked if the $391,000 is
the reduced price or has it been reduced since then. If so, to what.
Holly Slevcove replied the$391,000 is what they originally listed it at. Dropped it about$20,000 to$30,000.
Commissioner Dopp stated he is sympathetic with all that is going on with the market, with businesses and
decisions people have to make financially when buying a new home. There needs to be some willingness
from the City to accept some flexibility. Things change, conditions change and in some
respect, both Ms. Slevcove and Mr. Lewis are right. This could be a lasting change. He would prefer not to
deny the project. Maybe some sort of compromise. Looking at the floor plan, Plan 2 and Plan 3 looks almost
identical right now, so there could be more distinction.
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 5of10
Draft
When he sees a project that is designed to be entry level and we are asking for 2/3rds of the housing be
converted to 3-bedroom, is really too much. We really want to provide a diversity in housing types. This
goes too far in the spectrum in the other direction. Prefer to see some sort of compromise. The market data
on Page 29 of the presentation states the average 2-bedroom sells for $335,000. It could be they were
overpriced for the market. He believes there is room for a discussion about having a 3-bedroom option and
adding an office space that actually looks like an office and not a space that could easily be converted into
a bedroom. Would like to see some compromise and not want to turn down and make Nova just sell two-
bedroom units. If there is no compromise or no ability to find some middle ground, he will be inclined to agree
with staff and deny the project.
Holly Slevcove explained originally, they proposed Plan 2 and Plan 3 both have a third
bedroom. Unanimously, people have said they just want a 3-bedroom. Plan 1 is targeting singles and is not
doing well. Wanted to make sure to address the buyers needs, so proposed 3-bedroom on both Plan 2 and
Plan 3 and took to staff. Looked at the elevations and both sides were fine with change but looking at the
floorplan change they were skeptical about having 2 of the 3 floorplans be 3-bedroom versus 2-
bedroom. Went back and drafted up a new design where only 37 of 135 units where going to be 3-
bedroom.
She stated it's not up to them to tell the buyer to change that office into a bedroom. If they change into a
bedroom but can only afford Plan 2 versus and Plan 3, we are not going to stop them. We are just giving
them an opportunity to be homeowners.
Vice Chairman Oaxaca stating in his years as a Commissioner, he is cautious when an applicant returns
after they proposed a project and it has been approved and now wants to make a significant change
like this one. One of the questions he is left with unanswered is where was all this data 1-year
ago. Appreciates Mr. Lewis comments how drastically the world has changed since we gone into pandemic
mode. When we were first presented that project, we looked at each one of the areas within the project all
together to see how we can express that type of community that we all wanted and the diversity of housing
types and residents we wanted to be able to attract. That is another challenge he has now is to take one of
the developments out of that project and make changes to it outside of that context is a challenge for him.
He agrees with Commissioner Dopp, this could be a competitive marketplace situation and maybe we, as a
commission, being asked to help correct which he does not feel is the job of this commission. Be it as it may,
there are some realities that have come upon us in the past few months none of us could have
expected. He also wants to see if there is an alternative that we can look at which affects fewer units. He is
uncomfortable with about 2/3rds of the total units in the Nova project being converted in some form. He
would be comfortable with more of an emphasis on the office space, which is going to be a long-term trend
toward remote working and making that more available. That would make it a stronger case for his
support. That is context for him and potentially having the applicant revisit their request would be something
he would be supportive of. He does not like to flat out deny a request because there are some
realities that we might have an opportunity to help address that could have a positive outcome.
Commissioner Morales requested for clarification and asked, out of 135 units they are asking to convert 37
to 3-bedroom and 37 to flex office. The other remaining units will still be a 2-bedroom.
Holly Slevcove answered yes.
Chairman Guglielmo asked if it was reduced from 74 units, what would be the impact. Would it have a
negative impact on the design.
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 6 of 10
Draft
Holly Slevcove answered it would have a market impact for them. In terms of design elements, they did not
actually choose 37 and 37, it just happened the way their 6 plex and 8 plex are set up. There are certain
numbers of each floor plan laid out in the building types like that. They already built the other buildings
and still have the remainder of the buildings to build out. The way it already had been planned, it just
happened to be 37 of those 2- bedroom plans would be converted.
Chairman Guglielmo mentioned he could see arguments allowing it to occur and then arguments not. One
of the major arguments to support the Cities decision is the overall intent of the larger project the Empire
Lakes and this was going to be entry level smaller type units. When you look at the overall project 1000
units that are going to be in Empire Lakes, this is a drop in the bucket to the overall vision. You cannot predict
where the market demands are going to come from. It seems it missed the mark here with the pandemic and
unexpected things.
He stated it's important to listen to the market demands and we want an overall successful project to be
there, but we also want this builder to have a marketable product as well. The other thing he worries, if we
do modify for one developer after the fact, does it set a precedent to the other developers in the project. Will
they come back and want to modify. That is a risk and a fear. He does believe the parking will be
impacted. He would like to see additional compromise. Not sure how to get there or if it's even possible.
Commissioner Williams stated she agrees with the way this is going. We need to be flexible, we planned
this to have a huge variety for homeowners the ability to buy. We have very little in the affordable range
other than the 2-bedrooms. If we don't have anything, we will miss those buyers. No one predicted this to
happen the situation we are in. She likes the idea of keeping the office and keep the 2-bedrooms at the
reduced price. By making so many 3-bedrooms, you are really inviting more families and you said all long
there is really no provisions for lots of children. The community is not geared for lots of children. If some
people want the 3-bedroom, that is fine but should be a few. She likes having 2-bedrooms at a very good
price. Another thing about this pandemic, how many people are now unemployed. Some of these people
will never get back to the success that it was. We all need to be flexible on this, keep the reduced price and
stick with smaller units.
Anne McIntosh mentioned if Commissioners feel they would like to see a new proposal, you could continue
this item and have them come back or you could just make a decision tonight and come up with a number.
Commissioner Morales stated he would like if it could be modified a little bit. It would not be good to
have empty units. We should be flexible and make some changes. He would be in favor to have the
proposal be modified and come back to us. Instead of the 74 units being changed, maybe a slightly smaller
number would be something that would be good for the City and the developer. He would be in favor of
that.
Chairman Guglielmo asked if we could hear from Holly to find out if it's an all or nothing deal.
Commissioner Morales stated a quick comment, the State Housing RHNA to meet those requirements. It's
important to consider the possibility of the 3-bedroom with some modifications.
Holly Slevcove stated New Home obviously would like your approval on the presentation presented to you
tonight. They are willing to work with Planning and the Commission for some sort of compromise because
ultimately, they want to make this project a success. These units present a great community for Rancho
Cucamonga. Want to reiterate 98% of the units in the community would be 2-bedroom. She explained, on
the proposed change within the entire resort, they would take 37 units of their project to be a 3-bedroom, the
remaining would be 98. It's not to say that a buyer would not convert them to a 3-bedroom. Because of that,
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 7of10
Draft
is there a way perhaps we can reduce the size of those flex office spaces so they are not actually able to be
converted into 3-bedrooms.
Commissioner Dopp stated that is what he was thinking about. Too many of these 2-bedroom offices will
actually be 3-bedrooms. When he toured their homes, one thing he was thinking about is
that overhang where you are putting in new space, is there a way architecturally to redesign the
office, either narrow the room, or maybe add a patio on the 3rd floor or taking out the storage. He believes
there is a creative way to meet their desires to make it an actual office space.
Vice Chair Oaxaca stated he believes Holly's calculation is she's combining the 2-bedroom units that are for
sale condo units and the apartment units that are for rent. Those are two completely different markets,
the rental market and purchase market. He would prefer we compare apples to apples and stick to the for-
sale market. He does somewhat agree with Commissioner Dopp, there maybe could be some architectural
approaches that could drive the stability of that space to actually be used as an office.
He believes there could be some compromise and alternatives to provide more emphasis on the additional
space being sold and marketed as an office space. That is more responsive to what the market is telling the
applicant. He would be supportive of continuing this item and asking the applicant to return with a proposal
that comes closer to what he has expressed, as well as the commissioners. We want to see this
development succeed but this is something that is a discretionary decision on the part of this commission. In
the interest of trying to get as close as possible to what he hopes to be a better resolution than just
denying the request right out. He would support in getting a chance to look at a fresh proposal from the
applicant at a future meeting.
Chairman Guglielmo asked Anne McIntosh how quickly could you see this get turned around if Holly is
opened to the idea.
Anne McIntosh answered we could start working with them right away. We can be as responsive as they
can be in terms of coming up with a revised proposal. We can continue it in 3 weeks and if not ready, can
continue it again so not to waste a lot of time.
Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney mentioned that staff did not yet prepare a resolution for denial or
approval of the application. We were going to ask if you continue the application anyways so a resolution
can be drafted to implement whatever decision you ultimately make.
Chairman Guglielmo mentioned after hearing these discussions, it has given him more direction. He
believes the flex office/fitness room,just bundle 74 overall number. Maybe somewhere between the mix 40-
50 overall total. It would be a fair compromise. His concern, if you do 40 or 50 of those, then now you have
buildings that do not look similar. Will it look odd having some converted and some not.
Anne McIntosh stated without continuing to have a dialog with the applicant tonight, it would be something
we could work with them on, that would be her request.
Holly Slevcove agrees to work with staff to come up with a compromise and continue in
the upcoming weeks to find a resolution as quickly as possible. They would work to make sure the exterior
of the building is not affected.
Vice Chair Oaxaca stated we should never miss an opportunity to continue an item. This could open the
door for the applicant to look at what other office focus amenities could be introduced into the design. He
would be supportive of the applicant to see what creative things could be done to enhance those spaces to
make them really great office space.
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 8of10
Draft
Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney stated to refine the motion, it would be to reopen the public hearing
and continue it to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Dopp to continue Item D3 to August 12, 2020,
HPC/PC meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
E. General Business
E1. STATUS UPDATE ON INCLUSIONARY HOUSING COMMITTEE.
Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst II, Economic Development, presented Commissioners with an oral
presentation (copy on file).
Anne McIntosh thanked Flavio Nunez and David Eoff for all their work they did with the committee and
bringing this report to the Commissioners and for their work they will be doing going forward.
Commissioner Dopp commented he likes the northern part of the city. Maybe see some
developments come up. What do you think this is going to do for developers. Will it have an impact down
the line.
Randall Lewis provided feedback and stated it will have a huge impact on developers. Not just Rancho
Cucamonga but all of California. One of the committee members who was doing calculations, it's in $100
million dollars just in Rancho Cucamonga. Each of the affordable housing unit will cost $300-
$500 Thousand dollars. Without a funding mechanism will be very hard.
Flavio Nunez stated what they learned from inclusionary housing is it's not the solution to affordable
housing but will be a tool to help produce some of that affordable housing. The lack of funding, tools and
resources is really the challenge the City is facing, and this is one way to address affordable housing.
Commission Dopp stated this is a real good start. Agrees this is something we need to have in the back
of our pocket because looking at Huntington Beach is a classic example of what can happen when a city
does not respond to the pressures that are out there in terms of wanting to create a community for all
people.
Chairman Guglielmo commented regarding Huntington Beach, he remembers it being a big headline last
year and was looking for an update and noticed in early January they had a discussion, a tentative
agreement with the State of California for 502-unit affordable housing project. Maybe in a future report,
we can follow-up on that to see if the State can enforce the rules and get more details would be
interesting.
E2. ANNUAL SELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR THE COMMISSION AND APPOINTMENTS TO
OTHER COMMITTEES.
Commissioner Oaxaca was re-appointed unanimously as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Guglielmo was appointed unanimously as member to the Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Dopp was re-appointed unanimously as first alternate for Design Review Committee.
Commissioner Oaxaca was appointed unanimously as member to the Trails Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Dopp was re-appointed unanimously as first alternate for Trails Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Dopp was re-appointed unanimously as member to the Public Art Committee.
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 9of10
Draft
Commissioner Guglielmo was reappointed unanimously to remain as Chair for another 1-year to complete
full 2-year term as Chairman of the Planning Commission.
HPC/PC Meeting Design Review Committee Trails Advisory Committee Public Art Committee
CHAIRMAN—Guglielmo MEMBER—Williams(remain) MEMBER—Morales(remain) MEMBER—Dopp (remain)
VICE CHAIR-Oaxaca NEW MEMBER-Oaxaca NEW MEMBER-Guglielmo
15T ALTERNATE—Dopp (remain) ALTERNATE—Dopp (remain)
2ND ALTERNATE-
(It was determined 2°d alternate
not needed.)
One Motion for entire selection of appointed positions and committee members. Motion by Vice Chair
Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Morales. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
F. Director Announcements
Anne McIntosh mentioned the two meetings scheduled for the month of November, one on Veteran's day
and the other one is the day before Thanksgiving. We may need to pick another meeting date for
November in the next few months.
Forum on our Future meeting next week. Evening version and this time made a lot of phone calls to
community groups.
G. Commission Announcements
H. Workshops - None
I. Adjournment
Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Dopp, to adjourn the meeting; motion
carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Meeting was adjourned at 9:52pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill
Executive Assistant, Planning Department
Approved:
HPC/PC Minutes—July 22, 2020
Page 10 of 10
Draft
CITY OF
■ . ! , !
�l
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 2020
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Mike Smith, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 and
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Located North Of 4th Street, South of The Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, West of Milliken Avenue, and East of
Utica/Cleveland Avenues, Within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan.
The applications include a review of a proposed amendment to Development
Agreement DRC2015-00118 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and SC
Rancho Development Corp. and Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC, that
was adopted on September 5, 2018, and a review of a proposed amendment
to the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to delete text within the Specific Plan
document relating to street infrastructure and private open space areas.
These applications apply to a property of about 160 acres located north of 4th
Street, south of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railway, west of
Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues, within the Empire
Lakes Specific Plan; APNs: 0209-272-20, 0210-102-07 through -10, 0210-102-
01 through -03, 0210-102-19 through -61, 0210-102-15 and -17, 0210-671-01
and -03 and-04, 0210-671-06 through -24, 0210-681-03 and -04 and -06
through -13, 0210-681-14 through -33, and 0210-102-11. An Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083) and Mitigation Monitoring
Reporting Program (MMRP) was reviewed and certified by the City Council on
May 18, 2016. Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act
provides that no further environmental review is required for a previously
certified EIR or for subsequent projects within the scope of a prior EIR. The
Development Agreement including subsequent amendments is a contract
governing timelines, terms, and conditions regarding development of Empire
Lakes/The Resort and does not raise or create new environmental impacts that
were not previously contemplated in the EIR. This item will be forwarded to
the City Council for final action.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions recommending
the City Council approve Development Agreement Amendment 2020-00124 and Specific Plan
Amendment DRC2020-00254.
015
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 AND SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 2
PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is a property of 160-acres located in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan (the "Specific
Plan"). The Specific Plan has an overall area of 347-acres and is generally bound by 4th Street
to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the west, and
8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north. The subject property is generally located
at the center of the Specific Plan. Both the Specific Plan and the project site are bisected into
south and north halves by 6th Street.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved amendments to the General Plan (related file: General Plan
Amendment DRC2015-00114) on May 18, 2016, and amendments to the Specific Plan and
Development Code (related files: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development
Code Amendment DRC2015-00115) on June 1, 2016. These amendments enabled the property
owner (master developer), SC Rancho Development Corp. and Empire Lakes Holding Company,
LLC, and subsequent merchant builders to develop a new mixed use and transit-oriented project
("Empire Lakes/The Resort"; hereafter referred to as "the Project") in three general phases.
Phase 1 encompasses the construction of the areas of the Project located south of 6t" Street.
Phases 2 and 3 apply to the areas of the Project located north of 6t" Street.
In addition to the above entitlements, the City Council adopted Development Agreement
DRC2015-00118 on September 5, 2018 (hereafter referred to as "the Agreement"). The
Agreement became effective on October 8, 2018 and it was recorded with the County of San
Bernardino on November 26, 2018.
The Agreement (Exhibit A) for the Project includes the following major terms:
• An initial term of 8 years, which will be extended for an additional 3 years only if the
developer pulls buildings permits for at least 1,000 units within the project;
• A requirement to dedicate land and contribute funding for a proposed Joint Use Public
Facility (JUPF), with a floor area of 25,000 square feet on a 1.75-acre parcel of land, for
use by several City Departments. This facility is a required mitigation in the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to address the increase in demand for public services caused by the
project; and
• A requirement to construct during Phase 2 in Planning Area N-15 an approximately 1.3-
acre private park for use by future residents. This park would be privately maintained and
is referred to as the "Camp".
ANALYSIS:
A. General: In late 2019 and early 2020, the City began developing a comprehensive conceptual
street framework for Phases 2 and 3 of the Specific Plan. This framework will establish a
rectangular grid iron street layout that will apply to all development in those phases. The
design of the new street framework expands on the relatively simple conceptual street
framework that is currently shown in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, such as Figure 7.6:
Conceptual Development Plan by Placetype.
016
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 AND SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 3
In response to the updated street framework, both the City and the master developer
recognized that the implementation of the updated street network affects the fulfillment of
some of the terms in the Agreement. In addition, there is text within the Specific Plan that
currently requires the master developer to complete certain improvements at a specific
threshold. The updated street network similarly affects the ability of the master developer to
accomplish this. Therefore, amendments to the Agreement and the Specific Plan have been
proposed for review and action by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The updated street framework itself will be incorporated into the Specific Plan by the City as
part of a separate amendment to that document (related file: Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2020-00164). That amendment will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City
Council for review and action at a later date.
B. Development Agreement Amendment DRC2020-00124: The proposed amendments to the
Agreement are summarized below and are followed by staff comments in italics. The full text
of the amendments are attached to the draft Resolution of Approval for this Development
Agreement amendment.
Amendment #1 — Joint Use Public Facility (JUPF) Construction Schedule: This
amendment replaces the schedule described in the original Agreement with a new one. The
new schedule generally states that the City shall commence development of the JUPF within
eighteen (18) months of the property owner dedicating the applicable parcel for the JUPF and
completing the payment of required funds. This would be contingent on the City having issued
Certificates of Occupancy for at least 22,500 square feet of non-residential building space and
2,000 dwelling units within the Project.
The original Agreement stated that that the City shall commence development of the JUPF
within eighteen (18) months of the dedication of land for the JUPF and submittal of funds
provided the City has issued Certificates of Occupancy, and commercial uses occupy, at least
22,500 square feet of non-residential building construction located south of 6t" Street. The
primary difference between the terms is the addition of the 2,000th dwelling unit "trigger"for
the commencement of the development of the JUPF. Also, there is a change to the area of
the Project that is subject to the construction of the required non-residential building space
and dwelling units. It now applies to the overall Project site and not just the area south of 6tn
Street as stated in the original Agreement.
Amendment #2 — Interim Access Condition: This amendment is an addition. It generally
states that the City agrees to process an amendment to the Specific Plan to delete the"Interim
Access Condition" requirement for the construction of an access road between 61" Street and
7tn Street prior to the issuance of the 400th Certificate of Occupancy in Phase 1 of the Project.
The Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2020-00254) associated with the subject amendment to
the Development Agreement addresses this by deleting the specified text (further discussion
below).
Amendment#3—Street Framework: This amendment is an addition. It generally states that
if the City approves a separate amendment to the Specific Plan relating to the street network,
017
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 AND SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 4
alignments, etc. within the Project that is consistent with the framework plan that the City has
prepared, then projects that are subsequently approved shall be deemed to incorporate that
amendment to the Specific Plan. The amendment also specifies additional environmental
analysis that will be conducted as required under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
The separate Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2020-00164) that is currently being processed
by the City will address this by incorporating the conceptual street framework and delete
references to the "Camp".
Amendment #4—Termination of Restrictive Covenant: This amendment is a revision. It
generally states that if the City approves a Specific Plan Amendment to delete the "Interim
Access Condition", then the property owner shall execute and record a notice terminating the
"Restrictive Covenant".
Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00254 is associated with the subject amendment to the
Agreement and will address this by deleting the specified text(per Amendment#3).
C. Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00254: The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan
is in response to the proposed amendment to the Agreement (specifically, Amendment #2).
The City has developed a comprehensive conceptual street framework for Phases 2 and 3 of
the Specific Plan. The street connection between 611 Street and 71" Street is being evaluated
and revised. The amendment to the Specific Plan deletes text describing the details of the
required temporary connection between the above-noted streets. This, in turn, provides the
City the flexibility to implement the conceptual street framework. It also removes any
impediment to the completion of Phase 1 of the Project, located south of 611 Street, by the
master developer and their merchant builders while the City incorporates the street framework
via the City's separate amendment to the Specific Plan (DRC2020-00164). The location of
the text that will be deleted is Appendix A, Section 7.0, on pages A-32 and -36(see attachment
to the draft Resolution of Approval for this Specific Plan amendment).
D. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the
City certified an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)(SCH No. 20150410083)on May 18, 2016
in connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific
Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-
00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or
Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the
same project as there have been a) no substantial changes proposed to the project that
indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; b) no substantial changes have
occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates
new or more severe environmental impacts; c) no new important information shows the project
will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and (d) no additional
mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can
be imposed to substantially reduce impacts.
018
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 AND SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 5
FISCAL IMPACT:
The original Development Agreement (as approved in June 2018) and the original Specific Plan
(as approved in May 2016) have facilitated the development of the Project and assisted in
achieving the fiscal benefits that were discussed in the Staff Report for the associated
amendments to the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Development Code that were approved by
the City Council in May/June 2016. The annual revenue generated from various sources were
analyzed in a fiscal impact analysis prepared in March 2016.
The proposed amendments to the Development Agreement and the amendment to the Specific
Plan do not affect the analysis of the fiscal impact for the Project.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The original Development Agreement (as approved in June 2018) and the original Specific Plan
(as approved in May 2016) have ensured that the Project, when completed, will contribute to the
realization of several City Council goals.
The proposed amendments to the Development Agreement and the amendment to the Specific
Plan do not affect the fulfillment of the City Council's goals cited above.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and
notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No
comments and/or correspondence have been received in response to these notices.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A— Original Development Agreement (not including attachments/exhibits)
Draft Resolution 20-41 of Approval for Development Agreement Amendment DRC2020-00124
(with attachment)
Draft Resolution 20-40 of Approval for Specific Plan Amendment DRC2020-00254 (with
attachment)
019
Electronically Recorded in Official Records,County of San Bernardino 1112612018
BOB DUTTON oa:ssPnn
ALS
ASSESSOR-RECORDER-CLERK
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND ` 31A City Cleric's Office RC
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: DoC# 20 $-0438838 Titles 1 Pages as
Fees .00
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Taxes o0
P.O. BOX 807 CA S82 Fee .00
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729 others .00
ATTN: CITY CLERK Paid .00
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DRC 2015-00118
REGARDING THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA
This Development Agreement("Agreement"or"Development Agreement") is made and entered
into as of the "Effective Date" set forth herein, by and among SC Rancho Development Corp., a
California corporation and Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company(each, a"Property Owner"and,collectively,"Property Owners") and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, a California municipal corporation ("City").
RECITALS
I. On May 18,2016,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga("Council")adopted
Resolution No. 16-056, approving General Plan Amendment DRC20 1 5-00 1 1 4, which amended
the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to allow a proposed mixed use, high
density residential/commercial development on a site developed with-the now-closed Empire
Lakes Golf Course located north of Fourth Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of
Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/CleveIand Avenues. Resolution No. 16-056 and all
attaclunents and exhibits thereto are hereby incorporated by this reference.
2. On June 1, 2016, following second reading, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 888,
adopting Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, which amended the Rancho Cucamonga
Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan (the"Specific Plan"), to allow and
set forth the design and technical standards/guidelines for a proposed mixed use, high density
residential/commercial development on a site currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf
Course located north of 4th Street,south of the BNSF/MetroIink rail line,west of Milliken Avenue,
and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. Ordinance No. 888 and all attaclunents and exhibits thereto
are hereby incorporated by this reference.
3. On June 1, 2016, following second reading, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 889,
adopting Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115,which amended the provisions of the
Development Code of the City Rancho Cucamonga.to allow a proposed mixed use, high density
residential/commercial development on a site currently developed wiih the Empire Lakes Golf
EXh i b it A Course located north of 4th Street,south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line,west of Milliken AvenueQ20
RECORDING REQUESTED BY, AND
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
P.O. BOX 807
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91729
ATTN: CITY CLERK
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DRC 2015-00118
REGARDING THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA
This Development Agreement ("Agreement" or "Development Agreement") is made and entered
into as of the "Effective Date" set forth herein, by and among SC Rancho Development Corp., a
California corporation and Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company(each, a"Property Owner"and, collectively, "Property Owners") and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, a California municipal corporation("City").
RECITALS
1. On May 18,2016,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga("Council") adopted
Resolution No. 16-056, approving General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, which amended
the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to allow a proposed mixed use, high
density residential/commercial development on a site developed with the now-closed Empire
Lakes Golf Course located north of Fourth Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line, west of
Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. Resolution No. 16-056 and all
attachments and exhibits thereto are hereby incorporated by this reference.
2. On June 1, 2016, following second reading, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 888,
adopting Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, which amended the Rancho Cucamonga
Industrial Area Specific Plan(IASP) Subarea 18 Specific Plan (the "Specific Plan"), to allow and
set forth the design and technical standards/guidelines for a proposed mixed use, high density
residential/commercial development on a site currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf
Course located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail line,west of Milliken Avenue,
and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. Ordinance No. 888 and all attachments and exhibits thereto
are hereby incorporated by this reference.
3. On June 1, 2016, following second reading, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 889,
adopting Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, which amended the provisions of the
Development Code of the City Rancho Cucamonga to allow a proposed mixed use, high density
residential/commercial development on a site currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf
Course located north of 4th Street, south of the BNSF/Metrolink rail.line,west of Milliken Avenue,
9177929 v2 9088.12
1123 I-000112130434v10.doc 021
and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. Ordinance No. 889 and all attachments and exhibits thereto
are hereby incorporated by this reference.
4. For purposes of this Agreement, the proposed mixed use, high density
residential/commercial development as approved and defined by Resolution 16-056 and
Ordinances 888 and 889 is referred to herein as the "Project," and Resolution 16-056 and
Ordinances 888 and 889 are referred to collectively as the "Project Approvals."
5. As set forth in the Project Approvals, the Project requires the construction of a Joint Use
Public Facility ("JUPF") of up to 25,000 square feet in floor area, including public parking spaces
and secured parking spaces for City vehicles, to provide the City with office and programming
space to address the increase in demand for public facilities to support police,library,public works
and community services that will be caused by the Project.
6. California Government Code Section 65864, et seq. (the "Development Agreement
Statute") authorizes cities to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal
or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property.
7. City and Property Owners mutually desire to enter into this Development Agreement
pursuant to the Development Agreement Statute and Section 17.22.060 of the Municipal Code in
order to implement the Project, including but not limited to ensuring that the Property Owners
donate the land required for the JUPF to the City, ensuring that the City receives timely and
sufficient funds to allow the City to design, build, and furnish the JUPF, and providing a
mechanism for Property Owners to be reimbursed funds they advance to City for the JUPF from
certain development impact fees the City collects.
8. On September 5, 2018, City adopted its Ordinance No. 934 (the "Ordinance"), thereby
approving this Development Agreement among the City and Property Owners, which is effective
as of October 8, 2018. All of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have
been met with respect to the Project, Project Approvals and this Agreement, and this Agreement
is consistent with the City's General Plan and the Specific Plan.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section X. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the
following terms shall have the following meaning:
"Adjustment Date" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 1 I.B.
"City" means the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
"Community and Recreation Center DIF" means the Community and Recreation Center Impact
Fee authorized and imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.52 of the Municipal Code, as it may be amended
or superseded.
#177929 v2 9088.12 2
11231-00011213043410.doc 022
"Property Owner" means each of SC Rancho Development Corp., a California corporation and
Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.
"Effective Date" shall mean the date that the Ordinance becomes effective.
"Full Amount" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section I l.B.
"Index" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section I l.B.
"Library DIF"means the Library Impact Fee authorized and imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.56 of
the Municipal Code, as it may be amended or superseded.
"Municipal Code"means the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.
"Offset DIF" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 1 I.C.
"Ordinance" means Ordinance No.934, which approved this Agreement.
"Outstanding Full Amount" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 11.B.
"Parcel" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section I I.A.
"Park Improvement DIF" means the Park Impact Fee for park improvements imposed pursuant to
Chapter 3.68 of the Municipal Code, as it may be amended or superseded.
"Park Land DIF" means the Park In-Lieu Fee for park land acquisition imposed pursuant to
Chapter 3.68 of the Municipal Code, as it may be amended or superseded.
"Police DIF" means the Police Impact Fee imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.64 of the Municipal
Code, as it may be amended or superseded.
"Project" means the proposed mixed use, high density residential/commercial development as
approved and defined by Resolution 16-056 and Ordinances 888 and 889.
"Service Area"means that area within the City located within approximately one mile surrounding
the Subject Property and more particularly identified on the map and parcel listing in Exhibit C.
"Subject Property" means the real property that is the subject of the Project Approvals and as
legally described in Exhibit A to this Agreement.
"Term" shall have the meaning ascribed to it in Section 6 below.
Section 2. Recitals. The recitals are part of this Agreement and shall be enforceable as any
other provision of this Agreement.
Section 3. Interest of Property Owner. Each Property Owner warrants and represents that,
as of the Effective Date, it has or will have legal title to or an equitable interest in a portion of the
Subject Property, as specified for each Property Owner in Exhibit A hereto; that it has full legal
4177929 v2 9088.12 3
11231-00011213043410,doc 023
right to enter into this Agreement; and that the persons executing this Agreement on behalf of each
Property Owner have been duly authorized to do so.
Section 4. Binding Effect of Agreement. Property Owners hereby subject the Project and
the Subject Property to the covenants,reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement.
The City and the Property Owners hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants,
reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land
and shall pass to and be binding upon each Property Owner's successors and assigns in title or
interest to the Subject Property. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereinafter
executed, covering or conveying the Subject Property or any portion thereof shall conclusively be
held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and
restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and
restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument.
The City and Property Owners hereby further declare their understanding and intent that the benefit
of such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the enjoyment and use
of the Subject Property by Property Owners and the future occupants of the Subject Property, the
intended beneficiaries of such covenants,reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public
purposes for which this Agreement is adopted.
Section 5. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the contractual relationship between
City and Property Owners is such that City and each Property Owner are each an independent
party and neither is the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever and neither shall
be considered to be the agent or partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever.
Section 6. Term of Agreement. The initial term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall
commence on the Effective Date and shall expire eight(8)years thereafter. The initial Term shall
be automatically extended for an additional three(3)years if,prior to expiration of the initial Term,
building permits have been issued for at least 1,000 dwelling units within the Project If the Term
has been so extended, it shall be automatically extended again for an additional three (3) years if,
prior to expiration of the extended eleven-year Term,building permits have been issued for at least
1,600 dwelling units within the Project. (Reference in this Agreement to the "Term" shall mean
the initial Term and as such Term may be automatically extended in accordance with this Section
6.)
Section 7. Timing of Development. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee
Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that failure of the parties to provide
for the timing of development resulting in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of
development to prevail over such parties' agreement, it is the City's and Property Owners' intent
here to cure that deficiency by acknowledging and providing that Property Owners shall have the
right (without obligation), subject to the provisions of this Development Agreement, to complete
the Project in such order and at such rate and at such times as Property Owners deem appropriate
within the exercise of their subjective business judgment.
Section 8. If a Property Owner should sell, mortgage, hypothecate, assign, or transfer
(collectively "transfer" in this Section) the Subject Property or any portion thereof to any person
or entity at any time during the Term of this Agreement, such transfer shall be deemed to include
#177929 v2 9088.12 4
11231-000112130434v10.doc 024
an assignment of all rights, duties and obligations created by this Development Agreement with
respect to all or any portion of the Subject Property so transferred. Following not less than thirty
(3 0) days prior, written notice to the City, the written assumption by the assignee of all of the
obligations of Property Owner under this Agreement pursuant to any such transfer shall relieve
Property Owner,without any act or concurrence by the City, of its legal duty to perform under this
Agreement except to the extent that Property Owner is in default (subject to applicable notice and
cure periods) with respect to any such obligations that accrued prior to the proposed transfer.
Section 9. General Rights, Standards and Restrictions Pertaining to Development of the
Project. The following specific rights and restrictions shall apply to the use of the Subject
Property pursuant to this Development Agreement:
A. Property Owners shall have the right to develop the Project on the Subject Property
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals and this Agreement, and City
shall have the right to control development of the Subject Property in accordance with the
provisions of the Project Approvals and this Agreement.
B. The type, density, intensity, configuration of uses allowed, size, and location of
buildings and other improvements and provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes, location of public improvements, including, but not limited to landscaping,
irrigation, sidewalk, and drive approaches, together with other terms and conditions of
development applicable to the Project, shall be as set forth in the Project Approvals and this
Agreement.
C. The term of all tentative subdivision maps approved with respect to the Subject
Property shall be extended for not less than the Term of the Development Agreement, as permitted
by Government Code Section 66452.6.
D. Each tentative map prepared for portions of the Subject Property comprised of any
residential subdivision shall comply with the provisions of Government Code Section 66473.7.
Section 10. Effect of City Regulations on Development of Project. Except as expressly
provided in this Agreement, all substantive and procedural requirements and provisions contained
in City's ordinances, specific plans,rules and regulations,including,but not limited to,the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code and Development Code, in effect as of the Effective Date of this
Development Agreement, shall apply to the construction and development of the Project and
Subject Property.
A. The provisions of this Section shall not preclude the application to the development
of the Project and the Subject Property of those changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans, or
specifications that are (i) specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or
regulations as, provided in California Government Code Section 65869.5 or any successor
provision or provisions, (ii) required to ensure public safety and are made applicable throughout
the City, or (iii) are required to ensure access under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the
event such changes prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this
Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended or performance
thereof delayed, as may be necessary to comply with such changes in the law.
#177929v2 9088.12 5
11231-000112130434v10.doe 025
B. Except as provided below, the payment of fees associated with the construction of
the Project, including land use approvals, development fees, building permits, etc., shall be in the
amounts in effect at the time application is made for such approvals or permits and such amounts
may increase over time. However,the Community and Recreation Center DIF,Park Improvement
DIF and Park Land DIF, Library DIF, Police DIF, and the public art requirements applicable to
the Project pursuant to Chapter 17.124 of the Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 912 shall not
increase during the Term of this Development Agreement.
C. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project, Property Owners
shall submit an analysis to the City documenting the traffic impact nexus of the Proj ect's for-sale
single-family detached units and condominium units relative to the "Residential Multi-Family
Attached"product for the purpose of calculating development impact fee rates. This analysis shall
indicate definitive parameters that would be used in making the determination of whether these
units should be considered "Residential Multi-Family Attached" during the permitting phase for
each development. If the City Council finds, based on its review of the aforementioned analysis,
that the traffic impacts caused by single-family detached units and/or condominium units are
similar to those caused by multi-family units,then the City will use the rate for"Residential Multi-
Family Attached"units in calculating the development impact fees for those for-sale single-family
detached units and/or condominium units addressed in the analysis. As to development impact
fees other than Transportation, City shall rely on the previously adopted City of Rancho
Cucamonga Development Impact Fee Study Report(Colgan Report) dated April 22,2014 to make
its determination as to,the application of development impact fees to proposed development.
D. City may apply to the Project any and all new health and safety regulations (e.g.,
fire, building, and seismic, plumbing, and electric codes) that become applicable to the City as a
whole after the Effective Date.
Section 11. Joint.Use Public Facility
A. Land Dedication. Property Owners will make an irrevocable offer of dedication
to the City of approximately 1.75 net acres of land for the JUPF generally located within Planning
Area N-13 at the intersection of 7th Street and a future street expected to be named the "Resort
Parkway," as shown on .Exhibit B to this Agreement (the "Parcel"). City shall provide no
additional consideration for the Parcel beyond the promises and covenants made in this
Agreement. The City shall be responsible for all operations and maintenance costs of the JUPF.
The offer of dedication shall occur by separate instrument within ninety (90) days after
(i) Property Owners have completed full public street improvements adjacent to the Parcel,
including but not limited to all wet and dry utilities within the street stubbed to the Parcel boundary
that are customary for development of the Parcel or(ii) Property Owners have obtained a building
permit for the 2,000th residential dwelling unit within the Project, whichever occurs first. Prior to
the offer of dedication of the Parcel,Property Owners shall remove excess soils from the Parcel to
match the grade of the adjoining public streets. City shall be solely responsible for any
over-excavation and re-compaction of the soils on the Parcel. If Property Owners fail to
irrevocably offer to dedicate the Parcel as of the date required by this paragraph, Property Owners
shall not seek and City shall not approve any further building permits for residential units in the
Project until the irrevocable offer of dedication has occurred and the offer has been accepted by
#177929 v2 9088.12 6
11231-000112130434v 10.doc 026
the City Council, provided that the City shall also have available all remedies under law in
connection with the Property Owners' failure to dedicate the Parcel, including specific
performance. The City Council shall accept the irrevocable offer of dedication within sixty(60)
days after the date the Property Owners have completed the public street improvements described
above in this Section 1 LA and submitted the irrevocable offer of dedication to the City.
B. Full Amount. The parties agree that the estimated cost of designing,building, and
furnishing the JUPF as of the Effective Date is $11,000,000 (the "Full Amount"). Commencing
on the one year anniversary of the Effective Date and each 12 months thereafter (each, an
"Adjustment Date"), the Full Amount shall be adjusted based upon the percentage change in the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for Los Angeles County (the "Index") for the
twelve-month period ending in the month preceding the Adjustment Date. The annual adjustment
of the Full Amount shall cease when Property Owners have completed the required work on and
abutting the Parcel described in Section 1 LA, made the irrevocable offer of dedication of the
Parcel, and paid the Outstanding Full Amount. For purposes of this Agreement, the"Outstanding
Full Amount" shall mean the Full Amount, as adjusted each Adjustment Date, less (i) the amount
of"Offset DIFs" (defined below) received by the City prior to payment of the Outstanding Full
Amount and (ii) interest earnings on the funds deposited in the special fund described in
Section 11.0 below, if the City elects to retain such funds in an interest-earning account, less
reasonable costs related to the administration of the account. The "Offset DIFs" means (i)the
amount for Police DIFs, Library DIFs, Community and Recreation Center DIFs paid within the
Project and (ii) the amount of Police DIFs, Library DIFs, and Community and Recreation Center
DIFs collected within the Service Area following the Effective Date. City shall diligently pursue
the collection of all Offset DIFs within the Service Area. Commencing on the one year anniversary
of the Effective Date and each 12 months thereafter, City shall provide Property Owners with a
written statement of the number of building permits issued within the Service Area and the type
and extent of the development for which such building permits were issued. In no case will the
Offset DIFs exceed the Full Amount.
C. Funding. The then current Outstanding Full Amount shall be paid by Property
Owners concurrent with, or prior to, the issuance of a building permit for the 2,0001h residential
dwelling unit within the Project. City shall deposit all payments of Offset DIFs within the Project
and the payment of the Outstanding Full Amount made by Property Owners in a special fund from
which disbursements may be made by the City solely for the design, construction, and furnishing
of the JUPF.
D. Construction Schedule. City shall commence construction of the JUPF within
eighteen (18) months of Property Owners' irrevocable offer of dedication of the Parcel and full
payment of the Outstanding Full Amount, provided that City has issued certificates of occupancy
for, and commercial uses occupy, at least 22,500 square feet of non-residential building
construction located south of 6" Street. City's delay or failure to commence construction as of
that date shall neither delay nor hinder development of the Project.
E. DIF Deposit. Property Owners' payment of the Outstanding Full Amount shall
constitute a deposit against payment of all Police DIFs, Library DIFs and Community and
Recreation Center DIFs for the remaining residential units within the Project and the remaining
non-residential building construction within the Project that would otherwise be subject to such
#177929 v2 9088.12 7
11231-000112130434v10.doc 027
DIFs not to exceed a total of 3,450 residential units and 220,000 square feet of non-residential
construction within the Project. At the time such deposit is exhausted, Property Owners shall be
responsible for paying all DIFs for the remaining residential units and non-residential building
construction or part thereof within the Project. Such deposit against payment of the Police DIFs,
Library DIFs and Community and Recreation Center DIN shall apply irrespective of the expiration
or earlier termination of this Agreement. Such deposit, however, shall not be transferable for use
outside the Project and shall not be available for reuse within the Project for a residential unit or
non-residential construction on a parcel for which the deposit had been used previously.
Section 12. Public Art. Property Owners agree to participate in the City's Public Art Program
and comply with all requirements of Chapter 17.124 of the Municipal Code and Ordinance No.
912.
Section 13. Recreation Facilities.
A. Camp Improvements. Property Owners shall improve an approximately
1.30-acre private park within Planning Area N-15 (the "Camp") with the development of Phase 2
of the Project(north of 6th Street) and not later than the issuance of a building permit for the 2,000th
dwelling unit within the Project.
B. Formation of Property Owners Association. Prior to issuance of the first
building permit for the Project,Property Owners shall record a declaration of covenants,conditions
and restrictions ("CC&Rs") for the Subject Property that forms a master property owners
association (the"Association") and obligates the Association to maintain, among other things,the
following improvements: (i) parkways (i.e., curb to right-of-way line); (ii) the non-vehicular
portions of the roundabout (i.e. the center) areas along the public streets and roads; and (iii) the
Camp in accordance with the requirements described in the following sub-section. The CC&Rs
shall be in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney and,with respect to the
above-referenced improvements, shall not be subject to amendment without the City's reasonable
consent.
C. Camp Maintenance. Until the Association becomes operational,Property Owners
shall own the Camp and maintain the Camp in good condition and repair. Once the Association
becomes operational, the Camp shall be deemed part of the Project's common area and shall be
maintained by the Association. The costs of maintenance of the Camp shall be the responsibility
of the Property Owners and the Association and the City shall bear no costs for such maintenance.
Section 14. Annual Review. During the term of this Development Agreement, City shall
annually review the extent of good faith compliance by Property Owner with the terms of this
Agreement. Property Owner shall file an annual report with the City indicating information
regarding compliance with the terms of this Agreement no later than January 7 for the previous
calendar year, commencing January 7, 2019.
Section 15. Indemnification and Legal Challenge. To the maximum extent permitted by law,
each Property Owner must defend, indemnify, and hold City and its elected officials, officers,
contractors serving as City officials, agents, and employees ("Indemnitees") harmless from
liability for damage and/or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims
#177929 v2 9088.12 8
1 123 1-0001\2130434v10.doc 028
for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or
alleged to have been caused by reason of the Property Owner's activities in connection with the
development and/or construction of the Project, and which may arise from the direct or indirect
operations of the Property Owner or those of the Property Owner's contractors, agents, tenants,
employees or any other, persons acting on Property Owner's behalf, which relate to the
development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages
and claims for damage, as described above, regardless of whether or not the City prepared,
supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project. Each Property
Owner shall also defend, indemnify and hold the Indemnitees harmless from and against any and
all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs and expenses arising from or related to the Property
Owner's failure, or any of its contractor's failure,to pay prevailing wages pursuant to Labor Code
Section 1720 et seq. in connection with construction of the Project and associated public and
private improvements.
In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any
provision of this Agreement, any of the entitlement documents pertaining to the Project including,
without limitation, the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or any other supporting document
relating to the Project, the applicable Property Owner must indemnify, defend and hold harmless
the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by,
and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action. The City
shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in
defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge or
take any position adverse to the Property Owner in connection with such third-party challenge. In
the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof,
this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate
review, is pending, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Absent issuance of an injunction, the
Property Owner may elect to continue development under this Agreement pending completion of
the litigation but it shall do so at its sole risk, and the City shall not be liable for any loss suffered
as a result thereof. This Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement.
Section 16. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in whole or in part,
only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California
Government Code § 65868, et seq., or successor provisions thereto.
Section 17. Enforcement. In the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by
a Property Owner, City shall give written notice to the Property Owner (or its successor) by
registered or certified mail addressed at the address stated in this Agreement, and if such violation
is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within thirty (30) days after such notice is
served on the Property Owner, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be required
to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within said thirty (30) days
(provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within said thirty (30) days
and must thereafter be diligently pursued by Property Owner), then City may, without further
notice, declare a default under this Agreement and,upon any such declaration of default, City may
bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Property Owner growing
out of the operation of this Development Agreement; apply to any court, state or federal, for
9177929 v2 9088.12 9
11231-000112130434vI Moc 029
injunctive relief against any violation by the Property Owner of any provision of this Agreement,
or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate.
Section 18. Event of Default. A Property Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the
happening of one.or more of the following events or conditions:
A. If a material warranty, representation or statement made or furnished by the
Property Owner to City set forth herein or in any document incorporated by reference herein is
false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made;
B. If a finding and determination is made by City following an annual review pursuant
to this Agreement, upon the basis of substantial evidence, that the Property Owner has not
complied in good faith with any material terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice and
opportunity to cure as provided by this Agreement; or
C. A breach by the Property Owner of any of the provisions or terms of this
Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in this Agreement.
Section 19. No Waiver of Remedies. City does not waive any claim of defect in performance
by a Property Owner if on periodic review City does not enforce this Agreement. Nonperformance
by a Property Owner shall not be excused because performance by the Property Owner of the
obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult, or expensive, or because of a failure
of any third party or entity, other than City. Subject to the provisions of Section 19, all other
remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement are available
to each party to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement by the
other party(subject to applicable notice and cure periods). No waiver by City or a'Property Owner
of any breach or default under this Development Agreement by the other party shall be deemed to
be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder.
Section 20. City Not Liable For Damages. It is acknowledged by the parties that the City
would not have entered into this Agreement if it could be held liable in damages under or with
respect to this Agreement or the application thereof Consequently, and except for the payment of
attorney's fees in accordance with this Agreement, the City shall not be liable in damages to the
Property Owners, or to any assignee, transferee, or any other person, and the Property Owners
covenant on behalf of itself-and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any damages:
A. For any breach of this Agreement;
B. For the taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or
provided hereunder or pursuant hereto;
C. Arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the
application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement; or
D. For any injury to or interference with the rights of the property owner, allegedly or
actually arising out of, or incurred in connection with,the parties entering this Agreement, or their
exercise of any rights under this Agreement.
4177929 v2 9088.12 10
1 t231-00011213043400.doc 030
The parties hereby warrant that each enters into this Agreement with the understanding that if the
City defaults on its obligations under this Agreement due to an action taken by the electorate of
the City in the exercise of the reserved powers of initiative and referendum, this Agreement shall
be modified or suspended to the extent required by Government Code Section 65869,5 and
Property Owner's right to seek specific performance, a writ of mandate, or other mandatory relief
shall be limited by such force as the action taken by the electorate may have in light of state law
as determined by any court of competent jurisdiction,in which case the Property Owners' principal
remedy shall lie in reformation of this Agreement
Section 21. Rights of Lenders Under this Agreement. Should a Property Owner place or
cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary
("Lender") of said encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the term of this
Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to:
A. Do any act or thing required of the Property Owner under this Agreement, or cure
any default of the Property Owner under this Agreement within the time limits set forth in this
Agreement, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender or cure shall be as effective as
if done by Property Owner;
B. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising
foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the
security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien(hereinafter referred to as "a trust deed");
C. Transfer, convey or assign the title of the Property Owner to the Subject Property
to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to
court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and
D. Acquire and succeed to the interest of the Property Owner by virtue of any
foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale is conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to
a power of sale contained in a trust deed.
Should any Lender require or request an amendment of this Agreement in respect of the rights and
remedies granted to a Lender, City hereby agrees to consider such an amendment in good faith and
in accordance with state and local law so long as the proposed amendment does not materially and
adversely affect the rights, powers, and remedies of the City in respect of a default by the Property
Owner hereunder.
Section 22. Notice to Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this
Agreement by Property Owner to Lender (if known by City) simultaneously with such notice of
default City gives to Property Owner and afford Lender the opportunity after receipt of service of
the notice to:
A. Cure the breach or default within thirty(30) days after service of said notice,where
the default can be cured by the payment of money;
B. Cure the breach or default within thirty (30) days after service of said notice where
the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and can be cured
within that time; or
4 177929 v2 9088.12 11
11231-000112130434v I Moo 031
C. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where
something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach or default and cannot be
performed within thirty (3 0) days after said notice,provided that acts to cure the breach or default
are commenced within a thirty (30) day period after service of said notice of default on Lender by
City and are thereafter diligently continued by Lender.
Section 23. Action by Lender. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a
Lender may forestall any action by City for a breach or default under the terms of this Agreement
by a Property Owner by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the
Subject Property. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosure of the encumbrance by
order of court or for foreclosure of the encumbrance under a power of sale contained in the
instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any
such action by the City for the default or breach by the Property Owner unless:
A. They are commenced within thirty (30) days after service on Property Owner (and
on Lender if Lender's address is provided by notice to the City pursuant this Agreement) of the
notice described hereinabove;
B. They are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required
by law to completion; and
C. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this
Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by the Property Owner until the
foreclosure proceedings are complete or are discharged by redemption, satisfaction, or payment.
Section 24. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be
provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address of the respective parties as
specified below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties hereto.
To SC Rancho Development Corp.: 1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, California 91786
Fax: (909) 949-6700
Attention: Mr. Bryan T. Goodman
To Empire Lakes Holding Company: 1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, California.91786
Fax: (909) 949-6700
Attention: Mr. Bryan T. Goodman
To City: City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Attention: City Manager
Section 25. Attorneys' Fees. 1n any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this
Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder,the prevailing party
#177929 v2 9089.12 12
11231-0001\2130434v10.doc 032
shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees incurred during
the proceeding(including appeals) as may be fixed within the discretion of the court.
Section 26. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof
shall inure to, the respective parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits.
Section 27. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
with and governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action or litigation brought
for breach or to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall be the Superior Court of the County
of San Bernardino, California.
Section 28. Partial Invalidity. If any provisions of this Agreement. shall be deemed to be
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining
provisions hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
Section 29. Recordation. The City Clerk shall record this Agreement in the Official Records
of the County Recorder of the County of San Bernardino within ten (10) business days following
the Effective Date. Upon the expiration of the terms of this Agreement and the request of the
Property Owners, the City will execute and deliver, in recordable form, an instrument confirming
that this Agreement is terminated and of no further force or effect.
Section 30. Force Majeure. In the event that any parry hereto shall be delayed or hindered or
prevented from performance of any act required hereunder by reason of acts of God, strikes,
lockouts, labor troubles, inability to procure materials, riots, insurrection, terrorism, war or other
reason of similar nature not the fault of the party delayed in performing the work or doing the acts
required under the terms of this Agreement,then the performance of such act shall be excused for
the period of the delay caused by the foregoing. Financial inability shall not be deemed an excuse
for delay under this Section 30.
Section 31. Integrated Agreement. This Development Agreement consists of this Agreement
together with all Exhibits attached hereto, and all of the same are hereby incorporated by reference.
The provisions of this Agreement shall govern over any inconsistent or conflicting provisions set
forth in the Exhibits. No representation or promise,verbal or written,not expressly set forth herein
shall be binding or have any force or effect.
Section 32. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in every provision hereof in which time
is a factor.
Section 33. Operating Memoranda. The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree
of cooperation between the City and Property Owners. The anticipated refinements to the Project
may demonstrate that clarifications to this Agreement and the Project Approvals are appropriate
with respect to the implementation of this Agreement and the Project Approvals. If, when, and as
it becomes necessary or appropriate to take implementing actions or make such changes,
adjustments or clarifications, the Parties may effectuate such actions, changes, adjustments or
clarifications through an operating memorandum ("Operating Memorandum") approved by the
parties in writing which references this Section 33. Such Operating Memorandum shall not require
public notices and hearings or an amendment to this Agreement unless it is required by Section 16
#177929 v2 9088.12 13
11231-000112130434v10.doo 033
above, The City Manager shall be authorized, after consultation with and approval of Property
Owners,to determine whether a requested adjustment,clarification or implementing action(i) may
be effectuated pursuant to this Section 33 and is consistent with the intent and purpose of this
Agreement and the Project Approvals or (ii) is of the type that would constitute an amendment to
this Agreement and thus would require compliance with the provisions of Section 16 above. The
authority to enter into such Operating Memorandum is hereby delegated to the City Manager and
the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any Operating Memorandum hereunder without.
further City Council action.
[Signature Page Follows]
#177929 v2 9088.12 14
11231-000112130434v I Moo 034
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be
effective on the Effective Date set forth herinabove.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP., a
Municipal Corporation California corporation
Dated: BjArize6 ,Agent
Y,
NaIts:
Dennis L. Michael
Mayor
EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
AT TE By: North Mountain Corporation, a
California corporatlojijis Manager
anice C. Reynolds By:
---
City Clerk Name: ma
Its: A prized Agent
Approved as to form:
Dated: hex If, 20 a
James L:Markman
City Attorney
#177929v2 9088.12 15
11231-000112130434v 10.doc 035
A notary public or other officer
completing this certificate verifies only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of San Bernardino )
OnWoVemkY i « , before me, ,
insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared_ 1�ldl h 'Ymao ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfact�y v dence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
+`•N,f TANYA K.SANCHEZ
WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public•Caiifornia z
`_ ' San Bernardino County
z Commission#2254448
My Comm.ExpiresAug ifi,2472
Signature {Seal)
#177929 v2 9088.12 16
1 123 1-000 112 1 30434v 10.doc 036
A notary public or other officer
completing this certificate verifies only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California }
County of San. Bernardino )
On_ i?1(�}�_ 1 _` ��� , before me, -UI L9 R 1'1(11 e7 ,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared 6oan &d mA ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory vidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
ors TANYA K.SANCHEZ
WITNESS my hand and official seal. _ a`�"`'i Notary Public•California
Z San Bernardino County
Commission#2254448
� ""°"��� My Comm.Expires Aug 46,2422
Signature_�� "r` �' (Seal)
4177929 Q 9088,12 17
11231-00011213043400.doc 037
A notary public of other officer
completing this certificate verifies only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy,or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of San Bernardino )
On O'2���(]lS� beforeme, iC�a GCS a ,
(insert name and title of the icer)
Notary Public, personally appeared -s
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personXwhose name are
subs 'bed to the within instrument and acknowledg to me thatdphe/the executed the same
i 's er/t it authorized capacity�ie and that b} her/their signatur ) on the instrument
the person , or the entity upon behalf of which the personXacted, execut the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WI SS my hand and official seal.
PATRIClAf4RAV0-VALOEZ
Commission #2139102
a a Notary Public-California n
signatur (Seal) z Los Angeles County
I MY Comm.Ex Tres Jac 30.2020
#177929 v2 9088.12 A-1
11231-000112130434v]O.doc 038
RESOLUTION NO. 20-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124, A REQUEST TO
AMEND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2015-00118
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND SC
RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND EMPIRE LAKES
HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, FOR PROPERTIES NORTH OF 4TH
STREET, SOUTH OF THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE
RAILWAY, WEST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND EAST OF
UTICA/CLEVELAND AVENUES, WITHIN THE EMPIRE LAKES
SPECIFIC PLAN; APNS: 0209-272-20, 0210-102-07 THROUGH -
10, 0210-102-01 THROUGH -03, 0210-102-19 THROUGH -61,
0210-102-15 AND -17, 0210-671-01 AND -03 AND-04, 0210-671-
06 THROUGH -24, 0210-681-03 AND -04 AND -06 THROUGH -
13, 0210-681-14 THROUGH -33, AND 0210-102-11.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and SC Rancho Development Corp. and Empire
Lakes Holding Company, LLC filed an application for Development Agreement Amendment
DRC2020-00124 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Development Agreement Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On August 12, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on August 12, 2020 including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a property that is currently in various phases of
development and construction by the master developer (SC Rancho Development Corp. and
Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC) and their merchant builders;
b. Development of the subject property is governed by the Empire Lakes
Specific Plan, the City's Development Code, and the City's General Plan;
C. The Specific Plan, as it was amended in 2016, consists of several "Planning
Areas". The subject properties are within "Planning Area 1" of the Specific Plan.
039
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-41
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 — CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 2
d. The subject properties are within a project site of 160-acres located in the
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan has an overall area of 347-acres and is generally bound by
4th Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to
the west, and 8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north. The subject property is
generally located at the center of the Specific Plan. Both the Specific Plan and the project
site are bisected into south and north halves by 6th Street;
e. The City Council approved General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 on
May 18, 2016, and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040 and Development Code
Amendment DRC2015-00115 on June 1, 2016. These amendments enabled the property
owner (master developer), SC Rancho Development Corp. and Empire Lakes Holding
Company, LLC, and subsequent merchant builders to develop a new mixed use and transit-
oriented project ("Empire Lakes/The Resort"; hereafter referred to as "the Project");
f. The purpose of the subject application is to amend several terms that are
in the original Development Agreement (DRC2015-00118) that the City Council adopted on
September 5, 2018. The Development Agreement became effective on October 8, 2018 and
it was recorded with the County of San Bernardino on November 26, 2018;
g. Concurrent with this application is an application for Specific Plan
Amendment DRC2020-0254. The purpose of that application is to delete text describing the
details of the required temporary connection between 61" and 71" Streets;
h. Per Section 17.22.060 of the Development Code, Development
Agreements have been determined by the City Council to be beneficial to the public in that:
■ Development Agreements increase the certainty in the approval of
development projects, thereby preventing the waste of resources,
reducing the cost of development to the consumer, and encouraging
investment in and commitment to comprehensive planning, all leading
to the maximum efficient utilization of resources at the least economic
cost to the public.
■ Development Agreements provide assurance to the applicant for a
development project that upon approval of the project, the applicant
may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules
and regulations, and subject to conditions of approval, thereby
strengthening the public planning process, encouraging private
participation in comprehensive planning, and reducing the economic
costs of development.
■ Development Agreements enable the City to plan for and finance public
facilities, including, but not limited to, streets, sewerage, transportation,
drinking water, school, and utility facilities, thereby removing a serious
impediment to the development of new housing."
The original Development Agreement was made and entered into for the Project to ensure that
the above three goals are fulfilled. The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement will
continue to ensure these goals are fulfilled;
040
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-41
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 — CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 3
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The Development Agreement amendment is consistent with the objectives,
policies, and general land uses specified in the General Plan and the applicable Specific Plan.
The proposed Development Agreement amendment enables the construction of the overall
project within the project site consistent with the amendments to the General Plan, Empire Lakes
Specific Plan, and Development Code (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan
Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115,
respectively) and approved by the City Council in 2016;
b. The Development Agreement amendment is compatible and in conformity
with public convenience, general welfare, and good land use and zoning practice. The proposed
Development Agreement amendment will increase certainty and provide assurances for
subsequent development projects within the overall project and enable the City to plan for and
finance public facilities;
C. The Development Agreement amendment will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, and general welfare of the City. The proposed Development Agreement
amendment does not substantially change the overall project, does not introduce new or more
severe environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083) that was certified by the City on May 18, 2016 in connection with
the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115;
d. The Development Agreement amendment will not adversely affect the
orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The proposed
Development Agreement amendment will prevent the inefficient use of resources, reduce the
public cost of development, and encourage comprehensive planning.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with
all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the
Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is
required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the
review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083) on May 18, 2016 in
connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan
Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration
is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project as there
have been a) no substantial changes proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe
impacts on the environment; b) no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under
which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental
impacts; c) no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts
than previously considered; and (d) no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce
impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts.
041
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-41
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 — CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 4
b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the proposed
Development Agreement amendment, that substantial changes to the project or the
circumstances surrounding the overall project have not occurred which would create new or more
severe impacts than those evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The purpose of the original
Development Agreement and this amendment is to increase certainty and provide assurances for
subsequent development projects within the overall project and enable the City to plan for and
finance public facilities.
C. Staff further finds that the overall project will not have one or more
significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, not have more severe effects than
previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to
reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The purpose of the original
Development Agreement and this amendment is to increase certainty and provide assurances for
subsequent development projects within the overall project and enable the City to plan for and
finance public facilities.
d. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning
Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is
required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the proposed
Development Agreement amendment.
5. On the basis of the foregoing and the totality of the administrative record before it,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Development
Agreement Amendment DRC2020-00124 as shown in Attachment A.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Guglielmo, Chairman
ATTEST:
Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary
042
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-41
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2020-00124 — CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 5
I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 2020, by the following vote-
to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
043
RECORDED AT THE REQUEST OF AND
WHEN RECORDED, PLEASE RETURN TO:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attn: City Clerk
(Exempt from Recording Fee Per Government Code 6103)
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DRC 2015-00118
REGARDING THE EMPIRE LAKES SPECIFIC PLAN,
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
This First Amendment to Development Agreement No. DRC 2015-00118 ("First
Amendment") is entered into as of , 2020 by and between the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, a California municipal corporation ("City"), and SC Rancho Development Corp., a
California corporation and Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (each a"Property Owner" and, collectively, "Property Owners").
RECITALS
A. The Parties entered into that certain Development Agreement No. DRC
2015-00118 effective as of October 8, 2018 and recorded on November 26, 2018 in the Official
Records, County of San Bernardino as Document No. 2018-0438838 (the "Original Agreement")
with respect to the Subject Property described in Exhibit A to the Original Agreement, and
restated for convenience in Exhibit A to this First Amendment(the"Subject Property").
B. The City would like to be assured there are adequate residential occupancies
within the Project to utilize the Joint Use Public Facility ("JUPF") so the City does not incur
unnecessary operating and maintenance costs. Therefore, the City has asked that the Property
Owners permit the Original Agreement to be amended to extend the time period in Section I LD
of the Original Agreement for the City's commencement of construction of the JUPF to a point
when certificates of occupancy have been issued for not less than 2,000 residential units within
the Subject Property.
C. Section 7.0 of Appendix A to the Specific Plan requires Property Owners to
construct an interim access connection across Phases 2 and 3 of the Project to Anaheim Place
and 7th Street near the Metrolink station prior to the 4001h certificate of occupancy in Phase 1 of
the Project (the "Interim Access Condition"). Given the development constraints of construction
of Phases 2 and 3 of the Project, construction of an interim access connection is impractical and
creates an undue financial burden on the Project as a throw away cost. To date, Property Owners
have completed construction of The Resort Parkway from 41h Street to 6th Street as well as
improvements to 6th Street. These improvements provide access for residents of Phase I of the
Attachment A 1
1123 1-0001\2419679v4.doc 044
Project to the Metrolink station via 61h street and Milliken Ave. Given the development
constraints of Phases 2 and 3 of the Project, the undue financial burden of the interim access
connection , and adequate access being provided by the existing Resort Parkway and 6th Street to
the Metrolink station, the City is satisfied this interim access connection is no longer necessary.
Therefore, Property Owners request City remove the Interim Access Condition in Section 7.0 of
Appendix A to the Specific Plan requiring construction of an interim access connection prior to
the 400th certificate of occupancy in Phase I of the Project.
D. The Parties have initiated discussions regarding an amendment to the Specific
Plan's street network, alignments, and connections within Planning Area I (the "Framework
Plan") to improve the Specific Plan's development potential and circulation. Exhibit B, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is a conceptual representation of the Framework
Plan. The Parties jointly desire to implement the Framework Plan by incorporating it into the
Specific Plan, and the City is preparing a Specific Plan amendment in order to do so. The Parties
wish to set forth the process for implementing the Framework Plan should the City Council
adopt the proposed Specific Plan amendment. Further, the City acknowledges that the
implementation of the Framework Plan would eliminate the available location and need for the
Camp under Section 13.A of the Original Agreement; therefore, City acknowledges that Sections
13.A, 13.0 and clause (iii) of Section 13.B in the Original Agreement related to the Camp should
terminate if the Framework Plan is approved by the City.
E. City has purchased certain real property located adjacent to the Subject Property
and described in Exhibit C of this First Amendment (the "City Property"). The City Property is
burdened by a restrictive covenant agreement dated December 17, 2002, and identified as
document number 2002-0701459 in the Official Records of San Bernardino County (the
"Restrictive Covenant") in favor of certain real property currently owned by Property Owner
Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC and described in Exhibit D (the "Benefitted Property").
Among other things, the Restrictive Covenant prohibits the owner of the City Property (also
referred to in the Restrictive Covenant as the "Fairway Land") from constructing any
improvements on the City Property except in accordance with a conceptual land use plan
approved by the owner of the Benefitted Property (also referred to in the Restrictive Covenant as
the "GDP Land"). City desires that future development of the City Property is not impeded by
the Restrictive Covenant and Property Owner is willing to terminate the Restrictive Covenant as
provided herein .
F. The Parties now intend to amend the Original Agreement as set forth herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
1.1. Definitions. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in, or amended by, this
First Amendment shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Original Agreement.
2
1123 1-000 1\2419679v4.doc 045
ARTICLE II
AMENDMENTS
2.1. JUPF Construction Schedule. Section I LD of the Original Agreement is
deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following :
"D. Construction Schedule. City shall commence
development of the JUPF within eighteen (18) months of Property
Owners' irrevocable offer of dedication of the Parcel and full payment of
the Outstanding Full Amount, provided the City has issued certificates of
occupancy for at least 22,500 square feet of non-residential building space
and 2,000 residential dwelling units within the Subject Property. City's
delay or failure to commence construction as of that date shall neither
delay nor hinder development of the Project."
2.2. Specific Plan Amendments.
A. Interim Access Condition. City agrees to process an amendment to the
Specific Plan in order to modify Section 7.0 of Appendix A to the Specific Plan to delete the
Interim Access Condition requirement for construction of an interim access connection between
4th Street and the existing intersection of Anaheim Place and 71h Street prior to the issuance of the
400th certificate of occupancy in Phase 1 of the Project. If the City Council approves that
Specific Plan amendment, then the Project Approvals, as defined in the Original Agreement,
shall be deemed to incorporate that Specific Plan amendment as of said amendment's effective
date and the term Project, as defined in the Original Agreement, shall then mean the development
of the Subject Property in accordance with the Project Approvals as amended by that Specific
Plan amendment.
B. Street Framework. If the City Council approves a Specific Plan
amendment, which will be processed separately from the Specific Plan amendment in Section
2.2 above, relating to the street network, alignments, and connections within Planning Area 1 that
substantially complies with the Framework Plan attached as Exhibit B, then (i) the Project
Approvals, as defined in the Original Agreement, shall be deemed to incorporate that Specific
Plan amendment as of said amendment's effective date, (ii) the term Project, as defined in the
Original Agreement, shall then mean the development of the Subject Property in accordance with
the Project Approvals as amended by that Specific Plan amendment, and (iii) Sections 13.A,
13.0 and clause (iii) of Section 13.B in the Original Agreement related to the Camp shall
terminate and the Camp shall cease to be a part of the Project. The City Council may only
approve that Specific Plan amendment and implement the Framework Plan after completing
further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
retains the discretion to decline to proceed with the Framework Plan entirely.
3
1123 1-000 1\2419679v4.doc 046
2.3. Termination of Restrictive Covenant. If the City Council approves the Specific
Plan Amendment to delete the Interim Access Condition in accordance with Section 2.2 A(the
"SPA Approval"), and concurrent with the recordation of this First Amendment, but no later
than thirty (30 days after the SPA Approval, Property Owner shall execute and record, in the
Official Records of San Bernardino County, a notice in the form of Exhibit E attached
terminating the Restrictive Covenant.
2.4. Effect of Amendment. Except for the changes specifically set forth in this First
Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
[Signature Page Follows]
4
1123 1-000 1\2419679v4.doc 047
The Parties hereto have executed this First Amendment on , 2020 in Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP., a
Municipal Corporation California corporation
Dated:
By:
Name:
Its: Authorized Agent
Dennis L. Michael
Mayor
EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY,
ATTEST: LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
By: North Mountain Corporation, a California
corporation, its Manager
Janice C. Reynolds
City Clerk By:
Name:
Approved as to form: Its: Authorized Agent
Dated:
James L. Markman
City Attorney
5
1123 1-000 1\2419679v4.doc 048
A notary public or other officer
completing this certificate verifies only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy,or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of San Bernardino )
On , before me, ,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public,personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
6
1 1 23 1-000 1\2419679v4.doc 049
A notary public or other officer
completing this certificate verifies only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy,or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of San Bernardino )
On , before me, ,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public,personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
7
1 1 23 1-000 1\2419679v4.doc 050
A notary public or other officer
completing this certificate verifies only
the identity of the individual who signed
the document to which this certificate is
attached, and not the truthfulness,
accuracy,or validity of that document.
State of California )
County of San Bernardino )
On , before me, ,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public,personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
051
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
A. PROPERTY OF SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP.
PARCEL B OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA2017-00002 RECORDED ON JUNE 22, 2017 AS
DOCUMENT NO. 2017-0256645 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCEL I AND PARCEL 12, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY
OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BOTH OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647, AS PER MAP
FILED IN BOOK 177, PAGES 90 THROUGH 96 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY;BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 12, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON
THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SIXTH STREET,AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 89°31'48" EAST 609.96 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 89°31'48" EAST 607.85
FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 0005'22" EAST 384.51 FEET AND
ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 THE FOLLOWING EIGHT(8)COURSES:
SOUTH 5020'33" WEST 599.94 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.00 FEET;
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 29°36'46", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 129.21 FEET;
SOUTH 34057'19" WEST 893.24 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET;
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 39°30'42", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 124.13 FEET;
SOUTH 74028'00" WEST 207.22 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.00 FEET;
SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 32°44'26", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 142.86 FEET;
SOUTH 41°43'34"WEST 449.75 FEET;
SOUTH 0037'21" WEST 154.21 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FOURTH
STREET,AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP;
THENCE, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 89°22'39" WEST 40.84 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 339.00
FEET;
A-2
052
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4-0I'lI", AN
ARC LENGTH OF 23.78 FEET;
THENCE,LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY NORTH 0°37'21"EAST 360.30 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89053'31" WEST 372.27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 94-225 RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1995
AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1995-0060621 OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 0006'32"WEST 738.67 FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 89045'13"EAST 342.95 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 49010'44"EAST 275.70 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 40049'16" EAST 694.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 600.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40°21'04", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 422.55 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0028'12"EAST 695.14 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
A-3
053
B. PROPERTY OF EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY
PARCEL A:
PARCEL 13 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 177, PAGES 90 THROUGH
96, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND AS
AMENDED BY CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO.
95-369354 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL B:
PARCEL A OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA2017-00002 RECORDED ON JUNE 22, 2017 AS
DOCUMENT NO. 2017-0256645 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 12, BOTH OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647, AS PER MAP
FILED IN BOOK 177, PAGES 90 THROUGH 96 OF PARCEL MAPS, AND ALL OF PARCEL "B" OF
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 400, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 18,
1997, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 97-0344260, ALL IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "B", SAID POINT ALSO BEING
THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 24.00 FEET,
A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 89°53'28"WEST;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°34'44", AN
ARC LENGTH OF 37.94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "B", SAID
POINT ALSO BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SIXTH STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 89°31'48" EAST 303.28 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 406.25
FEET;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°21'35", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 45.09 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 406.25 FEET, A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 6°49'47"
EAST;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 6°21'35", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 45.09 FEET;
THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 89°31'48" EAST 132.55
FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL"B";
THENCE NORTH 0006'32"WEST 5.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 12;
THENCE, CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 89°31'48" EAST 609.96
FEET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SOUTH 00°28'12" WEST 695.14 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF
600.00 FEET;
A-4
054
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40°21'04", AN
ARC LENGTH OF 422.55 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 40049'16"WEST 694.51 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 49010'44"WEST 275.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89045'13" WEST 342.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 94-225 RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1995
AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1995-0060621 OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE NORTH 0006'32" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, 1414.52 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL C:
PARCEL C OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA2017-00002 RECORDED ON JUNE 22, 2017 AS
DOCUMENT NO. 2017-0256645 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEING A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN
BOOK 177, PAGES 90 THROUGH 96 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER
OF SAID COUNTY;BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, SAID POINT BEING ON THE EASTERLY
LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NO. 94-225 RECORDED
FEBRUARY 28, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1995-0060621 OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1,NORTH 0°06'32"WEST 328.42 FEET;
THENCE,LEAVING SAID WEST LINE,NORTH 89°53'31"EAST 372.27 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0037'21" WEST 360.30 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE,
CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 339.00 FEET, A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID
POINT BEARS SOUTH 4038'32" WEST, SAID BEGINNING ALSO BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF FOURTH STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE,THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3°36'31",AN ARC LENGTH OF 21.35 FEET TO
THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 339.00
FEET,A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 8°15'02"EAST;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 7°37'41", AN ARC
LENGTH OF 45.13 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89022'39"WEST 281.79 FEET;
THENCE, LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 41041'31" WEST 29.75 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
SAID LAND IS ALSO SHOWN AS PARCEL C, PURSUANT TO LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA2017-
00002 RECORDED ON JUNE 22,2017 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2017-0256645 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA.
A-5
055
EXHIBIT B
FRAMEWORK PLAN
(City to Insert)
056
EXHIBIT C
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY PROPERTY
All that certain real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,County of San
Bernardino,State of California more fully described as follows:
PARCEL 14 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647 IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER PLAT
RECORDED IN BOOK 177 OF THE PARCEL MAPS,PAGES 90&96,INCLUSIVE,OF
THE RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;AND AS AMENDED BY CERTIFICATE OF
CORRECTION RECORDED OCTOBER 25,1995,INSTRUMENT NO.95-369354,
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
057
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITTED PROPERTY
All that certain real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,County of San Bernardino, State of
California as more fully described as follows:
PARCEL 13 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647,IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 177,PAGES 90 THROUGH
96,INCLUSIVE OF MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,AND AS
AMENDED BY CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO.
95-369354 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
058
1
EXHIBIT E
NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT
Recording Requested By and
When Recorded Mail to:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attn: City Clerk
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
TERMINATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT
This TERMINATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENT ("Termination") is
dated as of , 2020 for reference purposes only, and is entered into by and between
EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("ELH") and the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation
("City")with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. ELH is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California described on Exhibit attached hereto (the"ELH Property").
B. City is the owner of that certain real property located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California described on Exhibit B attached hereto (the"City Property").
C. The City Property is burdened by that certain Restrictive Covenant Agreement dated
December 17, 2002, and identified as document number 2002-0701459 in the Official Records
of San Bernardino County(the "Restrictive Covenant") in favor of the ELH Property.
B. ELH and City have agreed, in accordance with the terms of that certain First Amendment
to Development Agreement No. DRC 2015-00118 between ELH and the City dated
, 2020 ("First Amendment"), to terminate the Restrictive Covenant.
NOW THEREFORE, ELH and City agree as follows:
1. Termination/Release. ELH and City hereby terminate, release, and eliminate in whole the
Restrictive Covenant from the City Property. From and after the date hereof, ELH and the ELH
Property shall cease to have any right, title or interest in the City Property under the Restrictive
Covenant and neither ELH nor City shall have any rights, obligations or liability under the
Restrictive Covenant.
059
2
2. Successors/Assigns. This Termination shall be binding on the successors, assigns and
successors-in-interest of ELH and the City to the ELH Property and the City Property,
respectively.
3. Counterparts. This Termination may be executed by each party on a separate signature
page, and when the executed signature pages are combined, shall constitute one single document.
(All signatures are on the next page)
060
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ELH and the City have executed this Termination as of the
date first written above.
ELH
EMPIRE LAKES HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: North Mountain Corporation,
a California corporation, its Manager
By:
Name:
Its: Authorized Agent
Dated:
CITY
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
a Municipal Corporation
Dennis L. Michael
Mayor
Dated:
ATTEST:
Janice C. Reynolds
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James L. Markman
City Attorney
061
4
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
On 20 before me, ,
personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),
and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
062
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the
individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the
truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
On 20 before me, ,
personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies),
and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
063
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ELH PROPERTY
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 13 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 177, PAGES 90 THROUGH 96, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND AS AMENDED BY CERTIFICATE OF
CORRECTION RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-369354 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
064
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CITY PROPERTY
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 14 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 14647, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 177, PAGES 90 THROUGH 96, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND AS AMENDED BY CERTIFICATE OF
CORRECTION RECORDED OCTOBER 25, 1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-369354 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
065
RESOLUTION NO. 20-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254,
A REQUEST TO AMEND THE EMPIRE LAKES 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 WITHIN THE
SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT RELATING TO STREET
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AREAS; AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF-APNS: 0209-272-20,
0210-102-07 THROUGH -10, 0210-102-01 THROUGH -03, 0210-
102-19 THROUGH -61, 0210-102-15 AND -17, 0210-671-01 AND -
03 AND-04, 0210-671-06 THROUGH -24, 0210-681-03 AND -04
AND -06 THROUGH -13, 0210-681-14 THROUGH -33, AND 0210-
102-11.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga initiated an application for Specific Plan Amendment
DRC2020-00254 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On August 12, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing on August 12, 2020 including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a property that is currently in various phases of
development and construction by the master developer (SC Rancho Development Corp. and
Empire Lakes Holding Company, LLC) and their merchant builders;
b. Development of the subject property is governed by the Empire Lakes
Specific Plan, the City's Development Code, and the City's General Plan;
C. The Specific Plan, as it was amended in 2016, consists of several "Planning
Areas". The subject properties are within "Planning Area 1" of the Specific Plan.
d. The subject properties are within a project site of 160-acres located in the
Specific Plan. The Specific Plan has an overall area of 347-acres and is generally bound by 4th
066
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-40
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 2
Street to the south, Milliken Avenue to the east, Cleveland Avenue and Utica Avenue to the
west, and 8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line to the north. The subject property is
generally located at the center of the Specific Plan. Both the Specific Plan and the project site
are bisected into south and north halves by 6th Street;
e. The City Council approved General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114 on
May 18, 2016, and Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040 and Development Code
Amendment DRC2015-00115 on June 1, 2016. These amendments enabled the property
owner (master developer) SC Rancho Development Corp. and Empire Lakes Holding
Company, LLC, and subsequent merchant builders to develop a new mixed use and transit-
oriented project ("Empire Lakes/The Resort"; hereafter referred to as "the Project");
f. Concurrent with this application is an application for Development Agreement
Amendment DRC2020-00124. The purpose of that application is to amend several terms that
are in the original Development Agreement(DRC2015-00118)that the City Council adopted on
September 5, 2018 (hereafter referred to as "the Agreement"). The Agreement became
effective on October 8, 2018 and it was recorded with the County of San Bernardino on
November 26, 2018;
g. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is in response to the above-
noted proposed amendment to the Agreement(specifically,Amendment#2). The amendment
to the Specific Plan deletes text describing the details of the required temporary connection
between 6th and 7th Streets.
h. This will provide the City the flexibility to implement the conceptual street
framework that has been developed by the City. It also removes any impediment to the
completion of the area of the Project located south of 61h Street, by the master developer and
their merchant builders,while the City incorporates the street framework via the City's separate
amendment to the Specific Plan (DRC2020-00164). The location of the text that will be deleted
is Appendix A, Section 7.0, on pages A-32 and -36.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1
and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is for the deletion of text
relating to a temporary to connect 61h and 71h Streets within the Project. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs;
b. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is for the deletion of text
relating to a temporary to connect 61h and 71h Streets within the Project. The proposed
amendment does not affect the land use and development regulations within the Specific Plan
in any manner that cause them to be not comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning
regulations contained in the Development Code;
C. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is for the deletion of text
relating to a temporary to connect 61h and 71h Streets within the Project. The proposed
amendment does not create any inconsistencies between the administration and permit
processes described within the Specific Plan and those same processes described in the
zoning code.
067
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-40
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 3
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all
written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning
Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and
approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 20150410083) on May 18, 2016 in
connection with the City's approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan
Amendment DRC2015-00040, and Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is
required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project as there have
been a) no substantial changes proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts
on the environment; b)no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the
project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; c) no
new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously
considered; and (d) no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or
different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts;
b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the proposed Specific
Plan amendment, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the
overall project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those
evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The purpose of the Specific Plan amendment is to delete
text describing the details of the required temporary connection between 61" and 71" Streets that is
no longer required;
C. Staff further finds that the overall project will not have one or more significant
effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, not have more severe effects than previously
analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts
of the project to a level of less than significant. The purpose of the Specific Plan amendment is to
delete text describing the details of the required temporary connection between 61"and 71" Streets
that is no longer required;
d. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning
Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required
pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the proposed Specific Plan
amendment.
5. On the basis of the foregoing and the totality of the administrative record before it,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Specific Plan
Amendment DRC2020-00254 as shown in Attachment A.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
068
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-40
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00254 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 12, 2020
Page 4
BY:
Tony Guglielmo, Chairman
ATTEST:
Anne McIntosh, Secretary
I, Anne McIntosh, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 12th day of August 2020, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
069
70 SCreeC Improvemem
Development of PAI will include street improvements to 4th Street and 6th
Street, as well as the construction of the Vine and other Secondary roads.
The street improvements will be constructed in three (3) phases. Phase 1 will
include the following:
• Reconstruction of 4th Street median to provide for left turn movements
into the Vine and the construction of the new intersection at the Vine;
• Construction of the Vine, full width, between 4th Street and 6th Street;and
• Reconstruction of 6th Street median to allow for left turn movements
into the Vine and the construction of the new intersection at the Vine.
Phase 2 will include the following:
• Full width construction of the Vine between 6th Street and 7th Street
East; and
• Construction of 7th Street East and West, including the reconstruction
of existing knuckle designs at 7th Street and Cleveland Avenue and
7th Street and Anaheim Place.
It should be noted that additional right-of-way will be required from APN
0209-272-17 to extend 7th Street from Anaheim Place to the project boundary.
Phase 3 will include the following:
• Extension of the Vine northerly from 7th Street East to Planning Area
N-3; and
• The Secondary road along the frontage of Planning Area N-3.
All Phases of the project should have connectivity to the Metroknk station in
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT order to fulfill the intent of the project. To ensure access to the station from
DRC2020-00254 Phase 1 jwhile either Phases 2 and 3 are being graded and/or under
construction, or are dormant due to market conditions) the construction of an
access connection between 4th Street and the existing intersection of Anaheim
TEXT TO BE DELETED► Place and 7th Street near the Metrolink station, shall be completed prior to
the 400th certificate of occupancy in Phase 1 to the satisfaction of the City.
This requirement may be satisfied north of 6th street with a temporary road
condition with the following minimum features: 26-foot wide roadway with
3-inch AC over compacted native sail, asphalt curb and gutter, a 6.5-foot
wide asphalt sidewalk on one side, temporary street lights (i.e. non City
r, *t� 4
mpire Lakes
911,
WE _711 ATTACHMENT A070
standardl, and no landscaping in the alignment, all generally depicted on the
Figure A-22: Conceptual Phase 2 Street Improvement Facilities Plan "Interim Access
Connection." The access connection shall have chain link fencing on both sides to
protect against trespassing and vandalism on the adjacent property. The City shall
accept a temporary easement and be responsible for liability. The Applicant shall
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT be responsible for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the pavement and
DRC2020-00254 street lights. The City, to the extent allowed by law, shall restrict vehicles over 3-tans
along the temporary access.
TEXT TO BE DELETED---* It is acknowledged by the City that the access connection may not be available during
periods of construction of the permanent segments of the Vine and 7th Street, grading
operations, and maintenance and repair of the access connector. Applicant and Gty
will coordinate traffic control functions to insure delays are minimized. No additional
alternative access facility will be required of Applicant during these down times. Traffic
Control signs will direct traffic via detours to the next shortest available route off-site
between Phase 1 (South of 6th) and the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station.
8,0 Dry U 5111bes
PAI is within the service areas of the following utility purveyors:
Electricity: Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility(RCMU) will be the primary electric
service provider.
Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company
Telephone: Verizor
Cable Television: Charter Communications
Southern California Edison, Southern Califorria Gas, Verizon, and Charter
Communications have indicated that they have sufficient backbone facilities in place
to provide for the phased and ultimate utility service demands of the project. Minor
to moderate main line facility extensions will be required by the utility purveyors to
ensure adequate service.
Charter Communications has a duct bank system along the south side of East 6th
Street that has capacity to serve the development.
In addition, high-speed internet services may be available from RCMU.
• Empit
Lakes e
071
01 00ir JMF I I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: August 12, 2020 STAFF REPORT
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW MODIFICATION DRC2020-00192 - THE NEW HOME COMPANY
(LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE OF RESORT PARKWAY, NORTH OF 4T"
STREET) - A request to modify an approved 135-unit multi-family development made up
entirely of two-bedroom units by adding a third bedroom/flex office for a project site on 5.18
acres of land within Planning Area S-20 in the Village Neighborhood (VN) District of the
Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1; APN:0210-102-06. Related Files: Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT20241 and Design Review DRC2018-00784 Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)
(SCH No. 2015041083) on May 18, 2016, in connection with the City's approval of General
Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00040, and
Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required in connection with subsequent
discretionary approvals of the same project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
• Continue Design Review Modification DRC2020-00192 to an unspecified in the future, to provide
the applicant time to work with staff to resolve issues raised at the July 22, 2020, Planning
Commission meeting.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
On July 22, 2020, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request to modify the original approval
of a 135-unit mixed-use project made up entirely of two-bedroom units to replace 74 two-bedroom units with
37 three-bedroom units and 37 units with flex offices. The project is located within the larger "Resort"
development, which includes a mix of rental and for-sale housing units as well as commercial units. Staff
recommended that the Commission deny the applicant's request as it would reduce the variety of unit types
within the overall "Resort" project area and make the units less affordable over time to families at the lower
end of the income strata.
The Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's request and determined that they could not support
converting 74 two-bedroom units to include the 3rd bedroom/flex office. The Planning Commission
recommended that the applicant work with staff to reduce the number of units that would include the 3rd
bedroom/flex office and to redesign the layout of the flex office spaces to not resemble and function as a
bedroom.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the subject request in order to provide the
applicant and staff additional time to prepare and consider potential solutions in response to this request.
The proposal will be re-advertised for a future public hearing when an acceptable solution has been
established.
074
CITY Olt
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 2020
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2018-00533, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2018-
00534, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2018-00535, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT DRC2018-00536, VARIANCE, DRC2020-00232, AND TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2019-00218 (LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
200 FEET EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
ARROW ROUTE) —ALAN SMITH FOR ARBOR EXPRESS CAR WASH
- A request for site plan and architectural review of a 5,865 square foot
carwash and 1,428 square foot car detailing center, a Conditional Use
Permit to operate a carwash, General Plan and a Zoning Map Amendment
to change the land use and zoning designations on a portion of the project
site to General Commercial (GC) District, a Variance to reduce setback and
landscape requirements and a Tree Removal Permit for a 1.36-acre project
site in the General Commercial (GC) District and Low Medium (LM)
Residential District, located approximately 200 feet east of Archibald
Avenue on the north side of Arrow Route - APN: 0209-291-03 and -06. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts has been
prepared for consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
• Continue General Plan Amendment DRC2018-00533, Zoning Map Amendment
DRC2018-00534, Design Review DRC2018-00535, Conditional Use Permit DRC2018-
00536, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2019-00218 to an unspecified date in the future, in
order to provide the applicant time to update the plans based on pending changes to the
project.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The applicant is in the process of modifying his project. This would eliminate the necessity for a
variance related to building setback and landscape depth. The applicant has also been in
discussion with staff related to the potential of expanding the project scope to include land use
072
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA DRC2018-00536, ZMA DRC2018-00534, DR DRC2018-00535, VAR 2020-00232, CUP
DRC2018-00536 & TRP DRC2019-00218
ALAN SMITH
August 12, 2020
Page 2
changes on multiple parcels to the east of the project site to increase the allowed residential
density. The public hearing will be readvertised at such time when the full project scope has been
determined and updated plans and related documents have been reviewed by staff.
CORRESPONDENCE:
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular page legal advertisement on July 6,
2020, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted on July 8, 2020, and
notices were mailed to 100 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on July 7,
2020. To date, no comments have been received in response to these notifications.
073
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 2020
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
INITIATED: Michael Smith, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON ETIWANDA HEIGHTS ANNEXATION
DESCRIPTION:
Staff will provide an update on Etiwanda Heights Annexation and will be available to answer any
questions.
075
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 12, 2020
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP Planning Director
SUBJECT: Discussion —General Plan Update: Draft Vision and Core Values
BACKGROUND:
In January of this year, the City embarked on PlanRC, the City's General Plan Update process.
A general plan is a city's blueprint, or constitution, for future development. It documents the city's
long-range vision and establishes clear goals, objectives and actions to guide the community
through the next 10 to 20 years of change. A general plan is required for all cities in California by
state law. The City must update its General Plan periodically to keep up with changing needs
and conditions of the city and region. It also should be updated to reflect new local, state and
national laws. Except for periodic development driven amendments and the required update to
the Housing Element in 2017, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan is largely the same
document updated in 2010.
The City is preparing this update now to help us keep up with some significant changes in state
law regarding general plans. The Housing Element is due to be updated and submitted to the
state in early 2022. Housing law has been updated significantly in the last few years in efforts to
help streamline the development review process and increase housing production. The increase
in housing expected from the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) will require changes
to the housing element to show how and where housing will be provided. Additionally, the land
use and transportation elements of the General Plan will also need to be updated to show how to
physically accommodate the additional housing units required.
Since the adoption of the current General Plan, numerous other laws have been passed that
require updates beyond housing. Our current circulation element is not in compliance with
Assembly Bill 1358, which was effective in 2011. AB1358 requires that General Plan circulation
elements plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users
of the streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to
the rural, suburban, or urban context of the General Plan.
Senate Bill 1000 (Leyva, 2016) require cities that have disadvantaged communities to incorporate
and environmental justice (EJ) policies into their General Plans, either as a separate EJ element
or by integrating related goals, policies and objectives throughout the other elements. Climate
change and resiliency is also a high priority subject required to be addressed in General Plans.
The project will also include a Climate Action Plan to address new State and regional goals.
PlanRC is a community-based process that will involve everyone who cares about Rancho
Cucamonga. It is not about planning for dramatic change and development, but about exploring
community values, protecting what makes us special, deciding where change is appropriate, and
076
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
preparing for our future. The PlanRC team has been engaging with the community since January
to help establish a draft vision and set of core values upon which continued planning efforts,
outreach, and development of the General Plan will be based.
PROCESS AND SCHEDULE:
PlanRC is a multi-year process that started in January 2020. The major phases and schedule of
the process are as follows:
• Spring 2020—Existing Conditions: Review existing policies and reports and identify issues
and opportunities.
• Spring-Summer 2020 — Listening and Visioning: Develop long term vision and guiding
principles for the General Plan.
• Fall 2020 — Plan Alternatives; Create and refine land use and transportation alternatives.
• Winter-Spring 2021 — Policy and Plan Development: Develop policy solutions to address
a range of topics covered in the General Plan.
• Summer-Winter 2022 — Review and Adopted: Public and decision makers to review and
consider adoption of the updated General Plan.
To meet the State mandated Housing Element deadline noted above, it is important that the
general plan update process stay on track. The elements of a general plan are rarely independent
of each other; updating one element of the general plan (i.e. housing) often drives updates to
other elements (safety, land use, circulation, and environmental justice). For example, an update
to the housing element to add more residential units will have impacts on:
• Land use element to properly site those additional units;
• Circulation element to evaluate the impacts to the road networks;
• Safety element to reduce hazard risk; and
• Environmental Justice to ensure that our most vulnerable populations are not
disproportionately impacted.
Additionally, the state legislature has passed numerous laws since the last General Plan update
that require certain groups of elements be updated concurrently, which greatly limits the ability to
limit any one element in isolation from the rest of the General Plan. For example, Senate Bill 1241
requires the safety element be reviewed and updated concurrently with the next iteration of the
Housing Element update.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TO-DATE:
Community engagement efforts began in late January 2020, and the PlanRC web page was
launched February 27, 2020. Initial communication was focused on What is a General Plan, why
there is a need to update the General Plan and encouraging the need for public participation in
this multi-year process. PlanRC was featured and discussed in news articles, videos, the Mayor's
State of the City address, social media, eReport email blast, Rancho Reporter, City Council
Meeting kick-off, citywide staff kick-off, community ambassador training, and small group
meetings. In February the PlanRC consultant team conducted three days of stakeholder
interviews with Rancho Cucamonga industry leaders, community-based organizations, public-
serving institutions, elected officials, and other stakeholders to talk about issues and opportunities
for PlanRC.
077
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
From March to mid-May, communication was focused on continued education of the General Plan
process and purpose and encouraging participation in online surveys. In mid-March, however,
our approach to community engagement had to pivot due to the restraints caused by the COVID-
19 pandemic and all of the planned in-person public participation opportunities were converted to
digital/online engagement. This broad engagement effort included an online visioning survey with
over 500 respondents, online mapping exercises, virtual roadshow meetings with local
organizations and businesses, and a PlanRC educational video series.
Several themes and summary observations emerged from the online visioning survey:
• Housing and new development are threatening to many in the community— crime, visual
impacts, traffic, parks/ resources. On the other hand, many others desire more affordable
and diverse housing options to accommodate different incomes and lifestyles.
• There were many ideas shared on local transit and active transportation options.
• Abundant parks, open space, trails, and views are hugely valued by the community.
Access to and maintenance of these natural and recreational resources are of concern for
both underserved residents in Rancho Cucamonga and those who worry that growth is
affecting quality.
• People, culture, events, spaces, activities, shopping, and dining are important and
appreciated here. However, there is still a desire for more local options and places for
these activities along with equitable distribution.
• Diversity is viewed as a unique and special value and is strongly represented as
characteristic that should be more prevalent and celebrated by 2045.
• People love the cleanliness, beauty, safety and image of Rancho Cucamonga. There is a
strong desire to protect these features, and to ensure they can be enjoyed by all residents.
Approximately half those responding to the visioning survey have lived in Rancho Cucamonga for
20 years or more are age 45 and up, and the highest response rate came from census tracts in
the northeast part of the city (Etiwanda area).
At the end of June, a three-day virtual forum was held. The goal of the Forum on Our Future was
to build on results from the initial online visioning survey and engage community members in
informal dialogue. The event offered an online Kick-off Summit, virtual small group discussions
around seven topics, a webinar focused on land use and economic development, a video
presentation of a conceptual plan for Rancho Cucamonga by Cal Poly Pomona graduate
students, and a second PlanRC survey, which was open through the end of July, to further guide
the development of a vision and core values.
In contrast to those responding to the visioning survey, Round 1 of Forum on Our Future attracted
many younger residents, including teens, as well as some residents living in neighborhoods south
of Foothill Boulevard, which are less often represented. This dialogue broadened the themes of
what we have heard to date:
• Equity and environmental justice are important and were raised as key issues throughout
all topics/sessions.
• The issue of racial inequity is a significant topic that has not been discussed enough in
the community and has not been dealt with. Racial justice needs to be part of Rancho
Cucamonga's values, and there needs to be follow through in how we deal with those in
physical development.
078
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
• Looking at community input by region/neighborhoods is really critical. Not all areas/groups
experience the same issues (such as traffic) in the same way as they are affected
differently. We need to take a better look at how physical solutions are tailored to different
parts of the city.
• There are infrastructure needs and public safety concerns in southwest Rancho
Cucamonga, along with the need for improved sidewalks, more parks, safer parks, local
transit, etc.
• There is desire to provide fiber to more residents. Internet bandwidth is critical, especially
with COVID-19.
• Keeping workers in the city with more professional job opportunities is important, along
with providing housing options for all types of employment, not just professional. With
COVID-19, there is a need to re-assess where and how people will work.
• Abundant parks, open space, trails, and views are hugely valued by the community —
similar to survey responses. There is a need for different types of trails: 1. to enjoy nature
and exercise; and 2. getting from place to place (connect housing to things like grocery
stores).
• Parks should include more multicultural/racial and ethnic driven outreach and activities.
• Foothill Boulevard serves as physical separation and break up the city. There are
socioeconomic inequalities depending on where you live in the city.
At the end of July, Round 2 of Forum on Our Future was held to garner more participation. This
event was a continuation of the Forum on Our Future multi-day virtual event that was held from
June 29 to July 1. Round 2 was a four-day evening event of online discussion sessions covering
the same topics as discussed in Round 1. The purpose was to continue the discussion and
engage those who could not participate in the daytime event held at the end of June. Nearly 200
people participated in Round 2 of the online forum. The themes and major overall observations
from this dialogue include:
• Health. This session invited community members to explore the aspects of a healthy
community that support diversity and inclusion. Attendees talked about topics like access to
housing, parks, social services, transportation, economic opportunity and more. We discussed
struggles with health & equity in Rancho Cucamonga, and asked questions including: What
improvements and ideas do you think are needed to make Rancho Cucamonga a healthier
and more inclusive community? How can better physical planning lead to increased equity?
Overall, there were different thoughts when it came to the word Health. Some were focused
on current circumstances with COVID-19 while others touched on mental health, healthy
eating, access to health care, and even a community/sense of belonging.
• Housing. The initial PlanRC online survey highlighted that Rancho Cucamonga residents are
concerned about housing — with some hoping to limit the development of new housing, and
others wanting to see more new, affordable and diverse housing options. In this session,
attendees shared their thoughts on how Rancho Cucamonga can provide housing options
that accommodate the needs of its many families and workers, achieve designs that fit with
the community, and address a growing homelessness concern, while also meeting State
requirements. Overall, the discussion provided insight from residents of all ages. Most
common discussion included the price and affordability of housing, variety of housing for all,
and the need to ensure there is housing to accommodate the growing population in creative
ways that will allow people to stay here.
079
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
• Resiliency. The Rancho Cucamonga community has experienced the physical and emotional
devastation that natural disasters like windstorms and wildfires can produce. In this session,
attendees were asked to share their thoughts and opinions on how best to boost the resiliency
of Rancho Cucamonga. The session engaged attendees in discussions about disaster
preparedness (e.g. earthquakes) and challenged attendees to explore issues and
opportunities around climate change, energy conservation, sustainability and environmental
justice. Overall discussion included ways to address climate change, reduce vulnerabilities to
natural hazards, and how the city can become better prepared for disasters and be more
resilient in the face of a natural disaster.
• Mobility. How we get around the community affects our quality of life.The initial PIanRC survey
identified traffic and safety as key issues currently facing our city — but community members
also identified numerous ideas and options to move people around the city without a personal
car. Participants were invited to join this discussion to talk about how Rancho Cucamonga
can both address existing traffic and safety issues and tackle inventive, new accessible
transport possibilities for the future. Many participants provided input on how they commonly
get around town and ways to provide alternative methods of transportation to ensure their
equitable mobility options for everyone throughout the community. Options related to public
transportation, bikes, light rail and others were discussed. Some of the biggest issues were
centered around parking in residential areas, noise pollution, and improvements to some of
the traffic signals and intersections.
• Economy. According to comments on the PlanRC Survey #1, we should focus on creating
high level jobs for our community, including in the health industry. Of course, as a community,
we need to support the recovery of all our local businesses amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Questions asked of the attendees included - What do we need to consider to ensure a
recovery that will benefit our entire community? Attendees joined this session to share their
thoughts, ideas, and opinions on growing our Rancho Cucamonga economy. These thoughts
and opinions focused on how COVID-19 affected their jobs or businesses. Many have
experienced downsizing and financial impacts. Other discussions included how the city can
improve the economy with high end jobs and specialized training and improve the economy
with better transportation and ways to attract tourists and hotels.
• Parks and Open Space. Parks, open spaces, landscaping — active and passive — are very
important to the Rancho Cucamonga community. This session asked participants to take a
deeper dive into the topic. How can the City be more creative and inclusive in the development
of parks, open space, and landscaping? The participants shared views on how important
parks and open space meant to them and provided examples of some of their favorite features
about the City's parks. Many commented on the maintenance and views, others mentioned
the amenities such as trails, lakes, and amphitheaters. There was also discussion on how to
improve the parks and open space and if there was a need for me. Participants weighed in
and offered suggestions for additional activities, and ways to expand the parks throughout the
city.
• Arts and Culture. Rancho Cucamonga is a community with many assets and unique cultural
attributes — wine history, festivals, Quakes Baseball, theatre, parks, mountains, etc. All of
these contribute to what many would refer to as a "sense of place". How can Rancho
080
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
Cucamonga better celebrate its identity and focus on "placemaking" in the future? How do we
ensure we are being inclusive as we enhance our sense of community and spaces? This
discussion group was intended to involve people who are passionate about creating places
for RC residents to congregate, celebrate, and share as a community. The session was
insightful and attracted our largest group of attendees. Many touched on things that makes
Rancho Cucamonga a great place— lots of open space, place for family and friends, healthy,
public safety, among others. The discussion transitioned into thoughts on arts and culture and
the overall theme was the importance of arts and culture having the ability to bring community
together and drive economic development. Others touched on their favorite spaces for arts
and culture and how disenfranchised communities could showcase the local culture. These
conversations identified several opportunities to incorporate art better and highlighted the
importance of inclusivity.
Concurrent with the Forum on Our Future (Rounds 1 and 2), a second PIanRC online survey was
conducted. The survey was open from June 29-August 3 and received 304 responses. The
purpose of the second survey was to confirm the emerging themes, or values, expressed in the
Visioning Survey, and help better understand how these topics relate to various parts of the city
by asking which areas of the city need the most focus on each theme. Recognizing that our city
is diverse both in who we are and where we live, work, and spend our free time, this survey helped
to confirm the core values or themes expressed by respondents, as well as provide better insight
on how these topics affect different areas of the city. For example, public services and natural
hazards and resiliency were expressed as citywide issues, whereas Southwest Rancho
Cucamonga was identified as needing more focus on quality welcoming neighborhoods, diverse
housing choices, and parks and open space.
DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES:
As a result of these broad engagement efforts to date, a draft vision and core values were
established upon which continued planning efforts, outreach, and development of the General
Plan will be based. As the purpose of this General Plan update is to enhance our direction, rather
than reinvent our City, we have found that the City Council's vision statement for the City(provided
below), effectively captures the themes and priorities we have heard thus far from the community.
"Build on our success as a world class community to create a balanced, vibrant,
and innovative city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive."
Since its beginning, Rancho Cucamonga has pursued the ideal of creating a world class
community. With each decade and each generation, our ideas as to what makes a world class
community have morphed and evolved, but they have long been grounded in the concepts of
excellence, opportunity, and providing for a high quality of life.
To support the philosophy of the vision statement and the concepts in which it has been grounded,
three core values, or themes, emerged from dialogue with the community — Health, Equity and
Stewardship. These are the values we heard the community is most interested in shaping and
will be the lenses through which we will craft the General Plan, and the themes to look at for
proposed solutions. They will be revisited and refined throughout the PlanRC process to
continually reaffirm that the community's ideals and principles are reflected in, and supported by,
the goals, policies and strategies of the updated General Plan. These values and themes are not
081
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
intended to be definitive at this stage of the process, but rather provide direction based on
community input to date. They will help shape the General Plan and guide proposed solutions
and intended outcomes.
• Health. Health is the foundation on human existence, and everyone should have the
opportunity to be as healthy as possible. The zip code we live in is a greater predictor of our
life expectancy than our own DNA. Although we cannot change our genes, we can certainly
make choices about our communities through the General Plan that shape the places where
we live, work and play, and ultimately improve our chances for living long, healthy, fruitful
lives. Health is a value that Rancho Cucamonga is built on, and as such the virtues of our city
should be key factors in helping people live a thriving, healthy life.
• Ecluity. Equity is key component to creating and sustaining a world class community.
Everyone should have a fair and just opportunity to thrive and have a high quality of life.
Rancho Cucamonga is firmly committed to ensuring it is a place to live, work, shop, learn, and
play for all residents and households, regardless of age, income, gender, ability, and ethnic
background. As we maintain equity as a core value, we recognize that everyone has different
needs and abilities, and we should strive to craft a city through the General Plan that meets
the needs and abilities, and intrinsic, inalienable characteristics of all those within our
community.
• Stewardship. To secure Rancho Cucamonga's long-term success, we must commit to
sustaining our high quality of life by taking on the responsibility of ensuring the well-being of
the city in a variety of ways. This includes efficiently utilizing our finite, non-renewable natural
and financial resources. We must also position ourselves and our community in a way to adapt
effectively to shifting economic, social, and demographic trends, and resiliently rebound from
environmental, economic, and public health shocks. Stewardship captures the essence of
this responsibility, and although the term is not commonly used, it is a value the city has
maintained and must continue to maintain.
Health
Equity Stewardship
These core values will hold the fundamental reasons in which we implement future public and
private investment in Rancho Cucamonga. These values are not intended to be representative of
all of the values which our community holds. These are the themes that have been the strongest
and most frequent in discussing the future of Rancho Cucamonga with the community. Through
conversations with the ocmmunity, it has become clear that health, equity, and stewardship are
082
PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTORS REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT VISION AND CORE VALUES
August 12, 2020
Page
strongly held aspirations and these are outcomes the City should work to acheive. These will not
be the only ideas used to shape the General Plan, but they will lead the way.
NEXT STEPS:
In early September, community engagement efforts will continue with the discussion of citywide
land use scenarios, leading up to the evaluation of land use and transportation alternatives in the
fall, and selection of a preferred land use plan by end of this year. If COVID-19 restrictions are
relaxed, there may be opportunities to integrate some pop-ups or other face to face events in
2021. Regardless, the PlanRC team is continuing to provide a variety of robust virtual and online
engagement activities throughout the process to ensure we are hearing from all segments of the
community.
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive staff report, discuss, and provide comment.
083