Rancho Cucamonga City Council
November 2, 2022

ATTACHMENT 1
2 9
9 0
Vicinity Map
SUBTT20353

NOT TO SCALE
Project Site

Resolution No. 2022-133 - Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-133

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE

ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (GENERAL CITY) FOR
PROJECT CASE NO. SUBTT20353
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) (the “District”); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”) establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the “Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the “Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and Waiver”); and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and

Resolution No. 2022-133 – Page 2 of 5
2 9
8 8
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that:
(1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment.

WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the
Improvements.
b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments.

SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C.

SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2022.

Resolution No. 2022-133 – Page 3 of 5
2 9
8 8
Exhibit A
Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is:

H & L INDUSTRIES, INC.

The legal description of the Property is:

CUCAMONGA HOMESTEAD ASSN N 250.1 FT W 383 FT LOT 9 BLK 12 MEAS FROM C/L HELLMAN AVE EX W 33 FT ST 2.01 AC M/L
Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property:
0202-061-32

Resolution No. 2022-133 – Page 4 of 5
2 9
8 8
Exhibit B
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2022/23
Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City):

Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) (the “Maintenance District”) represents various landscaped areas, parks and community trails located at various sites throughout the City.

These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City. As such, the parcels within this District do not represent a distinct district area as do the other LMD’s within the City.

Typically, new parcels within this District have been annexed upon development.

The various sites maintained by the District consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, community trails and parks. The parks consist of Bear Gulch Park, East and West Beryl Park, Old Town Park, Church Street Park, Golden Oaks Park, Hermosa Park, and the undeveloped Don Tiburcio Tapia Park.

Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. Case No. SUBTT20353 14 Trees

Resolution No. 2022-133 – Page 5 of 5
2 9
8 8
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2022/23
Landscape Maintenance District No.1 (General City):

The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $92.21 for the fiscal year 2022/23. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) for Case No. SUBTT20353:

Land Use Basis
EBU*
Factor
Rate per
EBU*
Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $92.21
Multi-Family Residential Unit 0.50 92.21
Non-Residential Acre 2.00 92.21
The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows:
6 Parcels x 1.00 EBU Factor x $92.21 Rate per EBU = $553.26 Annual Assessment

Resolution No. 2022-134 - Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-134

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE

ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR
CASE NO. SUBTT20353
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the “District”); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”) establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the “Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the “Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and Waiver”); and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and

Resolution No. 2022-134 – Page 2 of 5
2 9
8 7
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that:
(1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment.

WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the
Improvements.
b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments.

SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C.

SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2022.

Resolution No. 2022-134 – Page 3 of 5
2 9
8 7
Exhibit A
Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is:

H & L INDUSTRIES, INC.

The legal description of the Property is:

CUCAMONGA HOMESTEAD ASSN N 250.1 FT W 383 FT LOT 9 BLK 12 MEAS FROM C/L HELLMAN AVE EX W 33 FT ST 2.01 AC M/L
Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property:
0202-061-32

Resolution No. 2022-134 – Page 4 of 5
2 9
8 7
Exhibit B
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2019/20
Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets):

Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the “Maintenance District”) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City.

The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City.

Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. SUBTT20353:

NONE

Resolution No. 2022-134 – Page 5 of 5
2 9
8 7
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2021/22
Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets):

The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2021/22. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets) for Case No. SUBTT20353:

Land Use Basis
EBU
Factor*
Rate per
EBU*
Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $17.77
Multi-Family Residential Parcel 1.00 17.77
Non-Residential Acre 2.00 17.77
The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows:
6 Parcels x 1 EBU Factor x $17.77 Rate per EBU = $106.62 Annual Assessment

Resolution No. 2022-135 - Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2022 -135

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE

ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS) FOR CASE
NO. SUBTT20353
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the “Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972”, being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Act”, said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) (the “District”); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer’s report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California (“Article XIII D”) establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the “Territory”) be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the “Improvements”); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled “Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property” (the “Consent and Waiver”); and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and

Resolution No. 2022-135 – Page 2 of 5
2 9
8 9
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that:
(1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment.

WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct.

SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the
Improvements.
b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments.

SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C.

SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2022.

Resolution No. 2022-135 – Page 3 of 5
2 9
8 9
Exhibit A
Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is:

H & L INDUSTRIES, INC.

The legal description of the Property is:

CUCAMONGA HOMESTEAD ASSN N 250.1 FT W 383 FT LOT 9 BLK 12 MEAS FROM C/L HELLMAN AVE EX W 33 FT ST 2.01 AC M/L
Assessor’s Parcels Numbers of the Property:
0202-061-32

Resolution No. 2022-135 – Page 4 of 5
2 9
8 9
Exhibit B
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2021/22
Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets):

Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) (the “Maintenance District”) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in another local maintenance district.

Generally, this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue.

The sites maintained by the District consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue.

Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. SUBTT20353:
2 Street Lights

Resolution No. 2022-135 – Page 5 of 5
2 9
8 9
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2021/22
Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets):

The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $39.97 for the fiscal year 2021/22. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) for Case No. SUBTT20353:

Land Use Basis
EBU
Factor*
Rate per
EBU*
Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $39.97
Multi-Family Residential Unit 1.00 39.97
Non-Residential Acre 2.00 39.97
The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows:
6 Parcels x 1 EBU Factor x $39.97 Rate per EBU = $239.82 Annual Assessment

DATE:November 2, 2022
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Noah Daniels, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Consider the Detachment of Certain Property from Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 6 and Consideration of the Approval of a Resolution Ordering the Detachment of Such Property from the Districts and to Adjust the Boundary of Each District’s Map. (RESOLUTION NO. 2022-131 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2022-132) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing to consider the detachment of real property, identified as 12434 4th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (“the Property”), from Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1 and 6 (collectively, the “Districts”).

BACKGROUND:

The Property is included within the boundaries of the Districts and Community Facilities District No. 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“CFD 2022-01”). The purpose of CFD 2022-01 is to provide maintenance and services for streetlights, replacing the historical Districts for new development within the City. The Property was annexed into CFD 2022-01 on June 1, 2022, and the Districts provide similar services.

On September 6, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution Nos. 2022-123 and 2022-124 declaring the intention to detach the Property from the Districts and set a public hearing to be held on November 2, 2022, to consider the proposed detachment. Upon closing the public hearing, the City Council should consider approving the Resolution to order the detachment of the Property from Districts and adjust the boundary of each District’s map.

ANALYSIS:

Since the Property is included in the CFD 2022-01 and the Districts, the Property must be detached from the Districts. The Landscape and Light Act of 1972 (the “1972 Act”), which the Districts were formed through, provides that the City Council may order the Property be detached from the Districts following a public hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The special assessments revenues levied by the Districts will be removed. However, such special assessments are being replaced by special taxes with CFD 2022-01. CFD 2022-01 was formed to be financially self-sufficient, meaning the revenues generated by CFD 2022-01 offset the costs of providing services and can be adjusted annually based on changes in overall operating costs for the streetlights.

1 5
4 6
COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City Council’s goal to ensure the fiscal sustainability of the City’s special districts. This item also supports the City Council’s core values of intentionally embracing and anticipating the future.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution Ordering Detachment of Territory from SLD No. 1 Attachment 2 – Resolution Ordering Detachment of Territory from SLD No. 6

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-131

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE

DETACHMENT OF TERRITORY FROM STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City Council”) has determined that it is necessary to detach certain territory from Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 (“SLD No. 1”), which is described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”), because the services provided by SLD No. 1 to the Property will now be provided by a newly formed community facilities district; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has elected, pursuant to Section 22609 of the Streets and Highways Code, to commence proceedings for the detachment of the Property from SLD No. 1; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-123 initiating proceedings to detach the Property from SLD No. 1 pursuant to Sections 22607, 22609, and 22587 of the Streets and Highways Code and setting the time and place of a public hearing thereon.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Order of Detachment. The City Council hereby approves a change in organization of SLD No. 1 by ordering the detachment of the Property therefrom. The Property shall be and is detached from SLD No. 1.

Section 3. Amended Assessment Diagram. The Finance Director is hereby directed to cause the assessment diagram of SLD No. 1 to be amended to reflect the detachment of the Property therefrom and to file such amended assessment diagram with the Auditor of the County of San Bernardino.

ATTACHMENT 1
2 9
8 0

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED
The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting hereof held 2nd day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED
L. DENNIS MICHAEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK

A-1
ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARY OF TERRITORY TO BE DETACHED
FROM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
Property to be detached from Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 includes the land situated in the State of California, County of San Bernardino, City of Rancho Cucamonga, described as follows:

Assessor Parcel Numbers: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51.

B-1
ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT B

BOUNDARY OF TERRITORY TO BE DETACHED
FROM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1

ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-132

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE

DETACHMENT OF TERRITORY FROM STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (“City Council”) has determined that it is necessary to detach certain territory from Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (“SLD No. 6”), which is described in Exhibit A and depicted in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”), because the services provided by SLD No. 6 to the Property will now be provided by a newly formed community facilities district; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has elected, pursuant to Section 22609 of the Streets and Highways Code, to commence proceedings for the detachment of the Property from SLD No. 6; and
WHEREAS, on September 6, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022-124 initiating proceedings to detach the Property from SLD No. 6 pursuant to Sections 22607, 22609, and 22587 of the Streets and Highways Code and setting the time and place of a public hearing thereon.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California:

Section 1. Findings. The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. Order of Detachment. The City Council hereby approves a change in organization of SLD No. 6 by ordering the detachment of the Property therefrom. The Property shall be and is detached from SLD No. 6.

Section 3. Amended Assessment Diagram. The Finance Director is hereby directed to cause the assessment diagram of SLD No. 6 to be amended to reflect the detachment of the Property therefrom and to file such amended assessment diagram with the Auditor of the County of San Bernardino.

ATTACHMENT 2
2 9
8 1
2 9
8 1

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED
The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting hereof held 2nd day of November, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED
L. DENNIS MICHAEL, MAYOR
ATTEST:

JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK

A-1
ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARY OF TERRITORY TO BE DETACHED
FROM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6
Property to be detached from Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 includes the land situated in the State of California, County of San Bernardino, City of Rancho Cucamonga, described as follows:

Assessor Parcel Numbers: 0229-283-50 and 0229-283-51.

B-1
ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT B

BOUNDARY OF TERRITORY TO BE DETACHED
FROM STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6

RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Commission and Staff recommend the City Council conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1012 by title only and waive full reading of the following:
•Approval of Municipal Code Amendment to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to incorporate mew optional development standards and approval of Zoning Map Amendment to amend the Zoning Map to establish a new Overlay Zoning District.

BACKGROUND:

For over 5 years, the residents and property owners living in the vicinity of Camino Predera, a street within the Red Hill neighborhood, have struggled to agree on what constitutes appropriate housing styles and sizes for the development of the remaining lots on Camino Predera. Many of the existing residents in the Camino Predera area have raised concerns about the applications submitted to the City to construct new houses on the remaining vacant properties in their neighborhood. They have expressed these concerns during various steps of the City’s review process of these applications including the Design Review Committee meetings and the Planning Commission public hearings. Many of these concerns have centered around the overall size (floor area) of the proposed houses, their form or visual “massing”, overbuilding on the site in general, DATE: November 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development Mike Smith, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA – Consideration of a proposal to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to incorporate new development standards related to, for example, structure height, modifications to existing topographical conditions, and the City’s application processing requirements applicable to thirty-eight (38) properties that are located on the north and south sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have street frontage along Predera Court, a residential neighborhood generally located north of Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail and west of Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, in the Low Residential (L) Zone and amend the Zoning Map to establish an overlay zoning district (“Camino Predera Overlay”) that identifies which properties are subject to the new development standards; APNs: 0207-631-01 through -11 and -14 through -25, and 0207-641- 01 through -15. These amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. DRC2020-00004 and DRC2022-00315. (ORDINANCE NO. 1012) (CITY)

1 5
2 8
and crowding between structures. The overall theme of these concerns was that these proposals were not compatible nor consistent with the character of the existing neighborhood. These concerns are rarely expressed, and never to the same degree, by the owners of properties elsewhere in Red Hill, or the greater citywide Hillside Overlay in general, when a Hillside Design Review (HDR) application is proposed in their vicinity. Additionally, the property owners and applicants for the development of the remaining undeveloped lots have raised concerns that meeting the desires of the neighbors is economically or physically infeasible.

In late 2018, owners in Camino Predera submitted to the City Council an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a development application proposed on the north side of Camino Predera. The City Council considered this appeal during two public hearings. After considering the concerns of the Camino Predera owners, the Councilmembers asked the applicant’s architect to revise the proposal. The architect subsequently made significant modifications to the technical and design details of the proposed house. At the third and final public hearing for the application, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval with the proposed modifications.

During this last public hearing the City Council requested that staff review the current hillside development standards, and if necessary, establish new standards. The intent of this request was to alleviate the concerns noted above and to ensure that any house proposed in the future would be compatible and consistent in character with existing houses along Camino Predera. Similarly, it was to facilitate the development process by providing future developers/homeowners clear objective standards.

As staff began this effort, the scope of the City’s review initially included all areas within the citywide Hillside Overlay. However, staff determined the concerns that were assumed to be shared commonly in the citywide Hillside Overlay by staff were not frequently expressed by all property owners. Staff concluded that the topography and development pattern of Red Hill was unlike other areas in the Hillside Overlay and, therefore, the scope of the review was further revised to explicitly apply to thirty-eight properties located along Camino Predera and Predera Court. This area, labeled as the Proposed Camino Predera Overlay, is shown in the Figure 1 below and additional details are provided later in this report. The following staff recommendation is the culmination of efforts to work with the community and develop new standards, per the City Council’s request.

1 5
2 8

Figure 1 - Red Hill Neighborhood
Community Workshops
Staff initiated a workshop to obtain input from the Red Hill community. This would more accurately inform staff of the development-related issues, if any, in Red Hill. That information, in turn, would be used to create the proposed standards. The first workshop was conducted on August 8, 2019, at Lions Center West, a community center located at 9161 Base Line Road. To assist with this workshop, the City contracted with a meeting facilitator and a contract planner who specialized in Code development to join City staff during the conversation with the community. All property owners in the Red Hill community were invited to attend. At this workshop, staff explained the purpose of the Code amendment, process, and an overview of the expectations of the amendment. The residents were later encouraged to separate into groups to discuss their concerns and highlight the things they appreciate most about their neighborhood.

This workshop was informative for staff. The majority of those in attendance identified several positive attributes of Red Hill. They indicated that they had no desire for more regulations. However, the property owners in Camino Predera expressed mixed comments about development in their neighborhood. After the first workshop, staff further narrowed the focus of the evaluation of the standards so that they would only apply to Camino Predera.

Staff began forming draft changes to the standards for discussion and feedback at the second workshop which was conducted on September 9, 2019, at Valle Vista Elementary located in Red Hill at 7727 Valle Vista Road. The meeting facilitator and contract planner who were present at the first workshop also joined City staff for this second workshop to help property owners reach consensus and model various development standards. Some of the most notable changes to the standards requested by the residents included a maximum building height on the properties on the south side of Camino Predera, increased side yard building setbacks, standards for roof designs, and increased height for retaining walls, among others.

1 5
2 8

At the second workshop attendance was slightly less than the first. Attendees were primarily those who reside or owned property in Camino Predera. The attendees were encouraged to break into groups again to discuss their likes and/or dislikes with the proposed changes. The feedback was divided between the owners on the north side of Camino Predera, who were supportive of the changes, and property owners of vacant properties on the south side of Camino Predera, who were not. Staff continued to refine the draft standards so they would reflect the comments received during the second workshop.

On January 22, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code that would, if approved, amend the City’s development standards for the properties in Camino Predera. After receiving staff’s report and comments from the public, the Commission continued the hearing to an unspecified date to allow more time for discussion of the potential changes to the hillside standards and collaboration between the property owners in Camino Predera. The Commission also directed staff to continue working with the Camino Predera community and conduct additional workshops prior to bringing the item back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

As requested by the Planning Commission, staff organized a follow-up third workshop on January 30, 2020, in the Tri-Communities Room at City Hall. With this effort, the scope of the City’s review/analysis was “condensed” to address only the properties within Camino Predera and only include the applicable owners.

As before, all owners in Camino Predera were invited to attend. This meeting allowed staff to obtain further, focused, input from the Camino Predera owners and what was important to them. Everyone was provided the opportunity to provide their thoughts on the standards proposed by staff and propose their own standards. During this workshop it became apparent that there were disagreements between the owners and their counterparts on the north side and the south side of Camino Predera, respectively, regarding details of the proposed development standards.

Generally, the standards proposed by the owners on the north side of Camino Predera were more restrictive than those currently in the Code. In the meantime, the owners on the south side of Camino Predera proposed new development standards that were relatively minimal or “no change” compared to the standards proposed by staff. In some instances, some of the new development standards generally related to design requirements, proposed changes considered unnecessary or ineffective by the majority of owners. These standards were related to the type of roof design, e.g., hip, gable, and flat; garage door orientation; and the setback of the garage relative to the house.

More than a year later staff conducted a fourth workshop on July 29, 2021. Note that the fourth workshop was scheduled for an earlier date in March 2020 but was postponed due to State- mandated restrictions on in-person meetings in response to the COVID pandemic. A facilitator was contracted by the City to assist in the discussion. As before, all owners in Camino Predera were invited to attend. This workshop allowed staff to share with them a refined set of proposed standards based on the collective discussion during the third workshop. The revised set of proposed standards included adjustments to the proposed standards that staff believed was a “balance” between what the owners on both sides of Camino Predera wanted. And, in general, staff considered them to be fair and respectful of the property and development rights of all owners on Camino Predera. Also, staff deleted proposed standards that were unnecessary.

1 5
2 8
Staff observed continuing disagreements regarding specifics of the proposed development standards and that establishing new standards that would be mutually agreed upon by the owners was unlikely. The most notable standard that was the subject of significant disagreement was related to structure/building height relative to the finished surface of Camino Predera (the street).

The fifth, and final, workshop was conducted on March 17, 2022. This workshop served as a check-in with the owners in Camino Predera before staff moved forward to having the standards reviewed for recommendation by the Planning Commission and subsequently reviewed and acted upon by the City Council. Staff shared with them a draft of the proposed standards based on the collective discussion during the third and fourth workshops. As before, these revisions to the proposed standards were relatively minor and incorporated a balanced approach to the standards.

Staff observed continuing disagreements regarding specifics of the proposed development standards. Determining new standards that would be acceptable by all owners was seemingly not possible. During the final workshop, staff received comments from some of the attendees which concluded that consensus was highly unlikely and that the City needed to make a final determination on the proposed standards.

ANALYSIS:

The subject properties that would be affected by the proposed amendments are within a residential area that is referred to by its residents and others outside of the area as “Red Hill.” Red Hill is also identified in this manner by a variety of resources and documents authored by the City including the General Plan. Red Hill is bound, and generally defined, by Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail, Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, Base Line Road, and the City’s western boundary limits to the south, east, north, and west, respectively, as shown in the Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 - Red Hill Neighborhood

1 5
2 8
Development within Red Hill mostly consists of single-family residences that were constructed prior to the City’s incorporation in 1977. Characteristics of this include varying lot dimensions and configurations, eclectic architecture, and mature landscaping. Red Hill also has a relatively rural appearance as demonstrated by the limited number of streetlights and the absence of street improvements such as sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.  These characteristics and existing conditions inform how the City considers development proposals in Red Hill.

On the west side of Red Hill is Red Hill Country Club.  This golf course and associated buildings/amenities cover 178.55 acres or about 1/3 of the land area of Red Hill.    There is also a school, Valle Vista Elementary, near the center of Red Hill. There is no commercial development within the interior of Red Hill.  There is some commercial development fronting along Foothill Boulevard along Red Hill’s southernmost perimeter.  Aside from access from Red Hill Country Club Drive, these commercial properties are not directly accessible from any of the interior residential streets of Red Hill.

Except for the non-residential properties described above, the General Plan land use designation and Zoning of the properties within Red Hill are Low Residential District and Low Residential (L) Zone, respectively. Not including the area at the north side of Red Hill near Base Line Road all properties are also within the Hillside Overlay.

Figure 3 – Hillside Overlay Map

1 5
2 8
Site Characteristics – Camino Predera
The specific location of the subject properties is Tract 10035 (recorded in May 1985) located along the southeastern edge of Red Hill as shown in Figure 4 below. This tract consists of thirty-eight (38) lots located along Camino Predera and Predera Court (Camino Predera).

Figure 4 - Camino Predera Neighborhood

Camino Predera is generally characterized by sloped topography that decreases from approximately 1,345 feet above sea level (ASL) on the north side to approximately 1,280 feet ASL on the south side. Exact existing and finished grade elevations vary depending on the lot. It is not unusual for adjacent lots to have relatively significant elevation differences between them as demonstrated below via the image capture from Google Maps (Figure 5).

Figure 5 - North-South Elevation Change

1 5
2 8
The approval of Tract 10035 did not include the construction of any houses. All residential development, except for a set of three (3) houses, was proposed one house at a time. Twenty- one (21) of the thirty-eight (38) lots are developed with single-family residences that were constructed prior to 2010. Sixteen (16) of these houses are located on the north side. There is only one vacant lot (APN: 0207-641-12, Lot 35) remaining on the north side. The other five (5) houses are on the south side.

Of the remaining seventeen (17) undeveloped lots, there are two houses under construction (APNs: 0207-641-03, Lot 3 and -04, Lot 4) and another currently in plan check pending construction (APN: 0207-631-07, Lot 17). In addition, the Planning and Economic Development Department is currently reviewing applications for the development of two (2) lots (APNs: 0207- 631-08, Lot 18 and 0207-641-12, Lot 35).

Current Development Review Process
All proposals to develop a property within the Hillside Overlay require the review of a Hillside Design Review (HDR) application for review and approval by the City. As Camino Predera is within this overlay, all development there is subject to this requirement. These applications are reviewed and approved by the Planning and Economic Development Director per Section

17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review) of the Municipal Code. The exceptions to this are 1) when there is excavation or import of soil to the project site (thus modifying the existing grade) which would result in a change in the existing grade of 5 feet (or more) in depth or 2) when there is a Variance associated with the HDR application. For such circumstances, review and approval by the Planning Commission is required per Section 17.122.020(G)(1)(i) (Hillside Development) and Section 17.20.030 (Variance) of the Code. In comparison, residential development that is not in this overlay requires a Minor Design Review (MDR) and the development limitations are not as restrictive.

Although it is not required by the Code, historically all HDR applications in the Overlay have been forwarded to the Design Review Committee for their review and recommendation to the Planning and Economic Development Director. The Director, as per the Code, would then review the application and take final action, e.g., approve/deny/modify the project. Note that an HDR application in Camino Predera has, until recently, been automatically forwarded to the Planning Commission by staff regardless of whether it had 5 feet (or more) of excavation/fill and/or needed a Variance as described above. The decision-making body that would review and take final action on the project would be the Planning Commission and not the Planning and Economic Development Director. In addition, all applicants for HDR applications in Camino Predera are asked to conduct a neighborhood meeting as a courtesy to the other property owners in Camino Predera. These actions are not typical for HDR applications that are submitted for proposed development in other areas within the Overlay.

Proposed Standards
After receiving the feedback through community workshops and analyzing the potential impacts of the changes, staff proposes standards as shown in the table below; however, note that the owners in Camino Predera continue to have disagreement with three of the proposed standards. The owners on the north side provided their proposed standards and additional requirements. Table 1 below identifies the Development standards that are currently in effect, proposed (by staff), and proposed (by the owners on the north side of Camino Predera). The specific standards where there is disagreement are identified in bold in the same table.

1 5
2 8
Table 1 - Comparison of Hillside Development Standards

Current
Standards
New Standards
(proposed by Staff)
New Standards
proposed
by Owners (North)
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
Building Height
-South side of
Camino Predera 30 feet None 14 feet None 7-10 feet None -North side of
Camino Predera 30 feet None 25 feet None 25 feet None
Building
Setbacks
-Front None 37 feet
+/- 5 feet None 37 feet
+/- 5 feet None 37 feet
-Rear None 20 feet None 20 feet None 20 feet
-Side None 5/10 feet None 5/10 feet None 10/15 feet
Building
Separation None None None None None 10/20 feet
Excavation/Fill 5 feet None 8 feet None 8 feet None
Wall Height
-Screen
(Freestanding) 6 feet None 6 feet None 6 feet None
-Retaining 4 feet None 8 feet None 8 feet None

Many of the proposed changes are focused on minimizing, but not eliminating, the height and visual massing of the houses on the south side of Camino Predera as measured from the surface of the street as described below.

1. Building (house) height: The maximum height above the level of the street of 14 feet (south side) and 25 feet (north side) is proposed by staff to fulfill the following:

oEnsure that Camino Predera will have an inviting character where the houses on both sides “frame” the street along the north and south elevation. It is the City’s goal that all residential streets function and have a neighborhood aesthetic. oAllow houses on the south side to continue to be readily visible with a similar curb appeal, as seen from the street, as the neighboring houses across the street thus ensuring a degree of resident’s enjoyment of their property; and oAllow for a “conventional” single-story (floor) house with a typical sloped roof (hip, gable, etc.). This minimizes the possibility of a house that has unconventional architecture that the property owner may not prefer; have design elements that may be generally incompatible with the architecture of other houses within Camino Predera; and/or is challenging to construct, and/or is impractical as a residential space.

The height limit doesn’t prohibit a height of up to 30 feet (above finished grade) throughout any property within Camino Predera – it only is limited to that height as measured from the street. Provided that the grade allows for it, a house can continue to be up to 30 feet in height if it does not exceed 14 feet in height above street level.

1 5
2 8

2. Excavation/import (“cut/fill”): The increase in the maximum proposed in cut/fill from 5 feet to 8 feet is proposed by staff to fulfill the following:

oAllow a greater depth of earthwork/grading modifications without discretionary review and approval by the Planning Commission.

oAllow an increase in retaining wall height from 4 feet to 8without requiring the approval of a Minor Exception or Variance for discretionary approval by the Planning Director or Planning Commission, respectively.

In both cases, this would allow for a pad (foundation) to have a lower elevation relative to, and a lower roofline as seen from, the street. This in turn will help accommodate the proposed building height of 14 feet (south side) or 25 feet (north side).

Staff does not propose any revision to the front yard building setback of 37±5 feet, i.e., 37 feet as measured between the front of the house and the curb at the street with a variation of 5 feet (as high or low as 45 feet and 32 feet, respectively). This is to ensure that the front wall plane of each house is visibly “articulated” and maintains visual interest along the street frontage. Note that this variation in the front setback is generally standard for single-family residential development elsewhere in the City.

Staff also does not propose any revisions to the side yard building setbacks which are currently 5/10 feet, i.e., 5 feet on one side of the house and 10 feet on the opposite side of the house. The owners on the north side of Camino Predera wanted the side setbacks to be increased to 10/15 feet. Generally, the widths of properties on the south side, as measured at the front property line, are narrower than the corresponding widths of the properties on the north side as explained below (note that the following dimensions do not include the lots within Predera Court - these lots are unusually narrow as they “front” onto a cul-de-sac street).

The narrowest lot on Camino Predera is 61.8 feet wide (APN: 0207-641-06, Lot 6). In comparison, the average lot width is 90.26 feet. The average width of the developed lots (mostly on the north side) and undeveloped lots (mostly on the south side) is 106.83 feet and 75.64 feet, respectively.

Applying increased side setbacks would create practical and aesthetic challenges for the owners on the south side. For example, to construct houses using these side setbacks the proposed house would be relatively “narrow”. Lot 6 would have a house of 36.8 feet in width. In the meantime, the fascia of the house that would be part of the “living” area, i.e., not the garage, would have a width of only 16.8 feet. The dominant feature as seen from the street would be the garage door (which is typically 16 feet wide by 7 feet high).

Under Senate Bill 330 (SB330), that was approved by the State on October 19, 2019, “affected cities...may not change their General Plan or Specific Plan(s) land use designation or Zoning Map for any parcel to a less intensive use below that which was allowed on January 1, 2018, per Government Code Subsection 66300(b)(1)(A). For these purposes, “less intensive use” explicitly includes “reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing” [emphasis added]. In addition, affected cities...may not revise the allowed intensity of use in any existing General Plan or Specific Plan(s) land use designation, or Zoning Map district below that which was allowed on January 1, 2018. This section effectively prohibits affected cities...from making changes to development standards for zoning districts that allow

1 5
2 8
housing. The caveat is that an affected city...will not be limited by these provisions if it “concurrently changes the development standards, policies, and conditions applicable to other parcels within the jurisdiction to ensure that there is no net loss in residential capacity” per Government Code Subsection 66300(i)(1).

In the analysis of SB330 and how it applies to the proposed Code amendment, it was determined that the City cannot adopt any new development standards as requirements that would be specifically applicable to residential structures such as height and setbacks. These can only be provided as optional standards. To do so otherwise would be inconsistent with SB330, as changes to building height or setback can reduce the intensity, or size of the future dwelling unit. This determination was made while conferring with the City Attorney’s office during the preparation of the staff report for Planning Commission, finalizing the proposed standards, and checking their applicability within the context of State-adopted legislation that is currently in effect.

Therefore, the proposed optional standards are as shown in Table 2 below. If an owner prefers to follow the Optional Standards, then they will not be required to submit a HDR application (as typically would be required for development in the Hillside Overlay). Instead, they would be allowed to submit construction plans for the proposal directly to the Building & Safety Department for ministerial plan check. Similarly, a review by the Design Review Committee would not be required nor would the applicant be asked to conduct a neighborhood meeting. This will save applicants time and money in the development review process while utilizing the optional standards to address concerns about the character of development in Camino Predera and the City’s review process for development proposals are expressed by the owners in Camino Predera.

If an owner prefers not to follow the Optional Standards, then they will be required to submit a HDR application and follow the procedural steps for HDR as described previously in this report.

Table 2 - Proposed Optional Development Standards for Camino Predera

Standards Optional Standards
Maximum Minimum
Building Height
-South side of Camino Predera 14 feet* None
-North side of Camino Predera 25 feet None
Building Setbacks
-Front None 37±5 feet
-Rear None 20 feet
-Side None 5/10 feet
Excavation/Fill 8 feet None
Wall Height
-Screen (Freestanding) 6 feet None
-Retaining 8 feet None
*As measured from the curb at the street (Camino Predera)

To apply the optional development standards, staff is proposing to establish a new Overlay Zoning District called the “Camino Predera Overlay”. This new Overlay will identify the 38 specific parcels

1 5
2 8
in Camino Predera that would be subject to the new optional development standards. The new Overlay is shown in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 - Proposed Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District

Coordinated with the establishment of the new Overlay is a Municipal Code Amendment which will amend Chapter 17.38 (“Overlay Zoning Districts and other Special Planning Areas”) to add the purpose, applicability, and optional development standards of the Camino Predera Overlay; Chapter 17.114.010 (“Special Area Map”) to add the Camino Predera Overlay to Figure

17.114.010-1; and Chapter 17.114.050 (“Overlay Zoning District Descriptions) to add the description of the Camino Predera Overlay.

General Plan and Municipal Code Consistency: The City is proposing to amend its current Municipal Code and Zoning Map to incorporate optional development standards and apply them to a specific location in the City consisting of 38 single-family residential parcels on Camino Predera and Predera Court. The City prepared the amendments, which are included as Attachments 1 and 2, to the attached draft City Council Ordinance (Attachment D). The Municipal Code Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment conform to and do not conflict with the General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element and Housing Element thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan.

Planning Commission Hearing: On October 12, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing for the proposed subject amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map that, if approved by the City Council, would amend the City’s development standards for the properties in Camino Predera and create a new overlay district.

After receiving staff’s report and their recommendation, the Commission opened the public hearing for comments. The Commission received testimony regarding the proposed changes in the maximum building height and potential changes to the side yard building setbacks, and whether any changes to the standards were necessary. Also, there were statements about the loss of views. Some commenters mentioned flexibility with property development options. Lastly,

1 5
2 8
clarification and applicability of SB330 was discussed. These collective comments are summarized in the Minutes for the public hearing (Attachment B).

The Commission closed the public comment period and asked staff to address the comments received from the community. They also asked staff about the new procedural steps that will apply when an applicant chooses to follow the optional development standards. Staff addressed these questions and provided additional clarifications. The answers and clarifications have been incorporated into this staff report.

The Commission discussed, for example the proposed optional standards, the character of Camino Predera, and the context of State-adopted legislation. After doing so, the Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation the City Council the approval of the amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map.

CEQA DETERMINATION:

The Planning Commission has determined that the amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map are statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The amendments qualify under the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing significant effects on the environment. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The amendments do not propose any physical change to the environment itself. The new optional standards do not include an associated development project. The standards will serve to simplify the process that a property owner needs to follow to construct a single-family residence on their property on Camino Predera and Predera Court. Any environmental analysis that may be required for each single-family residence will be conducted when a proposal is received. Staff notes that the construction of one single-family residence is typically exempt from CEQA per Section 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission’s determination that the amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment and are therefore exempt from further environmental review under CEQA.

FACTS FOR FINDING:

Per Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map “may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendment[s] are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” These include the following Land Use and Housing goals:

•Land Use LC-1.2 Quality of Place. “Ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing, historic, and envisioned future character and scale of each neighborhood.” •Land Use LC-1.9: Infill Development. “Enable and encourage infill development within vacant and underutilized properties through flexible design requirements and potential incentives.”
•Land Use LC-1.11: Compatible Development. “Allow flexibility in density and intensity to address specific site conditions and ensure compatibility of new development with adjacent context.”
•Housing H-5.1: Development Review Processes. “Consider new polices, codes, and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early

1 5
2 8
in the development process regarding development costs, and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements.” •Housing H-5.4: Development Standards. “Evaluate and adjust as appropriate residential development standards, regulations, and processing procedures that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing.”

Overall, the standards proposed are designed to minimize impacts to surrounding, existing residential properties in Camino Predera and ensure that new development is compatible with the Camino Predera neighborhood and that the character of the neighborhood is preserved. Also, they represent a balance of the property owners concerns with future development and property rights.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The proposed amendment itself will not create a fiscal impact, however significant staff and consultant time has been expended by the city to achieve the proposed amendments. If applicants choose to exercise the proposed standards, they can reduce application costs and save time by utilizing a ministerial process, rather than a discretionary process.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

The subject amendments fulfill the City Council goals for providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all; building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere; intentionally embracing and anticipating the future; equitable prosperity for all; working together cooperatively and respectfully with each other, staff, and all stakeholders; and actively seeking and respectfully considering all public input. The amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the objectives of the Development Code. These City-initiated amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map will facilitate development while retaining compatibility and character of the existing Camino Predera neighborhood.

CORRESPONDENCE:

The subject amendments were advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, vacant properties in Camino Predera were posted, and all owners of property in Tract 10035 and within 660 feet were mailed notifications. During the preparation of the Planning Commission staff report, staff received correspondence regarding these amendments. Staff also received correspondence during this overall process, e.g., following one of the workshops. The correspondence is attached (Attachment 1). Correspondence received after this report is prepared will be provided accordingly.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Correspondence
Attachment 2 – Planning Commission Public Hearing (October 12, 2022) Minutes Attachment 3 – Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-28 Recommending Approval of Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020-00004 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315 Attachment 4 – Draft Ordinance No. 1012 Approving Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020- 00004 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315

Attachment 1

10/5/22, 9:21 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/1 Camino Predera update
Renee Massey <[email protected]>
Wed 09/08/21 09:29
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc:Suzanne Buquet <[email protected]>;Chuck Buquet <[email protected]>;Catherine Weber <[email protected]>;Lynn Massey <[email protected]>;Eric Weber <[email protected]>;Danny Dera <[email protected]>;Thomas Reyes <[email protected]>;Susan McNinch <[email protected]>;Christopher Nosrat <[email protected]>;Jim Scott <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Renee Scott <[email protected]>;Maria Alamat <[email protected]>;Rakan Alamat <[email protected]>;Robert Waddell <[email protected]>;Tom Snedeker <[email protected]>;McIntosh, Anne <[email protected]>;Burris, Matt <[email protected]>;Gillison, John <[email protected]>;H. Lynn Massey <[email protected]> CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hey Mike,
Hope all is well. Just want to say again that your efforts at the 4th Workshop were appreciated and we are looking forward to the progress regarding the new standards. We realize it's time consuming and not easy.

So, we are just checking in to see how things are progressing. We also are prepared to preview the standards before the last (5th) workshop as was agreed as necessary at the 4th workshop. Reviewing the revised new standards in advance, prior to Anne's approval will make the process agreeable and final. The final workshop (#5) will allow all the other stakeholders to view the changes and be satisfied. We are all looking forward to when this will finally be resolved.

In the meantime, stay well.

Renee and Lynn

10/5/22, 9:12 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20220923004.19&Print 1/1 Re: Camino Predera addendum - Height of homes.

Catherine Weber <[email protected]>
Fri 03/18/22 09:43
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <[email protected]> CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mike,
I want to make sure that my comments about the height of the homes on Camino Predera were captured. I believe that the 10 feet is the maximum that this street can tolerate to sll allow for view sharing with those on the North side and above.

Again, thanks for listening.

Sincerely
Catherine and Robert Eric Weber
7997 Camino Preder
310-916-1134
From: Catherine Weber
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 9:39 AM
To: Smith, Michael <[email protected]>; Van der Zwaag, Tabe <[email protected]> Subject: Camino Predera

Mike,
I would like my comments added to the Public Record concerning Camino Predera Hillside Development Standards.

We (my husband Robert Eric Weber and I, Catherine M. Weber) are very concerned about the proposed side setbacks of 5/10 feet. We believe that these lots are large enough to have 10/15 - the size the Patel's proposed in their plans that were approved by the Planning Commission. This will greatly affect our home if the lot to the east of us is developed. The plans that were submied by the lot owner had a 3-car garage directly to the east of us with only 5 feet from our front yard. The development of these mansions on both sides of us dwarf our home. The homes should be in line with the size of the homes that exist today.

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Please feel free to contact me if you have any quesons.
310-916-1134 is my cell.

Sincerely
Catherine and Robert Eric Weber
7997 Camino Predera

March 18, 2022
Dear Michael Smith,
First and foremost, I want to thank you for your time and professionalism at Thursday night workshop.

My name is Sofia Vega, my husband and I purchased Tract #10035, Lot 13 on the South Side of Camino Predera. I am writing to respectfully request consideration of the building height (currently 30’ max) Issues of high concern are the following:

Conceding to a 30-foot height down to a 14-foot height has already been excessive. I strongly disagree in reducing the height any further, adding unnecessary building construction cost to people in the south side.

Soil Disturbance / Higher Cost
Minimizing soil disturbance should be kept to a minimum to minimize risks and preserve native top soil.

Working with the natural contours of the site. If we are required to drop the site even more, we will need a deeper foundation (excessive excavation/grading) and larger retaining walls, resulting in incurring a higher cost. This will lead to a financial hardship for many of us on the south side.

Flat Roof
Due to the possible height restrictions, some of us will have no alternative but to build a flat roof. A flat roof has an average lifespan of only 10 years and is susceptible to water damage, resulting in higher cost for all.

Water Damage and Drainage
Building on a lower spot means that water is more likely to drain toward a home. This will lead to a lifetime problem for the homeowners. Our most crucial and concerning issue is water damage and drainage. Water is often the most difficult site issue to understand and predict. Surface water, including runoff from rain can cause flood and water damage to the property.

Side Setbacks to remain at 5/10
Allowing to maximize the square footage in width, helps keep cost down by minimizing building further back and down the slope.

It will be shameful to force the south side to incur all the added cost. If these new demands are enforced, my family and I will unfortunately need to reconsider our building plans or selling the lot due to the greater cost we will incur. I ask you to please carefully consider our concerns as your decision will determine critical outcomes for many people on the south side.

Respectfully,
Sophia Vega

10/5/22, 9:11 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20220923004.19&Print 1/1 Camino Predera
Catherine Weber <[email protected]>
Fri 03/18/22 09:39
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <[email protected]> CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mike,
I would like my comments added to the Public Record concerning Camino Predera Hillside Development Standards.

We (my husband Robert Eric Weber and I, Catherine M. Weber) are very concerned about the proposed side setbacks of 5/10 feet. We believe that these lots are large enough to have 10/15 - the size the Patel's proposed in their plans that were approved by the Planning Commission. This will greatly affect our home if the lot to the east of us is developed. The plans that were submied by the lot owner had a 3-car garage directly to the east of us with only 5 feet from our front yard. The development of these mansions on both sides of us dwarf our home. The homes should be in line with the size of the homes that exist today.

Thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Please feel free to contact me if you have any quesons.
310-916-1134 is my cell.

Sincerely
Catherine and Robert Eric Weber
7997 Camino Predera

10/5/22, 9:13 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?popoutv2=1&version=20220923004.19&Print 1/1 PDF Pictures
H. Lynn Massey <[email protected]>
Sun 03/20/22 17:11
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
2 attachments (11 MB)
2021 View 8, 10, 14 feet.pdf; Staff renderings 14 feet.pdf; CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mike,
Thank you for your leadership on this issue.

Attached are 2 pdf's
One is 15 pictures of the really affected lots on our street.

And 2 are of the city's renderings of the views and height of 14 feet.

I am so sorry about my loud "stop interrupting" during the session.

But the lack of respect really gets to me.

God Bless - H. Lynn Massey

Patel's Lot (#16) 8 feet, 10 feet, 14 feet. View from the corner of Predera Ct. & Camino Predera Met with City Council Members: 4/20/21 @ 8am = Spagolo. 4/29/21 @ 1pm Hutchison. 5/4/21 @ 2pm Kennedy. 514/21 @ 5pm Scott. All of them saw the view pole and verified measurements.

Across the street from Weber's (#24) Lot [Similar to the Cities rendition] 8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet'

Buquet's Lot (# 30) view at
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

Buquet's Lot (#30) view at
81, 10', 14' (Patel's Lot)

View from the Scott's Lot (#33) The Hill
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

View from the Nos rat's Lot (#34)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

View from the Reyes' Lot (#36)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet
-

View from the Reyes' front door (#36)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

Street View from Snedeker's Lot (#37)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

Front Door View of Snedeker's Lot (#37)
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

Street View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #4
8 feet, 10 feet, 14 feet

Street View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #4
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

Street View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #3
8 feet, 10 feet, 14 feet

mW --
• • k )
Front Door View of Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot #3
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

Front Door View from Massey's Lot (#38) of Lot 2
8 feet, 10 feet, and 14 feet

Sta4 rendr-r*ings aF komes onrini Pre-Aera
He.- L1'bOV e i u rb 6-t I L~ N P-~
i+ Pt2.

ScXff cxdenn35 OY h6me-C-) on COLMIiAlo Py'(Atfc~-
cx~S6ve- L urb at
Pt. -

2132.6

10/5/22, 8:27 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/1 Camino Predera proposed developments
Lisa Agraso <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 18:24
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <[email protected]> CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Mike Smith and Mr. Tabe VanderZwagg,
We are wring to you concerning the street we live on, Camino Predera. We are specifically concerned about the proposed Hillside Standards and would like to express our thoughts on the standards that are being proposed.

We believe that the height of these homes is concerning for those on the south side and the north side. The homes have always been ered so that view sharing was available as evidenced by the homes on Red Hill Country Club Drive above Camino Predera. As an owner on the south side I love walking up the street to see theview. With these developers building mansions and 3 story homes it is impossible to enjoy the view. That is why we believe that the homes should be limited to 10 feet. There are many other lots available throughout Rancho Cucamonga where these types of homes should be built and fit in beer, ulmately this is not the appropriate neighborhood.

Addionally, there are homes that are being proposed that have only 5 feet side setbacks. This is outrageous. This does not emulate the current community. This community is not your typical track housing development whereyou can reach out and touch your neighbor. It appears that these developers are aempng to build on every square inch of the lots with such small side setbacks as to be negligible. There is a house proposed to the west of our home that proposes exactly that. Which is why we believe that the side setbacks should be at 10/15 feet,and echo the current trend.

Without some protecon from the standards, the developers will make Camino Predera just anotherneighborhood with windows that must be kept closed because the neighbors are so close. We are asking that you please stand with the homeowners and help preserve and maintain our community. To many of us that live on neighborhoods where hills make it difficult to maintain maximum privacy due to the geography, we aredesperately asking that you don’t take away even more of our privacy by allowing these builders to have these absurd setbacks.

Sincerely,
Lisa and Chrisan Agraso 7979 Camino Predera
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.

10/5/22, 8:30 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/3 Re: New Standards (DRAFT) for Development on Camino Predera Chuck Buquet <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 11:37
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc:[email protected] <[email protected]>;Lynn Massey <[email protected]>;Renee Massey <[email protected]>;Suzanne Buquet <[email protected]>;Christopher Nosrat <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Susan McNinch <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;Tom Snedecker <[email protected]>;Thomas Reyes <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>;[email protected] <[email protected]>
WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field.

CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mike:

Thanks again to you and Tabe for your time with the neighborhood Thursday evening for discussion of various draft Camino Predera Development Standards.  As an initial follow up to this latest workshop, I have attached the draft Technical Standards for Development on Camino Predera document that I shared with you and attendees at the meeting and as per your request.

As discussed at this most recent workshop, the handout you provided was not consistent with the prior exhibits and understanding of the neighborhood representatives for a number of items as listed on your handout.  Regrettably, we spent the vast majority of the allotted one hour meeting time discussing the 14' height limit listed on your handout, which is the key concern as relates to view sharing for this neighborhood as it has been a consistent design for the majority of the Red Hill viewshed hillside areas.  I will follow up with providing comments addressing the various draft Special Technical and Special Design criteria listed on your handout and prior iterations to help with clarification as may be needed concerning these draft development standards.  I believe it very important to identify those draft Special Technical and Design criteria items listed where there is general consensus, versus those items simply opposed by those who want to develop and sell the lots.

I also found it most interesting to hear our newest property owner who purchased the former Bardos lot using the term "share" several times during comments offering her objection to any limitation on the height of her future home built on the lot.  The "not building in a hole" comment has likely been shared by one of the development proponents, and as I stated, the roadway was cut across the side of an existing natural hillside, and no "holes" were created during the roadway grading and construction.

Red Hill has a view share precedent that has been established over the many years of government control of the viewshed hillside areas, and any indication that the City does not have a view protection ordinance appears disingenuous in recognizing what has been an established pattern of view sharing development well predating the City's Hillside Ordinance which requires development that respects the natural terrain and use of reduced building profiles that follow the contours of the natural hillside areas.  Thanks for your help with this.

10/5/22, 8:30 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 2/3 On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:53 AM Smith, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello, all

Attached are the DRAFT standards that will apply to development on Camino Predera that we will be discussing during the meeting this Thursday, 03/17.  The draft standards are the derived from the previous workshops.  The items in the green boxes are the new or revised standards.  The red text in brackets identifies the current standard for reference.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Thanks.

Mike Smith
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4317 (direct)
(909) 477-2750 ext. 4317

[email protected]

--

10/5/22, 8:30 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 3/3 Please feel free to contact me at your earliest opportunity should you have any questions or need of additional information or assistance with this matter.

Thanks
Chuck Buquet, President
Charles Joseph Associates
8816 W. Foothill Blvd #103-376
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
909-481-1822
www.chasjoseph.com

Our Office Hours are Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM. Closed on Fridays. ***********************PLEASE NOTE *******************

This message, along with any attachments, may be confidential or legally privileged.  It is intended only for the named person(s), who is/are the only authorized recipients. If this message has reached you in error, kindly destroy it without review and notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your help.

Special Technical Standards for Development on Camino Predera

Items needing to be incorporated into Exhibit A:

Grading Planning Commission review will be required under any of the following circumstances:
 Natural slopes are 15 percent or greater on all or part of the property, or  Cut and fill depth is 8 feet or greater, or
 Combined cut and fill is 1,500 cubic yards or greater, or  Cut or fill encroaches onto or alters a natural drainage channel or watercourse, or  When a Minor Exception is filed concerning Hillside Development Ordinance requirements applicable to the project, or
 As deemed necessary by the Grading Committee or Planning Director.  A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.

Story Pole A Story Pole, independently verified as to correct height shall be installed on- site and protected by the contractor during the entirety of construction on the lot. The City will require an independent height survey be conducted prior to the framing inspection to ensure compliance with the approved height and prior to final permit inspection.

10/5/22, 8:25 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/2 Camino Predera
Renee Massey <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 13:05
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>;Van der Zwaag, Tabe <[email protected]> 1 attachments (26 KB)
img20220321_12591342.pdf;
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hey Mike,
Thanks again for organizing and leading the discussion at last weeks workshop (3/17/22). It would be unusual to have consensus on ALL the items on the proposed standards, but I think it's pretty good that there are only a few points where we cannot agree. I do believe we all agreed though to include the previous Garage Doors and Garage Dimensions sections that did not appear on the most current DRAFT.

So, for the record, Lynn and I believe:

1. The building height on the South side of Camino Predera should be <10 feet. This would be consistent with the Danny Dera project (Lot 3) and with the Semler/Adams project (Lot 4, currently under construction). This would also be consistent with the Bardo's project (Lot 13) which was just under 10 feet but was not recommended for approval by the planning staff due to other reasons including side setback recommendations, and subsequently not approved by the Planning Commission.

Due to the nature of the hillside and the history of this particular area, the <10 feet maximum would allow for view sharing with those on the North side of Camino Predera and the homes above on Red Hill CC Drive.

2. The Side Setbacks should be a minimum of 10/15 feet. This would be consistent with the Danny Dera project (Lot 3), the Patel project (Lot 16), and the Semler/Adams project (Lot 4, currently under construction). This would also be consistent with the Bardo's project (Lot 13) which was not recommended for approval by the planning staff who recommended the side setbacks be increased to 10/15 feet. The recommendations were not applied and the Planning Commission subsequently denied the project.

3. The Front Setbacks should be a minimum of 37 feet. Currently, it states 37 plus/minus 5 feet. I understand the plus/minus is "in the code" however, code items are changed and adjusted often. Thirty-two feet from curb is essentially twenty feet from sidewalk to the closest building wall plane on the front elevation. We don't believe that is appropriate for single family residences. It's too close.

As a matter of record, it is also important to note that over the years, Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers alike have recognized this area to be one of Rancho Cucamonga's special gems and have expressed that the code be adjusted for this specific area.

10/5/22, 8:25 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 2/2 Also, please include in the Standards, the document provided by Chuck Buquet regarding Grading and Story Poles. (see attachment)
Sincerely,
Renee and Lynn Massey

10/5/22, 8:29 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/2 Re: New Standards (DRAFT) for Development on Camino Predera Saurabh Patel <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 12:02
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Michael, I am okay with these changes except for the top of curb height of 14' on the south side of camino predera. This height is far too low for a standard home. This is a custom area where the typically top plate height should be a min. of 10' which would not allow for a standard roof pitch. The maximum top of curb height should be 22' which is a 8' decrease from the existing standards which is more than reasonable.  Having too low of a building height will make the rest of the block look very awkward and will diminish the value of the community. Please include this as a comment for public records.

Thank you for your time.

Saurabh Patel
Kirit Patel
and Sneha Ice
Lots 14, 15 and 16
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 8:53 AM Smith, Michael <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello, all

Attached are the DRAFT standards that will apply to development on Camino Predera that we will be discussing during the meeting this Thursday, 03/17.  The draft standards are the derived from the previous workshops.  The items in the green boxes are the new or revised standards.  The red text in brackets identifies the current standard for reference.

If you have any questions, let me know.

Thanks.

Mike Smith
Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga

10/5/22, 8:29 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 2/2 10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4317 (direct)
(909) 477-2750 ext. 4317

[email protected]

--
Saurabh Patel

10/5/22, 8:34 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/2 Camino Predera Hillside Development Code Recommendations Reyes, Thomas <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 09:36
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc:Tom Snedecker <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning, Michael.

Thank you for allowing us to parcipate in the discussion related to development codes for the Camino Predera lots. We have owned our property at 8072 Camino Predera since 1996 and all of us in this neighborhood purchased our property because of the view and beauful hillside landscape. Please consider our concerns below and add it as part of your recommendaons to the Planning Commiee for approval.

Everyone should be aware that building a house in a flat, deserted area is much different than building a house on a hillside. Our community is fighng to preserve the natural contour and environmental landforms that makes our locaon a highly desirable place to live. Everyone who’s planning to develop new housing projects within our community should be sensive to preserving the local views of our environment. The designs for all new projects should conform with the landform rather than adjusng the landform to fit the house, such as filling the lots with dirt to raise their elevaon to increase their views. Also, please observe that all the plans being presented to the city are just empty shells. Aer the building is completed, these owners will start planng trees which will further diminish our views.

Our meeng on 3/17/22 is a clear indicaon that there’s a great divide on ideas between the exisng homeowners and those who wish to build their new homes. In all our meengs, it is clear that the contenons are about the building height and setbacks for lots 10 through 16. I’m now wondering if we should allow different codes for these lots as opposed to the steep hillside lots on lots 1 through 9. I don’t believe there are any exisng contenons on these lots right now and therefore proposing we finalize those codes for those lots separate from the exisng highly contested lots. I’m proposing that we follow the design codes implemented south of Red Hill Country Club Drive and north of Camino Predera as it is a great precedent for the steep hillside properes. The locaon I’m referring to are 8535 to 8559 Red Hill Country Club Drive wherein the building height was set at no more than approximately 8 . I have aached pictures of the properes for your reference.

I’m also aaching pictures of our sideyard and the vacant lot next to us. You will note that the builder of our property excavated several feet of dirt to insure my neighbors in the back do not lose their views. I’m also aaching addional photos of our backyard to show the result of this design in relaon to insuring our neighbor’s view is not obstructed. If the new owners are willing to work with us, I’m sure there’s a way to make this a win- win for everyone. Unfortunately, what I oen hear from the new lot owners is “I can’t” live with the building height as opposed to finding a way to ensure that all our concerns are understood and respected.

Thank you for taking the me to insure our concerns are noted and please help us preserve our rerement homes for us to enjoy the view and landscape.

Sincerely,

Tom and Alona Reyes
8072 Camino Predera, Rancho Cucamonga
(909) 208-8411

10/5/22, 8:27 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/1 Camino Predera Standards
Suzanne Buquet <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 16:25
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field.

CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Afternoon Mike;
As I tried to briefly recap on Thursday for our new Neighbor Sophia,  so that she would have a bit of context other than what she has heard from the development side of the street,  we have been standing up for 20 +  years to try and stop more McMansions from going in.

It simply makes no sense to have anything higher than 8 or 9 feet as that just wipes everything out for most of the original older homes that were here first. That said, I would be willing to compromise on the under 10 feet just to be able to move on from Adams and Patel's nastiness and bullying. In spite of Mrs. Adams spin, facts do matter.

As it is 10' would essentially wipe out our view.  Anything higher is simply going to wipe out what is left of view sharing for any of us who have been here since the beginning and are not in it for profit, unlike the folks who want no rules.

As these are going to be custom homes and in consideration of our unique neighborhood, and all the walkers and people who live in this area and enjoy the views, 10 and 15 minimum side yard setbacks are the only common sense thing that will also offer any hope of a view share for us and the existing neighbors. We don't need more rooftops and blue skies.

We love our City and would at least like to see a bit of it here and there in our own neighborhood.

Thanks for your help as always,
Best,
Suzanne Buquet
NOTE:  The information transmitted in this message is intended to be confidential and for the sole use of the individual (s) or entity designated as the intended recipient.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your computer immediately. Thank you.

10/5/22, 8:28 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/1 view from 8080 Camino
Thomas Snedeker (GD) <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 14:22
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
Cc:[email protected] <[email protected]>;Suzanne Buquet <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mike, I appreciate you and Tabe taking the me and interest in our concerns of the future developments on Camino Predera. At last Thursdays meeng, most of the me was taken up over the view height standards. I, like most all of the residents on the north side, proposed a height limit much less than the 14' specified on the proposal sheet. We ranged from 8'to below 10' from curb to top of the project. I have aached a photo of the Adams home in progress of being built from the UPPER level of our home at 8080 Camino Predera. It is not completed yet and Mr. Adams tells us that the roof construcon will be a flat roof and could add about 2'more in height to the overall height from the curb. The plan calls for, I believe, about 9' although we would like to have seen an even lower height . As you can see by the picture, that if the 14'rule was adopted it would eliminate all but the sky. I say this also, because there are more lots to be built adjacent to this one to the east. I hope this gives you all a beer perspecve as to why we are so concerned. Thank you for your consideraon. '

10/5/22, 8:26 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAMkADliOGI1ZWM1LTdiMjItNDQzYS05YTFmLThmZWZlOGVlZWI1YgBGAAAAAABF%2BMQS8LazSqK3eF3Z… 1/1 Camino Predera Workshop
Robert Waddell <[email protected]>
Mon 03/21/22 21:54
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
WARNING: The sender of this email could not be validated and may not match the person in the "From" field.

CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Mike-
Thank you for all of your time and organization at the workshop on Thursday night.

There are a few key points that I would like added to the record.

I really hope that there is a way to get a set of standards that will keep everyone content. 1- The Building Height Maximum should be LESS THAN 10 feet. For the south side 2-The Side Setbacks should be set at 10/15 feet.

Another thing that I feel could help avoid the conflict and the appeals would be a case case by case or lot by lot collaboration. After a few standards are modified. This would be helpful to the neighbors. The New Build and the City Council could possibly help reduce the delays...

I would also like to see if I could view the plan in review for the Last Empty Lot on the Northside of Camino Predera.
"Tave" mentioned that he would email it over to me.

Thanks again for your valued time in these matters
--

WADDELL WEBSITE

10/5/22, 10:24 PM Mail - Smith, Michael - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/deeplink?Print 1/1
8081 Camino Predera
United Harbour Logistics || Jay La <[email protected]>
Thu 09/29/22 14:23
To:Smith, Michael <[email protected]>
CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi Michael,
Just got your notice on my property. I hope this meeting is good news, as I have been waiting about 2 years to start building. My Neighbor, next to me, bought is 6 months prior to my purchase was able to build with finish date end of 2022..but his process also dragged on and on.

I hope to be a resident of Rancho within 2023. If I can offer anything to get the plan approve, let me know.
--
Best,
Jay La
UNITED HARBOUR LOGISTICS LLC - FMC NO.024776N
12403 CENTRAL AVE # 368, CHINO, CA 91710
TEL:626-507-8042 Cell:626-652-5170
[email protected] * [email protected] * shipuhl.com

Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission Agenda
October 12, 2022

DRAFT MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
7:00 p.m.

The regular meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on October 12, 2022. The meeting was called to order by Chair Dopp 7:00 p.m.

A. R
oll Call
P
lanning Commission present: Chair Dopp, Vice Chair Williams, Commissioner Morales, Commissioner Boling, and Commissioner Daniels.

S
taff Present: Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development; Mike Smith, Principal Planner; Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer; Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant.

B. P
ublic Communications
Ch
air Dopp opened public communications and hearing no one, closed public communications.

C. Consent Calendar
C1
. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of September 14, 2022.

Motion to adopt the minutes by Vice Chair Williams, second by Commissioner Daniels; Motion carried unanimously 5-0.

D. Public Hearings
D1
. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION -STOR'EM SELF STORAGE - A request to modify an existing Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor recreational vehicle and indoor personal storage at an existing 123,577 square foot recreational vehicle storage facility located within the Neo-Industrial (NI) Zone at 8530 Hellman Avenue and 9292 9th Street: APNs—0209-012-07 and 0209-012-06. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301—Existing Facilities
M
ena Abdul- Ahad, Assistant Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file).

M
ena Abdul-Ahad mentioned the applicant is requesting to add personal self-storage to the exiting Conditional Use Permit and has also secured a lease agreement with the adjacent property to store RVs and Boats. Revised Resolution with minor changes and Conditions of Approval requiring the adjacent property have been placed on the dais for review.

Ch
air Dopp opened Public Hearing.

A
pplicant was present and available for questions.

Attachment 2

HPC/PC MINUTES – October 12, 2022

Draft
No comments from the Public, Chair Dopp closed Public Hearing.

Commissioner Boling asked for clarification in the special conditions stating there is nothing that identifies the expanded use to include the leased space. Asked is it sufficient to have it only referenced in the Resolution that is being proposing tonight.

Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney, stated for clarity it will be added to the initial condition.

Commissioner Boling wanted to confirm and said from a public safety perspective (Fire and PD), any standard conditions from those entities t hat would apply to any new applicant for a similar situated outdoor storage facility also applies to the expanded use area. For the record, those standard conditions would be used for this expanded use, so there is no disparity on how we are treating this additional use as opposed to a new application t o do the same type of business.

Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning, assured him that any and all regulations are met as part of the Fire Prevention Departments regular inspection process.

Commissioner Daniels asked would Fire and PD typically look at the site when a new business license is issued.

Jennifer Nakamura replied that yes and said it would typically generate a fire inspection but when we confirm ed with Fire that they did not have an inspection on record, that is why we added this condition to assure it would take place in a reasonable timeframe to make sure there are no issues.

Commissioners Daniels stated for the record. he does have a recreational vehicle at this storage facility and indicated he does not have any financial conflict of interest.

Chair Dopp asking for a motion to modify special condition #1 to update and add the additional leased space storage area to the approval.

Motion to adopt Resolution 22-27 by Commissioner Boling, second by Commissioner Morales.

Motion carried unanimously 5-0 vote. In addition to staff’s recommended changes.

D2. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2022- 00315 – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – Consideration of a proposal to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to incorporate new development standards related to, for example, structure height, modifications to existing topographical conditions, and the City’s application processing requirements applicable to thirty-eight (38) properties that are located on the north and south sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have street frontage along Predera Court, a residential neighborhood generally located north of Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail and west of Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, in the Low Residential (L) Zone and amend the Zoning Map to establish an overlay zoning district (“Camino Predera Overlay”) that identifies which properties are subject to the new development standards; APNs: 0207-631-01 through -11 and -14 through - 25, and 0207-641-01 through - 15. These amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. These items will be forwarded to City Council for final action —A request to modify

Michael Smit h, Principal Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and presentation (copy on file).

HPC/PC MINUTES – October 12, 2022

Draft

Chair Dopp opened Public Hearing.

The following residents of Camino Predera expressed structure height concerns:

• Satia Vega
• Catherine Weber
• Eric Weber
• Suzanne Buquet
• Tom Snedeker
• Christopher Nosrad
• Renee Massey, stated for the record, City Council recommended that the proposed house be reduced by approx. 10%, and side yard setback to be increased to reduce the overall massing of the house.
• Jay Adams stated the 14 ft. height is doable, and the setbacks make sense.

Jennifer Nakamura stressed the goal and direction from Council from the beginning was to find some common ground to get property owners along both sides of Camino Predera to find standards they can agree to. She mentioned s taff spent over 2000 hours , as well as an estimated $15,000 in consultant time to try and see if we can come to some census with the community, was the primary focus. Once it was recognized we were never going to get to a consensus , staff had to use our recommendations to the Commission. The State of California has made housing production the priority in the State forcing local jurisdictions to accommodate. SB330 is one of those laws. As we were reviewing the standards, we recognized it was going to apply.

Mike Smith reviewed the side yard setbacks requirements with the Commissioners.

Commissioner Daniels asked were there CC&Rs for this tract when it was first developed.

Mike Smith answered yes, but it was binding between the property owners. Not something we enforced.

Commissioner Daniels stated it was mentioned there are 11 lots on the south side. He asked a re those all-different property owners.

Mike Smith replied that he does know multiple properties are owned by the same family.

Commissioner Boling asked when did the current standards in the Hillside Overlay for the 30 ft. height maximum and the minimum 5/10 ft. side setbacks come into existence.

Mike Smith responded he cannot say when it was adopted but it has been in existence for at least 20 years.

Commissioner Boling asked what is the average height of a single-story family house.

Mike Smith stated it would vary depending on the roof line but a typical height is 14 ft.

Commissioner Morales asked for explanation if it went down to 10 ft. vs. 14 ft.

HPC/PC MINUTES – October 12, 2022

Draft
Mike Smith replied if we were a single-story house, as they are generally designed, we would have to excavate deeper into the existing grade. He said 14 ft. is a reasonable height to a typical singl e- story home. It is possible it could be 10 ft. but keep in mind these are optional standards because of SB330, we cannot make it go below the limit that is now in place.

Jennifer Nakamura mentioned the 14 ft. limit is measured from the highest level. Also, to be considered is the type of slope. She said in our professional opinion, 14 ft. is an appropriate overall height.

Vice Chair Williams mentioned this is assuming the applicant will chose to take the options. She did express how pleased she is with this and getting a standard in place was a goal 8 years ago.

However, her concern is they will not choose the option that was set forth and will go with the old standards and if they do that, the appeal process is alive and well.

Jennifer Nakamura explained the applicant can choose to use the existing standard that are in place, 30 ft. maximum height limit. It would go through a discretionary entitlement hillside design review process. Required will be a neighborhood meeting, not icing, public hearing, and appeal process is an option. We can encourage them to bypass the discretionary review process and go straight to a ministerial review if they do this saving time and money. She said the Planning staff will still do a full thorough review on that project, absorbing the costs.

Commissioner Williams confirmed and stated if they choose the options we put forward, there is no appeal process available to the neighborhood. It becomes a ministerial decision.

Chair Dopp asked Serita Young, can somebody make a reasonable argument that reducing the height by a couple feet and increasing the setbacks by 5 ft., does it really create a less intensive argument.

Can somebody make that argument?

Serita Young replied according to SB330, no.

Commissioner Daniels asked if there were any consensus from the property owners on the south side what they would like to see.

Mike Smith answered that his impression from workshops from property owners on the south side wanted the standards to stay the same.

Chair Dopp stated he understands the passion on both sides. He has been the only individual up here who has been at all the hearings since where things got intense starting from 2019. This is nothing against anybody in the room, but each side is cherry picking lots as an example of what the development of Camino Predera can be. As a Planning Commissioner and start to sort things out in terms of setting strong standard for the neighborhood. It has always been his concern that one size fits all approach is going to make some people happy or unhappy under certain circumstances. As a Commission from his standpoint, we almost want all developers on the south side of the street to pick the optional standards. If you use the requirements it is going to be so much worse. Those are some of his initial thoughts. To be fair, do we really want Camino Predera to look like every other neighborhood in the city because it is unique. There is a lot of opport unity for a real community on Red Hill Country.

Commissioner Daniels stated that staff has been put in a difficult position to satisfy both parties. What they are proposing is a good solution to the SB330. T he existing residents have to realize without these options anybody can come in and propose a 30 ft. height building. He does believe what will

HPC/PC MINUTES – October 12, 2022

Draft
be built there will be very nice. He indicated staff has done a good job coming up with a solution to this dilemma.

Commissioner Boling stated the City Council and the Planning Commission directed staff to bring the community together, communicate issues and concerns, identify common ground, compromise where appropriate, and attempt to reach consensus and after a number of years, after several community engagement meetings, it appears there are, but a few outstanding issues remain. Unfortunately, a true agreement is highly unlikely. Staff’s approach is a novel way to encourage new houses to be built, not required but encouraged to be built with greater difference to the north neighbors and include some of what they want on the north side without giving up everything that the south side already has. He is struggling to see the gives on the north side from the current existing standards that apply to the hillside overlay that exists throughout a good portion of the city. Staff has done it’s best in navigating a very emotionally charged and heartfelt issue of the effective property owners and he approves staff’s recommendation.

Commissioner Morales stated there are a lot of strong feeling on both sides after 20 years. That is why it took 5 workshops to try and align everyone’s interests as much as possible. The 30 ft. height above the street was reduced down to 14 ft. and that was a big improvement. The 10 ft. height would make a future developer turn away and go with the 30 ft. height they could get. It also creates standard development guidelines for future developers, what City Council asked for that started all this. The 14 ft. height maximum above the street level would be best for the neighborhood character feeling for both sides of the street and make it look better.

Vice Chair Williams concurs with her colleagues. The optional method is attractive enough to encourage people to use that. She hates to think there is a chance for more appeals. She does like having the optional set of standards and hopes staff will encourage people to take the option and help them along the way as much as they can.

Chair Dopp expressed he is not happy with Sacramento telling us and putting our hands behind our back on this one to a large extent. He would like to have seen a foot or two on the setback and the height. It is what it is at this point.

Motion to adopt Resolution 22- 28 recommending approval to the City Council by Commissioner Boling, second by Commissioner Daniels. Motion carried unanimously 5-0 vote.

E. Director Announcements

Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development, announced the following:

• The City received APA award for the General Plan Update for PlanRC. Jennifer Nakamura and Matt Burris accepted the award on behalf of the City. Great work done by the community.

• The City Council recently approved professional services agreement with Lisa Wise Consulting.

Last time it was done was 2015. Focus on business attraction and help retain businesses.

• He would like to hear feedback fr om the Commissioners on what they would like to hear on a regular basis and what would be useful to them.

F. Commission Announcements - None

G. Adjournment

HPC/PC MINUTES – October 12, 2022

Draft

Motion by Vice Chair Williams , second by Commissioner Boling to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chair Dopp adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill
Executive Assistant, Planning Department

Approved:

Attachment 3

ORDINANCE NO. 1012

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC202 0-00004 TO AMEND
TITLE 17 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE NEW

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADOPTING ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT DRC2022 -000315 THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL

PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG CAMINO PREDERA AND

PREDERA COURT, A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD

GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FOOTHILL

BOULEVARD/PACIFIC ELECTRIC (PE) TRAIL AND WEST OF

CARNELIAN AVENUE/CUCAMONGA CREEK, IN THE LOW
RESIDENTIAL (L) ZONE; APNS: 0207 -631-01 THROUGH -11
AND - 14 THROUGH -25, AND 0207- 641-01 THROUGH - 15.

THESE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 15161(B)(3) OF THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

GUIDELINES
A. Recitals.

1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to amend existing development standards by creating optional standards that would apply to the development of new, and modifications to existing, s ingle-family residences, and similar related structures , on thirty-eight (38) vacant or improved properties located along Camino Predera and Camino Court (collectively, Tract 10035). In addition, the City proposes to create an overlay that identifies these properties along Camino Predera and Camino Court subject to the new optional development standards.

2. The City is proposing to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code and Zoning Map for these properties that will be subject to these a mendments. The City has prepared two amendments for this purpose consisting of Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020- 00004 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022- 00315 as described in the title of this Ordinance (hereafter referred to as “Amendments”).

3. As shown in Attachments “A” and “B”, the Amendments propose to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code to establish new optional development standards and the Zoning Map to incorporate them into a new Zoning Overlay (hereafter “Camino Predera Overlay”), respectively.

4. On October 12, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date.

5. On November 2, 2022, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Amendment s, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the Amendments and concluded said hearing on that date.

6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

B. Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

Attachment 4

1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.

2. Fi ndings . Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on November 16, 2022, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Per Section 17.22.040(C) of the Municipal Code, amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Map “may be approved only when the City Council finds that the amendment[s] are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs.” These include the following Land Use and Housing goals:

• Land Use LC-1.2 Quality of Place. “Ensure that new infill development is compatible with the existing, historic, and envisioned future character and scale of each neighborhood.”

• Land Use LC-1.9: Infill Development. “ Enable and encourage infill development within vacant and underutilized properties through flexible design requirements and potential incentives.”

• Land Use LC-1.11: Compatible Development. “Allow flexibility in density and intensity to address specific site conditions and ensure compatibility of new development with adjacent context.”

• Housing H- 5.1: Development Review Processes. “Consider new polices, codes, and procedures that have the potential to reduce procedural delays, provide information early in the development process regarding development costs, and charge only those fees necessary to adequately carry out needed public services and improvements.”

• Housing H-5.4: Development Standards. “Evaluate and adjust as appropriate residential development standards, regulations, and processing procedures that are determined to constrain housing development, particularly housing.”

b. The Amendments identified herein have been processed, including, but not limited to, public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

c. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines, these Amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15161(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

The proposed Amendments would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the Certified EIR for the City’s General Plan, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives. Based on this evidence and all the evidence in the record, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff’s determination that the Amendment s will not have a significant effect on the environment and that the Amendments are exempt from environmental review. The City Council has considered the proposed exemption as described in the related staff report and oral reports related to the Amendments provided to the City Council by staff. d. The Amendment s are consistent with the direction, goals, policies, and implementation programs of the General Plan, including without limitation, the Housing and Land Use Elements thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan.

e. The Amendments do not conflict with the policies and provisions of the current General Plan or the Hillside Overlay. The subject properties are not within any Planned Community, Specific Plan, and/or Master Plan.
f. The City Council finds that the Amendment s serve the important purpose of providing sufficient development standards that will apply to single-family residential development on thirty-eight (38) vacant and developed properties located along Camino Predera and Predera Court (Tract 10035). The City Council further finds that establishing new optional development standards and the Camino Predera Overlay protects the public health, safety, and welfare.
g. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of the City Council.

3. Determination on Municipal Code Amendment DRC202 0-00004. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Municipal Code Amendment DRC2020- 00004 set forth in Attachment “A”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

4. The City Council hereby amends the Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 17.38 (“Overlay Zoning Districts and other Special Planning Areas”) to add the purpose, applicability, and optional development standards of the Camino Predera Overlay; Chapter 17.114.010 (“Special Area Map”) to add the Camino Predera Overlay to Figure 17.114.010- 1; and Chapter

17.114.050 (“Overlay Zoning District Descriptions) to add the description of the Camino Predera Overlay as shown in Attachment “A”.

5. Determination on Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022- 00315. Based on the findings set forth in this Ordinance and the totality of the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby approves Zoning Map Amendment DRC202-00315 as set forth in Attachment “B”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

6. The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map. The parcels that are subject to the amendment are parcels identified by APNs: 0207 -631-01 through -11 and -14 through -25, and 0207-641-01 through -15. For reference purposes, a list of the parcels affected by Zoning Map Amendment DRC2022-00315 is also included in Attachment “B”.

7. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within in the manner required by law.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2
nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022.

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA

BY:

L. Dennis Michael, Mayor

I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of November 2022, by the following vote-to-wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga

ATTACHMENT A

MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2020-00004

17.38.090 Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District is to identify the geographical area of developed and undeveloped properties that are located on the north and south sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have street frontage along Predera Court that is subject to the City’s optional development standards.

B. Applicability. The Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District is generally located north of Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail and west of Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, in the Low Residential (L) Zone as depicted on the zoning map. The Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District applies to areas of the City indicated on the zoning map by the reference letter “CP” after the reference letter(s) identifying the base zoning district.

C. Development standards. Properties designated Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District shall comply with the City’s hillside development regulations outlined in chapter 17.52 (Hillside Development) except as noted in this chapter.

Standards Optional Standards

Maximum Minimum
Building Height
-South side of Camino Predera 14 feet1 None
-North side of Camino Predera 25 feet None
Building Setbacks
-Front None 37±5 feet
-Rear None 20 feet
-Side None 5/10 feet
Excavation/Fill 8 feet None
Wall Height
-Screen (Freestanding) 6 feet None
-Retaining 8 feet None
1 - As measured from the curb at the street;
D. Plan Check/Zoning Clearance. Applications for new residential construction for properties within the Camino Predera Overlay Zoning District utilizing the optional development standards are exempt from the Hillside Design Review process and shall only be subject to ministerial review per Section 17.16.030 (Plan Check/Zoning Clearance) Chapter 17.114.050 Overlay Zoning District Descriptions The Camino Predera (CP) Overlay Zoning District establishes optional development standards for 38 (thirty-eight) developed and undeveloped properties that are located on the north and south sides of Camino Predera and all properties that have street frontage along Predera Court, a residential neighborhood generally located north of Foothill Boulevard/Pacific Electric (PE) Trail and west of Carnelian Avenue/Cucamonga Creek, in the Low Residential (L) Zone. Optional development standards that will apply to these properties are identified in Chapter 17.38. A complete listing of additional development regulations for Camino Predera is included in Chapter 17.52 (Hillside Development).

ATTACHMENT B

ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2020-00315

The Camino Predera Overlay applies to the following 38 parcels (identified by APN):

0207-631-01 0207-631-14 0207-641-01
0207-631-02 0207-631-15 0207-641-02
0207-631-03 0207-631-16 0207-641-03
0207-631-04 0207-631-17 0207-641-04
0207-631-05 0207-631-18 0207-641-05
0207-631-06 0207-631-19 0207-641-06
0207-631-07 0207-631-20 0207-641-07
0207-631-08 0207-631-21 0207-641-08
0207-631-09 0207-631-22 0207-641-09
0207-631-10 0207-631-23 0207-641-10
0207-631-11 0207-631-24 0207-641-11
0207-631-12 0207-631-25 0207-641-14
0207-631-13 0207-641-15

11/02/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ITEM G1 Begin forwarded message:

From: Renee Massey <[email protected]>
Date: October 27, 2022 at 9:43:32 PM MDT
To: "Michael, Dennis" <[email protected]>, "Kennedy, Lynne" <[email protected]>, "Scott, Kristine" <[email protected]>, "Hutchison, Ryan" <[email protected]> Cc: "Gillison, John" <[email protected]>
Subject: New Development Standards for Camino Predera

CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor Michael, Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy and Council Members Scott and Hutchison,

Wednesday, November 2nd, will be a public hearing where this council will be deciding to approve, deny or amend the recommendation from staff and therefore the Planning Commissions recommendation for approval to council for final action.

For the record, I believe any action should be postponed until the new member of the City Council that represents District 1 is seated. We will have NO representation that night if this matter is continued. I did contact John Gillison regarding this point but he concluded that Council can make that decision on Wednesday. I agree, but thought it would save everyone some time since I'm sure you all agree that representation is important. After all, that is what our country is about...representation.

As you all know, our neighborhood has been working, in good faith, with the city over twenty years to bring reasonable changes to the last of the lots in Red Hill on Camino Predera.

After 5 workshops, many neighborhood meetings, DRC, PC, CC meeting and appeals...it all came down to one PC meeting where, all of a sudden, staff presented a three year old Senate Bill that has never been mentioned in ANY workshops, discussions and/or meetings with staff members. Communication from staff has been non existent since the 5th Workshop, even though I have reached out a few times (see attached). I believed we had a good working relationship, as was encouraged by both the Planning Commissioners and of course this Council, to come up with a plan for the remaining lots that would be consistent with the hillside homes from Red Hill CC Drive south to Camino Predera. The tiered homes are tiered BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT SLOPES which also creates one of the most amazing neighborhood communities in Rancho Cucamonga.

And now, the Planning Commission is forwarding this recommendation for approval.

I am EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED with the direction that this effort has taken and the recommendation that staff has prepared.

Lynn and I will be attending the meeting on the 2nd along with our neighborhood home owners, and will be encouraging you to amend Staffs recommendation to a maximum height of 10ft. with side setbacks at 10/15ft to prevent crowding.

Remember...the 4 previous projects that have been either approved or denied by Staff, PC and CC have all met this criteria (Lot 16 - approved at height 14ft but side setbacks at 10/15ft, Lot 13 - denied even though height was at 10ft but side setbacks were 5/10ft and Staff and PC recommended 10/15ft, Lot 4 -approved. Height is at 9.4ft and side setbacks are at 10/15ft, and Lot 3 - approved. Height is at 1ft with side setbacks at 10/15ft.)

Because the city has established precedent...we recommend the Council amend Staffs recommendation.

Feel free to respond or call me. I would love to hear from you.

See you on the 2nd.

Renee
909-560-2345

11/02/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ITEM G1

From: Suzanne Buquet <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 12:22 PM
To: Michael, Dennis <[email protected]>; Kennedy, Lynne <[email protected]>; Scott, Kristine <[email protected]>; Hutchison, Ryan <[email protected]> Cc: Gillison, John <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Nov 2 Muni Code

Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;

Forgive me in advance as this is a bit long, but every word is important. As you know, we have lived in this Community for decades and in our beloved home, which we purchased in 1998, and this home is part of the original 38 lots in the 10035 Tract.

We love this Community and have stepped up many times over the years to be a part of the solution with both time on Committees and money to help make Rancho Cucamonga the great City it is. As such, I am beyond disappointed that 20+ years of our time and efforts have resulted in nothing but broken promises by the City to protect the last view vista in Red Hill.

Back in July of 2004, the then City Council upheld the appeal that Lynn & Renee filed on the former Stachowiak home, Lot 12 ( and then it was purchased and built by the Adams Building Company who along purchased lot 10 and 11). Diane Williams, who was then on the City Council, even stated that she was concerned that house would set the standard and guess what it did, and yet you’re considering allowing homes to be even larger.

I do not doubt that staff is tired of this after 20-plus years and you know what, so are we. But it appears we have come full circle and not in a good way. I feel we have been totally gaslighted. I am simply at a loss as to how the SB 330 that the City has been fully aware of since 2018, even applies to this situation since it seems to be directed at development projects and low-income ones at that. Why suddenly is it being trotted out and being touted as the City has its hands tied, and thus can’t reduce density or intensity? WHAT!!

11/02/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ITEM G1

From: WINDOWS LIVE TEAM <[email protected]>
Date: October 28, 2022 at 1:30:10 PM PDT
To: "Michael, Dennis" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], "Hutchison, Ryan" <[email protected]> Subject: Building heights and set-backs on Camino Predera

CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor and Council members, My wife and I [James and Renee Scott] live at 8054 Camino Predera. We have attended several neighborhood workshops and a couple of the planning dept. meetings. We are very concerned about t he building height and set backs of the planning commission's recommendation. This is such an incredible community, and we would very much like to see that it maintains its fantastic views and neighborhood goodwill. When we first moved here over six years ago, we were not planning to stay long, frankly, because of the political environment in california. But since then, we have come to love our neighborhood, our house with incredible views, and the city of Rancho Cucamonga as well. We also have property up off of Snowdrop Rd. and are considering building on that parcel. Needless to say, we are pro development. But development must have consideration of current home owners. We believe that in consideration of how the slope falls -off on the southside of Camino Predera and to keep a number of current homeowners relatively content, a building height of 10 Ft. from curb would be warranted and certainly not higher than 12 ft.. Side set-backs of no less than 10 ft. would also improve the look of future develop ments. We love our community and hope that you will give our thoughts consideration in your upcoming meeting. Looking forward to seeing you on Wednesday, respectfully, James and Renee Scott

Yet Planning now has “optional standards” to be able to rush the development crowd thru the process? And come to find out this is the ONLY street in the City to be able to rush thru this process and not even have to submit for Design Review or have to comply with the City Hillside Ordinance requirements. Again WHAT!

While I appreciate Staff’s efforts regarding the Community Meetings, to expect or even consider that those who live in and love our unique Red Hill Community could come to a mutual agreement with those who want to build Mc Mansions, with view capture for profit, is certainly a serious misunderstanding of human nature and the capacity for greed.

We want neighbors but not at the cost of wiping out the last remaining lots with more massive structures which is what is going to happen with the minimal side yard set backs of 5 and 10 and 14 feet homes. The last remaining lots are NOTa one-size-fits all even under the low residential guidelines.

These are very generous-sized lots and really could have been zoned (VL), very low residential which would be an automatic 10 and 15 side yard set back with 25% lot coverage. Most of these lots are double the size of 7,200 sq feet and much closer to or exceed the 20,000 VL lot area guidelines.

Seriously, if ONE developer was building on these last 14 lots, would we be expected to negotiate with them to try and preserve a bit of what makes our neighborhood special?

And despite the claims, the majority of the lots at issue are owned by people who only want to build and sell at a premium and could care less about the neighborhood only profit, and planning just handed them a huge Golden Ticket.

While I appreciate the creativity in providing “Optional Standards, have any of you really looked at those lots? Every single lot is unique and honestly, one or two may not even be buildable.

Allowing Planning to throw out the current protections via the Hillside Guidelines, you’re giving people a free pass to build more Mc Mansions, and only now, you’re making it Building and Safety’s problem, which is exactly what started the problem in 2003 in our neighborhood.

And while you may not be familiar with the plan check process, I am. On a typical Design Review submittal, if planning misses pertinent information during their 30-day Design Review Process, how much will you think will be missed when their plan check deadline is 10 days and then 5 days? What if the house comes in looking like Disneyland and is purple? These Optional Standards are a disaster in the making, and rewards the developers by fast-tracking their project with minimal review and totally miss the point of compatibility with the remaining Red Hill lots.

While we certainly never expected to have view capture, view sharing is certainly possible, and 10 and 15 side yard setbacks will at least help with that opportunity. Not only for the current stakeholders who have to live here and plan to continue to live here but ALL the residents who walk and bike daily on this last unique vista in Red Hill.

Staffs comments on page 43 of the Planning Commission Agenda may suggest that 14 feet and 5 and 10 allow for an inviting character where houses along both sides “frame and have an aesthetic appeal” this makes our street like any other 7,200 S.F. lot in any part of the city. And it’s simply NOT like any other street in the City. While it sounds nice, it is fluff and not reality. This is not 4 to an acre zoning where 5 and 10 is typical, this really should have been rezoned to very low residential zoning and 10 and 15 should be the normal setbacks. All the walkers, riders and people who enjoy our beautiful area will be looking a wall of homes. Please remember that this is the LAST vista in Red Hill, which, if approved, will be just a wall of more Mc Mansions. You all saw the rendering that the City provided showing what 14 feet of homes up the street would look like and I think it's shameful that anyone would think that is acceptable for the last vista in Red hill.

You may remember that in 2019, lot 13, Mr. Bardo’s lot was denied due to massing and 5 and 10-yard setback by THIS City Council and that home was under 10 feet, so where is the logic in this?

How do you throw out the Hillside Standards, which are in place for a reason and put properties at risk by not providing a grading and drainage plan with the slopes that are out there? These lots are certainly not typical or average cookie cutter 7,200 square foot lots.

The sheer size of these lots allow for a LOT of flexibility for unique homes that fit the Hillside contours. Where are there any checks and balances with a Golden Ticket?

I respectfully urge you to deny this “alleged solution” (which seems a lot more like making the pesky neighbors go away), or at a minimum, at least reduce the building heights to be under 10 feet and the 10 and 15 side yards so we can still maintain a bit of what makes this street special for everyone.

Please, no Golden Tickets for Mc Mansions which planning allowed to happen so many years ago. And it seems very strange as to why this seems to be on the fast track and being rushed through with no heads up or communication from planning that this was scheduled for the November Planning Commission until the summons in the mail. And this is now being rushed to City Council this Wednesday....

Respectfully,

Suzanne Buquet
(909) 373-7550

Council Member Ryan Hutchison,
Firstly, I hope you are well.

I am reaching out to you today regarding this Wednesday's Council meeting.

I am IMPLORING you to postpone item (Gl) on the agenda until a representative can be elected and seated on the Council to represent our District 1. That person will be our voice, a voice we desperately need as we near a decision on our LONG twenty-two year journey with the city regarding building on Camino Predera. It will also give us time to study SB330 which at this point does not seem to apply to this area. This law has been in effect almost three years and not once has staff presented it at any meetings.

Here's what I pray for on Wednesday:
1) For a postponement...OR ...
2) Amend the "optional standards" to read the maximum height at 10ft and side setbacks at 10/lSft.

Since 2019, there have been four projects that have come before the city on these south lots and there is precedent for our request. See the following:

Lot 4 - This project was approved in 2019 with a height at curb under 10ft with side setbacks at 10/15ft.

Lot 3 - Danny Dera Project was approved by PC on 3/13/2019 with no objections. The residence is . 7 feet below the street curb and has side setbacks greater than 10/15ft.

Lot 13 - Bardo's project had a maximum height at curb of 10.5 ft with side setbacks at 5/lOft. Staff did not recommend approval. Planning Commission denied project. Mr. Bardos appealed to Council who offered to approve his project that night if he would increase his setbacks to 10/15/t as recommended by staff He refused, so on 5/5/21 City Council denied his project.

Lot 16 - The Patel project was approved on 5/5/21. The height at curb is 13 ft. (not what we wanted, but close) and side setbacks at 10/15ft.

Because these projects are "on the books" it is difficult to argue that what we have been working on for 22 years is not new. We have been very consistent. I look forward to speaking this Wednesday and hope to convince you to amend the "optional standards".

Sincerely,
Renee Massey
11/02/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ITEM G1 Received on 10/31/2022 3:00PM

From: Catherine Weber <[email protected]>
Date: November 1, 2022 at 7:11:03 AM PDT
To: "Kennedy, Lynne" <[email protected]>, "Scott, Kristine" <[email protected]>, "Hutchison, Ryan" <[email protected]>, "Michael, Dennis" <[email protected]> Subject: SB 330 and the New Development Standards for Camino Predera CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I am a Camino Predera resident, and I am opposed to the proposed Optional Standards.

Please see attached Letter to you, the City Council Members, regarding the standards and SB 330.

Additionally, I ask that this issue be postponed until District 1 has representation.

Sincerely,
Catherine and Eric Weber
7997 Camino Predera
11/02/2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ITEM G1 - RECEIVED 11/1/2022

November 1, 2022
Rancho Cucamonga City Council Members,
Dear City Council Members,
I am a Camino Predera Resident, and I am opposed to the “Optional Standards” for our street. Additionally, I request representation be in place for District 1 before this decision is made.

I am not an attorney, but I do have the ability to read and reason and believe that SB 330 is specifically about aligning the General Plan with Existing Zoning densities.

See attached detail of the case from “Holland and Knight Alert” regarding YIMBY et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.. The case before the City Council has nothing to do with densities and therefore SB 330 should not be the reason that the City Council abdicates its responsibility to the existing landowners.

The attached article makes the case that Los Angeles will certainly appeal the decision.

From the Article: ”Most critically, under the court's reading of the statute, even local governments that have harmonized their general plan and zoning standards would be precluded from applying those zoning standards if doing so would frustrate the development of the project at the proposed density. Local governments, for instance, would be categorically precluded from applying setback, height and yard requirements contained in their zoning codes if the application of those requirements would necessitate a density reduction.”
The proposed decision before the City Council does not involve a density alignment with the existing zoning. This is a single-family development and there is not a change in density and zoning.

I urge you, the City Council members, to postpone the vote on this critical issue that preserves the views of Camino Predera. Additionally, I urge the City Council to read the attached article and to use your own ability to reason.

Sincerely,
Catherine Weber
7997 Camino Predera,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
310-916-1134

Los Angeles Superior Court Decision May
Disrupt Local Governments' Land Use
Practices
Court Rules Los Angeles Cannot Require Rezoning of Housing Site Included in General Plan Housing Element; Housing Element Compliant Projects Eligible for Expedited Permit Processing and Mandatory Approvals
Holland & Knight Alert
Andrew J. Starrels | William E. Sterling
Elija Idioma
Temas
• Following its longtime practice, the City of Los Angeles Planning Department initially refused to process, and later denied, an applicant's proposal to build a multifamily development in an area of the San Fernando Valley that was zoned f
or single-family housing, but nonetheless had a general plan designation that allowed multifamily development.
• A 2018 amendment to California's Housing Accountability Act (HAA) requires local governments to accommodate development at the density allowed in their general plan in circumstances where zoning ordinances are inconsistent with the
general plan.
• In a recent lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, the applicant together with petitioner Yes In My Back Yard challenged the City's denial and argued that the amended HAA required local governments to accommodate the general plan's density, even when zoning classifications dictated lower densities. • This interpretation, if it prevails, has the potential to significantly disrupt local governments' practices with respect to processing requests for housing de
velopment approvals.

YIMBY et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.1 concerned a proposed 67-unit housing development in the Woodland Hills area of the San Fernando Valley.2 While the City of Los Angeles's (the City) general plan designated this area for multifamily residential developments, the zoning requirements imposed by the applicable Canoga Park-Winnetka-Woodland Hills-West Hills communities imposed a maximum density of one residence per lot, mandating single-family detached homes. 3 The City cited this
zoning designation, among other things, in denying the project.4

Petitioner Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) alleged that the City's treatment of the project violated Senate Bill 330 (SB330),5 the Housing Accountability Act (HAA)6 and the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA).7 The Los Angeles Superior Court's interpretation, if it prevails, has the potential to significantly disrupt local governments' practices with respect to processing requests for housing development approvals. This alert focuses upon YIMBY's HAA-related argument and the court's discussion of that argument.
8 Background on the HAA and Subdivision (j)
Prior to 2018, the HAA did not account for situations where a general plan's standards conflict with zoning requirements with respect to allowable density. As the YIMBY court noted, this statutory silence allowed local governments to "avoid compliance with the HAA by maintaining low zoning densities that force a project into a discretionary rezoning process[,]" even where the density was permitted by the applicable general plan.
9 The California legislature amended the HAA in 2018 to address this loophole, adding two sentences to the HAA that were codified as subdivision (j)(4):

For purposes of this section, a proposed housing development project is not inconsistent with the applicable zoning standards and criteria, and shall not require a rezoning, if the housing development project is consistent with the objective general plan standards and criteria but the zoning for the project site is inconsistent with the general plan. If the local agency has complied with paragraph (2), the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan, however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.
10 The YIMBY petitioners alleged that precisely the scenario that the 2018 HAA amendments sought to prevent had occurred with respect to the Woodland Hills application: the general plan contemplated multifamily development, but the zoning classification established under the Community Plan specifically limited residential densities to one single-family residence per lot. In response, the City looked to the zoning limitation and said than the application was not complete and required no action by the City unless the applicant sought to change the zoning in a discretionary process.

The Court's Interpretation

In resolving the parties' HAA dispute, the court closely parsed both sentences of subdivision (j)(4). With respect to the first sentence, the court reasoned that "a project is not inconsistent with [the broader category of] zoning standards…if it is consistent with the objective general plan standards even though the zoning is inconsistent with the general plan."11 In other words, "a city must look to its general plan if the zoning is inconsistent."12 The court found that "the Property's zoning is clearly inconsistent with the General Plan designation[,]"13 and accordingly its disposition ultimately turned on the first sentence of (j)(4). Nevertheless, the court also provided a lengthy and illuminating discussion of subdivision (j)(4)'s second sentence, adopting a reading that could have broader impacts on land use approvals.

The parties disputed whether, absent an inconsistency between the general plan and zoning, local governments were required to accommodate the densities allowed by the general plan. The City had asserted that (j)(4) in its entirety only comes into play in the event of such an inconsistency. In the City's view, absent an inconsistency, it was entitled to apply its objective zoning standards (which included density limits as well as setback requirements, height limits, etc.) to a project, regardless of whether the application of those zoning standards would frustrate development at the allowable density.
14 YIMBY, on the other hand, argued that each sentence of subdivision (j)(4) covers a different scenario: the first sentence applies in the event of an inconsistency between zoning and the general plan, while the second sentence applies where there is no such inconsistency. Thus, in YIMBY's view, "the first sentence…provides that a city must look to its general plan if the zoning is inconsistent, and the second sentence provides that a city may look to its zoning's objective standards if the zoning and general plan are consistent and must do so to facilitate and accommodate the site's density allowed by the general plan."
15 Critically, YIMBY posited that "[i]n either
circumstance, the city is required to permit the density allowed by the general plan."16 The court agreed with YIMBY, writing that "the City's interpretation ignores the plain meaning of the second sentence[,]" which "expressly permits a city…to require a project to comply with those objective zoning standards that are consistent with the general plan, but it must do so in accordance with the general plan density. The plain language of the second sentence does not require any inconsistency for the general plan density to apply."
17 Thus, the court concluded, "section 65589.5(j)(4) requires a city to defer to its general plan's density requirements whether a property's zoning is consistent or inconsistent with the general plan."18
Implications

The City will almost certainly appeal the court's determination. Moreover, the facts presented here align with those of the Snowball case (Snowball West Investments, LP v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 20STCP00771), which involved a different proposed housing project in another part of the City with RA-1 zoning.19 However, should the court's reasoning prevail, its interpretation of this provision has the potential to significantly limit local governments' discretion over proposed housing projects that are consistent with the general plan.

Most critically, under the court's reading of the statute, even local governments that have harmonized their general plan and zoning standards would be precluded from applying those zoning standards if doing so would frustrate the development of the project at the proposed density. Local governments, for instance, would be categorically precluded from applying setback, height and yard requirements contained in their zoning codes if the application of those requirements would necessitate a density reduction.

The court's reasoning also threatens an interpretive land use practice common in Southern California. Like many jurisdictions, the City long ago established a procedure for evaluating use permissibility that looked to a "hierarchical system of uses" regulated by its general plan and zoning ordinance. This hierarchy progresses from least restrictive to most restrictive, and recognizes that zoning classifications in areas allowing greater development intensity also permit less intensive uses. In other words, an area zoned for intensive commercial use categorically also permits less intensive commercial uses. In the YIMBY case, the City relied on an exhaustive argument about Footnote 9 in the City's General Plan to support its suggestion that the zoning ordinance and general plan were not in fact inconsistent, because Footnote 9 permitted more restrictive prohibitions such as density restrictions to be incorporated by reference into the general plan policies.
20 The court rejected the longstanding use
of the cascading hierarchy of zoning restrictions to imply general plan consistency in circumstances that thwart the residential densities contemplated by the general plan.

The YIMBY decision is remarkable for several reasons. First, despite claiming to afford deference to the City's interpretation of its own land use rules, the court seized upon an opportunity to find that state housing law principles aimed at the promotion of housing development took priority over local regulatory frameworks that traditionally have been used to thwart housing. Second, the YIMBY court went beyond the posited question where a zoning ordinance conflicted with a jurisdiction's general plan, ruling that even where there is consistency between plan and zoning, an objective zoning limitation cannot be enforced if the result would be to reduce the density of housing contemplated by a jurisdiction's general plan. Last, the court emphatically rejected the long-held practice and policies of the City's Planning Department, ruling that violations of SB330, the HAA and the PSA occurred when the

City, as it has long done, finds that applications are not complete and refuses to process them when they do not conform to a staff-level determination of how an application should be processed. If the ruling prevails through appeal, the implications for how the City and other jurisdictions process housing applications could be far- reaching.

Notes
1 YIMBY et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 21-STCP-03883 (Cal. Super. Ct.

July 29, 2022).
2 Decision at 1.
3 Decision 1, 13-14.
4 Decision at 1. Initially, the applicant sought a preliminary application approval under Senate Bill 330 (SB330), a state law that aims to lock in place existing development standards under which an application will be evaluated. Decision at 6. Initially, the City of Los Angeles (the City) refused to process the SB330 application, claiming it to be incomplete because it did not seek a zone change for the property and misstated the application for a density bonus. In a separate portion of its decision, the court ruled that the City's conduct violated SB330 and the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA). 5 Cal. Gov. Code § 65941.1.
6 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65589.5 et seq.
7 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 65920 et seq.
8 The court also discussed the City's conduct with respect to the proposed project in other ways, raising other issues that are beyond the scope of this alert. 9 Decision at 28.
10 Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(4).
11 Decision at 29.
12 Decision at 29.
13 Decision at 33.
14 Decision at 29-30.

15 Decision at 29.
16 Decision at 29.
17 Decision at 30. The court's interpretation of the second sentence of subdivision (j)(4) is dicta, inasmuch as it rules that the first sentence of the subdivision applies in the event of an inconsistency. However, the order clearly announces that general plan density requirements prevail of zoning requirements that operate to limit general plan density.
18 Decision at 30.
19 In Snowball, a different L.A. Superior Court judge denied a petition for mandamus following the City's denial of a zone change under similar circumstances: the general plan category for the project contemplated as many as 244 homes, but the zone category would permit only 19 homes. The City required the applicant to seek a zone change. The Snowball court reached the opposite conclusion of YIMBY – accepting the City's contention that no inconsistency existed between the general plan and the zoning ordinance, despite the disparity in allowable residential units, because a similar footnote in the plan incorporated by reference all more restrictive zoning categories into the plan. Finding no such inconsistency to exist, the Snowball court concluded that the HAA did not apply and the City was not obligated to grant an application seeking to make use of the general plan's contemplated density. Snowball is on appeal to the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, and briefing has begun. 20 The Snowball court encountered a nearly identical footnote in a different portion of the City's general plan, and sustained the City's long time practice of hierarchical zoning interpretation – finding no conflict between plan and zoning to exist.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.

Item G1: Massey PowerPoint
Presentation 11/2/2022

DATE: November 2, 2022
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
INITIATED BY: John R. Gillison, City Manager
FROM: Michael Frasure, Director of Building and Safety Services SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 1011, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Adopting the 2022 Edition of the California Building Model Codes and the 2021 Edition of the International Building Codes. (ORDINANCE NO. 1011) (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council adopt the 2022 California Model Codes and applicable 2021 International Codes. The effective date of the Ordinance would be January 1, 2023.

Additionally, December 21, 2022, will be the last day to submit applications at City Hall and December 31, 2022, will be the last day to submit permit applications by electronic document submittal for projects designed under the current 2019 code standards.

BACKGROUND:

The California Building Standards Commission recently adopted the 2022 Edition of the California Building Codes, which is also known as the California Code of Regulations, Title 24 (CCR, T-24).

The 2022 California Building Codes include the California Building Code, the California Plumbing Code, the California Mechanical Code, the California Electrical Code, the California Residential Code, the California Green Building Code, and the California Historical Building Code. The ordinance will bring all of the City’s Building and Construction Regulations into compliance with the latest codes adopted by the California Building Standards Commission. Also required is the adoption of the 2021 International Pool and Spa Code and the International Property Maintenance Codes. Under State statute, specific referenced model codes must be adopted by the local jurisdictions within 180 days of the publication date of the model codes. The effective date for local enforcement of the new codes will be January 1, 2023.

Additionally, any modifications made by local agencies to the technical regulations adopted by the California Building Standards Commission may only become effective if the local jurisdiction makes express findings of need for changes due to local conditions. These modifications must be directly related to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions in the form of an Ordinance and must be filed directly with the Building Standards Commission after its adoption.

ANALYSIS:

The 2022 California Building Codes are based on the International Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2, 2021 Edition, the International Residential Code, 2021 Edition, and the International Property Maintenance Code, published by the International Code Council (ICC); California Green Building

Code 2021 Edition, published by a joint effort of different State agencies; the 2021 International Pool and Spa Code published by the ICC and the American Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (APSP); the Uniform Plumbing and Mechanical Codes, 2021 Editions, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAMPO); and the National Electrical Code, 2020 Edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

The City has previously adopted a number of technical amendments to the building codes because of special local climatic, geological, and topographical conditions. All applicable past amendments are carried over into the new codes at this time. Examples of some major local code amendments are the requirements of high wind design criteria, Class A fire retardant roofing materials for new buildings built in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, soil reports for new construction due to the special conditions of soil in the City, etc. At the beginning of each municipal code section shown in the Ordinance, there are tables of the code sections which identify the local amendments.

It should be noted that the amendments to the administrative provisions and regulations addressing elements of construction that are not regulated by the California Building Standards Commission do not need to meet the test of being necessary due to climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No new fees or changes to the current building permit fee structure are proposed as part of this building code adoption process.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

ENHANCING PREMIER COMMUNITY STATUS AND PUBLIC SAFETY: The adoption of these codes will bring our building and construction regulations into compliance with the latest codes and is an excellent demonstration of local government with an outstanding vision of maintaining up-to- date construction requirements and great public safety.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Ordinance No. 1011

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 1 of 18
2 9
9 2
ORDINANCE NO. 1011

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, INCORPORATING THE "INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, VOLUMES 1 AND 2", 2021 EDITION, INCLUDING APPENDICES THERETO; THE 2022 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, INCORPORATING THE “INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE”, 2021 EDITION, INCLUDING APPENDICES THERETO; THE 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, INCORPORATING THE "UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE", 2021 EDITION, INCLUDING APPENDICES THERETO; THE 2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCORPORATING THE "UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE", 2021 EDITION, INCLUDING APPENDICES THERETO; THE 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, INCORPORATING THE "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE", 2020 EDITION, INCLUDING ANNEXES THERETO; THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE INCLUDING APPENDICES THERETO; THE 2022 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE”, INCLUDING APPENDICES THERETO; THE 2022 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE; THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE; AND THE 2021 INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, TOGETHER WITH

CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, DELETIONS, ADDITIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND PENALTIES, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE A. RECITALS.
(i) Government Code Section 50022.1, et seq., authorizes the adoption by reference of the Codes specified in the title of the Ordinance. (ii) At least one copy of each of said Codes certified as full, true and correct by the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga have been filed in the Office of the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 50022.6.
(iii) A duly noticed public hearing, as required by California Government Code Section 50022.3, has been conducted and concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Attachment 1

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 2 of 18
B. ORDINANCE.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ordains as follows:

SECTION 1:In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance.

SECTION 2: Chapters 15.04, 15.12, 15.14, 15.16, 15.20, 15.24, 15.26, 15.28, 15.30,

15.32 and 15.34 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, entitled Buildings and Construction, are hereby amended as provided for herein, provided that said amendments shall not apply to or excuse any violation thereof occurring prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and provided further that the provisions of Title 15 as exist prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall continue to be applicable to construction for which permits have been issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3:Chapter 15.04 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.04

CODES ADOPTION
Sections:

15.04.010 Codes adoption.

15.04.020 Penalties.

15.04.030 Civil remedies available
“Sec. 15.04.010 Codes adoption.

The 2022 California Building Code, based on the "International Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2", 2021 Edition, including all appendices thereto; the 2022 California Residential Code, based on the “International Residential Code”, 2021 Edition, including all appendices thereto; the 2022 California Mechanical Code, incorporating the "Uniform Mechanical Code", 2021 Edition; including all appendices thereto; the 2022 California Plumbing Code, incorporating the "Uniform Plumbing Code", 2021 Edition, including all appendices thereto; the 2022 California Electrical Code, incorporating the " National Electrical Code ", 2020 Edition; including all annexes thereto; the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code; the 2022 California Historical Building Code; the 2022 California Referenced Standards Code; the 2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code; and the 2021 International Property Maintenance Code; are hereby adopted by reference in their entirety and amended in Chapters 15.04, 15.12, 15.14, 15.16, 15.20, 15.24, 15.26, 15.28,

15.30, 15.32, and 15.34 herein, shall comprise the Building and Construction Regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 3 of 18

15.04.020 Penalties.

It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Title 15 or the secondary codes adopted hereby.

Any person, firm, partnership or corporation violating any provision of this Title 15 or the secondary codes adopted hereby or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Each person, firm, partnership or corporation shall be deemed guilty of separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Title 15 or the secondary codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this section.

15.04.030 Civil remedies available.

The violation of any of the provisions of this Title 15 or the secondary codes adopted hereby shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the city through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances.”
SECTION 4:Chapter 15.12 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 15.12

BUILDING CODE
Sections:

15.12.005 Section [A]101.4 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Referenced codes.

15.12.010 Section [A]105.2 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Work exempt from permit.

15.12.020 Section [A]113.1 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Board of Appeals.

15.12.030 Sections [A]114.1 and [A]114.2 of Chapter 1, Division II amended - Violations

15.12.035 Section 710A.3.3 amended - Detached miscellaneous structures

15.12.040 Section 903 amended – Automatic sprinkler systems.

15.12.050 Table 1505.1 amended – Minimum roof covering classification for types of construction.

15.12.060 Section 1609.3 amended – Basic design wind speed.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 4 of 18

15.12.065 Section 1803.5.11 amended – Seismic design categories C through F.

15.12.070 Section 3109.3 added – California Swimming Pool Act.

15.12.080 Section J101 of Appendix J amended – Scope.

15.12.090 Section J101.3 of Appendix J added – Special requirements for hazardous conditions.

15.12.100 Section J103.2 of Appendix J amended – Exemptions.

15.12.110 Sections J104.5 and J104.6 of Appendix J added – Permit application and submittal.

15.12.120 Section J105.1 of Appendix J amended – General.

15.12.130 Section J109.4 of Appendix J amended – Drainage across property lines.

15.12.135 Section J109.5 of Appendix J added – Site and lot grading for drainage.

15.12.140 Section J110.3 of Appendix J added – Temporary erosion control during grading.

15.12.150 Section J112 of Appendix J added – Protection of adjacent property.

15.12.160 Section J113 of Appendix J added – Dust control.

15.12.005 Section [A]101.4 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Referenced codes.

Sections [A]101.4.1, [A]101.4.2, [A]101.4.3, [A]101.4.4 are deleted.

15.12.010 Section [A]105.2 of Chapter 1, Division II amended - Work exempt from permit.

Section [A]105.2 of the Building Code is hereby amended by amending item 2 to read as follows:

2. Wood, chain-link, plastic, metal or similar fences not over 6 feet in height or masonry, concrete fence not over 3 feet in height above the lowest adjacent grade.

5.12.020 Section [A]113.1 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Board of Appeals.

Section [A]113.1 of Chapter 1, Division II is hereby amended to read as follows:
[A]113.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determination made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 5 of 18
created a Board of Appeals consisting of 3 members and 2 alternates who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and who are not employees of the jurisdiction. The Building Official shall be an ex officio member of and shall act as Secretary to said Board but shall have no vote on any matter before the Board. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the Building Official.

15.12.030 Sections [A]114.1 and [A]114.2 of Chapter 1, Division II amended - Violations Sections [A]114.1 and [A]114.2 of Chapter 1, Division II are hereby amended to read as follows:
[A]114.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish, occupy or maintain any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code.
[A]114.2 Notice of violation. The Building Official is authorized to serve a notice of violation or order on the person responsible for the erection, construction, alteration, extension, repair, moving removal demolition, maintaining or occupancy of a building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code, or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code. Such order shall direct the discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation.

15.12.035 Accessory Structures. Section 710A.3.3 amended - Detached miscellaneous structures.

Section 710A.3.3 is hereby amended to read as follows:
710A 3.3 Accessory detached miscellaneous structures that are installed at a distance of more than 3 feet but less than 50 feet from an applicable building shall be constructed of noncombustible materials or of ignition-resistant materials as described in Section 704.A.2.

15.12.040 Section 903 amended – Automatic Sprinkler Systems.

Amendments to Section 903 shall be those amendments adopted by the City and/or the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District for Section 903 of the 2022 California Fire Code – Automatic Sprinkler Systems, all of which are incorporated by reference herein.

15.12.050 Table 1505.1 amended – Minimum roof covering classification for types of construction.

Table 1505.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Table 1505.1
Minimum Roof Covering Classification for different types of construction for new buildings, re-roofs or additions.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 6 of 18

IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB
A A A A A A B* B* B*
*See Section 1505.1.1 for Class A Roof Coverings in Very-High Fire Hazard Severity

15.12.060 Section 1609.3 amended – Basic design wind speed.

Section 1609.3 is hereby amended by adding a sentence at the end of the section to read as follows:

The basic wind speed used in the City is 96 miles per hour and Vasd is 75 miles per hour with Exposure C as described in Section 1609.4.3 shall be used.

15.12.065 Section 1803.5.11 amended – Seismic design categories C through F.

Section 1803.5.11 is hereby amended by adding a sentence at the end of the section to read as follows:

The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for all new structures or additions to existing buildings where the addition is more than 50% of the existing floor area. Any geotechnical reports that are more than 3 years old shall be required to submit an updated geotechnical report.

15.12.070 Section 3109.3 added – California Swimming Pool Act Section 3109.3 is hereby added to read as follows:
3109.3 There shall be 3 (three) drowning protection measures provided for the construction of a new or the remodel of an existing pool or spa. First required measure: An enclosure that meets the requirements of Section 115923 of the California Swimming Pool Safety Act and isolates the swimming pool or spa from the private single-family home. The second and third required drowning protection measures shall be 2 (two) of the remaining 6 (six) measures listed in Section 115922 of the California Swimming Pool Safety Act.

15.12.075 Section 107.3.4 amended- Design professional in responsible charge Section 107.3.4 is hereby amended by amending the first 2 (two) sentences to read as follows:

It is required that documents be prepared by a registered design professional for all commercial and industrial applications. The building official requires the owner or the owner’s authorized agent to engage and designate on the building permit application a registered design professional or a California State licensed contractor who shall act as the registered design professional in responsible charge.

15.12.080 Section J101.1 of Appendix J amended – Scope.

J101.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter apply to grading, excavation and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments. Where conflicts occur between the technical requirements of this chapter and the geotechnical report, the geotechnical report shall govern. In addition, the designs of the work as described above need to meet the recognized and accepted civil and geotechnical engineering practices and principles.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 7 of 18

15.12.090 Section J101.3 of Appendix J added – Special requirements for hazardous conditions.

Section J101.3 is hereby added to read as follows:

J101.3 Special requirements for hazardous conditions.

Whenever the Building Official determines that any existing excavation or embankment or fill on private property has become a hazard to life and limb, or endangers property, or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public way or drainage channel, the owner of the property upon which the excavation or fill is located, or other person or agent in control of said property, upon receipt of notice in writing from the Building Official, shall within the period specified therein repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment to eliminate the hazard and to be in conformance with the requirements of this code.

15.12.100 Section J103.2 of Appendix J - amended – Exemptions.

Section J103.2 is hereby amended to read as follows:

J103.2 Exemptions:

A grading permit is not required for the following:

1. When approved by the Building Official, grading in an isolated, self-contained area if there is no danger to private or public property.

2. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any fill made with the material from such excavation or exempt any excavation having an unsupported height greater than 5 feet (1524mm) after the completion of such structure.

3. Cemetery graves.

4. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations.

5. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities.

6. Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing or stockpiling of rock, sand, gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law, provided such operations do not affect the lateral support or increase the stresses in or pressure upon any adjacent or contiguous property.

7. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers or engineering geologists.

8. An excavation that (1) is less than 2 feet (610mm) in depth or (2) does not create a cut slope greater than 5 feet (1524mm) in height and steeper than 1 unit vertical in 2 units horizontal.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 8 of 18

9. A fill less than 1 foot (305mm) in depth and placed on natural terrain with a slope flatter than 1 unit vertical in 5 units horizontal (20% slope), or a cut less than 3 feet (914mm) in depth, not intended to support structures, or any soil work that does not disturb soil exceeding 50 cubic yards (38.3m) on any one lot and does not obstruct a drainage course.

Exemption from the permit requirements of this Appendix shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this chapter or any other laws or ordinances of this jurisdiction.

15.12.110 Sections J104.5 and J104.6 of Appendix J added – Permit application and submittal.

Sections J104.5 and J104.6 are hereby added to read as follows:

J104.5 Plan Information. In addition to the requirements in Section J104.2, the permittee shall provide other technical information as required by the Building and Safety Department’s hand- outs, policies and standards.

J104.6 As-built plans. The permittee shall provide a copy of as-built plans to the City for a permanent record at the end of the approved grading work.

15.12.120 Section J105.1 of Appendix J amended – General.

Section J105.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:

J105.1 General. Inspections shall be governed by Section 110, Chapter 1, Division II of this code and other requirements established by approved policies and procedures of the Building and Safety Department. An engineer shall provide grading inspections and certifications for the work done at the site.

15.12.130 Section J109.4 of Appendix J amended – Drainage across property lines.

Section J109.4 is amended by adding the following to the end of the section as follows:

For Single Family Lot Drainage:

1. Whenever possible, drainage from single family lots shall flow directly to a street.

2. If it should be determined necessary to allow offsite drainage to flow through a single family lot (to preserve down lot views, esthetics, accept flow from offsite property, etc.), the following shall apply:
a. Drainage from only one lot shall flow through only one other lot. b. A drainage easement shall be provided/obtained over the lot accepting the drainage. c. The drainage shall be contained within either a concrete/rock lined swale or reinforced concrete pipe.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 9 of 18
d. The drainage facility shall be designed with excess capacity to account for the probable lack of necessary maintenance. Therefore, it shall be designed to convey two times the runoff from a 100-year storm with the minimum diameter for a pipe being 12 inches.

15.12.135 Section J109.5 of Appendix J added – Site and lot grading for drainage.

Section J 109.5 is hereby added to read as follows:

J109.5 Site and lot grading for drainage. The site or lot grading shall meet the requirements as specified in Section 1804.4 - Site Grading of the California Building Code Volume 2.

15.12.140 Section J110.3 of Appendix J added – Temporary erosion control during grading.

Section J110.3 is hereby added to read as follows:

J110.3 Temporary erosion control during grading work.

The permittee shall put into effect and maintain all precautionary measures necessary to protect adjacent watercourses and public or private property from damage by erosion, flooding, and deposition of mud or debris origination from the site during the grading operation regardless of lot size.

15.12.150 Section J112 of Appendix J added – Protection of adjacent property.

Section J112 is hereby added to read as follows:

Section J112 Protection of adjacent property.

J112.1 General. During grading operations, the permittee shall be responsible for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and no person shall excavate on land sufficiently close to the property line to endanger any adjoining public street, sidewalk, alley, or other public or private property without supporting and protecting such property from settling, cracking, or other damage which might result.

15.12.160 Section J113 of Appendix J added – Dust control.

Section J113 is hereby added to read as follows:

Section J113 Dust control.

J113.1 General. The owner of the site or the project contractor shall put into effect and maintain all precautionary measures necessary to prevent dust blowing from the site to adjacent properties.

Prior to the permit issuance, a dust control sign and required contact information as required by the department’s policy shall be installed at the site.”

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 10 of 18
SECTION 5:Chapter 15.14 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 15.14

RESIDENTIAL CODE
Sections:

15.14.010 Section R105.2 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Work exempt from permit.

15.14.020 Section 1.8.8.1 of Chapter 1, Division I amended – Board of Appeals.

15.14.030 Sections R113.1 and R113.2 of Chapter 1, Division II amended- Violations.

15.14.040 Section R301.2.1 amended – Wind design criteria.

15.14.050 Section R401.4.1 amended – Geotechnical evaluation.

15.14.060 Section R902.1 amended – Roofing covering materials.

15.14.070 Appendices deleted.

15.14.010 Section R105.2 of Chapter I, Division II amended – Work exempt from permit.

Section R105.2 of the Residential Code is hereby amended by amending items 1 and 2 and adding new items 11 and 12 to read as follows:

1. One-story detached accessory structure used as tool and storage sheds playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor area does not exceed 120 square feet and 8 feet in maximum height as long as the structure is not located in required setbacks as determined by the Planning Department.

2. Wood, chain-link, plastic, metal or similar fences not over 6 feet in height or masonry, concrete fence not over 3 feet in height above the lowest adjacent grade.

11. Flag pole not to exceed 20 feet in height above ground in a residential lot.

12. Non-fixed and movable fixtures, cases, racks, counters and partitions not over 5 feet 9 inches in height.

15.14.020 Section 1.8.8.1 of Chapter 1, Division I amended – Board of Appeals.

Section 1.8.8.1 of Chapter 1, Division I is hereby amended to read as follows:

1.8.8.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determination made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 11 of 18
created a Board of Appeals consisting of 3 members and 2 alternates who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and who are not employees of the jurisdiction. The Building Official shall be an ex officio member of and shall act as Secretary to said Board but shall have no vote on any matter before the Board. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the Building Official.

15.14.030 Sections R113.1 and R113.2 of Chapter I, Division II amended – Violations.

Sections R113.1 and R113.2 of Chapter 1, Division II are hereby amended to read as follows:

R113.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish, occupy or maintain any building, structure or equipment regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code.

R113.2 Notice of violation. The Building Official is authorized to serve a notice of violation or order on the person responsible for the erection, construction, alteration, extension, repair, moving removal demolition, maintaining or occupancy of a building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code, or in violation of a permit or certificate issued under the provisions of this code. Such order shall direct the discontinuance of the illegal action or condition and the abatement of the violation.

15.14.040 Section R301.2.1 amended – Wind design criteria.

Section R301.2.1 is hereby amended to by adding a sentence at the end of the section to read as follows:

The ultimate design wind speed used in the City is 110 miles per hour for Vult and Vasd is 85 miles per hour with Exposure C as described in Section R301.2.1.4.

15.14.050 Section R401.4.1 amended – Geotechnical evaluation.

Section R401.4.1 is hereby amended by adding a sentence at the end of the section to read as follows:

A geotechnical or soil report is required for the new construction or when an addition is more than 50% of the existing floor area. Any reports that are more than 3 years old shall be required to provide an updated report or a soil letter.

15.14.060 Section R902.1 amended - Roofing covering materials.

Section R902.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:

Roofs shall be covered with materials as set forth in Sections R904 and R905. A minimum Class A or B roofing shall be installed in areas designated by this section. Class A or B roofing required by this section to be listed shall be tested in accordance with UL 790 or ASTM E 108.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 12 of 18
Minimum Roof Covering Classification for different types of construction for new buildings, re roofs or additions except for the construction of roofs in very High Fire Hazard Zones.

IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV VA VB
A A A A A A B* B* B*
*See Section R902.1.1 for Class A Roof Coverings in Very-High Fire Hazard Severity

15.14.070 Appendices deleted.

Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, and W of the California Residential Code are hereby deleted.”
SECTION 6:Chapter 15.16 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.16

MECHANICAL CODE
Sections:

15.16.010 Section 104.5 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Permit fees.

15.16.020 Table 104.5 of Chapter 1, Division II deleted – Mechanical permit fees.

15.16.030 Section 107.1 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – General.

15.16.010 Section 104.5 of Chapter 1, Division II amended - Permit fees.

Section 104.5 of the Mechanical Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
104.5 Permit Fees.

The fee for each permit shall be as established by Resolution of the City Council.

15.16.020 Table 104.5 Deleted - Mechanical permit fees.

Table 104.5 of the Mechanical Code is hereby deleted.

15.16.030 Section 107.1 of Chapter 1, Division II amended - General.

Section 107.1 of the Mechanical Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 13 of 18
107.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a Board of Appeals consisting of 3 members and 2 alternates who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and who are not employees of the jurisdiction. The Building Official shall be an ex officio member of and shall act as Secretary to said Board but shall have no vote on any matter before the Board. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business, and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the Building Official.” SECTION 7:Chapter 15.20 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 15.20

PLUMBING CODE
Sections:

15.20.010 Section 107.1 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Board of Appeals.

15.20.020 Section 104.5 amended - Fees.

15.20.030 Table 104.5 deleted - Plumbing permit Fees.

15.20.040 Appendix L deleted.

15.20.050 Section 609.3.1 added – Under concrete slab.

15.20.060 Section H701.2 of Appendix H amended – Multiple installations.

15.20.010 Section 107.1 of Chapter 1, Division II amended – Board of Appeals.

Section 107.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
107.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a Board of Appeals consisting of 3 members and 2 alternates who are qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to building construction and who are not employees of the jurisdiction. The Building Official shall be an ex officio member of and shall act as Secretary to said Board but shall have no vote on any matter before the Board. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the Building Official.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 14 of 18

15.20.020 Section 104.5 amended - Fees.

Section 104.5 is hereby amended to read as follows:
104.5 Fees.

The fee for each permit shall be as established by Resolution of the City Council.

15.20.030 Table 104.5 deleted - Plumbing permit fees.

Table 104.5 is hereby deleted.

15.20.040 Appendix L deleted.

Appendix L is hereby deleted.

15.20.050 Section 609.3.1 added – Under concrete slab.
609.3.1 is hereby added to read as follows:
609.3.1 Copper tubing serving plumbing fixtures within dwelling unit kitchen islands shall be installed without joints and the installation shall satisfy the following requirements.

1. The copper tubing shall be installed within a watertight continuous sleeve that prevents direct contact between the copper tubing and under slab soils. During construction the protective sleeve shall be capped at both ends until the copper tubing is installed and released for inspection.

15.20.060 Section H701.2 of Appendix H amended – Multiple Installations.

Section H701.2 of Appendix H is hereby amended to read as follows:

H701.2 Multiple Installations.

Multiple seepage pit installations shall be served through an approved distribution box. The inlet into the pit shall have an approved vented leg fitting extending not less than 12 inches below the inlet fitting.”
SECTION 8:Chapter 15.24 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 15 of 18
"CHAPTER 15.24

ELECTRICAL CODE
Sections:

15.24.010 Section 89.108.4.5 added – Permits, fees, applications and inspections.

15.24.020 Section 89.108.8.1 amended – Board of Appeals.

15.24.010 Section 89.108.4.5 added – Permits, fees, applications and inspections.

Section 89.108.4.5 is hereby added to read as follows:

89.108.4.5 Qualification of permittee. No person shall be issued a permit under this Chapter until a valid California Contractor’s License of the correct classification is presented to the Building Official.

Exception: Owner-builder permit may be issued for Group R, Division 3, or Group U occupancy with the approval of the Building Official.

15.24.020 Section 89.108.8.1 amended – Board of Appeals.

Section 89.108.8.1 is hereby amended to read as follows:

89.108.8.1 General.

In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a Board of Appeals consisting of 3 members and 2 alternates who are qualified by experience and training to pass on matters pertaining to building construction and who are not employees of the jurisdiction. The Building Official shall be an ex officio member of and shall act as Secretary to said Board but shall have no vote on any matter before the Board. The Board shall adopt rules of procedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the Building Official.” SECTION 9: Chapter 15.26 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 15.26

GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE

15.26.010 [Section reserved for future amendments.]”
SECTION 10: Chapter 15.28 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 16 of 18
“CHAPTER 15.28

REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE

15.28.010 [Section reserved for future amendments.]”
SECTION 11: Chapter 15.30 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 15.30

INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE

15.30.010 [Section reserved for future amendments.]”
SECTION 12: Chapter 15.32 of Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 15.32

INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE

15.32.010 Chapter 3 amended - General Requirements

15.32.010 Chapter 3 General Requirements is amended by deletion of sections 302.4, 302.8, 303.2.”
SECTION 13: A new Chapter 15.34 is hereby added to Title 15 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows:
“CHAPTER 15.34

HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE

15.34.010 [Section reserved for future amendments.]”
SECTION 14: Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance or the Codes adopted hereby. Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance or the Codes adopted hereby or failing to comply with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each person, firm, partnership or corporation shall be deemed guilty of separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Codes adopted hereby is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Ordinance.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 17 of 18
SECTION 15: Civil remedies available. The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Codes adopted hereby shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances.

SECTION 16: Severability. The City Council hereby declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or the Code hereby adopted be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance and the Codes hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 17: Effective date. This Ordinance shall take effect the later of thirty (30) days after adoption, or January 1, 2023.

SECTION 18: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.

Ordinance No. 1011 - Page 18 of 18
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 20 .

L. Dennis Michael
ATTEST:

Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of 2022, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of 20 .

Executed this day of 20 , at Rancho Cucamonga,
California.

Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk

DATE: November 2, 2022

TO: President and Members of the Board of Directors

FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager

INITIATED BY: Mike McCliman, Fire Chief
Rob Ball, Fire Marshal
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. FD -58, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Adopting by Reference the 20 22 California Fire Code, With Errata, Together With Certain Changes, Modifications, Amendments, Additions, Deletions, and Exceptions; Providing for the Issuance of Permits and Collection of Fees; and Repealing Conflicting Ordinances. (ORDINANCE NO. FD-58) (FIRE)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Fire Board of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District holds a public hearing to receive a report and take comment on the adoption of Ordinance No. FD -58.

Staff further recommends, upon the con clusion of the public hearing, that the Board moves to adopt Ordinance No. FD -58 which will adopt the 2022 California Fire Code together with local amendments and District standards, all of which will constitute the Fire Code of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.

BACKGROUND:

Every three years, the State Fire Marshal adopts a new California Fire Code based on the model code provisions of the International Fire Code. When this code is adopted and made effective July 1st in the triennial cycle, city and county fire departments and fire districts have six months to make amendments and adopt the code at the local level.

The code adoption process requires two readings of the proposed ordinance. Unlike most other ordinances, the public hearing for the fire code adoption ordinance is held in conjunction with the second reading of the ordinance in accordance with Section 13869 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 50022 of the Government Code. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, its provisions become effective January 2, 2023.

ANALYSIS:

This proposed ordinance continues the Fire District’s commitment to reducing risks, promoting a high quality of life, preserving economic vitality, and protecting the environment in Rancho Cucamonga. Consistent with the last five code adoption ordinances, most of the amendments proposed by this ordinance are administrative in nature designed to support and facilitate the business operations of the Fire District. Other amendments provide some fine tuning to safety standards. These enhancements have been included in previous ordinances and reflect this

community’s values and commitment to a culture of safety for residents, households, and businesses.

The local amendments to construction provisions are minimal and are limited to those necessary to address the challenges inherent to Rancho Cucamonga’s climate, geology, or topography. The Fire District is keenly aware that one of the primary ways of being a partner in this community’s sustainable economic development is to simply implement at the local level the fire, health, and environmental protection provisions approved by the State Building Standards Commission. Staff asserts that the proposed amendments do not significantly impact development, construction, or business operations and thus will not have an adverse financial impact on developers or businesses.

The proposed ordinance also carries over provisions from the 2019 Fire Code that provide additional abilities to recover court costs and attorney's fees. The Fire District rarely uses the courts to gain compliance with fire prevention, life safety, and environmental protection codes and standards, but when persistent non-compliance has left no other options, the compliance efforts taken into the courts have a cost that is sometimes substantial. The provisions approved in 2019 and included in this proposed ordinance will allow District staff to more fully recover the costs of court cases and put the cost burden of gaining compliance on the violator and not on the general fund of the Fire District. These additions to the ord inance provide the best opportunity and tools to ensure the risk reduction, hazard mitigation, and safety that is expected and valued in Rancho Cucamonga is not a burden to those who comply with safety codes and standards.

Additionally, the proposed ordinance adopts by reference the State’s fire safe regulations for the State Responsibility Area and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the Fire District’s jurisdictional boundaries. This adoption by reference puts the Fire District in compliance with the State’s requirements for providing fire protection and prevention services in designated wildland- urban interface fire areas.

As with previous fire codes adopted by the State Fire Marshal, the 2022 fire code has some noteworthy changes.

The battery and energy storage chapter has been significantly enhanced to address the rapid evolution of technology related to energy storage systems. Of particular note, previous codes have offered very little guidance on the use and storage of energy systems and products that utilize lithium battery technology. This has presented a challenge at the local level with providing consistent guidance to and regulation of an energy product with a known history of fire events. In Rancho Cucamonga, Prevention staff researched the subject of lithium batteries and became aware of literature that contained peer-reviewed industry best practices. This literature has served as local standards in an attempt to reduce the hazards of lith ium batteries in storage and use.

The 2022 California Fire Code includes nearly all of the safety provisions that the Prevention Bureau and Building Department have been using locally.

Also new to the Fire Code is a section on additive manufacturing, whic h is also known as 3 -D printing. This technology continues to improve rapidly and is seeing wider use, especially at the industrial scale. 3-D printing is a process that uses fine powders of various composition that are both a dust explosion and inhalation hazard. The inert gases used in the process can be asphyxiation hazards in enclosed spaces. The 2022 Fire Code incorporates NFPA standards by reference for the regulation of 3 -D printing, classifies many of the materials used in the process as hazard materials already regulated by the Fire Code, and gives the local fire agency express authority to obtain technical information about the process and equipment before approving it s use.

A troubling trend several years ago of clothes dryer fires, especially in multi -tenant residential buildings, prompted Prevention staff to require regular maintenance of the dryers in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. The property management and maintenance staff of multi- tenant residential buildings have been required to keep a log of this maintenance work and make the log available for review by the fire inspectors during the annual inspection. New to the 2022 Fire Code is a specific req uirement for clothes dryers to be regularly maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

Also not previously addressed by the Fire Code is escape rooms or puzzle rooms. When these entertainment businesses arrived in Rancho Cucamonga many y ears ago, the Fire District considered them to be similar to special amusement buildings, which include fun houses and haunted houses. The Fire District required the escape rooms to comply with the codes in place for special amusement buildings. This was n ot enthusiastically received by the owners and operators of the escape rooms because one of the main requirements of such entertainment occupancies is for exiting that complies with the Building and Fire codes. The early iterations of escape rooms wanted the exit doors to be locked as part of the puzzle that had to be solved in order to move to the next area. The Prevention Bureau and the Building Official were not willing to accept locked exits as part of a game. In the 2022 Fire Code, the term Special Amu sement Building has been expanded in scope to include escape and puzzle rooms. The new term Special Amusement Area is inclusive of escape and game rooms and requires these entertainment venues to comply with the same codes as haunted houses and fun houses, which is the safety standard that has been in place locally for many years.

In the 2019 code, the safety provisions for food trucks and other mobile food preparation vehicles were included in the Fire Code for the first time under the International based codes. It was a good addition to the code. In the 2022 Fire Code, oversight of mobile food prep vehicles has been taken out of the Fire Code and returned to county Health Departments. There is still a role for fire agencies with regard to the safety of food trucks, especially those with commercial cooking operations. The Fire District will continue to work cooperatively with the Health Department in providing safety for mobile food operations, the operators, and the patrons.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The ordinance will re -authorize the assessment of fees by the Fire District for inspections and permits. This authorization provides the mechanism for the inspection services to recover associated costs; however, the collecti on of most inspection and permit fees is currently being waived by a resolution of the Board to that effect. The ordinance also re -authorizes the fees and fines for false and unwanted alarms, maintains the ability to issue administrative citations, and, as previously mentioned, improves the ability to recover costs of legal services. All of these elements of the ordinance are designed to ensure fiscal responsibility by maximizing cost recovery where is it appropriate.

As previously noted, the amendments a ffecting construction standards are minimal and not expected to adversely impact the cost of development. The safety enhancements that are continued by way of this ordinance have proven to be reasonable from a cost-benefit perspective.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

The adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code, along with the proposed amendments, supports the Board’s vision of ensuring Rancho Cucamonga’s continued success as a world class community that is an equitable, sustainable, and vibrant city, rich in opportunity for all to thrive and affirms the following stated values of the Fire Board:

• Providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all. • Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all. • Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere. • Relentless pursuit of improvement.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. FD-58

Ordinance No. FD 58

ORDINANCE NO. FD 58

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE

CODE, WITH ERRATA, TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN CHANGES,

MODIFICATIONS, AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS,
AND EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
PERMITS AND COLLECTION OF FEES; AND REPEALING
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES.

The Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District hereby ordains as follows:

SECTION 1. Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances
Ordinance No. FD 57 of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and any provisions of any District ordinance that are in conflict with the Fire Code hereby adopted are hereby repealed provided, however, that such repeal shall not affect or excuse any violation of either Ordinance or any such conflicting provisions, occurring prior to the effective date hereof.

SECTION 2. Fire Code Adopted
The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (hereinafter District or Fire District) hereby adopts by reference as the District’s Fire Code, the 2022 California Fire Code as published by the California Building Standards Commission, with errata, including Appendix Chapter 4; Appendices A, B, BB, C, CC, H, I, N, and O; and Referenced Standards, with the changes, modifications, amendments, additions, deletions, and exceptions prescribed in Section 4 of this ordinance, and the same are hereby adopted for safeguarding of life, property, and the community from injury; fire; explosion; hazardous materials, substances, devices, conditions, processes, activities, operations, practices, and functions; environmental damage; and economic harm, and providing for the issuance of permits and the collection of fees. Each and all of the regulations, provisions, penalties, conditions, and terms of said Fire Code, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Fire District, are hereby referred to, adopted, and made a part hereof as if fully set out in this ordinance, subject only to the amendments and deletions herein.

2.1 Definitions. As used in the Fire Code, the terms set forth below are defined as follows:

2.1.1 The terms “Board of Directors” and “Directors” shall mean the governing body of the District.

2.1.2 The terms “department”, “Department”, “district”, “District”, “fire department”, “fire district”, “Fire District”, “jurisdiction”, and “Jurisdiction” where used in the Fire Code and this ordinance to identify the local fire authority shall mean the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District.

2.1.3 The term “governing body” shall mean the Board of Directors of the Fire District.

2.1.4 The term “jurisdiction” shall mean all of the territory, land, buildings, structures, and premises within the legal boundary of the District.

2.1.5 The term “Municipal Code” shall mean the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.

ATTACHMENT 1

Ordinance No. FD 58

2.2 Fees

2.2.1 Reasonable fees, not to exceed fully burdened actual costs, may be collected by the fire code official for fire protection planning, fire prevention services, inspections, permit issuance, standby personnel, and emergency operations as allowed by the Fire Code, this ordinance, and as prescribed by any and all District fee resolutions.

2.3 Distinguishing Between Model Code Language; California Amendments; and Fire District Additions, Amendments, Deletions, and Other Changes

2.3.1 International Fire Code and California Code of Regulations Title 14 model code language appears in regular type.

2.3.2 California amendments to the model code language appear in italics.

2.3.3 Fire District additions and amendments are identified by the use of underlining.

2.3.4 Subsections where the text of the model code and/or California amendments has been deleted are identified by the > symbol preceding the subsection number.

2.3.5 Code sections that have not been amended or changed in any manner are occasionally included in this ordinance to keep the additions, amendments, deletions, and other changes in context.

SECTION 3. Fire Code Adoption Matrix

3.1The following Fire Code Adoption Matrix is provided as a single reference showing which chapters and appendices of the 2022 California Fire Code are adopted by this Ordinance and which chapters and appendices have been amended by this Ordinance.

Ordinance No. FD 58

Fire Code Adoption Matrix – Divisions and Chapters
Division/
Chapter/
Appendix
Title
Adopt California
Code without
Amendments
Adopt California
Code with
Fire District
Amendments
Adopt IFC Model
Code with State/
District
Amendments
Not Adopted -
Reference
Only
Ch. 1 Division I California Administration X
Ch. 1Division II Scope and Administration X
Ch. 2 Definitions X
Ch. 3 General Requirements X
Ch. 4 Emergency Planning and Preparedness X
Ch. 5 Fire Service Features X
Ch. 6 Building Services and Systems X
Ch. 7 Fire and Smoke Protection Features X
Ch. 8 Interior Finish, Decorative Materials and Furnishings X Ch. 9 Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems X
Ch. 10 Means of Egress X
Ch. 11 Construction Requirements for Existing Buildings X Ch. 12 Energy Systems X
Ch. 13-19 RESERVED
Ch. 20 Aviation Facilities X
Ch. 21 Dry Cleaning X
Ch. 22 Combustible Dust-Producing Operations X
Ch. 23 Motor Fuel-Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages X Ch. 24 Flammable Finishes X
Ch. 25 Fruit and Crop Ripening X
Ch. 26 Fumigation and Insecticidal Fogging X
Ch. 27 Semiconductor Fabrication Facilities X
Ch. 28 Lumber Yards… and Woodworking Facilities X
Ch. 29 Manufacture of Organic Coatings X
Ch. 30 Industrial Ovens X
Ch. 31 Tents, Temp Structures, and Other Membrane Structures X Ch. 32 High-Piled Combustible Storage X
Ch. 33 Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition X Ch. 34 Tire Rebuilding and Tire Storage X
Ch. 35 Welding and Other Hot Work X
Ch. 36 Marinas X
Ch. 37 Combustible Fibers X
Ch. 38 RESERVED
Ch. 39 Processing and Extraction Facilities X
Ch. 40 Storage of Distilled Spirits and Wines X
Ch. 41-47 RESERVED
Ch. 48 Motion Picture and Television Production Studio Sound Stages X Ch. 49 Requirements for Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas X Ch. 50 Hazardous Materials – General Provisions X
Ch. 51 Aerosols X
Ch. 52 RESERVED
Ch. 53 Compressed Gases X
Ch. 54 Corrosive Materials X
Ch. 55 Cryogenic Fluids X
Ch. 56 Explosives and Fireworks X
Ch. 57 Flammable and Combustible Liquids X
Ch. 58 Flammable Gases and Flammable Cryogenic Fluids X Ch. 59 Flammable Solids X
Ch. 60 Highly Toxic and Toxic Materials X
Ch. 61 Liquefied Petroleum Gases X
Ch. 62 Organic Peroxides X
Ch. 63 Oxidizers, Oxidizing Gases, and Oxidizing Cryogenic Fluids X Ch. 64 Pyrophoric Materials X
Ch. 65 Pyroxylin (Cellulose Nitrate) Plastics X
Ch. 66 Unstable (Reactive) Materials X
Ch. 67 Water-Reactive Solids and Liquids X
Ch. 68-79 RESERVED
Ch. 80 Referenced Standards X

Ordinance No. FD 58

Fire Code Adoption Matrix – Appendices
SECTION 4. Local Amendments to the California Fire Code. Except as modified by an express change, modification, amendment, addition, deletion, or exception in this section, and as reflected in the Fire Code Adoption Matrix in Section 3, above, all sections, subsections, tables, chapters and appendices as published in the 2022 California Fire Code are adopted by reference and made part of the Fire Code.

Only those sections, subsections, tables, chapters and appendices so modified are set forth below in Section 4.

DIVISION II

ADMINISTRATION
PART 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 101

GENERAL
101.1 Title. These regulations shall be collectively known as the Fire Code of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (District or Fire District), hereinafter referred to as “this code.” SECTION 102

APPLICABILITY
>102.6 Historic buildings. The provisions of this code relating to the construction, alteration, repair, enlargement, restoration, relocation or moving of buildings or structures shall not be mandatory for existing buildings or structures identified and classified by the state or local jurisdiction as historic buildings where such buildings or structures do not constitute a distinct hazard to life or property.

Buildings determined to be historic shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Chapter 11, the California Building Code, and the California Historical Building Code.

Appendix Title
Adopt Appendix
without
Amendments
Adopt Appendix
with Fire District
Amendments
Adopt IFC Model
Code with State/
District
Amendments
Not Adopted -
Reference
Only
App. Ch. 4 Special Detailed Requirements Based on Use and Occupancy X App. A Board of Appeals X
App. B and BB Fire-Flow Requirements for Buildings X
App. C and CC Fire Hydrant Locations and Distributions X App. D, E, F, G Various X
App. H Hazardous Materials Management Plan X
App. I Fire Protection Systems – Noncompliant Conditions X App. J, K, L, M Various X
App. N Indoor Trade Shows and Exhibitions X
App. O Temporary Haunted Houses, Ghost Walks, and Similar… X App. P Community WUI Wildland-Urban Interface Eval Framework X

Ordinance No. FD 58

102.7 Referenced codes and standards. The codes and standards referenced in this code shall be those that are listed in Chapter 80 and Fire District standards approved by the fire code official. Such codes and standards shall be considered to be part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each such reference and as further regulated by Sections 102.7.1 through 102.7.3. 102.7.1 Conflicts. Where conflicts occur between provisions of this code and referenced codes and standards, the provisions of this code shall apply.
102.7.2 Provisions in referenced codes and standards. Where the extent of the reference to a referenced code or standard includes subject matter that is within the scope of this code, the provisions of this code, as applicable, shall take precedence over the provisions in the referenced code or standard. 102.7.3 Intent of the Code. Where the intent of the code is unclear due to differences that may occur between the provisions of this code and the referenced standards, the fire code official shall determine which requirement meets the intent of this code.
102.10 Conflicting Provisions. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the specific requirement shall be applicable. Where, in a specific case, different sections of this code specify different materials, methods of construction, or other requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Provisions of the California Code of Regulations that are included in this code specifically or by reference shall prevail except where this code or a referenced code or standard contains a more restrictive requirement.
102.13 State Responsibility Area. State Responsibility Area (SRA) within the District shall be subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2 known as the “SRA/VHFHSV Fire Safe Regulations” except when provisions of this code are more restrictive than the corresponding provisions of Title 14.

Exception: When in the opinion of the fire code official the provisions of the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations are better suited to the conditions, circumstances, or practical difficulties existing or inherent in the SRA, the requirements of the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations that are less restrictive than this code may be approved in whole or in part for a specific application or project.

The approval of a less restrictive provision of the SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations over a more restrictive provision of this code in one case shall not be construed to be an approval in any other case.
102.13.1 Amendments. The SRA/VHFHSZ Fire Safe Regulations are amended as follows:
§1270.06 Exceptions to Standards.
>(c) Where an exception is not granted by the inspection authority, the applicant may appeal such denial in accordance with Section 111 of this code.

Ordinance No. FD 58

PART 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
>SECTION 103

CODE COMPLIANCE AGENCY
Deleted
SECTION 104

DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL
104.1 General. The fire code official is hereby authorized to implement, administer, and enforce the provisions of this code. The fire code official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies, procedures, rules, and regulations in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies, procedures, rules, and regulations shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies, procedures, rules, and regulations shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code. The fire code official is also authorized to implement, administer, and enforce provisions of the Municipal Code where such authority has been granted.
104.1.1 Appointment. The fire code official shall be appointed by the fire chief and shall hold the position in accordance with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Rules and Regulations. 104.1.2 Deputies. In accordance with the prescribed procedures of this jurisdiction and with the concurrence of the appointing authority, the fire code official shall have the authority to appoint deputy fire code officials, other related technical officers, inspectors, and other employees. 104.1.3 Other enforcement officers. The following persons are hereby authorized, during the course of their official duties, to enforce the provisions of this code and to make arrests and issue citations as authorized by law:

1. The San Bernardino County Sheriff and any Deputy Sheriff

2. Officers of the United States Forest Service

3. The State Forest Ranger and Peace Officers of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire)

4. Officers of the California Highway Patrol

5. Law enforcement and authorized members of fire agencies operating under automatic or mutual aid agreements within the boundaries of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District

6. Employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Building and Safety Department and Community Improvement Division who have been expressly designated by their appointing authority as having the power of arrest or the authority to issue administrative citations. 104.3.2 Right to cure. When a property owner or owners fail to undertake the maintenance and repair of a fire apparatus access road or a private, onsite water supply system as defined by Fire District Standard 5-10, and the failure is not cured within 20 days after receipt of written demand from the Fire District to do so (or if such failure cannot reasonably be cured within such 20 day period, the property owner or owners shall have such longer period as may reasonably be necessary to cure the failure so long as the property owner or owners commence to cure such failure within the above 20 day period and thereafter diligently and continuously prosecutes such cure to completion), then upon reasonable prior notice, the Fire District shall thereafter have a license and right to enter upon the property for the sole purpose of undertaking and completing such maintenance and repair; provided, however, that the Fire District shall, upon completion thereof, repair all damage negligently caused by such entry and repair to the same condition as existed immediately prior to the

Ordinance No. FD 58

commencement of such maintenance and repair work. The property owner or owners shall promptly reimburse the Fire District for the actual costs incurred in performing such work. 104.7 Liability. The fire code official, member of the board of appeals, officer, or employee charged with the enforcement of this code, while acting in that capacity for the jurisdiction, in good faith and without malice in the discharge of the duties required by this code or other pertinent law or ordinance, shall not thereby be rendered civilly or criminally liable personally, and is hereby relieved from all personal liability for any damage accruing to persons or property as a result of an act required or permitted by this code or by reason of an act or omission in the discharge of official duties. 104.7.1 Legal defense. Any suit or criminal complaint instituted against any officer or employee because of an act performed by that officer or employee in the lawful discharge of duties and under the provisions of this code shall be defended by the legal representative of the jurisdiction until the final termination of the proceedings. The fire code official or any subordinate or hired agent of the District shall not be liable for costs in an action, suit, or proceeding that is instituted in pursuance of the provisions of this code; and any officer of the District, acting in good faith and without malice, shall be free from liability for acts performed under any of its provisions or by reason of any act or omission in the performance of official duties in connection therewith. 104.9 Modifications. Where there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the fire code official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, provided the fire code official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen the health, life and fire safety requirements. The details of action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered in the files of the District. 104.13 Cost recovery generally. Costs incurred by the District for fire suppression, investigation, rescue, emergency medical care, responses to a traffic collision or accident, responses to a false or unwanted alarm or a malfunctioning alarm system, and containment/mitigation of a hazardous materials release are recoverable in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 13009 and 13009.1 and Government Code Section 53150 et seq.

Any person who negligently or intentionally, or in violation of law, causes an emergency response is liable for any and all of the costs associated with the emergency and the emergency response. Any expense incurred by the District in responding to and securing such an emergency situation shall constitute a debt of such person and shall be collectible by the District in the same manner as in the case of an obligation under contract, expressed or implied. Fire inspection costs are recoverable in accordance with the District’s Fee Resolution.
104.14 Cost recovery for nuisance abatement. All costs actually incurred by the District in any action, administrative proceeding or special proceeding to abate a violation of this code, which constitutes a nuisance, may be recovered by the District by any means authorized by law, including but not limited, to lien or special assessment according to the requirements of law, and there shall be a right to appeal pursuant to Section 111 of this code. An “action” or “proceeding” means any civil or administrative proceeding or appeal therefrom. Attorney’s fees incurred by the District in such proceedings may be recovered by the prevailing party if the District elected at the initiation of the action or proceeding to recover its own fees.

In no action or proceeding of any type shall an award of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees.

Ordinance No. FD 58

104.15 Subpoenas. The District shall have the power to issue subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum. This power shall be exercised and enforced in the manner provided by the Government Code, and such powers shall extend only to business of the District in investigating and enforcing violations of this code and other laws enforceable by the District. Subpoenas shall be signed by the chair or clerk of the District Board.

Any member of the Board, or any person otherwise so empowered may administer oaths to, or take affirmations from, witnesses before the Board.

SECTION 105

PERMITS
105.1 General. Permits shall be in accordance with this section. >105.1.4 Emergency Repairs. The fire code official shall be notified when equipment replacement and/or repairs must be performed in an emergency situation. In such cases, the replacement of equipment and/or repairs are authorized to take place prior to the submittal of the plans and permit application for the necessary work. The fire code official is authorized to specify a time within which the plans and permit application must be submitted.
105.1.5 Repairs. Application or notice to the fire code official is not required for ordinary repairs to structures, equipment, or systems. Such ordinary repairs shall not include:

1. Cutting away of any wall, partition, or portion thereof.

2. Removal or change of any required means of egress.

3. Rearrangement of parts of a structure affecting the egress requirements.

4. Addition to, alteration of, replacement, or relocation of any standpipe, fire protection water supply, automatic sprinkler system, fire alarm system, or automatic fire-extinguishing system.

5. Replacement of a fire alarm control unit.

6. Change to the fire alarm communicating method and/or equipment.

7. Any other work which, in the opinion of the fire code official, potentially affects fire protection or life safety.
>105.3.1 Expiration. An operational permit shall remain in effect until reissued, renewed, or revoked or for such a period of time as specified in the permit. Construction permits and fees shall be in accordance with the policies, procedures, and ordinances of the Building and Safety Department having jurisdiction, which shall be either the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino. Permits are not transferable and any change in occupancy, operation, tenancy, or ownership shall require that a new permit be issued.
>105.3.1.1 Expiration. [BSC] On or after January 1, 2019, every permit issued shall become invalid unless the work on the site authorized by such permit is commenced in accordance with the policies, procedures, and ordinances of the Building and Safety Department having jurisdiction, which shall be either the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino. The building official is authorized to grant, in writing, one or more extensions of time in accordance with the applicable policies, procedures, and/or ordinances. (See Health and Safety Code Section 18938.5 and 18938.6 for reference.) >105.3.2 Extensions. A permittee holding an unexpired permit shall have the right to apply for an extension of the time within which the permittee will commence work under that permit where work is unable to be commenced within the time required by this section for good and satisfactory reasons.

The fire code official and/or the building code official are authorized to grant, in writing, one or more

Ordinance No. FD 58

extensions of the time period of a permit in accordance with the policies, procedures, and ordinances of the Building and Safety Department having jurisdiction, which shall be either the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino. Such extensions shall be requested by the permit holder in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Expired permits, at the discretion of the fire code official and/or the building code official, may be returned to an unexpired status and extensions granted in accordance with this section.
105.4.1 Non-payment of permit fee. The fire code official is authorized to revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code when the permittee fails to pay permit fees in accordance with the terms of the Permit Application or when a check or credit/debit card transaction submitted for payment of the permit fee(s) is returned or declined.
>105.5 Required operational permits. The fire code official is authorized to require and issue operational permits for the operations set forth in Fire District Standard 1-1. >105.6 Required construction permits. The fire code official is authorized to require and issue construction permits for work as set forth in Fire District Standard 1-2.

SECTION 106

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
>106.1 Submittals. Construction documents and supporting data shall be submitted in in accordance with the policies and procedures, and in such form and detail, as required by the fire code official and/or the building official. Construction documents shall be prepared by a registered design professional where required by state or local statutes or policies.

Exception: The fire code official is authorized to waive the submission of construction documents and supporting data not required to be prepared by a registered design professional if it is found that the nature of the work applied for is such that review of construction documents is not necessary to obtain compliance with this code.
106.2.1 Information on construction documents. Construction documents are generally required to be drawn to scale. Documents are generally required to be submitted in a digital format with document settings and formatting in accordance with the policies and procedures of the District and the Building Department. Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate the location, nature, and extent of the work proposed and show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations as determined by the fire code official and/or the building official.
>106.4 Retention of construction documents. Construction documents shall be retained by the fire code official in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Retention Schedule. One set of approved construction documents shall be returned to the applicant and said set shall be kept on the site of the building or work at all times during which the work authorized thereby is in progress. At the conclusion of the work, construction documents are required to be kept on the site or at another location where the documents are readily accessible to the building owner.

Ordinance No. FD 58

SECTION 107
FEES
107.1 Fees. A permit shall not be issued until the fees, if any, have been paid, nor shall an amendment or change to a permit be released until the additional fee, if any, has been paid. >107.2 Schedule of permit fees. Fees for inspections and permits shall be established by a fee schedule approved by the Board. Assessed fees shall be due and payable in accordance with the policies of the District.
107.2.1 Collection of fees. The collection of previously approved fees can be waived, or the amount collected can be reduced, by a resolution of the Board without affecting the approved fees. 107.4 Work commencing before permit issuance. A person who commences any work, activity, or operation regulated by this code before obtaining the necessary permits shall be subject to a citation with a fine or an additional fee established by the Board, which shall be in addition to the required permit fees.
107.5 Related fees. The payment of the fee for the construction, alteration, removal, or demolition of work done in connection to or concurrently with the work or activity authorized by an operational permit shall not relieve the applicant or holder of the construction, alteration, removal, or demolition permit from the payment of other fees that are prescribed by law. The payment of the fee for a permit for a conditional or temporary use approved by the City or County shall not relieve the applicant or holder of the conditional or temporary use permit from the payment of other fees prescribed by law. The payment of the fee established by the Board for an inspection and/or operational permit shall not relieve the recipient of inspection services or the applicant or holder of an operational permit from the payment of other fees duly prescribed by the Board and any other governmental or regulatory entity. 107.6 Refunds. The District is authorized to establish a policy allowing for refunds, reductions, or cancellations of fees that have been assessed or paid.
>SECTION 111

APPEALS
111.1 Policies and procedures for appeals established. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the fire code official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created policies and procedures for appeals. Appeals shall be in accordance with Appendix A as amended and Fire District Standard 1-3.

Note: The remainder of Section 111 is deleted and replaced with Fire District Standard 1-3.

SECTION 112

VIOLATIONS
112.1 Unlawful acts. It shall be unlawful and a public nuisance for a person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, alter, repair, remove, demolish, or utilize a building, occupancy, premises, system, equipment, or process regulated by this code, or cause same to be done, in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this code, District ordinance or resolution, or other lawful order of the fire chief, fire code official, or their designees.

Ordinance No. FD 58

112.3 Notice of Violation. Where the fire code official finds a building, premises, vehicle, storage facility, outdoor area, equipment or equipment in use, process, or procedure that is in violation of this code, the fire code official is authorized to prepare a written notice of violation describing the conditions deemed unsafe and, where compliance is not immediate, specifying a time for re-inspection.

Violations that are deemed to be immediately dangerous to life, health, or the environment will be subject to stop work or similar orders in accordance with Section 113 and Fire District Standard 1-4, prosecution, and/or any and all penalties in accordance with this code. 112.3.3 Prosecution of violations. If the notice of violation is not complied with promptly, the fire code official is authorized to request the legal counsel of the jurisdiction to institute the appropriate legal proceedings at law or in equity to restrain, correct, or abate such violation or to require removal or termination of the unlawful occupancy of the structure in violation of the provisions of this code or of the order or direction made pursuant hereto. In addition to, or in place of, any other remedy which is allowed by law, administrative penalties may be imposed in connection with any violation of this code or District ordinance.
112.4 Violation penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair, or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of this code, shall be guilty of a public nuisance and misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than the maximum allowed by law or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both such fine and imprisonment. The fire code official, with the concurrence of the chief and the district attorney or District prosecutor, is authorized to issue administrative citations and fines as allowed by an ordinance of the Board of Directors in place of, or in addition to, the violation penalties contained in this section. Each day that a violation continues after notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense.

In addition to, or in place of, the foregoing penalties, administrative penalties pursuant to the District’s Administrative Citation Ordinance may be imposed in connection with any violation of this code or any District ordinance. Any person violating or who has violated any section of this code or District ordinance may be issued an administrative citation in accordance with the Administrative Citation Ordinance. In addition, violations of this code may be abated by any other means authorized by law, including injunctive relief. These remedies are intended to be cumulative and not exclusive and may be used in addition to or in lieu of each other.
>SECTION 113

STOP WORK ORDER
113.1 General. A stop work order is authorized to be issued in accordance with Fire District Standard 1-4 where the fire code official finds any operation, process, procedure, equipment, building, or work regulated by this code, any other code adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino, or any State or Federal law, statute, or regulation, being performed in a manner contrary to the provisions of the applicable code, or in a dangerous or unsafe manner.

Note: The remainder of Section 113 is deleted and replaced with Fire District Standard 1-4.

Ordinance No. FD 58

>SECTION 114

UNSAFE STRUCTURES, EQUIPMENT, AND OPERATIONS
114.1 General. If during the inspection of a premises, a structure, any building system, or any operation regulated by this code or an approved or recognized standard, in whole or in part, a determination is made by the fire code official that conditions are an inimical threat to human life, safety, or health or otherwise unsafe, the fire code official is authorized to address, remove, or otherwise remedy the condition in accordance with Fire District Standard 1-4.

Note: The remainder of Section 114 is deleted and replaced with Fire District Standard 1-4.

SECTION 115

ACCESS RESTRICTIONS
115.1 Public Lands. The chief is authorized to determine when conditions exist on public lands within the designated wildland-urban interface fire area that present an immediate, exceptional, and/or continuing danger. Such conditions include, but are not limited to, critical fire weather conditions, a red flag warning or fire weather watch issued by the National Weather Service, dangerously low fuel moisture levels, density of the natural vegetation, imminent flooding or flooding in progress, and similar hazards to individual and community safety. Upon making such a determination, the chief is authorized to close the affected areas and prohibit entry with the concurrence, where applicable, of the federal, state, or local agency that has primary jurisdiction over the affected area.

Exceptions:

1. Residents and owners of private property and their invitees whose regular access to their property is through an affected area.

2. Entry, while in the course of duty, by peace or police officers; officials and employees of the District, San Bernardino County Fire Protection District, CalFire, US Forest Service, and automatic and mutual aid fire departments; and all other public officials having legitimate business within the affected areas.

3. Entry by authorized persons engaged in the maintenance, repair, or installation of equipment owned and/or operated by public or private utilities or communications systems. 115.1.1 Continuing Authorization. Any closure of public lands authorized by the chief that will extend more than 15 calendar days shall be approved by the Board of Directors within 15 days of the effective date of the closure or at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. 115.1.2 Notification. Upon closing and prohibiting entry to public lands, the chief shall, within 24 hours, make notification of the closure through a press release that includes at least one locally published newspaper and shall, within five days or as soon as practical, post signs at the entry points of the affected areas indicating that the area is closed and entry is prohibited. 115.1.3 County Administered Lands. The closure of any public lands within the designated wildland-urban interface fire area that are administered by an agency or department of the County of San Bernardino shall be with the concurrence of the County Fire Chief / Warden of the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Any closure of such lands that will extend more than 15 days shall be with the concurrence of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. Concurrence of the Board of Supervisors is required to be obtained within 15 days of the effective date of the closure or at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

Ordinance No. FD 58

115.2 Private Property. With the consent of an owner or owners of private property within the designated wildland-urban interface fire area, the chief is authorized to prohibit entry onto private property through the use of trespassing laws when the chief has determined that conditions exist that present an immediate, exceptional, and/or continuing danger to individual or community safety. 115.2.1 Notification. Signs prohibiting entry into or trespassing upon the property and indicating the existence of dangerous conditions shall be posted on or near the property. 115.3 Penalties. A person who is found to be in violation of orders issued under the authority of this section shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Section 112.

CHAPTER 2

DEFINITIONS
201.1 Scope. Unless otherwise expressly stated, the following words and terms shall, for the purposes of this code, have the meanings shown in this chapter and Fire District Standard 2-1. 201.3 Terms defined in other codes and standards. Where terms are not defined in the California Fire Code but are defined in the California Building Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, standards and publications of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), FM Global Data Sheets, Fire District standards, other standards referenced in this code, or other nationally recognized fire and life safety standards, such terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in those codes and standards.

CHAPTER 3

GENERAL PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE
SECTION 301

GENERAL
301.2 Permits. Permits for operations or uses regulated by this chapter shall be required as set forth in Section 105.

SECTION 304

COMBUSTIBLE WASTE MATERIAL
304.1.2 Vegetation. Weeds, grass, vines, trees, shrubs, ornamental and native landscaping, groves, vineyards, gardens, and any other vegetation or the trimmings and litter from such vegetation that is capable of being ignited and endangering property shall be maintained and/or removed by the owner or occupant of the premises sufficiently to reduce the hazard to property and people. 304.1.2.1 Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Areas. Vegetation management, reduction, and clearance in wildland-urban interface fire areas shall be in accordance with Chapter 49 and Fire District Standard 49-1.
304.1.2.2 Weed and fire hazard abatement. Weed and fire hazard abatement shall be in accordance with Section 322, Fire District Standard 3-5, or the Municipal Code as applicable.

Ordinance No. FD 58

SECTION 305

IGNITION SOURCES
305.4 Deliberate or negligent burning. It shall be unlawful to deliberately or through negligence set fire to or cause the burning of combustible material in such a manner as to endanger property or the health or safety of any person.
>SECTION 307

OUTDOOR FIRES
307.1 General. All outdoor fires, including but not limited to, open burning, bonfires, recreational fires, contained fires, and fires in a portable or permanently installed or constructed outdoor open burning feature such as a fireplace, fire pit, and fire bowl shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 3-1 and other applicable sections of this code.
307.2 Permits required. Permits for outdoor fires are required in accordance with Section 105.

Note: The remainder of Section 307 is deleted and replaced with Fire District Standard 3-1. >SECTION 308

OPEN FLAMES, OPEN FLAME DEVICES, AND FLAME PRODUCING FEATURES 308.1 General. Open flames, open flame devices, and flame producing features on all premises shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 3-2 and other applicable sections of this code. 308.2 Permits required. Permits for open flames, open flame devices, and flame producing features are required in accordance with Section 105.

Note: The remainder of Section 308 is deleted and replaced with Fire District Standard 3-2.

SECTION 309

POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT
309.1 General. Powered industrial trucks, electric carts/cars, and similar equipment including, but not limited to, floor scrubbers and floor buffers, shall be operated and maintained in accordance with this section. Permits shall be required as set forth in Section 105.

SECTION 310

SMOKING
310.1 General. The smoking or carrying of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, or any other type of smoking paraphernalia or material is prohibited in accordance with the Municipal Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in the areas indicated in this section.

Ordinance No. FD 58

SECTION 314

INDOOR DISPLAYS
314.1 General. Indoor displays constructed within any occupancy shall comply with this section, Appendix N, and Fire District Standard 4-2.
314.1.1 Permits. Permits shall be required as set forth in Section 105. 314.4 Vehicles. Liquid-fueled or gaseous-fueled vehicles, aircraft, boats, or other motorcraft shall not be located indoors except as follows:

1. The engine starting system is made inoperable or batteries are disconnected except where the fire code official requires that the batteries remain connected to maintain safety features.

2. Fuel in fuel tanks does not exceed one-quarter tank or 5 gallons (whichever is least).

3. Fuel tanks, fill openings, and filling connections are closed and sealed to prevent the escape of vapors and locked or secured to prevent tampering.

4. Fuel tanks are inspected for leaks and determined to be free from leaks prior to placing the vehicle in a building.

5. Vehicles, aircraft, boats, or other motorcraft equipment are not fueled or defueled within the building.

6. The location of vehicles or equipment does not obstruct means of egress.

7. In accordance with the applicable provisions of Appendix N. 314.4.1 Approved competitions and demonstrations. Liquid-fueled and gaseous-fueled vehicles and equipment approved by the fire code official for use in a competition or demonstration within a building shall comply with Sections 314.4.1.1 through 314.4.1.3. 314.4.1.1 Fuel storage. Fuel for vehicles or equipment shall be stored in approved containers in an approved location outside of the structure in an approved manner not less than 50 feet from the structure. Storage shall be in accordance with the applicable chapters and sections of this code.
314.4.1.2 Fueling. Refueling shall be performed outside of the structure in an approved location not less than 20 feet from the structure.
314.4.1.3 Spills. Fuel spills shall be cleaned up immediately.

SECTION 315

GENERAL STORAGE
315.1 General. Storage shall be in accordance with this section, other applicable sections of this code, and Fire District Standard 3-3. Outdoor pallet storage shall be in accordance with Sections 315.2 and 315.7. Indoor pallet storage shall be in accordance with Sections 315.2 and 315.8. Storage of commodities that expand with the absorption of water shall be in accordance with Sections 315.2 and 315.9.
315.2 Permit required. Permits for miscellaneous combustible storage and high-piled combustible storage are required in accordance with Section 105.

Ordinance No. FD 58

315.8 Indoor pallet storage. Indoor pallet storage shall be in accordance with the applicable sections and chapters of this code.
315.9 Commodities that expand with the absorption of water. Storage of commodities that expand or have the potential to expand with the absorption of water, such as roll paper, shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 3-3.

SECTION 316

HAZARDS TO FIRE FIGHTERS
316.6 Structures and outdoor storage underneath high-voltage transmission lines. Structures and outdoor storage underneath high-voltage transmission lines shall comply with Sections 316.6.1 and 316.6.2, respectively and Fire District Standard 3-3.
316.6.1 Structures. Structures shall not be constructed within the utility easement beneath high- voltage transmission lines.

Exceptions:

1. Restrooms and unoccupied telecommunications structures of noncombustible construction less than 15 feet in height.

2. Temporary structures less than 15 feet in height such as storage sheds, sales offices, and informational/management kiosks associated with uses such as community gardens, commercial nurseries, and sports facilities.
316.6.2 Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage within the utility easement underneath high-voltage transmission lines shall be limited to noncombustible material. Storage of hazardous materials including, but not limited to, flammable and combustible liquids is prohibited.

Exceptions:

1. Combustible storage, including vehicles and fuel storage for backup power equipment serving public utility equipment, is allowed, provided that a plan indicating the storage configuration is submitted and approved by the fire code official.

2. Plants, trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, including combustible containers, offered for sale.

3. Combustible materials used for garden boxes, trellises, and other gardening and food cultivation associated with a community garden.

4. Fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides necessary for the operation of a community garden or commercial nursery in amounts that do not exceed an aggregate of 200 gallons or 500 pounds.

SECTION 317

LANDSCAPED AND OCCUPIED ROOFS
317.1 General. Landscaped and occupied roofs shall be designed, constructed, installed and maintained in accordance with this section, Sections 1505 and 1507.15 of the California Building Code, and Fire District Standard 3-6.

Ordinance No. FD 58

SECTION 324

WASTE HANDLING AND RECYCLING FACILITIES
324.1 General. Waste handling, recycling and scrap facilities, automobile wrecking yards, and junk yards shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 3-4 and other applicable sections of this code. 324.2. Permits. Permits shall be required as set forth in Section 105.

SECTION 325

WEED AND FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT
325.1 General. Every owner of private real property within the jurisdiction of the Fire District shall abate all fire hazards created by weeds, seasonal grasses, tumbleweeds, native plants and trees, and other vegetation, vegetation litter, debris, trash, or combustible waste material from such property, including sidewalks, parkways, trails, and easements on such property unless the easement is under the sole control of another person or entity. Such abatement shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 3-5 or the Municipal Code as applicable and as determined by the fire code official. All such fire hazards are declared to be a public nuisance as to which the costs of abatement, as more fully described in Fire District Standard 3-5 and the Municipal Code, may be specially assessed as provided in Health and Safety Code Sections 14902 and 14912 et seq., or otherwise as provided by law. The procedures for abatement of fire hazards set forth in Fire District Standard 3-5 and the Municipal Code are not exclusive but are in addition to any and all other procedures set forth in this code for the abatement of nuisances and fire hazards.

CHAPTER 4

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS
SECTION 401

GENERAL
401.10 Indoor and Outdoor Special Events. Public assemblages; carnivals, fairs, exhibits, trade shows, and similar indoor or outdoor events; special amusement areas; and seasonal sales lots shall comply with the provisions of this code and Fire District Standards 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and Appendix N. 401.11 Permits. Permits shall be required as set forth in Section 105.

SECTION 402

DEFINITIONS
402.1 Definitions. Definitions are in accordance with Chapter 2 and Fire District Standard 2-1.

Ordinance No. FD 58

SECTION 403

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REQUIREMENTS
403.9.2.2 Emergency guide. An emergency guide shall be provided for Group R-2 occupancies.

Guide contents, maintenance, and distribution shall comply with Sections 403.9.2.2.1 through 403.9.2.2.3.
403.9.2.2.1 Guide contents. The emergency guide shall describe the location and use of fire protection equipment and appliances available for use by residents, including fire alarm systems, smoke alarms, and portable fire extinguishers. Guides shall also include an emergency evacuation plan for each dwelling unit and any other information determined by the fire code official or the emergency management official to be beneficial in preventing, preparing for, mitigating, responding to, and/or recovering from emergencies and/or disasters.
403.9.2.2.2 Emergency guide maintenance. Emergency guides shall be reviewed and approved by the fire code official. Emergency guides shall be reviewed at least annually by the owner, owner’s association, and/or the manager. When it is determined that the emergency guide needs to be updated and/or modified, proposed changes shall be submitted to the fire code official for review and approval.
403.9.2.2.3 Emergency guide distribution. A copy of the emergency guide shall be given to each tenant prior to initial occupancy. Updated versions of the emergency guide shall be given to all current tenants. Each tenant shall acknowledge in a manner acceptable to the fire code official and the owner or owner’s agent the receipt of the fire emergency guide. Tenants shall provide such acknowledgement when updated versions of the emergency guide are provided. Electronic versions of the emergency guide and electronic distribution shall be acceptable.
403.11.1 Fire watch and safety standby personnel. Where, in the opinion of the fire code official, it is essential for public safety in a place of assembly or any other place where people congregate, because of the number of persons; the nature of the performance, exhibition, display, contest, or activity; or the presence of hazards and/or risks to people or property, the owner, agent, or lessee shall provide one or more qualified fire watch and/or safety standby personnel, as required and approved by the fire code official. Fire watch and standby personnel shall comply with Sections 403.11.1.1 and 403.11.1.2.
403.11.1.1 Duty Times. Fire watch and safety standby personnel shall remain on duty while places requiring a fire watch or safety observation are open to the public, or when an activity requiring a fire watch or safety standby personnel is being conducted. 403.11.1.2 Duties. On-duty fire watch and safety standby personnel shall have the following responsibilities:

1. Keep diligent watch for fires, obstructions to means of egress, and other hazards.

2. Immediately report fires, smoke conditions, major injuries, significantly unsafe conditions, and other dangerous circumstances and public safety concerns by notifying the 911 system.

3. Prohibit unauthorized persons from entering areas that are unsafe.

4. Take prompt measures for remediation of hazards and extinguishment of fires that occur.

Ordinance No. FD 58

5. Take prompt measures to assist in the evacuation of the public from structures and/or other areas of immediate danger in accordance with the conditions of the emergency.

6. Take prompt measures to assist with defending in place in accordance with the conditions of the emergency.

7. Assist with emergency services as directed by first responders.

8. Unless determined otherwise by the public safety plan for gatherings, wear a uniform or be identifiable and distinguishable to the attendees and first responders. 403.11.2 Public safety plan for gatherings. Where the fire code official determines that an indoor or outdoor gathering of persons could have an adverse impact on public safety through diminished access to buildings, structures, fire hydrants, fire apparatus access roads, persons in need of emergency medical care, unrestricted access to the public way, and/or similar risks to general public safety or where such gatherings could adversely affect public safety services of any kind, the fire code official shall have the authority to order the development of, or prescribe a public safety plan that provides an approved level of public safety and addresses the following items:

1. Emergency vehicle ingress and egress.

2. Fire protection and extinguishment.

3. Emergency egress, escape routes, or defend-in-place procedures and/or locations.

4. Emergency medical services.

5. Public assembly areas.

6. The directing of both attendees and vehicles, including the parking of vehicles.

7. Vendor and food concession distribution.

8. The need for the presence of law enforcement.

9. The need for fire and emergency medical services personnel to be on site.

10. The need for a weather monitoring person.
>SECTION 404

SAFETY, EVACUATION, AND LOCKDOWN PLANS
>404.1 General. Where required by Section 403, safety, evacuation and lockdown plans shall comply with Sections 404.2 through 404.4.1.
[California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §3.10] Evacuation of Buildings.

Upon notification of fire, conduct of any fire drill, upon activation of the fire alarm, or upon orders of the fire authority having jurisdiction, buildings or structures within the scope of California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1 regulations shall be immediately evacuated or occupants shall be relocated in accordance with established plans.
>404.2 Contents. Safety, evacuation, and lockdown plan contents shall be in accordance with Sections 404.2.1 through 404.2.3.2.
>404.2.1 Evacuation plans. Evacuation plans shall include the following:

Note: No changes to the numbered list.
>404.2.2 Safety plans. Safety plans shall include the following:

Note: No changes to the numbered list except for those indicated below with underlining.

5. A list of major fire and other hazards associated with the normal use and occupancy of the premises, including maintenance and housekeeping procedures.

Ordinance No. FD 58

>404.3 Maintenance. Safety, evacuation and lockdown plans shall be reviewed or updated annually or as necessitated by changes in staff assignments, occupancy or the physical arrangement of the building. >404.4 Availability. Safety, evacuation and lockdown plans shall be available in the workplace for reference and review by employees, and copies shall be furnished to the fire code official for review on request.
>404.4.1 Distribution. The safety, evacuation and lockdown plans shall be distributed to the tenants and building service employees by the owner or owner’s agent. Tenants shall distribute to their employees the applicable parts of the safety plan and lockdown plan affecting the employees’ actions in the event of a fire or other emergency.

SECTION 405

EMERGENCY EVACUATION DRILLS
405.7 Notification. Where a fire alarm system that is monitored by a supervising station will be used to initiate an emergency evacuation drill, prior notification of the emergency evacuation drill shall be given to the fire code official.

CHAPTER 5

FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
SECTION 503

FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
503.1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3 and Fire District Standard 5-1. 503.1.2 Additional access. The fire code official is authorized to require more than one fire apparatus road and/or points of access to fire apparatus access roads based on the potential for impairment of a single road or point of access by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access.
503.2 Specifications. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed, engineered, installed and arranged in accordance with Sections 503.2.1 through 503.2.8 and Fire District Standard 5-1. [California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1. Section 3.05(a)] Fire Department Access and Egress. (Roads)
(a) Roads. Required access roads from every building to a public street shall be all-weather, hard surfaced (suitable for use by fire apparatus) right-of-way not less than 26 feet in width. Such right-of-way shall be unobstructed and maintained only as access to the public street.

Exception: The enforcing agency may waive or modify this requirement if in its opinion such all- weather, hard-surfaced condition is not necessary in the interest of public safety or welfare.

Ordinance No. FD 58

503.2.1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 14 feet 6 inches. Street widths are to be measured from top face of curb to top face of curb on streets with curb and gutter, from flowline to flowline on streets with rolled curbs, from the edges of drivable surfaces capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus where curbs are not provided.

Exceptions:

1. Gates shall be in accordance with Sections 503.5 and 503.6 and Fire District Standards 5- 3 and 5-4.

2. Roads at entry medians constructed for private commercial, industrial, or residential developments shall be a minimum of 20 feet on each side. The road shall not be part of a radius turn. This exception does not apply to public streets.

3. Dimensions may be reduced when in the opinion of the fire code official there are practical difficulties with providing the required dimensions.

4. Dimensions may be increased when in the opinion of the fire code official required dimensions are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access or when dimensions are not adequate to concurrently provide fire apparatus access and evacuation. 503.2.3 Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities.

Permanent fire apparatus access roads utilizing surface material other than concrete or asphalt shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-2 and approved by the fire code official. Temporary fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-2. 503.2.4 Turning radius. The required turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1.
503.2.5 Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1.
503.2.7 Grade. The grade of the fire apparatus access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1.
503.2.8 Angles of approach and departure. The angles of approach and departure for fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. 503.3 Marking. Approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING – FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility. Fire apparatus access road marking shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. 503.3.1 Marking during construction. When a construction site is enclosed by fencing or other barriers, or when the designated fire apparatus access is not readily apparent during construction, the location or locations of acceptable fire apparatus access to the construction site is required to be temporarily installed or displayed in a manner, location, and duration acceptable to the fire code official.
503.4 Obstruction of fire apparatus access. Fire apparatus access roads and public and private streets that provide access to fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the

Ordinance No. FD 58

parking or queuing of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances established by the fire code official in accordance with Section 503.2.1 shall be maintained at all times. Water run-off and flood control dips or other surface irregularity shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. 503.4.1 Traffic calming devices. Traffic calming devices are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1 and approved by the fire code official. 503.4.2 Storm water management. Where approved by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads may be used as part of a storm water management system in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1.
503.4.3 Drop off and pick up. Where approved by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads may be used for drop off and pick up in accordance with California Vehicle Code 22500.1 and Fire District Standard 5-1.
503.5 Required gates or barricades. The fire code official is authorized to require the installation and maintenance of gates or other approved barricades across fire apparatus access roads, trails, or other accessways, not including public streets, alleys, or highways. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F2200 and Fire District Standard 5-3 and Fire District Standard 5-4.
503.6 Security gates. The installation of security gates across a fire apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire code official. Where security gates are installed, they shall have approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed, and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F2200. Residential vehicular gates shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-3. Commercial and industrial vehicular gates shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-4.

503.7 Aerial fire apparatus access roads. Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access, as measured to the highest point of the building, shall be provided with approved aerial fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus in accordance with this section and Fire District Standard 5-1.

SECTION 504

ACCESS TO BUILDING OPENINGS AND ROOFS
504.1.1 Access identification. Required exterior access doors, including exit doors, in the warehouse or manufacturing areas of any building with a gross floor area greater than 10,000 square feet shall be marked in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5 to allow for quick identification by firefighters both inside and outside of the building.
504.4.1 Aerial ladders. Aerial fire apparatus ladder access to the roof and parapet ladders shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6.