Agenda packet, regular meeting — Rancho Cucamonga City Council, August 20, 2025 (part 5 of 6)

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 3 of 12 ends

Applicant Hamilton said the very low-income unit will be in the $100,000 - $200,000 range. He said what they found out is there is a big demand for detached houses for young families.

Commissioner Dopp asked if he had a price point in mind.

Applicant Hamilton responded that the units are between 1,500 and 1,550 square feet and are expected to be priced around $700,000.

Commissioner Dopp asked if he thinks it is affordable for people in their 20 and 30’s.

Applicant Hamilton answered that it is as affordable as it can be.

Commissioner Dopp stated that they are using all these waivers to maximize their revenue and that it is their right but then decided that every single plan on one side of the street is going to look exactly the same and then on the other side of the street will look the same, with almost no variety.

Is it too much to ask to have some variety in this project and make it more architecturally vivid.

Applicant Hamilton explained that the changes were made in response to the Design Review Committee comments, aiming for a more cohesive project in line with the architect’s vision.

Commissioner Dopp responded that the state law grants him that right and respectively disagreed with that assessment.

Vice Chairman Boling stated during the Design Review Committee meeting there were a number of issues that were brought up and suggestions to address some of those concerns. He asked how they would characterize the project before them tonight as compared to what was presented at the Design Review Committee. He asked what changes, if any were made.

Applicant Hamilton answered they added a second-floor plan and made additional enhancements to the elevations on the end units by adding some additional windows and siding.

Vice Chairman Boling asked if the color scheme between 1 and 2 had changed.

Applicant Hamilton answered no.

Vice Chairman Boling asked if any amenities were added elsewhere throughout the project.

Applicant Hamilton answered no.

Vice Chairman Boling went through all 29 Waivers being proposed and asked the Applicant to provide how each waiver, if not approved, would preclude construction.

Applicant Hamilton answered to most of the questions, if not all, by stating it is a physical constraint or impossibility.

Vice Chairman Boling asked about Wavier number #29; the minimum number of floor plans elevations variations, two floor plans would be required and three elevations. He asked if he is providing two floor plans but only one elevation.

Applicant Hamilton answered they have three different elevations , including the enhanced right and enhanced left design.

Vice Chairman Boling asked if he added a second-floor plan, after the Design Review Committee meeting.

Page 495 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 4 of 12 ends

Applicant Hamilton confirmed.

Vice Chairman Boling asked if Waiver number #29 could potentially be withdrawn.

Applicant Hamilton replied if that is how staff interprets it, then potentially yes.

Vice Chairman Boling commented that this is the highest number of waivers he recalls seeing on a residential project without a master plan or development agreement and there are only 19 units.

Chairman Morales stated the applicant mentioned he has completed several of these attainable housing developments and asked whether any of them featured more diverse architecture and color schemes, or if they were all similarly minimal in design.

Applicant Hamilton answered he has done both.

Chairman Morales asked if he thinks having at least three-color schemes would help make it look better.

Applicant Hamilton responded that they would be open to adding a third color scheme.

Alta Loma School District Board Member Rebecca Davies expressed concerns about student’s safety and traffic congestion near the elementary school at Hamilton Street and requests a gate to prevent through traffic.

Resident and friend of the Applicant, Steve Landis, expressed support of the project, stating that it would be a positive addition to the area. He added that from a financial standpoint, if nothing is done now, the site may never be developed.

Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Dopp noted that while the applicant’s intent to reduce home prices is commendable, the core frustration lies in the sheer volume of those requests. Although the project meets a real housing need, it shows little innovation in design or planning. Instead, it seems the applicant focused primarily on maximizing legal allowances to push the project through.

Commissioner Dopp talked about the gate. He expressed sympathy for Deer Canyon Elementary and understands the dynamics on Hamilton Street in itself and concerns of what adding an extra street will have on the community. He said that it is not being ignored but he is just unsure about having a gate there, sometimes they add more problems than they actually solve. He asked staff if there is a way to put in the conditions for a traffic study and have a conversation if there might be ways to solve this problem or alternate solutions.

Planning Director Nakamura acknowledged the concerns and stated that discussions have taken place with the school district. She emphasized the need to avoid unintended consequences from new development and said evaluations will be conducted prior to construction to assess potential impacts, and that the situation will continue to be monitored as it progresses. She also remarked that the Engineering Department is typically very responsive in addressing concerns as they arise.

Page 496 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 5 of 12 ends

Vice Chairman Boling addressed a couple of the comments made by the applicant. It was indicated that 1 out of 4 units were affordable, specific to the density bonus units. He wanted to make sure that was clear so no one in the audience or the general public think that 1 out of 4 of all the units are going to be affordable or attainable. The applicant also indicated, during his presentation, that one home for one lot relegates us into a reduction to the standards. He asked the applicant are we not subdivi ding this parcel into individual lots for each unit and is that not normally how residential is developed one unit per lot, unless it is an ADU. He said there are plenty of instances throughout the city where one unit is on one lot and deviations, waivers and requests of this magnitude are not profitable. He expressed he does agree that the choice of product definitely drives a number of units, and the choice of his product has driven a significant number of waivers and reductions, and it feels like the only codes that we are following are Building and Safety Codes and Fire Codes. Development codes are out the window.

Vice Chairman Boling addressed a comment to Alta Loma School District and the concerns that were brought up by the Board Member. He said it is always interesting when a new development comes into a neighborhood that has an existing school, and the school is concerned about additional traffic and potential safety issues that might come forth as a result of adding new housing. However, what is often forgotten, is that decades ago when existing residential housing was there and a school was not, residents that lived in the neighborhood prior to the school, had significant concerns about a new school going in and what traffic hazards and increased safety measures were going to transpire. He said as it pertains to state law and the challenges the commission faces, this is more geared to the general public and partially to staff.

Vice Chairman Boling said in regards to the Design Review Committee meeting there were several concerns from residents, as well as commissioners , about this project; inadequate parking, setbacks, lack of amenities, density, singular style for all units leading to a cut and paste look and we also heard from residents the sentiment the city probably should not build housing units like this but beyond our city boundaries, Rancho Cucamonga and other cities are being blamed for not producing enough housing in response to a declared housing crisis but it is actually private market forces coupled with state mandates that control the outcome of what gets built and when, not the city. He said Rancho Cucamonga is not trying to over develop or compromise the character of our neighborhoods, but rather, trying to follow complex state laws while fighting an uphill battle to keep or regain local control over residential development matters.

Vice Chairman Boling stated what we are dealing with here is the untenable scenario of state bureaucrats and developers taking over how our community is built. We the city are often the ones forced to implement the consequences of a one size fits none state policy or mandates passed in Sacramento which then affects our neighborhoods. He said if the community is upset from this reality, he strongly encourages them to hold their state elected officials accountable and push for reform. He said here in Rancho, we are doing everything we can to navigate the state- imposed requirements while trying to protect the character and quality of life that makes Rancho Cucamonga a world class city.

Chairman Morales mentioned that the applicant is willing to do three color schemes and asked staff how we can take him up on his offer.

Planning Director Nakamura responded if the commissioner would like to entertain this, staff has prepared a Condition of Approval that could be added to the project. It would state; prior to the issuance of building permits , a minimum of three -color schemes shall be provided subject to Planning Director review and approval.

Vice Chairman Boling asked the Assistant City Attorney that of the remaining waivers that are on the table, is there any legal grounds for us denying any of the remaining waivers that have been requested.

Page 497 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 6 of 12 ends

Assistant City Attorney Read explained that per state law , the standard is you have to make specific findings based on substantial evidence that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on public health or safety, and this requires significant quantifiable direct and unavoidable impacts based on objective identified written public or health safety standards. She recalled the applicant mentioned Waiver number #29 potentially being removed from the list. She recommended that the Chairman ask the applicant to come back up to state that on the record.

Chairman Morales invited the applicant back to the podium.

Applicant Hamilton stated that as long as what we have are considered two floor plans and three elevations, then we do not seem to need that wavier.

Planning Director Nakamura stated she had staff do additional research on this and they do not believe the current enhancement was considered an additional elevation, it would have to be of a separate design. She said the wavier can be proposed and modified since they did provide two floor plans because they had the primary and reverse floor plan but that it would need to maintain the elevations as only one was provided.

Vice Chairman Boling stated Waiver number #29 could be amended to reflect the request of three distinct elevations being waived as opposed to the two floor plans.

Applicant Hamilton agreed.

Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-019 to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20761 and Design Review DRC2024- 00249 with the amend ments to the Conditions of Approval adding three- color schemes and the affirmation amendments to Conditions #3 and #6 for Planning, and #5 for Engineering and staffing conditions to amend Waiver number #29 to element the wavier for two floor plans. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz

D2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DESIGN REVIEW, MINOR EXCEPTION – TRUE LIFE COMPANIES - A request for site plan and architectural review of a mixed-use project comprised of 50 multi -family units including 10 live/work units, and a tentative tract map for condominium purposes located on approximately 2.3 acres of land within the Neighborhood General 3 (NG3) Zone, located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue; APN: 0208- 432-16. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15332 (SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109, Minor Exception DRC2025-00055).

Associate Planner Mendez provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).

Commissioner Dopp asked staff if there were conversations with the developer about traffic calming devices on that major north-south street near the development, like speed humps to make it a bit more difficult for the average vehicle to see it as a short cut.

Associate Planner Mendez responded that while there is nothing preventing vehicles from driving through, the section of Ruby Avenue includes two speed humps that will help reduce vehicle speeds and slow traffic down.

Vice Chairman Boling asked staff for clarification on the speed hump for Ruby Avenue.

Page 498 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 7 of 12 ends

Associate Planner Mendez clarified that the extension of Ruby Avenue with the speed humps applies only on the project site.

Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.

True Life Properties Vice President Gordon Jones introduced Applicant David Stearn who provided a brief PowerPoint presentation to the Commissioners. (copy on file).

Commissioner Dopp asked the applicant what work experience does their firm have with live/work units, and what do they see in terms of potential out there to develop those units. He said, for the record, it has been his contention that live/work units usually do not hit the metric for retail. This is not a site that is super conducive to retail, but the mixed-use component still needs to be there.

Applicant Stearn answered they have a fair amount of experience with it. He mentioned there are some challenges with this site such as the grade being 4 ft. below Base Line. Also, they have an existing retaining wall the city built that preserves that grade, and they have the access easement they share with assisted living facility. He said that makes a true retail site challenging here.

There are a couple of unique things the city asked for them to do; 1) There is a restriction renting them out. 2) It is not set up f or food uses. He said as a benefit, there are two entrances with a separate residential entrance from the entrance to the commercial space.

Commissioner Dopp asked whether anything would prevent someone from using the space for storage.

Applicant Stearn responded that Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( CC&R’s) include provisions for annual garage inspections to ensure they are being used for actual parking rather than storage and noted that these measures can be expanded.

Commissioner Dopp expressed concern about the units facing a major corridor and emphasized the importance of establishing clear guidelines to prevent owners from making unauthorized modifications.

Vice Chairman Boling clarified that the parking management plan includes provisions for periodic inspection of the garage spaces. He noted that enforcement would primarily be handled by the Homeowners Association (HOA), with city enforcement serving as backup if necessary.

The following persons commented on the project: Suzanne Luegering , Jennifer Diaz, Kristine Hatanaka, Travis T van Bibber, and Ronald Rempel.

Included the following concerns/comments:
• Traffic
• Trash
• Design does not fit with neighborhood
• Ruby Avenue connection
• Setback
• Homeless
• Privacy
• Parking
• Crime/Safety
• Replace with a park

Page 499 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 8 of 12 ends

For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details:

• Letter from California Housing Defense Fund reminding the city of its obligation to abide by the relevant state laws.
• Email from Kristine Hatanaka expressed concerns about safety, traffic, parking, noise pollution, crime and obstructed views.
• Email from James and Karen Cordova expressed concerns on the parking and traffic. • Email from Patrick and Angelina Soto noted concern about backyard view and building mass, amenity area setback and parking.

Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.

Applicant Stearn responded to the setback concern, stating that considerable time was spent ensuring all utilities worked. He added that they made every effort to honor 30-foot setback from the property line.

Commissioner Dopp noted public testimony was heard. He said he would like to have more conversations with developers that are open, and flexible . He said we are going to look at the project that is placed in front of them with the parameters given by the General Plan. Some of the resident’s concerns about setbacks are reasonable and some concessions were made by the developer. He asked staff if there is a way to add a condition or through code compliance to ensure those units are used as live/work.

Planning Director Nakamura reiterated his concern that the live/work unit will not actually be used as work use space. She noted that the applicant plans to include this requirement in the deed restrictions as part of the CC&Rs upon purchase. She added that enforcement could potentially begin with the HOA and, if necessary, be followed by the city.

Associate Planner Mendez added that this site does require a non-residential component because the project is including 3,000 sq. ft. of non-residential floor place, the property is held to that. It could not be legally converted or used as a residential space. If that were to happen, there would be a response to that through Code Enforcement to correct that action because that space itself also has separate occupancy from the residential component of that unit.

Vice Chairman Boling stated that we heard an example presented by the developer of what could be built in order to put things in perspective that they have scaled back, and they did a good job of identifying the maximum extreme on this site and we heard residents speak to the extreme on the other side. He said, a developer could do a more intense project and alternatively, residents could all pony up the money, buy it from the developer and leave it vacant. He said that when he first heard about this project, his concern was the northbound ingress/egress. He understood initially there may not have been an alignment of Amet hyst for this project and that would have been horrendous to have an offset entry, that was concerning to him, but it has been worked out through an agreement with the residential housing facility.

Vice Chairman Boling addressed one of the concerns that came up a few times by residents, that this type of project being placed here; project good, placement bad. He said in traditional urban planning you have to have some kind of transition from single-family residential to something else because it cannot all be single-family residential. At Base Line, if you look across the street, you have a shopping center and at Archibald, you have true retail. He said having mixed-use serves as a buffer, as something to take you from this to t hat. The project, as proposed, is in between and is even more residential than retail in that the 10 live/work units cannot support true retail.

Page 500 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 9 of 12 ends

You cannot put food or retail store front where your customer base is coming through constantly, since there is not enough parking, and the visibility is not good. It is not conducive to that type of retail business. He said what it is conducive to is professional services. Those type of businesses in this development are less impactful to the surrounding community than if it had been built out with a more traditional retail space. He noted that he applauds them for providing something less.

Vice Chairman Boling stated that we saw a project earlier tonight and in contrast with another developer, this developer had reduced the bedroom in one unit in order to address the city and community concerns of meeting the parking requirements. That is profit margin they ha d taken out. They addressed landscaping in order to help with privacy and visibility to the neighboring houses. They relocated HVAC units to address noise concerns from the community. They addressed some of the privacy issues, they changed the number of windows and the type of windows and the placement in order to help ensure greater privacy. He said t hose types of compromises are what makes this process work. As opposed to state mandates and having the developer force us to approve projects some might consider to be lousy. He expressed how he appreciated the communities’ input s, and he hopes they appreciate that some developers are listening and are working to try their best to address their concerns. The commissioners work hard on behalf of the community as dedicated volunteers, striving to ensure that the highest - quality projects are brought into the community.

Chairman Morales expressed his support for building for -sale homes rather than apartments noting that homeowners are more likely to take pride over ownership. He thanked the residents for their participation and efforts in helping to improve the development. He also expressed appreciation for the developer’s responsiveness to the concerns raised by the community and for listening to their needs.

Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-021 to recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024-00108, Master Plan DRC2024-00109 and Minor Exception DRC2025- 00055. Motion carried 3-0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz

D3. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 16.36.09 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, repeal Planning Commission Resolution 87-96, and add Chapter 17.84 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code concerning undergrounding overhead utilities. This item is exempt from the requirements of the Califo rnia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action.

Principal Engineer Miguel Sotomayor provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).

Commissioner Dopp asked whether the commissioners will see at any point what the determinations have been on undergrounding on a specific project.

Planning Director Nakamura responded that it could be included if that determination is made early on during the review process.

Commissioner Dopp recommended including it as an addendum. He asked about the six regions in-lieu fees previously collected, if they would get deposited into the respective bank.

Engineering Director Welday explained that since the fees were collected citywide , they would likely be allocated to projects within the six regions as needs arise. If a project is underfunded, the regional bank would be used to cover the gap.

Page 501 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 10 of 12 ends

Commissioner Dopp said he noticed parts of the south side of Foothill are not included in the focus areas and asked what the reason was for not being included, especially on the eastern end of town.

Principal Engineer Sotomayor explained that the focus areas correspond to those identified in the General Plan.

Commissioner Dopp explained that his reasoning is based on the idea that if Foothill is being presented as the major corridor, it should logically be the primary focus area.

Engineering Director Welday added that the focus areas are aligned with the General Plan the way the ordinance is currently written. He said there is also a provision in the ordinance that requires undergrounding in adopted specific plan areas . He said for most part, the areas along Foothill have been undergrounded and the areas that have not been undergrounded likely would not fall into any of the categories for exemptions anyway.

Vice Chairman Boling clarified that we have projects that would require undergrounding but not right now because it is unfeasible for that particular developer to do it, in which case, they would pay in-lieu fees. He asked if there are projects that would be exempt from having to pay in-lieu fees.

Principal Engineer Sotomayor confirmed that there would be and said it would be spelled out in the ordinance.

Vice Chairman Boling reaffirmed there will be three types of projects that would be under consideration; 1) Those that would require undergrounding, 2) Those that would pay the in -lieu fees which would be used at a future time when sufficient funds are collected to pay for the total underground project, 3) Those projects that would be accepted. He asked what would happen if money is being used that was collected in another area o f town in order to make up some deficiency that exists, and now that area has to be underground and the money had already been spent.

Engineering Director Welday explained that the dollars that have been collected are not delegated to any particular region, they are delegated city wide. He said they would have to go back and look at nearly 50 years of transactions to try to untangle that. The cleanest way to do it is to look at it as there is still a general benefit within those regions and going forward, they would segregate it into the regions and before that they would have to use it as a bank to supplement the projects that are in each of those regions.

Vice Chairman Boling asked what happens to the undergrounding of the area where that first project 50 years ago paid their in- lieu fees, and now and now it is going to be undergrounded.

Where did those dollars come from.

Engineering Director Welday said he is not sure he is following, adding that there seems to be a lot of hypotheticals.

Vice Chairman Boling stated it seems like we are leap frogging the money, but we will figure it out.

Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.

Page 502 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 11 of 12 ends

For the record, it is noted that the following correspondence was received after the preparation of the agenda packet expressing support of the proposed ordinance. The actual correspondence should be referred to for details:

• Letter from Esoteric Homes

Hearing no comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Dopp mentioned that streamlining parts of the process makes a lot of sense. He emphasized that as a discussion moves forward to City Council, it is important to understand the outcomes of projects, especially when utilities like wiring are involved, so they can develop a holistic vision of what future developments might look like.

Vice Chairman Boling expressed his appreciation for the callout regarding the exemptions related to the focus areas. He also said he valued the clearly defined appeal process, noting that it will certainly help developers and project applicants . He added that these measures encourage responsible development in streamlined infill projects and expressed gratitude for the hard work of the Engineering department.

Chairman Morales stated that the commissioners had previously reviewed some projects that required undergrounding, which raised concerns due to limited frontage. He noted t his will fix it and make it better.

Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adopt Resolution 2025-022 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 16.36.09 and adding Chapter 17.84 to the Municipal Code. Motion carried 3 -0-2. Absent: Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz

D4. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT – CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A request to amend the zoning map designation for Tracts 16072, 16072- 1, 16072 -2, and 16072- 3, totaling approximately 150.79 acres, to amend the zoning designation from neighborhood Estate 2 (NE - 2) to Low R esidential (L), and ensure consistency with the configuration and development standards of a previously approved 359 lot single- family residential subdivision, in a manner consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Traditional Neighborhood. This project qualifies for an exemption under State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), as the proposed zoning map amendment will not have any direct impact on the environment. Tracts 16072, 16072- 1, 16072-2, and 16072-3. (Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025-00141).

Associate Planner Claudia Vargas provided a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file).

Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.

Resident Stephen P. Gutierrez expressed concerns about noise, increased traffic, trash and crime.

Resident Erick Space had questions about zoning and requested clarification if any new lots would be created.

Hearing no other comments from the public, Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.

Planning Director Nakamura confirmed that no new lots would be created and amending the zoning designation would allow the developer to use the same development standards and the homes to the west.

Page 503 ends

HPC/PC Draft Minutes – July 23, 2025

Page 12 of 12 ends

Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 2025-018 to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the zoning map as presented in the Zoning Map Amendment DRC2025- 00141. Motion carried 3 -0-2. Absent:

Commissioner Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.

E. Director Announcements

Planning Director Nakamura announced we have been awarded the Award of Merit which makes us the second-best Planning Agency in the State of California this year. She also mentioned that the next Planning Commission meeting will take place in the Tri-Communities Room due to construction in the Council Chambers.

F. Commission Announcements - None

H. Adjournment

Motion: Moved by Commissioner Diaz , seconded by Commissioner Dopp to adjourn the meeting. Hearing no objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning Department

Approved:

Page 504 ends

ATTACHMENT 4
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

CEQA-Section-15332-Exemption

Page 505 ends

Memorandum
Date: May 2, 2025
To: City of Rancho Cucamonga
From: Fehr & Peers
Subject: 9505 Baseline Road – New Roadway Connection Analysis OC25-1134
Fehr & Peers reviewed the proposed new roadway connection at the proposed 9505 Baseline Road (DRC2024-00108) project. The proposed project has a previously approved Transportation Screening Assessment (Ganddini Group; February 6, 2025) which outlined that the Project proposes a 50-residential unit building, including 10 live/work units fronting Baseline Road. This project includes an extension of Ruby Avenue to Baseline Road. Attachment A provides the site plan.

The proposed extension of Ruby Avenue to Baseline Road through the proposed project site provides a new north/south roadway connection between Baseline Road and Alder Street. This provides new connectivity and vehicle access to the local neighborhood, which is generally bound by Baseline Road to the North, Palo Alto Street to the South, Kirkwood Avenue to the West, and Klunsman Avenue to the East.

Fehr & Peers evaluated how much traffic would be expected to use the new roadway connection, both from the existing neighborhood and the proposed project.

As documented in the February 6th memorandum, the proposed project is expected to generate 22 AM peak hour trips, 25 PM peak hour trips, and 303 daily trips. As the project takes direct access from the new roadway connection, it is assumed that all project trips would use this roadway.

For the existing neighborhood traffic, Fehr & Peers collected data from StreetLight. StreetLight is a big data source that aggregates metadata from cell phones and provides estimates of the number of vehicles on roadways and also tracks the origins and destinations of those vehicles.

The data showed the travel patterns for the existing neighborhood, which is presented in Figure 1.

Based on these travel patterns, the distribution of households through the existing neighborhood, and the other north/south roadway connections to Baseline Avenue, Alder Street, and Palo Alto ATTACHMENT 5

Page 506 ends

May 2, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

Street, Fehr & Peers assumed that all traffic on Amethyst Avenue and 10% of traffic on Baseline Avenue from the existing neighborhood would utilize the new roadway connection. This results in an additional 27 AM peak hour trips, 35 PM peak hour trips, and 344 daily trips.

The total expected vehicle traffic on the new roadway connection would be 49 AM peak hour trips, 60 PM peak hour trips, and 647 daily trips. This is presented on Table 1 and in Figure 1.

Table 1: Expected Travel on New Roadway Connection
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total SB NB Total SB NB Total SB NB
Vehicle Trips from 9505 Baseline
Project 303 152 152 22 6 16 25 15 10
Vehicle Trips diverted from Existing
Neighborhood 344 178 165 27 7 20 35 22 13
Total 647 330 317 49 13 36 60 37 23

Sources: StreetLight Data, Fehr & Peers, 2025

Attachments
 Attachment A - Project Site Plan
 Figure 1 - Existing Trip Distribution

Page 507 ends

S S
WW
W W W
WW
SS
W
WW
SS
SSSS
ENGINEERING SITE PLAN | C1
APX-2

Page 508 ends

9505 Baseline Road - New Roadway
Figure 1
1 2
9%
28%
23%
22%
4%
13%
Neighborhood
Project Site
New roadway Begin/End - Ruby Avenue
New Roadway - Ruby Avenue
% Existing Neighborhood Trip Distribution
Trips on Ruby Ave - Northbound
Daily: 317
Peak AM: 36
Peak PM: 23
Trips on Ruby Ave - Southbound
Daily: 330
Peak AM: 13
Peak PM: 37

Page 509 ends

ii
July 19, 2023

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY,

PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a closed session on Wednesday, July 19, 2023, in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tern Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael.

Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/ Economic and Community Development and Julie Sowles, Deputy City Manager/ Civic and Cultural Services.

A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM( S)
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM( S)
No public communications were made.

C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.

D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION
D1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956. 8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8408 ROCHESTER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( RANCHO CUCAMONGA EPICENTER STADIUM); AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: JOHN GILLISON ' AND ELISA COX, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; NEGOTIATING PARTY: RANCHO BASEBALL LLC; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. ( CITY)
D2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956. 9( A); INLAND REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC, ET AL V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; U. S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5: 21- CV- 01656- SP; NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. No. 22- 55435. ( CITY)
D3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH( 1) OF SUBDIVISION( D) OF SECTION 54956. 9; NAME OF CASE: PEPE' S INC.

V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CASE NO. 5: 20CV02506JGBSP( CITY) E. RECESS
The closed session recessed at 6:28 p.m.

July 19, 2023 1Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 6
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 510 ends

REGULAR MEETING - 7: 00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER- COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on July 19, 2023, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Ashley Stickler, Mayor Pro Tern Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael.

Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Nicholas Ghirelli, City Attorney; and Linda Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director.

Council Member Stickler led the Pledge of Allegiance.

A. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None.

B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/ PRESENTATIONS
None.

C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
Bill Kaufman, spoke about potential economic opportunities of commercial cannabis dispensaries and stated that he submitted an updated Economic Impact Analysis along with letters of recommendation on July 18, 2023 for the City Council' s review.

Seema Jain, distributed invitations and invited the City Council and Community to a " Sixth Sense Meditation and Wisdom" event at the Ontario Convention Center on Saturday, August 5, 2023.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Scott announced that she will need to abstain on item D3, due to a potential conflict of interest as her employer is Southern California Gas Company.

D1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes for Regular Meetings of July 5, 2023.

D2. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Total Amount of 2,642, 926. 97 and City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers ( Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Total Amount of$ 4,946, 186. 26 Dated June 26, 2023, Through July 09, 2023. ( CITY/ FIRE)
D3. Consideration to Approve City and Fire District Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Total Amount of $ 16,721. 03 Dated June 26, 2023, Through July 09, 2023. ( CITY/ FIRE)
D4. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedules as of June 30, 2023 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. ( CITY/ FIRE) D5. Consideration of the Purchase of Thirty Sets of Firefighting Turnout Gear from All- star Fire Equipment, Inc. as a Single Source Vendor in the Amount of$ 115, 990. ( FIRE) July 19, 2023 1Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 6

Page 511 ends

D6. Consideration of Amendment No. 001 to the Professional Services Agreement No. 2021- 140 with Superior Pavement Markings Inc. for Annual Citywide Striping and Pavement Marking Services Extending the Agreement Term to June 30, 2024. ( CITY) D7. Consideration of Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Cambridge Seven Associates( Contract No. 2020- 120) for Design Services Not To Exceed$ 66, 520.( CITY) D8. Consideration to Accept an Appropriate Grant Revenue in the Amount of $ 19, 114 from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant( JAG) for Fiscal Year 2019. ( CITY) D9. Consideration to Accept the Heritage Park Equestrian Center Roof Repair Project as Complete, File the Notice of Completion, and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds. ( CITY) D10. Consideration of Final Maps for Tracts 16072- 1 and 16072- 2, a Related Improvement Agreement, and Improvement Securities, Located North of Wilson Avenue between East Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue, Related to Case No' s. SUBTT16072. An Environment Impact Report was Certified for this Project on June 16, 2004. ( CITY) D11. Consideration to Approve a Resolution Adopting a Memorandum of Understanding Between the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and Rancho Cucamonga Firefighters Local 2274 Relative to Wages, Benefits, and Other Terms and Conditions for the Period of July 2023 through June 30, 2026. ( RESOLUTION NO. FD 2023- 036)( FIRE) D12. Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Salary Schedules for the Fiscal Year 2023- 24. ( RESOLUTION NO. FD 2023- 033) ( FIRE) D13. Consideration of Resolution Adopting a Policy Regarding the Distribution of Complimentary Tickets or Passes Pursuant to FPPC Regulation 18944. 1. ( RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 090 AND RESOLUTION NO. FD 2023- 035) ( CITY/ FIRE)
MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to approve Consent Calendar Items D1 through D13, with Council Member Scott abstaining on item D3, due to her employment with Southern California Gas Company. Motion carried 5-0.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR ORDINANCE( S) - SECOND READING/ ADOPTION None.

F. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM( S)
F1. Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 1019, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Repealing Chapter 10. 76 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Discontinuing the City' s Police Tow Rotation Program and Making a Determination that the Ordinance is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ( ORDINANCE NO. 1019) ( CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Michael Parmer, Assistant to the City Manager, who provided a verbal report for item F1.

Mayor Michael opened the Administrative Hearing.

There were no public communications.

Mayor Michael closed the Administrative Hearing.

July 19, 2023 1Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 3 of 6

Page 512 ends

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, to approve staffs recommendation and Introduce First Reading of Ordinance No. 1019, by title only and waive further readings.

Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director, read the title of Ordinance No. 1019 by title only.

ORDINANCE NO. 1019

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER

10. 76 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, DISCONTINUING THE CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA' S POLICE TOW ROTATION PROGRAM, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THE

ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Council Member Stickler, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, to approve staffs recommendation and Introduce First Reading of Ordinance No. 1019, by title only and waive further reading. Motion carried 5-0.

F2. Preliminary Review Hearing to Consider a Proposed Master Plan Application for a Mixed- Use Development that would Include Site- Specific Development Standards, Including a Floor Area Ratio Standard Lower than the Current Standard Under the Development Code, at 9505 Base Line Road. ( CITY)
City Manager Gillison introduced Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development and Sean McPherson, Senior Planner, who provided the staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item F2.

Mayor Michael opened the Administrative Hearing.

There were no public communications.

Mayor Michael closed the Administrative Hearing.

Council discussion ensued on support of the Master Plan Policy and staffs recommendation supporting the General Plan and proposed projects fitting in with existing area/ neighborhoods.

MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Scott, to approve staffs recommendation to consider policy implications of reducing a non- residential floor area standard for a specific site at 9505 Base Line Road, authorize the project to move forward understanding that this is not an approval or guarantee of an approval, and direct staff to immediately analyze non- residential standards for mixed- use projects and consider a Development Code Amendment to that affect. Motion carried 5-0.

G. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM( S) - CITY/ FIRE DISTRICT G1. Public Hearing of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to Consider Resolutions Confirming the Diagrams and Assessments and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Annual Assessments for Landscape Maintenance Districts; Street Lighting Maintenance Districts; and Park and Recreation Improvement District No. PD- 85 for Fiscal Year 2023/ 24. ( RESOLUTION NOS. 2023- 087, 2023- 088, 2023- 089) ( CITY)
City Manager Gillison introduced Kelly Guerra, Special Districts Analyst, who gave a verbal report for item G1.

Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing.

There were no public communications.

Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing.

July 19, 2023 1Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 4 of 6

Page 513 ends

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison, seconded by Council Member Stickler, to adopt Resolution Nos. 2023-087, 2023-088 and 2023-089, confirming the diagrams and assessments and ordering the levy and collection of annual assessments for Landscape Maintenance Districts; Street Lighting Maintenance Districts; and Park and Recreation Improvement District No. PD-85 for Fiscal Year 2023/ 24. Motion carried 5- 0.

G2. Public Hearing for Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Fire District's General Fund Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2023- 24. ( RESOLUTION NO. FD 2023- 034) ( FIRE) City Manager Gillison reported the Fire Protection District's preliminary budget was adopted on June 22, 2023. After public noticing, the final budget is presented for adoption.

Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing.

There were no public communications.

Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing.

MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council Member Stickler, adopt Resolution No.

FD 2023-034, adopting the Fire District's General Fund Final Budgetfor Fiscal Year 2023-24. Motion carried 5- 0.

H. CITY MANAGERS STAFF REPORT( S)
H1. Presentation from Empire Economics Inc. on the City' s Annual Employment and Housing Trends Study and Analysis of the Current and Future State of Warehousing and Distribution. (CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Economist, Dr. Joe Janczyk from Empire Economics, who provided a report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item H1.

Council discussion ensued.

City Council received and filed report.

H2. Quarterly Development Update— Second Quarter 2023. ( CITY) City Manager Gillison introduced Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic Development and Zack Neighbors, Deputy Director of Building and Safety, who provided a staff report along with a PowerPoint presentation for item H2.

City Council received and filed report.

I. COUNCIL BUSINESS

11. Consideration of the City Council Library Subcommittee' s Recommendation to Appoint Members to the Library Board of Trustees. ( CITY)
MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Hutchison, to appoint Christine DeVries and Laurel Rice to a three-year term ending on June 30, 2026 and appoint William Diepenbrock to fill an un- scheduled vacancy for an unexpired term ending on June 30, 2024 on the Library Board of Trustees. Motion carried 5- 0.

July 19, 2023 1Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 5 of 6

Page 514 ends

12. Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates for the League of California Cities ( Cal Cities) Annual Business Meeting. ( CITY)
MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison, seconded by Mayor Michael, to approve Voting Delegate, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, and Alternate Council Member Scott for the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting.

AMENDED MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison, seconded by Mayor Michael, to approve Voting Delegate, Mayor Pro Tern Kennedy, and Alternates Council Member Scott and Mayor Michael for the League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting. Motion carried 5-0.

13. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.

14. INTER- AGENCY UPDATES
None.

J. CITY ATTORNEY ITEMS
City Attorney Ghirelli noted that there was no reportable action taken during Closed Session held earlier that evening.

K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
None.

L. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Michael adjourned the Council Meeting at 8:33 p.m.

Approved: August 2, 2023
Linda yan, MMC
Services Director
July 15, 20201 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 6 of 6

Page 515 ends

DATE: August 18, 2021
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager of Community Development SUBJECT: City Policy Pertaining to Early Feedback on General Plan Amendments, Planned Community, Master Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, and Development Code Amendments. (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive, file and adopt the attached policy on providing early Council feedback on General Plan amendments, Specific Plan, Planned Community or Master Plan Amendments, or Development Code Amendments.

BACKGROUND:

The General Plan and Development Code are the primary documents that regulate the physical development of the city. Additionally, in many areas of the city, Specific Plans, Planned Communities, and master plans serve to regulate land use in place of the Development Code or as a bridge between the General Plan and the Development Code. These documents regulate land uses, infrastructure, and the mitigation of impacts. Under the Development Code, only the City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Director, or a property owner may initiate applications for these legislative amendments. In many cases, property owners (or their agents) who apply for projects that may require multiple entitlements spend several years and thousands of dollars designing a proposed project before ever knowing whether the City Council has any interest in considering the necessary legislative change for the project.

ANALYSIS:

While the City typically receives limited applications for legislative changes such as General Plan amendments, there are currently several such applications undergoing review by the Planning Department. These types of legislative approvals can only be granted by the City Council and have separate and distinct policy implications apart from the merits of a project. In order, however, for an application to be considered by the City Council (under present policy and process), that application must first undergo review and analysis by City staff, potential consideration by the Design Review Committee, environmental analysis under CEQA, and consideration by the Planning Commission. This process can easily take up to 18+ months and require an applicant to spend thousands of dollars for design and studies, all before they have any understanding whether the City Council has an interest in approving such a legislative change, which may be necessary before any other entitlements needed for a project may be approved. In practice, staff is finding that this approach causes a greater degree of uncertainty for the applicant and further complicates the development review process for city staff, particularly in situations with competing interests.

Page 516 ends

Page 2 ends

9 1
7 There is another alternative; some cities allow for an applicant to seek preliminary feedback from the city council in connection with the merits of a General Plan amendment or other legislative changes. After the Council provides its feedback on the proposed legislative amendment, the applicant can decide whether to pursue the legislative amendment, and the other entitlements for the applicant’s proposed project, with the Council’s preliminary policy considerations in mind. This opportunity provides the applicant with more information about whether the proposed project is likely to be successful after the application has been processed by staff. Rancho Cucamonga’s past practice, dating back to the 1980’s, was to request initial authorization by the City Council prior to beginning any amendments to the development code or any Specific Plan, Planned Community or Master Plan that included more than one parcel or project (i.e., Town Square Master Plan). The City abandoned this policy in 2012 intending to streamline the development review process. While it may streamline the process, the new practice also causes a greater degree of uncertainty and further complicates development review, in some cases actually complicating the process.

Under the new process, a detailed description of the applicant’s project shall not be required.

Staff will work with the City Attorney to analyze the provided information, provide a list of pros and cons, and a staff recommendation to the City Council on only the legislative change for their consideration. The staff report shall include specific language indicating the pre-application review is not an approval nor a guarantee of approval, that staff and the Planning Commission may recommend against, and the City Council may ultimately vote against or not support the project at the project hearings once additional details and analysis become available in the future.

While the City Council would not vote on the project at the time of this administrative hearing, each Councilmember may provide comments addressing positive or negative aspects of the amendment, potential issues that should be evaluated by staff, and suggested changes that could make the amendment more acceptable, if any. The City Council’s comments should focus on the policy implications of the General Plan amendment rather than the project itself. The City Council will not vote on any aspect of the amendment or project, as the intent of the preliminary review process is informational only.

Staff will take the feedback provided by the City Council into consideration to help inform further staff analysis, possible conditions or modifications to the project, the recommendation to the Planning Commission, and ultimately the recommendation to the City Council. Staff shall provide a letter to the applicant following the administrative hearing memorializing the input and results of the hearing. The Applicant may then take that information into account in deciding whether to move forward in the process. After the administrative hearing, the application will move through the standard development review process for review by the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council per our current process.

This policy shall only apply to private property owners and shall not apply to any City initiated legislative changes. Staff reports on legislative changes shall be prepared and presented only by the Planning Director, the Deputy City Manager of Community and Economic Development, the City Attorney, and the City Manager. The staff report may discuss the proposed project in general terms, but the staff recommendation will only address the General Plan amendment.

It is important to note that an initial City Council direction on a legislative change is not an approval and does not guarantee an approval. It would not involve any consideration of a particular project.

Put more simply, it would only give the Council an opportunity to consider the policy implications

Page 517 ends

Page 3 ends

9 1
7 of changing the General Plan, Specific Plan, Master Plan, Community Plan, or Development Code, as the case may be. Some of the policy considerations that the Council might consider as part of this initial feedback may include neighborhood impacts, economic development, and whether the use is appropriate for the site. This change creates an opportunity to provide staff and applicants with such feedback before thousands of hours, dollars, and years are spent processing an application. As such, staff recommends re-establishing the City’s prior policy to bring requests for all General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments, and Development Code changes requested by owners of real property or their authorized representatives to the City Council for an initial round of feedback. An applicant would still be required to conduct the same CEQA analysis and go through the same development and environmental review if it decides to pursue its applications further. This policy will not apply to any current applications that have been deemed complete.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

This policy helps realize the City Council’s vision for creating a world class community and the City Council value of “Equitable prosperity for all” by helping to identify and remove barriers within the City’s Development Review process.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Legislative Changes Review Policy

Page 518 ends

DATE: August 18, 2021
TO: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director
FROM: Matthew Burris, Deputy City Manager of Community Development SUBJECT: Legislative Changes and Amendments Policy
PURPOSE: To re-establish a policy for initiating General Plan amendments, Specific Plan amendments, and Development Code amendments requested by builders and developers.

BACKGROUND: The General Plan and Development Code are the primary documents that regulate the physical development of the city. Additionally, in many areas of the city, Specific Plans serve to regulate land use in place of the Development Code. These documents regulate land uses, infrastructure, and the mitigation of impacts. The City’s past practice, dating back to the 1980s, was to request authorization by the City Council to initiate any amendments to the development code or any Specific Plan, Planned Community, or Master Plan that includes more than one parcel or project (i.e., Town Square Master Plan). This policy allowed for discussion of the pros and cons of such requests and consideration for larger policy implications. The City abandoned this practice in 2012 with the intent of streamlining the development review process. However, currently, staff is finding that this approach causes a greater degree of uncertainty and further complicates development review. It results in applicants spending many years and thousands of dollars designing a proposed project before ever knowing whether the City Council may even desire considering such legislative changes.

POLICY: An application for a legislative change, such as a General Plan amendment, that is initiated by a private property owner shall be recommended for an administrative hearing before the City Council as the first step in the Development Review process. The Planning Director shall schedule a preliminary review hearing before the City Council once the applicant has provided enough information about the proposed amendment and related project to permit the Planning Director to prepare a staff report for the hearing. This information shall include, but is not limited to, a statement explaining the applicant’s reason for requesting the General Plan amendment, the proposed change in land use designations on the parcel(s), the project’s proposed uses and density, and any other project parameters associated with the amendment that are deemed necessary by the Planning Director. A detailed description of the applicant’s project shall not be required. Staff will work with the City Attorney to analyze the provided information, provide a list of pros and cons, and a staff recommendation to the City Council on only the legislative change for their consideration.

The staff report shall include specific language indicating the pre-application review is not an approval nor a guarantee of approval, that staff and the Planning Commission may recommend against, and the City Council may ultimately vote against or not support the project at the project hearings once additional details and analysis become available in the

Page 519 ends

Page 2 ends

1 5
9 5
future.

If an applicant does not want to go to City Council for the preliminary review and insists on a full hearing on the project merits, they shall sign an At Risk Waiver acknowledging they had the opportunity to go to the City Council on the legislative change but chose to decline. That document will become part of the entitlement package and administrative record.

After the administrative hearing, alternatively, after signing an At Risk Waiver, the application will move through the standard development review process for review by the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council per our current process. If the City Council’s input is not positive, staff shall use the City Council’s feedback to problem solve with the applicant and work on a redesigned or different project. In such case, the Applicant shall be welcome to an additional review with the City Council to determine if a revised or alternative proposal might be a better solution.

This policy shall only apply to private property owners and shall not apply to any City initiated legislative changes.

Staff reports on legislative changes shall be prepared and presented only by the Planning Director, the Deputy City Manager of Community and Economic Development, the City Attorney, and the City Manager. The staff report may discuss the proposed project in general terms, but the staff recommendation will only address the General Plan amendment.

The City shall not charge a fee for the administrative hearing and will expedite scheduling a hearing date. The Planning Department shall provide the applicant at least ten (10) days written notice of the hearing date and time.

Page 520 ends

of 715

Page 521 ends

become available in the future.

While the City Council would not vote on the project at the time of this administrative hearing, each Councilmember may provide comments addressing positive or negative aspects of the amendment, potential issues that should be evaluated by staff, and suggested changes that could make the amendment more acceptable, if any. The City Council's comments should focus on the policy implications of the General Plan amendment, rather than the project itself. The City Council will not vote on any aspect of the amendment or project, as the preliminary review process is intended to be informational only.

After the administrative hearing, the application will move through the standard development review process for review by the Design Review Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council per our current process. If the City Council's input is not positive, staff shall use the City Council's feedback to problem solve with the applicant and work or a redesigned or different project. In such case, the Applicant shall be welcome to an additional review with the City Council to determine if a revised or different proposal might be a better solution.

This policy shall only apply to private property owners and shall not apply to any City initiated legislative changes. This policy is not meant to apply to Development Agreements.

The City shall not charge a fee for the administrative hearing and will expedite scheduling a hearing date. The Planning Department shall provide the applicant at least 10 days' written notice of the hearing date and time.

Page 2 ends

Page 522 ends

TRACT N<J 693 9
SHEE T NO. I
OF 4 SH EETS
. .

BEING A SUBDIVISION Of' PORTIONS OF LOTS3 {4 OF SECTION 3, TIS,R7 W, OF CUCAMONGA LANDS PER BOOK 1 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAN BERNARDINO COUN T� .CAL IFORNIA. - STR ECKER ASSOCIATES INC.

OWNERS CeRTIFICA TE
. We hereb y cerft"r!J fh9f we ore_ all and the only par �1es having ony record idle interest 1n the fond subdivided os . shown on -/he annexed rnQ'p and we consenf lo fhe preporafton and recordaflon or lh1s f';no/ 1n_ap1 and we. hereby ded/co le to fhe County of Son Bernardino ror pub/Jc use all publ/c thorough rares ' and lols 'A I fo '[)' ,nclusive, OS fulu_re slreel-s, 5017 Ber_nardtno Counly Drainage £asemenls shown on sa;d mop w!fhin said_ subcl/vis1on1 ond we hereby_ reserve lo ourselves, our/7e1r.s ond assigns for 1he use and benel;l_of -/he severol Plfb/;c u/;lt'fy comp_onies which are authorized fo serve 1n said subd/,11:Sion eosernenfs fbr pub/,c uf!IJ/y purposes, de!;neofed on Sotd mop OS "A.;b/;c U!il/ly Eoseme/71," or ''J? U E.
11 ond f'urlher bfi. /he record(Jfton of this mop, Y(e her�b .!J ded!C£1k fo the Counfy of -:Son BernCJrd!no all nghfs of veh1wlar ingress fo or _egress fmm .Lois N° I one( 68, over ond across fhe nor/her/_!J l;ne of S{Jld lots <Ybul!-1ng Bose hnt: a Counh, Rood ,md we., '""o' o,Mss ,Y,e • ,, I J ;::, I
I . . 1,es,�. � ,w @ 6/ iw Z: 0i1olli11g 4t7?4,11$'7§wf Sm • ano' oll nghls of"tngress fo or egress from !ol:s ,1' lo V' inclus/ve ol/er and ac/oss the eosferly i ines of Lol.s A' tlnd 'B' o-bvl!-mg Pepper $free/ ona' falo Alt-o Sf�f, r&.Spechre/y, and over O'nd across the soofher!.y line of /of C 'obulhng Ruby Avenue, t1no' the wesfer!!J /.rne of Lof 'D' qbulftng Al der SI-reef. __ JJELL . M. !VIC DA N,JEL-,..J____NC.i a C orporafion � :._1• c� �l ,.; -- /:J
ee111/ vn� .. /1 .-=--/��-/ -� .�s1den-r s�arera,..'i'
NorARY ACl<NOWLED5EM /ZNTS
Sfafe of Cohf orn10 ) ss : Counf y of Son Bernardino )
on tl7!s /f' u c/oy or /l?AtY, . / l9Gq1 bef'ore me, R. VV.

Ra ,,� y , o Nofory Public 1n and f"or said Counfy and
Sfofe, personally appeared t7e// M /1'1c.P�,v/e/ known to me to be the P'>-e,nde,,, r and rl(".#/Y,(/ R. �A:'�.s- known to me lo be .5'ecr e--t-sry of' _DELL M. MC DA NI£ L, INC., the corporation -/hat executed the wdhln /nsfrurnenf, and known to me to be the persons who execufed the w/thin 1nsfrurnenf on beholr of' fhe corporal/on fl7ere1'n named, r;,nq' a,cknow!edged lo me that such corporal1on execuf-ed /he w1ff71n 1nsfrurnenf p�rsuonl lo its by-Lows or a reso/uhon or /,f.s board of d1recfors.
/v7y Comm1ssron expires 4- -zc:, r-CC

AUDITORS CERTIPICATE
I hereby cer/1/'y (Ila! acco_rd1ng lo !he records of this offh:e as fo this dole ihere (ff"e no liens qgO'lnsl the real prope_rly shown upon 1/le annexed mop for unpmd Sfofe, Counfy, Mun1ctpal or-loco/ foKes or speCtal assessmenls collected os loxes, excepl foxes or speao/ (Jssessmenls no/ _yet pCYfloble, esfimofed to be .fl/ oo . -%'0
Dcrled $? lf;c /?t.(f Jocelyn M. Cox, County .Aud!ior.
wunfy qNa�mno, Coltf
By ;:=�.�d I DepJJfy
'
(
PEPPER .ST. � 7 - t
� r
f (.M
-46
�1! sr.

Sheef N" 4
Sheef N °3
'.5 . - l� !:i J: ., Sheef N ° E!. mo • Al TO srR.E.ET
l._ _ ,.J

INDEX MA P
Scole : /""" SOD'
IL
<::i .....
c
"
� �
�
\
FEBRUARY 1964

ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE
. . Ii Jo_hn A, Alf ord , here by cer_hiy fhof I am ct regisfered c1v1! engineer of' the Sfofe of C.Oltforn10 and that this rnop consishn 9 of" 4 sheefs is a frue and cornplefe
represenfaf ion of a Survey rnade under my supervist'on 1'n Sept. /963 and fhaf oil the monumenfs shown hereon are
of the character and occupy fhe posiftons 1ndicofe d1 or w /I I be sef in . such p<;>sif/ons on or before. I 3 /v1oy l.965, in compl/ance wlf h secl;on /1566 of_ fhe 8us1r;e�.s and
Professions Code and are or will he suff1c1en f f o enoble fhe survey to be retraced.
llef/is-fered Civd Ehgineer N° 8638

COUNTY SURVEYORS CER TIFICATE
. I hereby cerfify that I have examined fhe annexed
mop 1 fhcd -/he, subdivision shown lhere1on 1.s substantially the same os ;f appeared on the fenfohve map anC!' _any
approved alleraf1on.s thereo7i ond tho! all the prov1s1ons of' /he Subdivision /Vlap Ac/ and San Bernardino Counfy Ordinance N "' 924 hove been comp/Jed wifh and I am
sof isned fhaf this rnap is fechnicol/y correcf.

J W. ABBEY Counfy Surveyor
Counf !:J of San �ho, Ccthr.

By �� ,< • Depufy>

ACCEPTANCE CERTIFICATE
The Co_unfy of Son Bern_ardino, S_fafe of Col/lorn10, by ond lhOlffl/7 ;Is du/jj O'tll!?orized of'hcers !?eri:LJy approves of' Of?d occepls fhs mop of Traci N°6939, and /he lorego1ng of fers ofdedicohon, eKcepf fer /ofs_ A' fo '()' 1nclus�vew lJ1ch are rejeded, bt.d accepts no ob/;ga1hb(7 OS to mo1nfenonce and 1mprovemenf of San Bernarc/;!7o County drainage eosemenfs. i, r a .£
LJB:red. I�-� "• lz.' T
Arr.: .sr.- � • • Counfy of Son Bernord;no
//. OE.IVN/$ WARLJt:.c . . Srtzre o�a/Jforn/a Cou,777 C/e,.-k <!Zna Ex-Orr/C/o B � � • Cl.A C/er.f:Arrne � o:;eu,oe,..r/$'ors i!J: • - - - - 8 ..9' � �tf LJepury Chairrnan/!3oorcl of Supervisors
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CERTIFICAT E . . ,,.. I hereby cerhfy 1h(lf o bond 1n the sum of $'I; � 0 0 -170.s been execufed qnd /';led w1/h the Boord of Supervisors of fhe Counfy or San Bernardino, Sfafe of Cq/fforn1q1 cond/fhned (lpon ihe payment of' of/ lo..res1 Sfale, Cov_nfy, Munic;po� or local, (!f?d oll special assessments, col/ecfed Qs faxes, wh1cl-r crf /he flme of !he /;ling of' the annexed mop with fhe C.Ounr y Recorder ore_ «el7 CJgoinsl so1 0', pro,oerlY, bul 170/ yet po!foble and lhof lhe .subdl v_1der /Jos f'i_led wt fh me o cerlif"r'c:afe by lhe proper officer g1wng hts eshmole of the amount of so,d foxes and ossessrnents, ond soid bond hos been duly approved by sa;cl Board of Supervisors,
Doled� .Z-£; I 'fl; rf V. Dennis Wardle, Counly Clerk.
and Ex- 0ff}c/o O'erk or #7e Board of'
Sup€f!)!/!5ors g,.. By �
U 1f--vl-- , Depufy
BASIS OF BEARING ;
The /:Jearing of N 0 °07 130" W of the cenfer!tne
of Hell rnan Avenue per Sub d1v1s1on 'B'
of Cucamonga 'vineyard Trac/ Rec. 1n M.f3. 20
page 45 was used as a basis of' beari ng for
fh/s subd; vis/on.

NO TES:

B.S.L. Ind/cotes Budding Sefback Line.-- lndtcafes monumen fs found. -®- lndicafes 6 11 Spk. f/ Tin sef ,n pavement� !nd/cafes monurnenf.s sef E" I. P. -t- lnd/cafes Z"x E" redwood slake s
"R U,£, "lnd�cafes public uf!lily e(Jsemenl;
Alphabet1cctl Lofs lnd!cofe rufure �-------------Sfreefs , @) lnd/cofes monumenf s ·fted ouf J (J b C.S.F.B. lndi'cclfes Counfy SurvegorsField Book, Tract hos 68 t.of:s. Lors 4'ro :O;Jqc/us/re/ .:r.re rvrqre srree:rs. /
-
ATTACHMENT 7

Page 523 ends

s- 3;lz c
0 a
0 0
0 O
0 See sheet N9 3 adjoining ;: ,• SHEET NO. 2
TRA C T N 6939'
p13 :'_ ;; - II
t
OF 4 SHEETS
BEING A SUBDIVIS /ON OFPORMNS OP x,0733 4 OF SECTION 3, TIS, R 7 W, v ° 00 a % 3
y
OF CUCA41ONSA , ANDS PER BOOR 4, OF MAPS, PAGE 9) RECORDS OF SAN T 32' 28• 4' I q lV BERNARD / ND COUNTY, CAL lFaeNIA . - ,: • 93 / 3
ft «. J I I `•
c}. N. 89° 53' l8 " W
5 eo, 00 N, 89° 58' 05" W.; 225. 0y 77. 96
a 105, 00
I
N
MAGNO IlA
eSTREET o `
V I ; ':' r •
N I o 4
Q
O I I 32 N. 89 ° 5805" W. 115. 00 0 Q
N. 89 ° 53' 18 W.
00 44 N JO del '
0 O \ v

65. DD 50, 00

11.3. 00 12 1
o
4 = 90 000 100
W
ap Q
r nn
N Ul 50/ 6' PUE u E - 51
o 32./ 8
L. 25
L
Q= =
320 /.
42 °

20. 00 \
p
O
N 00" 4_ g
B, 5, .- 24
N. 89 ° 53' 18 WN
131

0. / 30 20 Z 2
105. 00
D ' 12
L6 1 Q
11 k
ti w Q I 33
0 0 34 3. 5
0,)
36 o ^ Lq
o
a 113. 00 43
N
vi
O O
O O 6 P, U. E . _ " L - X20. 02 - -
6' P U. E -- _ 80. 00 65. OD - 4L:=-, --
7000
N 15 °. o /
os, 00

72. 01 74. 00 00 -
PU E
75 O 73. 00 3. D/
N. 89 ° 52' 52" W. 6' • 440, O2
o
T7
89 ° 53 l8 " W. W
d 113. 00 IQ ' O oo O
T o o 16 6 42 00 41 0 40 0 39
o ,,
30'
LL,
4= 90 00 26
O I 2 = 20' T =20. 00 _ -- 6 8'§" 59' 34 S. - 5. L, 25'- L = 3/. 42 R- 20' T= 20. 00
S. S, L, 15' J L= 31. 41

52. 00 74. 00 73. 00 75. 00
0 O
N,' 89 052' 52" 93. 00
I o I
N 69 ° 52'- 52" W, 400, 14
W.

73. 00
c3 41
p 0
O F0 2 S / DE WAL K PURPOSES llzr
31 0 0
17 ° / 8 / 9 20 21 22 23 24
a
a o
J
Zo¢ _

65. 36-
38, 3 -

65. DO - 8 - 72, 00 - 64• / 2 6 P F - 64. 50 64. 26 6700 663. 41
010 south of / ine
has been dsturbeo'
N leans south -- West
F , H4' N/ FL. per
C.' FB. 273 142
I .P flush
7,3q4 no ref
107" A PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION
Td 2 "dr: %!led /70/ e t CHURCH STREET
C. S, F, B . 273 P42
I i
BASIS Of SEARING:

The bearii-7g of N O °07' 30 " W. of lI-7e
cenfer//;- 7e of h' el / man A venue pew
Subdi' Vis /or7 B' of Cucamonga Vineyard
Tract` Rec. in 0. 8. 20 p. 45 was Used as
a bas / s of bearing for fh /s SUbd viS/OfT
50Uher/ y line of LO> 4 of
Cucamonga L onds
M. B. 4 Page 9

63. 50-
IN
O O0
00 o`
s
Q PAS. 0 ALTO 500. 21 c5 TREE T
O

43. 001
Q^
5010/ 49. 99 N. 89 ° 52' 52" W. 663- 21
4= 903"
R= 20' T = 2003
2 L = 31. 45
6538 65, 00 8' 72. 00 64, 12
N. 89 ° 52' 52' W

64. 50
6 63. 26
619, 26 6700 63. 50
n
I
B. S. L. 25 '
p 50. 08

ASEMENT TO

SAN BERNARD/ O COUNT V
c3 41
p 0
O F0 2 S / DE WALK PURPOSES llzr
31 0 0
17 ° / 8 / 9 20 21 22 23 24
a
a o
J
Zo¢ _

65. 36-
38, 3 -

65. DO - 8 - 72, 00 - 64• /2 6 P F - 64. 50 64. 26 6700 663. 41
010 south of / ine
has been dsturbeo'
N leans south -- West
F , H4' N/ FL. per
C.' FB. 273 142
I . P flush
7, 3q4 no ref
107" A PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION
Td 2 "dr: %!led /70/ e t CHURCH STREET
C. S, F, B . 273 P42
I i
BASIS Of SEARING:

The bearii-7g of N O °07' 30 " W. of lI-7e
cenfer//;- 7e of h' el / man A venue pew
Subdi'Vis /or7 B' of Cucamonga Vineyard
Tract` Rec. in 0. 8. 20 p. 45 was Used as
a bas /s of bearingfor fh /s SUbdviS/OfT
50Uher/y line of LO> 4 of
Cucamonga L onds
M.B. 4 Page 9

63. 50-
IN
O O0
00 o`
s
64, 50 T 65, 00
O ` ao
25 26
o
o

64. 50
NOTES :

B. S. L. 1rXdicales BU11C 7g 5efback Line
lndlCG r es r1-7o1-7urne1- 71s found
o-- Indicates 6" Spk T/i7 . 5&, i7 paver77en/
o Indicates monuments Set, 2 " I. P.
ndicates 2' x2" redwood stakes
N ! ndlcoies Monuments tied out.

65. 17-
V
v!
a
Q
00 0
m 0)
000
v
Q
h
Fa' 2' I P Plush Fd, PK f17
1-,S2386 no ref, of
Fd. not/ In Wood plug
in conc. pave per
C• S, F8. 273 P 41
Fo! PK. nail per
C. 5. F, 8. 2 73 P• 42
P, U E. Indicc es Public Utility Easement.

Alphabetical Lots lndicate future streets.

C.5,F, B. Indicates County Surveyors Field Book,
77-acf has 68 Lots.

Lo;°. s• F' r°o O, 1;701usiae, are
r` C! 7` ure strec7S.
37Ss
L6
O
O
37 Z
30' 20'
4= 903"
R= 20' T = 2003
L = 31. 45

53. 4
n
I
p 50. 08
64, 50 T 65, 00
O ` ao
25 26
o
o

64. 50
NOTES :

B. S. L. 1rXdicales BU11C 7g 5efback Line
lndlCGr es r1-7o1- 7urne1-71s found
o-- Indicates6" Spk T/i7 . 5&, i7 paver77en/
o Indicates monuments Set, 2 " I. P.
ndicates 2' x2" redwood stakes
N ! ndlcoies Monuments tied out.

65. 17-
V
v!
a
Q
00 0
m 0)
000
v
Q
h
Fa' 2' I P Plush Fd, PK f17
1-, S2386 no ref, of
Fd. not/ In Wood plug
in conc. pave per
C• S, F8. 273 P 41
Fo! PK. nail per
C. 5. F, 8. 2 73 P• 42
P, U E. Indicces Public Utility Easement.

Alphabetical Lots lndicate future streets.

C.5,F, B. Indicates County SurveyorsField Book,
77- acf has 68 Lots.

Lo;°.s• F' r°o O, 1; 701usiae, are
r` C! 7` ure strec7S.
37Ss

Page 524 ends

ss L r
Q0
C
h
O'
o
e
O
w
SHEET NO. 3
W
4 SHEETS
O
Jc
N 8-9053 1l8" w.
o
O
o
Hi
113. 00
Z
121, 00
I
610' o_
c)
Q
J
O viid, 0
6 e
I

3. 00
0 Oo
e 62
0 I
7 O
t
N
0 0
O
O
6/
O
1/ 3. 00
Q
0 0
0 9 _
O
i
V
I
0 0
o
I
0 0
I
o
O
113. 00
Z
k6 J
Q
I m
I
it
See sheef N° 4 adjoining 14 SHEET NO. 3
W
4 SHEETS
O
J
30'
N 8- 90531 l8" w.
o
O
N 89 ° 53' 18" W.

Hi
113. 00
Z
121, 00
I
610' o_
c)
Q
J
o°
I
I
6 e
I

3. 00
0 Oo
e 62
0 I
7 3. 00
0 0
0 0
I llj
6/
1/ 3. 00
0 0
0 9 _ o
i
I
0 0
o
I
0 0
I
113. 00
k6 J
I m

13. 00
it Iz- O
2 Ii
it
3 89 053118" w

13.00 rl
See sheef N° 4 adjoining 14
D
I
N
N
N
o
OF
5 O
O
Z
it
SHEET NO. 3
W
4 SHEETS
O
J
30' 30
o
O
N 89 ° 53' 18" W. O
Z
121, 00
I
610' o_
c)
Q
J
O O'
0 e 62
2/, 00
6/
D
I
N
N
N
o
OF
5 O
O
Z
it
SHEET NO. 3
W
4 SHEETS
O
J
O Z
o
O
O p
Z

0. a
Q
c)
Q
J
h
W ov
0 i
o
O
O
60 30 30'
I
TRACT Nom 6939
O
SHEET NO. 3
oOF 4 SHEETS
O
J
n
0)
1 y

0. a
c)
Q
a
W ov
O 1
J
n
o
c)
Q7. CJ. J IF.

IC=280'
v
lq' v I'

3. 7g
335. 00 so. o0 50. QO 4= /7 ° /6' Q j6' 4
N. 83 ° 53' 18 " W. 385. DO - T° '

7.96L 17 2 _ STi2FE T s 7s3g a Z
3 N. 89 ° 53' 18
N
W. 335. 00 a- 17 °16272

55. 00 69. 00 69. 00 69. 00 69, 00 7-; -
93 g0 N `
6 ", •
See She f N2 2 adJ011-7ing
4, 00 1-=

66. 30
LA25,
3) %
sry
006 6 248N Q
6, q8 O0
C
N,
I !
0)
49 ° 50 0 ° 52 53 0 o v ro5/ o
2' PU E. 0
53' 48" W, 334. 52 = p

69. 00- - 69. 00 -- 1- -

52. 52' / 6. 7 X80 ° / 3'/ j
V
2 10. 00 _ 65. 00 x. 65 -
679 / s737
ko
6 P_U. F. 8.

85. 00, W Q

89.39 NN
30 0
e0
Boa
29 ,
N
h
o
o °
28 27
60 ° Q = 05 , qg , W
W1
6h -
a ° 12 °/ 0' 36'
O
4= 1162247" + n 1-= 10. 63 /
L 6/ 2 Ip
L = 9, 93
0 01 \. 47 a' L= gg
5713 = Z \ a =69 °08'28 % c Q
N. 8-9- 5, 5105" W 87. 04 Q = 23 033' 23'' 8
i
p
5a 60. 00 N 89058' 0.5' YY. q 22 . 00 77. Sr.

MAG/ VOL1A STREET
s
I
Q
woo
t

Page 525 ends

SS L ' C
Fd. P. k. nail per ' rhact N°
3331M. S. 65, P2 3
O
Q
O
N
Q °
o
Z
SHEET NO, 4
TRAC T N®
OF 4 SHEETS
BEING A SUSD/ V /SION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS 3 4 OFSECTloN3, 7-13,,R7 W OF CUCAMONGA 1 LAIV, OS PER BDOK 4) OF MAPS, PAGE 9) RECORDS OF SAN BERIVARDI ND COUNT y, CALIFORNIA. - 6 North east corner of
North4 corner of
Section 3 T / S, R 7 W, S.B. M. 33' lV 3,3
section 3 T l S, R 7 W, S BM.

Of Cucamonga
of Cucgmonga Lands M.B. 4 P. 9
N. 8-9059' 08" W 1254. 82
294. 00

43. 00
so. iz 4s. es / 5400
a
I
4= 90 05 50 1 1R =20,00 T -20.03 , 1R= 20.00 T- /9.97oL= 31. 45 ° 6 31. 38 301
30'
68 o
o
aC N. 89 ° 53' 18' W. N. 89° 53' / 8 " W
13, OD N ( 121. 00
o
CO
y I ) N W
Co
N Q 0 0 c* Z I e
mo.

It
N. 89 ° 59' 08" W
93, 03
CZJo Ci
o_ PEPPER
N
i IV 89 ° 59' 08 " W, 143, D 49. 92
2 T i4_.

I5o. o8
o o TREE T
o Q N89° 5s' 08 " wo
I92. 97
cry
ono I
O
Q 3 N
o ° o
I „
h \ N. 890 53 18 W.
113- OD
o h Cl;
o o
Q O
T
N O"
N
o
o.
0 O
o
0 Z
LlnIO
o
p Z
113, 00 p
Q I
60'
N 89 l8" W ° 53'
o
Q
113. 00 30'
301
i I
Q) See sheet N° 3 odjoin1r- 1g
121. 00
M
2/. 00
65 2/. 00
64 2/. DD
63 N. 89 ° 53' l8"
121. 00
I
o.
jl
l
h
w
o° a
ro
o
O
I°
I Z
0 0
I
of
WA4
Q
N . 99059 ' 38" W 142102 -
269, 35 98. 11 13 2. 91
1p-
L 1NE Fo! l" I. P. flush $
Tag S.B.Co.Surveyor
1 1
v I
5 OF
pP
01 P
O
J
U
C/ lvcil Tog on
Gum Tree 5' up
L. S. 2386

4. aY
O
C
0 D
v
lz
v
V
M
O
to
0 O
O
Z
Q
C
Uj
Cv
a.Q
W
Q
Q
Z
Ck
Q
37 ss
91 s".
0 2
N. 890 59108., w 0
a0
0, 2294. 0/ 1
o
I
BB. & L. . / 5'-
4= 90 05 50 1 1R =20,00T -20.03 , 1R= 20.00 T- /9. 97oL= 31. 45 ° 6 31. 38 301
30'
68 o
o
aC N. 89 ° 53' 18' W. N. 89° 53' / 8 " W
13, OD N ( 121. 00
o
CO
y I ) N W
Co
N Q 0 0 c* Z I e
mo.

It
N. 89 ° 59' 08" W
93, 03
CZJo Ci
o_ PEPPER
N
i IV 89 ° 59' 08 " W, 143, D 49. 92
2 T i4_.

I5o. o8
o o TREET
o Q N89° 5s' 08 " wo
I92. 97
cry
ono I
O
Q 3 N
o ° o
I „
h \ N. 890 53 18 W.
113- OD
o h Cl;
o o
Q O
T
N O"
N
o
o.
0 O
o
0 Z
LlnIO
o
p Z
113, 00 p
Q I
60'
N 89 l8" W ° 53'
o
Q
113. 00 30'
301
i I
Q) See sheet N° 3 odjoin1r-1g
121. 00
M
2/. 00
65 2/. 00
64 2/. DD
63 N. 89 ° 53' l8"
121. 00
I
o.
jl
l
h
w
o° a
ro
o
O
I°
I Z
0 0
I
of
WA4
Q
N . 99059 ' 38" W 142102 -
269, 35 98. 11 13 2. 91
1p-
L 1 NE Fo! l" I. P. flush $
TagS.B. Co. Surveyor
1 1
v I
5 OF
pP
01 P
O
J
U
C/ lvcil Togon
Gum Tree5' up
L. S. 2386

4. aY
O
C
0 D
v
lz
v
V
M
O
to
0 O
O
Z
Q
C
Uj
Cv
a.Q
W
Q
Q
Z
Ck
Q
37 ss
91 s".
mo.

It
N. 89 ° 59' 08" W
93, 03
CZJo Ci
o_ PEPPER
N
i IV 89 ° 59' 08 " W, 143, D 49. 92
2 T i4_.

4. aY
O
C
0 D
v
lz
v
V
M
O
to
0 O
O
Z
Q
C
Uj
Cv
a.Q
W
Q
Q
Z
Ck
Q
37 ss
91 s".
o
Q
113. 00 30'
301
i I
Q) See sheet N° 3 odjoin1r-1g
121. 00
M
2/. 00
65 2/. 00
64 2/. DD
63 N. 89 ° 53' l8"
121. 00
I
o.
jl
l
h
w
o° a
ro
o
O
I°
I Z
0 0
I
of
WA4
Q
N . 99059 ' 38" W 142102 -
269, 35 98. 11 13 2. 91
1p-
L 1 NE Fo! l" I. P. flush $
TagS.B. Co. Surveyor
1 1
v I
5 OF
pP
01 P
O
J
U
C/ lvcil Togon
Gum Tree5' up
L. S. 2386

4. aY
O
C
0 D
v
lz
v
V
M
O
to
0 O
O
Z
Q
C
Uj
Cv
a.Q
W
Q
Q
Z
Ck
Q
37 ss
91 s".

Page 526 ends

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Mendez, Bond
To: Nakamura, Jennifer
Subject: FW: True Life Companies Project drc2024-00108/drc2024-00109/drc2025-00055 Date: Monday, August 11, 2025 3:46:59 PM

From: James Cordova <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 9, 2025 1:17 PM
To: Mendez, Bond <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: True Life Companies Project drc2024-00108/drc2024-00109/drc2025-00055

Good morning Bond:

We received the letter regarding the city council meeting on August 20. I’m just resending you my same concerns from the planning commission meeting.

Thank you,

James & Karen Cordova
9484 Alder St.

Dear Bond:

I am sending this email regarding theTrue Life Companies project on the vacant land at 9505 Baseline Rd. ( SW Corner of Baseline Rd. & Amethyst Ave, — APN 0208-432-16). I live at 9484 Alder St, on the NE corner of Alder and Ruby Ave. I know that the project will more than likely be approved at the July 23rd meeting, however as you can imagine I do have the following concerns since my family and I live on that corner. They are as follows:

1. Parking - We have both of the houses on Ruby Ave who take all the parking on that street already. I believe this will cause any visitor or overflow parking from the project to park on any open curb parking spots on Alder. I believe the project is way under parked even though it may be up to city code(s).

2. Since parking will be an issue, would the City consider implementing parallel parking East of the Bike Path to Klusman Ave. or back in parking like the City did for the Arte Apartments? Or permit parking on all of Alder St. between Layton and Klusman Ave.

3. I do have a concern about traffic going through our neighborhood as I understand Ruby Ave. will be part of the “Public” Paseo that cars will use as a shortcut to our neighborhood and Baseline Rd. Would the city consider making True Life, or whomever they possibly sell the packaged project to, install a remote controlled or loop controlled gate at the end of Ruby Ave. ?

Thank you for your time.

ATTACHMENT 8

Page 527 ends

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Best regards,

James & Karen Cordova
9484 Alder St.

Sent from Proton Mail
for iOS

On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 7:08 AM, Mendez, Bond <[email protected] > wrote:

Good morning James and Karen,

Your email has been received and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as part of the official record. To briefly respond to your questions ahead of the meeting, I wanted to clarify that all parking for this project is on private property only and there is no consideration at this time for street parking as that is an entire separate review that would need to have been considered and proposed in conjunction with the City for the use of public property. Traffic will be allowed to enter/exit from either Ruby or Base Line for the project design. As new communities/neighborhoods are built, the City requires as much connectivity as possible and as Ruby is currently designed as a stubbed street, the intent was always to have it carried through in the event of development. Access or controlled gates are no longer permitted in the city for “isolated neighborhoods”.

Just to clarify, the Planning Commission is not approving or denying the project, they will make a recommendation to the City Council and the project will be presented at a future public hearing. You will be notified again by mail of that public hearing.

Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thank you,

Bond Mendez, CPD (she/her)
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga │10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 774-4326 │ www.cityofrc.us

From: James Cordova <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 10:56 PM
To: Mendez, Bond <[email protected]>
Subject: True Life Companies Project drc2024-00108/drc2024-00109/drc2025-00055

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

Page 528 ends

Dear Bond:

Thank you for your time.

Best regards,

James & Karen Cordova
9484 Alder St.

Page 529 ends

Attachment 9

Page 530 ends

Page 531 ends

Page 532 ends

Page 533 ends

Page 534 ends

Page 535 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX
A RESO

LUTION OF THE C ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
SUBTT20708, DESIGN REVIEW DRC2024-00108, MASTER PLAN
DRC2024-00109, AND MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2025 -00055, A
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.3 ACRE LOT INTO 50 NUMBERED LOTS

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT

INCLUDING MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENCES AND LIVE/WORK UNITS

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND
AMETHYST AVENUE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERAL 3 (NG3)
ZONE (APN: 0208 -432-16), MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF,

AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15332.

A. Recitals.

1. True Life Companies filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20708, Design Review DRC2024- 00108, Master Plan DRC2024- 00109, and Minor Exception DRC2025- 00055, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred to as "the application."

2. On the 23rd day of July 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and adopted Resolution 2025-021 recommending approval to the City Council.

3. On the 20th day of August 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.

4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

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

2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on August 20, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to an undeveloped project site located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Amethyst Avenue; and
b. The project site is currently developed with a single-family home and accessory structures and has an area of approximately 2.3 acres. The site is approximately 240 feet east to west, and approximately 486 feet north to south; and
c. The existing land uses on, and General Plan land use and zoning designations for, the project site and the surrounding properties (relative to the above-noted parcel) are as follows:

ATTACHMENT 10

Page 536 ends

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site
Single-Family Neighborhood Corridor Neighborhood General 3 (NG3)
North Commercial Traditional Town Center Center 1 (CE1) South Single-Family
Suburban Neighborhood
Very Low Low (L) Residential
East Residential Care
Facility Neighborhood Corridor Neighborhood General 3
(NG3)
West Single-Family
Suburban Neighborhood
Very Low Low (L) Residential

d. The project includes the subdivision of 2.3 acres of land located into 50 numbered lots for condominium purposes, and the construction of 40 residential townhouse units and 10 live/work units, and a minor exception for a reduction in a third -story setback, and a master plan for site-specific development standards including a reduced floor area ratio, a reduced ground floor non-residential use height, a reduced ground floor transparency, and an increases primary building depth.

3. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map SUBTT20708 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Subdivisions Code Section

16.16.100:
a. The proposed subdivision, together with its provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General Plan. The proposal is to subdivide a property with an area of approximately 2.3 acres of land located into 50 numbered lots, for condominium purposes, for the development of 50 multi -family residences including 10 live/work units. The underlying General Plan designation is Neighborhood Corridor which allows for and encourages infill development with a mix of land uses. The designation is intended for the development of multi-family residences with a maximum density range of 24 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project has a density of 22 units per acre. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

4. The City Council hereby approves Design Review DRC2024-00108 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section

17.20.040:

a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan land use designation is Suburban Neighborhood Low, which permits the development of multi -family residences with a density range of 8-14 units per acre. The project is for the development of multi- family residences with a density of 14 units per acre; and

Page 537 ends

b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is within the Medium (M) Residential District which permits the development of multi-family residences; and

c. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project complies with each of the requirements of the Development Code except for the minimum required lot size as described in the staff report and for which is determined to be existing non- conforming pursuant to Development Code section 17.62 Nonconforming Uses and Structures; and

d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.

5. The City Council hereby approves Minor Exception DRC2025-00055 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section

17.16.110:

a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The General Plan designation of the project site is Neighborhood Corridor, and the zoning of the property is Neighborhood General 3 (NG3). The Minor Exception does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and

b. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The Minor Exception for reduced setbacks will not result in substantially larger units or buildings, an increase in lot coverage, an increase in density, or adjustments to the physical lot area of the site; and

c. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or accommodate unique site conditions. The proposed setback still provides adequate distance from the adjacent property owners and does not compromise the design of the dwelling nor the overall project. The portion of the units that will encroach into the setback with the minor exception is the stairway and a closet space which contributes to the interior use and design of the units; and

d. The granting of the minor exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct and access third floor living space and still allow for adequate distance beyond the first and second floors of the attached end units. This exception does not compromise the required setback of the overall buildings which will remain in compliance with the interior side yard setback. The development will be consistent with the standards and guidelines of the City. The setback reduction is unlikely to impact public health, safety, or welfare.

Page 538 ends

6. The City Council hereby approves Master Plan DRC2024- 00109 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section

17.22.020:

a. The proposed master plan is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan. The project furthers the vision of the General Plan and the Neighborhood Corridor land use designation which encourages infill development with a mix of uses. The proposed residential and commercial land uses will complement and be compatible with the surrounding area's character, comprising residential, retail, office, and commercial uses. Project development would also help implement and further several goals and policies of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, including the ability to provide complete places (LC1 .1), ensuring the quality of public space (LC -1.3), and the provision of compatible development (LC -1.11). The additional housing units will also assist the City in reaching its State housing Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) outlined in the Housing Element; and

b. The proposed master plan meets the applicable requirements set forth in this title. Development Code Section 17.22.020 provides the Master Plan as a tool for establishing site specific development standards for projects of exceptional design that cannot be built under an existing zone due to constraints of existing development standards relative to site constraints or the location of a subject parcel or parcels within the city. The applicant is proposing a reduction in non-residential FAR. Staff’s determination is supported by the fact that while the project is deficient in meeting the code required 0.4 to 0.6 non-residential FAR, the project proposes to still provide a cumulative 3,065 square feet of non -residential space. In addition to the reduced FAR, the applicant is proposing a reduced ground floor retail height from 12 feet to 10 feet, and a reduced ground floor transparency to 45% total. These deviations apply to the live/work building that fronts Base Line Road. For the residential rowhouse bu ildings, the requested deviation proposed is to increase the building depth from 50 feet maximum to 55’ -6” maximum for an enhanced design including wall and façade articulation and projections. In addition to Development Code regulations which allow a developer to establish site specific development standards by way of a master plan, the City Council has established that parcels which meet certain criteria, specifically for lots which are less than 3-acres and which are not located within a frontage overlay along a primary corridor, may be granted a reduction in non-residential floor area due to these constraints, on a case by case basis.

Staff supports the requested site-specific development standards. The project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial, retail, and office land uses that are readily accessible to future project residents and commercial tenants. Due to these circumstances, and despite not providing code- compliant nonresidential floor area, ground floor residential use height, primary building depth, and ground floor transparency, the project would also help implement the City's vision in the NG3 zone by introducing a medium-density (22 du/ac) mixed-use development along a pedestrian and bicycle priority corridor.

7. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with approval of the application. The Planning Commission and Planning Department staff have determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 - In-Fill Development Projects

Page 539 ends

for the following reasons: (1) the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designations and all applicable General Plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, (2) the proposed development occurs within the City limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, (3) the project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, (4) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (5) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

a. The General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation for the project site are Neighborhood Corridor and Neighborhood General 3, respectively, which permits the development of a mixed -use development of the proposed size and configuration. The project complies with the majority of City’s development standards and design guidelines other than those outlined in the Master Plan and Minor Exception sections of this report.

b. The project site is located within the City limits on a site less than 5 acres and is surrounded by existing residential and commercial development and City infrastructure. c. The project site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species as determined by the Biological Resources study provided within the CEQA exemption (Glenn Lukos Associates 2023).
d. The following are the four environmental factors that need to be analyzed in order to determine that the project, respectively, qualifies for the Class 32 Exemption:

(1) Traffic: The Trip Generation Analysis and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Analysis (Ganddini Group, March 2025) was prepared for the project which determined that the number of trips generated by the project would not create a significant impact. The proposed mixed-use project is anticipated to generate 322 total daily trips including 23 AM peak hour trips and 27 PM peak hour trips occurring on a typical weekday. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to generate 50 or more trips during the AM or PM peak hour and does not require a detailed Level of Service (LOS) analysis. Additionally, the proposed project satisfies the City - established VMT screening criteria for projects located in a low VMT area. Therefore, preparation of a transportation impact study with VMT analysis is not warranted, and the project may be presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. Furthermore, a New Roadway Connection Analysis (Fehr & Peers, May 2025) determined that based on the travel patterns for the existing surrounding single-family neighborhood, a greater number of trips would occur along the Ruby Avenue Street connection through the project site from the adjacent residents than those of the project site.
(2) Noise: A Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis was prepared for the project (Ganddini Group, March 2025). The analysis determined that the construction and operational noise and vibration levels would not exceed the City’s noise thresholds is expected to result in less than significant impacts.

(3) Air Quality: Based on the Air Quality Assessment (Ganddini Group, April 2025), emissions generated during construction and operation of the Project would not result in in the generation of criteria air pollutants that would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) significance thresholds. It was also determined that the GHG emissions

Page 540 ends

will comply with the consistency measures outlined in the City’s CAP checklist. Overall, all air quality and GHG impacts are considered less than significant.

(4) Water Quality: The project will include a Grading Plan, Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), and a Landscape Plan that will be prepared and reviewed for consistency with the City’s adopted standard measures and regulatory compliance measures. The water quality analysis determined that the project would not result in any significant impacts associated with hydrology and water quality during construction and/or operations. (Adkan Engineers, March 2024).
e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services as determined by the reviewing departments of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and external utility agencies.

8. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this City Council during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above, this City Council hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025.

BY:

L. Dennis Michael, Mayor

ATTEST:

Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 20th day of August 2025, by the following vote-to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Page 541 ends

ATTACHMENT 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION
OF NON-VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS FOR LOT C OF TRACT 6939, LOCATED AT THE NORTH END OF RUBY AVENUE.

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, pursuant to Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, of the Streets and highways Code, may summarily vacate an easement under certain conditions specified therein; and
WHEREAS, certain non-vehicular access restrictions governing Lot C at the north end of Ruby Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga were dedicated as shown on the map of Tract 6939, filed in Book 91, pages 49 to 52 inclusive of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County; and WHEREAS, these restrictions transferred to the City of Rancho Cucamonga pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8333(c) upon incorporation of the City; and WHEREAS, Section 8333(c) of the California Streets and Highways Code authorizes the City to summarily vacate (by Resolution with no public hearing) a public service easement that has been superseded by relocation or determined to be excess and there are no other public utilities located within the easement; and

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, as follows:

SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby summarily vacates non- vehicular access restrictions applicable to Lot C within said Tract 6939 located at the north end of Ruby Avenue.

SECTION 2: That from and after the date the resolution is recorded, said non-vehicular access restriction as described and depicted more particularly on EXHIBIT “A” and shown on EXHIBIT “B” no longer constitutes a public easement.

SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County, California.

SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution, and it shall thereupon take effect and be in force.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of 2025.

Resolution No. 2025-XXX – Page 1 of 1

Page 542 ends

Page 543 ends

Page 544 ends

DATE:August 20, 2025
TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Decision to Approve a Request for Site Plan and Design Review of 8 Single-Family Residences on 4.78 Acres of Land on a Previously Approved Tract Map (Tract 14644) at the Terminus of Camellia Court in the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone, Hillside Overlay, and the Equestrian Overlay; APNs: 1061-381-24 thru 31. The Project Qualifies as a Class 32 Exemption Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects (Design Review DRC2024-00174). (RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny Appeal DRC2025-00130 and uphold the Planning Commission’s May 14, 2025, approval of Design Review DRC2024-00174, for the construction of eight (8) single-family residences on previously approved Tract Map (SUBTT14644).

BACKGROUND:

Tentative Tract Map 14644 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, 1990, and subsequently the final map was approved by the City Council on July 18, 1991. Because recorded tract maps do not expire under State law, Tract Map 14644 remains valid. The map established the subdivision of the subject property into eight (8) residential lots and defined the alignment and extension of Camellia Court to serve the new lots. Since the final tract map was approved in 1991, no physical work has been done on the site, however it is legally divided into 8 lots with a cul-de-sac configuration.

On May 14, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider Design Review application DRC2024-00174, which proposes the construction of eight (8) new single- family residences on the previously approved lots. Prior to the hearing, the City received five (5) written public comments, which were provided to the Planning Commission and addressed in the staff report and staff presentation.

At the meeting on May 14, 2025, approximately 10 speakers also expressed concerns about the project. Following public comment and deliberation, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Design Review application.

On May 22, 2025, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission approval (Attachment 2). The appeal expresses both technical concerns and personal experiences that, in

Page 545 ends

Page 2 ends

2 9
6 1
the opinion of the appellant, were not adequately addressed during the project review process.

ANALYSIS:

The appeal raises several concerns about the potential impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood, including environmental effects, compatibility with existing homes, infrastructure capacity, public safety, and overall quality of life. The Planning Commission considered these issues during its public hearing and determined that the project complies with all applicable Development Code requirements for properties within the Very Low Residential Zone and the Hillside Overlay, including standards for building height, setbacks, and lot coverage.

As part of its deliberations, the Planning Commission also evaluated the visual and contextual relationship between the proposed homes and the surrounding neighborhood. While the City encourages new development to be context-sensitive, it is also guided by State law and the Development Code, which require approval of residential projects that meet all applicable objective standards. As such, the City does not have the discretion to deny or require modifications to a project solely because the proposed homes differ in size or design from existing development—provided the project complies with all objective criteria, as this proposal does.

The underlying Tract Map (SUBTT14644), which subdivided the property into eight residential lots and established the layout for the extension of Camellia Court, was approved by the City Council in 1991 and remains valid today. This map established the land use pattern and granted development rights for the site, and it is not subject to reconsideration through the current application. The Design Review application is limited to the design of the individual homes and the associated public improvements required for the previously approved extension of Camellia Court.

Staff has reviewed the issues raised in the appeal, many of which were previously addressed during the Planning Commission review process. The following discussion provides staff’s responses to the primary issues outlined in the appeal letter.

1. Neighborhood Compatibility – The appellant raised questions about the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing neighborhood, specifically citing concerns about the proportion of two-story to single-story homes, the number of bedrooms, and the size of garages. Staff has reviewed these issues under the applicable provisions of Development Code Chapter 17.122, which includes the City’s Hillside Development Regulations and Building Design Standards and has determined that the project is in full compliance with all requirements. In accordance with Section 17.122.010.A.1.a, the project includes 25 percent single-story homes, meeting the minimum requirement for single-family residential developments.

While the proposed homes may include more bedrooms and larger garages than existing homes on Camellia Court, the Development Code does not regulate the number of bedrooms or garage size in single-family residential developments. Instead, house size is regulated by objective standards such as lot coverage, building height, and setbacks—all of which the project satisfies. Additionally, the architectural design incorporates a cohesive palette of materials, consistent detailing, and thoughtful massing, resulting in a visually compatible development that complements the surrounding neighborhood.

2. Cul-de-Sac Length and Emergency Egress – The appellant is concerned that extending Camellia Court creates a long cul-de-sac with a single access point, posing evacuation and fire safety risks. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire District has reviewed and confirmed

Page 546 ends

Page 3 ends

2 9
6 1
that the existing cul-de-sac length and single access are acceptable and meet all applicable fire and emergency access standards. The project conforms to the lot layout and cul-de-sac street previously approved by the Planning Commission in 1990 and legalized in 1991. The current Planning Commission’s approval covers only the design of homes on previously approved lots; no changes to street layout or access are proposed.

3. Pedestrian Safety and Sidewalks – The appellant expressed concern about increased traffic resulting from the extension of Camelia Court, as well as the lack of sidewalks on the existing, developed portion of the street. While the project will result in additional vehicle trips, the extension was designed in accordance with City engineering standards in place at the time that the subdivision map was approved. Beyond this, the completion of Camelia Court as approved by the subdivision map in the early 1990s will improve circulation by eliminating the current dead-end condition. The developer is responsible for installing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters within the boundaries of the approved tract map.

Improvements to the existing portion of Camelia Court, which lies outside the project boundary, are not required as part of this development. All vehicles and pedestrians using the street will remain subject to applicable traffic regulations and safety laws.

4. Stormwater Runoff and Flooding – The appellant raised questions about additional water runoff and concerns of flooding for existing homes on the south side of the street. The development will include on-site drainage improvements designed in accordance with City engineering standards. The proposed stormwater management plan has undergone technical review and received preliminary approval from the Engineering Department.

5. Water Supply and Fire Protection – The appellant raised concerns regarding emergency water pressure dilution. As part of the project review process, water pressure and fire flow requirements were evaluated and determined to be adequate to serve the proposed development. The project also received preliminary approval from the Fire District, which raised no concerns regarding water supply or fire protection capabilities.

6. Equestrian Access – The appellant raised concerns regarding continued horse trail access across a portion of the project site that, while informally used by equestrian riders, is not designated as an equestrian trail on the approved final map. The original tract map, approved in 1991, extended the existing equestrian trail located behind the homes on the south side of Camellia Court around the project site, providing a continuous trail connection. The project does not obstruct designated trail connectivity.

7. Wildlife Habitat – The appellant raised concerns regarding potential impacts to wildlife resulting from the proposed project. By the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a biological assessment was conducted as part of the project’s environmental review. The assessment identified standard mitigation measures, including pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and burrowing owls prior to grading activities—measures that are commonly required for development projects within the City. The project site is privately owned and designated for residential development under the City’s General Plan and Zoning Map. No special habitat protections apply beyond the standard CEQA requirements identified in the biological assessment.

8. Construction Impacts and Quality of Life – The appellant express concern about construction impacts on their quality of life. Short-term construction impacts are temporary and will be regulated through conditions addressing noise, dust control, and hours of operation per City code.

Page 547 ends

Page 4 ends

2 9
6 1

9. Incorrect Parcel Number – The appellant contends that the environmental review was conducted on the wrong property due to an incorrect Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) listed in the Planning Commission staff report and related resolutions of approval. Staff acknowledges that the staff report included a typographical error. However, this error did not affect the public review process or the Planning Commission’s ability to evaluate the correct project site for the following reasons:
a. Public Notification – The public notice mailed to surrounding property owners correctly identified the project location by street name and included a location map clearly showing the actual project site at the terminus of Camellia Court. b. Site Posting – The required notice was physically posted on the correct project site prior to the Planning Commission hearing, ensuring that the public had the opportunity to view and verify the correct location in person. As a result, the public was aware of the actual site proposed for development.
c. Environmental Review – All environmental documents, including the biological assessment and the CEQA Class 32 exemption justification, accurately referenced the correct parcel and legal description of the property proposed for development. These documents were based on site-specific data collected from the actual project location. d. Public Participation – Approximately 20 residents attended and participated in the Planning Commission hearing, indicating that the incorrect APN reference did not affect public awareness or engagement regarding the proposed project.

Challenge Letter:

A letter dated June 14, 2025 (Attachment 3), was submitted by the Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter of the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), challenging the City’s use of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15332) for the project. CNPS contends that the site contains remnant coastal sage scrub vegetation and may provide habitat for the coastal whiptail lizard, a California Species of Special Concern. Based on these observations, CNPS argues that the project does not qualify for a categorical exemption under CEQA.

In response, the City’s CEQA consultant, CSG Consultants, issued a letter dated August 5, 2025 (Attachment 4), confirming that the project meets all criteria for the Class 32 exemption. Based on a detailed biological resources assessment and field survey, the consultant concluded that:
The project site is primarily disturbed and dominated by non-native and ruderal species, with no suitable habitat present for rare, threatened, or endangered species as defined under CEQA;
The potential presence of a SSC, such as the coastal whiptail, does not automatically preclude the exemption, nor does it satisfy the definition of a “rare species” under CEQA Guidelines §15380;
There is no substantial evidence that the project would result in significant cumulative impacts, wildfire risks, or other environmental effects that would trigger further CEQA review;

Page 548 ends

Page 5 ends

2 9
6 1
The project is consistent with CEQA’s procedural and substantive requirements for applying a Class 32 exemption.

Based on the consultant’s review, the City maintains that its use of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption is appropriate and legally supported.

Correspondence:

This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on August 6, 2025, the property was posted on August 6, 2025, and notices were mailed to 90 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on August 5, 2025. To date, staff has received two emails regarding the appeal and are included as Attachment 5.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The project site is currently subject to annual property taxes, a portion of which is allocated to the City. With the development of the eight single-family residences, the assessed value of the property is expected to increase, resulting in a corresponding increase in the City’s annual share of property tax revenue.

In addition to the long-term revenue from property taxes, the project proponent will be required to pay one-time development impact fees. These fees are intended to offset the increased demand for City services generated by the new development. The revenue from these fees will support a variety of municipal services, including library services, transportation and drainage infrastructure, animal services, police protection, parks, and community and recreation programs.

Overall, the project is expected to have a positive fiscal impact by contributing both ongoing and one-time revenues to support essential City services and infrastructure.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:

The proposed project supports several of the City Council’s core values, including the commitment to providing 5and nurturing a high quality of life for all residents and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere. By adding eight well-designed single-family homes on an underutilized parcel, the development contributes to the City's goal of responsible growth while helping to address the ongoing need for for-sale housing. The project represents a thoughtful infill opportunity that enhances neighborhood character and supports long-term community vitality.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Planning Commission Staff Report, Exhibits, Resolution of Approval & COA Attachment 2 – Appeal Letter dated May 22, 2025
Attachment 3 – Letter from the CNPS dated June 14, 2025 Attachment 4 – Response Letter to CNPS Comments dated August 5, 2025 Attachment 5 – Emails received from Ted Myerchin dated August 10, 2025 Attachment 6 – City Council Resolution No. 2025-064

Page 549 ends

DATE: May 14, 2025
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Jennifer Nakamura, CNU-A, Planning Director
INITIATED BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & DESIGN REVIEW – STUDIO ROCA – A request for site plan and design review of 8 single-family residences on

4.78 acres of land on a previously approved tract map (Tract 14644) at the terminus of Camellia Court in the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone, Hillside Overlay, and the Equestrian Overlay; APN: 1076-381-24 thru 31. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects (Design Review DRC2024- 00174).

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution of approval for Design Review DRC2024-00174, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.

BACKGROUND:

The related Tentative Tract Map 14644 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution of Approval 90-114), authorizing the subdivision of the 4.78-acre site into eight single-family residential lots and the extension of the public street, Camelia Court. The Final Map was subsequently approved by the City Council on June 3, 1992 (City Council Resolution of Approval 92-171). The current application pertains solely to the design and construction of the proposed residences on the previously approved lots. No changes to the previously approved tentative map are proposed.

The 4.78-acre project area, consisting of 8 individual legal parcels is located at the terminus of Camellia Court, east of Beryl Street. The irregularly shaped site measures approximately 350 feet east-west and 700 feet north-south, with a significant topographic slope of about 49 feet from northeast (2,179 feet) to southwest (2,130 feet). Vegetation along the perimeter is routinely cleared in accordance with fire protection regulations.

The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 550 ends

Page 2 of 7 ends

2 8
0 0
ANALYSIS:

Project Design and Layout
The project consists of eight single-family residences on individual, previously approved lots, all accessed via a previously approved extension of the existing public street, Camellia Court, in accordance with the approved final tract map. Although the final map was approved prior to the adoption of the current 200-foot lot depth requirement within the subject VL zone, each lot maintains a minimum depth of approximately 150 feet, consistent with the development standards in effect at the time of approval of the final map. All lots exceed 20,000 square feet in area, meeting the current minimum lot size required to keep horses.

Potential corral locations have been identified for each lot pursuant to Development Code Section

17.120.020-4g. Due to the significant grade changes at the rear of some properties, stairs will be constructed to facilitate access to the equestrian trail for maintenance purposes. For lots where direct equestrian trail access is not feasible, a shared access trail will be provided between Lots 4 and 5, ensuring continuous connectivity to the larger equestrian trail network.

Figure 1: Site/Landscape Plan
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Land Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
North Single-Family
Residences Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
South Open Space General Open Space and Facilities FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor
East Open Space General Open Space and Facilities FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor
West Single-Family
Residences Semi-rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)

Page 551 ends

Page 3 of 7 ends

2 8
0 0
Architecture
The proposed residences feature a contemporary interpretation of traditional architectural styles, blending classic forms with modern materials and detailing. Each home incorporates a variety of finish materials and color schemes to create visual interest and architectural distinction throughout the development. Building materials include stucco, wood-look cementitious siding in both vertical and horizontal applications, stone veneer accents, standing seam metal roofing, and frosted glass and metal garage doors. This combination of textures and finishes contributes to a cohesive yet varied streetscape, enhancing the neighborhood’s overall character and aesthetic appeal.

Figure 2: Colored Elevation
House Size and Configuration
The proposed residences range in size from 4,256 square feet for single-story homes to 5,584 square feet for two-story homes. The project includes two single-story and six two-story residences, meeting the 25 percent single-story requirement in accordance with Development Code Section 17.17.122.1-a. Each home is designed with a four-car garage that offers sufficient space to accommodate both passenger and recreational vehicle parking. The site layout has been planned to allow for the future development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on each lot, although no ADUs are currently proposed.

Compliance with Development Standards
The project was designed in compliance with development requirements for the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and the Hillside Overlay as outlined in Development Code Table 17.36.010- 1A (Development Standards for Residential Zones and Section 17.144.020 (Hillside Development) as shown in the following table:

Page 552 ends

Page 4 of 7 ends

2 8
0 0

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMPLIANCE TABLE
Development
Standard Required Proposed Complies
Density 2 DU/AC 1.67 DU/AC YES
Front Setback 42 Feet
Plus or Minus 5 Feet 37 – 45 Feet YES
Side Yard Setback 10/15 Feet 10 Feet/Greater Than 15 Feet YES Rear Yard 60 Feet 60 Feet or Greater YES
Building Height 30 Feet Max Less Than 30 Feet YES
Lot Coverage 25 Percent 20.9 to 24.4 Percent YES
Neighborhood Meeting
A neighborhood meeting regarding the design of the eight houses was held on January 9, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. at Floyd M. Stork Elementary School. The developer notified property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site in advance of the meeting. Approximately 30 community members attended, along with the applicant’s team and the project planner.

During the meeting, the applicant presented the proposed project and addressed community questions related to traffic impacts, cul-de-sac length, sewer connections, sidewalk installation, house sizes, equestrian access, and preservation of views. The applicant noted that the subdivision, including the street extension, was originally approved over 30 years ago and that the fire department had reviewed and approved site access at that time.

In addition, the applicant confirmed that the new homes would connect to the existing sewer system on Beryl Street. This extension will provide an opportunity for existing homes on Camelia Court—currently served by individual septic systems—to connect to the public sewer system.

Design Review Committee
The proposed residential development was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC – Daniels and Boling) on February 18, 2025. Staff provided an overview of the project, and the Committee raised questions regarding equestrian trails, overall site design, garage dimensions, and the project’s sewer connection.

In response, the applicant explained that equestrian trails would be developed in conformance with the approved tract map along the perimeter of the project site, with planned connections to the existing trail network. They also noted that the garages would be designed to accommodate

Page 553 ends

Page 5 of 7 ends

2 8
0 0
recreational vehicles in addition to multiple passenger vehicles. Furthermore, the applicant confirmed that the project is required to connect to the existing sewer system on Beryl Street. A new sewer line will be installed through Camelia Court, creating an opportunity for existing homes along that street to connect to the public sewer system.

Committee members expressed support for the layout of the residences on the approved lots and architectural design. Following the discussion, the Committee voted to advance the project to the full Planning Commission for a final decision.

Public Art
In accordance with Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code, residential projects with a density of less than four dwelling units per acre are exempt from the requirement to provide public art.

The proposed project has a density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre, which qualifies it for this exemption.

Environmental Assessment
Planning staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects, as it involves the construction of eight single-family residences on an approved subdivision of a 4.78-acre site.

The Class 32 exemption applies to infill developments on sites less than five acres in size that are consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning, and which would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.

To support this determination, a CEQA Section 15332 exemption report was prepared by CSG Consultants, Inc. in April 2025, an environmental consulting firm retained by the City (refer to Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption). Staff thoroughly reviewed the exemption documentation and concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts, including those related to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water.

The Planning Director has reviewed and considered staff’s findings and, exercising independent judgment, concurs with the determination that the project qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA.

Correspondence
This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on April 28, 2025, the property was posted on April 30, 2025, and notices were mailed to 90 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on April 29, 2025. On May 1, 2025, an email was received from a resident (Nicole Myerchin) which has been included as Exhibit E to this staff report. The email raised a number of questions and concerns which are summarized below with staff’s responses.

Page 554 ends

Page 6 of 7 ends

2 8
0 0

1. Neighborhood Compatibility. Ms. Myerchin disputes that the proposed development is compatible with the existing neighborhood, specifically citing the size of garages, number of bedrooms and the number of two-story to single-story residences. Staff has determined that the project complies with the Hillside Design Review and Building Design requirements of the Development Code. The proposed homes reflect a high-quality architectural design, featuring a cohesive palette, durable materials, and consistent detailing, which together promote visual compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The City does not regulate house size beyond established lot coverage and setback standards. There are no standards that limit the number of bedrooms or maximum number of garage parking spaces within a single-family development.

2. Cul-de-Sac Length and Emergency Egress. Ms. Myerchin states that the cul-de-sac is too long for emergency vehicle response and egress. The cul-de-sac extension was approved as part of the original final map in 1990, including review at that time by the Fire District, which has since reconfirmed emergency access adequacy.

3. Pedestrian Safety and Sidewalks. Ms. Myerchin expressed concerns about increased traffic resulting from the extension of Camelia Court to form a cul-de-sac, as well as the lack of sidewalks on the existing, developed portion of the street. The project will result in additional vehicle trips; however, the extension is designed in accordance with City engineering standards and is intended to improve circulation by eliminating the current dead-end condition. The developer is responsible for installing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters within the boundaries of the approved tract map. Improvements to the existing portion of Camelia Court, which lies outside the project boundary, and cannot be required under the nexus provisions of state law as part of this development. All vehicles and pedestrians using the street will remain subject to applicable traffic regulations and safety laws.

4. Stormwater Runoff and Flooding. Ms. Myerchin raises questions about additional water runoff and concern of flooding for existing homes on the south side of the street. The development will include on-site drainage improvements designed in accordance with City engineering standards. The proposed stormwater management plan has undergone technical review and received preliminary approval from the Engineering Department.

5. Water Supply and Fire Protection. Ms. Myerchin asks about adequate water pressure for fire protection purposes.. Water pressure and fire flow requirements have been evaluated and deemed adequate, as confirmed in a letter from the Cucamonga Valley Water District dated May 1, 2024. Further, the project has received preliminary approval from the Fire Department who has raised no questions regarding water supply and fire protection.

6. Equestrian Access. Ms. Myerchin raises concerns regarding continued horse trail access.

The letter indicates that equestrians may be accessing the Heritage Park equestrian arena across a portion of the project site that, while informally used by equestrian riders, is not designated as an equestrian trail on the approved final map. The approved trail network, as reflected in the final map, includes an extension of the existing equestrian trail easement located behind the homes on the south side of Camelia Court and routes around the project site. Although the approved alignment requires equestrian users to travel around the development, it maintains continuous access and does not obstruct trail connectivity.

Furthermore, the trail will be developed to all required city standards.

Page 555 ends

Page 7 of 7 ends

2 8
0 0

7. Wildlife Habitat. Ms. Myerchin expresses disappointment regarding the loss of open space for wildlife. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a biological assessment was conducted as part of the project’s environmental review. The assessment identified standard conditions of approval, including pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and burrowing owls prior to grading activities—measures that are commonly required for development projects within the City. The project site is privately owned and designated for residential development under the City’s General Plan. No special habitat protections apply beyond the standard CEQA requirements identified in the biological assessment.

8. Construction Impacts. Ms. Myerchin is concerned about construction impacts on quality of life. Short-term construction impacts are temporary and will be regulated through conditions addressing noise, dust control, and restrictions on the days and hours of construction activities per City code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

The proposed project supports several of the City Council’s core values, including the commitment to providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all residents and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere. By adding eight well-designed single-family homes on an underutilized parcel, the development contributes to the City's goal of responsible growth while helping to address the ongoing need for for-sale housing. The project represents a thoughtful infill opportunity that enhances neighborhood character and supports long-term community vitality.

EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A – Project Location
Exhibit B – Project Plans
Exhibit C – DRC Comments and Minutes Dated February 18, 2025 Exhibit D – Link to CEQA 15332 Infill Exemption
Exhibit E – Email from Resident dated May 1, 2025
Exhibit F – Draft Resolution of Approval with Conditions of Approval

Page 556 ends

EXHIBIT B
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

Project Plans

Page 557 ends

Exhibit A
Project Location

Page 558 ends

DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
February 18, 2025
7:00 p.m.

Tabe v
an der Zwaag, Associate Planner
EN
VIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & DESIGN REVIEW – STUDIO ROCA – A request for site plan and design review of 8 single-family residences on 4.78 acres of land on a previously approved tract map (Tract 14644) at the terminus of Camellia Court in the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and the Equestrian Overlay ; APN: 1076-381-24 thru 31. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects (Design Review DRC2024-00174).

Background:

Tent
ative Tract Map 14644 was approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, 1990, for the subdivision of a 4.78-acre project site into 8 single-family lots. The City Council approved the final map on June 3, 1992. The current development application pertains solely to the construction of the proposed residences and does not propose any modifications to the approved map.

Site Characteristics:

The

4.78-acre project site is located at the terminus of Camellia Court, west of Beryl Street. The irregularly shaped site measures approximately 350 feet from east to west and 700 feet from north to south. The site slopes from north to south, with elevations ranging from 2,179 feet at the northeast corner to 2,130 feet at the southwest corner, reflecting a grade change of approximately 49 feet. The site perimeter has been cleared of vegetation for fire protection purposes.

The
existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

Project Design and Layout:

The pr
oject consists of 8 single-family residences accessed via an extension of the existing public street (Camellia Court), pursuant to the approved final tract map. As the project site lies within the Equestrian Overlay, each lot includes access to an equestrian trail , accessible from either the individual lots and/or Camellia Court.

Page 559 ends

DRC COMMENTS
DR DRC2024-00174 – STUDIO ROCA
February 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

The subdivision was finalized prior to the implementation of the current 200 -foot lot depth requirement; however, each lot maintains a minimum depth of approximately 150 feet, consistent with the standards in place at the time of final map approval.

Each lot exceeds 20,000 square feet in area, meeting the minimum size required for equestrian use. The applicant has delineated potential corral areas on individual lots. Given the substantial grade changes in the rear yards, stairs will provide access to the equestrian trail for maintenance and usability. Due to substandard lot depths (under current requirements) and large grades, equestrian access on some lots will be provided via an equestrian trail between Lots 4 and 5, connecting to Camellia Court.

Figure 1: Site/Landscape Plan

Architecture:

The residences incorporate a contemporary interpretation of traditional architectural design, integrating variations in finish materials and color. Building materials include stucco, wood -look cementitious vertical and horizontal siding, stone veneer, standing seam metal roofs, and frosted glass garage doors. This modern take on traditional architecture blends classic design elements with contemporary materials and finishes, creating visually appealing and functional homes that seamlessly integrate into the surrounding neighborhood.

Each residence features a spacious four-car garage, thoughtfully designed to accommodate the parking of recreational vehicles, providing homeowners with added convenience and flexibility.

The inclusion of these oversized garages ensures that residents have ample space for vehicle storage while maintaining the aesthetic integrity of the development.

Page 560 ends

DRC COMMENTS
DR DRC2024-00174 – STUDIO ROCA
February 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

Furthermore, the layout of the homes has been carefully planned to allow for future expansion, including the potential incorporation of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). While ADUs are not part of the current application, the design accommodates their possible addition, offering residents the opportunity in the future.

Figure 2: Colored Elevations

House Size and Configuration:

The residences range from 4,256 square feet (single-story) to 5,584 square feet (two-story), with 2 single-story and 6 two -story residences, thereby satisfying the 25% single- story requirement per Development Code Section 17.17.122.1- a. Each residence includes a 4- car garage of sufficient dimensions to accommodate a recreational vehicle. Potential accessory dwelling unit (ADU) locations are indicated on lots with single-story floor plans; however, ADUs are not included in the current application.

Compliance with Development Standards:

The project was designed in compliance with development requirements for the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and the hillside overlay as outlined in Development Code Table 17.36.010- 1A (Development Standards for Residential Zones and Section 17.144.020 (Hillside Development) as shown in the following table:

Page 561 ends

DRC COMMENTS
DR DRC2024-00174 – STUDIO ROCA
February 18, 2025

Page 4 ends

COMPLIANCE TABLE
Development
Standard Required Proposed Complies
Density 2 DU/AC 1.67 DU/AC YES
Front Setback 42 Feet
Plus or Minus 5 Feet 37 – 45 Feet YES
Side Yard Setback

10/15 Feet

10 Feet/Greater Than 15 Feet YES

Rear Yard 60 Feet 60 Feet or Greater YES
Building Height 30 Feet Max Less Than 30 Feet YES
Lot Coverage 25 Percent 20.9 to 24.4 Percent YES

Neighborhood Meeting:

A neighborhood meeting was held at Floyd M. Stork Elementary School on January 9, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. The developer notified property owners within a 660 -foot radius of the project site.

Approximately 30 community members attended, along with the applicant’s team and the project planner. The applicant presented the project and addressed questions concerning traffic, cul-de- sac length, sewer connections, sidewalks, house sizes, equestrian access, and views. The applicant clarified that the subdivision was approved over 30 years ago, with the fire department approving access at the time of approval.

Staff Recommendation: Based on the project's compliance with zoning regulations, thoughtful architectural design, and future flexibility for ADUs, staff recommends approval of the proposed development. The project meets all development requirements and is consistent with the General Plan vision for the development of infill lots. Staff requests that the Design Review Committee consider the design (building architecture, site planning, etc.) of the proposed project and recommend the selected action below:

☒Recommend Approval of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant.

☐Recommend Approval with Modifications to the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be verified by staff prior to review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission.

Page 562 ends

DRC COMMENTS
DR DRC2024-00174 – STUDIO ROCA
February 18, 2025

Page 5 ends

☐Recommend Conditional Approval of the design of the project by incorporating revisions requested by the Committee. Follow-up review by the Committee is not required. The revisions shall be Conditions of Approval and verified by staff during plan check after review and action by the Planning Director / Planning Commission.

☐Recommend Denial of the design of the project as proposed by the applicant.

Design Review Committee Action:

Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner

Members Present:

Staff Coordinator: Sean McPherson, Principal Planner

Exhibit A – Project Plans

Page 563 ends

Design Review Committee Meeting Agenda
February 18, 2025

DRAFT MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
New Time: 6:00 p.m.

A. Call to Order

The meeting of the Design Review Committee held on February 18, 2025. The meeting was called to order by Sean McPherson, Staff Coordinator, at 6:02 p.m.

Design Review Committee members present: Vice Chairman Boling and Commissioner Daniels

Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner

B. Public Communications

Staff Coordinator opened the public communication and after noting there were no public comments, closed public communications.

C. Consent Calendar

C1.

Consideration to adopt Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2024.

Item C1. Motion carried 2-0 vote as presented.

D. Project Review Items

D1. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT & DESIGN REVIEW – STUDIO ROCA – A request for site plan and design review of 8 single- family residences on 4.78 acres of land on a previously approved tract map (Tract 14644) at the terminus of Camellia Court in the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and the Equestrian Overlay; APN: 1076- 381-24 thru 31. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects (Design Review DRC2024-00174).

The Committee members raised several questions related to trails, overall design, the interior dimensions of the garages, and the project’s connection to the sewer system.

The applicant clarified that equestrian trails would be constructed along the perimeter of the project site, with planned connections to the existing trail network. They also stated that the garages would be designed to accommodate recreational vehicles as well as multiple passenger vehicles. Additionally, the project is required to connect to the existing sewer system located on Beryl Street. A new sewer line will be installed through Camelia Court, providing the opportunity for existing homes along Camelia Court to connect to the sewer system.

Committee members expressed support for the site layout and architectural design. Following the discussion, the Committee voted to advance the project to the full Planning Commission for a final decision.

Recommended approval to PC. 2-0 Vote.

Page 564 ends

E. Adjournment

Principal Planner McPherson adjourned the meeting at 6:28 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant

Page 565 ends

EXHIBIT D
Due to file size, this attachment can be accessed through the following link:

CEQA 15332 Infill Exemption

Page 566 ends

Exhibit E

Page 567 ends

Page 568 ends

Page 569 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW
DRC2024-00174, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 8 SINGLE -FAMILY RESIDENCES ON 4.78 ACRES OF LAND ON A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TRACT MAP (TRACT 14644) AT THE

TERMINUS OF CAMELLIA COURT IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL
(VL) ZONE AND THE EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF – APN: 1076-381-24 thru 31.

A. Recitals.

1. Studi
o Roca filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2024-00174, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application."

2. On the
14 th day of May 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date.

3. All
legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B. Resolution.

NOW,
THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:

1. This C
ommission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.

2. Based
upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on May 14, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The 4.78-ac
re project site is located at the terminus of Camellia Court, east of Beryl Street; and
b. The
irregularly shaped site measures approximately 350 feet from east to west and 700 feet from north to south. The site slopes from north to south, with elevations ranging from 2,179 feet at the northeast corner to 2,130 feet at the southwest corner, reflecting a grade change of approximately 49 feet; and
c. The subj
ect design review is related to Tentative Tract Map 14644 , which was approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution of Approval 90- 114), authorizing the subdivision of the 4.78- acre site into eight single -family residential lots. The Final Map was subsequently approved by the City Council on June 3, 1992 (City Council Resolution of Approval 92-171). The current application pertains solely to the design and construction of the proposed residences. No changes to the previously approved tentative map are proposed; and
d. The exis
ting Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

Exhibit F

Page 570 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-014
DR DRC2024-00174 – STUDIO ROCA
May 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

e. A
pproval is for the design review and site layout of 8 single-family residences; and f. The pr
oject complies with each of the development standards for the Very Low (VL) Conventional Zone as shown in the following table:

COMPLIANCE TABLE
Development
Standard Required Proposed Complies
Density 2 DU/AC 1.67 DU/AC YES
Front Setback 42 Feet
Plus or Minus 5 Feet 37 – 45 Feet YES
Side Yard Setback 10/15 Feet 10 Feet/Greater Than 15 Feet YES Rear Yard 60 Feet 60 Feet or Greater YES
Building Height 30 Feet Max Less Than 30 Feet YES
Lot Coverage 25 Percent 20.9 to 24.4 Percent YES
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Land Semi-rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
North Single-Family
Residences Semi-rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
South Open Space General Open Space and Facilities FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor
East Open Space General Open Space and Facilities FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor
West Single-Family
Residences Semi-rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)

Page 571 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-014
DR DRC2024-00174 – STUDIO ROCA
May 14, 2025

Page 3 ends

3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The pr
oposed project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates t he pr
oject site as Semi-Rural Neighborhood. This designation permits the development of single-family residences at a maximum density of up to six units per acre. The project proposes eight single- family residences, resulting in a density of 1.67 units per acre, which is well within the allowable density range; and
b. The pr
oposed use is in alignment with the objectives of the Development Code and t
he purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The project site is situated within the Very Low (VL) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay. The Very Low Residential District is intended for single -family residences at a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, with a density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre, complies with the zoning district requirements and supports the district’s objectives; and c
. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code.

Located within the Very Low (VL) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay, the project adheres to the relevant development standards outlined in the code. All requirements, including those related to setbacks, lot sizes, and design standards, have been met ; and d. The pr
oposed use, together with the conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. A CEQA Section 15332 exemption was prepared for the project, demonstrating that it will not result in significant environmental impacts related to biological resources, traffic, noise, air quality, or water.

4. The P
lanning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects, as it involves the construction of eight single-family residences on a 4.78-acre site.

The C
lass 32 exemption applies to infill developments on sites less than five acres in size that are consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning, and which would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water.

To s
upport this determination, a CEQA Section 15332 exemption report was prepared by CSG Consultants, Inc. in April 2025, an environmental consulting firm retained by the City (refer to Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption). Staff thoroughly reviewed the exemption documentation and concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts, including those related to biological resources, traffic, noise, and air quality . The Planning Commission reviewed staff’s determination of exemption and based on their independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption.

5. B
ased upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

Page 572 ends

PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 25-014
DR DRC2024-00174 – STUDIO ROCA
May 14, 2025

Page 4 ends

6. The S
ecretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

APPRO
VED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2025.

ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:

Tony Morales, Chairman
ATTEST:

Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary
I,
Jennifer Nakamura, Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of May 2023, by the following vote-to-wit:

AYES: CO
MMISSIONERS:

NO
ES: COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT
: COMMISSIONERS:

ABST
AIN: COMMISSIONERS:

Page 573 ends

Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
The project shall comply to all the Conditions of Approval included in the Section 15332 Categorical Exemption Memorandum dated April 16, 2025 attached as Exhibit D to the approval for DRC2024-00174.

1. Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, request for a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.

2. www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 574 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials , officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees” ), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures ) (collectively “Actions” ), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions , related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit , action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve , which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.

3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet (s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction /grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect.

4. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval.

5. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.

6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.

7. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 575 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines ), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency.

8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards.

9. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs.

10. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners ' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Services Department and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes.

11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner , homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits.

12. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step -throughs in accordance with Engineering Services Department Standard Drawing 1006-B and 1007-B.

13. Where corner side, interior side or rear yard property lines are adjacent to local equestrian trails , construct minimum 6-foot high decorative masonry walls. Decorative masonry shall mean split -face double sided block, ‘slump stone’ or an alternative material that is acceptable to the Design Review Committee.

14. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter.

15. For single -family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.

16. www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 576 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services.

17. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control .

Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.

18. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.

19. Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance: (Subject to Change / Periodic Increases - Refer to current fee schedule to determine current amounts) Drainage Impact Fee
Transportation Impact Fee
Library Impact Fee
Animal Center Impact Fee
Police Impact Fee
Park In-Lieu / Park Impact Fee
Park Improvement Impact Fee
Community & Recreation Center Impact Fee

1. Standard Conditions of Approval
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.

2. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way.

3. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 577 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way:

City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District
San Bernardino County Flood Control

4. This tract is required to be annexed into CFD 2022-01 district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights, and appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582

5. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:

Street Name : Camellia Street
Curb & Gutter
A.C. Pvmt
Side-walk
Drive Appr.

Street Lights
Street Trees
EquestrianTrail
Note: Sidewalk to be constructed to property line adjacent.

6. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits , whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
e. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. f. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Manager prior to submittal for first plan check.

7. www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 578 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: “Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet ___ (typically Sheet 1).” Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans.

Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.

Construction Notes for Street Trees:
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.

Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.

8. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program.

9. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.10.

Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.

11. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Due to the type of construction, construction materials, the floor area of the project, and known risks associated with projects of this nature, a Fire Protection and Site Safety plan is recommended for this project. Fire District Standard 33-3 provides the elements of a Fire Prevention and Site Safety plan .

The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section.

1. www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 579 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
The site /project is located in the designated Wildland -Urban Interface Fire Area. Construction materials and methods are required to be in compliance with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, Section R337 of the California Residential Code, and Fire District Standard 49-1. Please include this note on the plans. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section of this case file in the Online Permit Center.

2. The site /project is located in the designated Wildland -Urban Interface Fire Area. Please include this note on the plans. A site -specific or project -specific fire protection plan is required for this project. The fire protection plan is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 49-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. The fire protection plan is required to be submitted and approved prior to the Fire District approving the project as a whole.

3. The site /project is located in the designated Wildland -Urban Interface Fire Area. Please include this note on the plans. Landscaping, vegetation management, fuel reduction, and other wildland fire safety features and practices are required to comply with all applicable provisions of the Fire Protection Plan and Vegetation Management and Landscaping sections
of Fire District Standard 49-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. A complete and approved defensible space plan is required prior to the Fire District approving the project as a whole.

4. The approved fire protection plan is required to be recorded on the parcel. Upload proof of recording to this project file and notify the Fire District of recording by sending an email with verification to [email protected]

5. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with noncombustible 4-inch tall numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry.

6. Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services.

The CC &R's, the reciprocal agreement and /or other approved documents shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways.

7. Fire Sprinkler System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system (s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services.

8. All requirements of the FPP or the RCFPD Standard must be completed before an occupancy release may be granted.

9. On all Site Plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site.

10. www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 580 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit
Standard Conditions of Approval
Fire service plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building Permits will not be issued until fire service plans are approved.

11. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow.

12. The Current editions of Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance, the California Residential Code and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in all Buildings with R and U occupancy fire areas. All structures must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers in accordance with NFPA 13D, 13R or 13.

13. Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the spacing and location of fire hydrants:
a. For single -family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area, the fire hydrant design & installation shall be in accordance to RCFPD Policies and Standards. b. If any portion of a facility or building is located more than 150 feet from a public fire hydrant measured on an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional private or public fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. c. Provide one fire hydrant for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow or fraction thereof.

14. Single-family residential sales model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water supply from a public or private water main system before construction.

15. Combustible construction materials, including combustible roofing materials, are prohibited from being onsite prior to a water supply system in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10 being provided in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. Copies of the Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section of this project in the Online Permit Center.

16. Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan.

1. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report.

2. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review.

3. www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 581 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits.

4. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit. All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the public right of way.

5. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.

6. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official.

7. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code.

8. Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Engineering Services Department an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.

9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit".

10. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan ) set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R 317.1(2) and CBC 2512.1.2/CRC R 703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code.

11. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

12. www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 582 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.

13. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).

14. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office.

15. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document.

16. The land /property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.

17. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any building permit.

18. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.

19. www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 583 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:

Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No .

R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:

Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements).8(Groundwater Protection):

Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater:
a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water quality objectives.
b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need for pre -treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration.
c. Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. ( NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as ‘ 100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics ), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes’).
d. Unless adequate pre -treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity {77}, areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic ); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular {78} repair or maintenance activities {79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does any vehicular repair work.
f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination.
g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells.
h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. i. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050.

20. www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 584 ends

Project #: DRC2024-00174
Project Name: Alta Loma 8
Location: 14644 TRACT - 106138131-0000
Project Type: Design Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:

Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.2 (Storm water drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:

Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil runoff on the site.

1. Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site.

2. Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter or similar disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga).

3. Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance.

21. RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE – Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.3 (Grading and Paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code:

Construction plans shall indicate how the site grading or drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering building. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Swales.

2. Water collection and disposal systems.

3. French drains.

4. Water retention gardens.

5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid in groundwater recharge.

Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path.

22. www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 12Printed: 4/28/2025

Page 585 ends

1 Dr. Azzawi
9176 Whirlaway Ct
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737
[email protected]
909-322-8273
5/21/2025
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City Council
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730

RECEIVED
MAY·-2 2 2025

CITY CLERK
ClTYOFRANCHOCUCAMONGA
Subject: Concerned Community's Appeal of the Approval for 8 New Residential Homes at Tract 14644/APN 1061 -381-24 thru 31-0000
Dear City Council,
I am writing on behalf of myself and our neighbors who are deeply concerned about the recent approval to build 8 new two -story homes at the end of Camellia Court. While we understand development is part of growth, we strongly believe that this project, as approved, could significantly impact our neighborhood's safety, environment, and the very qualities that make our community special.

In particular, I want to share a recent experience that highlights the importance of preserving what we love about our area. During yesterday's community meeting, residents watched and listened as four deer slowly wandered along the end of Camellia Court, right where children often play, walk, and explore. For many ofus, these creatures symbolize the connection to nature that we cherish -an experience that our kids will grow up without if more development encroaches on this land. It made us realize how precious and fragile our natural habitat is, and how development can threaten to erase those peaceful moments.

Alongside this, we have witnessed several dangerous traffic incidents in our neighborhood. Not long ago, a car lost control and ran through the comer of Camellia and Beryl, crashing into the house on that comer. Such incidents underscore the risk of increased traffic on streets that are already narrow, with no sidewalks and limited safety features. Currently, the small community has an average of just 3 cars per household, but with 8 more homes, this could mean more than two dozen additional vehicles crisscrossing our streets. That not only increases congestion but also the liability and danger for children playing nearby -the very reason we need safer roads and traffic calming measures.

There are a number of reasons this project should not be approved.

1. It is not consistent with the other existing housing on the street. The city just denied a neighbor the right to put a composite roof on his house because it "wasn't consistent with the design of the other homes". All the homes on the street currently have 3 car garages. The ATTACHMENT 2

Page 586 ends

2 developer plans to put in homes with 6 car garages...twice as big. The homes now are predominantly 3 -4 bedrooms. The developer's plans are for 6-bedroom homes, again, not consistent with the surrounding homes. Most of the existing homes are single story with a few two story. The developer is putting in all two-story homes with the exception of only 2 one story homes. If the city is concerned enough to deny one neighbor the ability to change his roofing material because it would lack consistency with the other homes, then the same rules should apply to the developer who should have to submit homes that are similar in aesthetics and size to the homes that already exist on the street, and not play favorites just because it is a developer.

Someone referred to the new homes designs as "garish". I agree.

2. Emergency egress and allowed length for a cul de sac. The length of the cul du sac would be extended to exceed appropriate length. Moreover, it would be an evacuation risk since there is only one way in and out via Camellia Ct. The traffic would double. Originally it was assessed as a fire risk and it required a secondary access road. The fire department has granted an exemption, which should be reexamined. Several years ago, when the· big fire came through, it moved fast. It looked like the apocalypse up here. Should there be another need for a quick evacuation there should be more than one small road to handle all the homes.

3. Extreme elevated risk to children and pedestrians. Camellia Ct has no sidewalks. Children regularly ride their bikes and play in the street now as it is a dead end. The developer shared that while he will put in curbs and sidewalks in the new portion, he will not be doing that to the entire street, so the children will have no place to play without a much greater risk of being hit by cars since traffic will double on this small road. The developer's mother suggested kids "ride their bikes in their backyards" as a solution. lfhe is going to remove their safe place to play and where pedestrians regularly walk their dogs, then he should be required to provide sidewalks for the entire length of Camellia Ct on both sides, so children and pedestrians can still enjoy the neighborhood they live in without fear of getting hit by a car.

4. Additional water runoff and flooding of existing homes on the south side of the street. While the developer has stated that the homes will capture much of the water runoff from their roofs, the field of dirt, which absorbs water, will be replaced with a paved street, which will not.

Camellia Ct has a grade and the houses on the south side of the street have driveways that slope down and already are subject to flooding as there are no drains. While the developer plans on adding drains to the new section of the development, he does not plan on adding drains to the rest of Camellia Ct, which will get increased water runoff from the paved street. If he is going to add risk to existing homes, he should be required to add drains to the entire length to help protect existing homes from the inevitable negative ramifications of his development.

5. Emergency water pressure dilution. The developer plans to add fire hydrants I assume, and sprinklers in the homes I believe. This may impact the water pressure and availability for existing homes in the area in the event of a fire. More and more homes are being added to the same source of water supply for our current hydrant system. There needs to be additional collection and reserves, so other homes aren't put at risk. This is a fire zone, and we all have seen the catastrophic results of a lack of sufficient water and water pressure in a large fire.

Page 587 ends

3 6. Horse trail access disruption. Currently, horses regularly are ridden to the arena via a dirt path that directly links to the wash. The new development will eliminate that path and require riders to either go around the entire development, or ride their horses up the street to access a way to connect to the wash. This is the equestrian overlay area where people utilize open space for recreation, hiking, horseback riding, etc.

7. Destruction of wildlife habitat. A family of approximately 14 deer have made the end of our street home. All of the neighbors love them. They add a tranquil beauty to our lives and often grace us with their presence in our yards. They live in that field along with sage grouse... adorable quail/partridge looking birds as well as hawks, owls, rabbits, raccoons, coyotes and more.

8. Added frustration, stress, aggravation, noise, dust and dirt/ Destruction of peace, quiet and wellbeing. During construction Camellia Ct will be a hellscape of large noisy construction equipment, constant clanging of hammers, nerve wracking incessant beeping of trucks and interrupted access to our homes, which will be constantly bathed in dust and dirt. But it doesn't end there unfortunately. Once completed, it will be a busy street with more people crammed into gargantuan houses...no doubt housing more than one family. The peace of living on a nice quiet street where we can escape the hustle and bustle and decompress in our sanctuaries that we call home will no longer exist. Our quality of life will be reduced and our stress level increased. No more will the wildlife grace us with their presence. No more will children play in the street and neighbors gather for block parties. The quiet that allows us to shed the stress of the day will be obliterated and replaced by psycho suburbia...the very thing we all wanted to get away from and the reason we chose these homes in the first place.

9. An incorrect APN# was given to the public. We met with a representative at the State of California Fish and Wild Life on May 22, 2025 and he said there is no record of any study done on the correct land in question. The APN number that has been posted is not in fact the proposed tract or lot of concern. That APN is a lot with built homes below the 210 fwy. The correct land has no ecology study that has been done.

I 0. The propose land was exempted by class 32 which we question for several reasons. Number one, the environmental study was done on the wrong parcel APN number. Number two, the contractor/ owner was allowed to use the bulldozer in the middle of the land before obtaining the city reports or ecology report. This resulted in destroying the evidence for the class 32 exemption. We urged the city to stop the owner in destroying the land and the evidence.

In closing, I know how this city works, and a resident asking for help is futile against any developer....they have the money and we are just the taxpayers, but if you are going to approve a development here, it should meet some very basic requirements of: consistent size and design of existing homes; the addition of drains and sidewalks not just for the new section, but for the entire street so kids can remain safe and people's' homes don't have an increased risk of flooding; a design that doesn't block off the current horse trail access, and preserves some open space for wildlife and recreation; additional emergency water collection and secondary access road to relieve some of the traffic flow and critical resource demand from little Camellia Ct.

Page 588 ends

4 The current conditions pose significant risks, and we're genuinely worried about what will happen if the additional homes are built without adequate safeguards. Our streets are already stressful for pedestrians and parents with young children. We need the city to carefully reevaluate the impact this development will have-and to prioritize our safety, environment, and community character.

I was recently in Santa Barbara. It was such a contrast to what is going on here. There was no new development, just so much green, stunningly beautiful open space with lush trees. No high density housing on every stitch of land. No, instead there were rolling hills with walking paths and the people felt different. They were relaxed and they smiled. City planning is more than just pack em and stack em. Good city planning has a huge impact on the psychological wellbeing of people. The psychology of how urban development is implemented should play a much bigger role than what it currently does in Rancho Cucamonga. Our streets, post offices, shopping centers, parking lots, heck the entire infrastructure wasn't designed for such a super saturation of housing. Traffic is bumper to bumper and now even people's homes are no longer a sanctuary to escape to. I urge you to reject this development, and at a bare minimum require significant changes to the proposed plan as it stands. If you get a chance, visit Santa Barbara.

You won't believe the open space and the peaceful feeling that brings. The value of a quality life is priceless. No developer's money is worth destroying it.

We love our neighborhood as it is-a place where children can grow up safely, explore nature, and enjoy a peaceful environment. We hope the city will act in the best interest of its residents and work with us to find a responsible path forward.

Thank you for your time and understanding. We look forward to your response.

Warm regards,
�lF '
Dr Azzawi
Community Group or Neighborhood

Page 589 ends

(i
Invoice Summary
RANCHO Studio

CUCAMONGA
ROCA Inc.

Invoice# 204637

Record# DRC2025-00130 - PC Appeal
Project Address: 14644 TRACT
Invoice Date: 05/22/2025
Applicant

Richard Ortiz
Studio ROCA Inc.

Owner
ALTA LOMA 8 LLC

Fee Item Fee Amt
Appeal of a Planning Commission $3,661.00

Fee Paid
$0.00

Balance
$3,661.00

GL Code
F001CC314RC43044403
Trans Code
Decision
Technology Fee $439.00

$0.00

$439.00

F020CC301RC43064403

General Plan Maintenance Fee $582.00 $0.00 $582.00 F016CC000RC43024403

Total Fee: $4,682.00 $0.00 $4,682.00

If this project requires a Contractor{s) to perform any construction work please be advised that all Contractors working within the City of Rancho Cucamonga must possess a current City Business License and CA State Contractor's License (with the appropriate licensing type based on the type of work to be performed) prior to pulling a Building Permit. Failure to produce this information will delay permit issuance.

www.CityofRC.us

Page 590 ends

1 June 14, 2025
Re: Use of Categorical Exemption 32 for Alta Loma 8 Project Submitted electronically to:

Rancho Cucamonga Associate Planner, Tabe van der Zwaag, [email protected] CC: [email protected]
Dear Tabe van der Zwaag,
The following comments are submitted on behalf of the Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter of California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) on the use of a Notice of Exemption for the Alta Loma 8 Project.

CNPS is a non-profit environmental organization with 13,000 members in 36 Chapters across California and Baja California, Mexico. CNPS’s mission is to protect California’s native plant heritage and preserve it for future generations through the application of science, research, education, and conservation. CNPS works closely with decision-makers, scientists, communities, and local planners to advocate for well-informed policies, regulations, and land management practices.

We respectfully provide the following comments on the City’s inappropriate use of Categorical Exemption Class 32 to bypass normal environmental assessment and disclosure requirements to develop 4.78 acres of natural land containing California native plant species which support natural wildlife including one documented Species of Special Concern (SSC) as designated by the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The City staff determined that this project “qualifies for a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects, as it involves the construction of eight single-family residences on a 4.78-acre site.”
This project is not exempt from CEQA for several reasons, but our comments will be limited to the following:

1. Class 32 specifically DOES NOT apply to infill projects if the “infill” project site has native vegetation and/or if the project site has rare, threatened, or endangered species that are being supported by the native vegetation (see 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15332(c)). In this case, substantial native vegetation (coastal sage scrub) is present and at least one rare species is known to be present and was documented by a CNPS biologist on 6/12/2025. The coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris subspecies stejnegeri) is a long medium-sized lizard and at least two individuals are present and occupying the project site (see photo documentation below). The coastal whiptail is designated as a Species of Special Concern Riverside/ San Bernardino Chapter
ATTACHMENT 3

Page 591 ends

2 by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and is included in the most updated version of the State’s special animals list1. Species of Special Concern are candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act and presence of an SSC automatically disqualifies the use of any categorical exemption under CEQA (see 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15332(c)).

Furthermore, impacts to this species and it’s habitat would constitute a “significant impact” under CEQA which requires the City to make a finding that the project is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and require the incorporation of avoidance or mitigation measures to offset the impact(s).

2. The use of Class 32 is also disqualified if there is a reasonable possibility that the project will contribute to cumulative impacts (14 Cal Code Regs §15300.2(b). Again, because project site supports native habitat consisting of natural plant communities, it is inferred that cumulative impacts should at a minimum be assessed and discussed as required under CEQA.

3. Courts have invalidated the use of Categorical exemptions for residential development projects in high severity fire zones (See Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 11) wherein potential impacts associated with wildfire risk must be assessed and discussed beyond what is required (or rather not required) under an exemption. This is especially critical given the catastrophic fires that were witnessed earlier this year in Los Angeles County. The project site is within the updated designated high fire hazard severity zone (see Figure 1 below).

In conclusion, it is unquestionably clear that Categorical Exemption Class 32 nor any statutory or categorical exemption for that matter can appropriately apply to this project as proposed. We request that the City re-evaluate its approach to assessing and determining environmental impacts for this project. We recommend that the City address the clear potential for significant impacts and incorporate avoidance and/or mitigation measures as it may relate to native habitat and the presence of sensitive species and cumulative impacts associated with removing native habitat.

Additionally and finally, we request the land owner immediately cease to remove native vegetation which is supporting rare animal species and nesting birds on the property until all CEQA approvals, entitlements, and permits have been issued. We request that the City, as the lead agency, enforce this request against the landowner. We documented the recent removal of several acres of natural vegetation during the bird nesting season within the project area, presumably conducted by or at the direction of the property owner. This is a substantial violation of the CEQA process and can introduce irreversible future problems with adequate evaluation and disclosure of environmental impacts related to the present biology of the project site.

1 CNDDB_Special_Animals_List.pdf

Page 592 ends

3 Figure 1. CalFire High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Project location circled in blue.

Page 593 ends

4 Photo Sequence 1. Coastal whiptail documented within mowed dead California buckwheat plants within the project site

Sincerely,

Aaron Echols, Conservation Chair, Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter, California Native Plant Society

Page 594 ends

“Responsible Planning Through Environmental Leadership” 2201 N. Grand Avenue #10098 | Santa Ana, CA 92711-0098 | (714) 716-5050 www.ELMTConsulting.com

August 5, 2025

CSG

CONSULTANTS
Contact: Kelli Allen
Via Email: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Response to the California Native Plant Society Comment Letter for the Proposed Alta Loma Residences Project (June 14, 2025)

The following responses address comments received by the Riverside/San Bernardino Chapter of California Native Plant Society (“CNPS”) on the use of a Notice of Exemption for the Alta Loma 8 Project in the letter dated June 14, 2025.

We appreciate the concerns raised regarding the City’s determination to apply the Class 32 Categorical Exemption under CEQA (14 CCR §15332) for this infill project. However, we respectfully offer the following clarifications and rebuttals in response to the claims made:

1) CEQA Guidelines §15332(c), states that a Class 32 exemption cannot be used if “the project site has value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.” It does not prohibit the use of the exemption for all sites with native vegetation or with the presence of a Species of Special Concern (SSC) unless that species qualifies as “rare” under CEQA.

Under CEQA Guidelines §15380, a species must meet specific criteria to be considered “rare,” “threatened,” or “endangered.” While the coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) is designated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as a SSC, this designation alone does not elevate the species to the level of a CEQA “rare species” or indicate that its presence necessarily gives the site significant habitat value under §15332.

Recent court cases support this interpretation. In Nassiri v. City of Lafayette (2024), the court upheld the use of a Class 32 exemption despite the presence of bird species listed as “Species of Conservation Concern,” concluding that such designations alone did not constitute sufficient evidence of “rare” species or significant habitat value. The court emphasized that the determination must be supported by substantial evidence—which, in this case, includes the City's review of the biological conditions of the site and expert analysis that the site does not support endangered, rare, or threatened species as defined under CEQA.

In accordance with the CDFWs Special Animals List (July 2025), coastal whiptail is listed as a SSC with a Global Rank of G5T5 and a State Rank of S3. The Global G5 ranking refers to the whole species (i.e., Aspidoscelis tigris) while the T5 ranking refers to the subspecies stejnegeri. The G5T5 ranking means the species is “ Secure” with very low risk of extinction due to a very extensive range, abundant ATTACHMENT 4

Page 595 ends

August 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

populations or occurrences, and little to no concern from declines or threats. The State S3 ranking means the species is “Vulnerable” and is at a moderate risk of extirpation in the state due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors.

Furthermore, SSC are not candidates for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and do not receive the same protections. While both SSCs and CESA candidate species indicate an elevated level of attention regarding a species’ conservation status, only candidate species are granted interim protections similar to those provided to listed threatened or endangered species. SSCs do not receive any legal protection under CESA. These are separate designations with distinctly different regulatory implications. The SSC designation is an administrative tool to focus conservation efforts and stimulate research on poorly known species, with the goal of preventing further decline and potential listing.

Additionally, the claim that the presence of a SSC automatically disqualifies the use of any categorical exemption is incorrect. CEQA does not impose a blanket prohibition on the use of categorical exemptions based solely on the presence of an SSC.

2) Under CEQA Guidelines §15300.2(b), exceptions to exemptions apply only when there is a “reasonable possibility” that the project will contribute to significant cumulative impacts. The limited scale of the project (eight single-family homes on an infill parcel surrounded by existing development and disturbances) does not constitute a significant contributor to regional habitat loss or other cumulative environmental effects.

Further, the site is located within a largely urbanized area, consistent with the criteria for infill development under §15332. The site does not support regional wildlife corridors or uniquely high biological diversity warranting a full cumulative impact analysis. The cumulative loss of native vegetation must be assessed in context, and in this case, the area is not part of a larger undeveloped habitat block. Therefore, no substantial evidence has been presented to support the claim that this project will result in significant cumulative impacts.

3) The case cited (Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (2017)) involved circumstances where the lead agency failed to consider evidence of significant fire risk and failed to apply applicable fire codes and mitigation standards. That case does not establish a blanket rule against the use of Class 32 in High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Fire safety standards will be addressed through compliance with the California Building Code, local fire ordinances, and Fire Department conditions of approval, including vegetation management, defensible space, and access requirements. These requirements are independent of CEQA and ensure that wildfire risks are mitigated at the project design and permitting stage.

CEQA does not preclude exemptions in fire zones; rather, it requires showing that the project will not result in significant environmental effects. In this case, no substantial evidence has been presented that the project will result in significant wildfire-related impacts beyond what is addressed through standard regulatory requirements.

Page 596 ends

August 5, 2025

Page 3 ends

4) CEQA is not an enforcement tool for pre-entitlement activities unless a project has been improperly segmented or implemented in violation of CEQA's procedural requirements. There is no evidence that the City has approved or directed unpermitted vegetation clearing in violation of CEQA. To the extent that any vegetation clearing occurred during bird nesting season, such activity is subject to separate jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Additionally, the City’s determination that the project qualifies for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption is based on the site’s environmental conditions at the time of approval. This determination relies on a site- specific biological assessment, rather than generalized habitat mapping or anecdotal observations.

Conclusion
The claims presented do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed infill project fails to meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines §15332. Specifically:

• The presence of an SSC does not automatically preclude the exemption; • The site has no habitat value for endangered, rare, or threatened species as defined under CEQA; o Based on the analysis above, coastal whiptail is not considered a “rare” species, and does not satisfy the §15380 “rare” definition.
• No substantial evidence exists of significant cumulative or wildfire-related impacts; and • The City has complied with all procedural and substantive CEQA requirements in evaluating the exemption.

Therefore, the City’s determination to use the Class 32 Categorical Exemption is consistent with CEQA.

If you have further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact Travis at (909) 816-1646 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Travis J. McGill
Director/Biologist

Page 597 ends

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From:

Subject:

Date:

Planning, City
FW: Opposition to the approval of development at the end of Camellia Court Monday, August 11, 2025 7:23:22 AM
From: Ted Myerchin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 2:13 PM
To:

Planning, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Opposition to the approval of development at the end of Camellia Court CAUTION: This email is from outside our Corporate network. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and can confirm the content is safe.

This is Ted Myerchin, and I am submitting my comments of opposition to the proposed development at the end of Camellia Ct.

Dear City Council and Planning Commission,
There are a number of reasons this project should not go through.

1. It should have a second access point if it is going to be developed due to the length of the cul du sac. The area is subject to fire, and it burned in 2003. For both safety and traffic reasons a second access point should be a requirement for that development.

2. Three children have already been hit by cars on the corner of Falling Tree and Camellia Ct since I have lived here. Seldom does anyone stop at the stop sign on Falling Tree where it intersects with Camellia Ct. With an increase in traffic and E-bikes, and no sidewalks on the existing part of Camellia Ct, there will be more children injured. That corner will be a disaster.

3. The quality of life for existing residents will be diminished significantly. There will be increased traffic on the small road of Camellia Ct with nowhere for children to play and no sidewalks on the existing part of the street to get them safely to the park as an alternative.

4. Disbursement of wildlife. There are deer that are frequently in that field and come in our yards.. People bring their kids from the surrounding area to see the deer, and they are important to the neighborhood. We also have owls, hawks, bobcats, quail, roadrunners, rabbits, coyotes and other wildlife who live in that field and that we enjoy having.

5. The length of the cul du sac will exceed both the city and county max cul du sac length, which is listed as 600 feet. From Falling Tree to the end of the street is already 460ft, and the developer plans to add at least another 500ft, which will bring it to 960ft.

Attachment 5

Page 598 ends

6. Houses are so large that they will possibly attract multiple families or Air BNBs, which will further increase traffic on Camellia Ct. Moreover, the size of these houses is not consistent with the rest of the street. The proposed homes are twice as large as the existing homes with six car garages (4 car garage plus an additional RV garage) and six bedrooms.

7. New home residents will have to put up with flies and odor of horse excrement as they will be close to existing horse property.

8. People living on the south side of Camellia already get water running into their garages when we get heavy rain. There will be more water running down Camellia if this development goes through, which will put those houses at a greater risk of flooding and damage since there are no drains on the existing part of Camellia Ct. The developer should not be able to make a financial gain at the expense of existing homeowners.

9. My daughter and I spoke with the developer a couple of weeks before he closed escrow, and he said he would hook up the existing homes on Camellia Ct to the new sewer line for half the normal cost, but he has already reneged on that promise.

10. Some of the neighbors such as myself have compromised health issues that will be impacted by all the dirt and dust that will be stirred up when they rip up the street to put in the sewer line. Cost to clean our homes and pools will increase during construction with all the dirt and dust that will be stirred up.

11. Since Camellia is our only way in and out, many of the residents will have their work impacted when the street is torn apart. My daughter works on a day rate and has a very time sensitive job where she has to be in Los Angeles in under two hours at any given time. If she is unable to meet that requirement, she will have to decline work which would be a significant loss in wages for her. Again, the developer's gain should not be at the expense of the existing residents, and he should have to reimburse residents who are cut off during the time the street is torn up.

12. The city is leaving no place for people to unwind and enjoy nature. The city is packing us in like rats.

13. The development is in the equestrian overlay, which is an area intended for homes with capacity to have horses. It is not an area that was intended to maximize the housing square footage so developers could maximize profits. With homes so large, once the new home owners put in landscaping and a pool, where will they put horses? In the six car garages?

When making a decision the city should do like Benjamin Franklin and weigh the pros vs the cons. I only see cons with this proposed development. This project has many more strikes against it. Three strikes and you're out!

SIncerely,

Ted Myerchin

Page 599 ends

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Nakamura, Jennifer
To: Nakamura, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Additional reason to reject the proposed development at the east end of Camellia Ct Date: Monday, August 11, 2025 2:50:00 PM
From: Ted Myerchin <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2025 10:54 PM
To: Planning, City <[email protected]>
Subject: Additional reason to reject the proposed development at the east end of Camellia Ct

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

The new notice dated August 6, 2025 has the same WRONG APN number as the original notice dated April 30, 2025 that Associate Planner Tabe Van Der Zwaag told us was a typo in the original notice. He didn't even bother to put the correct parcel number, and the parcel number listed on the notification is for an entirely different piece of land. I STRONGLY believe if this development is to go forward it should be reposted with the CORRECT APN number.

Moreover, a coast whiptail has been found and photographed on this property on June 13, 2025 by Aaron Echols the Conservation Chair of the California Native Plant Society of Riverside- San Bernardino, and it is listed on the "special animals list" for California. Therefore, this development should be denied because of this and all the other reasons we have expressed.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Sincerely,

Ted Myerchin

Page 600 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064 - Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL
OF DESIGN REVIEW DRC2024-00174 - A REQUEST FOR SITE
PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 8 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES
ON 4.78 ACRES OF LAND ON A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
TRACT MAP (TRACT 14644) AT THE TERMINUS OF CAMELLIA

COURT IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (VL) ZONE AND THE
EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF – APN: 1061-381-24 THRU 31
A.Recitals.

1.Studio Roca filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2024- 00174, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application."

2.On May 14, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution No. 25-014 approving the application and making findings in support of its decision.

3.On May 22, 2025, the City received a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving the application.

4.On August 20, 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga opened a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal, conducted the public hearing, concluded the hearing on that date, and adopted this Resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the application and making findings in support thereof.

5.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

B.Resolution.

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

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

2.Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on August 20, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The 4.78-acre project site is located at the terminus of Camellia Court, east of Beryl Street; and
b.The irregularly shaped site measures approximately 350 feet from east to west and 700 feet from north to south. The site slopes from north to south, with elevations ranging

Page 601 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064- Page 2 of 5
6 0
4 7
from 2,179 feet at the northeast corner to 2,130 feet at the southwest corner, reflecting a grade change of approximately 49 feet; and
c.The subject design review is related to Tentative Tract Map 14644, which was approved by the Planning Commission on September 12, 1990 (Planning Commission Resolution of Approval 90-114), authorizing the subdivision of the 4.78-acre site into eight single- family residential lots. The Final Map was subsequently approved by the City Council on June 3, 1992 (City Council Resolution of Approval 92-171). The current application pertains solely to the design and construction of the proposed residences. No changes to the previously approved tentative map are proposed; and
d.The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning Designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows:

Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Vacant Land Semi-rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
North Single-Family
Residences Semi-rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
South Open Space General Open Space and Facilities FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor
East Open Space General Open Space and Facilities FC/UC Flood Control/Utility Corridor
West Single-Family
Residences Semi-rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
e.Approval is for the design review and site layout of 8 single-family residences; and
f.The project complies with each of the development standards for the Very Low (VL) Conventional Zone and Hillside Overlay as shown in the following table:

Page 602 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064- Page 3 of 5
6 0
4 7
Building Height 30 Feet Max Less Than 30 Feet YES
Lot Coverage 25 Percent 20.9 to 24.4 Percent YES

3.Based upon all available evidence in the record and presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, the City Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, which designates the project site as Semi-Rural Neighborhood. This designation permits the development of single-family residences at a maximum density of up to six units per acre.

The project proposes eight single-family residences, resulting in a density of 1.67 units per acre, which is well within the allowable density range; and b. The proposed use is in alignment with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located. The project site is situated within the Very Low (VL) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay. The Very Low Residential District is intended for single-family residences at a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. The proposed project, with a density of

1.67 dwelling units per acre, complies with the zoning district requirements and supports the district’s objectives; and
c. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code. Located within the Very Low (VL) Residential District and the Hillside Overlay, the project adheres to the relevant development standards outlined in the code. All requirements, including those related to setbacks, lot sizes, and design standards, have been met; and d. The City Council has considered all issues raised in the appeal, including concerns related to neighborhood compatibility, environmental effects, public safety, drainage, infrastructure, and quality of life. Based on staff’s analysis and the evidence presented, the City Council finds that the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project qualifies for a CEQA Section 15332 Class 32 infill exemption, and the record demonstrates that it will not result in significant environmental impacts..

4.The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 – Infill Development Projects, as it involves the construction of eight single-family residences on a 4.78-acre site.

To support this determination, a CEQA Section 15332 exemption report was prepared by CSG Consultants, Inc. in April 2025, an environmental consulting firm retained by the City

Page 603 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064- Page 4 of 5
6 0
4 7
(refer to Exhibit D – CEQA Section 15332 Infill Exemption). Staff reviewed the exemption documentation and concluded that the proposed project would not result in significant environmental impacts, including those related to biological resources, traffic, noise, and air quality. The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs with staff's determination of exemption.

5.Based upon the findings, evidence, and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, the City Council hereby denies the appeal (DRC2025-00130) and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to approve Design Review DRC2024-00174 subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-014.

6.The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 18th day of June 2025. __________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
I, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of June 2025.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 604 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-064- Page 5 of 5
6 0
4 7
ABSTAINED:

Executed this 18th day of June 2025, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. __________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk

Page 605 ends

DATE: August 20, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Miguel Sotomayor, Principal Engineer
SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance No. 1045, to be Read by Title Only and Waive Further Reading, Amending Chapter 16.36.09 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and Adding Chapter 17.84 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Concerning Undergrounding Overhead Utilities and a Resolution Identifying the Locations Where Utility Undergrounding Is Mandatory and the Regions Where In-Lieu Undergrounding Fees May Be Spent. This Item is Exempt From the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). (ORDINANCE NO. 1045; RESOLUTION NO. 2025-067) (CITY)
RECOMMENDATION:

Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the Council:

1.Introduce Ordinance No. 1045 entitled “An Ordinance of The City Council of The City of Rancho Cucamonga, Amending Chapter 16.36.09 of The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and Adding Chapter 17.84 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Concerning Undergrounding Overhead Utilities, and Making A Determination of Exemption from CEQA”, waive full reading and read by title only; and

2.Adopt the attached resolution identifying Undergrounding Regions and Focus Areas Ineligible for Exemption under Ordinance No. 1045.

BACKGROUND:

On June 10, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Resolution 87-96, establishing a revised policy for the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities and repealing Resolution 86-77, which was adopted on May 28, 1986.

At the time of adoption of these resolutions, the Planning Commission wished to remove unsightly existing overhead utility lines in order to promote a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment. Resolution 87-96 was necessary to establish a policy to inform property owners and developers of the City goal. The resolution established that all developments, except those listed in the resolution and others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be

Page 606 ends

Page 2 ends

2 9
6 8
responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines, including the removal of the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development.

Resolution 87-96 required developers to underground utility lines along their project frontage at their own expense. In certain circumstances, developers are required to pay an in-lieu fee. The resolution also stipulates that developers are eligible for reimbursement of half the undergrounding costs from future developments on the opposite side of the street.

Additionally, Resolution 87-96 addresses the handling of utility lines on the opposite side of the proposed development, particularly when utility lines are present on both sides of the street. It further specifies requirements for poles containing 66KV or larger electrical lines, defines the limits of responsibility, and details the in-lieu fee amount and applicable exemptions.

Furthermore, Chapter 16.36.09 of the municipal code requires undergrounding for all subdivisions and allows the City Council to accept an in-lieu fee of the undergrounding of existing facilities along peripheral streets. However, the current code does not permit the acceptance of in-lieu fees for new residential subdivisions, which limits the flexibility and financial options available for these projects. The proposed amendment will allow in-lieu fees for all project types as determined by the City Engineer.

Since the adoption of Resolution 87-96, staff has successfully conditioned projects to either underground utility lines or pay an in-lieu fee. This initiative has led to the undergrounding of many areas, significantly improving the aesthetic by removing unsightly overhead utilities.

On July 23, 2025, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment to the Undergrounding of Overhead Utilities Code. A copy of the staff report outlining the proposed amendment in more detail is on file with the City Clerk’s office. A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes is also on file with the City Clerk’s office. There were no comments from the public at the hearing. However, the day of the public hearing the City received a letter from Esoteric Homes in support of the code amendment.

The Planning Commission unanimously repealed Resolution No. 87-96 and recommended approval of the amendment to the City Council.

ANALYSIS:

As part of this code update, staff analyzed the current resolution and municipal code requirements for undergrounding of overhead utilities and determined updates were required to further clarify and update to meet the City’s vision, goals and policies. This update will clarify the requirements for undergrounding of overhead utilities and continue to improve the area by removing unsightly overhead utilities while recognizing and respecting the character of established neighborhoods and the minimizing impacts that such requirements may have on in-fill development costs and timelines.

Proposed Code Update Summary
The proposed code update specifies the timeline for completing required undergrounding.

Undergrounding must be completed before the acceptance of related street improvements or, if no street improvements are required, before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

The proposed update shifts the authority to determine the impracticality of undergrounding from the Planning Commission to the City Engineer. This change is important for several reasons:

Page 607 ends

Page 3 ends

2 9
6 8
Streamlined Decision Making: By aligning the decision-making authority with the City Engineer, the process becomes more efficient. The City Engineer is directly involved in the entitlement process and the issuance of conditions of approval, which means decisions regarding the impracticality of undergrounding can be made more swiftly and in conjunction with other project considerations.
Consistency and Coordination: Centralizing this authority with the City Engineer promotes consistency in decision-making. It ensures that all determinations regarding undergrounding impracticality are made using the same criteria and standards, reducing the potential for discrepancies and ensuring a uniform approach across different projects. Enhanced Project Management: Integrating this decision within the technical review of the entitlement process allows for better coordination and management of projects. The City Engineer can assess the impracticality of undergrounding in the context of the overall project plan, leading to well-integrated infrastructure solutions. Improved Responsiveness: The City Engineer's involvement from the beginning of the project allows for more responsive and adaptive decision-making. As conditions and project requirements evolve, the City Engineer can quickly reassess and adjust determinations regarding undergrounding, ensuring that the city's infrastructure goals are met without unnecessary delays.

In-Lieu Fee Calculations:

The update clarifies the calculation of in-lieu fees, requiring a qualified engineer registered in California to prepare the cost estimate. Once approved by the City Engineer, this estimate will determine the in-lieu fee required from the developer.

In-Lieu Fee Expenditure:

The update now includes a section for where the in-lieu fees shall be spent. The proposed regions are specified in the attached resolution (Attachment 1). Once the City has collected sufficient funds from in-lieu fees within a region, the City may underground a section of utility lines within that region. Staff will coordinate with the Finance Department to evaluate the allocation of previously collected in-lieu fees, ensuring that the use of these funds aligns with fiscal responsibility and established City priorities.

Exemptions and Focus Areas:

The Exemptions section has been updated to exclude exemption from undergrounding requirements any project in a specific plan or master plan adopted by the City Council and Focus Areas as defined in the General Plan and identified in a resolution adopted by the City Council.

Given the nature of change envisioned for these focus areas, staff recommends that developments within the areas be required to undergo undergrounding to ensure maintaining of the community’s vision for these areas. The Focus Areas include:

Focus Area 1: Downtown Rancho Cucamonga (Victoria Gardens & Epicenter) Focus Area 2: Civic Center
Focus Area 3: HART District
Focus Area 8: Southeast Industrial Area

Page 608 ends

Page 4 ends

2 9
6 8
Additionally, the exemption for undergrounding for residential subdivisions has been expanded from four to ten single-family residential parcels, provided utility lines extend at least 600 feet offsite from both project boundaries. This change aims to make development more feasible for these smaller projects.

Appeal Process:

A new section has been introduced to establish a clear procedure for applicants to appeal the undergrounding requirements or the calculation of the in-lieu fee. Under this process, applicants may submit a written appeal detailing the grounds for their request, specifically citing why utility undergrounding is deemed unreasonable or impractical, or why the in-lieu fee was calculated in error.

To initiate an appeal, the applicant must file a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 20 calendar days from the date on which the City Engineer’s decision was rendered and fee was paid. The City Council shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such appeal. The City Council shall have all authority to determine all questions raised on such appeal and City Council determinations are final.

In order to allow development projects already deemed complete or that have received entitlements that are subject to the current undergrounding requirements, the Ordinance also provides an opportunity for developers to request review of their project by the City Engineer and City Planner under the updated parameters of Ordinance No. 1045. Following review, the City Engineer and City Planner will issue a determination letter detailing changes approved for existing undergounding conditions to align them with the new requirements (e.g., exemption or eligibility for in-lieu payment).

Environmental Analysis
Staff has determined that the proposed code amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15378(a), the proposed Amendments are not considered a “Project” under CEQA because it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. This is due to the fact that the amendments do not change any practice or procedure, but rather clarify and codify existing practice.

Furthermore, the proposed Amendments are exempt from the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment because most new development in the City is required to underground utilities along their frontage and this does not change that requirement. Furthermore, the Amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(c) which exempts from review the replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving a negligible or no expansion of capacity. For existing utility systems that are required to be placed underground, there will be a negligible or no expansion of capacity.

Additionally, the Amendments are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(d) which exempts from review the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity replaced including conversion of overhead electric utility distribution facilities to underground including connection to existing overhead

Page 609 ends

Page 5 ends

2 9
6 8
electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the undergrounding. For any new development where the undergrounding of utilities is required, the adoption of this Amendments are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(d) which exempts from review the construction of and location of new small facilities and structures including water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the City Council’s core values by promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all, and by providing continuous improvement through the construction of high-quality public improvements.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Resolution No. 2025-067
Attachment 2 - Undergrounding Ordinance No. 1045

Page 610 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2025-067 - Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-067

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO

CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE LOCATIONS

WHERE UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING IS MANDATORY AND THE

REGIONS WHERE IN-LIEU UNDERGROUNDING FEES MAY BE
SPENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 17.84 OF THE RANCHO

CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1045 added Chapter 17.84 to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code in order to establish requirements for undergrounding overhead utility lines for new development and redevelopment projects; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.84.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code authorizes developers to pay a fee in lieu of undergrounding overhead utility lines where the City Engineer determines, based on certain findings, that utility undergrounding is impractical; and WHEREAS, Section 17.84.060.B. states that an exemption from the undergrounding requirement may not be approved, and an in-lieu fee is not permitted, in General Plan Focus Areas shown in a resolution approved by the City Council and any specific plan or master plan adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.84.070 states that any in-lieu fees collected for utility undergrounding must be spent in the region in which the development from which the funds were collected is located, as identified in a map approved by the City Council.

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

Section 1.Pursuant to Section 1.84.060.B. of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the City Council hereby adopts the map set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto showing the General Plan Focus Areas where an exemption from the utility undergrounding requirement is not applicable.

Section 2.Pursuant to Section 1.84.070 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the City Council hereby adopts the map set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto showing the regions in which in-lieu fees may be spent based upon the location of the development that genereted such funds.

Section 3.The City Council finds that the establishment of the maps set forth herein is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that such maps would not have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code Sec. 15061(b)(3)).

This is because the maps merely clarify the areas already outlined by the City Council in Ordinance No. 1045 and are not intended to expand or authorize any new development.

Section 4.If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Resolution would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitution Section 5.The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Page 611 ends

Resolution No. 2025-067 - Page 2 of 3
6 0
5 6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 20th day of August 2025.

Page 612 ends

Resolution No. 2025-067 - Page 3 of 3
6 0
5 6

EXHIBIT A
Map of Mandatory Utility Undergrounding Areas
And
Map of Regions Where In-Lieu Fees May Be Spent

Page 613 ends

Resolution No. 2025-067 - Page 4 of 3
6 0
5 6
REGION 1 REGION 2
REGION 3
REGION 4
REGION 5
REGION 6
FOCUS
AREA
1 FOCUS
AREA
2 FOCUS
AREA
3 FOCUS
AREA
8

Page 614 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1 of 5 ends

ORDINANCE NO. 1045

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 16.36.09

OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING CHAPTER 17.84 TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA

MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING UNDERGROUNDING

OVERHEAD UTILITIES, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION

OF EXEMPTION FROM CEQA
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby ordains as follows:

Section 1. Adoption of Chapter 17.84. Chapter 17.84 (“Underground Utilities”) of Article IV (“Site Development Provisions”) of Title 17 (“Development Code”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby added to read in full as follows:
“17.84 Underground Utilities.

17.84.010. Undergrounding Utilities. Except as provided in Section 17.84.060 or where payment of an in-lieu fee is authorized, all new and existing overhead utility lines shall be installed underground in conjunction with any development, including the removal of the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of the development as provided in this Chapter, at the applicant’s expense.

A. Arrangements, including the payment of all costs for undergrounding, shall be made by the applicant with the serving utilities.

B. Undergrounding shall be completed:

1. Prior to the acceptance of related street improvements; or

2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy if no related street improvements are required.

17.84.020. In-Lieu Fee. In those circumstances where the City Engineer decides that undergrounding is impractical, the applicant may satisfy the undergrounding requirement by paying an in-lieu fee in accordance with the formula set forth in Section 17.84.050. The in-lieu fee shall be paid to the city prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, or building permit, whichever occurs first. The City Engineer may determine undergrounding is impractical if any of the following conditions exist:

A. The length of the lines to be places underground will be less than three hundred (300) feet and the utility lines have not been placed underground on any property abutting the subject property;

Page 615 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

6 0
1 8
B. Severe disruption to existing off-site improvements or heavy congestion of utility lines would make impractical service to properties under separate ownership; or
C. Any other condition that City Engineer finds exists and will make undergrounding impractical.

17.84.030. Poles Containing 66KV or Larger Electrical Lines. 66KV or larger electrical lines shall not be undergrounded unless the City Engineer and applicant agree to do so.

17.84.040. Limits of Responsibility. Undergrounding shall include the development’s entire frontage and extend to: (i) the first existing pole off-site from the development’s boundaries (across the street for corner properties), (ii) a new pole erected at a development’s boundary (across the street for corner properties), or (iii) an existing pole within five feet of a development’s boundary, except a corner.

17.84.050. Fee Amount. The in-lieu fee amount shall be equal to the amount identified in a detailed project specific construction cost estimate approved by the City Engineer and prepared by a qualified engineer registered in the State of California. The cost for preparation of the required construction cost estimate shall be borne by the applicant.

17.84.060. Exemptions.

A. The following developments shall be exempt from undergrounding utility lines as required by this Chapter:

1. The addition of functional equipment to existing developments, such as: loading docks, silos, satellite dishes, antennas, water tanks, air conditioners, cooling towers, enclosures of outdoor storage area, parking and loading area, block walls and fences, etc.

2. Building additions or new free standing buildings of less than 25% of the floor area of the existing building(s) on the same assessor’s parcel, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less.

3. Exterior upgrading or repair of existing developments, such as:
reroofing, addition of trellis, awnings, landscaping, equipment screening, repainting and exterior finishes, etc.

4. Interior tenant improvements and non-construction CUPs.

5. Projects consisting of the construction of one (1) single family residence on an existing parcel.

Page 616 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

6 0
1 8

6. Existing overhead utility lines located in public and private rights- of way, including but not limited to streets, trails, alleys, and utility easements where heavy congestion of utility lines would make impractical service to properties under separate ownership.

7. Residential subdivisions of ten or fewer single family residential parcels, where utility lines extend at least 600 feet offsite from both project boundaries.

8. Where otherwise preempted by state law.

B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, there is no exemption to the requirement to underground overhead utilities under this Chapter for projects within the boundaries of:

1. (i) General Plan Focus Area 1: Downtown Rancho Cucamonga (Victoria Gardens & Epicenter); (ii) General Plan Focus Area 2:

Civic Center; (iii) General Plan Focus Area 3: HART District; and (iv) General Plan Focus Area 8: Southeast Industrial Area, as all such focus areas are defined by the general plan and shown in a resolution approved by the City Council.

2. Any specific plan or master plan adopted by the City Council.

17.84.070. In-Lieu Fee Expenditure.

A. Funds collected from in-lieu fees shall be spent in the region in which the development from which the funds were collected is located. For purposes of this Chapter, the regions shall be identified in a map that is approved by the Council in a resolution and the official copy shall be on file in the Engineering Division.

B. Once the City has collected sufficient funds from in-lieu fees within a region to underground a section of utility lines, the City may underground a section of utility lines within that region.

17.84.080. Appeals.

A. An applicant adversely affected by the City Engineer’s determination that undergrounding is or is not impractical pursuant to Section

17.84.020 or contesting the amount of the in-lieu fee may appeal such determinations to the City Council.

B. All appeals shall be in writing and shall state the reason why utility undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical or the in-lieu fee was unreasonable or erroneously calculated. Appeals in instances finding undergrounding is not impractical shall include a preliminary estimate of cost, in writing, from the serving utilities.

Page 617 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

6 0
1 8
C. An applicant may initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within 20 days after the date on which the City Engineer takes the action appealed from and paying the applicable fee, which shall be set by resolution.

D. The City Council shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such appeal. The City Clerk shall give notice to the appellant of the time and place of hearing by serving the notice personally or by depositing it in the United States Post Office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such persons at their last known addresses.

E. The City Council shall have the authority to determine all questions raised on such appeal.

F. City Council determinations are final.”
Section 2. Amendment of Chapter 16.39.090. Chapter 16.36.090 (“Required Improvements; Utilities”) of Title 16 (“Subdivisions”) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as set forth below.
“16.36.090 Required improvements; utilities.

All new and existing overhead utility lines are subject to and shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 17.84 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.” Section 3.The development code amendment set forth in Section 1 above generally requiring the undergrounding of new utility facilities in new development, with certain exceptions, is consistent with the general plan, including for example, Goal S-5.6 which provides: “Underground Utilities. Promote under-grounding of utilities for new development, major remodels, and redevelopment.”
Section 4.Repeal of Planning Commission Resolution 87-96. Upon the date that this Ordinance takes effect, Planning Commission Resolution 87-96 and related policies of the City’s Engineering Division with conflicting processes for undergrounding utility lines in developments are hereby repealed.

Section 5.Projects deemed complete or entitled as of the effective date of this Ordinance that have not implemented their undergrounding requirements specified in applicable entitlement conditions of approval may request review of such conditions by the Engineering Director and Planning Director for a determination of whether any changes in applicable Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code or other applicable regulations pertaining to utility undergrounding would either (i) eliminate the undergrounding requirements or (ii) allow for compliance with undergrounding requirements through payment of an in-lieu fee. Notwithstanding Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.14.100, the Directors are jointly authorized to amend or waive

Page 618 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

6 0
1 8
the applicable condition of approval if they find that either condition (i) or (ii) described above applies.

Section 6.CEQA. The City Council finds that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15378(a), the proposed Ordinance is not considered a “Project” under CEQA because it does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. This is due to the fact that the Ordinance does not change any practice or procedure, but rather clarifies and codifies existing practice. Furthermore, the proposed action is exempt from the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment because most new development in the City is required to underground utilities along their frontage and this does not change that requirement.

The City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(c) which exempts from review the replacement or reconstruction of existing utility systems and/or facilities involving a negligible or no expansion of capacity. For existing utility systems that are required to be placed underground, there will be a negligible or no expansion of capacity. The City Council further finds that the adoption of the Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(d) which exempts from review the replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity replaced including conversion of overhead electric utility distribution facilities to underground including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the undergrounding.

For any new development where the undergrounding of utilities is required, the City Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(d) which exempts from review the construction of and location of new small facilities and structures including water main, sewage, electrical, gas, and other utility extensions including street improvements, of reasonable length to serve such construction.

Section 7.Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance 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 shall remain in full force and effect.

Page 619 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

6 0
1 8
Section 8.Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. ___________________________________
L. Dennis Michael, Mayor
ATTEST: ___________________________________
Kim Sevy, City Clerk
I, Kim Sevy, 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 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ____________, 2025, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on ____________, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

Page 620 ends

DATE: August 20, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Elisa Cox, Assistant City Manager
Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager - Community Development Matt Marquez, Economic Development Director
Zack Neighbors, Building & Safety Services Director
SUBJECT: Quarterly Development Update - Second Quarter 2025. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation from staff on development-related activities for the second quarter of 2025 (April through June).

BACKGROUND:

In 2023 staff began providing Quarterly Development Updates (QDU) to the City Council. The purpose of these reports is to regularly inform the Council and the community about development- related activities. While annual reports such as the General Plan progress report, offer some insights into development activities (including the number of permits issued and housing units constructed), quarterly updates effectively deliver information on development activities over a shorter time frame. These updates also allow staff to include additional information, such as economic development activities and customer service data, which are not typically covered in annual reports but are essential to the City’s community development efforts.

ANALYSIS:

The QDU presented to the City Council will include summaries of activities from the Building & Safety, Planning, and Economic Development departments. This includes, but is not limited to, details on entitlement approvals by use type, updates on key development projects, and reporting on building permit and plan check activities.

Staff's formal presentation to the City Council will provide further details on development-related activities, and staff will continue to present this information to Council on a quarterly basis.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

This item addresses the Council’s following core values:

1. Providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all

2. Relentless pursuit of improvement

3. Building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere ATTACHMENTS:

None.

Page 621 ends

DATE: August 20, 2025
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager
INITIATED BY: Michael Parmer, Engagement and Special Programs Director Hope Velarde, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT: Consideration to Approve the Maintenance Agreement Between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD). Approve the Conservation Easement of 120 Acres Near Cucamonga Canyon [APNs: Portion of 0200-051-48 and 0200-051-49], Authorize the City Manager to Take all Actions Necessary and to Execute All Documents Necessary to Effect the Conservation Easement, and Find the Conservation Easement Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and Consistent with the General Plan. (CITY) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council Approve the Maintenance Agreement (Memorandum of Agreement) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD); Approve the Conservation Easement for approximately 120 acres located near Cucamonga Canyon [Assessor Parcel Numbers: Portion of 0200-051-48 and 0200- 051-49]; Authorize the City Manager to take all necessary actions and execute all documents required to effectuate the Conservation Easement; and Determine the Conservation Easement exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and consistent with the General Plan.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Rancho Cucamonga, in partnership with the Inland Empire Resource Conservation District (IERCD), seeks to preserve approximately 120 acres of natural open space near Cucamonga Canyon. This property, known as King Ranch, identified in part by APNs 0200-051- 48 and 0200-051-49, represents a valuable ecological and recreational resource for the community and region.

The City and IERCD have developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that outlines the roles and responsibilities of each party. The City will retain ownership of the property and grant a 47- acre conservation easement to IERCD. IERCD will provide ongoing habitat stewardship in the easement area and ensure permanent conservation per the MOA. Aside from the 47-acres placed into the conservation easement to IERCD, the rest of the property will be placed into conservation by the City, protecting natural resources, including the ecosystems, species, and habitats from harm, depletion, and development.

Page 622 ends

Page 2 ends

2 9
7 0
ANALYSIS:

The attached easement map outlines boundaries of the King Property and highlights its key components.

On the southern portion of the site, adjacent to residential neighborhoods, a proposed vineyard is planned. The City is exploring a partnership with a third-party agricultural operator to lease, plant, and maintain grapevines in this area. In addition to serving as an agricultural activation and educational site for wine production, the vineyard will provide a visual, spatial, and sound buffer for nearby residents, helping to mitigate potential impacts.

The site plan also depicts fire resiliency improvements designed in coordination with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District to address regional wildfire threats. Located within the non-easement portion of the property, these improvements will include:
A helipad: a designated landing and takeoff area for rotary-wing aircraft, constructed and maintained to support safe and efficient helicopter operations. Helipads may be permanent or temporary and are utilized for emergency response, medical evacuation, firefighting, law enforcement, and other authorized aviation activities. The helipad shall conform to applicable federal, state, and local regulations governing aviation safety, land use, and emergency access.
A helicopter dip tank: a self-contained water dispensing unit specifically designed to support rotary-wing aircraft engaged in aerial firefighting operations. The dip tank serves as a tactical water source for helicopters equipped with snorkel or dip-tube systems, enabling rapid refilling in permanent or temporary locations. A 50-foot operational buffer surrounding all fire-related infrastructure to ensure safe and efficient access for emergency vehicles and first responders Additionally, the map features a network of multi-use trails that will expand recreational opportunities for the community. These trails – open to hiking, biking, and equestrian use – will strengthen the City’s overall trail system and improve public access to nature. Each trail includes a 2-foot buffer on either side to allow for brush clearance and optional fencing. The trails are intentionally excluded from the conservation easement to allow for ongoing maintenance and community use while safeguarding the conservation area’s ecological integrity.

Finally, because no physical changes to the land are anticipated beyond minor maintenance of the existing trail connection to the federal access road, the acquisition of this property is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies under the Class 32 exemption in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15325, which applies to the acquisition, sale, or transfer of land to preserve existing natural conditions or open space – consistent with the goals of the City’s General Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No City funds will be used to purchase this property. The acquisition is fully funded through grants, with IERCD contributing $1 million to secure the 47-acre conservation easement.

COUNCIL MISSION / VISION / VALUE(S) ADDRESSED:

Land acquisition and conservation of the 122 acres of King Ranch will help promote a healthy community for all, preserve a family-oriented atmosphere, and provide a high quality of life for all in Rancho Cucamonga.

Page 623 ends

Page 3 ends

2 9
7 0
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – MOA between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and IERCD Attachment 2 – Easement Map
Attachment 3 – Fire Resiliency Appendix

Page 624 ends

27761.00045\42815050.2
1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
This Memorandum of Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a California municipal corporation, having offices at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 92730 (“City”), and the INLAND EMPIRE RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a governmental special district having offices at 25864-K Business Center Drive, Redlands, California 92374 (“IERCD”) (together, the “Parties”). City and IERCD are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Residential Developer Richland Communities, Inc. had an interest in that certain residential project commonly known as Tract 16072 in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, (the “Project”) which residential project the City approved in 2006;
WHEREAS, the City’s Condition of Approval B-1 for Tract 16072 (“Condition B- 1” [See Exhibit “A”]) provides in pertinent part that the project proponent/property owner of Tract 16072 shall cause to be transferred to a qualified conservation entity approved by the City 147.7 acres of off-site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation prior to the recording of the first final map for the Project; WHEREAS, Condition B-1 also provides that in connection with the conservation entity receiving such fee title the conservation entity shall also be provided with funding to provide for the long-term maintenance of those 147.7 acres, in an amount to be “mutually agreed upon” by the project proponent/property owner and the conservation entity; WHEREAS, Condition B-1 also provides that if the project proponent/property owner is unable to acquire all or a portion of the 147.7 acres, it shall deposit the equivalent mitigation cost of $10,000.00 per developable acre with a City-approved agency, which funding shall be used to purchase and manage open space conservation habitat lands; WHEREAS, IERCD is a Resource Conservation District formed pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 9151 et seq., and IERCD may accept grants of money or real property to carry out its purposes, and may establish and charge fees for services provided upon request pursuant to California Public Resources Code sections 9401 et seq.;
WHEREAS, IERCD may enter into contracts to accept grants of money pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 9402 and 9404;
WHEREAS, IERCD may perform habitat restoration, habitat conservation and/or similar activities for development project proponents required to provide mitigation as part of government agency or local government approvals;

Page 625 ends

27761.00045\42815050.2
2 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that IERCD is a conservation entity which has been confirmed as being qualified and approved by the City to accept the monetary funds described in the second paragraph of Condition B-1; WHEREAS, to satisfy Condition B-1, Richland made payment of $10,000 per developable acre to IERCD to purchase and manage mitigation lands; WHEREAS, the City and IERCD would like to work together to purchase and conserve the property known as the King Ranch consisting of 122.06 acres, a portion of Assessor Parcel Numbers 0200-051-48-0000 & 0200-051-49-0000 (“King Ranch Property”), depicted in Exhibit “B.”
WHEREAS, the City plans to grant a conservation easement to IERCD (“Conservation Easement”) in order to fulfill the requirements of Condition B-1 to preserve the King Ranch Property in perpetuity.

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the City will purchase King Ranch and grant a conservation easement to IERCD in order to conserve the King Ranch property.

NOW, THEREFORE, City and IERCD do hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are incorporated herein and made an operative part of this Agreement.

2. City Agrees To:

2.1 Purchase the King Ranch Property and own it in fee title.

2.2 Grant a Conservation Easement to IERCD in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” The Conservation Easement will consist of at least 47 acres located on the map show in Exhibit “C” within the King Ranch Property. The Conservation Easement will be granted through an escrow, which escrow instructions are attached here to as Exhibit “D.”

2.3 Deposit the balance of the purchase price needed to purchase the King Ranch Property (i.e., the balance of the purchase price would be the amount of the purchase price less the amount deposited by IERCD as described in section 3.1, below).

3. IERCD Agrees To:

3.1 Deposit $1,000,000 into escrow to purchase the 47-acre Conservation Easement from the City in order to keep parts of the King Ranch Property in conservation in perpetuity in fulfillment of Condition B-1. Such escrow instructions are attached hereto as Exhibit “D.”

Page 626 ends

27761.00045\42815050.2
3 3.2 Accept the Conservation Easement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “B.”

4. Mitigation. The City agrees that purchasing the King Ranch Property will satisfy Richland Communities’ requirement to expend the Payment “to purchase and manage mitigation lands” pursuant to Condition B-1 as set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement.

5. Term. This Agreement shall be considered to be fulfilled and completed by the close of escrow and the recording of the conservation easement granted to IERCD.

6. Notices. As used in this Agreement, notice includes but is not limited to the communication of any notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, and appointment. All notices must be in writing. All such notices from one party to another may be delivered in person, sent via reputable overnight courier, or served by first-class mail, certified or registered, postage prepaid, to each and all of the addresses set forth below.

To IERCD at:

Mandy Parkes, District Manager
Inland Empire Resource
Conservation District (IERCD)
25864-K Business Center Drive
Redlands, CA 92374
To City at:

John R. Gillison, City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 92730
Any party may change the address to which such notices or other communications may be sent by giving the other Parties written notice of such change.

7. Authority to Enter Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement warrants to the other that it is duly organized and existing and that it and the respective signatories have full right and authority to enter into and consummate this Agreement and all related documents and bind the parties thereto.

8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the Parties.

This Agreement is intended by the Parties as a full and final expression of their understanding with respect to the matters contained in this Agreement and shall not be modified in any manner except by an instrument in writing executed by the Parties or their respective successors in interest.

9. Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.

10. Controlling Law. The interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in San Bernardino County.

11. Attorneys’ Fees. The Parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.

Page 627 ends

Rancho Cucamonga City CouncilAugust 20, 2025

Rancho Cucamonga City Council
August 20, 2025