No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/01/27 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY JANUARY 27, '1999 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman McNiel __ Com. Mannerino __ Vice Chairman Macias __ Com. Stewart __ Com. Tolstoy_ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. January 13, 1999 IV. APPROVALOFMINUTES CONSENTCALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. VACATION OF NORTHTOWN AREA ALLEYS (V-161) NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY -A request to find the vacation of portions of two alleys generally located on the south side of Feron Boulevard west of Hermosa Avenue, in conformance with the General Plan - APN: 209-085-04. Related File: Conditional Use Permit 98-30. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concemed individuals may voice their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15915 - WOODSIDE HOMES - A request to subdivide 21 acres of land into 36 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101-04, 12, and 14. Related file: Tree Removal Permit 98-27. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 20 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre). located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Variance91-11. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 91-11 - LEE - A request for extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required rear lot depth from 90 to 65 feet for one lot within a proposed 20 lot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Tentative Tract 14405. VI. NEW BUSINESS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-30 - HOME DEPOT - A request to construct a 220,669 square foot warehouse building on 12.4 acres of land in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place - APN: 209-471-08. DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC - A design review application to amend the development standards for Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of previously approved Amended Tentative Tract 15727 consisting of 339, (formerly 342) single family Pots in the Low- Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and authorize the use of the Development Code optional standards, on 82 acres located between Fourth and Sixth Streets. adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18.19, 26, 32. and 33. Related file: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404. Page 2 G, DESIGN REVIEW 98-21 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC.- A design review application to amend the previously approved building elevations of Design Review 97-44 for 84 (formally 85) single family units in Phases 3 and 6 of Amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on 82 acres located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related file: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404. VII. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS DIRECTOR'S REPORT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of a request to change the location of placing the La Fourcade arch on Building 5 - APN: 0229-011-39. (Oral report) VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS I. TRAILSADVISORYCOMMI'F]'EEAPPOINTMENTSANDMEETINGS J. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TASK FORCE REPORT (Oral Report) X. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11.'OO p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time. they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IN THE RAINS ROOM REGARDING PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 98-13 - SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT, THE VICTORIA ARBORS (FORMERLY VICTORIA LAKES) - AMERICAN BEAUTY DEVELOPMENT CO., AND A QUARTERLY DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PROJECTS. THAT MEETING WILL ADJOURN TO A JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY30, 1999, AT5:00 P.M. AT THE REGINA WINERY, 12467 BASE LINE ROAD, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. Page 3 I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on January 21, 1999, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. VICINITY MAP ,A- CITY HALL Page 4 CITY OF RANCHO C[,rCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 27, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer VACATION OF NORTHTOWN AREA ALLEYS (V-161) - NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to find the vacation of portions of two alleys, generally located on the south side of Feron Boulevard west of Hermosa Avenue, in conformance with the General Plan - APN: 209-085-04. Related File: CUP 98-30 BACKGROUND~NALYSIS Northtown Housing Development Company (NTHDC) is currently processing CUP 98-30 for construction of a Community Center. In conjunction with this processing, NTHDC has requested the vacation of certain unimproved alleys that are contiguous to the proposed Community Center. These alleys are currently not being used for access by adjacent properties since there are no visible openings from the adjoining properties, Basically, these alleys are just "paper" alleys that were created with the odginal North Cucamonga Subdivision in 1887 and are not needed for public use. Utility companies, other agencies and vadous City divisions have been notified of the proposed vacation and were asked for comments. There were no objections to the vacation from any of the groups notified. The vacation is consistent with the goals and objectives of the circulation element of the General Plan. The alleys in this area of the City are also not included or required as "community travel routes" of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the proposed vacations conform with the City's General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for furlher processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Dan Jame~s ~:7~/ Senior Civil Engineer DJ:VVV:sd Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") V-161 Map (Exhibit "B") ITEr4 A Y ~SAS~ ~ IN~ RO, ARROY/ ROUTE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINR, RP~ING DIVISION VICI,,'VIT?' HAP Io FERON T 9 8 7 'F BOULD/ARD 3 2 40' CITY OF ~RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ENGINm. k~RING DIVISION V-/E/HAP N CITY OF RANCI lO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 27, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND TENTATIVE TRACT 15915 - WOODSIDE HOMES - A request to subdivide 21 acres of land into 36 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101- 4, 12, and 14. Related File; Tree Removal Permit 98-27. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: 1.4 dwelling units per acre Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Vacant land; Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Single family homes across abandoned rail road right-of-way; Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) Victoria Community Plan East - A school and single family homes across Etiwanda Avenue; existing school and Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan West Single family homes; Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) Victoria Community Plan General Plan DesiGnations: Project Site - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) North - Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) South - Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) East Existing school and Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) West Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) Site Characteristics: The 21-acre site is currently vacant and slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded by single family homes to the south. west, and east with the homes to the south across an old rail road right-of-way and the homes to ITEr4 B ,/ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'IF 15915 - WOODSIDE HOMES January 27, 1999 Page 2 the east across Etiwanda Avenue. The property to the north is vacant. Community trails are required along the south and west project boundaries (the trail to the south being in the rail right-of-way) and private local feeder trails are required for each lot. The City is currently working with the applicant to use a property at the southeast corner of the site for relocation of the historic Isles house. ANALYSIS: General: The project is subject to the Very Low Residential standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, which require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a minimum average lot size of 25,000 square feet. The project design is consistent with these standards. The current proposal is for subdivision only, no home plans are yet provided. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (Macias, Mannedno, Henderson) reviewed the project on December 15, 1998, and recommend approval with conditions, (see Exhibit "F"). Technical Review Committee: The Grading and Technical Review Committees have reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the project on January 19, 1999, and recommend approval subject to conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. Tree Removal Permit: The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires windrows along Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that many are marginally wodhy of preservation and about one-third are not at all worthy of preservation. The project proposes to remove all of the trees and replace with new windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. Individual trees alon9 Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street that are worthy of preservation will remain. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant and staff completed Pad II. In completing the Initial Study Checklist, staff identified potential environmental impacts related to water runoff, windrow preservation and noise. The increased runoff from development would exacerbate flooding problems due to a lack of master planned storm drain facilities. As mitigation, the project must pay the appropriate drainage fees adopted by the City Council for the Etiwanda San Sevaine Drainage Area. The site contains several established Eucalyptus windrows, which are subject to replacement and preservation per the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant has prepared an Arborist Report for the trees which indicates which trees are healthy and are or are not 9ood candidates for preservation. The project site is subject to traffic noise levels exceeding City standards. A noise study prepared indicates that mitigation can be provided with special window glazing on certain lots. Conditions of approval address these requirements. In all cases, the impacts are not considered significant with mitigation. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 'I'F15915-WOODSIDE HOMES January 27,1999 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, including a large size (4-foot by 8-foot) Notice of Filing sign, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site including expanded notification for residential areas to the south and west. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: On December 10, 1998, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting inviting all homeowners within 300 feet of the subject property, six homeowners were in attendance. The primary issues of concern were: dust control during construction (a standard condition of approval requires dust control), connecting the existing trail terminus at the northwest corner of the site to Etiwanda Avenue for students who live to the west to get to school' (the project design includes such a connection), windrow preservation, all perimeter walls and fences to be decorative masonry, cross walks and stop signs at Etiwanda AvenueNictoria Street and Etiwanda Avenuef'A" Street intersections, how long construction will take, and preservation of access to the barn on the Stegmier house property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the project through adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Bullet City Planner BB:BLC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map Exhibit "C" - Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Initial Study Part II Exhibit "F" - Design Review Action dated December 15. 1998 Resolution of Approval with Conditions U1 SEE T2 TENT/..TIVE TI{ACT NIAI' TI':N'F/..I'IVI': I'I{,',,CT NO. 15~.115 SEE SltE£r r/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAI' TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15915 VACJd'~'T V T 0 ® ,,, :., ® ... r. -- R I A /_// "".~,, ............. WOODSIDE HO,%IF~ ET~WAHO A - RAI,~HO CUCA~:::~__,k CAMFORNL~ A v E N U E ..................... ~+_L..~ .............. C CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN · .':-",-~ ........ BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II Project File: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15915 Related Files: TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 98-27 Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15915 - WOODSIDE HOMES - A request to subdivide 21 acres of land into 36 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101- 4, 12, and 14. Related File: Tree Removal Permit 98-27 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Woodside Homes 30211 Banderas, Suite 130 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 (949) 858-4980 General Plan Designation: Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Zoning: Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan Surrounding North South - East West Land Uses and Setting: Vacant land; Very Low Residential (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan Single family homes across abandoned rail road right-of -way; Low- Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) Victoria Community Plan A school and single family homes across Etiwanda Avenue; existing school and Low Residential (2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) Etiwanda Specific Plan Single family homes; Low Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per acre) Victoria Community Plan Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 EXHIBIT "E" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 2 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Etiwanda School District Chaffey Unified School District ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (v') Geological Problems (v') Water ( ) Air Quality (v') Transportation/Circulation (v') Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards (~) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance (v') Public Services (~) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: () find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (,/) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. () I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Initial Study for Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3 Signed: Brent Le Count, AICP Associate Planner January 6, 1999 .2 .; EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "'Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and '"Less Than Significant Impact"' answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: The project proposes 36 single family lots consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. No Specific Plan Amendment or other modifications are being requested. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal.' a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 4 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) Fault rupture? ( ) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) Seiche hazards? ( ) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) Subsidence of the land? ( ) Expansive soils? ( ) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) (i () (v) () () (v) (v) () (v) () () () () () () (v) () (v) Comments: The project will involve minor alterations to the terrain as the site is currently vacant. Grading will be performed in accordance with accepted grading practices and applicable City requirements. The impact is not considered significant. h) The General Plan indicates that pad of the site contains "Tujunga-Delhr soil association which "may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soils can adequately suppod the weight of the structure." The applicant has had prepared a Geotechnical Investigation (RMA Group, January 6, 1998), which indicates that the project is geotechinically feasible so long as the recommendations of the report are complied with. With mitigation the impact is not considered significant. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) b) Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) (v') ( ) ( ) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 5 c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) 0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: a and b) The project will increase runoff due to the amount of harriscape and roof area proposed. As mitigation, a condition of approval requires the developer to pay appropriate Etiwanda San Sovalne Area Drainage and General City Drainage fees as a fair share contribution to master planned drainage infrastructure. d) AIR QUALITY, Would the proposal.' a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 6 g) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative trans ~ortation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail or air traffic ~mpacts? No () () (v) () () () () () (v) () () () () () (v) (v) (v) (,/) (v) Comments: a and b) The project will increase the number of vehicle trips since the site ~s currently vacant. However, the project does not propose development of the site with a density in excess of that provided for by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The project design includes cedain street improvements to ensure safe and efficient traffic circulation. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their b) habitats (including. but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) Wetland habitat (e.g.. marsh, riparian. and vernal pool)? ( ) () () (v) (v) () () () () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 7 e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () () () No (v) Comments: b) The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan allows some windrows to be removed subject to replacement but requires those along Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street to be preserved where feasible. As mitigation, The project shall be conditioned to plant replacement Eucalyptus windrows and preserve existing healthy trees per the Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides. chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 8 d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? () () () () () NO (,/) (v) 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () () (v) () (v) () () Comments: b) The site is subject to noise levels in excess of 60 Ldn due to proximity to Etiwanda Avenue. A noise study has been prepared which indicates that specialized glazing techniques for certain homes will mitigate noise levels to an acceptable level, 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) b) C) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v9 Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) schools? ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) Maintenance or public facilities. including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: c) The appropriate school districts have been notified of the proposed project. The Etiwanda School District has commented on the project indicating that the proposal will result in an additional 16 students in grades kindergarten through fifth and 7 students in grades six through eight, A Standard Condition of Approval requires the developer to padicipate in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 9 construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. W~th said condition, the impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) b) C) d) 0 g) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () () () (v) () () () (~) () () () (v) () () () (v) () (v) () () () () () (v) () () () (v) Comments: e) The project will increase demand upon storm drains due to the amount of hard scape and roof area proposed, As mitigation, a condition of approval requires the developer to pay appropriate Etlwanda San Sevalne Area Drainage and General City Drainage fees. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 10 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) b) c) d) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? () ) () () ) () () ) () () () No (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational oppodunities? () () () () () () (v) (v) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? () () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 15915 - Woodside Homes Page 11 b) c) d) Shod term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (v) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) Initial Study for Tentative Trace 15915 . Woodside Homes · F=-NVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASU. REgz Geological Problems: Cl~y of Rancho Cucamanga Page 12 Gradin9 of the 8jte shall be in ac--co~danco with the recommendations of the Goo~echnlcal FL-*pom~ doted January 0. 1998 prepm'ed by RMA Group Geetechnical Consultants. Ware r/Uti lilies: Transportation. ~,'~ ,At.--* ,. The developer eha~l provide al~ nece,~sary right--of-way dedications ar~ perform roadway improvements to C~ty sLanderale. I51olog|cal Resources: Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwa~da Avenue (Lot 36) and Videale Stree( (Lots 1, 2j ~md by Knapp ~odal~, so long as ~ey are r~la~ ~ 15~a~on miniurn Spo~ Gum Eu~lyplus trees. ~1 ~her exiting on-site Eu~u~ wi~m~ ~hal ~ r~lacod ~th ~g~lon Spolt~ Gum Eu~y~us tre~ plan~d 8 feet on ~nter in a~rd~ ~ Et~an~ S~c Seallens 5.41.4~ a~ ~, Noise: ,:: , I;;~;UU~ The project shall be built in conformance with the rccomn'~ndatior~ of th~ Noiao Study dated August ;26. 1998 and amended on December 18. 1998 prop.~r.d by RKJK APPLICANT CERTIFICATION: I certify ~at I am Iho ap~lcant for the projcct de=cribcd in this In;tial Study. I acknoMedge !bat,l,, have read this Inidal Study and the Fopqacd mitigation measures. Further. I hove revised the projoel plans or proposers and/or hereby agree (o the prop~ied mitigation moasurcs to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects tO a point where cleady no significant envifunmenlal effeds would {x. cur. Signafure/~ Print Name and T;lle: l:tER[NT~15015env 18:24 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration Is being circulated for pubtic review In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Tentative Tract 15915 Public Review Period Closes: January 27° 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Woodside Homes Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southwest corner of Eliwanda Avenue and Victoda Street- APN: 227-101-04, 12, and 14. Project Description: A request to subdivide 21 acres of land into 36 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Very Low Residential Distdct (0 to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. FINDING This Is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine If the project may have a significant etfect on the environment and Is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there Is no substantial evidence that the project may have a signilicant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions In the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency thai the project as revised may have a signilicant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are Included In the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477*2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public Is Invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 27, 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By 9:20 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Brent Le Count December 15, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15915 - WOODSIDE HOMES - A request to subdivide 21 acres of land into 36 lots for the purpose of single family home construction in the Very Low Residential District (0 to 2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street - APN: 227-101- 4, 12, and 14. Desjan Parameters: The 21-acre site is currently vacant and slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. The site is surrounded by single family homes to the south. west, and east with the homes to the south across an old rail road right-of-way and the homes to the east across Etiwanda Avenue. The property to the north is vacant. Community trails are required along the south and west project boundaries (the trail to the south being in the rail righFof-way) and private local feeder trails are required for each lot. The City is currently working with the applicant to use a property at the southeast corner of the site for relocation of the historic Isles house. A 6-foot high sound wall is necessary on the nodh and east boundaries of Lot 36 to mitigate traffic noise from Efiwanda Avenue. The project is subject to the Very Low Residential standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, which require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a minimum average lot size of 25,000 square feet. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees which appear to be remnant windrows. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires windrows along Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street to be preserved and allows others to be removed subject to replacement. An Arborist Study for the trees indicates that many are marginally worthy of preservation and about one-third are not at all wodhy of preservation. The project proposes to remove all of the trees and replace with new windrow planting consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan requirements. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Staff feels there are no major design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed. and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Property lines should occur at the top of slope to ensure better slope maintenance by future properly owners. 2. Where feasible, make corner lots wider to accommodate corner side yard setbacks. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwanda Avenue (Lot 36) and Victoria Street (Lots 1, 2, and 3) shall be preserved per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual diseased or damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minium Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500. The sound wall for Lot 36 shall respect a 30-foot average, 25-foot minimum setback from the east property line. The wall shall also be designed to include field stone pilasters per the Etiwanda Specific Plan Etiwanda Avenue Overlay standards. EXHIBIT "F" DRC COMMENTS TT 15915 December 15, 1998 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project with the above changes. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, John Mannerino, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee (Macias, Mannerino, Henderson) reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the following: Property lines shall occur at the top of slope to ensure better slope maintenance and maximize useable rear yard area. VVhere feasible, make corner lots wider to accommodate corner sideyard setbacks. In particular, Lot 36 which has frontage on Etiwanda Avenue and is subject to 30-foot building setback. The existing Eucalyptus windrows on Etiwanda Avenue (Lot 36) and Victoria Street (Lots 1, 2, and 3) shall be preserved per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41.200. This allows removal of individual diseased or damaged trees so long as they are replaced with 15-gallon minimum Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing ,on site-windrows shall be replaced with 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500. The sound wall for Lot 36 shall respect a 30-foot average, 25-foot minimum setback from the east property line. The wall shall also be designed to include field stone pilasters per the Etiwanda Specific Plan Etiwanda Avenue Overlay standards. EXHIBIT "F" RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15915, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 36 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 21 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VICTORIA STREET AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-101-04, 12, AND 14 A. Recitals. 1. Woodside Homes, Inc. has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15915, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headrig on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on January 27, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Victoria Street and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of approximately 600 feet on both streets and lot depth of 1300 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south consists of an abandoned rail road right-of-way with single family homes further to the south, the property to the east is vacant and developed with a single family home, and the property to the west is developed with single family homes; and c. The project is designed in conformance with the Very Low Residential standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The site contains several large Eucalyptus trees, which will be removed and replaced with new Eucalyptus windrows in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan windrow presen/ation requirements; and e. The design of the project, including roadway alignment, trails. and grading will provide efficient use of land to accommodate single family homes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. "R'15915-WOODSIDE HOMES January 27,1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract are consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and e. The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the Tentative Tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large. now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all wdtten and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. as amended. and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and. further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudrig the public hearing. the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3. and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions. attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'I'I'15915-WOODSIDE HOMES January 27,1999 Page 3 Planninq Division: 1) Provide retaining walls along south and west project boundaries to eliminate larger slopes and maximize useable rear yard area to the satisfaction of the City Planner, 2) Any wall in excess of 3 feet in height on Lot 36 shall respect a 30-foot average, 25-foot minimum setback from the east property line. 3) Developer shall construct a 6-foot decorative perimeter wall, with gated horse access. along the westerly boundary of the equestrian easement of Lots 31 and 32. Enqineednq Division: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Victoda Street shall be constructed with 28 feet of pavement sidewalk. curb, and gutter on the south side of the street and an a.c berm along the north edge, from Etiwanda Avenue to "B" Street. 6) 7) 8) 9) "B" Street shall be constructed with 28 feet of pavement, sidewalk curb, and gutter on the west side of the street and an a.c. berm on the easterly edge, along the Not-A,Part parcel. The south 33 feet of Victoda Street shall be vacated from the proposed west right-of-way of "B" Street to the west project boundary. The northerly 20 feet shall be rededicated a lettered lot, for pedestrian access, on the Tract Map. Design and construct pedestrian access to the satisfaction of the City Engineer a minimum of 25 feet wide, 20 feet occurring within the lettered lot and the remaining 5 feet north of the Victoria Street center line. Construct an intedor Community Trail, per Standards Drawing 1004, along the westerly Tract boundary. Install private gates for each lot per Standard Drawing 1009. Public improvement plans shall include a separate Community Trail plan, subject to approval of the City Engineer. Construct 4-foot paved walkway on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue from the northerly boundary of Lot 36 to Victoda Street. Cross lot drainage easements shall be provided outside both public and pdvate trail easements. Public storm drain easements shall be 12-foot or 25-foot in width relative to the size of the pipe. Streets shall be designed without cross gutter where a storm drain is provided. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'Fr 15915- WOODSIDE HOMES January 27, 1999 Page 4 10) Drainage facilities for the sump along the north project boundary shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Building Official. 11) A good faith effort shall be made to acquire the right-of-way necessary to construct City standard access ramps at the southeast comer of "B" and Victoria Streets and the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street. Environmental Mitiqation Measures: 1) Grading of the site shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report dated January 6, 1998, prepared by RMA Group Geotechnical Consultants. 2) The project shall pay Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage fees for the portion of the Tract that falls within the Tract boundaries. The lots falling with the drainage boundary in whole or in part are Lots 28 through 33 and 35 through 37. The remaining lots and portion of lots not within the Etiwanda/San Sevaine drainage boundary are subject to the General City Drainage Fee. 3) The existing Eucalyptus windrows along Etiwanda Avenue (Lot 36) and Victoda Street (Lots 1, 2, and 3) shall be preserved per Etiwanda Specific Plan Section 5.41,200. This allows removal of individual diseased or damaged trees as identified by the Arbodst Report dated August 31, 1998, prepared by Knapp Associates, so long as they are replaced with minimum 15-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees. All other existing on-site Eucalyptus windrows shall be replaced with 5-gallon Spotted Gum Eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center in accordance with Etiwanda Specific Plan Sections 5.41.400 and 500. 4) The project shall be built in conformance with the recommendations of the Noise Study dated August 26, 1998, and amended on December 18, 1998, prepared by RKJK Associates. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'I'F15915-WOODSIDE HOMES January 27,1999 Page 5 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Tentative Tract 15915 36 Lot Subdivision Woodside Homes Southwest Corner Victoria Street/Etiwanda Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477°2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements comp~ello,~ ooze The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its agents. officers. or employees, because el' the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, ils agents. officers. or employees. for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City. its agenls, officers. or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole discretion. participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. The developer shall commence, participate in. and consummate or cause to be commenced, participated in. or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located. designed. and built to specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become/he District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station. the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planners letter of approval, and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans, building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time LImits Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. C. Site Development 10. 11. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. / / / / I / / / / / Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shah be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building. etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of Ihe Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances. and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from public view. All ground-mounted utility appudenances such as transformers, AC condensers. etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming. and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval oi' the final map. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. Local Feeder Trails (i.e., private equestrian easements) shall, at a minimum, be fenced with two-rail, 4-inch lodgepole "peeler'' logs to define both sides of the easement; however, developer may upgrade to an alternate fence material. 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 may be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs. 2 12. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5% at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street, Drainage devices may be required by the Building Official. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot corral area in the rear yard. Grade access from corral to trail with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. 13. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) 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&R's. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions 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. 14. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the properly owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. 15. / / / / / / I 16. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including. but not limited to. public notice requirements. special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 17. Six-footdecorative blockwalls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. Ira double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify. by mail. all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached Io each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two ~-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 18. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 19. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feelin9 and enhance views. 20. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 21. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. D. Landscaptng 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 City Planner review and approval prior to/he issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110. and so noted on the grading plans, The 3 COmpletion Oate location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. All private slopes of 5 feet or less 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. 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 ban ks 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. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations 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 Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or Etiwanda Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. !/,__ The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls. landscaping. and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as preservation of existing healthy windrows is required along Etiwanda Avenue and Victoria Street frontages. Landscapin9 and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right.of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required at a ratio of 50 linear feet per acre. The size, spacing, staking, and irrigation of these trees shall comply with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance (RCMC 19.08.100) and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. E. Environmental A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. Compfellon Dale Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and repealing. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certificate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and repealing program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. F. Other Agencies The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project ~le number (i.e.. CUP 98-01). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code. Uniform Plumbing Code. National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes. ordinances. and regula/ions in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact /he Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee. Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. For projects using septic tank facilities. written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. / / / / Grading Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Dedication and Vehicular Access Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. J. Street Improvements All public improvements (inlerior streets, drainage facilities. community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include. but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement, drive approaches. sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. A minimum of 26-foot wide pavement, within a 40-foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be constructed for all half-section streets. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including. but not limited to: Curb & A.C. SIde- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Oth0r Street Name Gullet Pvrnt wark Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Etiwanda Avenue (e) X (g) X X X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan chock. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) cobble curb per Etiwanda Specific Plan and City Standard 105-B, (f) post R(26) "No Parking," (g) 8-foot wide sidewalk per the Etiwanda Specific Plan, Figure 5-24. 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: 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 s feet improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer. Notes: ( 1 ) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No, 5 along streets. a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. / / I / / 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. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. 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. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. K. Public Maintenance Areas A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineerin9 Public Works Standards shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District: pedestrian access easement on north project boundary and Community Trail on west project boundary. 7 Completion Oate I / / / / Public landscape areas are required to incorporate substantial areas (40%) of mortared cobble or other acceptable non-irrigated surfaces, A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first, Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the developer until accepted by the City. L. Drainage and Flood Control Me 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 !acilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street. Utilities 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. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and conslrucled to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. N. General Requirements and Approvals Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional. and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. See special condition #6. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: O. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute. X a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. X b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test or the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed. flushed. and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard, Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction. evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. $132.00 Fire District fee(s). and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. *'Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems, alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. / / / / / / / / 9 CITY O1: RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Janua~ 27,1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Rebecca Van Buren. Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 20 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the noah side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Variance 91-11. TIME EXTENSION FOR VARIANCE 91-11 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved variance to reduce the required rear lot depth from 90 to 65 feet for one lot within a proposed 20 lot subdivision in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the nodh side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Related File: Tentative Tract 14405. BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract 14405 and Variance 91-11 were approved by the Planning Commission on December 9, 1992. Since that time, the State granted two automatic time extensions and the Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension. This extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Tract and Variance approval to December 9, 1998. Prior to expiration, the applicant filed the subject extension request. ANALYSIS: According to Section 66452.6(e) of the Subdivision Map Act, the City may extend the time at which a tentative map approval expires by up to five years. However, the Planning Commission approval also included design review for construction of homes on the lots and a variance which allowed reduced lot depth for one of the proposed lots. Approval of the time extension would also apply to approvals for the design review and variance. The Development Code limits time extensions for design review and variance approvals to one-year increments. Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and compared the proposal with current development criteria outlined in the Development Code. Based on this review, the Tentative Tract meets the development standards for the Low-Medium Residential District. ITEMS C & D y PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TT14405 & VAR 91-11-LEE Janua~ 27,1999 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Part I of the Initial Study has been prepared by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Environmental Checklist and found that conditions in the area have not changed appreciably since the Tentative Tract received tentative approval December 9, 1992. Therefore, there should be no significant adverse environmental impacts on the site relative to the proposed tract or time extension. If the Commission concurs with staffs findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advedised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a one-year time extension for the subdivision map and design review for Tentative Tract 14405 and Variance 91-11 through adoption of the attached Resolutions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:RVB:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Letter from Applicant Site Utilization Map Site Plan Elevations Variance Letter and Map Initial Study Part II Resolution of Approval - Tentative Tract Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Design Review Time Extension Resolution of Approval - Variance Time Extension 1~2~8 Jeff Ta-Jen Lee 2208 Edwards Ave. El Monte, CA 91733 DEC ? 1998 COy ol Rancho Cu Planning Oivi c'am°nga ston The City of Rancho Cucamonga Ms. Rebecca Van Bunn 10500 Civic Center Dr. P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729 De;u- Rebecca: Per our phone conversation. Please extend the tentative map track# 14405 to another 12 months to 12/9/99. It was originally approved on 12/9/92. Enclose a check of $874.00 for Time Extension Fee and Initial Fee. Thank you for your time. Ta-Jcn ~7.//L \ E×HIg/T ' 5':J','qOII VDNOI, NV3...~ 31.:]13V4 1: e_, .~"'b5.. RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ..':m~,cT '/' 14405 It.)~ i RIGHT LEFT '- · PLAN 3 ~CHO CUC~O~GA WATER RESOURCES HYDRAULICS PIPELINES WALTER W. H'U, Fh.D. CONSULTANT CIVIL ENGINEER 11655 Counlryside Drive Fontan&. California 92335 (714) 685-5762 SUBDIVISION SURVEYING DRAINAGE October 7, 1991 Mr. Steve Hayes Project Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE~ Variance application Of Lot 7 of Tract No. 14405 Dear Steve: Tract No. 14405 is a development project of twenty single family housing lots from a parcel of vacant land. It locates at the north side of San Bernardino Road, opposite to the Thomas Winery Commercial Project. The land is in a sharp triangular shape with a fairly uniform slope from NW to SE. An offset cul-de-sac is "hence necessary for designing the north corner of the triangle. The design will create a triangular Lot 7 which is not standard. I hereby apply for the City's approval of variance of said Lot 7. Please note that the average lot size of this tract is 6706 sq.ft. larger than the minimum net average of 6000 sq.ft. for LM zone. The size of Lot 7 is 8072 sq.ft., larger than the minimum net 5000 sq.ft. The Tentative Map is being submitted for your review. Sincerely, Walter W. Hu RCE 29954 2069 ,,\ x',',, Cat Gurage :.,."'. /,,--%,, \ " >.'.'."..~., x .~..~ ~ ,' ..... ,, \ ,,'~ ~ ' 8910 SF City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 2. Related Files: Variance 91-11 3. Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14405 - LEE - A request for an extension of a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 20 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of San Bernardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08 Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Jeff Lee 2208 North Edwards Avenue South El Monte, CA 91733 General Plan Designation: Low-Medium Residential Zoning: Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Single family homes in the Low Residential District to the north and east, vacant land in the Office Park District to the west, and the Thomas Winery Plaza in the Special Commercial District of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to the south. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Rebecca Van Buren, Associate Planner (909) 477-2750 EXHIBIT "F" Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact." "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (v') Geological Problems ( ) Water ( ) Air Quality ( ) Transpo~lation/Circulation ( ) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources ( ) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandator,/Findings of Significance ( ) Public Services ( ) Utilities and Service Systems ( ) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation, DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect oh the environment. there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation m, easures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signed: %~ ~,~ U~ ~,~ Rebecca Van Buren Associate Planner January 5, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact." "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers. including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND c) d) USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.' Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Seiche hazards? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) () () () () () () (v) () (v) () (v) () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () (). (v) () () (v) Comments: General Plan Figure V-4 Geotechnical Hazards indicates that the Red Hill Fault Zone runs through the project site. A Geologic Investigation was performed to determine whether any actual fault lines are present. The repod, prepared by Leighton and Associates dated June 7, 1990, concluded that there are no traces of the Red Hill Fault trending through the site. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Exposure of people or properly to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v") d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 5 g) h) i) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? () NO Impad () () (v) () () (v) (~ () (v) () ()' (v) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) b) c) d) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) Create objectionable odors? ( ) () () () () () (v) (v) (~') (v) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) () () () () (v) (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 6 e) 0 g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transpodation (e.g.', bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail or air traffic impacts? () () () () () () ( () No (,/) (v) (,/) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered. threatened. or rare species or their habitats (including. but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g.. heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g., eucalyptus grove. sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) (). () () () () No (v) (v) (v) (v) (v) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) No () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 7 HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Increased fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, 9rass, or trees? () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () (v) (v) (,/) (v) (v) 10. NOISE. WTII the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) () () () () (v) (v) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the foilowing areas: a) b) c) d) e) Fire protection? ( ) Police protection? ( ) Schools? ( ) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) Other governmental services? ( ) () () () () () () () () () () (v) (,/) (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 8 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or suppries or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) b) c) d) O g) Power or natural gas? Communication systems? Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Sewer or septic tanks? Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? () ( (v) () ( (v) () ( (v) () ( (v) () () (v) () () ) (v) () () ) (v) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? () () () () () () No ) (v) ) (v) ) (v) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal.' a) b) c) d) Disturb paleontological resources? Disturb archaeological resources? Affect historical or cultural resources? Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? NO () () () (v) () () (v) () () (Y) () () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 9 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal.' a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () () (v) · () () () (v) 16. c) d) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited. but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects. the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract 14405 - Lee Page 10 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (v) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115. certified January 4, 1989) (t,/) Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract 14405, certified December 10, 1992. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further,, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would Occur. Signature: Print Name and Title: Date: City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for pubtic review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Time Extension for Tentative Tract 14405 Public Review Period Closes: January 27, 1999 Project Name: Project Applicant: Jeff Lee Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the north side of San Bemardino Road, east of Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-091-08. Project Description: A request for an extension or a previously approved tentative tract map including design review for the development of 20 single family lots on 4.39 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential Distdct (4-8 dwelling units per acre). Related File: Vadance 91-11. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine If the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there Is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. I'] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negalive Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearty no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are Included In the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909} 477-2847. NOTICE The public Is Invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 27. 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14405 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.39 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 208-091-08. Recitals. " - 1. Jeff Lee has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 14405, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinal'ter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 9, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-147, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Tentative Tract No. 14405. 3. On the 27th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of!the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 oi' Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 27, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony. this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances. plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans. ordinances. plans. codes. and policies; and c. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'I'F14405oLEE January27,1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral repods included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a, That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State~ CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder;, that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project. there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further. based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration. the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission dudng the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tentative Tract Applicant Expiration 14405 Jeff Lee December 9. 1999 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2.3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 92-147 and the Standard Conditions. attached thereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: Planninq Division 1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents. officers. or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Coud costs and attomey's fees which the City. its agents. officers. or employees, may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole discretion, participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 'FI'14405-LEE January 27,1999 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'I'I'EST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of January 1999. by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14405 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 20 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 4.39 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-09~1-08. A. Recitals. 1. Jeff Lee has filed an application for the extension of the approval of the Design Review for Tentative Tract Map No. 14405. as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 9. 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-148. thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, the Design Reviev~ for Tentative Tract No. 14405. 3. On the 27th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said headng on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW. THEREFORE, it is hereby found. determined. and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on January 27, 1999. including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Design Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans. codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Design Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the Design Review approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FORTT14405-LEE January 27,1999 Page 2 d. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for. Desicln Review Applicant Tentative Tract 14405 Jeff Lee Expiration December 9 1999 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fodh in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 92-148 and the Standard Conditions, attached thereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: Planninq Division 1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to re.linquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attomey's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees, may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FOR T'i'14405- LEE January 27,1999 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE PREVIOUSLYAPPROVED VARIANCE NO. 91-11 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR LOT DEPTH FROM 90 TO 65 FEET FOR ONE LOT WITHIN A PROPOSED 20 LOT SUBDIVISION IN THE LOW*MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-091-08. Recitals. . i 1. Jeff Lee has filed an application for the extension of the approval of Vadance 91-11, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vadance time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 9, 1992, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 92-149, thereby approving, subject to specific conditions and time limits, Vadance 91-11. 3. On the 27th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said headng on that date. , 4. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution.. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Redtals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on January 27, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The previously approved Vadance is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and b. The extension of the Variance approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances. plans, codes and policies; and c. The extension of the Variance approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and ordinance. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 91-11- LEE January 27,1999 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for. Application Applicant Expiration Vadance 91-11 Jeff Lee December 9, 1999 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies the conditions of approval contained in Re,solution No. 92-149 and the Standard Conditions, attached thereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows: ~ Planning Division 1) The applicant shall agree to defend, at his sole expense, any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its .agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attomey's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees. may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole discretion. participate, at its own expense, in the defense of any such a~tion but such participation shall not relieve the applicant of his obligations under this condition. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced. passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: /' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 27, 1999 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: SUBJECT: Brent Le Count, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-30 - HOME DEPOT - A request to construct a 220,669 square foot warehouse building on 12.4 acres of land in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place - APN: 209-471-08. Related files: Development Review 95-33 and 95-34. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surroundina Land Use and Zonincl: Nodh - Industrial buildings across Arrow Route; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan South- ~ndustria~Bui~dings;Subarea9(Minimum~mpact~Heavy~ndustria~)~ndustria~AreaSpeci~cP~an East - Industrial Building; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan West - Industrial Buildings; Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan General Plan Desiqnations: Project Site - General Industrial Nodh - General Industrial South - Heavy Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial Site Characteristics: The subject site is part of a Master Plan originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992 and modified in 1996 to include two large industrial buildings. One of the buildings, located on the south side of Tacoma Street (to the west of the proposed building), has been built. The other building which was proposed for the subject property, was never built and the Development Review approval has expired. The current proposal has virtually the same design as was previously approved in terms of plotting, massing, and building materials (concrete tilt-up panels with sandblasted concrete and brick veneer). The current proposal includes more articulation of the front elevation facing Arrow Route than was previously approved. Parkinq Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 6,250 1/250 25 25 Warehousing 20,000 1/1000 20 20 20,000 1 ~2000 10 10 174,419 1/4000 4__4 71 TOTAL 220,669 99 126 ' _Y ITEN E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-30- HOME DEPOT January 27,1999 Page 2 ANALYSIS: General: Rail spurs are proposed to serve the south and east sides of the building. A large area of the site to the south of the building is proposed to have outdoor lumber storage. There are dock-high loadin9 doors on the west elevation and truck parking areas adjacent to Oakwood Place; therefore, the outdoor lumber storage and dock-high doors are proposed to be screened behind a decorative concrete wall along the Oakwood Place frontage similar to the previously approved project. A retention basin is proposed at the southeast corner of the site. The truck traffic would enter and exit the site through a gate at the southwest corner which is proposed to remain open during business hours. This way, trucks will not be forced to stack onto the public right-of-way prior to entering the site. Desicln Review Committee: The Committee (Macias. Stewart. Henderson) reviewed the project on January 5, 1999, and recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. Refer to the attached Design Review Committee Action Agenda for further details. C. Technical Review Committee: The Grading and Technical Review Committees reviewed the project and recommend approval subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution of Approval. Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was prepared by the applicant and staff completed Part II. Staff identified no potential environmental impacts related to the project. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Negative Declaration would be in order. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission issue a Negative Declaration and approve Development Review 98-30 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:BLC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" - Site Plan Grading Plan Floor Plan Elevations Screen Wall Elevations Landscape Plan DRC Action Comments dated January 5, 1999 Exhibit "H" - Initial Study Resolution of Approval with Conditions BUILDING 2 ~..~-. .'.~.. .... ~. - _,.._. ..............~,...~ .;=~_~=' ~._..~,~;: .~-~,~-'~'.~ ..............~_~_ ......~_..__~_.~_..~_~..~.'-'; .._~= ~_'_ , -......... vicinity map project Information site plan keynotes site plan general notes v~Nrv ,~P ~ ,, __, ~' ~:~E:'~'~:'=~ ....... . .~-~'~= ~'.~:.--* . ~-~ ~ ~.~ ~' ~-_ ...... ~- : .- ....... ' ~=-':~-=,,*~--','~.='~.' , ~**~ .'~':':: ......... KOLL DEVELOPMONENT COMPANY ...... hill plnckert archllects, Inc. X  CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN ~zaC 2 - W~~/&~O~/ C[NrER r.",,, .':_. ':"' :.::',:,..- : F G 4 I 2 3 4 5 F G H BUILDING A floor plan GETNERAL NOTES , FLOOR pLAN HOME DEPOT KOLL ARROW BUILDINGS 2 KOLL DEVELOPMONENT COMPANY hill plnckert architects, Inc. _. t'.EFFtlFFt"FFI,;~'ZE' ..... t, m~mim~ mm ~ Ti :,: I":" s: :L. . Elevations, COLOR SCHEDULE - ELEVATIONS ' ............... ' ....... HOME DEPOT .................. KOLL ARROW BUILDING 2 ......... ,.-._?:;:.,-:-~/--. KOLL DEVELOPMENT hill plnckeH archllecte, Inc, NORTH SCREEN WALL e GATE, ' I · ' :: 5::1 I , ::~ WEST SCNEEN WALL ELEVATION · ,~ .... *** .... WEST SCNEEN WALL ELEVATION CONT, ~ WEST SCNEEN WALL · GATE WEST SCNEEN WALL ELEVATION CONT, HOME DEPOT KOLL ARROW BUILDING 2 KOLL DEVELOPMENT Screen Well Elevatlons~ hill plnckert architects, Inc, KOLL ARROW CENTER An'o',,. Route at Oakw, ood Place Rancho Cucamonga. CA LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN , ~* g EMERALD 7:40 p.m. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS Brent Le Count January 5, 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-30 - HOME DEPOT - A request to construct a 220,669 square foot warehouse building on 12.4 acres of land in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place -APN: 209471-08. Desiqn Parameters: The subject site is pad of a Master Plan originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992 and then modified in 1996 to include two large industrial buildings. One of the buildings located on the south side of Tacoma Street (to the west of the proposed building) has been built. The other building, which was proposed for the subject properly, was never built and the Development Review approval has expired. The current proposal has vidually the same design as was previously approved in terms of plotting, massing, and building materials (concrete tilt-up panels with sandblasted concrete and brick veneer). Rail spurs are proposed serving the south and east sides of the building. A large area of the site to the south of the building is proposed to have outdoor lumber storage. There are dock high loading doors on the west elevation and truck parking areas adjacent to Oakwood Place, which is contrary to Industrial Area design standards and require loading to be located in side and rear areas away from street frontages. The outdoor lumber storage and dock high doors are proposed to be screened ' behind a decorative concrete wall along the Oakwood Place frontage similar to the previously approved project. A retention basin is proposed at the southeast corner of the site. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Upgrade the north elevation facing Arrow Route (Special Boulevard) to include greater use of sandblasted concrete, brick veneer, fluted concrete, or a combination thereof. Lower grade level of south portion of site such that the truck parking, loading, and lumber storage areas are depressed as far as possible relative to the street to maximize screening of these areas. The Committee may wish to discuss how far south the decorative concrete screen wall should extend along the west property line south of Oakwood Place. SecondaN Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Slope/berm ground level up within landscape setback area along Oakwood Place such that no more than 8 feet of vertical height of the screen walls are exposed. Provide an 8-foot high wing wall at the northeast corner of the building to screen rail spur from Arrow Route. Gates at southwest and northwest corners of the site and east side of building shall be opaque to fully screen lumber storage, loading areas, and rail spur from Oakwood Place and Arrow Route. The Committee may wish to discuss the orientation of the gate at the southwest corner of the site off of Oakwood Place as it is proposed to remain open during operating hours exposing views of the loading and lumber storage areas to the street. 4. All downspouts along the north and west elevations shall be located inside the building. DRC COMMENTS CUP 98-30 - HOME DEPOT January 5, 1999 Page 2 5. Paint metal canopy and support posts on West Elevation to match the building. 6. Clarify "pump house" structure shown near southern driveway entrance off Oakwood Place. Policy Issues: The following items are a standard of the Industrial Area Specific Plan or are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Provide I tree per 30 linear feet of perimeter property line plus 1 tree per 30 linear feet of building wall exposed to public view. A minimum of 12 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. Screen walls shall not exceed an exposed height of 8 feet on the street side and shall respect a minimum setback of 25 feet from the ultimate face of curb. Provide decorative screen walls between employee outdoor eating areas and adjacent loading areas. Materials and trucks stored outdoors shall not exceed the height of the screen wall within - 1 O0 feet of the wall, All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from all surrounding public rights-of-way and property. All above ground utilities and irrigation fixtures shall be fully screened behind a low wall or dense landscaping. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project design be revised in light of the above comments and brought back for further Committee review, prior to scheduling for Planning Commission. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias, Pam Stewart, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Brent Le Count The Committee reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to all of staffs comments and the following additional comments. The applicant agreed to all of the comments: Provide tree planting around the rim of the retention basin. The maximum height of materials stored outdoors shall not exceed 10 feet. Extend the decorative masonry screen wall south along the west property line to the rail line. Make the slope along the northern edge of the site (south of Arrow Route) more undulating and variable to provide a more natural appearance. City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review 98-30 2. Related Files: Development Review 95-33 and 95-34 Description of Project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-30 - HOME DEPOT - A request to construct a 220,710 square foot warehouse building on 12.4 acres of land in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place - APN: 209-471-08 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Hogle Ireland, Inc. 4200 Latham Street, Suite B Riverside, CA 92501 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: Subarea 8 (General Industrial) Industrial Area Specific Plan Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by existing industrial development. Directly to the southwest of the site lies a large industrial building similar in size and design to the proposed project. The site was originally planned to have a building very similar to that being proposed as part of a master plan with the other building to the southwest. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Contact Person and Phone Number: Brent Le Count (909) 477-2750 ,.,.,Ol-(-- Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Population and Housing (~/) Geological Problems (~) Water ( ) Air Quality (~') Transpodation/Circulation (~) Biological Resources ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (t,/) Hazards ( ) Noise ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance (v') Public Services (~) Utilities and Service Systems (t/) Aesthetics ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Recreation DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. () Signed: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Br Br~ount, AICP Associate Planner January 6, 1999 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? () () () () (v) () (~) () (¢) () (~) c) POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of a major infrastructure)? ( ) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) () () () () () () (v') (v,) (,/) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) () () NQ (¢) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 4 b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche hazards? e) Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ()' () (v) () () () () (v) () () (v) () () () () (v) Comments: The project will involve minor alterations to the terrain as the site is currently vacant. Grading will be performed in accordance with accepted grading practices and applicable City requirements. The impact is not considered significant. h) The General Plan indicates that the site contains "Tujunga-Delhr' soil association which "may have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been performed that indicates the soils can adequately suppod the weight of the structure." A condition of approval requires the developer to submit a soils report for review by the City prior to the issuance of a 9rading permit. The impact is not considered significant 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates. drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) ) () (v) ) (v) () ) () (v) () () (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 5 e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? No () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) () () (v) Comments: b) The site was originally pad of a two-building master plan with the existing building to the southwest. As part of the master plan, a storm water detention facility was required to offset inadequate storm drain capacity downstream. The detention facility has been installed. The impact is not considered significant. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in.' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? () () (v) () Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 6 b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? () () () () () () () () NO (v) (v) (v) (v) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') g) Rail or air traffic impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') Comments: a) The project will generate additional traffic trips because the site is currently vacant. The EIR prepared for the Industrial Area Specific Plan identified street widths to meet the needs of the industrial users. The number of trips anticipated with the application is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR conditions. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc,)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () () (v) () () () () (v) () () () (v) () () () (v) () () (v) () Comments: a & e) The site is located in an area identified as a potential habitat for endangered or threatened species, specifically, the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly (DSF). A Habitat Initial Study for Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 7 Assessment was prepared (June 23, 1998 - Impact Sciences) which indicates that the site does not support widespread areas of high-quality habitat or optimal DSF habitat due to the prevalence of non-native, invasive vegetation, overall pervasiveness of compacted soils, recent on-site construction activities, and lack of connectivity to open or vacant land. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V') e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) (t/) ( ) Comments: e) The project entails the storage of lumber for Home Depot. Lumber is obviously fiammable and, therefore, poses a potential increased fire hazard. The project has been designed in accordance with the requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prevention District and the conditions of approval require special permits from the District prior to occupancy. The impact is not considered significant. Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 8 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? () () () (v) () () () (v) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (v") ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~/) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (¢) e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v") Comments: a) The storage of lumber will necessitate processing and issuance of special permits from the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prevention District. The impact is not considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following utilities.' a) Power or natural gas? b) Communication systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? () () () () () () () () () (v) · (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 9 e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) ( ) ( ) ( ) (v) Comments: e) The site was originally part of a two-building master plan with the existing building to the southwest. As part of the master plan, a storm water detention facility was required to offset inadequate storm drain capacity down stream. The detention facility has been installed. The impact is not considered significant. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.' a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v') c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (e,/) ( ) Comments: c) The project will create light and glare because the site is currently vacant. A Standard Condition requires preparation of a photometric diagram to demonstrate that no light or glare will interfere with surrounding rights-of-way or property. The impact is not considered significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal.' a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical or cultural resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? () () () () (v) (v) (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 10 e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) () () (v) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? () () () (v) () () () (v) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term. to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief. definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects. and the effects of probable future projects.) () () () (v) () () (v) () () ( (v) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review 98-30 - Home Depot Page 11 d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? () () () (v) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering. program EIR, or other CEQA process. one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (t/) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (v') Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115. certified January 4, 1989) (v') Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (~/) Negative Declaration for Development Review 95-33 (Issued by Planning Commission on March 13, 1996) :I '1/.//I \/., 10.02 AC ~ |0.06 AC 4 67~.C c,.278 ,r_ City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: Conditional Use Permit 98-30 Project Name: Home Depot Project Location (also see attached map): Oakwood Place - APN: 209-471-08. Public Review Period Closes: January 27, 1999 Project Applicant: Hogle Ireland, Inc. Located at the southeast corner of Arrow Route and Project Description: A request to construct a 220.669 square foot warehouse building on 12.4 acres of land in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where cleady no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. January 27. 1999 Date of Determination Adopted By RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-30, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 220,669 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 12.4 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND OAKWOOD PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-471-08 A. Recitals. 1. Hogle Ireland, Inc. has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 98-30, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of January 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined. and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on January 27, 1999, including wdtten and 'oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southeast comer of Arrow Route and Oakwood Place, with a street frontage of 500 feet on Arrow Route and 600 feet on Oakwood Place, and lot depth of 1,200 feet and which is presently improved with a retention basin and vacant; and b. The surrounding properties are developed with industrial buildings; and c. The project, together with the attached conditions of approval. will comply with the applicable standard of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Development Code; and d. The development of the building is consistent with the General Industrial designation of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan; and e. The property is in an area of inadequate storm drain capacity down stream; however, a retention basin was installed with a previous approval which will handle the drainage from the project; and f. The design of the project includes decorative masonry screen walls which will screen on-site loading and storage activities; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-30- HOME DEPOT January 27,1999 Page 2 g. The north elevation of the building facing Arrow Route, a Special Boulevard, has upgraded architectural features to provide enhanced aesthetics in the Industrial Area. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng 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. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the Development Code; and d. That 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. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlib resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public headng, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-30 - HOME DEPOT January 27, 1999 Page 3 Planninq Division 1) Slope/berm ground level up within landscape setback area along Oakwood Place such that no more than 8 feet of vertical height of the screen walls are exposed to views from the street. 2) Provide an 8-foot high wing wall at the northeast comer of the building to screen rail spur from Arrow Route. 3) Gates at southwest and northwest comers of the site and at the east side of the building shall be opaque to fully screen lumber storage. loading areas, and rail spur from Oakwood Place and Arrow Route when closed, 4) All down spouts along the north and west elevations shall be located inside the building. 5) Paint metal canopy and support posts on west elevation to match the building. 6) The "pump house" structure located near southem driveway entrance off Oakwood Place shall have walls to match that of the decorative screen walls. 7) The maximum height of any materials stored outdoors shall be 10 feet, 8) Extend decorative masonry screen wall south along west property line to the rail line. 9) Provide tree planting along the dm of the retention basin. 10) Provide undulation and variation to the slope along the Arrow Route frontage to provide a more natural appearance. 11) A minimum of 12 percent of the site area shall be landscaped. 12) Screen walls shall respect a minimum setback of 25 feet from the ultimate face of curb. 13) Provide decorative screen walls between employee outdoor eating areas and adjacent loading areas. 14) Trucks stored outdoors shall not exceed the height of the screen wall within 100 feet of the wall. 15) All roof-mounted equipment shall be fully screened from all surrounding public rights-of-way and property. 16) All above ground utilities and irrigation fixtures shall be fully screened behind a low wall or dense landscaping. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-30- HOME DEPOT Janua~ 27,1999 Page 4 17) Eliminate a/c slope at southeast comer of building and replace with retaining wall. 18) Extend rail line along east side of building north to provide rail service to northern portion of building. Enaineedna Division 1) Protect, in place, all existing street improvements, traffic striping, and signage on both frontages and R26 signs on both frontages. 2) All driveways shall accommodate semi trailer and/or fire truck turning radii. 3) Street trees shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer including areas where driveways will be removed. Dead or dying trees shall be replaced with current tree species for respective streets. An assessment by a certified arborist. to determine the viability of any trees the applicant would like to preserve, shall be required. 4) ReviseCity Drawing 1472 to reflect changes to the Oakwood Place frontage and any changes in tree species or notes. (NOTE: The proposed southerly driveway on Oakwood Place will necessitate relocating a street light and fire hydrant. 5) A drainage study shall be prepared, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, substantiating that the capacity of the retention basin has not been altered by the proposed modifications, prior to the issuance Of building permits. Buildinq & Safety Division 1) Side yard use for increase in allowable area shall require recordation of a "Covenant and Agreement for the Maintenance of a Non- Buildable Easement," which is signed by the appropriate property owners, pdor to the issuance of building permits. Rancho Cucamonaa Fire Protection Distdct 1) Exterior storage arrangement shall be in accordance with NFPA standards for extedor storage. Fire Department access minimum 26 feet wide shall be maintained. 2) Exterior LPG tank shall comply with 1994 UFC. 3) Interior high pile storage shall be in accordance with 1994 UFC Article 81. 4) Entrance off of Oakwood Place (north) tuming radius shall be revised to comply with RCFD standards. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-30- HOME DEPOT January 27,1999 Page 5 5) Allowable area/construction and side yard setback requirements shall comply with 1994 UBC. Police Department 1) Gated access shall provide police with a keypad access and a unique code, The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Department's Cdme Prevention Unit along with plans. If the code is changed, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24-hour dispatch center at (909) 941-1488 or by contacting the Cdme Prevention Unit at (909) 477-2800, extension 2474 or 2475. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman A'FFEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed. and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 98-30 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDING HOME DEPOT SEC ARROW ROUTE AND OAKINOOD PLACE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Completion Dire The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City. its agents. officers. or employees. because of the issuance of such approval. or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City. its agents, officers. or employees. for any Cour~ costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers. or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may. at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced. participated in. or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. A copy of the signed Resolution of Approval or City Planners letter of approval. and all Standard Conditions, shall be included in legible form on the grading plans. building and construction plans, and landscape and irrigation plans submitted for plan check. B. Time Limits Approval shall expire. unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Project NO Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division. the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity be ng commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code. all other applicable City Ordinances. and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry wails, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. All building numbers shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. D. Building Design All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. DR 98-30 Completion Date Project NO OR 98-30 Completion Oato E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long, When a side of any parking space abuts a building. wall, support column. or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial. and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. F. Landscaping 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 City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects. shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. Within parking lots. trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Project No Trees Shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building All private slopes of 5 feet or less 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. 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 -gal Ion 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. The final design of the perimeter parkways. walls, landscaping. and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. Special landscape features such as mounding. alluvial rock. specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Arrow Route. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 10. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 11. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. G. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 471-27'10, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: H. Site Development Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., CUP 98-01 ). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, Title 24 Accessibility requirements, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. 4 DR 98-30 Completion Date / / / / / / Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee. School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3, Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. I. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for required occupancy separation(s). 3. Roofing material shall be installed as for wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. 2. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project, Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. / a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed. flushed, and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6-inch riser with a 4-inch and a 2-1/2-inch outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. SC , 1218198 5 OR 98-30 Completion Date , Project No Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of the required fire protection system. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final inspection. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: / Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. Other: 1994 UBC. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage, high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if the sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. California Code Regulations Title 24. 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards. as noted: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. / All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear of obstructions at all times during construction, in accordance with Fire District requirements. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14 feet, 6 inches from the ground up, so as not to impede fire apparatus. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. $ 677 in Fire District fee(s), and a $1 per "plan page" microfilm fee will be due to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District prior to Building and Safety permit issuance." A Fire District fee in the amount of $132.00 shall be paid at the time of Water Plan submittal. · "Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems. alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. DR 98-30 Completion Date 6 L. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: · / a. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet). v' b. High piled combustible stock. · / c. Liquefied petroleum gas (storage, handling, transport, or use exceeding more than 120 gallons). APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Lighting All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. DR 98-30 Completion Date CTI'Y OF RANCFIO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Janua~ 27,1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner Sal Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. - A design review application to amend the development standards for Phases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of previously approved Amended Tentative Tract 15727 consisting of 339, (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and authorize the use of the Development Code Optional Standards, on 82 acres located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related file: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninc~: North - Single family residential tract; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Drainage facilities, vacant, and apartments; City of Ontario - Open Space, Single-family, and Multi-Family Residential East - Single family residences and vineyards; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 (General Industrial) West - Single family residence and vacant land; Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); City of Ontario - Limited Industrial General Plan Desic~nations: Project Site - Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - City of Ontario - Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre) East - Industrial Park West - Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), City of Ontario - General Industrial Site Characteristics: The 82-acre site lies at the juncture of the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and Fourth Street, and is bordered on the north by Sixth Street. The site was rezoned early in 1997 to Low-Medium and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed to assess impacts of the land use change and the residential development potential. Phases I and 2 were approved in September 1997 and are currently under construction with portions completed. k, ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-23- GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Janua~ 27,1999 Page 2 ANALYSIS: Backqround: In addition to the land use amendments and initial Tentative Tract Map approvals, the following applications have been approved for the subdivision: Desiqn Review 97-12 - Approved Building Elevations and Site Plans for small and mid-size house types (seven floor plans) for Phases 1 and 2; Master Plan of walls and fences; and street Landscaping Plans for the Fourth Street and Golden Oak Road frontages. Desicln Review 97-44 - Approved Building and Site Plans for large house products (three floor plans) for Phases 3 and 6. Desiqn Review 98-16 and Amended Tentative Tract 15727 - Approved the privatization of the interior street system and the gate/guardhouse designs forthe entire subdivision. With the privatization of the street landscaping areas, modifications to the planting designs were authorized by the Planning Commission to reduce the amount of hard scape by increasing the planting areas initially approved under Design Review 97-12. General: With the privatization of the future neighborhood, the developer has decided that modifications are warranted in the product types and plot plans to better market the project. Griffin Industries, Inc. is requesting authorization to use the Development Code Optional Low-Medium Standards for Phases 3 through 8 and, in the accompanying Design Review 98-21, approval of revised product types (larger houses) for Phases 3 and 6. Use of the Optional Standards will permit the houses to be sited closer to the private streets, thereby providing larger backyards. The average front yard setback is 31 and 34 feet (Phases 3 and 6, respectively) with some houses as close as 24 feet (from curb face). Both dimensions are within minimum Optional Standards. The revised Street Plans showed the sidewalk on certain streets located off the property line, closer to the curbs. Staff does not recommend that the sidewalks be moved from the original street improvement plans. Therefore, Engineering Condition I of the Resolution requires that the sidewalks for all future phases be along the property lines. Desiqn Review Committee: The application was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Macias, Mannerino, Henderson) on December 15, 1998. Staff analysis focused on compliance with minimum optional requirements and street scape design issues of Phases 3 and 6 as they relate to the revised product line of accompanying Design Review 98-21. Phases 3 and 6 are to have the largest house types and it was there that street scape scale/architecture considerations are expected to be the most critical. If the Optional Standards work in Phases 3 and 6, staff expects that they would be acceptable for the other, smaller house phases. The Design Review Committee accepted, in concept, the use of the Optional Standards, as requested by the applicant, in conjunction with all other applicable conditions of previous Design Review applications. Details of the recreational, open space and energy conservation features (Exhibit "D") are to be finalized at staff level with the applicant. In response to staff and Design Review Committee comments, the plan has been revised as follows: Originally, as part of the recreation open space requirements, two private parks were proposed east of Golden Oak Road on a total of three lots planned for homes. The smaller park was at the far eastern perimeter, next to the neighboring industrial park land. In response to concern that the west side of the neighborhood would not benefit from the parks PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-23- GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Janua~ 27,1999 Page 3 being east of Golden Oak Road, the applicant has proposed moving the smaller park to a lot along the west side of the street. This change will concentrate the private park area near the center of the subdivision, on both sides of Golden Oak Road. Staff believes this is an acceptable solution. Other modifications requested by the Design Review Committee include a multi-purpose game court to be added in the larger park and having the gazebo exhibit the same architectural style and quality as the guardhouse. The proposal includes doubling the use of the Golden Oak Road sidewalk as a par course jogging trail with the exercise stations at cul-de-sac paseos. Staff recommends that the sidewalk be widened 1 -foot along its outside line (between the walk and retaining wall/fence) and that a curb feature be included along the outside line to retard slope sloughing onto the walk. Final par course design and features (signing, exercise stations, etc.) will be subject to City Planner approval. All Optional Standards setback requirements as listed in the Design Review Committee comments will be complied with and all policy issues of previously approved Design Review 97-44 shall apply to the Phases 3 and 6. As of the writing of this report, Plot Plan corrections for Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 have not been completed. Therefore, at this time, staff recommends approval of the use of the optional standard Site Plans for Phases 3 and 6 and of the community wide features (recreational, open space and energy conservation). When the outstanding Site Plan details for the other phases are satisfied, staff will return these items for Planning Commission approval under Consent items. FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Low-Medium Optional Standards of the Development Code. This project will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties. The proposed use and site plan for Phases 3 and 6, with recommended Conditions of Approval, are in compliance with applicable provisions ofthe Development Code and City standards. On November20, 1996, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report for this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use of Development Code Optional Standards for Phases 3 and 6 of Amended Tentative Tract 15727. The use of Optional Standards is approved in concept for the Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8 with detailed Site Plans to be submitted for final Planning Commission approval before building permit issuance. City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Conceptual Site Plan, Phases 3 and 6 Exhibit "B" - Conceptual Private Park Plans Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Jogging Par Course Exhibit "D" - Metlund Hot Water Demand Alternative Energy System Data Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Minutes dated December 15, 1998 Resolution of Approval with Conditions rn X CITY of R.4NCHO CUCAMONGA C~PTUAL ~ P/AN ~=~CT No. 1b'7~7 CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE rn I 1/ I 1 #II e,a~ I 1 I COtlifT 32 OLEN~ X × I:I _ fn X 47 --" A X 4 HOIIE8 TEA O 2 HIE H.4 ~ 'THORNES 36 \ \,,, 2, ' - "." ,. ,',','X ' ", -,. \ \ ,?; \,,' \ 24 ,-, "~ -\x,/" ';" ~' 25 2 , PLAN Metlund® Hot Water D 'MAND ® System Metlund Hot Water D'mand System Alternative Energy System Typical hot water operation · After hot water is turned on it takes 2-5 minutes for hot water to arrive at fixture. · Heat loss due to the time it takes to send hot water to the fixture. · Approximately 40-50 gallons of water is wasted in this process per house per day. · High demand on sewer facilities because of the wasted water. · Homeowners tend to set the temperature higher because of the wait. Metlund D'Mand System · On demand recirculating system. Which reduces electrical demands. · Saves water by delivering hot water to farthest fixture within 20 seconds. · Saves energy by reducing heat loss during delivery. · Increases efficiency of hot water system, because the temperature can be set lower because the delivery is almost immediate. · Reduces sewer system demands by reducing water waste. Metlund Hot Water D'mand System Alternative Energy System Average Savings with the Metlund System Saved Gal. Per Day Saved Gal. BTU Reduced Sewage Water Per Year Savings Settings Savings Savings ($0.62 Therrms) {$.004/GaL} {$.002/GaL} Annual Savings 40 14400 57.53 37.05 57.6 28.8 18o.98 50 18000 71.16 46.31 72 36.00 225.47 Impact to the Hawthornes Project ( 239 lots) Saved Gal. Per Day Saved Gal. BTU Reduced Sewage Water Per Year Savings Settings Savings Savings ($0.62 Therrrts) ($.004/Gal.) ($.002/Gal.) Annual Savings 9,560.00 11,95o.oo 3,441,600.00 12,554.67 8,854.95 13,766.40 6,883.20 43,254.22 4,302,000.00 17,007.24 11,068.09 17,208.00 8,604.00 53,887.33 PRODUCT INFORMATION PRODUCT METLUND® HOT WATER DEMAND SYSTEM, the "Intelligent Choice in Demand Recirculating Systems" INNOVATIVE FEATURES Advanced Conservation Technology, Inc. has introduced an exciting new product that SaVes Water, Saves Energy and adds convenience to the homeowner. The Metlund Hot Water Demand System: · Works only on Demand · Delivers hot water in seconds to fixtures without the loss of cold water clown the drain · Works with all standard water heaters · Simple installation · Receives energy credits by the California Energy Commission Title 24 for remodeling and new construction. HOW IT WORKS The Systems are installed at either the water heater for a home with a recirculating line or loop or at the furthest fixture from the water heater for a traditionally plumbed home where the supply runs from the water heater by most of the fixtures. Once installed, usually in less than two hours, the system is activated by push buttons or remotes at the desired fixtures. Upon activation, the pump quickly fills the hot xvater line with hot ~vater and then shuts off automatically. The cold water that would normally be wasted down the drain while waiting, is pumped back into the water heater. The customer realizes three major benefits: Saves water, Saves energy from operating only on demand and the hot water arrives rapidly because of the high performance recirculating pump. Aside from being cost effective, the Demand System will save up to 15% of the cost of heating hot water and prevent 40 to 50 gallons of potable water from being wasted per home. · The average cost of yearly operation of high performance pump is less than $0.50. · The average savings of water per home a year is 15,000gallons. · The average energy savings is 12 to 15% of the water heating cost. The Metlund Hot Water Demand System: ADDS CONVENIENCE ADDS LIFE TO YOUR WATER HEATER HAS A PAYBACK OF ONE TO THREE YEARS SAVES ENERGY (pump only runs for seconds) SAVES WATER CREATES LESS POLLUTION IN CITY SEWERS REDUCES AIR POLLUTION The Metlund Hot Water Demand System also works with small businesses or multi-family residences. CORPORATE OFFICE: 1-800-M2ETLUND S-SgRIgS flOOR'LIP ""Ot~er J '~ Bu,~ons May Be J instaJIed \. DEMAND L~ BUTTON · HOT CO WATER WATER TEMPERATURE .-~ SENSOR TEPu;p "~ Could A so e ZONE ~ l installed Here EXHIBIT D-6 METLUND® HOT WATER DEMAND SYSTEM "S-SERIES" The Metlund® Hot Water Demand System "S-Series" contains all necessary components to convert standard plumbed homes into Demand Systems. The Metlunc~ System uses an electronically controlled pump and valve assembly that allows for the rapid delivery of hot water to the plumbing fixtures without the loss of cold water down the drain. The System is installed at the furthest location away from the water heater or the most commonly used long water run, so all fixtures between the water heater and that point will enjoy the benefits of the Demand System. When activated, the Metlunc~ "S-Series" pumps the cold water out of the hot water line into the cold water line. The System automatically shuts off when hot water arrives at the pump. The only plumbing required is the connection between the cold water and hot water line at the remote fixture. On remodeled or new construction hot water line can be run in sedes from the water heater to the last fixture allowing for all fixtures to have hot water On-Demand. Low voltage (12 volt) wires can accommodate the demand buttons in any or all fixture locations. · The average cost of yearly operation of high performance pump is less than $0.50. 4. The average savings of water per home a year is 15,000 gallons. · The average energy savings is 12 to 15% of the water heating cost. The complete systems consists of: · Grundfos High Performance Water Circulating Pump · Erie Electronic Modulating Zone Valve · Metlund Electronic Controller · Button and Off-Sensor · Sensor Clamps, Nuts, Bolts and Screws Specifications: Total Head in FeetCapacity in U.S. GPM 42Pump 1/25HP 115 Volt 60 HZ .75AMP 16 14 96Pump 1/12HP 115 Volt 60 HZ 1.70AMP 30 25 * If you are waiting 2Y2 minutes or more for hot water or if your fixture is approximately 75 feet or more from the water heater, we recommend model 96S. EXHIBIT D-? X ~l'l~c Intelligent C'i164~e. . . Demand Recirculating Systems WATER COLD WATER UNE COLD WATER UNE COLD WATER UNE SUPPLY ~ .... ,-,/ ......... BlOT WATER LJIi S-Series ! ~i ~ for Standard Piping ~ (non-recite) ~ HOT WATER LINE HOT WAIER LINE The Metlined S-Series converts standard plumbed homes into Demand Systems. When activated, S-Series pumps the cold water out of the hot water line into the cold water line. The System automatically shuts off when hot water arrives at Ihe pmnp. This system includes: · Electronic Controller · High Performance Grundfos Circulating Pump · Erie Electronic Self-Closing Valve · Button and Off-Sensor · Remote Control Optional SYSTEMS REFERENCES These references are leaders in the industry who support the Metlund® Hot Water D'MAND® System. Over 300 builders nationally are specifying the D'MAND System on their production homes. Many of the executives of these builders have installed systems on their personal homes. Gay Klein Kirk Bre~ver Larry Riggs Chuck Love Roger Lighthart Tom Baker Neil Miller David Larsen Jarfelt White John Hammond Dave Hickman Matt Norman California Energ3, Commission Southern California Water Company President - Warmington Homes Vice President - S&S Homes Lighthart Company President RCR Plumbing President - Fletcher Homes Western Pacific Housing Ph: Purchasing Coordinator - Centex Homes Ph: Vice President Standard Pacific ltomes Barratt Homes Shea Homes Terry Hardgrave Vice President Warmington Home Rick Ringor Engineer City of Sacramento EXHIBIT n-9 1400 Bristol Street North, Suite 145, Newport Beach, ~._~ Phone (714) Ph: 916-653-8555 Ph: 909-394-3600 Ph: 949-557-5511 Ph: 714-693-8080 Ph: 213-661-1565 Ph: 909-371-5000 Ph: 408-455-0100 949-442-6199 805-288-5777 Ph: 619-279-2042 Ph: 619-431-0800 Ph: 619-549-3156 Ph: 949-557-5511 Ph: 916-488-0654 752-7283 · Fax (714) 752.9008 iI iI IAPMO RESEARCH AND TESTING, INC. 20001 Walnut Dr. So., Walnut, CA 91789-2825 Tel (909) 595-8449 Fax (909) 594-3690 CERTIFICATE OF LISTING Samples of the product described heroin have been tested by an independent testing laboratory and have been reviewed and accepted for listing by the PIumbing Research Committee of IAPMO Research and Testing, Inc. as meeting the requirements of the Uniform Plumbing CodeTM. This listing is subject to the conditions set forth in the characteristics below and is not to be construed as any recommendation. assurance or guarantee by IAPMO Research and Testing, Inc. of the product or of product acceptance by local jurisdictions or authorities using the Uniform Plumbing CodeTM or otherwise affiliated with IAPMO Research and Testing, Inc. Accepted: PRODUCT: APPLICANT: IDENTIFICATION: CHARACTERISTICS: MODELS: July 1998 Void After: July 1999 Hot Water Recirculating Systems FILE NO. 3659 Advanced Conservation Technology 1400 Bristol Street North #145 Newport Beach , CA 92660 Manufacturer's name or trademark, model designation and IAPMO UPC® certification mark. A pumping system to provide hot water on demand from existing hot water system. Reducing/Eliminating cold water delivery from hot water valve. Both recirculating and demand system. Manufactured in compliance with Interim Guide Criteria IGC 107-97. To be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the latest edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code S-01 Metlund Hot Water D'Mand System This llstLng is for the period indicated heroin and is void after date shown above. Any change in material. manufacturing process. marking or design wittyout having first oPtained the approval of the Rumbing Research Committee or any evidence Of non-cornptiance with app~icaDle standards Or ot inferior workmanship, may be deemed sufficient cause for revocation of the listing, Reproduction of or reference to this form for advertising purposes may be ma(~e only by specific wntten permission of IARMO Research and Testing, Inc. This authorizes the use of the UPC® on products covered by this certificate. Any alteration Of this certificate could be grounds for revocation of Ins listing. 0. EXHIBIT D-10 Sponsor of the Uniform Plumbing Code'rM. Uniform Mechanical CodeTM, Uniform Swimming Pool. Spa and Hot Tub CodeTM and Uniform So!ar Energy FPh' ap fa urers' Metlurid® Hot v ater Waiting for hot water to arrive at each faucet or shower head is a fact of life everyone has experienced. Running water down the drain wait- ing for hot water wastes time, water and money. Most homes will lose between 30 to 40 gallons per day, up to 14,000 gallons per year, waiting for hot water to arrive. This is not only an inconvenience, it creates a burden on sewage processing and loss of energy and water. In the last eight years federal and state compliance regulations have mandated low flow fixtures to 1-1/2 gpm and showers to 2-1/2 gpm. This restricts the flow of hot water from the fixture regardless of your main water pressure. Slowing the hot water coming to the fixture creates a greater heat loss resulting in lost heat (energy), loss of water. a longer wait for hot water and more work (stress) on your water heater. Turning the temperature up on your water heater will help heat the pipe faster allowing you to get hot water quicker, but it is not economical and potentially subject to scalding possi- bilities. The lower the temperature the water heater is set at. the longer it will take to receive hot water due to pipe heat loss. It is not uncommon to lose 2 to 3 times the volume in your hot water pipe just to heat up the pipe and get hot water at a desirable tem- perature. One solution is a circul. ating hot water system. To be effective this must be plumbed under new con- struction or require a great deal of major plumbing for retrofit. A 24 hour recirculating system is not eco- nomical and can be expensive. Even part time reclrculating systems are EXHIBIT O-11 ing hot water in any home, new or retrofit and even commercial applica- tion. The D'MAND System has an immediate payback to the user with an estimated savings of $200 per year, with $3,000 over the life of the system. According to Larry Acker, President of ACT, Inc. Metlund Systems, "We have spent in excess of three million dollars in time. research and develop- ment to give you this D'MAND System of today. Over 2 years of field research and operation went into the product before we actually opened the market to distribution. The object is to transfer only the cold water in the hot water pipe back through the cold water line. In order for it to work properly, the electronic pumping system must move water fast enough to prevent heat loss at the front end of the pipe. Because the Metlurid System operates on demand only, the actual cycle time averages I5 to 20 times a day, The Taco pump and Honeywell zone valves are tested for 100.000 to 150,000 cycles up to 200 degree temperatures. Based on this cycle testing, the Metlurid D'MAND System would have a life piping material, copper or plastic. When we install a Metlund System on existing homes the favo,rable response we get back is amazing." Several of our employees have installed the Metlund D'MAND System on their own homes and swear by its operation. On new home construction the D'MAND System is comparable in cost to installir loop recirculating system and has none of the inherent problems or cost of operation. We recommend the Metlund D'MAND System to our Reliability, durability and mainte- nance flee is what we the plumbers, the builders and ultimately the home owners want. The quality of the Metlurid System prevents service calls that cost money and time. The Metlurid D'MAND System has been around for over seven years, has a five year warranty and meets Uniform Plumbing Code requirements. It fits RCR's corporation policy of service and dependability." The D'MAND System is featured at Southern Cal Edison Technology Center; the SouthFace Energy Institute in Atlanta, Georgia: (Department of Energy) featured by the NAHB Research Center and approved by the Department of Interiors "Environmentally Responsible Building Products." For mote information, please con- tact ACT, Inc. Metlund Systems at (714) 752-7283, (800) 638-5863 or visit our website http://www. metlund.com. Metland Systems..deslgned for today...dedicated to the future.TM · Reprinted from July 1997 issue of Reeves dournat 11 Will hot water enter my cold water IinL,' rn t~- The System is designed to ~x aulomafically shul down on a temperalure ~ rise slfinaling Ihe electronics Io shut off '~ Ills pump and close the valve. This 7crocess allows you to enjoy hol waler in ~ the hol water line and cold waler in the cold water line. Shutting down on a preset temperature rather lhan the lemperalom rise would cause large amounts of warm or hot water to intrude inlo the cold water line. 2) What happens if I open a cold water fixture while pump is running? You will receive cold waler flowing Out of the lap. 3) If I install the system under my sink, wgi my shower have hot water too? '"'~ln most cases, yes. By filling the main l~line with hot water, it will quickly deliver hot water to any fixlure plumbed directly og of that main [ine. 4) Do I have to install the system at the furlhost fixture from the water heater? In mosl situations. it is best to inslall the System at Ihe fudhest point. By doing Ihis, it will always fill the main line with hot waler providing hol water to any fixture plumbed off of the main line. However, Ihere are circumstances when it is morn economical to insloll the Syslem at anolher localion. 5) How much space will I lose under my sink? dimensions? Dimensions: 10' long by 5Y,' deep by 7' loll. In mosl cases, the Mefiund System is inslolled behind Ihe sink Ifap. button and hot water is aheaoy in the line? The lockout feature will register thai Ihem is already hot water in the line and will prevent the System from operaling. 7) How long does it take? in most cases, hot water will ardve four to five limes quicker. This can vary depending upon piping material, inside diameter, length of mn from water heater to point of inslallalion and the number of changes in direction of the pipe run. 8) Where does the cold water go? The cold or ambient temperature water standing in the hot waler line is mdrculated into the cold water side back Io the waler heater dudng the pumping process. 9) Is a System needed for each fixture? No. As long as your fixtures am plumbed off this main line, one system will benefit your enfim home. 10) Can I install the system myself? Yes. The standard system has sweat fitting which will require soldering. Although, we do have a 'no sweat' (soldedng) accessory package for easy installorion. 11) How can I determine how my home ts plumbed or where my furthest fixture ts in my home? Determine the most impodant long hot water wait. Turn hot water on at this location, wail for water lo arrive, then shut the water off. Now go beck through your home towards the water heater testing other locations to see how long it takes to receive hot water. ff you receive hot water quicker than before, this is the 7~lem.'(lh~s lest must be ~dorm~ when ~th the bet and ~ld water lines am at ambient tem~ratums.) 12) Will it ~rk ~th solar heating? Yes. As long as them am no ch~k valves restricting flow back Io the water healer in the cold water line. 13) Will it turk ~th ~ter softener? Yes. When bet waler is demanded, Ihe cold water line will ~ purged oul ~cause we always mix bet with cold lo reach a ~mfodable lem~rature. 14) What size system do I need? The model S~1 System applies to most msidenfial home applications. ff you are waiting 3 minutes or more for bet water at your ludhest fixture and the distance is 75'+ from the water heater, you may ne~ Io u~rade to the m~el S~2. 15) How long whl I ~it for hot ~ter? th most cases. hot water will aftire four to five limes quicker. This ~n vow depending u~n piping maledal. inside diameter, length of mn from water heater to ~tht of installation and the number o[ changes in dir~tion of the pi~ ran. 16} Can I turn my ~ter heater to a Io~r sefing? Yes. In most ~ses, we find Ihe hom~ner has sel Iheir water healer at a higher sethng than n~ssaW b~ause of the inability Io r~eive hot water lo a rimely manner. By installing the Mefiund System. the cir~lator delivers hot waler Io the fixtures yew quickly thus not althwing for heat loss during Iravel lime. The EPA standard suggesls waler heater lempemture set~ng at 120'. Yes. You may splice nany push butIons inlo the low voltage wire as needed. 18) What are other ways to activate the Demand System? Activation buttons, remote control, sound aclivation, aulomafic door openers and flow detectors. To receive more delails. contact the manufacturer. 19) Can I use remote or buttons at the same time? Yes. .MECHANICAL 1) What affect will this have on city water flow? None whatsoever. The Metlund Syslem simultaneously draws hot water from the hot fine of the waler heater and retums the cold water to Ihe waler healer through Ihe cold waler line. Oulside city water pressure is unable Io enter into a dosed looped system unless a fixture is opened. 2) Does the system heat water? No. ff is a pumping system. The Mefiund System works in conjunction with your cu,ent healing system moving the hot water quickly to the fadhest fixture without Ibe loss or waste of water. 3) Do I need an electdc outlet installed for the system? A slandard 1101115V outlet is required to power the Metlund System although it only draws'.85 amps. 4) Does the System require special rn wiring? ..~ No, The System operates off any slandard 110V nulleL The 'S~)1 and P- --I 01' Systems come pre-wired for your ? convenience, Additional wiring of the components is required lor models 'S-02 and P~2'. Low voltage (12 volt) wiring is required for additional push butlous, 5) How much will the system increase my electrical hill? Thecosttooperatemodel'S~r System is less than 50¢ a year. 6) How much pressure will be added to my water line? There is no added pressure In your water lines. As hct waler is being drawn to the lurlhest fixture, the cold water is retumed Io the water heater. There is a 'o:;:;, 'pr:Ps,::od which creates -~7) Will it work on all water heating CX:3 systems? Yes. The Metloud System will work with oil propane, solar. gas. eledric and tankless. 8) How long or how much will it cost me to have a plumber Install the System? Most plumbers can inslall Ihe Metlund System models S-01, P~ll and P~)2 in less than one hour. The model S~]2 may take slightly longer. tl electrical is needed. this time must be included, The cost will vary on the plumbing houdy rate. 9) Istheremajorplumbinglnvolved? To install the Metlund System you simply connecl your hol and cold waler supplies together at Ihe fudhest fixture underneath Ihe sink. Once you remove the angle slops, you in T's and ! balance of the system. A Metlund PF Accessory package Is available for no sweaUsoldedng installations. 10) Since It's pumping fast, will I hear than banging noise when the system shuts off? No, you will not encounler any water hammer caused by the Mellund System. Our valve. operaling Io our specifications. doses slowly over a three second pedod vidually eliminating any possibility ol water hammer. 10) Do I need to run a return line back to the water heater? No. The Mellund System is designed to operate withoul additional plumbing. However, the Metlund P-Series System is adaptable to existing redrculating relum line systems. 11 ) Should I put It on a timer? No. The Metlund System allows hot water Io arrive in seconds on demand allhough several homes have used timers in cold weather climates to prevent pipes from freezing. Contact supplier f~ fudher information on this subind. 12) Do you have a plumber ln my area to recommend? We have Represenlalive organizations that cover mosl of the Untied States. They can recommend ountrantors wilhin their territories. 13) How does it save energy? By operating only on demand. The Metlund System allows you to reduce the water heater temperature selling because the System reduces heat loss in the delivery of hot water to the fixtures. Returning ambient temperature water back in the water heater and not allowing oulside cord water to enter, prevenls your water healer from cycling as often. 14) How does it save water? How much? By allowing hot water In ardve belore turning on a faucet reduces cosl of water and sewage. Average savings are 25 to 50 gallons of water per day per family. 15) What affect will it have on my septic system? It will reduce lhe amount of water going inlo Ihe system. 16) How will it affect my own wall water system? It will reduce Ihe amount of water being pumped from the well. 17) How noisy is the system? Exhemely quiet. You will not noticeably hear the System during operation, GENERAL QUESTIONS 1 ) How long can I exped the system to last? Life expectancy is approximately ten to fifteen years. 2) What Is the warranty? Five Ye~ manufacturers warranty. 3) If something happens after ~e warranty, are pads readily available? Yes. Conrad your supplier manufacturer. 4) Where can I buy the system? Contact the manulacturer for your local representative. 5) Howlong has the system been on the market? Since 1991. 6) Does it pass codes? i.e.: local, state, federal, U.L., building, plumbing, etc. On a state level, the System is approved and receives energy credils in Ihe State of Califomia. On a natioual level, we are LA.P.MO. listed We are constantly in louch with building depa~ments, plumbing code requiremenls and environmental regulalious throughout the United States and Canada. It Is our goal Io create the finest quality product pussibre. component pads are U.L. and CSA approved. 7) Can the Metlund System be used in Commercial Applications? Yes. There are many commercial applications for the Demand Syslem To discuss these possibilities. contact the manulacturer. METLUND® SYSTEMS Metlund® Hot Water D'MANDm System The Metlund Hot Water D'MAND System has been in the market since 1990. In 1992, the State of Califomia recognized the Metlund Hot Water D'MAND System as saving energy and has allowed energy credits through the California Energy Commission "Title 24" building regulation. This allows builders and remodelers to meet and/or exceed strict energy codes in the State of California. The Metlund D'MAND System has been recommended and/or approved by many state and federal agencies as well as utility agencies. FEATURES Easy Installation Saves Energy Saves Water Reduces Sewage Reduces Air Pollution Adds Convenience Extends Water Heater Life Quick Payback Recovery Long Life Expectancy (15 to 20 years) Five Year Warranty Energy/Water Savings When water is saved, so is energy. Potable water supply comes from two main sources in a home: 1. City Supply a. Water coming into your home has three basic energy costs; pumping, transportation and processing prior to entering the home. 2. Homeowner Well Water a. This requires pumping and transportation and, in many cases, processing. !400 Bristol Street Noah. Suite 145. Newpoa Beach, CA 92660. r~::;:,^ (7L,:' 75772,."3,3 ~ 17,.: :::~ ; !; Chapter 6: Water Heating 6.0 SUMMARY This chapter explains the relationship of water heating energy to the overall Energy Efficiency Standards (hereafter standards) compliance for a building. The Introduction briefly summarizes the Water Heating Calculation Method and ex- plains when calculations and forms are re- quired. This is followed by a more detailed dis- cussion of the Basic Approach to the Method and step-by-step instructions on how to com- plete the water heating forms, Case studies outline the requirements for common and un- usual water heating systems. Separate calcu- lations and forms are explained for hydronic space and water heating systems. The chapter concludes with detailed descriptions of system components and installation criteria. 6.1 INTRODUCTION Water heating energy use is important because it accounts for about a quarter of residential energy consumption, as illustrated in Figure 6- 1. This is the same percentage used statewide for residential space heating, and six times the amount used for residential cooling. Water heating energy may be an even higher per- centage of the total energy consumption in small residences with lower space heating and cooling requirements. Figure 6-2 shows the general flow of energy from the fuel source through the water heating system to the end use in the building. Total energy in is a combination of source energy plus any auxiliary inputs, which equals total energy out. Total energy out includes energy lost through electric power generation and transmission to the residence, water heater recovery efficiency and standby loss, distribu- tion system losses and finally, and hot water delivered to fixtures and appliances. EXHIBIT 0-15 CHAPTER OVERVIEW: Part Topic Page 6.0 Summary 6.1 Introduction 6-1 Efficiency Terms Defined 6-1 Water Heating Calculation Method 6-4 When Are Water Heating Forms Required? 6-6 Water Heating Calculations and Energy Compliance 6-7 6.2 Basic Approach 6-9 6.3 Instructions, Forms & Tables 6-10 6.4 Case Studies 6-23 6.5 Combined Hydronic Space 6-32 end Water Heating 6.6 System Descriptions: Water 6-33 Heaters, Auxiliary Inputs and Distribution Systems Applicable sections of the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6: §150(j}, 151(b), 151(f)8, 152. Source Energy in the Glossary). Water heater Energy Factor (EF) is a measurement of the standby losses, recovery efficiency (the ratio of energy output used to heat the water di- vided by energy input), and the tank volume. More efficient water heaters have a higher EF. Standby Loss accounts for energy lost while storing heated water, It includes heat losses through the water heater tank walls, fittings and flue, if any, plus any pilot light energy. Standby loss depends on the design and insu- lation of the water heater, as well as the dif- ference between the temperature of the water and that of the air around the tank. Water Water Heating DRAFt F,.t! I ;.~rf Table 6-1c: System Component Descriptions: Distribution Systems Distribution Systems Description Standard Point of Use Hot Water Recovery Pipe Insulation Recirculation: Continuous Recirculation: Temperature Recitculation: Time Recirculation: Time/Temp Recirculation: Demand Standard system without any pumps for distributing hot water System with no more than 8 feet horizontal distance between the water heater and hot water fixtures, except laundry. (Not used with central systems in multi- family buildings.) System which reclaims hot water from the distribution piping by drawing it back to the water heater or other insulated storage tank. {Not used with central sys- tems in multi-family buildings.} R-4 (or greater) insulation applied to 3/4 inch or larger, non-recirculating hot water mains in addition to insulation required by the standards, Section 150(j} (first five feet from water heater on both hot and cold water pipes). Distribution system using a pump to recirculate hot water to branch piping though a looped hot water main with no control of the pump, such that water flow is continuous. (Not used with instantaneous water heaters.) Pipe insulation is re- , quired. Recirculation system that uses temperature controls to cycle pump operation to maintain recirculated water temperatures within certain limits. (Not used with in- stantaneous water heaters,) Pipe insulation is required. Recirculation system that uses a timer control to cycle pump operation based on time of day. (Not used with instantaneous water heaters.) Pipe insulation is re- quired. Reclrculation system that uses both temperature and timer controls to regulate pump operation. (Not used with instantaneous water heaters.) Pipe insulation is required. Recirculation system that uses brief pump operation to recirculate hot water to fixtures just prior to hot water use when a demand for hot water is indicated. (Not used with instantaneous water heaters or with central systems in multi-family buildings.) Recirculation/Demand w/ Hot Water Recovery Combined system consisting of Recircutation: Demand and Hot Water Recovery. Recirculation/Demand w/ Pipe Insulation Combined system consisting of Recirculation: Demand and Pipe Insulation. Table 6-1c gives brief definitions of all of the distribution system types listed above, while Part 6.6 describes the systems in more detail and explains any required installation criteria. When Are Water Heating Forms Required? Water heating forms must be provided only for non-standard systems that are not listed in Chapter 3 (for Prescriptive Packages). Table 6- 2 summarizes when water heating forms are required within the different compliance ap- proaches, EXHIBIT D-16 Standard Recovery Load of-Use2 < 6.3 1.1 6,3 - 6.99 1,2 7.0 - 7.49 1,3 7,5 - 7.99 1,4 8.0 - 8.49 1.5 8.5 - 8.99 1.6 9.0 - 9.49 1.7 9.5 - 9.99 1.7 10.0-10.99 1.8 11.0 - 11,99 2,0 12.0-12.99 2.2 13.0 - 13.99 2.4 14.0-15.99 2.6 16.0-17.99 2.9 18.0 - 19.99 3.3 20.0 - 21.99 3.7 22.0 - 23.99 4.0 24.0 - 25.99 4.4 26.0+ 1, Table 6-6: Distribution System Credit/penalty1 {per worksheet) Hot Recirculation Systems Point- Water Pipe Recover1,2 Insulation1 Time~emp2 Demand2 Time2 Temp Cont 1.t 0.5 0.2 0.1 -1.7 ,-0.3 -3.1 1.2 0.5 0.2 0.1 -1.8 -0.3 -3.4 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 -1.9 -0.4 -3.7 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.1 -2.1 -0.4 -3,9 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.1 -2.2 -0.4 -4.2 1.6 0.6 0.3 0.1 -2.3 -0.4 -4.4 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 -2.5 -0.5 -4.7 1.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 -2.6 -0.5 -5.0 1.8 0:8 0,4 0,2 -2.8 -0,5 -5,2 2.0 0.8 0.4 0.2 -3.0 -0.6 -5.7 2.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 -3.3 -0.6 -6.3 2.4 1.0 0.5 0.2 -3.6 -0.7 -6.8 2.6 1.1 0.5 0.2 -3.9 -0.7 -7.3 2.9 1.2 0.6 0.3 -4.4 -0.8 -8.4 3.3 1.4 0.7 0.3 -5.0 -0.9 -9.4~ 3.7 1.5 0.8 0.3 -5.5 -1.0 -10.4 4.0 1.7 0.8 0.4 -6.1 -1.1 -11.5 4.4 1.8 0.9 0.4 -6.6 -1,2 -12.5 4.8 4.8 2.0 1.0 0.4 -7.2 -1.4 -13.6 Hot water recovery and pipe insulation credits may only be applied to non-recirculating sys- tems and demand recirculating systems, All other recirculating systems must have pipe insula- tion as explained in Par~ 6.6. 2. For multi-family, enter zero (0). ~."/~.e, he'-;, ".'3 DRAFT 6/11/98 6-19 6.5 CONIBINED H~'DRONIC SPACE AND WATER HEATING Combined Hydronic Part 8.9 explains hydronic space heating sys- tems. When such a system serves the addi- tional function of. providing domestic hot wa- ter, the system is analyzed for its water heat- ing performance as if the space heating func- tion were separate. In other words, treat any hydronic system used for water heating the same as any other water heating system: Input the correct water heater type, auxiliary input credit (if any) and specify the distribution sys- tem on DHW-1. The DHW-5 is used to calculate an effective AFUE or to adjust the AFUE for pipe losses when a space heating boiler is also used for water heating (see Part 6.3}. Complete the DHW-5 worksheet for any proj- ect that includes a hydronic space heating sys- tem, combined hydronic space and water heating system, or boiler (see Part 6.3). This worksheet should accompany all necessary water heating compliance worksheets. The DHW-5 worksheet is used to determine the Effective AFUE for storage gas water heaters and the Effective HSPF for storage electric and heat pump water heaters used to supply en- ergy for the combined hydronic space and wa- ter heating system. For performance compliance, the water heating worksheets are not printed, but the inputs will appear on the C-2R and CF-1R forms. 6.6 SYSTEM DESCRIPTIONS System Types and installation Criteria The water heating calculation method evalu- ates water heating systems by analyzing the following system components: Water Heaters, Auxiliary Systems and Distribution Systems. Separate calculations are required for Hydronic Space and Water Heating Systems. This part describes all of the system types that fall within each category, and explains installation criteria. WATER HEATERS This part describes water heater types which can be analyzed using the water heatin'g method: · Standard Water Heater · Storage Gas · Large Storage Gas · Storage Electric · Storage Heat Pump · Instantaneous Gas · Instantaneous Electric · Indirect Gas All water heaters must be certified (see Chap- ter 1, Part 1.6). This guarantees that they meet the minimum requirements of the Na- tional Efficiency Standards as described in the California Appliance Efficiency Regulations. For gas water heaters this corresponds to an Energy Factor = 0.62 - (0.0019 x Volume). For electric water heaters the minimum is an Energy Factor = 0.93 - (0.00132 x Volume). EXHIBIT D-18 Wate~ Heating DFL~FF GI'I External Tank insulation Insulation applied to the exterior of storage type water heater tanks. When installed, water heater insulation should be applied to completely cover the exterior sides of water heaters, but should not conceal controls or access ports to burners, cover combustion air openings, or interfere in any way with safe water heater operation. Insula- tion of top and bottom surfaces is not neces- sary. External tank insulation is mandatory for water heaters with less than 0.58 EF, and for unfired water heater tanks that do not have R-16 in- ternal insulation (as indicated on the outside of the tank). AUXILIARY SYSTEMS Auxiliary systems add hot water to the overall water heating system through means other than the typical water heaters defined above. The Water Heating Calculation Method allows water heating credits for three auxiliary sys- tems which save energy by using nondeplet- able resources as energy sources. These sys- tems - Passive and Active Solar Water Heaters and Wood Stove Boilers - are described be- Passive Solar Water Heaters Systems which collect and store solar thermal energy for domestic water heating applications and do not require electrical energy input for recirculating water through a solar collector. Installation Criteria: Passive solar water heaters must be tested in accordance with Solar Rating & Certification Corporation (SRCC) Standard 200-82, except as noted below. Thermosyphon solar water heaters employing flat plate collectors comply with test require- ments if collectors are tested in accordance with SRCC Standard 100-81. SRCC's address is: Solar Rating & Certification Corporation 122 "C" Street NW. 4th Floor Washington, DC 20001-2109 Active Solar Water Heaters Systems which collect and store solar thermal energy for domestic water heating applications requiring electrical energy input for operation of pumps or other components. Installation Criteria: Flat plate collectors used with active solar wa- ters must be tested in accordance with SRCC Standard 100-81 (see address above). Wood Stove Boilers Wood stoves equipped with heat exchangers- for heating domestic hot water (see Figure 6- 9). Installation Criteria: Energy credits may only be taken when the building department having jurisdiction has determined that natural gas is not available. Figure 6-9: Wood Stove Boiler A tempering valve must be installed at the outlet of the water heater to prevent scalding. A pressure-temperature relief valve must be installed at the wood stove. The wood stove boiler must be properly sized to minimize the amount of excess hot water produced by the unit. All health and safety codes, including codes applying to pressurized boiler vessels, must be met. EXHIBIT D-19 DRAFT 6/11/98 6-31 Hot Water Recovery System A distribution system that includes a device that reclaims hot water from the distribution pil~ing by drawing it back to the water heater or other insulated storage vessel, Installation Criteria: Hot water recovery systems (HWR) must be plumbed such that a positive supply of cold water from the water supply main is provided to the appropriate connection on the device. Hot water recovery systems must be con- nected to each water heater serving individual dwelling units, Credit for only one HWR may be taken even though more than one may be installed or specified in the building plans. Credit may not be taken for a HWR in a multi- family central water heating system serving multiple dwelling units. Hot water recovery systems may be used for credit in recirculation systems with demand pumping. Figure 6-10: Point of Use Pipe Insulat~2n Table 6-6 lists credits that may be taken for insulation of water mains in addition to insula- tion required by Section 150 of the Standards (first five feet from water heater). The pipe insulation credit is only allowed for 3/4 inch or larger, non-recirculating hot water mains (see Figure 6-11) and Demand Recirculating Sys- terns. Installation Criteria: R-value of applied insulation must not be less than R-4.0, or less than R-6.0 for pipe diame- ters greater than 2 inches. No additional credit may be taken for R-4 or R-6 insulation, re- spectively (see Part 2.3), Pipe insulation may only be used for credit in recirculation systems with demand pump. Pipe insulation is required for all other recirculation systems and is not eligible for credit. NOTE: Heat tape - electric resistance heating taDe wrapped around hot water pipes - may be used onJy for freeze protection and cannot be used instead of mandatory pipe insulation {see Chapter 2, Par~ 2.3) or pipe insulation receiv- ing distribution credit. Recirculation System Continuous distribution system using a pump to reclrculate hot water to branch piping though a looped hot water main with no con- trol of the pump, such that water flow is con- tinuous. Figure 6-11: Pipe Insulation EXHIBIT D*20 DRAFT 6/11/98 Hot Water Recovery + Recirculab~n System: Demand Pumping This combination system receives both credits explained under each system, separately, above. Installation criteria for both credits - hot water recovery and demand recirculation - apply to this combined distribution type. Pipe Insulab~n + Recirculat,~n System: De- mand Pumping This combination system receives both credits explained under each system, separately, above, Installation criteria for both credits - pipe insulation and demand recirculation - ap- ply to this combined distribution type. Hydronic Space and Water Heating Combined Hydronic Space and Water 14eab~g A combined water and space heating system using the same water heater to heat the building and to provide domestic hot water. Installation Criteria: Piping for pump recirculating hydronic space heating supply lines must be insulated to R-4 for pipes less than or equal to 2 inches nomi- nal diameter and R-6 for larger pipe diameters. Dedicated (Separate) Hydronic Space Heab~g A system using separate water heaters to provide apace heating and domestic hot water, each dedicated to one function. Installation Criteria: Piping for pump recirculating hydronlc space heating supply lines must be insulated to R-4.0 for pipes 2 inches or less in diameter and to R- 6.0 for larger pipe diameters. See the stan- dards, Section 105(j). EXHIBIT D-21 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 pm Alan WarrenlSal Salazar December 15, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - The review of amended development proposal for Phases 3, 4. 5, 6, 7, and 8 of Tract 15727 for compliance with the City's Residential Optional Development Standards. Desjan Parameters: Since the initial approval for Tract 15727 the developer. Griffin Industries, has presented various design review applications for three product types and gate features for the private community. With this application Griffin Industries is requesting approval to develop the phase(s) not yet under construction under the City's Residential Optional Standards. The prime motivation for this request is to expand the backyards of each lot and to allow the houses to be located with a reduced front yard setback. Basic City standards call for 32-foot average (vary +/- 5-feet) front yard in the Landscape Maintenance District. The Optional Standards allow for a 15- foot average (vary +/- 5 feet) · The applicant is proposing a 22-foot average front setback. The Optional Standards, however, come with some performance standards in excess of what is required of Basic Standard developments. Specifically, while the front yard setbacks maybe reduced, more useable open space is required. Some of the major issues regarding the proposed optional standards are: 1. Are the proposed reduced front yard setbacks acceptable with the proposed two-story residential dwelling units in Phases 3 and 67 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Streetscape - Architecture - One of the major issues is the building massiveness. The developer proposes, for Phases 3 and 6, to use four different floor plans and elevations (see Development Review 98-21 ), and the previously approved floor plans and elevations for the rest of the development. The proposed floor plans are one and two-story high. All floor plans and elevations are done in good taste and staff is in support of the revised elevations, however, the two-story floor plans do not have any one-story elements large enough to break- up the massiveness of the buildings. The two-story massiveness is a concern to staff due to the fact that the optional standards would allow the residential units to be as close as 10 feet from face of curb. 2. Open Space and Recreational Amenities - The proposed plan has almost 11 percent of the total area in common open space. The vast majority of this space are the private (Homeowners' Association maintained) parkways between the curb face and front lot lines. The Optional Standards allow private parkways to be counted in this fashion. The remainder is located in two small parks one with a volley ball court. 100 foot long open play area, and a gazebo totaling over 30,000 square feet and a smaller tot lot park of 11.566 square feet. The 5-acre public park outside of the private gates along Sixth Street is not part of the required open space. F'S? DRC COMMENTS DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES December 15, 1998 Page 2 The standards list the requirement for court facilities, inferring more than one. The proposal shows one volley ball court. Staff believes at least one additional (for a total of two) court facility should be provided to satisfy minimum optional requirements. Jogging/Par Course. The applicant is proposing to install a jogging trail within the private community. However, Engineering concerns do not seem to make it possible. However, staff agrees with the developer's concept but the trail as recommended (as stated in the completeness letter for Development Review 98-23) should be installed on Golden Oak Road only. Additionally. staff believes that wide jogging paths (6= feet) encourage their use rather than jogging on the asphalt streets. Since the developer did not submit any detailed plans for the proposed jogging trail, staff is. therefore. requesting that detail information be submitted. before a positive recommendation could be made. Additional recreational facilities. Staff is of the opinion that one additional park should be constructed in the southwest portion of the project, The park would help in accommodating some additional amenities (ie. Volley ball court) that were previously discussed, In addition, the park would evenly distribute the recreational facilities throughout the private community. Thereby enhancing the use of the parks by all residents. Enerqv Conservation - The optional standards require the developer to provide an alternative energy system to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units. Solar energy is the primary energy system unless other alternative systems are demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity. The intent of this requirement is to find an alternate source of energy that would result in the reduction of energy used for water heating in the house. The applicant is proposing an innovative system called hot water on demand. The system as proposed would reduce the amount of water that is wasted when a homeowner turns the hot water faucet on and waits until the hot water comes through the faucet. According to the applicant, the amount ofwaterwasted during the above-described process could be as much as 50 gallons per day per household. The applicant and staff agree that the proposed hot water on demand system meets the intent and spirit of the Energy Conservation requirement. Therefore. staff is supporting this aspect of the optional standards. Secondary Issues: Once all of/he major issues have been addressed. and time permitting. the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Should the optional development standards be approved by the Design Review Committee, the developer shall be required to design all dwelling units to meet all other applicable development standards. including side yard setbacks and usable rear yard. As there are no Variance requests to deviate from the side and rear setbacks. the developer is required to rodesign the configuration of the existing floor plans or to create a new floor plan layout for those units that do not meet current development standards. Furthermore. should a Variance application be submitted, staff would not support the request as there are no unique or unusual circumstances applicable to the project. other than the developers desire DRC COMMENTS DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES December 15, 1998 Page 3 to maximize the size of the residential dwelling units. The developer shall. therefore, be required to address the following development standard deficiencies: Lot Page Number 23 22 15 20 11 17 24 17 15 15 9 11 20 10 Development Deficiency Increase street sideyard setback to block from 4.7 feet to 5 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase usable year yard setback to 15 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Staff recommends that the largest of the two-story sides of each house be at least 15 feet from the adjoining house to avoid extensive two-story 10-foot wide canyons between houses, Fu,'lhermore, the developer should also avoid placing two media/chimney center adjacent to each other (within the 5-foot setback) in order to avoid having the units as close as 6 feet from each other. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: Aft policy issues from Development Review 9744 shall apply to the project. including but not limited to the following: (see attached list) Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the optional standards and site plans be reviewed and considered by the Design Review Committee members. Because there are numerous technical issues regarding the ability to "fit" the new models on all the lots. staff is not at this time recommending approval. If the Design Review Committee approves the major features of the proposal, staff will work with the applicant to work out all the outstanding technical issues and return this item to the Design Review Committee when completed. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macins, John Mannerino, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Alan Warren/Sal Salazar Of the items listed as major issues (streetscape), The issue was addressed by the recommended modifications under DR 98-21. DRC COMMENTS DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES December 15. 1998 Page 4 With regards to the amenities provided for the Open Space area(s). The applicant agreed to eliminate the court in the smaller park and to provide a rodesigned multi purpose court (basket ball, volley ball, and roller hockey) in the larger park. The developer already addressed item number 3 (.jogging trail) by increasing the width of the sidewalk from 4 to 6 feet. This amenity was approved by the Design Review Committee, subject to providing a detailed site plan showing station locations. Item number 4, the applicant agreed to work with staff to provide a shelter/gazebo large enough to accommodate gatherings for a minimum of 50 people). Design Review Committee recommended and the applicant concurred that the gazebo/shelter should be of the same quality and architectural design as the guard house and be at least 20 feet in diameler. Item number 5. Energy conservation, the Design Review Committee concurred with staff and approved the innovative system, Hot Water on Demand. All other features of the Optional Development Standards will be retained in the final submittal as conditions of approval, along with the above-mentioned changes. EXHIBIT E-4 DRC COMME. NTS DR 97-44 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. INC. Ac~r'.l 29. 1993 Page 3 $ecgndar',/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed. and time permitting. the Commh'lee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The front entry/porch structures of all elevations of Plan 1 should not exceed 14 feet in height (as presently scaled). 2. The stucco carbets (~13 Materials Legend) adjacent to the front windows on Elevation B. Plan 1. should match the corbels on the entry columns. The corbels should also be included on the side column elevation of the entry structure. 3 The rear yard retaining wall on Lot 26. Phase 3 should be exlended. or returned at a less severe angle. to provide 15 feet of level area from the northwest corner of the house. 4 On the fight elevation of Plans 2 and 3, the large second floor window should have mullions as the first floor windows directly below. These windows wilt be visible from the street frontage. 5. The perimeter walls along Golden Oak are to be located outside of the landscape easement and the 8-inch wall width reduces the side yard dimension for those Lots (39. 40, etc.) along the street. The houses should be shifted westedy to insure that 5 feet clear is provided between the perimeter wall and the house. Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds shall be painted an alternate complemenlary trim color. Penicy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy or were included in Phases 1 and 2. and should be incorporated into Phases 3 and 6 without discussion: 1. All watts. including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from the streets, should consist of a decorative exterior material or finish including a decorative cap (as provided in the Master Plan of Waits). 2. Provide double fascias along all eaves. Eave overhangs shall be at least 18 inches all around. 3. Provide a minimum 54oot setback between fencing on corner side yards and sidewalk. 4. Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain. paint or water seal. 5. Chimneys (and caps) should be integrated and treated ~o be consistent with the house design. to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6. Decorative paving in individual driveways should consist of various patterns/textures of concrete, as well as the walkway leading to the front door. to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Native rock should be used where cobblestone is called out. Other forms of stone/masonry may be manufactured products. Eighteen feet of driveway area should not exceed 7.5% slope. This was the maximum driveway slope approved for Phases 1 and 2. EXHIBIT E-5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 98-23, WHICH REQUESTS AMENDMENTS TO DESIGN REVIEW 97-44, AUTHORIZING THE USE OF DEVELOPMENT CODE OPTIONAL STANDARDS FOR 85 LOTS IN PHASES 3 AND 6 OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727, LOCATED BETWEEN FOURTH AND SIXTH STREETS, ADJACENT TO THE CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33. A. Recitals. 1. Griffin Industries, Inc./Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for the approval of Design Review 98-23 for Tentative Tract Nos. 15727-3, -4, -5, -6, -7, and -8 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 13, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 97-44 approving typical single family house products, conceptual building pads, a combination retaining/perimeter tract wall, and Conceptual Landscape Plans for Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 3 and 6. 4. On August 13, 1998. the Planning Commission approved Design Review 98-16 and Amended Tentative Tract 15727 authorizing the gating and privatization of all streets within the tract. 5. The subject application is a request to amend the provisions of Design Review 97-44 to allow the application of the Development Code Optional Standards in Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 3 and 6 and as well as in Tentative Tract 15727 Phases 4, 5, 7, and 8. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 6. All legal prerequisites pdor to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dudng the above- referenced meeting on January 27, 1999, including wdtten and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-23- GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. January 27,1999 Page 2 c. The proposed design, together with the conditions of approval, is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed design, 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; and e. An Environmental Impact Report was certified for this project by the City Council on November 20, 1996. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Plannincl Division 1) This approval is for establishing the building setback requirements and the authorization to apply the Development Code Optional Standards for the development of Amended Tentative Tract 15727. All other applicable conditions of approval of Design Review 97-44, relating to the landscaping, wall and fences, materials and colors, grading, phasing of park improvements, Engineering requirements, and Standard Conditions shall remain unchanged as adopted by Planning Commission Resolution 98-28. Development requirements of this approval, in addition to those applicable conditions of Design Review 97-44, include the following: a) House plan products and yard setbacks (front, side, and rear) shall be as indicated on the approved Conceptual Site Plan file copy. b) Two pdvate parks shall be provided on Amended Tentative Tract 15727 Lots 225, 226, and 336. Park plans, with the following recreational amenities, shall be submitted for approval by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits for any Optional Standard phases as follows: A multi-purpose court for use in basketball, volley ball, and roller hockey in the larger park. ii) A gazebo shelter at least 20 feet in diameter for gatherings of at least 50 people in the larger park. The shelter shall be of the same quality and architectural design of the project's guard house. c) A par jogging course, as proposed by the applicant, shall be provided along the sidewalk area on both sides of Golden Oak Road. A par jogging course plan, with construction details of the exercise stations, signing, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits for any Optional Standard phases. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. January 27, 1999 Page 3 d) Each and every house in Phases 3.4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be provided with the Metlund Hot Water Demand alternative energy conservation system. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the system shall be included with the plan check construction drawings submitted to the Building Division. Enqineednq Division: 1) All sidewalks shall remain as shown on currently approved street improvement plans for Tentative Tract 15727-1, -2 and -3 (Drawings 1628 and 1629). Intedor local streets shall have property line adjacent sidewalks on all future phases. Sidewalk along Golden Oak Road shall remain 4'~ feet from the curb line so as not to reduce the planting area for trees in the original approval. 2) 3) The precise Grading Plan for Tentative Tract 15727-2 shall be revised to reflect the proposed private park on former Lots 51 and 52. If under-sidewalk drains will be relocated, the Golden Oak Road street impro. vement plans (Drawing 1628) shall be revised as well. ProceSs a parcel merger to legally combine lots 51 and 52 of Tentative Tract 15727-2. 4) Prior to the issuance of building permits for Tentative Tract 15727-3. Drawing 1629 shall be revised to reflect approach relocations. 5) The precise Grading Plan for Tentative Tract 15727-3 shall demonstrate that overflows, in the event of sump catch basin blockage at the west end of Glenaire Court, will not breach the right- of-way and enter Lot 30 east of the storm drain easement along the west property line. If the drive approach for Lot 30 requires a special design to accommodate overflows, this also needs to be detailed on the Street Improvement Plans (Drawing 1629). 6) Revise the Fourth Street improvement plans (Drawing 1628) to show the drive approach for City maintenance vehicles just east of Cucamonga Creek Channel. Any pdvate landscaping or wall plans which give the construction details south of the perimeter wall for the overflow area shall be appreved by the City Engineer for maintenance vehicle access to the manhole. 7) Any ddve approach relocations for Tentative Tract 15272-4 shall be shown on Drawing 1645, prior to building permit issuance for that phase. 8) Any drive approach relocations for Tentative Tract 15272-5 shall be shown on Drawing 1646, pdor to building permit issuance for that phase. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-23 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. January 27, 1999 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry McNiel, Chairman ATI'EST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 27,1999 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Salvador M. Salazar, AICP, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW 98-21 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC - A design review application to amend the previously approved building elevations of Design Review No. 97-44 for 84 (formally 85) single family units in Phases 3 and 6 of Amended Tentative Tract 15727, consisting of 339 (formerly 342) single family lots in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), on 82 acres of land, located between Fourth and Sixth Streets, adjacent to the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33. Related files: Lot Line Adjustment No. 404 and Design Review 98-23. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Since the initial approval for Tract No. 15727, the developer, Griffin Industries, Inc., has presented various design review applications. The prime motivation for this latest revision for Phases 3 and 6 is to improve the building elevations, increase the building size, and increase the depth of the usable rear yards for these two phases. ANALYSIS: General: The floor plans and building elevations for Phases 3 and 6 were approved by the Planning Commission on May 13, 1998. The design consisted of three floor plans with four elevations each for a total of 12 different combinations. The revised plans include four separate floor plans with three elevations each for a total of 12 different combinations within Phases 3 and 6. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on December 15, 1998, and the Committee determined that the elevations were appropriate and satisfied the 360-degree architecture policy; however, the number of one-story floor plans had to be distributed proportionally throughout the site in order to break up the two-story streetscape. In order to address the Design Review Committee comments, the developer increased the number of one-story floor plans from 14 to 21. The one-story homes have been placed at strategic locations to provide variation in the streetscape. Staff is in support of the proposed locations for the one-story homes. The developer's proposal is being processed concurrently with Design Review 98-23, a request to allow the project to be constructed under the Optional Development Standards of the Development Code. Y ITEM G PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 98-21- GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. Janua~ 27,1999 Page 2 B. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report for this project was certified by the City Council on November 20, 1996. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Design Review 98-21 through the adoption of the attached Resolution with Conditions. Brad Buller City Planner BB:SS/jfs Attachments:Exhibit "A" - Conceptual Site Plan for Phases 3 and 6 Exhibit "B" - Floor Plans and Elevations Exhibit "C" - DRC Action Comments dated December 15, 1998 Resolution of Approval with Conditions CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA COIVC, Er~AI ,,ql7'Er ~N 7'F?ACT No. 157'27 CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE ~L I 1 I t I 1 QLENA X t I 1 42 111 -'1- 07 38 DRlYE X rrl X BUTTONWOOD CC~U.RT uh_ J X 2 rn x 2 × PI EDMONT AT THE H RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES AWTHOR NES PIEDMONT AT TIlE HAg, THORN[ S GRIFFIN 08194 KTGYGROUp. _ Griffin Industries Floor Plan I - 2,329 Sq. FL Piedmont at the Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga, California -r R~GHT Li PIEDMONT AT TIlE 98194 AiA LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR ATTIC VENTIt ATION 98194 A1.6 LEFT ~ FRONT RIGHT REAR EXTERIOR VENTILATION C]I PIEDMONT AT TII E HAWTIIORNES 98194 A1.7 X D Griffin Industries F I o o r P I a n 2 - 3,093 Sq. FL 0 4 Piedmont at the Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga, California ([ I Griffin Industries F I o o · P I n n 2 - 3.093 Sq. FL Piedmont at the Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga0 California RIGHT REAR EXTERIOR E1, EVATIONS AT TIlE GRIFFIN 98194 ATTIC VENTILATION ROOF PLAN r'n X LEFT FRONT RIGHT REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PIEDMONT AT Ttl E 98194 FRONT RIGHT REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 'tTIC VENTILATION ROOF P~'N I ....... I PIEDMONT AT TIlE HA~TtlORNES GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES RANCHO 88194 A2.7 U3 Griffin Industries F I o o r P I a n 3 - 3.317 Sq. FL Piedmont at the Hawthornes Raneho Cucamonga, California rn I Griffin Industries F I o o r P I a n 3 - 3,117 Sq, FL Piedmont at the Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga, Californ!a FRONT REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I =~' .... I 1 PIEDMONT AT THE 98194 ATTIC VENTILATION ROOF PLAN -- RIGHT ~(~) r,~,,'~', REAR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS( ..... ROOF P~^, I .......I :' PIEDMONT AT T|I E HA'WTRORNES 98194 A3.6 EXTERIOR ELEVA11ONS ROOF ~AN PIEDMONT AT THE HAV,'THORNES GRIFFIN 98194 Griffin Industries F I o o r P I a n 4 - 3.559 Sq. FL t 4 Piedmont at the Hawthornes × Mu~er Bedroom Bedroom ] Griffin Industries F I o o r P I a n 4 - 3559 Sq. FL Piedmont at the Hawthornes Rancho Cucamonga. California nm RIGHT LEFT ~'~, FRONT REAR EXTERIOR E1. EVATIONS '~"'~""~'~' ATTIC V[NTILATION PIEDiHONT AT TIlE HAVrrHORNES GRIFFIN INDUSTRI[S RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA G8194 A4.4 ..... ,'- ._~"_~ RIGHT REAR ATTIC VENTILATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ..... .~-., ._~_ .~ O F 0 '~' 0 4 PIEDMONT AT TIlE GRIFFIN 98194 A4.7 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Alan Warren/Sal Salazar December 15, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW 98-21 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES - The review of amended development proposal for Phases 3 and 6 of Tract 15727. Desiqn Parameters: Since the initial approval for Tract 15727 the developer, Griffin Industries, has presented various design review applications for three product types and gate features for a private community. With this application Griffin Industries is requesting approval to modify the previously approved floor plans and elevations for Phases 3 and 6. The prime motivation for this request is to improve the building design and to increase the floor area for the" xecutive area" of the residential development. The previously approved design provided three basi~floor plans of 2.126 square feet, 2,630 square feet and 2,740 square feet in size, each with four model elevations. The elevations included two reverse floor plans and two side garage variations, each one of the phases had at least eight possible floor plan configurations. In order to comply with the residential guidelines, the developer is proposing four different floor plans with three different elevations for a total of 12 different variations. The revised design provides one extra floor plan to compensate for the elimination of the side-on garage concept. The floor plans are 2,329 square feet, 3,093 square feet, 3,317 square feet and 3,559 square feet in size. Staff is of the opinion that the revised floor plans and elevations are done in good taste and would compliment the rest of the gated community. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Streetscape - Architecture: The applicant is proposing facade and floor plan modification concurrently with Development Review 98-23 a request to allow the project to be constructed under the optional development standards. The optional development standards would allow the residential units to be as close as 10 feet from property line. The two-stoW floor plans do not provide any one-story element large enough to break-up the continuous two-story streetscape, and the one-story floor plan is used only in most of the corner lots. Therefore, the main concern about the proposed modification is the fact that the two-story houses could be located as close as 10 feet from properly line thereby creating a tunnel type of streetscape design. Secondan/Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed. and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: Should the proposed modifications be approved by the Design Review Committee, the developer shall be required to design all dwelling units to meet all other applicable development standards, including side yard setbacks and usable rear yard. As there are no Variance requests to deviate from the side and rear setbacks, the developer is required to redesign the configuration of the existing floor plans or to create a new floor plan layout for those units that do not meet current development standards. Furthermore, should a DRC COMMENTS DR 98-21 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES December 15, 1998 Page 2 Variance application be submitted, staff would not support the request as there are no unique or unusual circumstances applicable to the project, other than the deve[oper's desire to maximize the size of the residential dwelling units. The developer shall, therefore, be required to address the following development standard deficiencies: Lot Page Number 23 22 Development Deficiency Increase street sideyard setback to block from 4.7 feet to 5 feet 15 20 11 17 24 17 15 15 Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase usable year yard setback to 15 feet 9 11 20 10 Increase required setback to 10 feet Increase required setback to 10 feet Staff recommends that the largest of the two-story sides of each house be at least 15 feet from the adjoining house to avoid extensive two-story I O-foot wide canyons between houses. Furthermore, the developer should also avoid placing two media/chimney center adjacent to each other (within the 5-foot setback) in order to avoid having the units as dose as 6 feet from each other. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion:. All policy issues from Development Review 97-44 shall apply to the project, including but not limited to the following: (see attached list) Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the architectural elevations, with colors and materials as previously approved, be approved subject to City Planner approval. Attachment Desicon Review Committee Action: Members Present: Rich Macias. John Mannerino, Larry Henderson Staff Planner: Alan Warren/Sal Salazar Of the items listed as major issues (streetscape) the applicant agreed to work with staff in order to break-up the two-story streetscape for Phases 3 and 6. The applicant will be replacing a minimum of seven two-story homes with one-story plans. The one-story homes, will be placed at strategic locations to provide needed variation in the streetscape, Staff was directed to work with the applicant on this issue. before scheduling for planning commission review. Vv]th regards to the secondary issues, the applic~%,a,~.~,~ to comply with staffs recommendation. EXHIBIT C-2 DRC COMMENTS DR -c7--L4 - GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. INC. April 28. 1998 Page 3 Secondam: Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permi~ing. the CommiMee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. The front entry/porch structures of all elevations of Plan 1 should not exceed 14 feet in height (as presently scaled). 2. The stucco corbels (,~13 Materials Legend) adjacent to the front windows on Elevation B, Plan 1, should match the corbels on the entry columns. The corbels should also be included on the side column elevation of the entry structure. 3. The rear yard retaining wall on Lot 26, Phase 3 should be extended, or returned at a less severe angle. to provide 15 feel of level area from lhe northwesl corner of the house. 4. On the dght elevation of Plans 2 and 3, the large second floor window should have mullions as the first floor windows directly below. These windows will be visible from the sireel frontage. 5. The perimeter walls along Golden Oak are to be located outside of the landscape easement and - the 8-inch wall width reduces the side yard dimension for those Lots (39, 40, etc.) along the · street. The houses should be shifted westedy to insure that 5 feet clear is provided between the perimeter wall and the house. 6. Window surrounds shall be provided on all windows and all surrounds shall be painted an alternate complementary trim color. Pc21iC'. Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy or were included in Phases 1 and 2. and should be incorporated into Phases 3 and 6 w~thout discussion: 1. All walls. including retaining walls in rear yards potentially visible from the streets, should consist of a decorative exterior material or finish including a decorative cap (as provided in the Master Plan of Walls). 2. Provide double fascias along all eaves. Eave overhangs shall be at least 18 inches all around. 3. Provide a minimum 5-foot solback between fencing on corner side yards and sidewalk. 4. Wood fencing exposed to public view shall be treated with stain, paint or water seal. 5. Chimneys (and caps) should be integrated and treated to be consistent with the house design, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 6 Decorative paving in individual driveways should consist of various pattems/textures of concrete, as well as the walkway leading to the fronl door, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 7. Native rock should be used where cobblestone is called out. Other farms of stone/masonry may be manufactured praducts. 8. Eighteen feet of ddveway area should not exceed 7.5% slope. This was the maximum driveway slope approved for Phases 1 and 2. EXHIBIT C-3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 98-21 CONSISTING OF 84 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOR PHASES 3 AND 6 OF AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 15727, LOCATED BETWEEN FOURTH AND SIXTH STREETS, ADJACENT TO THE CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORTTHEREOF-APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33. A. Recitals. 1. Griffin Industries, Inc./Centerpointe LLC has filed an application for the approval of Design Review 98-21, 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 13, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 97-44 approving typical single family house products, conceptual building pads, a combination retaining/perimeter tract wall, and Conceptual Landscape Plans for Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 3 and 6. 4. On August13, 1998, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 98-16 and Amended Tentative Tract 15727 authorizing the gating and pdvatization of all streets within the tract. 5. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved Design Review 98-23, amending the development standards for Tentative Tract 15727, Phases 3 and 6 to allow the application of the Development Code Optional Standards. 6. On January 27, 1999, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on January 27, 1999, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, and b. The proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. The proposed design, together with the conditions of approval, is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 98-21 ~ GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES, INC. January 27, 1999 Page 2 d. The proposed design, 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; and e. An Environmental Impact Report was certified for this project by the City Council on November 20, 1996. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: 1) This approval is for the four new floor plans with three elevations each for a total of 12 different combinations for Phases 3 and 6 only. All other policy issues and conditions of approval imposed under Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-28 for Design Review 97-44 are incorporated herein by reference with the same force and effect as set forth in full, with the exception of any reference to architectural features (building elevations and floor plan layout). 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY O1: RANC110 CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT January 27, 1999 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS AND MEETINGS ABSTRACT: Staff is requesting consideration of amending the meeting dates and appointments for the Trails Advisory Committee to address the problem of a lack of quorum at meetings. BACKGROUND: The last two Trails Advisory Committee meetings have been canceled or postponed because of a lack of quorum. This has affected the processing schedule for subdivisions, The administrative regulations for the Committee adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-43A sets forlh the membership and meeting rules. The Committee consists of six members: two Planning Commissioners, two Park and Recreation Commissioners, a Member- at-Large bicycling representative (currently vacant), and a Member-at-Large equestrian representative. A quorum of at least four members must be present to conduct a meeting. The Trails Advisory Committee has established that their meetings are held on the first Thursday of each month at 5:30 p.m. APPOINTMENTS: Larry McNiel was appointed to serve until July 1999. Peter Tolstoy's appointment is through July 2000. Chairman McNiel currently can only attend meetings on Wednesdays because of new work schedule conflicts. Commissioner Tolstoy would prefer Trails Committee meetings be the same week as Planning Commission meetings (i.e., the second and foudh week of the month). OPTIONS: A. Change Meeting Date - The meeting date and time can be moved to between 5:30 and 6:00 p.m. prior to regular Planning Commission meetings. B, Change Appointments - Appoint two Planning Commissioners who are available on the first Thursday of the month at 5:30 p.m. Change Membership - The Planning Commission could reconsider the composition of the Trails Advisory Committee. Possibilities include reducing membership to include only one member from the Planning Commission and one from the Parks and Recreation Commission. or having no Planning Commissioners on the Committee (same as Technical Review and Grading Committees). This would require adoption of the attached Resolution. ,j ITEt4 I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TRAILS COMMITTEE- CITY OF R.C. Janua~ 27,1999 Page 2 D. Reevaluate Items Requiring Committee Action - Similar to City Planner hearings, items could be identified that would only require City Planner approval. Items of a policy nature or controversial matters would remain with the Committee. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss this item and take appropriate action. City Planner BB:DC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Resolution No. 88-43A (Adopted) Exhibit "B" - Resolution (Proposed) RESOLUTION NO. 88-43A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS OF THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, hiking, biking, and horse riding trails as a recreational element, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has committee to advise them on trail issues, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds regulations governing this sub-committee. appointed working it desirabl~ to modify the City's General Plan establishes an extensive network of sub- the NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission does hereby adopt the following administrative regulations for the Trails Advisory Committee: SECTION 1: PURPOSES The purpose of the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC} shall be to assist the Planning Commission in implementing the trails system as envisioned by the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Trails Advisory Committee shall have the following duties, responsibilities, and functions: To review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission with regard to trail locations and the application of trail design standard for development proposals {i.e. tentative maps, specific plans, parks) within the City and Sphere-of-Influence, including, but not limited to, the Equestrian Overlay District. 2. To review and make recommendations to the Commission regarding trail design standards. 3. To assess the present and future need for trails and recommend to the Planning Commission plans and priorities for the development of trails and related facilities. SECTION 2: COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT The Trails Advisory Committee shall consist of six (6) members. Two shall be members of the Planning Commission as selected by the Planning Commission. Two shall be members of the Park and Recreation Commission as selected by the Park and Recreation Commission. One PLANNING CO~IISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-43A TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULATIONS April 25, 1990 Page 2 shall be a Member-at-Large, who shall be a representative of the equestrian con~nunity, appointed by the Planning Commission. One shall be a Member-at-Large, who shall be a representative of the bicycling community, also appointed by the Planning Commission. SECTION 3: TERMS OF APPOINTMENT All terms shall be twenty-four (24) months and shall be staggered twelve months apart to maintain continuity. Any. member of the Committee may be removed at any time by the appointing body. SECTION 4: APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN The City Planner or his designated representative shall serve as the non-voting Chairman of the Trails Advisory Committee. SECTION 5: STAFF Representation at Trails Advisory Committee meetings shall include, but not be limited to, representatives of the Planning Division, Engineering Division, Building & Safety Division, and Community Services Department. The Planning Division shall have primary responsibility for agenda preparation and general administration for the Trails Advisory Committee. SECTION 6: MEETINGS AND RULES Meetinqs - The Trails Advisory Committee shall meet once a month or on special occasion as needed. The TAC shall establish the time and place of such meeting. The Chairman shall distribute an agenda for TAC meetings. At least three days notice is required for meetings. B. Quorum - A quorum shall be four (4) members present. C. Votinq Every official action taken by the Con~nittee shall be adopted by a majority of the Committee or quorum present· In the event of a tie vote on any matter, the-action shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission with no recommendation. In t~e' event any member votes in the minority on any item, it shall be the policy that such member state the reason for the minority so that said reason may be recorded in the minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-43A TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGULATIONS April 25, 1990 Page 3 SECTION 7: PROCEDURES The applicant shall submit the appropriate application and plans to the Community Development Department. Once accepted as complete, the Planning Division shall schedule the application for the first available Trails Advisory Committee meeting. The Chairman shall distribute any plans at least a week prior to the meeting. The Trails Advisory Committee shall meet to review and discuss the proposed project. The Chairman shall forward the recommendation of the Committee to the Planning Commission or Park and Recreation Commission. Such recommendation may be consolidated as conditions for final approval. The Chairman of the Committee shall give written notice to the applicant of such recommendations. If, after review by the TAC, the Committee feels that the project needs substantial revision, the project review by the TAC may be continued by the TAC to enable the applicant to make revisions. The applicant shall receive written notice of such decision. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF APRIL, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~/q~ar y~ ATTEST: 1990. I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of April, 1990, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, WEINBERGER NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS OF THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHEREAS, the City's General Plan establishes an extensive network of hiking, biking, and horse riding trails as a recreational element, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has appointed a working subcommittee to advise them on trail issues, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 88-43A which amended the administrative regulations for this subcommittee, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds it desirable to modify the regulations governing this subcommittee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby adopt the following administrative regulations for the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC): SECTION 1: PURPOSE The purpose of the Trails Advisory Committee ('TAC) shall be to assist the Planning Commission in implementing the trails system as envisioned by the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Trails Advisory Committee shall have the following duties, responsibilities, and functions. To review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission with regard to trail locations and the application of trail design standards for development proposals (i.e., tentative maps, specific plans, parks) within the City and the Sphere-of-Influence including, but not limited to, the Equestrian Oreday District. 2. To review and make recommendations to the Commission regarding trail design standards. To assess the present and future need for trails and recommend to the Planning Commission plans and priorities forthe development of trails and related facilities. SECTION 2: COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT The Trails Advisory Committee shall consist of four members. One shall be a member of the Planning Commission as selected by the Planning Commission. One shall be a member of the Park and Recreation Commission as selected by the Park and Recreation Commission. One shall be a Member-at-Large who shall be a representative of the equestrian community, appointed by the Planning Commission. One shall be a Member-at-Large who shall be a representative of the bicycling community, also appointed by the Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE- CITY OF R.C. January 27,1999 Page 2 OR The Trails Advisory Committee shall consist of three members. One shall be a member of the Park and Recreation Commission as selected by the Park and Recreation Commission. One shall be a Member-at-Large who shall be a representative of the equestrian community, appointed by the Planning Commission. One shall be a Member-at-Large who shall be a representative of the bicycling community, also appointed by the Planning Commission. SECTION 3: TERMS OF APPOINTMENT All terms shall be 24 months and shall be staggered 12 months apart to maintain continuity. Any member of the Committee may be removed at any time by the appointing body. SECTION 4: APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN The City Planner or his designated representative shall serve as the non-voting Chairman of the Trails Advisory Committee. SECTION 5: STAFF Representation at Trails Advisory Committee meetings shall include, but not be limited to, representatives of the Community Development and Community Services Departments. The Planning Division shall have primary responsibility for agenda preparation and general administration for the Trails Advisory Committee. SECTION 6: MEETINGS AND RULES Meetings - The Trails Advisory Committee shall meet once a month or on special occasions as needed. The TAC shall establish the time and place of such meeting. The Chairman shall distribute an agenda for TAC meetings. At least three days notice is required for meetings. B. Quorum - A quorum shall be three members present. C. Voting 1. Every official action taken by the Committee shall be adopted by a majodty of the Committee or quorum present. 2. In the event of a tie vote on any matter, the action shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission with no recommendation. In the event any member votes in the minority on any item, it shall be the policy that such member state the reason for the minority so that said reason my be recorded in the minutes. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE- CITY OF R.C. January 27,1999 Page 3 SECTION 7: PROCEDURES The applicant shall submit the appropriate application and plans to the Community Development Depadment. Once accepted as complete, the Planning Division shall schedule the application for the first available Trails Advisory Committee meeting. The Chairman shall distribute any plans at lease one week pdor to the meeting. The Trails Advisory Committee shall meet to review and discuss the proposed project. The Chain'nan shall forward the recommendation of the Committee to the Planning Commission or Park and Recreation Commission. Such recommendation may be consolidated as conditions for final approval. The Chairman of the Committee shall give written notice to the applicant of such recommendations. If, after review by the TAC, the Committee feels that the project needs substantial revision, the project review by the TAC may be continued by the TAC to enable the applicant to make revisions. The applicant shall receive wdtten notice of such decision. S ECTI ON 8: The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify 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 27th day of January 1999, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: