HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-26 - Agenda Packet
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
June 26, 2024
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 PM
A. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Chairman Morales
Vice Chairman Boling
Commissioner Dopp
Commissioner Daniels
Commissioner Diaz
B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning/Historic Commission (“Planning
Commission”) on any Consent Calendar item or any item not listed on the agenda that is within the
Commission’s subject matter jurisdiction. The Planning Commission may not discuss any issue not included
on the agenda, but may set the matter for discussion during a subsequent meeting.
C. CONSENT CALENDAR
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2024.
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
D1. HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW– MK DESIGN STUDIO – A request for site plan and design review of a
4,907-square foot single-story single-family residence with an attached 885-square-foot garage on a
26,238 square-foot undeveloped lot within the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and the Hillside
Overlay located at 5074 Cartilla Avenue, APN; 1074-121-11. This item is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section 15303, which
covers the construction of a limited number of structures in an urbanized area, (Hillside Design Review
DRC2023-00119).
E. DIRECTOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
F. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
G. ADJOURNMENT
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,
given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your
position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may
present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience
should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City
Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing
impaired.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After
speaking, please complete a speaker card located next to the speaker’s podium. It is important to list your
name, address (optional) and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited
to 3 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “Public Communications.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00 PM on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are available at www.CityofRC.us.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission’s
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk’s
Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,526 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established
and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California
and on the City's website.
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 1 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
Historic Preservation Commission
and
Planning Commission Agenda
June 12, 2024
Draft Minutes
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
7:00 p.m.
The regular Joint meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission was held on June
12, 2024. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Morales at 7:00 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Planning Commission present: Chairman Morales, Vice Chairman Boling, Commissioner Dopp, Commissioner
Daniels and Commissioner Diaz.
Staff Present: Serita Young, Assistant City Attorney; Matt Marquez, Director of Planning and Economic
Development; Jennifer Nakamura, Deputy Director of Planning; Justine Garcia, Deputy Director of
Engineering; Sean McPherson, Principal Planner; Adam Pisarkiewicz, Planner; Albert Felix, Traffic
Engineer; Marlena Perez, Principal Engineer; Sophia Serafin, Assistant Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill,
Executive Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Morales opened the public communications.
Hearing no comments, Chairman Morales closed the public communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2024.
Motion: Moved by Vice Chairman Boling; seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to approve Minutes as
presented. Motion carried 5-0.
D. Public Hearings
D1. Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Establishing Battery Energy Storage Facilities as a Use Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit for Properties
Located in the Neo-Industrial (NI) and Industrial Employment (IE) Zones. This Item is Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act, Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(C)(2) And 15061(B)(3). This Item
Will be Forwarded to City Council for Final Action. Continued from April 24, 2024.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura requested that the Commission continue the item to a date uncertain
while staff continues to work with interested stakeholders.
Page 3
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 2 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
Chairman Morales announced that the public hearing was still open and asked if anyone wanted to comment.
Seeing none, the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Boling; seconded by Commissioner Dopp to continue this item to a date
uncertain. Motion carried 5-0
D2. DESIGN REVIEW – FORE PROPERTY – A request to construct a mixed-use development comprising 308
residential units and 14,704 square feet of commercial lease area on 9.15 acres of land at the northeast corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue in the Center 1 (CE1) Zone. APN: 0207-011- 35, 36, 41, 43, 44, and
45 (DRC2022-00379).
Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz presented a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He mentioned a revised version
of the Conditions of Approval have been placed on the dais due to four conditions being removed that contained
outdated language. Also, an additional condition is being added requiring the applicant to submit a parking
management study to make sure the parking is well managed throughout the site.
Commissioner Daniels asked how much parking will be provided.
Adam Pisarkiewicz answered that there will be a total of 535 spaces.
Vice Chairman Boling requested that staff read out loud the addition to the Conditions of Approval. He stated
for the record the red-lined version only includes the deletions, not the additional condition. Principal Planner
Sean McPherson read out loud the red-lined changes.
Commissioner Dopp asked for the history of zoning and the past General Plans for the site.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura replied that it was originally zoned in the 1980’s as commercial
and transitioned to mixed-use in 2010.
Commissioner Dopp asked for an overview of the historical findings for the site.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura provided a general overview from the environmental document.
Chairman Morales opened the public hearing.
Project Architect reviewed the layout of the site plan with the Commissioners.
The following persons commented on the project: Carla Kavanaugh; John Crane; Sarah K; Don Horvatich;
David Vangorden; Jack Wacshaw; Andrew Patlsons; Sharon Lyn Stein; Russ Burroughs; Joan Hamm; Debbie
Parsons; Steve Fuy; Gene Miller; James Hamm; Richard McDonald; Kim Dexter; Matthew Gracia; Douglas
Gray; Laura Espinoza; Sarah Edelmaier; Kathy Holguin; Cesar Manjarrez.
The comments included the following concerns:
•Kucamonga tribe was located on Red Hill. Last piece of undeveloped land.
•Complaints ignored.
•Traffic study inaccurate.
•Misspelled name twice in report.
•History will be lost.
•City’s main interest is money.
•Los Angeles style project.
•Traffic impact will be a burden.
•Parking crime - road rage with serious injuries.
Page 4
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 3 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
•Agriculture lost.
•Schools will be overcrowded.
•Emergency access will be delayed.
•Permit parking on the proposed new road.
•Chemical dust onto property.
•Work hours 6:30AM-8PM will disturb neighbors.
•Golf Course shots onto property. Golfers worry about hitting someone.
•8 ft. masonry wall.
•Will increase homeless.
•No privacy with 4 story building looking into backyards.
•Air quality – health concern.
•Requesting proper traffic study be done.
•Concern about current lack of police enforcement.
•Guest parking.
•Improve intersection – flow of traffic. Accidents.
•Similar parking issues as Arte.
•Pollution.
•High rent. More than 1 person living in units. Parking Concern.
•Consider history of Rancho Cucamonga Community.
For the record, it is noted that the following correspondences were received after the preparation of the agenda
packet and the following general concerns are noted. The actual correspondence should be referred to for
details:
•Petition on Change.org to preserve the land.
•Letter from the Development Services Department Office of the Director from the City of Upland
expressing concerns of Air Quality, Hazardous Materials, Traffic Impact Analysis, Parking and Noise.
•Email from James Hamm asked when the studies where done, if the City took into consideration the
175 new condos being built on Foothill.
•Email from Denise Garzaro noted concern about the increased traffic and activity the mixed-use
development will bring to the community.
•Email from Sarah Edelmaier expressed concerns with the development.
•Letter received from Andrew and Deborah Parsons noting health concerns, quality of life, outdoor
lighting during development, noise, and parking shortage.
•Letter from Joan M. Hamm is opposed to the project due to air and noise quality, traffic and parking.
•Email from Rita J. Cullen expressed she is opposed to the project.
•Email from Allen and Melinda Vanderbilt expressed their disapproval of the project plan.
•Email from Alyssa Smedley demanded immediate halt to the proposed development.
•Email from Eric and Tina Little are in opposition of the proposed mixed-use development.
•Email from Anne Marie Lougheed opposed to more apartments being built.
•Email from Candace Cooke is opposed to the project being built.
•Email from Susan McCoy against more apartments being built.
•Email from Mark Bertone, Board member of Red Hill County Club, inquired about what type of fence/wall
is planned along North and East side of the project.
•Email from David VanGorden is against the project and stated the same issues will occur as Arte
apartment complex with the reduction in parking.
•Email from Andrew and Deborah Parson expressed their concerns with the project being built.
•Email from Karen (a concerned citizen) appealing the project being built.
•Email from Candace Cooke is in opposition of the project.
•Email from Susan McCoy expressed she does not want another apartment complex in the city.
•Email from Sarah Kaleel expressed her strong opposition to the proposed project.
Page 5
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 4 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
•Email from Cathy Jarecki is opposed to the project.
•Email from Jayne Dam is against more homes being built.
•Email from John Crane expressed his concerns and displeasure of the project.
•Email from Barbara Done expressed her concerns and reasons why she is again the development.
•Email from Melissa Hernandez is against the newly structured townhomes being built.
•Email from Jennifer Thorne is in urgent opposition of the project site being built.
•Email from Tom Dodd is in opposition of removing the Strawberry Farm.
•Email from Doug Gray express his concern with the project being built.
•Email from Harvey Rodriguez is against the project.
•Email from Danielle Parker expressed her concerns against the project.
•Email from Wendee Lee, resident of Upland, expressed the loss of not having the Strawberry Farm and
is against the development.
•Email from Dr. Sharon Lyn Stein is adamantly opposed of the project.
Applicant Legal Counsel Lindsay Tabian spoke on traffic, safety, artifacts, schools and dust.
Chairman Morales closed the public hearing.
Traffic Engineer Alberto Felix detailed the traffic diversion for vehicles traveling east out of the complex.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura stated that the City is working with the operator of the
Strawberry Farm to relocate and keep in town. She said the property is not owned by the farm and that the
property owner did decide to sell the property, and the entity purchasing the land is choosing to develop utilizing
tools provided in state law that are not consistent with local zoning standards. She said it is written into the
parking management plan if there should be impacts to the adjacent streets, the City would require the
developer to do the necessary steps to implement permit parking on Red Hill Country Club Drive as needed.
Commissioner Dopp asked if it was possible to require the tenants to use garages for parking.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura answered that it is part of the parking management plan, and
an annual audit is done to ensure it is being used for parking and not for storage.
Commissioner Daniels asked if there are future plans to improve or update the traffic signal at the intersection
of Grove and Foothill.
Traffic Engineer Alberto Feliz answered the traffic study did not recommend improvements for that specific
intersection.
Vice Chairman Boling asked if we can mandate that garages be used for parking and audits take place as part
of the Conditions of Approval.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura confirmed.
Chairman Morales asked what the solutions with Arte parking were.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura answered there were two solutions: 1) Creation of additional
parking spots, paid for jointly between the City and the property owner. 2) Initiation of a permit parking district
on the streets west of the project site and there have been no additional concerns or complaints received and
staff continues to monitor.
Page 6
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 5 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
Chairman Morales asked what the parking reduction percentage is for the current project.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura stated they would get the numbers on the reduction and that
the Arte parking reduction was approved through the minor exception process, and it was not using state density
bonus law.
Commissioner Dopp asked the applicant if they think Arte was good for that site.
Applicant Legal Counsel Lindsey Tabian answered that Arte parking was a lesson learned and they are
providing parking over the density bonus law standard and doing what is necessary to make this site a success.
Commissioner Dopp inquired given the parameters, do they think this project can be a success.
Applicant Legal Counsel Lindsay Tabian answered she does not think they would be building this project if it
would not be a success.
Commissioner Daniels asked if they could control how many people occupy a unit.
Applicant Jonathan Cornelius answered that there are limitations and strict control of how many people are in
a unit and it is policed by the management company.
Vice Chairman Boling asked to clarify for the record, and for the public, the rationale for some of the waivers.
Applicant Legal Counsel Lindsay Tabian explained the residential grade waiver is to comply with the accessible
access standards that are required and to accommodate the residential intensity. She said there are a few
spots where the project does not comply with the 30” residential minimum and in order to do so, the application
would have to add ramping in too many locations to maintain the accessible access that they need. She said
the finished elevations for residential buildings where the 30” grade differential are adjacent to the most
meaningful pedestrian connection and the intent of the standards is to maintain those pedestrian connections
in all the places where those are important, the project is compliant with the code standards.
Vice Chairman Boling asked about the waivers for building type height requirement and parapet height for the
buildings.
Applicant Legal Counsel Lindsay Tabian replied that in terms of the number of stories, they are in compliance.
She explained the zone maximum is 4 stories. She said they are exceeding the heights and parapet widths by
a few feet in order to allow for a range of potential floor trusses. The 3 ft. differential accounts for the two
options for floor trusses that will be ironed out during the final design phase when going through the plan check.
Commissioner Diaz stated the project they are proposing goes along with how the City wants to be walkable
community based. She said they are using density bonus law because they are offering affordable units. She
asked what the rent would be for these apartments.
Applicant Jonathan Cornelius answered that the rent will be market rate when the property opens in two to
three years.
Commissioner Diaz asked if they have any commercial partners currently to fill the commercial spaces.
Applicant Jonathan Cornelius answered not yet because it’s too early.
Commissioner Diaz asked if they have any idea who they plan to put in those spaces and if the employees will
be able to afford the apartment rent so she can mitigate some of the walkability, parking, and traffic issues.
Page 7
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 6 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
Applicant Jonathan Cornelius answered they have not tried to fill the non-residential space yet and that it will
be after construction starts.
Chairman Morales stated the developer is choosing to use the waivers in compliance with state housing laws.
He asked how, as a Commission, are they restricted in what can be denied or approved from what is being
suggested.
Assistant City Attorney Serita Young answered that in order to deny a requested waiver the Planning
Commission would have to find, based on substantial evidence, that the wavier would have a specific adverse
impact on public health, safety or on property listed on the state register of Historical Resources and where
there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate that specific adverse impact, or is contrary to state or federal
law.
Commissioner Dopp asked for the City Attorney to provide a summary for the public to differentiate between
subjective and objective discretion in denying this project outright when it comes to the housing laws.
Assistant City Attorney Serita Young explained the density bonus law that they are relying on for part of the
project is laid out in state law in what they get in return for building affordable housing units. She said in terms
of subjective vs. objective, as long as they meet those clearly objective criteria under state density bonus law
than they are entitled to the increased density and the reduced parking. It is the state’s incentive for production
of more affordable housing units. She explained the subjective is different and that it is more related to design.
The code is very clear about the types of products that may be placed within that zone and the developers have
complied with those required design types.
Commissioner Dopp stated if he owned this site and if he had the subjective ability to design this project, he
would not put it here. He said there were so many things brought up from public comments that he has on his
list such as parking and walkability and he does not see it the most walkable. He said that giant avenue in the
northern part next to the four-story buildings, he sees a lot of cars going through there. He said that specific
block itself does not hit home to some of the urban planning principles that the Commission is seeing both in
the General Plan and over time. The whole point of having the zoning on Foothill is to create Foothill as a
corridor. He said corridors mean places where people can get somewhere quickly and have a community. The
strategy of mixed-use suggests how important it is in terms of connecting people along similar lines
geographically, whether it be streets or otherwise. He said it is something that is very important and critical to
the whole premise of why the zones are the way they are on Foothill.
Commissioner Dopp said he is personally bothered by the fact that the State of California has decided that a
developer can come in and offer a little tiny bit and get all that stuff in return. He thanked the residents for
coming out tonight. He heard a lot of comments that they thought the Commission was automatically totally on
board with everything being presented tonight. He defended the City’s General Plan because he approved it
and a lot of the principals in it. He said he does like some things about this project but in limited measures. He
wanted the residents to understand that the Commission is dealing with multiple constraints tonight with making
a decision. He said objectively this will probably be a reluctant yes vote for him.
Commissioner Daniels also thanked the residents for coming out and speaking tonight. He said that it is nice
to see they care about what happens to their community. He expressed the biggest problem he has with this
project is the state density law. It sounds like developers can create their own standards for what they want to
do and that is due to our legislators in Sacramento, and it is a real problem. He would like to see something
done in that intersection to monitor traffic. It seems about every project we have seen in the last year, has had
a parking reduction. After speaking with staff, we do not know how much commercial we really need but that
is a significant reduction in parking. He mentioned he does not like off-street parking or parallel spaces.
Page 8
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 7 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
Vice Chairman Boling requested to have a requirement included in the Conditions of Approval that garages be
used for vehicle parking and not for storage and to have mandatory periodic audits. He expressed his concerns
with the retail space and the lack of orientation to residents. He said if we are looking for a walkable
development, you have many built in customers with these residents and you are going to force them to walk
to Foothill to get to these store shops. He suggested maybe having glass entry on both sides, with some
windows up high to create a semi-private grass area for residents to enjoy. In regard to health issues/concerns
with the dust, the applicant’s representative responded they have requirements for posting contact information
so if residents see an unusual amount of dust, they can contact authorities for remedy. Also, noise concern
was mentioned, and he asked staff to reiterate what our development code calls out regarding time constraints
when construction can take place.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura said that in addition to time restrictions, there are restrictions
during the holidays and there are conditions in the project that require large vehicles not to be idling, it is not
only an air quality measurement but also reduces noise levels.
Vice Chairman Boling inquired of Engineering that along Red Hill Country Club from Foothill going northbound,
it curves around into Red Hill Community, how much is currently designated no parking or could it be designated
no parking.
Traffic Engineer Alberto Felix answered that along residences is where you can currently park and to the east
is posted no parking. Residents that live there will lose the ability to park along their frontages, but it can be
reviewed.
Vice Chairman Boling talked about schools and asked staff if the City has school impact fees and does the City
coordinate with the impacted school districts to make sure the developers are working in conjunction with the
school districts.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura confirmed and said the school districts maintains and manages
their own impact fee structures and the fees must be paid, and proof provided to the City prior to permit
issuance.
Vice Chairman Boling stated the current tenant are not the owners of the land and that they lease the land. He
said if the owner of the property did not want to sell and did not have a willing buyer, in theory, the Strawberry
Farm would still be in operation at the site. He said City staff, along with the County of San Bernardino, possibly
located a potential site within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. He expressed his concerns with parallel parking
immediately east of Grove on Foothill with regard to safety, backend parking (north of Grove) and
traffic/congestion. He asked if a U-turn can be made where there is a solid yellow line on Grove.
Deputy Director of Engineering Justine Garcia said a double yellow line does not prevent a vehicle from crossing
a double yellow line legally, if there is no sign prohibiting a U-turn. She said that parking on Foothill will be
constructed as a part of one of the capital improvement projects happening now. She explained that with this
project they are narrowing travel lanes to eleven feet, which provides for slower speeds. She mentioned with
this capital project they are putting in the last portion of the traffic signals sync project. The signals will be
synced to interact and slow speeds down in the area for safety.
Vice Chairman Boling clarified that the parallel parking we are seeing on the site plan is part of a different
project.
Deputy Director of Engineering Justine Garcia confirmed it is part of the capital project under a grant.
Vice Chairman Boling clarified it is the City’s project and not the applicant’s project.
Page 9
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 8 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
Deputy Director of Engineering Justine Garcia confirmed.
Commissioner Diaz thanked the public for coming out and expressing their concerns. She said it is clear we
are removing a significant resource from the community and there is nothing we can do about these mitigating
factors. It was mentioned there will be 16 units of low income, which is the bare minimum, and they asked for
a lot of waivers, she expressed concern about that. She said having Foothill as the corridor, there is a missed
opportunity with doing something along the roof top of the buildings and she does not see the walkability on the
frontage.
Chairman Morales asked about comments received from the public about historic preservation and talked about
the Tongva Indian people, Tapia Family Ranches and the Strawberry Farm who previously occupied the space.
He strongly suggested the developer create some kind of art. He asked staff if this is something that we can
require from the develop as a condition of approval or strongly suggest.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura replied that this project falls under an exception because it is
providing affordable housing. She said if the developer can show, through an independent appraisal, the value
of the units is greater than the art that will be required, they can request to be exempted from the public art
requirement. We cannot force them to put in the art because we have to follow what is in the code. She said
when it comes to the landscaping, the Commission can add a condition to include some of the key historical
landscape items and identify what those should be.
Chairman Morales suggested to the applicant that they add art with murals on the wall or some kind of art. He
inquired as far as landscaping goes, is that something they could do, because it would be very important to the
community.
Applicant Jonathan Cornelius answered that they would look into it.
Chairman Morales asked the Commission if they want to require some kind of landscaping to the farm.
Vice Chairman Boling indicated that he is not in favor of having art for the Strawberry Farm, but he does give a
nod to have the historical native culture and tribes that were here noting that the Strawberry Farm is a tenant
that does not own the land and is looking to relocate within the City.
Chairman Morales stated that he withdraws his suggestion to have art for the Strawberry Farm because it may
not be practical or feasible, but he highly recommends for the developer to include historical art of the Tongva
Indian people because they were there first, and as a second thought, the Tapia Family Ranch to have a good
relationship with the community. He thanked the public for coming out tonight and expressed that their
communications where read.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura suggested that the Commission consider a condition that
parking garages shall be restricted to vehicle parking only and shall be audited semi-annually to assure
compliance and the report will be provided to city staff upon request.
Commissioner Diaz asked how we know if they are in compliance.
Deputy Director of Planning Jennifer Nakamura answered that it will be in the parking management plan and
reported back to staff.
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp; seconded by Vice Chairman Boling to adopt Resolution 24-18, Design
Review DRC2022-00379 including the 4 removed conditions and the two added conditions: 1) Parking
Management Plan, and 2) Parking Garage Restrictions. Motion carried 5-0
Page 10
HPC/PC MINUTES – June 12, 2024
Page 9 of 9
Draft
2
8
3
1
E. Director Announcements – None
F. Commission Announcements
Commissioner Daniels requested for staff to talk about the clearview parking at a future meeting. He also
requested to have the Economic Development Director come to talk about commercial developments. He said
that the Commission needs more knowledge on what the city needs and does not need.
Commissioner Dopp requested at a future meeting staff put together a report on agriculture resources in the
city. He asked if there are strategies that other cities are using and what tools we have to attempt to try and
preserve land that is still available for farming.
G. Adjournment
Motion: Moved by Commissioner Dopp, seconded by Commissioner Diaz to adjoin the meeting. Hearing no
objections, Chairman Morales adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant
Planning and Economic Development Department
Approved:
Page 11
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Hillside Design Review
DRC2023-00119, with conditions of approval.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
The undeveloped 26,238-square-foot project site is located at the end of the cul-de-sac on Cartilla
Avenue north of Hidden Farm Road. The dimensions of the diamond-shaped lot are approximately 140
feet in width along the east and west property lines and 150 feet along each of the two legs of the north
property line. The upslope lot has an elevation of approximately 2,119 feet as measured at the north
property line and 2,099 feet along the south property line, for a total grade change of 20 feet. The street
improvements have been constructed on Cartilla Avenue.
Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.122.020-G1-I, new single-family residences in the Hillside
Overlay require the approval of a Hillside Development Review and Planning Commission approval if
the project includes excavation exceeding 5 feet. The project includes earthwork (cut) of up to 8 feet in
depth. The additional excavation is necessary to create the required 15-foot usable rear yard area due
to the existing grades and the shape of the lot (diamond). The proposed retaining walls in the rear yard
area are 3 feet or below with a minimum 3-foot separation.
DATE:June 26, 2024
TO:Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:Matt Marquez, Planning and Economic Development Director
INITIATED BY:Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW– MK DESIGN STUDIO – A request for site plan and
design review of a 4,907-square foot single-story single-family residence with an
attached 885-square-foot garage on a 26,238 square-foot undeveloped lot within the
Very Low Residential (VL) Zone, the Hillside Overlay, and the Equestrian Overlay
located at 5074 Cartilla Avenue, APN; 1074-121-11. This item is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Section
15303, which covers the construction of a limited number of structures in an urbanized
area, (Hillside Design Review DRC2023-00119).
Page 12
2
4
0
7
View of lot looking north
The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent
properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family Residence Semi-Rural
Neighborhood
Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone*
North Flood Control Channel General Open Space
and Facilities Flood Control Corridor
South Public Street
East Single-Family Residence Semi-Rural
Neighborhood
Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone*
West Single-Family Residence Semi-Rural
Neighborhood
Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone*
* Hillside Overlay & Equestrian Overlay
ANALYSIS:
Project Overview: The applicant proposes the construction of a 4,907-square-foot single-story single-
family residence with an attached 885-square-foot garage, in the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone, APN:
1074-121-11. The project complies with Development Code Table 17.36.010-1A (Development
Standards for Residential Zones) and Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development) including setbacks,
lot coverage, building height, and design. The proposed design includes the use of stucco with stone
veneer accents and a tile roof. As previously stated, the site grading includes earthwork (cut) of up to 8
feet in depth to create the required 15-foot usable rear yard.
Page 13
2
4
0
7
Front Elevation
The proposed single-family residence meets or exceeds all applicable technical development standards
for the Very Low (VL) Zone and the Hillside Overlay as shown in the table below:
Proposed Project Development Code Compliant
Building Height 24 Feet – 1 Inch 30 Feet Yes
Front Setbacks 37 feet 42 Feet +/- 5 Feet Yes
Side Setbacks 10/17 Feet 10/15 Feet Yes
Rear Setback 87 feet 60 Feet Yes
Excavation Up to 8 feet of Cut 5 Feet Yes*
Lot Coverage Overall 22 Percent 25 Percent Yes
*With Planning Commission approval
Equestrian Overlay: The Equestrian Overlay is designed to keep equine, bovine, and cleft-footed
animals. The Overlay requires trails be provided in accordance with the adopted trails map of the
General Plan. The project would not be required to dedicate an equestrian trail easement along the
north property line. The adopted trails map does not require trails along properties adjacent to Cartilla
Avenue. The lot is of a size (over 20,000 square feet), however would allow for the keeping of horses.
Public Art: Residential development of 3 or fewer units is exempt from Chapter 17.124 (Design
Provisions for Public Art).
Page 14
2
4
0
7
Environmental Assessment: Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303,
New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures. The project is for the construction of single-
family residences in a residential zone. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT: The project site currently is assessed an annual property tax. A percentage of this
annual tax is shared with the City. The proposed development will increase the value of the project site
and the City’s annual share of the property tax will increase accordingly. The project proponent will be
responsible for paying one-time impact fees. These fees are intended to address the increased demand
for City services due to the proposed project including library services, transportation infrastructure,
drainage infrastructure, animal services, police, parks, and community and recreation services.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The proposed single-family residence will meet the City Council's
core values of providing and nurturing a high quality of life for all, promoting and enhancing a safe and
healthy community for all, building and preserving a family-oriented atmosphere, and relentless pursuit
of improvement. The proposed project provides a well-designed single-family residence that will
become a part of the existing neighborhood.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing with a regular legal advertisement
in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper on June 11, 2024, the property was posted on June 12,
2024, and notices were mailed to 69 property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site on June
12, 2024. No comments have been received in response to these notifications.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Complete Set of Plans
Exhibit C - Resolution of Approval 24-19 with Conditions of Approval
Page 15
Exhibit A – Location Map
Page 16
NOTES NORIEGA'S PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT:
PROJECT ADDRESS :5074 CARTILLA AVE,NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
RANCHO CUCAMONGA , CA 91737
JOSEPH NORIEGA
107412111
26,238 SF ( 0.63 ACRES)
TRACT NO. 10045, M.B. 164/77-78
ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 1074 PAGE 12
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
OWNER:
APN :
LOT AREA:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK :
ZONING:SYMBOLS VICINITY MAP SITE VERY LOW (VL)
BUILDING INFO:
STORIES:BUILDING SECTION 1 STORY
OCCUPANCY:R-3
SPRINKLERS:YES
TOTAL HEATED AREA:
COVERED PATIO:
SUB TOTAL:
4 CAR GARAGE:
GARAGE
4,907 SF
1,046 SF
5,953 SF
885 SFDETAIL PROJECT4-CAR GARAGE NORIEGA'SCONSTRUCTION TYPE:
ALLOWABLE COVERAGE:
PROVIDED COVERAGE:
ALLOWABLE HEIGHT:
ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT
V-B
25%
22%NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
30FT (IN HILLSIDE AREAS, HEIGHT IS 30FT)
26FT
EQUIPMENT I.D.
OWNER / TENANT
THE SITE/PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE
DESIGNATED WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE
FIRE AREA.
NORIEGA FAMILYINTERIOR ELEVATION
ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22ABBREVIATIONSENTRANCE VIEW SHEET LIST SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
A-0.0 COVER SHEET & PROJECT INFO
CONCEPTUAL GRADING / DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 1
CONCEPTUAL GRADING / DRAINAGE PLAN - SHEET 2
PRE-WQMP SITE & DRAINAGE PLAN
SITE PLAN
LANDSCAPE DRAINAGE PLAN VIEW
LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE PLAN VIEW
LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN VIEW
LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION DETAILS
LANDSCAPE LIGHTING PLAN VIEW
LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN VIEW
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
TP-1
DP-1
HP-1
IP-1
1
2
IP-2
10. LP-1
11. PP-1
12. A-1.0
13. A-1.1
14. A-3.0
15. A-3.1
16. A-3.2
17. A-3.3
18. A-3.4
19. A-3.5
20. A-4.0
TITLEPROPOSED FLOOR PLAN COVER SHEET
& PROJECT
INFO
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS NORTH & SOUTH
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS EAST & WEST
ARCHITECTURAL SECTIONS 01
ARCHITECTURAL SECTIONS 02
BUILDING ENVELOPES NORTH / SOUTH
BUILDING ENVELOPES EAST / WEST
ENTRANCE & BACK ELEVATIONS - RENDERING
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:
JOB NO.
SHEET NO:
A-0.0
Exhibit B
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
SHEET NAME CODE
TP
QTY
1
REV
0TITLE SHEET - SITE PLAN
HARDSCAPE PLAN
PLANTING PLAN
39252 WINCHESTER RD. #107-370
MURRIETA, CA. 92563
(855) YARD-PLANSHP1
1
0
PP 0
IRRIGATION PLAN
DRAINAGE PLAN
LIGHTING PLAN
IP-1,2
DP
1
1
1
0 WWW.DESIGNYOURYARD.COM
INFO@DESIGNYOURYARD.COM0
LP 0
GENERAL PLANTING NOTES:
1. THE TYPES, SIZES, AND QUANTITIES OF PLANT MATERIALS SHALL
1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE CODES. IF A BE AS CALLED FOR IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.
CONFLICT ARISES BETWEEN TWO JURISDICTIONS THE STRICTERCODES SHALL APPLY.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THECONDITION OF ALL PLANTS, PLANTED OR OTHERWISE, PRIOR TO
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE LANDSCAPE ACCEPTANCE.
DESIGNER ANY SUBCONTRACTORS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TOACCOMPLISH THE SCOPE OF WORK.+15'3. ALL PLANTING SHALL FOLLOW THE COMPLETION OF THE IRRIGATIONSYSTEM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADEQUATELY PROTECT NEW AND EXISTINGPROPERTY FROM HARM UNLESS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANS.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN A HEALTHYCONDITION FOR PLANTING. PLANTS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO DRY
4. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OUT. BARE ROOTS SHALL BE SEPARATED AND "HEELED IN" MOIST
EARTH OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIAL. BALLED OR BURLAPPED
PLANTS SHALL HAVE THE ROOT BALL COVERED WITH MOIST SAWDUST
OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIAL. SHADE LOVING PLANTS, STOLONS,
PROVIDE FOR THE OWNER A COMPLETE SET OF "AS-BUILT" DRAWINGS.
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN STORAGE FACILITIES
+15'
AND EMPLOY SUCH MEASURES AS WILL PRESERVE THE SPECIFIED AND SOD SHALL BE STORED IN THE SHADE OR SCREENED FROM THE
SUN.QUALITY AND FITNESS OF MATERIALS TO BE USED IN THE WORK.
6. GYPSUM SHALL BE AGRICULTURAL GRADE GYPSUM.5. PLANTING HOLES SHALL BE TWICE THE DEPTH AND WIDTH OF THEPLANT CONTAINER OR BALL. IF NECESSARY THE HOLE SHALL BE
7. ORGANIC MATERIAL SHALL BE A COMBINATION OF COMPOSTED LARGER TO PERMIT HANDLING AND PLANTING WITHOUT INJURY OR
BREAKAGE OF THE ROOT BALL OR ROOT SYSTEM. PLANTINGNITROGEN STABILIZED WOOD SHAVINGS (60% MINIMUM GROUND FIRBARK, 40% DOUGLAS FIR BARK) CONTAINING 1% NITROGEN.
8. ALL SOIL BACK FILL INPUTS FOR TREES, SHRUBS, AND VINES
CONTAINERS SHALL BE REMOVED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THEPLANT ROOT IS NOT INJURED.
SHALL BE PREPARED SOIL CONSISTING OF 40% NITROLIZED ORGANIC 6. ALL SPECIFIED SOIL PREPARATIONS AND FINE GRADING SHALL BE
MATERIAL AND 60% SUITABLE EXISTING SOIL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.+10'COMPLETED PRIOR TO PLANTING EITHER GROUND COVER OR LAWN.
GROUND COVER AND VINES SHALL BE PLANTED IN MOIST SOIL ANDSPACED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS.
7. ALL SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS SHALL BE KEPT MOIST DURINGTHE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD.
8. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ALL PLANTED AREAS ON ACONTINUOUS BASIS AS THEY ARE COMPLETED DURING THEPROGRESS OF THE WORK, DURING THE ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD, ANDGENERAL LIGHTING NOTES:SHALL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THEM UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE.
9. ALL TREES SHALL STAND REASONABLY ERECT WITHOUT SUPPORT.
MULTI-TRUNK INDICATES THREE (3) TRUNKS MINIMUM. BRANCHES
1. THE LIGHTING PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED SCHEMATIC AND IS +10'
INTENDED TO SHOW GENERAL FIXTURE LOCATIONS.
SHALL BE FROM GRADE OR BASE OF TREE.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NECESSARY LINE +5'(120V) AND LOW VOLTAGE (12V) WORK TO COMPLETE THE LIGHTINGDESIGN AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
3. MINIMUM UNDERGROUND LOW VOLTAGE CABLE SIZE SHALL BE 12GAUGE MULTI-STRAND DIRECT BURIAL WITH A MINIMUM CABLE DEPTHOF 8".
4. 24" LOOPS SHALL BE LEFT AT ALL FIXTURE LOCATIONS IN ORDER GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES:
TO ACCOMMODATE FINAL ADJUSTMENT.NORIEGARESIDENCE 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH ALL MATERIALS, LABOR, AND
EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK OF INSTALLING THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS.
MATERIALS SHALL BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE DESIGNER.
5. ALL WIRE JUNCTIONS SHALL BE WATERPROOFED WITH APPROVEDCONNECTORS. ONLY FULLY ENCAPSULATED WATERPROOF +5'
CONNECTORS RATED FOR DIRECT BURIAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXACT FIXTURE LOCATIONS WITHLANDSCAPE DESIGNER BEFORE BEGINNING INSTALLATION.2. THE IRRIGATION LAYOUT SHOWN SHALL BE CONSIDERED
SCHEMATIC UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.7. TRANSFORMERS SHALL BE INSTALLED INCONSPICUOUSLY USINGPLANT MATERIAL OR SITE FEATURES TO OBSCURE A DIRECT VIEW OFTHEIR LOCATIONS.3. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE OPERATIONAL, WITH UNIFORM
AND ADEQUATE COVERAGE OF THE AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED, PRIOR
TO PLANTING.8. TRANSFORMERS SHALL BE INSTALLED 12" OFF FINISH GRADE AND 0"
CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID LOCATIONS THAT ARE IN A DIRECT PATHOF IRRIGATION WATER.+0'
4. SPACING OF SPRINKLER HEADS AND LOCATIONS OF VALVE AND
BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICES SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE
PLAN UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE
DESIGNER.
9. TRANSFORMERS SHALL BE STAINLESS STEEL MULTI-TAP ORACCEPTED EQUIVALENT SIZED TO BE 80% LOADED. RISK OF FIREWARNING: DO NOT USE FIXTURES WITH ANY TRANSFORMER THATEXCEEDS 15V ON THE SECONDARY (LOW VOLTAGE) SIDE.DESIGNER: BTLD
DRAWN: BTLD
CHECKED: BTLD
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE A CONVENIENT TIME IN THE 5. TRENCHES FOR PVC PIPE SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
18" BELOW FINISH GRADE FOR MAINLINE PIPES AND 12" BELOW FINISHGRADE FOR LATERAL PIPES.
EVENING TO TEST AND AIM ALL EQUIPMENT TO THE SATISFACTION OFTHE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER AND OWNER.
-5''
6. ALL MAINLINE PIPES IN THE SYSTEM SHALL BE CAPPED AND
PRESSURE TESTED AT 125 PSI FOR A PERIOD OF TWO HOURS. ANY
LEAKS FOUND SHALL BE CORRECTED BY REMOVING THE LEAKING PIPE
OR FITTING AND INSTALLING NEW MATERIAL.
-5'
DATE:04-01-24
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA
SITE PLAN TP-1NOT TO SCALE
Page 21
NOTES:PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA1. This is a conceptual landscape design plan and
only shows the design intent. It is not a
construction drawing and therefore does not
dimension and detail all construction items. The
property owner and/or contractor shall determine
all final dimensions and construction details.
Contractor is responsible for all necessary building
permits.2. This is not a surveyed plan and only shows
dimensions taken in the field. Property measurements
should be confirmed with a licensed land surveyor if
required.
3. All final Drain/Pipe sizes and locations are to be
determined by the contractor and or owner.
4. All Downspouts are to be tied into drainage
system.
FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1, OPTION 1
(5-30 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE)
SYNTURF
SYNTURF
6' DIAMETER SEEPAGE
PIT, PER GRADING PLAN 6' DIAMETER SEEPAGE
PIT, PER GRADING PLAN
CHAMBER INLET SYNTURF
SYN
TURF
SK180 STORAGE
CHAMBERS
FUEL REDUCTION ZONE 2, OPTION 1
(31-100 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(WIDE SPACED DASHED LINE)SYNTURF
4" SD INLET W/ FILTER
FABRIC, PER GRADING
PLAN
6' DIAMETER SEEPAGE
PIT, PER GRADING PLAN
SYNTURF
NORIEGA
RESIDENCE
OVERFLOW
OUTLET
SYN
TURFSYN
TURF SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
046" FLAT GRATEW/ SPEE-D BASIN DESIGNER: BTLD
DRAWN: CAS3" FLAT GRATE
3" ATRIUM
17SYNTURF26
CHECKED: BTLDCORE CUT 02
3" SDR-35 ± 923 FT.
± 793 FT.04-01-24DATE:SYN
TURF SYNTURF
3" FRENCH DRAIN
6' DIAMETER SEEPAGE
PIT, PER GRADING PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
COMBUSTIBLE EXCLUSION ZONE 0
(0-5 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE WITH A DOT)DP-1
W
landscape drainage plan viewS
Page 22
NOTES:
1. This is a conceptual landscape design plan and only shows the design
intent. It is not a construction drawing and therefore does not dimension
and detail all construction items. The property owner and/or contractor
shall determine all final dimensions and construction details. Contractor is
responsible for all necessary building permits.
2. This is not a surveyed plan and only shows dimensions taken in the field.Property measurements should be confirmed with a licensed land surveyor if
required.
FRONT YARD TOTALS:
3,572.4 S.F. (TOTAL FRONT YARD AREA)
(50% HARDSCAPE MAX= 1,786.2 S.F.)520
**HARDSCAPE TOTAL ON PLAN (IMPERMEABLE SURFACE) FOR FRONT YARD: 1,566.6 S.F. (43.8 %)
**PERMEABLE SURFACE TOTAL ON PLAN FOR FRONT YARD: 2,007 S.F. (56.2 %)
**PLANTING AREA TOTAL (HIGH FIRE AREA) FOR FRONT YARD: 94 S.F.
**SYNTHETIC TURF AREA TOTAL FOR FRONT YARD: 1,285 S.F.
PA278
460 460
1 278
1
460 PA 460
520PA
278 460
PA
FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1, OPTION 1
(5-30 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE)520
SYNTURF
PA
278
PA 1
278460
460SYNTURFPA 420
520PA
278
460PA 62
PAPA PA 278
PA
520 520
SYNTURF
PA PA SYN
TURFPAPA 460+36"+30"+24"+18"+12"+6"
460 PA PA PA EX. BLOCK WALL (VARIOUS HEIGHTS),
PER GRADING PLANPA
+0"PAPA
FUEL REDUCTION ZONE 2, OPTION 1
(31-100 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(WIDE SPACED DASHED LINE)
520 PA
SYNTURF
PA 278
PA
278
460
PA
62278420182450PA
520 PA 460 62
SYNTURF 1278
460
PA 1 PA
460 1 278 EX. BLOCK WALL
(VARIOUS HEIGHTS),
PER GRADING PLAN1427PA
NORIEGA
RESIDENCE
15 27862430+0"-7"-14"-21"
278 PA
PA 17520
278
1535
460
82278PA460
1
62 46082EX. BLOCK WALL
PA 430 1 1428 1 (VARIOUS HEIGHTS),
PER GRADING PLAN278430460520
277 PA1484
278
430 1615
278
101
82 +0"-7"-14"-21"530 PA
SYN
TURF 1484
400277SYN
TURF
520 PA PA
CUT EDGE TO SYN TURF
1484
278
DESIGNER: BTLD
DRAWN: MIKE
CHECKED: BTLD
SYNTURF1620
520
PA SYN TURF
PA
CUT EDGE TO SYN TURF 04-01-24
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
DATE:530
SYN
TURF SYNTURF
CODE
1
15
17
62
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
5,466
7
254
379
261
60
1,019
7,31053
19
67
37
885
418
1034
185
32
6
UNIT
S.F.
EA.
277 CONCRETE: GREY POUR W/ TOP CAST FINISH
CONCRETE STEPPERS: 4' 4' PIP GREY CONCRETE W/ TOP CAST FINISH
CONCRETE STEPPERS WALKWAY: CUSTOM SIZE PIP GREY CONCRETE W/ TOP CAST FINISH (SYN TURF IN BETWEEN)
MOW CURB: 6" GREY CONCRETE SQUARE POUR
STEPS: 6" 14" GREY CONCRETE W/ TOP CAST FINISH
FLAGSTONE: SET IN SAND PER CLIENT
DECOMPOSED GRANITE: 2"-3" THICK W/ STABILIZER
PA PA X
S.F.
L.F.
L.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
L.F.
SL..FF..
S.F.
L.F.
L.F.
EA.
EA.
-
CUT EDGE TO SYN TURF
SYN TURF
82 X
101
277
24 70 80
420
430
450
460
520
-
278 DP EERCIO
M
R
E
ATTEIRVE
RET WALL: 18"
RET WALL: 21"
RET WALL: 36"
RET WALL: 36"
W
R
A
OLLC:K6:"2-7"2T"HHIC-KBLWO/CW
K
EWEDALB
L
AWR R/ MIE
ATCHING CAP (FINISH PER CLIENT) (PER PROVIDED GRADING PLAN)
BLOCK WALL W/ MATCHING CAP (FINISH PER CLIENT)
NO CAP (TO SUPPORT STEPS)
NO CAP (TO SUPPORT STEPS)
BLOCK WALL W/ MATCHING CAP (FINISH PER CLIENT) (PER PROVIDED GRADING PLAN)
BLOCK WALL W/ MATCHING CAP (FINISH PER CLIENT) (PER PROVIDED GRADING PLAN)
R
1 H -
278 H
H
H
W/ (1 SIDE) STUCCO FINISH
W/ (1 SIDE) STUCCO FINISH
&
&PA HP-1COMBUSTIBLE EXCLUSION ZONE 0
(0-5 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE WITH A DOT)
-
PERIMTER WALL: 72"H -
-530 NP AOTNI -OR EC TO VWARL:LA: T7 2T"AHC HEBDL OLCAKT TWIC
ELDL WM E/ MT A
A A
L
T CWHI(N3)G CTAUPC C( FINSISUHPPPOERRTCCLIOELN T)
1427 E /S O UMNS (COLOR TO MATCH HOUSE TRIM) (PER ENGINEERED PLANS)
1428
1484
1535
1615
1620
PATIO COVER: ATTACHED LATTICED METAL W/ (1) VENEERED SUPPORT COLUMN (COLOR TO MATCH HOUSE TRIM) (PER ENGINEERED PLANS)
RAILING: 36"-42" 3" 3" METAL POSTS W/ HORIZONTAL METAL WIRE (FINAL HEIGHT PER CITY CODE)
FENCE: 72" HORIZONTAL METAL SLAT
H -X
H
X
X
-
GATE: 6'
GATE: 7'
H
H
4'
7'
W
W
-
-
HORIZONTAL METAL SLAT
DECORATIVE METAL GATE- PER CLIENT
1
2
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED
Wlandscape hardscape plaILDLAND-URnBAN INTERFAvCE FiIREeAREAwS
Page 23
NOTES:A-1
0.23 PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA1. This is a conceptual landscape design plan
and only shows the design intent. It is not a
construction drawing and therefore does not
dimension and detail all construction items. The
property owner and/or contractor shall
determine all final dimensions and construction
details. Contractor is responsible for all necessary
building permits.
2. This is not a surveyed plan and only shows
dimensions taken in the field. Property
measurements should be confirmed with a licensed
land surveyor if required.
3. This plan is diagrammatic only. All final zoning,
valve quantities and locations are to be determined
by the contractor and/or owner.
4. Install in-line check valve for sloped areas every
4'-6" of elevation change.
See details 5.06 / 1.12
ZONE 1 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)
Emitter FLow Rate (gph)0.33
18 "I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE
ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF
WATER IN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN"
VALVE SEQUENCE #Emitter Spacing (in)A-2
Row/Lateral Spacing (in)
Square Feet Of Area (ft2)
Inlet Pressure (PSI)
18 0.51 A-3
0.33
GALLONS PER MINUTEA-194
35 GPM
Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
Total GPM Of Zone (GPM)
Application Rate (In/Hr)
63
2 "THE DESIGN OF THIS COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE "546
0.23
0.24
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
0.18"-0.24"
64
Number Of Drippers In Zone 42
Number Of TLS6 Staples 21 SYMBOL
MAINLINE
MAINLINE
LATERALS
MATERIAL
CLASS 315
SIZE
EX. LINE
QUANTITYRecommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120
(LOCAETXIOISNTIANPGPROX.)
Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF CLASS 315 USE EX. LINE SIZE
3/4" TO 1"
±
±
±
387 FT
658 FT
347 FT
55 FT
Preferred Coil Length 100'SCHED. 40(TOTAL AS SHOWN)Recommended Dripline Model Number TLHCVXR3-1801 DRIP LINE U.V. RESTISECTAHNLITNEDRCIVPPER LINE
FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1, OPTION 1
(5-30 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE)
SLEEVES SCHED. 40
NETAFIM
3"±
5. VALVE & IRRIGATION CLOCK RUN TIMES TO BE
SET PER CONTRACTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
6. Manual Flush Valve: install in a valve box with
gravel sump, normally placed along exhaust header
or at the point farthest away from the source.
LINE FLUSHING PLUMBED TO
TECHLINEFVVALVE 04 EA
SYNTURF SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
AUTO. CONTROLLER
PRESS. REGULATOR - LINE SIZE
WATER METERSYNTURFBALL VALVE - WILKENSLINE SIZE -INSTALL PRIOR TO VALVE MAINIFOLD
VALVE (LINE SIZE)
MAIN LINE AND LATERAL LINE TRENCHING DETAIL
SYNTURF
LATERAL LINE PIPE 6"-8" DEEP
MAIN LINE PIPE 12" DEEP
SYN
TURF
FV
FUEL REDUCTION ZONE 2, OPTION 1
(31-100 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(WIDE SPACED DASHED LINE)
SYNTURF
FV
SYNTURF
A-2 ZONE 2 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)
0.51
Emitter FLow Rate (gph)0.33
18
Emitter Spacing (in)
Row/Lateral Spacing (in)18
Square Feet Of Area (ft2)209
35
Inlet Pressure (PSI)
Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
139
2 NORIEGA
RESIDENCE
546
0.51
0.24
Total GPM Of Zone (GPM)
Application Rate (In/Hr)
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
Number Of Drippers In Zone
0.18"-0.24"
64
93
Number Of TLS6 Staples 47
Recommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120
A-4
0.20
Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF
Preferred Coil Length
Recommended Dripline Model Number
100'
TLHCVXR3-1801
FV
A-1
0.23A-3ZONE 3 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)0.33
Emitter FLow Rate (gph)0.33
18Emitter Spacing (in)
Row/Lateral Spacing (in)18
Square Feet Of Area (ft2)137
35Inlet Pressure (PSI)
Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
91
1 SYN
TURF546
0.33
0.24
SYN
TURFTotal GPM Of Zone (GPM)
Application Rate (In/Hr)
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
Number Of Drippers In Zone
0.18"-0.24"
64 DESIGNER: BTLD
DRAWN: CAS
61
Number Of TLS6 Staples 31
Recommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120
SYNTURF
Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF CHECKED: BTLD
Preferred Coil Length 100'
Recommended Dripline Model Number TLHCVXR3-1801 A-4
0.20ZONE 4 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)04-01-24
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
DATE:Emitter FLow Rate (gph)
Emitter Spacing (in)
0.33
18
SYN
TURF SYNTURF
Row/Lateral Spacing (in)18
Square Feet Of Area (ft2)81
Inlet Pressure (PSI)35
Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
54
1
546
Total GPM Of Zone (GPM)0.20
Application Rate (In/Hr)0.24 COMBUSTIBLE EXCLUSION ZONE 0
(0-5 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE WITH A DOT)
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
Number Of Drippers In Zone
0.18"-0.24"
64
W
IP-136FV
Number Of TLS6 Staples 18
Recommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120
Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF
Prefelagth nds100' cape irrigation plan
view
rred Coil Len
Recommended Dripline Model Number TLHCVXR3-1801
Page 24
CITY: RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA"I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE
ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF
WATER IN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN"
REGION 4: SOUTH INLAND VALLEY (CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ZONES: 18 &19)(CIMIS ETo ZONE: 9)
PROJECT TYPE: NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW PLANTING
WATER SUPPLY: POTABLEWATER SUPPLY COMPANY: CUCAMONGA VALLEU WATER DISTRICT
IRRIGATED AREA: PROJECT TOTAL - 521 S.F."THE DESIGN OF THIS COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE "
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS:
HYDROZONE INFORMATION TABLE:
HYDROZONE*ZONE OR VALVE IRRIGATION METHOD** AREA (SQ. FT.) % OF LANDSCAPE AREA HYDROZONE*IRRIGATION METHOD**
MS = MICRO -SPRAY#1 - LW
#2 - LW
#3 - LW
#4 - LW
ZONE 1 - LITE
ZONE 2 - LITE
ZONE 3 - LITE
ZONE 4 - LITE
D 94 18.04
40.12
26.30
15.54
HW - HIGH WATER USE PLANTS
MW - MODERATE WATER USE PLANTS S= SPRAYD
D
D
209
137
81
LW - LOW WATER USE PLANTS
SLA - SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA -(EX. FRUIT TREES)
R= ROTOR
B= BUBBLERD= DRIP
A-1
0.23ZONE 1 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)
TOTAL:521 100.00%O= OTHER Emitter FLow Rate (gph)0.33
18Emitter Spacing (in)
Row/Lateral Spacing (in)18
Square Feet Of Area (ft2)94
Inlet Pressure (PSI)35
MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (MAWA):
TOTAL MAWA= (ETo x 0.7 x LA IN SF x 0.62) + (ETo X 1.0 X SLA IN SF x 0.62)=GALLONS PER YEAR FOR LA +SLA
Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
63
2
WHERE:546
0.23
0.24
0.18"-0.24"
64
MAWA= MAXIMUM APPLIED WATER ALLOWANCE (GAL PER YEAR)
ETo= REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (INCHES PER YEAR)0.7= EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (ETAF)1.O= ETAF FOR SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA
Total GPM Of Zone (GPM)
INPUT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LANDSCAPED AREA (LA):= LA (521 SF)
INPUT THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREA (SLA): N/A
INPUT THE HISTORICAL ETo FOR THE AREA= ETo FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA = 51.4
Application Rate (In/Hr)
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
Number Of Drippers In Zone 42
Number Of TLS6 Staples 21LA= LANDSCAPED AREA (TOTAL FOR PROJECT - SQUARE FEET)
0.62=CONVERSION FACTOR (GAL TO SQ. FT.)
Recommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120
MAWA FOR LA= (ETo x 0.7 x LA x 0.62)=(51.4 x 0.7 x 521 x 0.62) = 11,622.25 GAL PER YEAR
MAWA FOR SLA = (ETo x 1.0 x SLA IN SF x 0.62)=(N/A) = 0 GAL PER YEAR
MAWA FOR SLA (WATER FEATURE)= (ETo x 1.0 x SLA IN SF x 0.62)=(N/A)=0 GAL PER YEAR
MAWA FOR SLA (POOL)= (ETo x 1.0 x SLA IN SF x 0.62)=(N/A) = 0 GAL PER YEAR
Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF
TOTAL MAWA (LA+SLA)= 11,622.25 GAL PER YEAR Preferred Coil Length
Recommended Dripline Model Number
100'
TLHCVXR3-1801
11,622.25 GAL /YEAR DIVIDED BY 748 = 15.53 CCF A-2ZONE 2 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)MAWA= 11,622.25 GAL PER YEAR =15.53 CCF 0.51
Emitter FLow Rate (gph)0.33
Emitter Spacing (in)18
Row/Lateral Spacing (in)18
Square Feet Of Area (ft2)209
Inlet Pressure (PSI)35
Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
139
2
546
Total GPM Of Zone (GPM)0.51
Application Rate (In/Hr)0.24
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
Number Of Drippers In Zone
0.18"-0.24"
64
93
Number Of TLS6 Staples 47
Recommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120ESTIMATED APPLIED WATER USE (EAWU):Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF
WHERE:Preferred Coil Length 100'
FIND EAWU FOR EACH HYDROZONE:
{(ETo X D X E X .62)} / F X 748
ETo= REFERENCE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (INCHES PER YEAR)Recommended Dripline Model Number TLHCVXR3-1801
D= PLANT FACTOR FROM WUCOLS
E= SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HYDROZONE
.62=CONVERSION FACTOR (GAL TO SQ. FT.)
F=HYDROZONE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY
G= TOTAL EAMU PER HYDROZONE
A-3ZONE 3 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)0.33
EXAMPLE: ZONE 1 - LITE LW - D=.3, E=794, F=.85
(51.3 X 0.3 X 794 X 0.62) / .85 X 748
(7,576.18) / 635.8 = 11.91
Emitter FLow Rate (gph)0.33
Emitter Spacing (in)18
H = TOTAL EAMU OF ALL HYDROZONES Row/Lateral Spacing (in)18
Square Feet Of Area (ft2)137
Inlet Pressure (PSI)35
HYDROZONE OR VALVE
ZONE 1 - LITE (LW)
ZONE 2 - LITE (LW)
ZONE 3 - LITE (LW)
ZONE 4 - LITE (LW)
ETo PLANT FACTOR =D AREA (SQ. FT.)=E HYDROZONE IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY= F EAWU = G Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
91
51.4 (.10-.30) using .30
51.4 (.10-.30) using .30
51.4 (.10-.30) using .30
51.4 (.10-.30) using .30
94
209
137
81
.81
.81
.81
.81
1.48
3.29
2.16
1.27
1
546
Total GPM Of Zone (GPM)0.33
Application Rate (In/Hr)0.24
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
Number Of Drippers In Zone
0.18"-0.24"
64
TOTAL=H:8.20 61
Number Of TLS6 Staples 31
Recommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120TOTAL OF HYDROZONES=H H= (G + G + G ETC.): 8.20
FINDING TOTAL EAWU= H/.81 Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF
SUBTOTAL EAMU = H (8.20) CU FT./YR Preferred Coil Length 100'
INPUT IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERATION FACTOR (.81) (FOR SMART CONTROLLERS)Recommended Dripline Model Number TLHCVXR3-1801
TOTAL EAMU FOR PROJECT: 10.12 A-4
0.20ZONE 4 LITE (LOW WATER USAGE)
FINDING TOTAL ALLOWANCE: MAWA - EAMU Emitter FLow Rate (gph)0.33
18Emitter Spacing (in)
Row/Lateral Spacing (in)18MAWA= 15.53 EAMU= 10.12 Square Feet Of Area (ft2)8115.53 - 10.12 = 5.41 CU FT/ YR Inlet Pressure (PSI)35
Required Feet Of Techline Dripline
Required Number Of Techline Coils
Maximum Run Length (ft)
54
1
5.41 CU.FT. /YR.=REMAINDER WATER ALLOWANCE 546
0.20
0.24
Total GPM Of Zone (GPM)
Application Rate (In/Hr)
Range OF Acceptable Precipitation Rates For Soil Chosen
Time To Apply 1/4" Of Water (min)
Number Of Drippers In Zone
0.18"-0.24"
64 DESIGNER: BTLD
DRAWN: CAS
36
Number Of TLS6 Staples 18
Recommended Pressure Regulators Model Number
Recommended Screen Filer Model Number
Recommended Disc Filer Model Number
PRV075LF50V2K
SF075-120
DF075-120
Recommended Screen Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Number LVCZS80SF10075-LF
Recommended Disc Low Volume Control Zone Kit Model Nubmer LVCZS8010075-LF CHECKED: BTLD
Preferred Coil Length 100'
Recommended Dripline Model Number TLHCVXR3-1801
04-01-24DATE:
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
IP-2
landscape irrigation details
Page 25
NOTES:NOTES:1. The lighting plan is
diagrammatic and is not
intended to show exact
location of cable runs. The
installing contractor shall run
wires to best suit field
conditions.
1. This is a conceptual landscape design plan
and only shows the design intent. It is not a
construction drawing and therefore does not
dimension and detail all construction items. The
property owner and/or contractor shall
determine all final dimensions and construction
details. Contractor is responsible for all
necessary building permits.
2. This is not a surveyed plan and only shows
dimensions taken in the field. Property
measurements should be confirmed with a licensed
land surveyor if required.
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA
2.The Multi-Tap
series transformers have
multiple voltage taps. It is
the responsibility of the
installing contractor to field
verify all required voltage
taps prior to leaving the job.
The installing contractor is
not to rely on the
suggested voltage
calculations as listed on the
calculation table (s). The
contractor is to use a digital
voltmeter to determine the
actual voltage at the point of
connection. NOTE THAT
MULTIPLE RUNS CAN BE
CONNECTED TO THE SAME
TAP AT THE TRANSFORMER.
3.The installing contractor is
to use an Amp Probe to field
verify that all amperage loads
on each transformer do not
exceed the maximum
FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1, OPTION 1
(5-30 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE)
SYNTURFBULLET LIGHT BL200 STEP LIGHT SL25
SYNTURF
allowance. All maximum loads
are listed on the label of
each transformer.4. All electrical connections
must be tightened securely.2 SYNTURFC
3 SYN
TURFC
3B
FUEL REDUCTION ZONE 2, OPTION 1
(31-100 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(WIDE SPACED DASHED LINE)SYNTURF
2B
SYNTURF
LIGHTING NOTES
1 LOW VOLTAGE #16-2 WIRE INCLUDED WITH
FIXTURE. DO NOT CUT EXCESS WIRE, BURY AT
FIXTURE.
ALLIANCE it2-300 B 1B
2
3
LOW VOLTAGE #12-2 WIRE.
CS100. NUMBER REFERES TO RUN
NUMBER. LETTER INDICATES TRASNFORMER.
TRANSFORMER A.
STAINLESS STEEL LIFE-TIME WARRANTY
TRANSFORMER B.STAINLESS STEEL LIFE-TIME WARRANTY
NORIEGA
RESIDENCEA
B C ALLIANCE it2-3001C
2A
SYN
TURFSYN
TURF LIGHTING LEGEND
SYMBOL ALLIANCE OUTDOOR QTY.DESIGNER: BTLD
DRAWN: CAS
BULLET LIGHT BL200SOLID BRASS UPLIGHT (LED)07
09
06
36
08
18
08
03
SYNTURF STEP LIGHT SL25
SOLID BRASS (LED)ALLIANCE it2-300 A CHECKED:BTLDDOWN LIGHT DL200SOLID BRASS DOWNLIGHT (LED)
2 AREA LIGHT ALSTEM18-LED
SOLID BRASS W/ AL100 CAP 04-01-24DATE:1
3
1 FLOOD LIGHT FL50
SOLID BRASS LIGHT (LED)A SYN
TURF SYNTURF
DOWN LIGHT DL200 AREA LIGHT ALSTEM18-LED
W/ AL100 CAP
STEP LIGHT SL35SOLID BRASS (LED)
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1A CONNECTION SYSTEM CS100
MULTI-TAP TRANSFORMER
ALLIANCE it2- 300
N COMBUSTIBLE EXCLUSION ZONE 0
(0-5 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE WITH A DOT)LP-1FLOOD LIGHT FL50 STEP LIGHT SL35WE
landscape lighting plan viewS LONG LEAD
SHORT LEADHOMERUN
#16-2
#16-2#12-2
25'
12'N/A
Page 26
PLANT SCHEDULE:NOTES:I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE
AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN
THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN
1. This is a conceptual landscape design plan and only shows the design
intent. It is not a construction drawing and therefore does not dimension
and detail all construction items. The property owner and/or contractor
shall determine all final dimensions and construction details. Contractor is
responsible for all necessary building permits.
2. This is not a surveyed plan and only shows dimensions taken in the field.
Property measurements should be confirmed with a licensed land surveyor if
required.
5
**PLANTS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR CLIMATE ZONES 18 & 19 AS DETERMINIED BY WESTERN GARDEN
PUBLISHED BY SUNSET BOOKS.
FRONT YARD TOTALS:
3,572.4 S.F. (TOTAL FRONT YARD AREA)
(50% HARDSCAPE MAX= 1,786.2 S.F.)
**PLANTS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR CALIFORNIA IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS (CIMIS)
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ZONE 9.
**PLANTS HAVE A REGION 4 WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES (WUCOLS) OF LOW OR
VERY LOW BASED ON WUCOLS IV, 2014 (AS STATED IN ABOVE TABLE)
**PLANTS ON PLAN ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE
AREA UNDESIRABLE PLANTS & TREES LIST.
**HARDSCAPE TOTAL ON PLAN (IMPERMEABLE SURFACE) FOR FRONT YARD: 1,566.6 S.F. (43.8 %)
**PERMEABLE SURFACE TOTAL ON PLAN FOR FRONT YARD: 2,007 S.F. (56.2 %)
**PLANTING AREA TOTAL (HIGH FIRE AREA) FOR FRONT YARD: 94 S.F.
6
6
**SYNTHETIC TURF AREA TOTAL FOR FRONT YARD: 1,285 S.F.**PLANTS ON PLAN ARE NOT DETERMINED BY ANY STANDARD OR CLASSIFICATION TO BE INVASIVE.
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE DESIGNATED
WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FIRE AREA
5 FUEL MODIFICATION ZONE 1, OPTION 1
(5-30 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE)
SYNTURF
4
5
SYNTURF 6
4
3 3
36 3 5
SYNTURF
3 SYN
TURF33333
57
2 25
3 3FUEL REDUCTION ZONE 2, OPTION 1
(31-100 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(WIDE SPACED DASHED LINE)SYNTURF
6
3
3
5
5
SYNTURF
2 4
NORIEGA
RESIDENCE
7
4
2
4
PROJECT TOTALS:
TOTAL PLANTING AREA: 521 S.F. (ENTIRE PROJECT)
TOTAL SYNTHETIC TURF: 5,450 S.F. (ENTIRE PROJECT)1 1
2 SYN
TURF1
2
1
SYN
TURFNOTE: 3" MIN. LAYER OF ROCK MULCH
ON ALL PLANTING AREAS,
4
DESIGNER: BTLD
DRAWN: COURTNEY
CHECKED: BTLD
EXCEPT IN SYNTHETIC TURF AREAS
NOTE: (BARK MULCH NOT ALLOWED
DUE TO HIGH FIRE AREA)
SYNTURF
2
2
DATE:04-01-24SYN
TURF SYNTURF TOTAL SYNTHETIC TURF AREA:
± 1,285 S.F. (FRONT YARD)
± 4,165 S.F. (BACKYARD)
± 5,450 S.F. (PROJECT TOTAL)
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 4
2 TOTAL PLANTING AREA:PP-1± 94 S.F. (FRONT YARD)COMBUSTIBLE EXCLUSION ZONE 0
(0-5 FEET FROM THE STRUCTURE)
(DASHED LINE WITH A DOT)± 427 S.F. (BACKYARD)
± 521 S.F. (NEW LANDSCAPE AREA PROJECT TOTAL)
E
landscape planting plan view
Page 27
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
PROPOSED 3' RET WALL (RETAINING WALL
TO HAVE STONE PROPOSED 3' RET WALLPROPOSED 3' RET WALL CLADDING AND
FINISHED WITH PROPOSED 6' BLOCK WALLPROPOSED 6' BLOCK WALL CAPSTONES)
PROJECT
NORIEGA'SPROPOSED 4' RET. WALL
(RETAINING WALL TO HAVE
STONE CLADDING AND
FINISHED WITH CAPSTONES)NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
1
2
PROPOSED 3' RET WALL
PROPOSED 3' RET WALL
(RETAINING WALL TO HAVE
STONE CLADDING AND
FINISHED WITH CAPSTONES)
PROPOSED 6' BLOCK WALL TITLE
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
DRIVEWAY
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE:
1 JOB NO.
SCALE:3/32" = 1'-0"SHEET NO:
A-1.0
Page 28
119'-9"
36'-021"83'-9"
20'-021"10'-521"19'-621"7'-821"26'-0"
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
COVERPATIO
PROJECT
NORIEGA'S
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
COVERPATIOFAMILY ROOM
W.I.C.MASTER
KITCHEN
BRKFST.
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILYSAFE RM.
POWDER
MASTERBEDROOMBEDROOM 02 PANTRY ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24RETREATENTRANCELOBBY1
2
BEDROOM 03
LAUNDRY TITLE
PROPOSED
FLOOR PLANGYMOFFICEROOM
15'-6"10'-0"17'-6"
MASTER
BATHROOMMAINENTRANCE
HOME THEATER /FUTURE BEDROOM PATIO
4-CAR
GARAGE
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:
PROJECT
NORTH JOB NO.PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN SHEET NO:
1 A-1.1SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
Page 29
1 7 9 11 10 11 5 12 6 11 1 2 4 12 6 3 1
+26-1" TOP OF CHIMNEY
+24'-1" TOP OF THE ROOF
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
124 12 124 4
+12'-0" CEILING LEVEL
PROJECT
NORIEGA'S
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
+/- 0'-0" ENTRANCE LEVEL
-1'-8"
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
1
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
10 6 5 11 3 1 6 7 9 5 10 3 2 2 12 2 7 9 1
+26-1" TOP OF CHIMNEY
+24'-1" TOP OF THE ROOF 1
2
124121244
TITLE
12 PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
4
+12'-0" CEILING LEVEL
NORTH & SOUTH
+/- 0'-0" ENTRANCE LEVEL
-1'-8"
2
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
ELEVATIONS NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISH: COLOR A LIGHT GRAY BY LA HABRA STUCCO
EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISH: COLOR B WHITE BY LA HABRA STUCCO
STONE VENEER
DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON GUARD RAIL COLOR "BLACK"
ALUM. BOX SECTION WITH ELECTRO STATIC PAINT IN WOODEN EFFECT FINISH
APPROVED TERMINATION CAP WITH SPARK ARRESTER FROM FIREPLACE
MANUFACTURER.
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:7.
8.
DECORATIVE METAL GUTTER,
G.I. REGLET FOR COLOR COAT CHANGE.JOB NO.
9.EXTERIOR PLASTER 0/ FOAM TRIM.SHEET NO:
10.
11.
12.
TYPICAL ROOFING TO BE CONCRETE "S" TILE, BU EAGLE ROOFING OR APPROVED EQUAL.
WEATHER PROOF WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE.
WOODEN BEAMS PERGOLA / TRELLIS A-3.0
Page 30
7 9 12 10 3 1 2 6 10 6 3 1 10 7 9
+26-1" TOP OF CHIMNEY
+24'-1" TOP OF THE ROOF
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
12 124 4
+12'-0" CEILING LEVEL
PROJECT
NORIEGA'S
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
+/- 0'-0" ENTRANCE LEVEL
-1'-8"
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
1
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
7 3 1 9 2 6 12 2 10 2 7 9
+26-1" TOP OF CHIMNEY
+24'-1" TOP OF THE ROOF 1
2
TITLE
12 12 PROPOSED44
ELEVATIONS+12'-0" CEILING LEVEL
EAST & WEST
+/- 0'-0" ENTRANCE LEVEL
-1'-8"
2
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
ELEVATIONS NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISH: COLOR A LIGHT GRAY BY LA HABRA STUCCO
EXTERIOR STUCCO FINISH: COLOR B WHITE BY LA HABRA STUCCO
STONE VENEER
DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON GUARD RAIL COLOR "BLACK"
ALUM. BOX SECTION WITH ELECTRO STATIC PAINT IN WOODEN EFFECT FINISH
APPROVED TERMINATION CAP WITH SPARK ARRESTER FROM FIREPLACE
MANUFACTURER.
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:7.
8.
DECORATIVE METAL GUTTER,
G.I. REGLET FOR COLOR COAT CHANGE.JOB NO.
9.EXTERIOR PLASTER 0/ FOAM TRIM.SHEET NO:
10.
11.
12.
TYPICAL ROOFING TO BE CONCRETE "S" TILE, BU EAGLE ROOFING OR APPROVED EQUAL.
WEATHER PROOF WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE.
WOODEN BEAMS PERGOLA / TRELLIS A-3.1
Page 31
P/L
125
120
115
110
105
100
125
120
115
110
105
100
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
MAIN ENTRANCE
LOBBY
FAMILY
ROOM
COVER
PATIOENTRANCE
FF.=107.17 PER GRADING PLAN PROJECT
NORIEGA'S
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
GFF.=103.00 PER GRADING PLAN
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
1
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
ISSUE /REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
1
2
P/L
125
120
115
110
105
100
125
120
115
110
105
100
TITLE
ARCHITECTURAL
SECTIONS 01
4-CAR KITCHEN COVER
PATIOGARAGE
FF.=107.17 PER GRADING PLAN
GFF.= 103.00 PER GRADING PLAN
2
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:
JOB NO.
SHEET NO:
A-3.2
Page 32
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253125
120
115
110
105
100
125
120
115
110
105
100
PROJECT
NORIEGA'S
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
1
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
ISSUE /REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
1
2
TITLE
ARCHITECTURAL
SECTIONS 02
125
120
115
110
105
100
125
120
115
110
105
100
GFF.= 103.00 PER GRADING PLAN
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
2
SCALE:3/16"=1'-0"SCALE:
JOB NO.
SHEET NO:
A-3.3
Page 33
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
PROJECT
NORIEGA'SFRONT SET BACK
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN1PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
1
2
TITLE
BUILDING
ENVELOPES
NORTH / SOUTH
FRONT SET BACK
2
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:
JOB NO.
SHEET NO:
A-3.4
Page 34
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
SIDE SET BACK SIDE SET BACK
PROJECT
NORIEGA'S
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
FF. = 107.17 PER GRADING PLAN
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN1PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
1
2
TITLE
BUILDING
ENVELOPES
EAST / WESTSIDE SET BACK SIDE SET BACK
FF. = 107.17 PER GRADING PLAN
2
SCALE:3/16" = 1'-0"
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:
JOB NO.
SHEET NO:
A-3.5
Page 35
WWW.MKDESIGNSTUDIO.US
TEL 909 210 5253
PROJECT
NORIEGA'S
NEW RESIDENCE
5047 CARTILLA AVE.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CA 91737
OWNER / TENANT
NORIEGA FAMILY
ISSUE / REVISION DATE
01/22/22SD DESIGN
PLANING REVIEW
PLANING 2nd REVIEW
PLANING 3rd REVIEW
PLANING 4th REVIEW
03/22/23
10/05/23
04/01/24
05/08/24
1 1SCALE:NTS 2
TITLE
ENTRANCE &
BACK
ELEVATIONS.
RENDERING
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
DATE:
MICHAEL HANNA
03.06.2022
22-001
SCALE:
JOB NO.
SHEET NO:
2 A-4.0SCALE:NTS
Page 36
RESOLUTION NO. 24-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HILLSIDE DESIGN
REVIEW DRC2023-00119, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 4,907-
SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN
ATTACHED 885-SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE ON A 26,238 SQUARE-FOOT
UNDEVELOPED LOT WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL ZONE,
THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY AND THE EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY LOCATED
AT 5074 CARTILLA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF – APN: 1074-121-11.
A.Recitals.
1.MK Design Studio filed an application for the issuance of Design Review DRC2023-
00119, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Hillside
Design Review request is referred to as "the application."
2.On the 26th day of June 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded
said hearing on that date.
3.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This 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 June 26, 2024, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.122.020-G.1-i new single-family
residences in the Hillside Overlay require the approval of a Hillside Development
Review and Planning Commission approval if the project includes fill or excavation
over 5 feet in depth. The project includes earthwork (cut) of up to 8 feet in depth.
The additional excavation is necessary to create the required 15-foot flat rear yard
area due to the existing grades and the shape of the lot (diamond); and
b.
c.The undeveloped 26,238-square-foot project site is located at the end of the cul-
de-sac on Cartilla Avenue north of Hidden Farm Road; and
d. The existing Land Use, General Plan, and Zoning designations for the project site
and adjacent properties are as follows:
Land Use General Plan Zoning
Site Single-Family Residence Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone*
Exhibit C
Page 37
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-19
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00119– MK Design Studio
June 26, 2024
Page 2
North Flood Control Channel General Open Space and
Facilities Flood Control Corridor
South Public Street - -
East Single-Family Residence Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone*
West
Single-Family Residence
Semi-Rural Neighborhood Very Low (VL)
Residential Zone*
* Hillside Overlay & Equestrian Overlay
e. The applicant proposes the construction of a 4,907-square-foot single-story single-
family residence with an attached 885-square-foot garage, in the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone,
APN: 1074-121-11. Due to onsite grades and the shape of the lot, up to 8 feet of excavation (cut) is
necessary to create the required 15-foot flat rear yard area; and
f. The project complies with Development Code Table 17.36.010-1A (Development
Standards for Residential Zones) and Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development) including
setbacks, lot coverage, building height, and design. The proposed design includes the use of stucco
with stone veneer accents and a tile roof, The project would not be required to dedicate an
equestrian trail easement along the north property line. Section 17.38.020.C of the Development
Code only requires trail easements to be provided in accordance with the adopted trails map of the
General Plan. The trails map does not require trails adjacent to Cartilla Avenue. The lot is of a size
(over 20,000 square feet) that would allow for the keeping of horses; and
g. The proposed single-family residences meet or exceeds all applicable technical
development standards for the Very Low Residential (VL) Zone and the Hillside Overlay except for
wall height as shown in the table below:
Proposed Project Development
Code Compliant
Building Height 24 Feet – 1 Inch 30 Feet Yes
Front Setbacks 37 feet 42 Feet +/- 5 Feet Yes
Side Setbacks 10/17 Feet 10/15 Feet Yes
Rear Setback 87 feet 60 Feet Yes
Excavation Up to 8 feet of Cut 5 Feet Yes*
Lot Coverage
Overall 22 Percent 25 Percent Yes
*With Planning Commission approval
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
Page 38
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-19
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00119– MK Design Studio
June 26, 2024
Page 3
a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan land use
designation of the project site is Semi-Rural Neighborhood. The Semi-Rural Neighborhood
designation is intended for the development of detached single-family residences on large individual
lots. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence with an attached garage on an
existing 26,238-square-foot lot in keeping with the General Plan land use designation; and
b. The proposed project is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and
the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The Very Low (VL) zone is designated for the
development of single-family residences with a maximum residential density of 2 units per gross
acre. The proposed single-family residence is in keeping with the intent of the Very Low (VL)
zoning designation and with the Hillside Overlay, The additional excavation (cut) up to 8 feet which
necessitates Planning Commission review is necessary to create a usable rear yard area; and
c. The proposed project complies with the applicable provisions of the Development
Code, including building setbacks, building height, lot coverage, grading limitations, and design for
the Very Low (VL) zone. The proposed single-family residence complies with Development Code
Section 17.122.020 (Hillside Development) including design, setbacks, lot coverage, and building
height; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. The proposed single-family residence complies with the development
criteria for the zone, the Hillside Overlay, and is in keeping with other developments in the
surrounding area. The project, therefore, is not expected to be detrimental to the health, safety, or
welfare of the general public.
4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA
Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section
15303, New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures. The project is for the construction of
a single-family residence in a residential zone. There is no substantial evidence that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning
and Economic Development Department’s determination of exemption, and based on its own
independent judgment, concurs with the staff’s determination of exemption.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2024.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Morales, Chairman
Page 39
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-19
HILLSIDE DESIGN REVIEW DRC2023-00119– MK Design Studio
June 26, 2024
Page 4
ATTEST:
Matt Marquez, Secretary
I, Matt Marquez, Secretary, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th
day of June 2024, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Page 40
Conditions of Approval
Community Development Department
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval
provided by the Planning and Economic Development Department. The signed Statement of
Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning and Economic
Development Department prior to the submittal of grading /construction plans for plan check, request for
a business license, and/or commencement of the approved activity.
1.
The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials ,
officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively “Indemnitees”), from any
and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (whether
legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature ), and alternative dispute resolutions
procedures (including, but not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures )
(collectively “Actions”), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set
aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and /or any of its
officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof (including
actions approved by the voters of the City ), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are
brought under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the
Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or
local statute, law, ordinance, rule, regulation, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This
indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without
limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the
Planning Director’s actions, the Planning Commission’s actions, and/or the City Council’s actions ,
related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any
judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit ,
action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve ,
which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and
that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by
the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and
City shall cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed
challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its
expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of
the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
2.
www.CityofRC.us
Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 41
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption
fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors
and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date
of project approval.
3.
Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within
2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted.
4.
Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood gates .
Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC.
5.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other
applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and /or Master Plans in effect at
the time of Building Permit issuance.
6.
Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines ), rather than wood
fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency.
7.
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 Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code
regulations,
8.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner ,
homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance
shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved
prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
9.
Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property
owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least
30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter.
10.
For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.11.
For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and
occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted
by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
12.
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the
case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for
Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or
prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction
Services.
13.
www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 42
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Planning Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope,
shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control .
Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the
developer prior to occupancy.
14.
All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope
shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one
15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each
100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in
vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250
sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope
plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed
by the developer prior to occupancy.
15.
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design
shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department.
16.
All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment ,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to Planning Director review and
approval prior to issuance of Building Permits.
17.
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
(DIF's)
Development impact fees are due prior to issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy per
the Engineering Fee schedule, Government Code Section 66000, et seq. and local ordinance. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d), the 90-day approval period in which the applicant may protest
these fees will begin at the date the fees are invoiced. Protests must be made in writing and be
delivered to the City Clerk prior to the close of business on the 90th day of the 90-day approval period.
*Note that fees are subject to change annually.
1.
www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 43
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
(Annexations)
(1) Landscape District:
A signed consent and waiver form to join the appropriate Landscape Districts shall be filed with the
Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever
occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
(1) CFD District:
The developer shall enter into an Annexation Proceeding and sign a Consent and Waiver to join
Community Facilities District CFD 2022-01 (Street Lighting Services ), and shall be filed by Special
Districts prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any
annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. For any questions and /or processing coordination of
the CFD please contact Kelly Guerra at (909) 774-2582 or by email at kelly.guerra@cityofrc.us.
2.
Standard Conditions of Approval
** CD Information Required Prior to Sign-Off for Building Permit
Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion
Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion
Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and
demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant
must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of
diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the
completion of the construction and / or demolition project.
Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information.
Instructions and forms are available at the City 's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering /
Environmental Programs / Construction & Demolition Diversion Program.
3.
Add the following note to any private landscape plans that show street trees: “All improvements within
the public right-of-way, including street trees, shall be installed per the public improvement plans .” If
there is a discrepancy between the public and private plans, the street improvement plans will govern.
4.
Construct the perimeter street improvements to current City Standards including, but not limited to:
Drive Approach
Street Trees
Notes: (a) All drive approach shall be per City Std. 101 (Type R). (b) Pavement reconstruction and
overlays will be determined during plan check.
5.
www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 44
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of
energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a
permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all
improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and
accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure
or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of
completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined
by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In
no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources
prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development
approval.
6.
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including a drive approach and street trees shall be prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall
be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney
guaranteeing completion of the public and /or private street improvements, prior to the issuance of
Building Permits.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right -of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit
shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required.
7.
www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 45
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Engineering Services Department
Standard Conditions of Approval
Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed
legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement
plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: Street
trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Sheet 1. Where public landscape plans are
required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public street improvement plans.
Street Name
Botanical Name
Common Name
Min. Grow Space
Spacing
Size
Qty.
Construction Notes for Street Trees :
1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans.
2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City
inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as
determined by the City inspector.
3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department.
Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only.
8.
All public improvements (streets, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans shall be constructed to
current City Standards. Street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, AC pavement, drive
approach, and street trees.
9.
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.
10.
The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.11.
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.
12.
Water and/or sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the
CVWD 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.
13.
Grading Section
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 46
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Please be advised of the following Special Conditions
Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be
included within the engineered wall plans and calculations.
1.
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code
and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The
Grading and Drainage Plan (s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual
Grading and Drainage Plan.
2.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform
such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall
implement design recommendations per said report.
3.
The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be
completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of
building permits.
4.
A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and
for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of
combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by
a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
5.
If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan /Permit are submitted to the Engineering Services Department
for review, the rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading
and Drainage Plan/Permit.
6.
The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction where possible ,
and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings.
7.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a
minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All
slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code .
8.
The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined
exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond
shall be approved by the Engineering Services Department.
9.
www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 47
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading
meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative , the grading contractor and
the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a
pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit
may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department
at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing
grading operations:
i)The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii)Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii)At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit
Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be
prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10.
Grading Inspections:
a) Prior to the start of grading operations, the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading
meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner /representative , the grading contractor and
the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a
pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit
may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector;
b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department
at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing
grading operations:
i) The bottom of the over-excavation;
ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit;
iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit
Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad
Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils
Engineer of Record;
iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate
Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11.
Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden /retaining walls along the property
boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe /heel at the adjacent off-site
property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). This shall be shown in the typical sections of the
grading and drainage plan.
12.
www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 48
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan )
set shall show in each of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the
building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC
R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted
California Building Code/Residential Code.
13.
The proposed private sewage disposal (septic) system shall be located in the front yard to allow a future
connection to a public sewer main.
14.
Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit
to the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of
existing topographical features and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed
structures and drainage of the site.
15.
Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and
swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent. This
shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of a grading permit.
16.
Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California
Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan.
17.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for this development, the applicant shall provide to the City
Engineer for reference a copy of the separate On -site Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) plans for
reference with the submittal of the precise grading plan. The separately permitted OWTS shall be
submitted to the Building Official for review and permitting. The OWTS shall meet the requirements of
adopted Local Agency Management Program for On -Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (LAMP
OWTS), effective September 17, 2018 which will allow site specific percolation testing which may
reduce the required seepage pit depth. A copy of the LAMP OWTS is available on the Building and
Safety webpage.
18.
Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the
engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP)
storm water treatment devices and best management practices (BMP).
19.
Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of
Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder’s Office .
20.
The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person /company on a biennial basis for
the Class V Injection Wells /underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best
management practices (BMP”s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)
prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the
responsibility of the land owner.
21.
www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 49
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water
treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental
Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water
Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground
infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner.
22.
The land/property owner shall follow the inspection and maintenance requirements of the approved
project specific Water Quality Management Plan and shall provide a copy of the inspection reports on a
biennial basis to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager.
23.
A final project-specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the
Building and Safety Director, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s “Memorandum of
Storm Water Quality Management Plan” shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit or
any building permit.
24.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit or Engineering Services Department issued right of way
permit, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer, or designee, a final project specific water quality
management plan for review and approval, and shall have said document recorded with the San
Bernardino County Recorder's Office.
25.
The final project-specific water quality management plan (WQMP) shall include executed maintenance
agreements along with the maintenance guidelines for all proprietary structural storm water treatment
devices (BMP’s). In the event the applicant cannot get the proprietary device maintenance agreements
executed prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant is required to submit a letter to be included
within the WQMP document, and scanned and pasted onto the Site and Drainage Plan which states
that prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy with applicant shall enter into a contract for the
maintenance of the proprietary storm water treatment device. If the proprietary storm water treatment
device is part of a residential subdivision, prior to the sale of the residential lot, the developer shall
include maintenance agreement (s) as part of the sale of the residential lot to the buyer. A copy of the
maintenance agreements to be included in the sale of the property shall be included within the WQMP
document.
26.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management
plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of
concern as addressed in the in the final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a
minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters
shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the “Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility
for Post Construction BMP” section of the final project-specific water quality management plan.
27.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall
include a completed copy of “Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet” located
in Appendix D “Section VII – Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety
Recommendations, …” of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality
Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer’s recommendations for
Appendix D, Table VII.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety
Factors”.
28.
www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 50
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a
soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water
quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current
adopted “San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans”.
29.
The subject project, shall accept all existing off -site storm water drainage flows and safely convey those
flows through or around the project site. If existing off -site storm water drainage flows mix with any
on-site storm water drainage flows, then the off -site storm water drainage flows shall be treated with the
on-site storm water drainage flows for storm water quality purposes, prior to discharging the storm
water drainage flows from the project site.
30.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil
engineer of record shall file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water
Treatment Devices As-Built Certificate with the Environmental Programs Coordinator, City of Rancho
Cucamonga Engineering Services Department.
31.
www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 51
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
GROUND WATER PROTECTION:
Prior to approval of the final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP), the WQMP
document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No .
R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm
Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads:
Section XI.D(Water Quality Management Plan Requirements ).8(Groundwater Protection):
Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and BMPs not designed to
primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention basins, vegetated buffer
strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect
groundwater:
a.Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
ground water quality objectives.
b.Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater
quality. The need for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior
to infiltration.
c.Adequate pretreatment of runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large
commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial
parking lot as ‘100,000 sq. ft. or more of commercial development to include parking lot (with 100 or
more vehicle traffics ), OR, by means of 5,000sqft or more of allowable space designated for parking
purposes’).
d.Unless adequate pre -treatment of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment
BMPs must not be used for areas of industrial or light industrial activity {77}, areas subject to high
vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic ); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other
high threat to water quality land uses or activities.
e.Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular {78} repair or
maintenance activities {79}, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used
car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) or any facility that does
any vehicular repair work.
f.Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not be used at sites that are known to have soil and
groundwater contamination.
g.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
h.The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high
groundwater mark shall be at least 10-feet. Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial
uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained.
i.Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water
Code Section 13050.
32.
www.CityofRC.us Page 12 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 52
Project #: DRC2023-00119
Project Name: Noriega's New Residence
Location: 5074 CARTILLA AVE - 107412111-0000
Project Type: Hillside Development Review
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT:
Grading Section
Standard Conditions of Approval
RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES – CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE –
Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall comply with Section 4.106.2 (Storm water
drainage and retention during construction) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards
Code:
Projects which disturb less than one (1) acre of soil and are not part of a larger common plan of
development which in total disturbs one acre or more, shall manage storm water drainage during
construction. In order to manage storm water drainage during construction, one or more of the following
measures shall be implemented to prevent flooding of adjacent property, prevent erosion and retain soil
runoff on the site .
1.Retention basins of sufficient size shall be utilized to retain storm water on the site .
2.Where storm water is conveyed to a public drainage system, collection point, gutter or similar
disposal method, water shall be filtered by use of a barrier system, wattle or other method approved by
the enforcing agency (City of Rancho Cucamonga).
3.Compliance with a lawfully enacted storm water management ordinance.
33.
(Grd.017) Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the
format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout “Information for Grading Plans and Permit”.
34.
www.CityofRC.us Page 13 of 13Printed: 6/18/2024
Page 53