Loading...
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