Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/05/27 - Agenda Packet - Planning Commission r r THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION L% J. AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 27, 2009 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive • Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL To ORDER Roll Call Chairman Fletcher Vice Chairman Munoz Stewart_ Howdyshell _ Wimberly • I . II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 13, 2009 Regular Meeting Minutes IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NON-CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2009-00118— BONNEY ARCHITECTS-A resolution of approval for the request to amend conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00327 regarding overhead utilities, located at 8619 Baker Avenue - APN: 0207-132-53. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00328. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)and the • 1 of 4 • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAY 27, 2009 RANCHO CUCAMONGA City's CEQA Guidelines. The project originally qualified as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 that covers in-fill projects and this project will not have any significant changes to the original determination. B. RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 — TRICKETT - A resolution of approval for the request to reduce the building-to-building separation from 20 feet to 15 feet in order to allow an existing 70-square foot storage structure that was built without a permit and is located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and is part of a single-family residential housing tract that was developed using the Optional Development Standards at 13755 Pelican Drive -APN: 0226-512-38. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review and qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The project consists of reducing the required building separation by 5-feet and will not result in any changes • in land use, density or create a new lot. V. PUBLIC COMMENTS I This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission. Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Valerie Victorino, Secretary for the Planning Department for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 21, 2009, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civi. Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. t . . . i L:.aly�///L/ • 2 of 4 • .; so Lts PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA �-� MAY 279 2009 RANCHO CUCAMONGA If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. 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. • INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC 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. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the • staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is • important to list your name,address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda,you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday,7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. 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 • 3of4 ,�`y PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 14.40i MAY 27, 2009 RANCHO CUCAMONGA fee of$2,124 for maps and $2,231 for all other decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonoa.ca.us • • • • • 4 of 4 Vicinity Map • Planning Commission Meeting May 27, 2009 r SPHERE ;OF I NFLU ::ENCE , r w s W j W ' B = m HILL-IDE h W cc } a ct _ WIL-.N h cai o , Syr 210. / �i i 210.- • 19TH ` t 11- - LINE ^r �/,Ir.- H a I t���� ILL cr 1 ARROW z I 8TH X12 `� o `¢ k (&) _ — tu... 4TH A N Meeting Location: City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive • STAFF REPORT • PLANNING DEPARTMENT _• Date: May 27, 2009 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer By: Cam Amos, Assistant Engineer Subject: RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NON-CONSTRUCTIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2009-00118 — BONNEY ARCHITECTS — A resolution of approval for a request to amend conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00327 regarding overhead utilities, located at 8619 Baker Avenue — APN:. 0207-132-53. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00328. This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. This project orignally qualified as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 that covers in-fill projects and this project will not have any significant changes to the original determination. BACKGROUND: On May 13, 2009, the Planning Commission heard the testimony on the request to delete • Engineering Services Department Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 07-16, which was the Resolution of Approval for DRC2005-00327. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission determined that deleting the utility undergrounding condition was appropriate in this case because of the short length of undergrounding and lack of adjacent undergrounding. Both sides of Baker Avenue, between 9th Street and Arrow Route are already developed with residential developments and a school across the street from the property. It is unlikely they will ever redevelop in such a way to trigger utility undergrounding. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission exercise their authority under their Resolution 87-96 to waive utility undergrounding through adoption of the attached Resolution deleting Engineering Services Department Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 07-16. Respectfully submitted, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Dan James Senior Civil Engineer • DJ:CBA\ds Attachments: Exhibit A - Staff Report, dated May 13, 2009 Exhibit B - Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00327, 07-16 Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00118, 09-18 Item A • T H E C I T Y O F xxrn saxw -. „ aawrn,..„mza,.saxa- RANCHO CUCAM ONCA ~} " "”` -' Staff Report DATE: May 13, 2009 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Cam Amos, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NON CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRC2009-00118 - BONNEY ARCHITECTS - A request to amend conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit DRC2005-00327 regarding overhead utilities, located at 8619 Baker Avenue - APN: 207-132-53. Related File: Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00328; DRC2005-00327. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project originally qualified as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 that covers in-fill projects and this project will not have any significant changes to 1110 the original determination. BACKGROUND • On March 28, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Design Review DRC2005-00327 for the phased expansion of an existing 3-building church facility from 4,030 square feet to 17,602 square feet, on 1.53 acres in the Medium Residential District. Engineering Services Department Condition Number 2 of Resolution No. 07-16 reads as follows: The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of Baker Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage, extending to the first pole off-site (north and south) prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Baker Avenue shall be undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development (redevelopment) as it occurs on the opposite side of the street, If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. The subject project is on the east side of Baker Avenue between 9th Street and Arrow Route, more specifically between Sandalwood Court (extension) and Salina Street. On the opposite side of the street from the project is Los Amigos Elementary School. The above condition provides for the project to be reimbursed by the school or any future development on the school site. No record of fees paid by the school, collected as a one-half contribution, for • undergrounding was found, Further, it is unlikely that the school property would redevelop in the future such as to triggelr the collection of a one-half contribution. The result is that the EXHIBIT - A A-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NON CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRC2009-00118 May 13, 2009 Page 2 • subject project, if they were to underground the utilities, would bear the cost without any reimbursement. On June 10, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 87-96 establishing a revised policy for undergrounding existing overhead utilities. This policy was intended "to remove unsightly existing overhead utility lines in order to promote a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment within the City." Baker Avenue has continuous overhead utility lines on the east parkway along its entire one (1) mile length within the City except for the northernmost 800 feet, south of Foothill Boulevard. The east side of Baker Avenue is partially undeveloped. Thus there are opportunities for future developer-financed undergrounding. Projects along Baker Avenue in • various stages are conditioned to underground utilities. In-lieu fees contributing to undergrounding have been collected for at least one project on the west side of Baker Avenue. Thus Baker Avenue projects have been and are being conditioned per the requirements of Resolution No. 87-96. The subject project's Baker Avenue frontage measures 311.5 feet. The length of utility lines to be undergrounded is 374 feet, including the lengths to the first poles off-site. Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96 states that lengths less than 300 feet (and not undergrounded adjacent) are eligible for paying a fee in lieu of actually undergrounding the utilities. Therefore the in-lieu fee does not strictly apply to this project though the length of • undergrounding and the project frontage are relatively close to the 300-foot threshold. Resolution No. 87-96 states that the undergrounding policy applies to all developments except those specifically exempted "and any others specifically waived by the Planning Commission." There are seven (7) exemptions but the project does not qualify for any of them. Because the project does not qualify for any exemptions, it is helpful to explore the original intent of the policy and its assumptions. Staff has reviewed all of the original staff reports regarding the drafting of the policy. On October 10, 1985, the Planning Commission held a workshop to formulate a policy and established general policy direction: 1. All types of streets should have utilities placed underground as a condition of land development; and 2. Actual undergrounding may be deferred and in-lieu fees paid in those circumstances where the Planning Commission felt it impractical to underground at the present • time; and 3. The obligation to underground should be shared equally by properties on both sides of a street in proportion to their frontage length. The applicant has submitted a document, dated February 23, 2009, and attached, outlining his request for a waiver from undergrounding existing overhead utilities and a waiver from paying in-lieu fees for said undergrounding. (A third request, for reducing the street improvement bond • amount, is subordinate to this matter before the Planning Commission and will be handled by the Engineering Services Department, as required.) This staff report lists the applicant's justifications and in the Analysis Section below, provides comments within the Engineering A-3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NON CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRC2009-00118 May 13, 2009 • Page 3 Services Department's area of expertise and responsibility. For the applicant's justifications based on such things as the historical characteristics of the project site, please refer to his document. The applicant's document numbers the justifications 1 through 5: 1. "The project is merely a building expansion ...". 2. The "underground requirement is not feasible ...". 3. "Visual concerns can be mitigated by planting of street trees." 4. "Economic hardship can not be overcome." 5. "Our ... project would be beneficial to our residential neighborhood ...". ANALYSIS Justification 1. While Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96 does allow an exemption for minor expansions, this project is well above the stated maximum. An exemption for undergrounding in the Resolution is given for: • "Building additions or new free standing buildings of less than 25 percent of the floor area of the existing building(s) on the same assessor's parcel, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less." Thus Resolution No. 87-96 calls for undergrounding overhead utilities of expansion • projects of the size of this one (on the order of 13,000 square feet). Justification 2 states the applicant's opinion that a project should not have to underground if adjacent properties are not undergrounded. Resolution No. 87-96 recognizes the merit of this consideration but does so in a way that defers rather than exempts it from undergrounding. Item 1.b. of the Resolution states "in those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as a short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), ... the Developer shall pay an in-lieu fee ..." As noted above, the length of undergrounding (374 feet) and the project frontage (311.5 feet) are relatively close to the 300 foot threshold. Justification 3 is "visual concerns can be mitigated by planting of street trees." Designing the placement of and selection of street trees is the responsibility of the Engineering Services Department and staff does not agree with the applicant's subjective opinion. The designated street tree for Baker Avenue is the Chinese Pistache, a tree that loses its leaves in the fall and winter, but the applicant's exhibits do not show this tree. Second, street trees under utility lines are typically trimmed by utility companies, which can actually create a "visual concern", such as a severely trimmed tree. Third, Resolution No. 87-96 makes no mention of street trees as mitigation for overhead utility lines. Justification 4, "economic hardship can not be overcome" is an argument made by the applicant who hired West Coast Utility Services to prepare an estimate report for the cost of undergrounding, attached, which they determined to be effectively $ 200,000. The applicant's document gives a church attendance figure from which an estimate can be made that 50 families attend this church. This gives the cost per family at roughly $ 4,000. The applicant s also requesting a waiver from paying the in-lieu fee, which is computed by multiplying the *is frontage, 311.5 feet by $ 368 per foot, the unit fee effective February 2, 2009. The in-lieu fee would therefore be $ 114,632 or $ 2,300 per family. A-4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NON CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRC2009-00118 May 13, 2009 Page 4 • Justification 5 states that even without underground ing utilities, the church expansion project would be an improvement to the neighborhood. This is reasonable given that the Planning Commission earlier approved it. PRECEDENT A similar project with a similar request and similar justifying arguments came before the Planning Commission on June 28, 2006, concerning DRC2005-00810, a church expansion at the southeast corner of Banyan and Beryl Streets. The request to delete utility undergrounding conditions of approval came from the St. Peter and St. Paul Church, which the Planning Commission granted. The subject project and the earlier project both justified their requests with the fact that adjacent properties are residential developments and as such, will never redevelop in such a way to trigger undergrounding utilities, ensuring that adjacent overhead utilities will be a visible part of the streetscape regardless of their projects' undergrounding. Both projects also put forward the justifications that the cost of undergrounding is difficult for churches. _ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 28, 2007, in connection with the City's approval of Design Review DRC2005-00327. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines • Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts then previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has evaluated the proposed deletion of the utility undergrounding condition, and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred that would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less-than-significant. None of the • previously adopted mitigation measures were concerning above-ground utilities. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of the proposed deletion of the utility undergrounding condition. • • • A-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NON CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DRC2009-00118 • May 13, 2009 5 Page 5 RECOMMENDATION Consider this staff report along with public testimony and continue the item to the May 27, 2009 hearing with direction to staff to prepare an appropriate resolution. The Planning Commission should consider the following options: 1. Deny the applicant's request to delete Engineering Services Department Condition No. 2 of the approval resolution of DRC2005-00327. 2. Grant the request to delete Engineering Services Department Condition No. 2 but add a condition that the in-lieu fee ($ 114,632) of Resolution No. 87-96 for undergrounding existing overhead utilities be paid. 3. Grant the request to delete Engineering Services Department Condition No. 2 and to not impose the in-lieu fee. Respectfully submitted, Dan James • Senior Civil Engineer DFJ:CBA/akt Attachments: Exhibit A-Vicinity Map Exhibit B-Site Map Exhibit C-Developable Property on Baker Avenue Exhibit D-Site Photographs Exhibit E-Applicant's waiver request document Exhibit F-Utility consultant report Exhibit G-DRC2005-00327 Engineering (Special) conditions Exhibit H-P. C. undergrounding Resolution No. 87-96 • • A-6 ... • ;lel • .• . _ -".* V I. ."; fig4-7) i -4330"---, • • - .-- ---'-' ! -;--" - I.E1— 1 --,c,. ----__.,_ . . . _:. .„.. ii ....... ., ,r2L___. • „..... ___ ____„..„ , , ---- Pga,;11-.•--,-... ' — , -- ... V ,_...----'• i ejvcr cc-- -- rt.-Inv '' L . Safi burn•rdino Rd ___-) • ____ I. .+1. , .r. • ( ---cp1 ETY.t.- a ,___,i i t r--- r 4' . .1 ,.. I ! , _,. vo ..H Li , : ,i L 'T.T; f 1 F' ii 1 1 _.- c -„\• la :L' souTrcy—riiil Dr fir:: ,.....„-4 : - ' cc-4- . \ \ • 1 r___,_.! rrt, 1 Stoney F.— . , i . /f,,, ....-T -. .,.: : ..... . ...-6-,.... 1 ( i : . 1 [..:Jimiternct:C.- E '''.:•. ,:1 ;:j 77.777-77 kr:... • . . .:;' t '..:: ....,:l 1.41:';';".±:' r:',;:,-...::: .f./"""-,---, rj g ,I, ,-.•3:j--r,,,, .i.r:r?y•::: 1 ,:.•.•;7!:::,-frpiciir:r,W )::i S-:,':_,C :`:?,,r.::::;, •,,,;1 r-,-r-7-:.°7-77-.71,-1 l'r-d 1:--g:Lt-t-,-,: ;,, •rSi.. _ : •.•., --* „--'-'j,--', i-: ', .: i•-:::::i.--•:".0"\-' ':7447 tr :JE f-i 2 rt.! '1"-'-'' :1-i::; C2- •..i. :LI i..:',.1 r—;)!7--..-:::'H. l'-II ?..I ;‘,1/c1 2.-.2.:___C:-:,— :7?":::-.1:':,ffl--,3 4','...,:;.\\9-1,;-:*;;; ,,."._::::■1;1:1";;X:itr; gcl r..it',:..::i:':A.;;-:,:7■7-7k, -'.1:/ P:r....;'`4.;;;,`/..;::).: : - :1 -;,---:31:,-.'="7 T..: L _ ..._. .:.17 1! ::(:f1PS:M1 z:: .)-.E(L1-1;if..'';::::";-,-S tn\:5::•.-.C.Lif'41Cri::i..fe:.r::::1Pa'5,Ill ;t3-.Ti7 ''•::-.7=:.'3'1"!.LiA(7,7C-7.14k;',Irk.:,:e;t15.LT,T,:.c..C.cl,:S417 ,-:-• 4;'.: ; 4% , :1;1:-C-:'!•Si. ?-. , ..4 ,,,T :;:krY.:42 ; ":1;;: 14-7.7C14::;". .0.11 'H. :1137-4::1 . :(YlqitI P qi:=",--',.,i12.:::"kki:rit:',:::;;It;,...-47,t ,t--, 1: ',1;:tt,,:,-::::::'. E i.." ,.-...:. ',?%::::.q", -1/4-;;: .2['' : ',.1"; )),--". .11:4::.-,'"[:,".';*::.':-"j.:141.,.E l'Y'''..;7'.!:::"•-•'' :', .1, .:' .; 7. We Vejar ' A . --.: '7'4' ' ---"-Atemiertte: , ...! , ..4 . :StItrrow.hlw .4!:.Ii.".44',4t .,"••••;."': -:•") i 4 •:::1:,.:: r,c,,c'..{!-,L. M g',!'-'.. .:,° . .!2,.!': 7;1',,Cc-::: i, ..,..,. . „„:„-„,„:„•,....,..,,, ,,,,,, ,,„:.. ,2: ...:: •:-.:,., . ..„: •:: :-:..i _,.,••• : ,:-,...--::::Jr,g2 ,„:„:::_;:•p, 5 :;-.1)2.1 ,)•.,:ii .-t) ;)j,i4.[:, ."--4. L. tc;.:: .J..:,',''',11)I :.:-:',.....;::' .:::::::.1-.-H: :,,,Ik. i • I .', 2 :272-11 .. H,i. co-v.,'... ..•-tetlk , 141 ° • ', i:,4,- 7'1:I. ...P.,//:'.;::: : ' )..z.:',.•,:,'. ".' -A-: 1.:::; :;'/"" .:h'IVA w4 4:$4', 4vits l' .iik,In -:; ;,:ii:;‘,..,"t-';:-.::::11:- •,4: ,"- -,"' "•'' J"• " ':., ,:. lz..i.•,•..p.y,:1, 0.,T.f.,":„.; ';-;,•-•-•-!rs-41 ',..-;-:• 2;":":-.101.,;."•:,1",, s.,.. . Salina SI ay -:f::t.4t:e-+.■.- ' '''::: :-....:-.h:.,:•,'.v--: -..:;': :? ' .: . : :";Vp?'Cit.,:•-,4:ri.lg_t a-•••;•?'"--;•:--.:E .L.L.,Eir - ' 7-.:::••:.••-,..:, , 2.,•„::' : .. . , ,,.., li Salinas! rn ":- •::.- • '... :- . •-•••• 7".,•••..ltr:::, ....:-..:• Tf7,441462 b/M:- -7IE -:'",' :: 2."•T"'"'"-"c: :,• " "• St ,. 9Th .. 9th St 9th Si" 9th SI PROJECT SITE • Exhibit A VICINITY MAP III ..___ • A-7 NEW • BUILDING u /r- PROPER* -LINE �� III .�.: ,.• a„, Rrc,4 i 1711 CO 1I% - i II j �LI Z i T -7C 'Ilia rrl FPY7 —4• --- \ i . i__ li ........:. < . 4 bk. ,•Ni il�. . tea ..iii i. TI' EXISTING BUILDINGS Exhibit B SITE MAP A-8 • I' ul 5. � �41 33-1 yy �f 45 5te i np •z y P Lr VIO a i ^ t .71.-a�I>I , iN x J r o " "IO R0.CT i,tif 4 ;i �ta1SC f d� l' 2 � f r { . ttottimw s o I ti u rti �u s+ . Z0. n ' +, ontbr Gm^"x .1 t ' i Y1i �1 eUC3701E8 p °" � r� l Ai l]i W' u ii 5 � i ttM �60 5,x R q� a1l1�r +�i � �i Y Il >ai u ' i 1'I F i S ,:,qt it w � I 44 l 4:l F i i { ri�d,„), .�S u „ ir u +� � - F .i r r a 3Cr ,t9H k4 ✓4 k i � .h4 0 E14 a i f ' t n { I 6 �o i? " 7 9 ' , n z f i 4 wId, £ 2 „0, it ti--....; rx i ! .3. :44 a i f iM:1L1 ",14H ma , ,, „ y [Ag:el ir �' RenCM1e 9:R' ” Er LdyUdlj S r.,_. n r iv; I p'? . : tire'. ,,.' q + 9TH.sa q , rk, rk Wyk i a itir. ,iii:. I �.+ I` 1, + .1,.7Kt I ; f„ OW! Gahc1el Dr J a , �n-.- o, 'vM.at, 41frA ‘1410,:i t e` .1i 0,,g ! I m{�p9 -'i)11 r*,.i 7'mS�„T,2''2222-�iVl' ' i7k�l. �,a7' 017,.u.� 6 'ijN d' , ' vollltte Vtryidr, , �I �W Rip, � 1 ury iG 2 m tits . 13 rWft u ,11:1a4 UaL i�.ty ilIIII. ak +F$ 'a , + �' ',Ai f �iWffWF.d� ..f i �� "r 3}��� m �9+ 1p t 'f +.�3t t.agran �' ° h� k Y � � ,i 4 iki,.g_ µi. P S o� r< "� n3 a 4} m * '� l + UF21 .u^l i� i 1 S! i - °5 ` %, r2 s-` L t it1, 1 �F eak .. • a ur a _w BtbSl• :@ 8t .. r u ,..+, "I R ,.+Ia Blh lar i y, y y SI �1u{+i d0 l �t� E' �t90W0„A .,jry� ds�a, r C 3ffee t mla q� h, -7141. r W u , d • RC 1nik°' 64 'iX a i t r "b `It's °ii, ��t v(4 stl+n� .-^Z ,nr.. ''aaww 1.r."_.I ,"air. ea, . MYmm d+St .m.. e qu 4-rri . E 8' E tb6t ttltt St .Z f, e qa `'i y, y y +. n 1: :1,1E,77, ,g g,,,.tr:APfil� i �� E�+� �W'. -. �fu wli se$ ${rt -u n r d s r6 D r 9+ ���i��lii mfii d't t Xu .�� e?� ih - n 2 k D 11.7: ' —om ` ,9", !Y. .er e 6 c " °E. kixth ' y wA .?.. i c �91 4l .i4 M2tltl&° ♦ y 'A yy . - - # -,,;. 4. . 145%* 84 .. -- .,,' .14 . .v. .....i.,., eit,,, l ae a ;6',./46'1.'44y : ' y fil ',4` k.ip aopc t6 avita 0istesadob , LEGEND IDEVELOPABLE PROPERTY Exhibit C DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY __ ON BAKER AVE. • • A-9 • S SITE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM APPLICANT'S • WAIVER REQUEST DOCUMENT Exhibit D SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (4 Pages) A-10 Ze ,E ? • • Igo� k4 r IV w. fi • • i sk . 1R iex . - wt s y 'r JC G v t f-:,,�pl riCE< i 11 `Y u d 1 LEA -4?.?",,-,. in • Le' .13/6"r- fa- p:v t,u e: NZD -yAe ;— k to N Qt 9 • S 1 ' 4:16/ / • I • • • n'- 7 `A J :. r '4 $ V' Pi : y 40ri` LVsm [? ..� Y •b SWi'4 N 471•� . d4 A f 'A4r A UA. P A ..- T VoK To 5Qu111 u A11 cog W' f q f s .ten .e .. 1N' } rl uk J Its% _ L psy s !: Al`-.. - R 14,4/ 44,L1 - - l-on:i 1.0 NOR- I 1 "W(" 5!•-,. IA Pi } 1!� Zvi j (�.. 1 1•,. ■ • . YF u, -v • a AI `✓ U -- LOt, No � teirtAl2 • ■ a F • 1 i S ; �j/A - IAv .14U — 1,0o K_ -ip '9oUTj • ''.„ , Rt , ' 4 �\ � sr t f� r. :p 1 r 'It 3 f • i'/?f kb r \7e,k.t U -- i u v r' ' `o 6?f.1"1-'" A.13. _ �J . . ... . . - .. • . , I.i-:, s, ' .--( ;' ..?„7I A;;;, ., : j .'.i. . . . r.-•:‘:,..4.771.- 2, '....--r.,..4 C, . . .,;• -&?:-: ...•.:::e,;:a4 -,-. „. -I”Ve.a)440; &`- .-ifere4,... ".., .• 1 e i trt ,..;... '. • , D #4 € r .-...-7sitreitic:44, 04, i '..."`711,-, - .0 i--(.4.V10.4"-''-'I'" So■ 1 '6'IY.fi'.10*icSit'(''''' • ' 7: ---,.1 -ri:I". .,, id.• —, . .4, ,..:,- , , ,.,.„.., i . 1. . . , - . , ., • . r.• ---.. • .., r f '. "7,. V.:;: • -...54 .:, ; .-1, .,,120 eiiqt. ..•Ark‘is2CAti-1,4 . ;...-- a.?-4:4°...P.17...09ii= 13,c 4-12.- AC'\IPH Li t^ — HVRIH t (44 LI k..41 0 ..-. - .. Mr I ii • - , , . , ., ..;-"t; • , ./.., . .t .. i tiln'Yti T. ' ;. 4.if .. , ■ 1 ' i'der . . t. " 51,: ." ,!... . 1 • Sli..2,! . ..Y.";11 1" — 1 , , i i _ , AL. it', itf tr.,-11.,, 'r-iV -r, ' •F . ' %..• i , .. ,,,._,----., ,) . ,, . ,-.. c,2- . ........_ • • b .• ' '., r...' :;‘,..„..“„,,:r.t.,,, ,...1,-;_.„.2 ..., ,. -.„.,,,,, . _ , ,.,.. Sr-sr I, , ,,:•.,,;.ir:.,ov4.444-oe,..ryK,,,_•,:..-..rvk„.Ari.va ay. ,,.%,:-al, -,-_' .h:.7 r2,6t--pf isak4,4.0. - - *Pt- ,, , C-HIA —C- - • A-14 'a' APPLICANT'S WAIVER REQUEST DOCUMENT • (Except Site Photographs) Exhibit E APPLICANT'S WAIVER • REQUEST DOCUMENT A-15 • CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH INLAND VALLEY ( CCFCIV ) February 23,2009 • Chair,Pam Stewart,and Members of Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive,P.O.Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91729-0807 Subject: DRC 2009-00118 (Request waiver of existing overhead utility underground requirement and waiver of paying in-lieu fees for a building expansion project on APN 0207-132-53 at 8619 Baker Avenue) Dear Ms.Stewart and Members of Planning Commission, On behalf of Chinese Christian Family Church Inland Valley (CCFCTV), -I would like express our gratitude to Planning Commission for approving DRC 2005-00327 (attachment #1) on March 28, 2007. It was a challenge to plan around three existing buildings in a built up residential neighborhood. With help from your staffs and inputs from our neighbors, it took us 2 years to finalize church built-out plan and secure phased building expansion approval from the City.In order to accommodate our growing congregation,we have been working diligently toward Phase,I building improvement Today, I am glad to report our progress. All our Phase I engineering related plans have been approved and construction documents for fellowship building expansion had been submitted to the City for 2nd plan check. • CCFCIV is a bilingual (English-Mandarin), non-denominated, independent community church founded in 1991. Our Sunday services attendance ranges from 120 to 140 in congregation.We acquired the subject 1:53 acres property in the year of 2000.The property has been used as church for decades. It used to be in dilapidated condition due to limited resource of the previous church owner. In the past 8 years, CCFCIV has invested more than $200,000 in up-keeping and in our pursuit of the proposed building expansion project. We have outgrown the existing three buildings on site.We need additional space to accommodate our growing congregation. The building expansion project (DRC 2005-00327) was previously approved with condition to underground overhead utilities on the pro; side (east side) of Baker Avenue. Due to increasing.fee pand cost charged by utility companies, this condition alone is estimated to exceed $200,000 ($600+ per foot). The utility underground requirement is also included in City improvement bond for an estimate of$80,410 which equal to 86.5%of the improvements bond amount(attachment#2).These are tremendous financial burden for our small church. • Please review our justifications for waiver of overhead utilities underground requirement. 1. Our building expansion project is on the ground of an existing church property with three buildings, two of them are considered with historical value and expected to be preserved and retained on site. This is merely a building expansion to an existing church facilities located in 100% built out neighborhood. According to City's Historical Resource Inventory the church property was originally developed by George W Baird in early 1900's (attachment #3). There are three existing buildings as indicated in the Site Map of 8619 Baker Avenue. The Bam/Chapel (#1) and River Stone House/Parsonage House (#2) are considered to have historical value. It is City's wish and our commitment to preserve these two historical buildings on site. 2. The overhead utilities underground requirement is not feasible for a developed/improved,building expansion only project , The Baker Avenue had been fully improved (parkway, sidewalks, street trees, street lights) bath to many decades ago. In fact, the only missing improvement is six (6) street trees in the front of church property (attachment #4). The required overhead utilities undergrounding is impractical and all adjacent built-out properties are not underground.The church property is surrounded by existing condominiums on three sides (east, north and south) and an elementary school on the west side of Baker Avenue. The overhead utilities underground will require removal of existing street improvements and cause disruption to the existing neighborhood. 3.Visual concerns can be mitigated by planting of street trees One of the main reasons to underground overhead utilities is neighborhood aesthetic. There are only two overhead power pole on chu. frontage (311.5'). We expect planting of six mature street trees on Baker Avenue will soft visual impact caused by the existing overhead utility lines. Please review photos of Baker Avenue streetscape looking toward the north and south of church property(attachment#5). A-16 • 2 February 23, 2009 • 0 nomic hardship can not be overcome We believe that overhead utilities underground policy and requirement was not intending to discourage or hinder ongoing property improvement and investment on those partially developed properties. The church should not be penalized for willingness to improve and invest on the existing underutilized property. We could not afford to spend $200,000 on undergrounding utilities or paving an estimated $107,779 in-lieu fees for an already fully improved Baker Avenue. This condition alone could hold back our onsite improvements for many years and unfairly, unjustly force church ro spend precious resource on non-essential offsite improvement item. 5. Immediate improvement of our Phase 1 project would be beneficial to our residential neighborhood and the neighboring school. In fact our building expansion will lead to preservation of two existing historical stone buildings, elimination of two existing drive approaches (from 4 down to 2) and improvement of Baker Avenue streetscape and safer driveway approaches. Our expansion project is expected to transfer over one-half acres of weedy.vacant land into an improved/landscaped parking lot and a neighborhood appeasing building. • We are hereby requesting Planning Commission considering waivers related to overhead utilities underground requirement. A. To waive overhead utilities underground requirement for DEC 2005-00327 B. To waive overhead utilities underground in-lieu fee$107,779($346 per foot x 311.5 feet)on APN 0207-132-53 C. To eliminate utility underground estimate of $80,410 from engineering bond requirement for Baker Avenue Should you have any questions regarding our request,please feel free contact me at(909)322-5134 or email jneorgechu(h)valioo.cnm. Thank you again for your consideration of granting our request for overhead utilities underground waivers. With granted waivers,we 411,dd be one step loser to making building expansion a reality.The Baker Avenue parkway (street trees on parkway) could also receive an int make-over in the very early stage of our long waiting Phase I site improvement/building expansion project Sincerely, \\ (.�„ C2� Jceorge Chu,President/Board of Trustees CCFCIV • • 8619 Baker Ave.Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Attachments • 1. DRC 2005-00327 Site Plan 2. Engineering Division Estimate for Bond Purposes (overhead utilities underground bond estimate) 3. City Historical Resource Inventory Information on Baird House- 8619 Baker Avenue(Construction 1905-1910,in 1911?) • 4. Pictures taken on and from Baker Avenue (4-1,4-2&4-3) 5. Pictures looking from church to the existing residential developments on the north and the south of Baker Avenue • • 8619 BAKER AVENUE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 PHONE/FAX: 909-920-3634 - WWW.CCFCSITE.ORG A-17 e ai i iL1 1"7\1 a IMP' _ _'_. 'I ------ia1I a-..o 4 1 j I a F E 11 ¢ 0 S � ��, 4 N...< �, 1 r--'� 4 e j �, ZZ 4T_: te W Q E r_— .)ii I Nd o a _ m \Lao ivy h x ® \ 8 Ga '••1 44.. ••t� 9 I 4'F ��•• E Mal 33 :,5 etItj ,.. i. El A NN ; : 7� g' a--JI a• .., i — .1I j ; ..iiiptt...::44.„.s.s.s...tm ......: ,. . , hp, 1 _:.. ir illit:04::::.. G 1 7 Otis.•. 1'.' • am= P,MI g$freai: .:-. .. a seteli •. .i IT—ril 27.,:,,,.. : .,. , , ., .„, .„,., _et., .7-- --------,\ 0 i0 Vt4^1 11 �. Yb < tl y.L1.1 O i , I s r________4 ^roIa as.c b iI c •4 I • F o.n o e ,I ' 5 A-18 • EXHIBIT "A" sENGINEERING DIVISION ESTIMATE FOR BOND PURPOSES Project No.:DRC2005-00327 Engineering Reference No.:ROW200B-00207 Quantity Unit •Activity Unit Price Amount 0 50.00 6 EA Landscape Tree 15 Gallon $100.00 $600.00 176 LF Removal of PCC Curb $3.50 $616.00 280 SF Removal of PCC Sidewalk $1.50 $420,00 352 SF Removal of AC Pavement $0.50 $176.00 352 SF Removal Cold Plane Existing Pavement - $0.75 $264.00 77 LF Street Curb&,Gutter08" $12:00 $924.00 780 SF Street Drive Approach Commercial $4.00 $3,120.00 7 TN Street AC (500 to 900 tons) $45.00 $315.00 • 1 EA 5treel Curbside Drain STD 107-B 51,000.00 $1,000.00 2 EA Street Lights $1,000.00 $2,000.00 374 LF Utility Underground Existing Telecom $85.00 $31,790.00 • 374 LF Utility Underground Existing Electrical '$130.00 $48,620.00 i�Ciki9' 1,600 LS Misc A.Remove 4 drive appraaches $1.00 $1,600.00 1,500 LS Misc B.Remove curbside drain outlet $1.00 $1,500.00 SUBTOTAL: $92,945.00 CONTINGENCY(15%): $13,941.75 TOTAL ESTIMATE: $106,886.75 FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND(100%): $106,900.00 LABOR AND MATERIAL BOND(100%): $106,900.00 MONUIv1ENTATION (CASH)SURETY: Nth Refer to: City Drawing Number: 2204 Sheet Numbers: 1-3 Revision Number: N.A. 'Pursuant to City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Title 12.Chapter 03, Section .130, a cash restoration f delineation deposit • sail be made prior to issuance of an Engineering Construction Permit. pa719 leer A• A-19 %State of California - The Resources Agenc DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY • Ser. No. IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION National Register Status: 1 _ Historic Name: Unknown I Local Designation.' 2. Common or Current Name: First Assembly of God Church i 3. Fluter & Street: 8619 Baker Ave. City: Rancho Cucamonga Vicinity Only: Zip: County (3-Letter Designator): C. Quad Map No:. UTM Z A: B: C: 0: 5. Parcel No: D207-132-53 Other: DESCRIPTION 6. Property Category: If District, Number of Documented Resources: 7. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the property, including condition, boundaries, surroundings, and (if appropriate) architectural style: This will be two structures - STRUCTURE NUMBER ONE will be a rectangular shaped structure with side gable roof, asphalt shingling and shingles treatment in the gable ends. Structure appears to have been an old barn. There, is a large centrally located entrance that has been sealed on the southside. Two smaller windows appear on either side of the door. There small rectangular windows are located along the west side of the structure and these are aluminum sash in wood frame. STRUCTURE NUMBER TUO wilt be a single story irregular shaped structure of stone construction in a simple Craftsman style. Low gable roof, with an extended porch roof. The porch has been enclosed with windows. Gable ends are shingled. The siding of the structure is stone and there is an external stone fireplace located on the west side. Windows are narrow, four over one over one, double hung of wood construction. It is not. possible to -see the front of the structure. There is a large rectangular louvered attic vent within the gable end. The front porch has a stone balustrade extending around it with stone piers. Front porch supports are square wood,columns extending from the piers to the,roof of, the porch. .There is a small shed addition to the rear of the structure covered in shingles with shed type roof extending off the main roof. • • B. , Alterations & Date: 9. Related Features on Property: 10. Planning Agency: • �ru'' , u } ` :+ }} .,. Z EMT ' - 4i City of Rancho Cucamonga f t)i :-fi-Si. Y e ! I r ,; 1 t ti - 4 I -�= istii , f“4,.7.31-=?-a.' ' -: 11. Owner & Address: i t rte t So. Cat if Dist. Cou/Assem ' , r°na fCs-L a + a i.. + a* 'r , . x� -f. 7. _ Bb 19 Baker St. I( Tt Y i..>>�` _y l * ^.s y JO u, ,- - Rancho Cucamonga, CA 4 Y. ) ry i.-40.11/4"—f..4-7,;;;,.� y� w y r J + 12. Type of Ownership: i`+y v^` S / r .+ f : !.3 .;f- i�9 Private Y 4 •"l\i., 1 I f r , , i ' �� 13. Present Use:Church in _ J i'E .. f 1 , i 14. Zoning: Median Ii 15. Threats: URMB {i k '• r 1i (1 i i ' ,I a ;'?.1';' - ,i4=‘!.11::. (, y..-::::;-,:::-.1, .4 I:r..-. ' i M ' . . i:.;•;.,�., t 11F'f et. i::?:� 'S t I; . .m.. .1 J .. � .n5u- III A-20 --i--E7N4 PIT f\-- - a HISTORICAL INFORMATION 0 1110 16. Constuction Date(s): T905-94.8-Es44-ma4e MI l Original Location; Yes • Date chitect: Unknown Builder: Unknown 01 1 . Historic Attributes (With Number from List): • SIGNIFICANCE AND EVALUATION 19. Context for Evaluation: Theme: Area: Period: Property Type; Context formally developed?: 20. Briefly discuss the property's importance within the context. Use historical and architectural analysis as appropriate. Compare with similar properties. This is an excellent example of a structure constructed using local materials. The residential structure has retained its original feeling and appears not to have been modified. The only notable exception is the addition of the windows in the front porch. The site is also notable, because it has retained a stone barn on the site. It appears that the structures were built while the property was tiler the ownership of George W. Baird. Baird owned the property until 1917. The property had two additional owners until it was acquired by Earl S. Marvin in 1923. At this same time, it appears that the property was planted in possibly citrus fruit, for an increase in valuation for trees and vines occurs in this year. The property changed hands again in 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1931 when it was purchased by Frederick and Augusta Fischer. the Fischer's owned the property until 1940 when it again changed hands two more times between 1940 and 1948. The structures appear to gain their entire significance through the use of native fieldstone and have successfully retained their integrity, despite their current use as a First Assenbly.of God church, and parsonage - 21. Sources: San Bernardino Canty Lot Assessor Books Sketch map. Show location and boundaries of property in relation to nearby streets, railways, 22 disable National Register Criteria: natural larxtiarks, etc. Name each feature. AIIII 231�ther recognition: State Landmark Nu;ber: ' 24. Evaluator: Lynn Merrill _A.wCAL w.oaO • Year of Evaluation: 1990 25. Survey Type: S (CCComprehensive, C ?v61Cfr PaC•44Tt/ . c 4E P=Project Related, S=Single Property 26. Survey Name: Rancho Clnamorga Update/URM Assesent TEll 7Tf2egj' sm 27. Year Form Prepared: 1990 By (Name): Lynn Merrill Organization: Management Sciences Applications, Inc. Address: 123 East Ninth Street, Suite 204 City, State Zip: Upland, California, 91786 Phone: (714) 981-0894 • • • • is O 6 A-21 _� • SA-1.-INA- . +4cJUSe D - . 1 r --. SLIILDIn(e 11) :D • • 4 LND4i ' ' ccD N., f3(0101 bi,L4CsR 1-•- . 547.-.a Alcs- 0�` �' ITEM: ,� _ Luc c,nong.• on TITLE: L. D 9 3 - o4 = N • p r� _ .- EXHIBR":}}� 3SCALE: N�Pc- --7 v A-22 1^ 3 • Exhibit F UTILITY CONSULTANT • REPORT A 23 R.r T1 West Coast Utility Seri es LLC Ciet 4 ;r� "A Full Spectrum Utility Service Provider" 4...Y 4:-....ti . nom. 1:. :Y • ." M t ar �f g$ y r St 'Snl ..r C.f fl {3 �k ,y `^�, tr2 g1 :I tit. Z + y 4a1 L. 1 d i West Coast �is,..,h{�4k Zp S7 P �'r' - a r� r { Utility Sen�lees, LLC g`', ar*kl h 3, "A Full Spectrum Utility Service Provider" .l 1, L _t wV .'1t7 a ./4.? , ' :.4 R'rc. .n itf e. 4 • 1`..4'2 9a 9 -A art!.I 1I". "y°4 yV Y• :'i' r r 4 f� J n AY" >y k 1> lh 4 yl xf'..• 4'..1,131••. I7 .,. yV'". ' ;S' ` t .:.-.i. .1. „ ; ::u r.!F- it'wv Ace! i rt I 4 dl � � 4ioj1` i. 11 j k Utility Estimates tN , *? +'k I i C iR +�' ;, /1 ,,.a'N Prepared for :: � /Y m -, 7;-•77.."1 • .t 4 } Chinese Christian Family Church ; t. div: p1" ;,1 Baker Ave & Sandalwood Court ▪ wx 9 : . �T , ,n^ (Rule 20C) 5 .tV:5 t ` 65. y' ,‘ City of Rancho Cucamonga �F wfl x - .. .,a . "" a > ` tMarch 11 2009 ' r`''i R L gi,.�rCfvh .x " . . .. .a a- .... y..l..�.,.• " .f c c v''f'°44' S H i' r..;:r4 r Rr+ . c t vrt, T.. 6 °y'Ja`7;]S x1 . "' 7 < 44 . (L s t,t r ,1I w 14: t. s my i v 1 N 7 ∎ m .x"o . « $ "i °r :,.. 2 I w 8I. »f a v,. 9:' .°t° r• rx Jr ��xx 17 n.,:qa. .'.... /u v '[ (.4,i:',77,,,-;,1,?.?-ii. • T em •r• ^'" �Y 'v VI 1 ` * IS , 449 Bougainvillea Lane,Glendora, CA. 91741, Phone: 626-914-8019, Fax:626-914-8019 ' 449 Bougainvillea Lane, Glendora, CA 91741 Phone: 626-914-8019 Fax:626-914-8019 •l y 3• 4g 4ry 11 y i1• '}�,01n'. a LN o� s?ei s_.'.,--« :1?1,4s-`4.5lli 7.�k""a I. J Z'`• ° ,�+r-`.�,i'u4 r,�.w' ": a ct, 'k. r.{{1 ,cs;:,.m. _..ry.�,tas'�tS`.9a,,,4'6v:C�a} ,.�' "'gym. sx'`'� `.-r t Sn,'. �' t'"M. tr., .. A-24 West Coast Utility Services, LLC • � "A Full Spectrum Utility Service Provider' West Coast Utility Services, LLC (WCUS) has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the utility's and contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding, or market conditions. Therefore, our opinion of probable project costs provided for herein is to be made on the basis of our experience and qualifications and represents our best judgement as utility design professionals familiar with the construction and utility industries. WCUS cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or construction costs will not vary from our opinion of probable cost prepared for your use in projecting probable project costs. • All cost estimates have been made without the benefit of any tract plans or street improvement plans. Estimated loads are based on similar sized residential units located in a climatic zone 7. Estimates have been made with the intent of using a four party joint trench installation for utilities. Feel free to call us at 626-914-8019 should you have any questions or need any assistance, • Sincerely, c_14.4:41 47,5‘ • • Frank Ogle • WCUS Project Managar • • • A-25 west U0rrs1 Utiiir„r ' Services, L4,1 Project: Chinese Christian Family Church Location: Baker& Sandalwood Court RULE 20C 0 Lots Electric Deposits Quantity Unit Price Advance Refunds • SCE Rule 15 Cost To Serve 450 $99,000.00 $0.00 SCE Rule 16 Cost to Serve 0 $0.00 $0.00 Distribution Footage ITCC Taz $99,000.00 $21,780.00 $0.00 ITCC Trench Tax 450 $594.00 Structure Refunds $0.0 Estimated Refundable Design Credits 0 - Allowances Needed I 0 • EA. $ 1,247.00 SubTotal Electric Advance $121,374.00 Electric Subject to Refund (refundable for 10 years, less ownership charges) $0.00 Projected Advance Non-refundable I $121,374.00 Street Light Advance Quantity Unit Price Advance Refunds ` Street Lights $2,200.00 Advance Energy 3 f I $500.00 SubTotal Street Light Cost $2,700.001 Gas Advance . Quantity Unit Price • Advance Refunds Main Footage 450 $0.00 $0.00 Main, Site Prep. Credit 450 $0.00 Main ITCC Tax $0.00 • • $0.00 $0.00 Stub Advance • $0.00 $0.00 Stub, Site Prep. Credit • - • • • '$0.00•Stub ITCC Tax $0.00 • .• $0.00 $0.00 • Main Allowances Needed 0 EA. $ 925.00 Service Allowance 0._ EA. $ 475.00 • Total Available Allowance Credits $1,400.00 SubTotal Gas Advance $0.00 Gas Refundable (refundable for 10 years, less ownership charges) $0.00 Non-refundable $0.00 Phone Reimbursements Quantity Unit . Price Advance • Refunds Trench 450 2" Conduit 0 $25,000.00 $0.00 4" Conduit 1,800 $0.00 Structures 2 $0.00 SubTotal Refundable $0.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 Grand Total Advance $149,074.00 Grand Total Subject to Refund $0.00 Grand Total Non-refundable $149,074.00 Grand Total Non-refundable Cost Per Lot N/A Calculations by: West Coast Utility Services,LLC 1 3/11/2009 A-26 West Coast i?ailly Services, LEE Project: Chinese Christian Family Church Location: Baker& Sandalwood Court • RULE 20C 0 Lots Main Line Trench Quantity Unit Price Cost Refundable Trench 450 $2,925.00 • 3" Sand Shade 450 $675.00 12" Sand Shade Electric 450 $1,080.00 6" Sand Shade Phone/TV 450 $1,170.00 12" Sand Shade Gas 450 $1,350.00 3" Service Duct 0 $0.00 SUB TOTAL 1 $7,200.00 'Conduit Incl'g Street Crossing Quantity Unit Price Cost Refundable 4" Future Conduit Phone 0 � $0.00 4" Future Conduit Electric 0 $0.00 4"Gas Sleeve 0, $0.00 6" Gas Sleeve Q 1 1/2" Street Light Conduit 0 $0.00 00 2" Street Light Conduit 450 $0. $787.50 _ 3" Electric Conduit 0 ` $0.00 4" Electric Conduit o I $0.00 5" ElectricConduit 900 $2,610.00 2" Phone Conduit 0 $0.00 4" Phone Conduit 1,800 $4,320.00 Install TV Supplied Conduit 2" 450 $337.50 • Semi Encased 450 $1,800.00 • Full Encased 0 • $0.00 SUB TOTAL • • • • • $9,855.00 • Misc. Items Quantity Unit Price • Cost • Refundable Hand Hole Barriers 0 $0.00 Hand Hole 0 $0.00 $0.00 Transformer Barriers 0 $0.00 Transformer Pad & Rock 0 $0.00 $0.00 3X5 Pull Box E/T 2 $3,600.00 $0.00 Landscape Pedestal 0 $0.00 PMH 5 Structures 0 $0.00 $0.00 7X12X7 Vault 1 $12,500.00 $0.00 SOE _ 1 $0.00 $0.00 Excavate Street Light Notch 3 $60.00 $0.00 Excavate Hand-Hole Notch 0 $0.00 Phone Structure 2 $16,000.00 SUB TOTAL j $32,160.00" $0.00 Grand Total Contractor Trenching I $49,215.001 Grand Total Utility Advance $149,074.00 Grand Total Utility Refundable I $0.00 Grand Total Utility Non-refundable $149,074.00 Grand Total Non-refundable Expenditures $198,289.00 Grand Total Trenching Non-refundable Cost Per Lot N/A Grand Total Non-refundable Cost Per Lot N/A •Catcutations by West Coast Utility Services,LLC 2 3/11/2009 • A-27 S ENGINEERING SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR • DRC2005-000327 • Exhibit G ENGINEERING SPECIAL • CONDITIONS A 28 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-1 6 • DRC2005-00327 — CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH • March 28, 2007 Page 4 • submitted for plan check shall provide clear details for the application of natural river rock on the buildings. 11) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant or church shall submit a Tree Removal Permit for trees within the area of work. • 12) The applicant/developer shall install all trees in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan for the project. Enqineerino Department 1) Install street improvements on Baker Avenue per City standards, in addition to those listed in the Standard Conditions. a) Provide two 5800 Lumen HPSV•streetlights, as required. 2) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications.and electrical) on the project side of Baker Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage; extending to the first pole off-site (north and • south) prior, to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Baker Avenue shall be • undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request a :reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for • • undergrounding from future development (redevelopment)as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for • said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public • improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of th'e developer to reimbursement shall terminate. • 3) Phase 2 grading shall include a v-gutter along the existing south property line retaining wall to direct flows to curbside drain outlet without overflowing the retaining wall. 4) Street trees are to be planted per City standards. The proposed tree wells for street trees, for which there are no details, shall not use metal grates and/or concrete between the sidewalk and the curb. • 5) Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of the Grading Permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer, prior to Building Permit issuance. • • • • A-29 • PLANNING COMMISSION UNDERGROUNDING RESOLUTION NO. 87-96 • Exhibit H RESOLUTION NO. 87-96 A30 RESOLUTION NO. 87-96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF • RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING A REVISED POLICY FOR THE • UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 86-77 • • WHEREAS, \ the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to repeal Resolution No. 86-77 which was adopted on the 28th day of May, 1986 and establish the revised policy contained herein; • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to remove unsightly existing overhead utility lines in order to promote a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment within the City; and • • WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a policy to inform property owners and developers of the City goal . NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and established that all developments, except those contained in Section 7 and any others specifically waived by the Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal of the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows : . 1. Lines on the project -side of the street*: • a. Said lines shall be undergrounded at the developer's expense. b. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at present for such reasons as a short length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and not undergrounded adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing improvements, etc. , the Developer shall pay an in-lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. c. The Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one-half the cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on the opposite side of the street. • 2. Lines on the opposite side of the street from the project: The Developer shall pay a fee to the City for one-half the amount per Section 6. 3. Lines on both sides of the street: - The Developer shall comply with Section 1 above and be eligible tor reimbursement or pay additional fees so that he bears a total expense equivalent to one-half the total cost of undergrounding the lines on both sides of the street. 4. Pole lines containing 66KV or larger electrical lines: All lines shall be undergrounded or in-lieu fees paid in accordance with section 1 , 2 or 3, above, except for 66 KV or larger electrical lines. • • • A31 5. Limits of Responsibilities : a. In- lieu fees shall be based upon the length of the property being developed from property line to property line (the center of adjacent • streets for corner properties ). b. Undergrounding shall include the entire project frontage and extend to: (1 ) the first existing pole off-site from the project boundaries (across the street for corner properties ), (2) a new pole erected at a project boundary (across the street for corner properties), or (3) an existing pole within 5 feet of a project boundary, except at a corner. 6 . Fee Amount: The amount for in-lieu fees shall equal the length (per . Section 5. a) times the unit amount as established by the City Council based upon information supplied by the utility companies and as updated periodically as deemed necessary. 7 . Exemptions : The following types of projects shall be exempt from this policy: a. The addition of functional equipment to existing developments , such as: loading docks, silos, satellite dishes, antennas, water tanks, air conditioners, cooling towers, enclosure of an outdoor storage area, parking and loading areas, block walls and fences, etc. b. Building additions or new free standing buildings of less than 25% of the floor area of the existing building(s) on the same assessor' s parcel , or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. c. Exterior upgrading or repair of existing developments, • such .as: • reroofing, addition of trellis, awnings, landscaping, equipment screening, repainting and exterior finishes, etc. d. Interior tenant improvements and non-construction CUPs. e. The construction of a single family residence on an existing parcel. f. Existing overhead utility lines located in trails, alleys, and utility easements with a heavy concentration of services to adjacent developments, and the utility lines are 500' or more from the right of way line of a Special Boulevard. g. Residential subdivisions of four or fewer single family residential parcels, where the utility lines extend at least 600' offsite from both the project boundaries and the adjacent property is not likely to contribute to future undergrounding. • * All references to streets shall also mean alleys , railroad or channel rights-of-way, etc. • A32 ' • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF JLNE 1987. PLANNING COM ISSICN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMCN GA J } J in BY: 4y(�A-� ✓ ' ' L�Q-P\.!i Larfy TI Monti Chairman ATTEST: ° ice/ t•_ ._ :ra• m r ecretary I , Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced., passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10 day of June, 1987, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN': COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY • • . ' A-33 RESOLUTION NO. 07-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00327, THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING CHURCH SITE INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 13,572 SQUARE FOOT SANCTUARY/FELLOWSHIP HALL BUILDING AND ON-SITE PARKING, ON 1.52 ACRE OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8619 BAKER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0207-132-53. A. Recitals. 1. The Chinese Christian Family Church, filed an application for Development Review DRC2005-00327, for the review and approval of a master plan for the physical improvement of the existing church facility at 8619 Baker Avenue, including the construction of a new 13,572 square foot sanctuary/fellowship hall building and on-site parking as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 28th day of March 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on the 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 public hearing on March 28,2007, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to 1.52 acre of property located at 8619 Baker Avenue;and b. The project site is surrounded by residential development on the north, south, and east, and a public elementary school on the west across Baker Avenue. The zoning designations for the properties surrounding the site are Medium Residential for properties located on the north, south, and east and Low Residential for properties located on the west. Immediately west, across Baker Avenue, is Los Amigos Elementary School; and • . c. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and EXHIBIT - B A-34 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-16 DRC2005-00327 — CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH March 28, 2007 • Page 2 d. The project design meets or exceeds the Development Standards for setbacks, building height, landscaping, and the required on-site parking; and e. The design and exterior materials of the new sanctuary/fellowship hall will complement the existing stone buildings and residential character of the surrounding neighborhood, a goal of the General Plan; and f. On March 25, 2005, and June 8, 2006, the applicant conducted neighborhood meetings to solicit public comments. During the said meetings, comments received from the public were supportive of the project. 3. Based upon the substantial .evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan;and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and • d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 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 under as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 that applies to infill development where the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and the zoning regulations. The proposed project involves enhanced development of an existing partially developed site surrounded by residential and educational development, served by existing utilities, and no impact on the habitat for rare or endangered species. Therefore, the project will have no significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Planning Department 1) This approval is for a phased master plan to improve the subject church property for use by the existing church at 8619 Baker Avenue • and presently operated as the Chinese Christian Family Church. The master plan includes the construction of a new 13,572 square foot sanctuary/fellowship hall building, added on-site parking, and • A-35 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-16 DRC2005-00327 — CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH March 28, 2007 • Page 3 landscaping at the subject site. Plans submitted for plan check shall conform to the plans approved by the Design Review Committee on December 19, 2006, and final Planning Commission project approval on March 28, 2007. 2) The approved master plan and design review approval for the new sanctuary/fellowship hall building shall be valid for a 5-year time frame terminating on March 28, 2012. Projects identified in the approved master plan that are not under construction within the 5-year time frame shall require the approval of a new application and every 5 years thereafter, until the master plan improvements are completed. 3) The 16 new parking spaces proposed for the north side of the lot shall be fully installed with Phase 1A building improvements. Full on-site parking improvements, including landscaping, shall be completed during Phase 2 and before a certificate of occupancy is issued for the new sanctuary portion of the new building. 4) No exterior changes to the approved plans, including exterior materials, shall be permitted without prior City review and approval. • 5) No outdoor amplified sound system shall be installed and/or utilized on the subject property, except for short term outdoor events conducted with proper City approval and permits. • 6) Use of the church property and buildings shall be limited to the administrative, religious education, and worship ministries/programs of the existing church. Any expansion of the church use (e.g., parochial school) or facilities shall not be initiated without prior City review and approval of such use(s). • 7) The church and/or subsequent property owners shall be responsible to maintain the existing Landmark Designated structures (former Baird • House and Barn) on the site in good condition at all times. Any significant changes (i.e., additions, re-roofing, significant repairs to exterior materials, etc.) shall require prior City review up to and including the requirement to obtain a Landmark Alteration permit. 8) The final design of decorative walls, metal fences, gates, and/or railings shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval during plan check. All decorative exterior metal elements shall have a powder coat paint finish. 9) All exterior light fixtures shall be fully shielded and directed downward to the subject property. • • 10) No faux or manufactured river rock shall be allowed. All river rock shall be natural stones and installed, extended, and/or wrapped so that the rock terminates at an appropriate point on the structure. Plans • A-36 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-16 • DRC2005-00327 — CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH March 28, 2007 • Page 4 submitted for plan check shall provide clear details for the application of natural river rock on the buildings. 11) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant or church shall submit a Tree Removal Permit for trees within the area of work. 12) The applicant/developer shall install all trees in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan for the project. Engineering Department 1) Install street improvements on Baker Avenue per City standards, in addition to those listed in the Standard Conditions. a) Provide two 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights, as required. 2) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the project side of Baker Avenue shall be undergrounded along the entire project frontage, extending to the first pole off-site (north and south) prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing Baker Avenue shall be undergrounded at the same time. The developer may request a • reimbursement agreement to recover one-half the City adopted cost for undergrounding from future development(redevelopment)as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 3) Phase 2 grading shall include a v-gutter along the existing south property line retaining wall to direct flows to curbside drain outlet without overflowing the retaining wall. 4) Street trees are to be planted per City standards. The proposed tree wells for street trees, for which there are no details, shall not use metal grates and/or concrete between the sidewalk and the curb. 5) • Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of the Grading Permits. Public improvement plans shall be 100 percent complete, signed by the City Engineer, and an improvement agreement and bonds executed by the developer, prior to Building Permit issuance. • • A-37 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 07-16 DRC2005-00327 — CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH March 28, 2007 • Page 5 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify•to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2007. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard B. Fletcher, Vice Chairman ATTEST: /R. , y1_/ Jam R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and • adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of March 2007, by the following vote-to-wit: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, MUNOZ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STEWART • A-38 . • ry* ^t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I t �- DEPARTMENT • STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00327 SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN FOR CHINESE FAMILY CHURCH APPLICANT: CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH LOCATION: 8619 BAKER AVENUE — APN: 0207-132-53 . ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ie. General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/_ agents,officers,or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. ', Standard Conditions, _/_/_ • and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. B. Time Limits 1. This Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or / /_ approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • C. Site Development 1. 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, •C-1-05 1 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res&Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A e9 Project No. DRC2005-00327 ' Completion Date 2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_/_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety • Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 3. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/_/_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for _/_/_ consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.). 5. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all / /_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be _/ /_ located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete • or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or _/_/_ projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans. E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts _/_/_• a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more / / . parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall; whichever is greater, of the total number of • stalls for use by the handicapped. • F. Landscaping • 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and _/_/_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in / /_ • accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110,and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. • • 3. For non-residential development, property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance / /_ of all landscaped areas on-site,as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. • 2 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res& Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A-40 • Project No,DRC2005-00327 Completion Date G. Signs • 1. The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. _/_/_ Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT, (909)477-2710, • FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) H. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: / /_ a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of the main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams,water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e:, DRC2005-00327) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. • • h. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. All sheets must be marked: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations,,and a soils report, / /_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to _/_/_ the City prior to permit issuance. • 4. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the _/_/_ Building and Safety Department. I. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be _/_/_ marked with the project file number(i.e., DRC2005-00327). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for . availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development project or _/_/_ major addition,the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may • include but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees,Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permits issuance. 3 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMMt2007 Res&Sd Rpt\DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A-41 Project No. DRC2005-00327 Completion Date 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map _/_/_ recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday / /_• through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Departments public _/_/_ counter). J. New Structures • 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances _/_/_ considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. / /_ 3. The project shall be designed to comply with the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), the _/_/_ California Fire Code with the RCFPD Ordinances 15 and 39. 4. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC _/_/_ Section 1505, 5. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A /_/_ 6. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. / / 7. Provide the required restroom facilities per the CBC Appendix Chapter 29. 8. All exit components must comply with the requirements of CBC Chapter 10 (adjoining rooms, _/_/_ rated corridors, door swings, separation of exits, etc. 9. At the time of tenant improvements plan check submittal (for construction) additional _/_/_• requirements may be required. 10. Clearly indicate on the plans compliance with ADA requirements for the disabled. / /_ 11. A registered architect must sign and stamp the plans. / / K. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading / /_ Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to / /_ perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the / /_ time of application for grading plan check. 4. • At the time of tenant improvement plan check submittal(for construction)additional requirements / /_ may be required. 5. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, / /_ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. • 4 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res& Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A-42 • Project No. DRC2005-00327 Completion Date 6. A separate grading 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 plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. L. Additional Requirements/Comments 1. Note on title sheet that tenant improvement plans must be submitted for plan check and be _/_/_ approved prior to construction. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes,and all other applicable codes,ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Division if you have any questions about the procedure at (909) 477-2710. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Street Improvements 1. All public improvements(interior streets,drainage facilities,community trails,paseos,landscaped _/_/_ areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to,curb and gutter,AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No.88-557,no person shall make connections from a source /_/_ of energy,fuel or power to any building service equipment 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 or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: / /_ Curb& A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Baker Avenue X X X (f) Sandalwood Court X (e) Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e) curbside drain outlet, (f) curb and gutter to replace removed drive approaches. 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: • a. Street improvement plans, including street trees,street lights,and intersection safety lights /_/_ on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements,prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. • • 5 • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res& Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A43 Project No, DRC2005-00327 • Completion Date 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 City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking,traffic signing,street name signing,traffic signal conduit,and / /_• interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction /_/_ project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: / / 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets,a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City _/_/_ Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with • _/_/_ adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving,which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be /_/_ installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. • h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to submittal for first plan _/_/_ check. 5. 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. 6. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed _/_/_ legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title .page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet (typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size Qty. Sandalwood Court Chionanthus retusa Chinese Fringe Tree 3' 20'O.C. 15 Gal Fill In Baker Avenue Pistachia chinesis Chinese Pistache 5' 30'O.C. 15 Gal Fill In 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 Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. • 6 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res 8 Stf Rpt\DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A44 Project No. DRC2005-00327 Completion Date 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with _/_/_ . adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project • intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. N. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer O. Utilities 1. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. _/_/_ 2. Water and 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. P. General Requirements and Approvals • 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City,covering the estimated operating costs for all _/ /_ new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 0 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits,a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall _/_/_ be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,. (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • Q. Security Lighting . 1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. /_/_ These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings,with / /_ direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. / / • 7 • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res& Stf Ron DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A-45 Project No. DRC2005-00327 • • Completion Date R. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within _/_/ • 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. S. Building Numbering • 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime _/_/_' visibility. T. Alarm Systems • • 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and _/_/_ employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. _/_/_ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • SEE ATTACHED • • • • • • 8 \PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2007 Res& Stt Rpt\DRC2005-00327StdCond 3-28.doc A-46 , a.`ucq`. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District thrl Fire Construction Services -FIRE STANDARD CONDITIONS December 15, 2005 Chinese Christian Family Church 8619 Baker Ave DRC2005-00327 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. The RCFPD Procedures & Standards which are referenced in this document can be access on the web at http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us/fire/index.htm under the Fire Safety Division & Fire Construction Services section. Search by article; the preceding number of the standard refers to the article. Chose the appropriate article number then a drop down menu will appear, select the corresponding standard. FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply 1 . Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the spacing • and location of fire hydrants: a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in commercial/industrial projects is 300-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 150-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 100-feet. b. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are: 1. At the entrance(s) to a commercial, industrial or residential project from the public • roadways. 2. At intersections. • 3. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible. 4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire District. 5. A minimum of forty-feet (40') from any building. c. If any portion of a facility or building is located more than 150-feet from a public fire hydrant measured on an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional private or public fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be • • provided. d. Provide one fire hydrant for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow or fraction thereof. FSC-2 Fire Flow A-47 1 . The required minimum fire flow for this project, when automatic fire sprinklers are installed is 2,000 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This flow reflects a 50-percent reduction for the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler• system in accordance with NFPA 13 with central station monitoring. This requirement is made in accordance with the California Fire Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. 2. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. 3. Firewater plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until firewater plans are approved. 4. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FSC-3 Prerequisite for submittal of Overhead Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems 1 . Prior to submitting plans for an overhead automatic fire sprinkler system, the applicant shall submit plans, specifications and calculations for the fire sprinkler system underground supply piping. Approval of the underground supply piping system must be obtained prior to submitting the overhead fire sprinkler system plans. FSC-4 Requirement for an Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other • applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in: 1 . Commercial or industrial structures greater than 7,500 square feet. 2. Assembly and Educational Occupancy Buildings. 3. "All structures that do not meet Fire District access requirements (see Fire Access). 4. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure. 5. When buildings do not meet the requirements of the 2001 California Building Code and the RCFPD Fire Department Access - Fire Lane Standard 9-7 6. When any applicable code or standard requires the structure to be sprinklered. FSC-5 Fire Alarm System 1 . RCFPD Ordinance 15, based on use or floor area (or by other adopted codes or standards) requires an automatic and/or manual fire alarm system. Refer to RCFPD Ordinances 15 and 39, the California Building Code, RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6 and/or the California Fire Code. 2. Prior to any removal, remodel, modification and/or additions to the building or suite's fire alarm • system, Fire Construction Services' approval and a building permit must be obtained. Plans and A-48 specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6. e. Based on the number of sprinkler heads; the sprinkler system is required to monitored by a listed central station fire alarm system. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets and highways, as well as private roads, streets drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Lanes Standard 9-7 1. Location 'of Access: All portions of the structures 1st story exterior wall shall be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measure on an approved route around the exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates and fences are deemed obstructions. 2. Specifications for private Fire District access roadways per the RCFPD Standards are: a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet. b. The maximum inside turn radius shall be 20-feet. c. The minimum outside turn radius shall be 46-feet. d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. • e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches. f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet on each side. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9-degrees or 20 percent. h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12%. i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW). j. Trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the fire lane shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14-feet, 6- inches from the ground up. Vegetation shall not be allowed to obstruct Fire Department apparatus. 3. Access Doorways: Approved doorways, accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be provided as follows: a. In buildings without high-piled storage, access shall be provided in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, Fire and/or any other applicable standards. b. In buildings with high-piled storage access doors shall be provided in each 100 lineal feet or major fraction thereof, of the exterior wall that faces the required access roadways. When railways are installed provisions shall be made to maintain Fire District access to all required openings. 4. Access Walkways: Hardscaped access walkways shall be provided from the fire apparatus access road to all required building exterior openings. 3 A49 5. Commercial/Industrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard #9-2. The following design requirements apply: a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates, plans are required to be submitted to Fires Construction Services (FCS) for approval. Upon the completion of the installation and before placing the gates in service, inspection and final acceptance must be requested from FCS. b. Gates must slide open horizontally or swing inward. c. Gates may be motorized or manual. d. When fully open, the minimum clearance dimension of drive access shall be 20 feet. e. Manual gates must be equipped with a RCFPD lock available at the Fire Safety Office for $20.00. f. Motorized gates must open at the rate of one-foot per second. g. The motorized gate actuation mechanism must be equipped with a manual override device and a fail-safe or battery backup feature to open the gate or release the locking Mechanism in case of power failure or mechanical malfunction. h. Motorized gates shall be equipped with a Knox override key switch. The switch must be installed outside the gate in a visible and unobstructed location. i. For motorized gates, a traffic loop device must be installed to allow exiting from the complex. j. If traffic pre-emption devices (TPD) are to be installed, the device, location and operation must be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. Bi-directional or multiple sensors may be required • due to complexity of the various entry configurations. 6. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A site plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval. 7. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application, if applicable, must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan review. 8. Roof Access: There shall be a means of fire department access from the exterior walls of the buildings on to the roofs of all commercial, industrial and multi-family residential structures with roofs less than 75' above the level of the fire access road. a. This access must be reachable by either fire department ground ladders or by an aerial ladder. b. A minimum of one ladder point • c. with a fixed ladder shall be provided in buildings with construction features, or high parapets that inhibit roof access. d. The number of ladder points may be required to be increased, depending on the building size and configuration. • e. Regardless of the parapet height or construction features the approved ladder point shall be identified in accordance to the roof access standard. 4 A-50 f. Where the entire roof access is restricted by high parapet walls or other obstructions, a permanently • mounted access ladder is required. g. Multiple access ladders may be required for larger buildings. h. Ladder construction must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard 9-9 Appendix A and drawings 9-9a and 9-9b. i. A site plan showing the locations of the roof ladder shall be submitted during plan check. j. Ladder points shall face a fire access roadway(s). FSC-10 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits Listed are those Fire Code permits commonly associated with the business operations and/or building construction. Plan check submittal is required with the permit application for approval of the permit; field inspection is required prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce • conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. • Battery Systems • • Candles and open flames in public assemblies • Compressed Gases • Public Assembly • Cryogenics • Dry Cleaning Plants Refrigeration Systems • • Repair Garages • Flammable and Combustible Liquids • Spraying or Dipping Operations • Hazardous Materials • Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures • Liquefied Petroleum Gases • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings FSC-11 Hazardous Materials — Submittal to the County of San Bernardino The San Bernardino County Fire Department shall review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards. Contact the San Bernardino County. Fire, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-4631 for forms and assistance. The County Fire Department is the Cal/EPA Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1 . If the facility is a NEW business, a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building & Safety will not be finalized until the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting specific hazardous materials disclosure requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMP) may also be required if regulation substances are to be used or stored at the new facility. !. Any business that operates on rented or leased property which is required to submit a Plan, is also required to submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates and has complied with the provisions. The tenant 5 A-51 must provide a copy of the Plan to the property owner within five (5) working days, if requested by the owner. FSC-12 Hazardous Materials - Submittal to Fire Construction Services • Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction of buildings and/or the installation of equipment designed to store, use or dispense hazardous materials in accordance with the 2001 California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances FD15 and FD39 and other implemented and/or adopted standards. FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal will review all requests for alternate method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of the $92 review fee. • FCS-14 Map Recordation 1 . RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS for Fire Department Emergency Access and Water Supply are required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property that is.being subdivided. The reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property owners and the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site plan. The Fire Construction Services shall approve the agreement, prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorders Office. Reciprocal access agreement — Please provide a permanent access agreement between the owners granting irrevocable and a non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District to gain access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other • structure shall be placed within the dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The agreement shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. Reciprocal water covenant — Please provide a permanent maintenance and service covenant between the owners granting an irrevocable and non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District for the purpose of accessing and maintaining the private water mains, valves and fire hydrants (fire protection systems facilities in general). The covenant shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District #85-1 or #88-1 is required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS — Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: -- 1. . Private Water Supply (Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District Standards. Approval of the on-site (private) fire underground and water plans is required prior to any building permit issuance for any structure on the site. Private on-site combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with • RCFPD Standards # 9-4, #10-2 and #10-4. The Building & Safety Division and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. 6 A-52 All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible • framing materials to the site. Fire construction Services will inspect the installation, witness hydrant flushing and grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 2. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and CCWD. On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard 9-8. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 5. Easements and Reciprocal Agreements: All easements and agreements must be recorded with the County of San Bernardino. • PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER Ike building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' 'Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures". . PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION — Please complete the following: 1 . Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. 2. Private Fire Hydrants: For the purpose of final acceptance, a licensed sprinkler contractor, in the presence of Fire Construction Services, shall conduct a test of the most hydraulically remote on-site fire hydrants. The underground fire line contractor, developer and/or owner are responsible for hiring the company to perform the test. A final test report shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services verifying the fire flow available. The fire flow available must meet or exceed the required fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code. 3. Fire Sprinkler System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 4. Fire Sprinkler Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler monitoring system must be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. The fire sprinkler • monitoring system shall be installed, tested and Operational immediately following the completion of the • fire sprinkler system (subject to the release of power). 7 A53 • 5. Fire Suppression Systems and/or other special hazard protection systems shall be inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services before occupancy is granted and/or equipment is placed in service. 6. Fire Alarm System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire alarm system shall be installed, inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 7. Access Control Gates: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular gates must be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards #9-1 or #9-2 by Fire Construction Services. 8. Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways. 9. Address: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commercial/industrial and multi-family buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting background, visible from the street and electrically illuminated during periods of darkness. When the building setback exceeds 200 feet from the public street, an additional non-illuminated 6-inch minimum number address shall be provided at the property entrance. Larger address numbers will be required on buildings located on wide streets or built with large setbacks in multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings. The suite designation numbers and/or letters shall be provided on the front and back of all suites. 10. Hazardous Materials: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must • demonstrate On writing from the County) that the facility has met or is meeting the Risk Management Plan (RMP) or Business Emergency/Contingency Plan with the San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Materials/Emergency Response and Enforcement Division. The applicant must also obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services. • 11. Confidential Business Occupancy Information: The applicant shall complete the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District "Confidential Business Occupancy Information" form. This form provides contact information for Fire District use in the event of an emergency at the subject building or property. This form must be presented to the Fire Construction Services Inspector. 12. Mapping Site Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 8 Y" x 11" or 11" x 17" site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard #13-1 shall be revised by the applicant to reflect the actual location of all devices and building features as required in the standard. The site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire Inspector. • • 8 A-54 • • RESOLUTION NO. 09-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING THEIR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00327,THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE PHASED EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY FROM 4,030 SQUARE FEET TO 17,602 SQUARE FEET ON 1.52 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT(8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT 8619 BAKER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0207-132-53. A. Recitals. 1. On the 28th day of March 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a duly noticed public hearing on Development Review DRC2005-00327 application and concluded said hearing on that date. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved Development Review DRC2005-00327 through adoption of their Resolution No. 07-16. 2. J. George Chu, on behalf of the Chinese Christian Family Church, Inland Valley,filed a request to modify the conditions of approval for Development Review DRC2005-00327 to delete the condition requiring undergrounding of existing overhead utilities. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject request is referred to as "the application." • 3. On the 13th day of May 2009, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and determined that option No. 3 of the recommendations in the staff report that stated"Grant the request to delete Engineering Services Department Condition No. 2 and to not impose the in-lieu fee"was the appropriate action for this situation. The Planning Commission voted to have staff draft a Resolution of Approval to be acted upon at the next Planning Commission meeting. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This 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 public hearing on May 13, 2009, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to 1.52 acres of property located on the east side of Baker Avenue south of Arrow Route; and b. The previously adopted conditions of approval,specifically Engineering Department • Special Condition No. 2, required the undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities along Baker Avenue, respectively, pursuant to this Commission's Resolution No. 87-96; and A-55 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-18 DRC2009-00118 MODIFICATION OF DRC2005-00327—CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH May 27, 2009 Page 2 • c. On June 10, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 87-96 (Exhibit H of the Staff Report, dated May 13, 2009)establishing a revised policy for undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities. This policy was intended "to remove unsightly existing overhead utility lines in order to promote a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment within the City." The Resolution states that the policy applies to all developments except those specifically exempted "and any others specifically waived by the Planning Commission." Overhead utilities include telecommunication (phone and cable)and electrical but excludes 66KV or larger electrical lines; and d. The Commission's utility undergrounding policy includes seven exemptions; however, the Church project did not qualify for any of these exemptions; and e. The adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-16 contains one Engineering Department condition dealing with utility undergrounding. Condition No.2 requires undergrounding on the project side of Baker Avenue along the entire project frontage, extending to the first pole off site (north and south), a distance of 374 feet. The applicant estimated the cost at $200,000. f. Chinese Christian Family Church, Inland Valley, is a unique circumstance because all of the surrounding properties are developed. All other properties in the neighborhood are single- family residential,which are exempted by Planning Commission Resolution No.87-96; hence would never underground. Further, because all of the surrounding properties are developed and would not pay in-lieu fees, there will never be the opportunity for reimbursement to the Church for the • undergrounding along Baker Avenue; and 3. 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 originally qualified as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 that applies to infill development where the project is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and the zoning regulations. The proposed project involves enhanced development of an existing partially developed site surrounded by residential and educational development, served by existing utilities, and no impact on the habitat for rare or endangered species. Therefore, the project will have no significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption,and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 4. Based upon the findings set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies their previous action approving Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit DRC2009-00118 by deleting Engineering Department Special Condition No. 2 of the previously approved Development Review DRC2005-00327 and not impose the in-lieu fee. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2009. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • A-56 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-18 DRC2009-00118 MODIFICATION OF DRC2005-00327—CHINESE CHRISTIAN FAMILY CHURCH • May 27, 2009 Page 3 BY: Richard B Fletcher, Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 2009, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • • • • A-57 Adams House National Historic `` 'p ``'i Preservation Month '" � p„,-31 l'resentation Recognizing 1 .° 44 Owners of Historic Properties IA ` ,.:.si ' �, -, z µ Selection of historic :' , � "` Preservation Awards °'� Albert House Alderfer (Becker)_ . M ". Alta Loma Residence -,.......v. .awl. , -� _ � School and i 5. . E _�11_,,, ,. i• !ate' r a — !,. - 31c. site ° `x• Ilk j a '141414•RSR _ ,y 2..:.. i"' .• a roc *,",S i,n �, r r v *A '�. r - . 1 ' MMMMMM % �e ;l:i M�!3 1A F. ' 3 Alta Loma t - � + Fire Hall&Honor Roll ' Beckley House T . r t' ,. - A . Buehler House w ,, ` .. fi, x_h � A. «� � ` . . 4 III r . Beverly Hills House Canyon Live Oak Tree ffFC / ; - -- ■ ' i E Chaffey-Garcia- ^ A i House Mains House .,. .- Central Public ,1 1 `ice 1) 4 • School Chaf ey-Isle " " ` (Sweeten 11811) House f ¢S V. t , _ r 1 A 4; Charles Stoebe �. ' TF Chinatown Home , ,:; - - House ,Charles E, ' ■ . '1, Smith House -�!* .� . , Cherbak Stowe "i z .. House k m . ..74,14 u Thomas Vineyard 'P a,- Company Winery : , :.House `4r , 4:;44.- a- Ai T ',44.1,., � p q Alt T 1 i°ILiJ o Croswell _• ,�. � z, Rouse Cucamonga Rock Church 2 Cucamonga `r, �" ; Dorothy-�`inley Service Station pp ° ,� Il House Demens- - .. . Ellens/Regina - rolstoy Winery Horse iippi Winery) ! ��;: TTI Emery House ;` .^ ,`, , 71 R I ,• ' b K.,-... I. . �. ` ,R-- `rnst Mueller THIS.. r-, % House 'PLACE • — . ■� MATTERS y =.4 Emory Allen I .. . tiwan 1 a 1 ngrega•o 1 r.1 1 arch ` ,,s t i► : Virginia Dare._ Etiwanda Metate , , Winery . a 11 P _ '..'� Etiwanda Halw .. ilk . ay "f T . . A ,"a c' � 4 , !,i r 5e" d s' to .,} StatloII ^,'' d .ty y a4. :..w...iaa9..rl u,.• •• 3 ' yCherbak G.P. Ledig ! House House l" 3 . 1 r 1 Goerlih� .. .7` � �� 4 k •, : ,i•-'' Grandma .. F� ,. {-,,�— Issak House House � � �`' � � ����� `"`'„ .. 1.2,' enry . I i-:rt- tu1din . - t__ Guidera Winery • - House ' -- X1 )111r- la L::.... 1 Imo ( 1 r....�•aw.vr. /• � X u- x i 1®l A' Christmas I k rbert-Goerlitz �r , "' I,minry_ ' +..�,. House House -! Hippard Rancho, •" Etiwanda Telephone liPIPF Switching Station& Hickcox 0'41;i:',..; ' R, , wWater Tank Residence 141,00.-'B mvga r *L u.'-4,- g ' '.sue ( 1 }•'S Ctl `y \ r ''':*".:41.11�l d'� � G tl t '' Ho ancam 7 I ,� 3 �S • � � g p � ► " I - Residence 441.4 4ig. 4 1 T - KinCaid , �.` '� Ranch •a. �7 ft k 4 rsr r. a kilt .. i i -. Huber Ranch Hoppe House ',, . � Klusinan v�; ,,ta House 6. sr .,. /.9 r .� i TM ' fin qtr' Ifj! ..:., 1 r. e*. LL Isaac Lord Koch„Honse --� House ... ' Ili IL,:: ',' ` y..�.� , ;.:•--.1 Magic I'an'p ,. 1 Restaurant , jji : .` i & - 'i„Q _ - Mitchell Famil Residence "'° ' +;' Maloof •'' ', Residence& r t:" F �. • ". Workshops ., a a.,�q , , • . 44idg,:e rA 4: ' gm ,4 J,.. ,.',1,-,:.' msµ" Minor House t -;'", G r u pri ,�. j -_ Neil D.&Emma S. Ilkkcox qa. -' ,, Residence&Garage 5 — , Norton- Nesbit-McCorkle IN , , ... Fisher House House ii h 'Ne t• v ri I. " rillr • , , ...,qk 1 11111111111111111 4' — : s I I I Li ,,,t, •,_11 4 „t r-, efoq: ` - . Alight Blooming NOWDZO/ Cereus (cactus) Smiderle House , ■ '1 P . C Palmer ,r•- .......• --v • . „I *F-- : Schowalter Ranch , 1 ,' 1 i House 114 iilke t - 101. Pear ., 1 alma k., N..4 4 0 gk.W f i 4;": . 4 0:■., 3. r I II 111.II ,,,,,,,,‘ II or , in • OW ) Roth's Store&Post Office Statom-Bingham House Statue of Oso Bear pir ri --r44.----*-41mi.F.,----,---- 4 ...r-• o. ......,—....Y....., ut''..''..° ' A.e..., .,..., ,.., wi - 1 I Ail 1 -11_, , 44v.,,. itl-,,, ,,„t, Kilt - ' *--"'• I 1 t. ,Hid ,-- ...'", ,.*c + ' ', `, 1 — -261 l• ** ''. , owl 4 1*,'4 '11 1 1.1m" 1 Toews Family i--_,.. .....•"M. Ar....''''' \ k ''V, ,.4'4,""' • 6 t i Tv, Residence Stegmeier House 6 Warren- t.." -g, s Thorpe House _ ' 0 Victoria Avenue 4+ :r i Street Trees Landscapes 11 ,`'� Highland Avenue k. «ty Beryl Walnut Street Trees N. Trees°- "' Historic Preservation Awards • Most Peculiar Landmark • Most Creative Adaptive Reuse • Recognition for Outstanding Restoration and Preservation of a Residential Building 7 STAFF REPORT • PLANNING DEPARTMENT I RANCHO Date: May 27, 2009 CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director By: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Subject: RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 - TRICKETT - A resolution of approval for the request to reduce the building-to-building separation from 20 feet to 15 feet in order to allow an existing 70-square foot storage structure that was built without a permit and is located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and is part of a single-family residential housing tract that was developed using the Optional Development Standards at 13755 Pelican Drive - APN: 0226-512-38. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The project consists of reducing the required building separation by 5 feet and will not result in any changes in land use, • density, or create a new lot. • Background: This Variance request was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2009. At that meeting, staff outlined the issues surrounding the Variance and sought the Commission's direction on whether they felt there was sufficient justification to support the applicant's request. At that meeting, the Commission was divided as to whether the required Variance findings could be made and directed staff to return to the next scheduled meeting with the Variance findings for their review. Staff returned to the May 13, 2009, Planning Commission meeting with a resolution denying the applicant's Variance request. After hearing presentations on the issue by staff and the applicant, the Commission indicated that the applicant's Variance request was justified and voted to approve the Variance. The Commission directed staff to draft a Resolution of Approval and place on the May 27, 2009, Planning Commission consent calendar for their final review. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The applicant's home is located on Lot 56 of Tract Map 14759-3 and is in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. There are existing residences to the north, east, and west of the site and Banyan Street to the south. The applicant's lot is 6,753 square feet. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence — Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence — Etiwanda Specific Plan East - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence— Etiwanda Specific Plan West - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence— Etiwanda Specific Plan • Item B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2009-00195—JEFFREY TRICKETT May 27, 2009 Page 2 • C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential . East - Low Residential West - Low Residential ANALYSIS: A. Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a 5 foot reduction in the 20 foot building separation requirement in order to permit an existing 70-square foot attached storage structure. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict . application of the development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property • such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same district. In order to grant a request for a Variance, the Planning Commission must make a series of findings.. Generally, these findings focus on unique or special circumstances applicable to a specific property. Following are facts to support the necessary findings: 1. Fact: Without a reduction in the 20 foot building separation requirement, the applicant • would be required to demolish the existing 70-square foot storage structure, which would place an unnecessary hardship on the applicant and require the loss of completed property improvements. Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objective of this Code. 2. Fact: The applicant's house is a part of Tract 14759-3, which was developed with a large number of veranda roofs that encroach 2 to 3 feet into the required 20 foot building separation. With the prevalence of nonconforming building separations in the neighborhood, the applicant's request is not out of keeping with the development pattern of the area. Finding: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. Fact: The Development Code permits encroachments into side yard setbacks for minor detached structures and equipment. Specifically, detached storage structures of less than 120 square feet and less than 6 feet in height are permitted to encroach into the side yard setback. Because of the limited size of the structure (70 square feet), attaching the structure to the main dwelling should not preclude the applicant from locating it in the side yard setback and utilizing the reduced setback privileges that are applicable to minor • detached storage structures. B-2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 — JEFFREY TRICKETT May 27, 2009 • Page 3 Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation . would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in same zone. 4. Fact: Storage structures of less than 120 square feet are an accepted use on residential lots. Finding: That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. 5. Fact: The minor reduction in the building separation requirement will have a negligible effect, if any, on the neighboring residences or property values because the 70-square foot storage structure matches (roofing material, stucco, and color) the existing house and is of similar construction to the other houses in the area. Additionally, the applicant has obtained a letter of support from the adjacent property owner. Finding: .The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. B. Environmental Assessment: 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 5 • . exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for reductions in building separation requirements. Because the applicant is only requesting a Variance for the reduction of the building separation requirement, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was previously advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper prior to the April 22, 2009 meeting. At that time, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Because the item was continued to a specific date, no further legal noticing was required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance DRC2009-00195 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Respectfully submitted, ire Jam R. Troyer, AICP dAtIAAT Planning Director JT:TV\ds • Attachments: Exhibit A - Staff Report, dated May 13, 2009 Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2009-00195, 09-19 • B-3 • STAFF REPORT • PLANNING DEPARTMENT RANCHO Date: May 13, 2009 CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director By: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Subject: VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 - TRICKETT - A request to reduce the building-to-building separation from 20 feet to 15 feet in order to allow an existing 70-square foot storage structure that was built without a permit and is located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and is part of a single-family residential housing tract that was developed using the Optional Development Standards at 13755 Pelican Drive - APN: 0226-512-38. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review and qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. The • project consists of reducing the required building separation by 5 feet and will not • result in any changes in land use, density, or create anew lot. Background: This Variance request was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on • April 22, 2009. At that meeting, staff outlined the issues surrounding the Variance and sought the Commission's direction on whether they felt there was sufficient justification to support the applicant's request. The applicant was unable to attend the meeting, and questions regarding the request were directed to the applicant's representative. The Commission was divided as to whether they felt that the required Variance findings could be made and directed staff to return to the next scheduled meeting with the Variance findings for their review. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Site Characteristics: The applicant's home is located on Lot 56 of Tract Map 14759-3 and is in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. There are existing residences to the north, east, and west of the site and Banyan Street to the south. The applicant's lot is 6,753 square feet. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence — Etiwanda Specific Plan South - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence — Etiwanda Specific Plan East - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence — Etiwanda Specific Plan West - Low Residential — Existing single-family residence — Etiwanda Specific Plan C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential • East - Low Residential West - Low Residential EXHIBIT A • B-4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 — JEFFREY TRICKETT May 13, 2009 Page 2 • ANALYSIS: A. Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a 5 foot reduction in the 20 foot building separation requirement in order to permit an existing 70-square foot attached storage structure. If this Variance is denied, the applicant will be required to remove the storage structure and repair any damage left to the existing house. B. Development Standards: The original subdivision was developed using the Optional Development Standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Optional Development Standards allow the City to consider subdivisions with smaller lot sizes in exchange for the developer making 30 percent of the site common open space. The Optional Development Standards also have different building setback requirements from the Basic Development Standards. While the Basic Development Standards require that each dwelling unit have a combination side yard setback of 20 feet from the side property lines (i.e., 10 feet and 10 feet or 5 feet and 15 feet, etc.), the Optional Development Standards require a building separation of 20 feet between dwelling units on adjacent lots. The Development Code requires that accessory structures attached to the main dwelling must meet the setback requirements of the district in which they are located. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of the development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property • such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and in the same district. In order to grant a request for a . Variance, the Planning Commission must make a series of findings. Generally, these findings focus on unique or special circumstances applicable to a specific property. Following are facts to support the necessary findings: 1. Fact: While the removal of the existing structure may be a physical hardship to the applicant, the intent of this finding is for there to have been a previous physical hardship prior to construction, meaning that if the Variance were not granted, and construction had not taken place, no physical hardship would have existed for this property owner. Specifically, the applicant would not face any greater physical hardship than any other home owner in the same development who would also not be permitted to build an attached structure within the required building separation, and therefore, the hardship this homeowner faces is self-imposed. Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. 2. Fact: There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property in that it is similar in size and configuration to the other lots in the development. • B-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 — JEFFREY TRICKETT May 13, 2009 Page 3 Finding: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 3. Fact: The applicant would not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by other home owners in the surrounding area in that the storage structure was constructed within the required 20 foot building separation, which is in violation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and would not be approved on other lots in the same development. Finding: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone, 4. Fact: The permitting of the storage structure would constitute a grant of special privilege in that the structure is in violation of the building separation requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and would not be permitted on other lots in the same development. • Additionally, the granting of the Variance would create a precedent for allowing non- conforming structures that were erected without building permits. Finding: That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. • 5. Fact: The granting of the Variance will be materially injurious to the neighboring home owner in that it will make their home non-conforming to the building separation requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. A non-conforming building separation reduces the amount of light, air and open space that is required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan, negatively impacting the adjacent property owner. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. Environmental Assessment: 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 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for reductions in building separation requirements. Because the applicant is only requesting a Variance for the reduction of the building separation requirement, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was previously advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper prior to the April 22, 2009 meeting. At that time, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Because the item was continued to a date specific, no further legal noticing was required. • B-6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 — JEFFREY TRICKETT May 13, 2009 • Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot make the five required Variance findings and recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance DRC2009-00195 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Denial. • Respectfully submitted, r-Selt.AJ James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JT:TV\ds Attachments: Exhibit A - Staff Report dated April 22, 2009 Draft Resolution of Denial for Variance DRC2009-00195 • • • B-7 STAFF REPORT4� • PLANNING DEPARTMENT L% J RANCHO CUCAMONGA Date: April 22, 2009 To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: James R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director By: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Subject: VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 - TRICKETT — A request to reduce the building-to-building separation from 20 feet to 15 feet in order to allow an existing 70-square foot shed that was built without a permit, and is located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and is part of a single-family residential housing tract that was developed using the Optional Development Standards at 13755 Pelican Drive -APN: 0226-512-38. BACKGROUND: On April 22, 2008 a Building Inspector for the City observed that construction was occurring at the applicant's home without a building permit and posted a 30-day Stop Work • Notice at the site. The applicant was informed that permits were required and that all construction must cease until permits were issued. At the time the Stop Work Notice was issued, the unpermitted construction included four (4) structures: 1) 160-square foot solid roof patio cover; 2) an attached fireplace; 3) a detached 116-square foot storage building; and 4) 70-square foot storage building attached to the main house. On April 23, 2008, the applicant applied for a building permit for the detached patio cover. The Planning Department reviewed the request and determined that the patio cover exceeded the maximum lot coverage permitted within the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and a correction notice was issued. Staff's determination was based on the fact that the applicant's housing tract was developed using the Optional Development Standards, which are silent on lot coverage; therefore, staff used the maximum lot coverage of 30 percent outlined in the Basic Development Standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan (all the houses in the tract were developed with a lot coverage that was 30 percent or less). Over the next eight months the Building Department and the applicant exchanged a series of letters regarding the unpermitted structures, (See Exhibit C). The applicant was set to appear in court for an Arraignment Hearing on February 10, 2009, which was continued until March 17, 2009. On that date the hearing was once again continued for 45 days to give the applicant time to complete the Variance process. The applicant submitted a request for a Minor Exception to overcome the lot coverage issue on February 19, 2009. Staff did more of an investigation into the lot coverage issue and determined that the Basic Development Standards lot coverage should not have been used for a housing tract developed using the Optional Development Standards. With the lot coverage issue settled, staff was able to approve the applicant's permit for the 160-square foot detached • patio cover and fireplace. It was also determined by the Building Department that a permit was not required for the detached 116-square foot storage building because it did not surpass the 120 square foot permit size limitation. With these permits issued and applied to the code EXHIBIT. A B-8 PC a s-nq PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2009-00195—JEFFREY TRICKETT April 22, 2009 Page 2 • exemption to the 116-square foot storage building, the only remaining non-exempt, un-permitted structure was the 70-square foot attached storage building. The Building Department requires that all structures attached to the main dwelling unit obtain a building permit. The Planning Department was unable to approve a permit for this structure because the Optional Development Standards requires a minimum side-to-side building separation from the neighboring house of 20 feet. The attached storage structure is 15 feet from the neighboring house. The applicant was informed of this issue and he submitted a Variance request to reduce the building separation setback by 5 feet on March 4, 2009. ANALYSIS: The applicant's home is Lot 56 of Tract Map 14759-3 and is in the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The original subdivision was developed using the Optional Development Standards. The Optional Development Standards allow the City to consider subdivisions with smaller lot sizes in exchange for the developer making 30 percent of the site common open space. The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that lots using the Basic Development Standard have an average lot size of 15,000 square feet with maximum lot coverage of 30 percent. The Optional Development Standards allow up to 4 lots per acre with no maximum lot coverage, provided each developed lot has a minimum 1,000 square feet of Common Open Space. The applicant's lot is 6,753 square feet. The Optional Development Standards also have different building setback requirements from the Basic Development Standards. While the Basic Development Standards require that each dwelling unit have a combination of 20 feet of setback from the side property lines (i.e., 10 feet • and 10 feet or 5 feet and 15 feet, etc.), the Optional Development Standards require a building separation of 20 feet from the dwelling unit on the neighboring lot. The subject storage building is setback 15 feet from the house on the lot to the east, which is 5 feet deficient of meeting the 20 foot building setback standard. The Development Code states that "if an accessory building is attached to the main building or if the roof is a continuation of the main building roof, the accessory building shall be considered an addition to the main building" (Section 17.02.140C). Therefore, the unpermitted, attached storage structure must meet the minimum building separation requirements of the planning area in which it is located. It should be noted that not all the existing houses within the development meet the 20 foot building separation requirement, with many veranda roofs encroaching into the 20 foot separation 2 to 3 feet. Due to this inconsistency, staff will grant a Minor Exception for up to a 2 foot reduction in the building separation requirement for all houses within this housing tract, The applicant states in his Variance request letter that he was unaware that attached storage structures were treated differently than detached storage structures. The applicant states he followed the City's guidelines for detached accessory structures, which require that detached storage structures over 6 feet in height be 5 feet from the property line. He feels that he has gone through extra effort to have the storage structure match the finish and roofing material of the existing house and that the structure should be permitted to remain. The applicant has included letters from neighboring property owners stating that they do not have an issue with the subject accessory building. VARIANCE GUIDELINES: Variances give the City flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances exist pertaining to a property, such as size, • shape, topography, or location which will deprive the property owner from privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. Prior to granting a Variance, the Planning Commission B-9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2009-00195—JEFFREY TRICKETT • April 22, 2009 Page 3 must make legal five findings which substantiate that the Variance meets the intent and limitations set forth in Section 17.04.040 of Development Code (See exhibit F). SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a Variance for a 5 foot reduction in the required building separation for an existing 70-square foot attached storage building. While staff feels that it is justifiable to approve an up to 2 foot Minor Exception due to the building separation inconsistencies within the tract, staff seeks Planning Commission direction before recommending any greater reduction. The Commission should consider in its analysis whether or not the applicant's request meets the purpose and intent of the guidelines for approving a Variance. The Commission should also consider that the granting of the Variance for the reduced building separation will become a precedent that could be cited by other applicants or residents who are seeking building permits for accessory structures or additions that do not meet specific standards in the Development Code and/or applicable specific plans. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot plus radius of the project site. A total of 12 notices were mailed. No direct public comments to staff have been received. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission 1) consider the applicant's request for a Variance and 2) provide direction and input to staff to come back to a future Planning Commission meeting with a prepared Resolution with findings supporting or denying the applicant's request based upon the Commission's direction. Respectfully submitte , ( / / Jam: Troyer, AICP Plann ng Director JT:TV\ds Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Site Photographs Exhibit C - Chronology of Applicant— City Communications Exhibit D - Applicant Letter Requesting Variance Exhibit E - Neighbor Letters of Support Exhibit F - Development Code Variance Requirements • B-10 S Bfsu'1 0 N Street- I w • � i, • 3 -y Il Yrgm g Q' Pro?oser� c�in:olio" y y 1 1' -Per COV2-✓`- .. .. 6u, .... ... , hi i a ,c e W M� .2iiiis R.3 .i .5 11t J L Z7 I■ y 0 \' r �v l O ESL -i' o .tS� -Is if3 I X ' io' � l• 1 . • arc I-. . . rL1 F w 7- L4 i z Z D GKfi� V 7 i3 UJ;1 W. 3"till JE11c ttQL.R.E -r8 pr:ail✓aj/ 13'x5. I'Eu LAN ©h. . 97'-/: e Ig R rJ LW® CU C.14 tbG 9 itf LA gotta' ni — S lac We..iK `$` W;df(C. I r , PELICAi ® T.►vg Lo-6- 5;.a--e- • GZZO `4' EXHIBIT A PC .-D9 81, ...,,:'''''' .;,.,..„ , .,..., . ,-,•&T:..4, ' eVi.'-qf - .' . '.: . '.. ''tr 4 ,, -',.•-.---4,,P,-7::::::.-- ■-..-.. ,..,:.. , , ' .:3 ''''' .`tT,',;Ri'i,1Fui' . ..-.c71 -... ,-,,i-,. • , i I- . - . - „. 1'''' ''' ''.''' ' ' \ 1 I , . ° ‘, ,, • .0,,,,,,,,, , , .„ -e' 1:11h, .r .... ,. ,4 ,... .A . ,,,,;;,. i _.._.,..,.. --,- •,-----'-'-':-----'- -'. - ' _ ,I ., •., . , .,. ti) ,,.. . , , .":,..;,;-•,:', i- 1 r. '''' ;:'!14 • . , - ' .:4,1 fA,' . , ' ! .:.... ;=-1 ' • tritsti,..,,,,„:„...,.:..,...:',-.';'-'',!.,..:, ... ...— ., , ,,,,-,...., : , 1 , ,,,.., I ! ' . ! , , 12,...,4,•,,. A,,,..f. • , , . ..,*.„..;,..,....,.....„ ::. witl.:71,'. . ,,....1 771 WATA , , •-.,,, ! , ,-,..'.*......4 ,4. ..... .. 1.2,,‘(--.- :iv 'A i --.1.... — :;',,,r : - '',■',:,. i \A:4 .4f44.' •If,.:., ....- :t..24 . -., -: .., . .,....-: • , ,f, •'-`,..:','', .•,-• .., -... .,'",:. 11 ' tir,:;•:, ,.._.. - '"--.-__:"T-2::-.,-;.---::::_-1',-,.71"..,:n-c,::4.,,,,,,..:u-,,i_,.! -,‘Bya.twf,;:;:,.:, - • .. . . . • ,„...,,.. ilLit,_1'.',., . - 7_'-' .-77:-----..,-,-- , _ --- ' ,- .....,.:...1 .-.1.-,7•---..".':'-,--.,.;,-.',7,- , ' ., ,,-..k: ri„,,,,-• .-i-ijoiiii- ...,e...:.,-;-.e.....--,e4iffelp/Mt.,,,li - : . ,,..,:.•• 1.... f.6.4,4.- ''''''. . -"- - '--":-•.:::---'•'''.._:',7.---' .,, z.,.•`, , . . . \':X 4) s . • , - \ ';' " ,,'• lillt•A'.,t • C-. .. ‘P o ' ■,. ••- 0.,,i.'1,,SW;P,.. t,,----" ,'...:.•„;„ Fii$ ... -4-. • , V) . . . ,.,. -) ,'1,, . . cl, , .,....., k .4.,..... '':' •• ..b..:') -t.. i.. ',,)#:.!- 11' ':,=---..•`. ' -, I-.• ''.,:, , . . .. ., ...','''''.", •3:,5, •c)-...:c. :: •,,,',45;'," '..lir,' .. , .. ,,.. •, ;;;,:::;t' " . ..... • ...., , ,,,,,,,,, .,..,--:, _ _, .,. , ...,.. . .:. .F,:.:,=i .-.?,=; - , ...,,, „, . , ,, I . L; •!'743i.-^'• _ • ;: ': :::%. ,i,••,., •. I hi:,.%;.-0'-, .1',;,,■.'2 .11,1,,Ili''Ir7' .7,'",gr'',;,;,..1, -,6•••,.t0'',..0.,',3641,f/L..r'Fil.,,e' -. .., '..• .., ,' c.;4....,4,4.•: ,Z5 f ,-”' •'4-....7... 1.."----. ':-.•'...'.47.7'',";--.*':'• 4., ..4. -: ,-,.............,,,c,,,,i,,r,-'..:P- . P..T ,,,'I,4:24.;,4''.4 J1P-.. 4::.,,..4'4,1,.. .... , •,„,;-•-l'e0o.--:OtA..,-41 -''.J. ,-, • • .-;. 14,.,„.,-,4- r,,A, ,1,,.4; ,,,`■•!.1'. ,.; i., -. •-•:;:-., ... ,'•:.-.-1 :";-' ';:.-f,Y",,•Vc;e+,'4.7 kii'.;1..,-,:,-.1.',..'-;.',.;i,-...*, '.. - A-,Y.'41 ':':j;'''-';.,Lt.'.,:.0:'.:Le'i:',W,,-,L::,;-,,-..,,,1 -,r, . „.,,I,;•, 0....!1,...!.,.:1:: : :•`-qi,'' .e..,..,. ,,.t-,,..!..,...,,N.., ‘, ,,,-;0..',14,,1 1..5;44 ,,.5. ,,. , I 4.. c-I ;:..."33.i.'''..1.:" .41--g.!„,,o1.... A.,1...-,,:. 4".'A.J4,.7,. , A,4,... ... . .k,-!'",-..-'''-..."--?..1.,•`',:''!',..,','•':',,t•-•.,.'",.' ."vg-;"P.,' ' ; ,1!....e--, ..- -5.4;.1...; ''1,.'-..iA'; N .'" 11 il : 4. ., .,-..-;ig.", 9.,/ ...„..,.- ..:.•,...—.. ..-,,.,4 IV, --- ,2' ■rill• ,E-,.. :-._., ... - . r,•,,f!,;3,f,. .;;',..••,.,4---t, '1,.... gam .,. ..." '_•',..•-;',,,,..',''',' . -:' ., r.g'l'•i L.,,..-.L.L,,-- ..,-..,,j, i.,.., ',,k: ,::..,,,ft„ ,, .,. 7,' , .,_•;A,.,,.,. .,...„, ..;::,....,„ki„:... 1.;.,,.„.,-.„,- i ,,r,,_ .., .4.,".„.". ,0. .-'4, 1 .,.... ''•.'..4'..'p...4."..'„ . ,. 1,,0'j'i, '',.-;,,I,'.'•-.9,1 ..-)' MI . • -,...1‘1,,t IL - . ... . ,-,,- ...,: ',, '.,:c'" I .'''. -.,i'.f',..•iii ..".. I N:'-',,,,',".',"-'4,,,,,,-;•?,,,i,., . .,',.':..-,:',,'' ‘,.. • IN ■•■'V.T41.."''` ,-1,,,,i • 'I ,';''' '•,i 4; : !.',1!.3.4,.1.,..)Wii.'-':;"^.-14'!:::-+IiiM,N111::■Vt.i'M.1.4,44,,,t.J1,74.10;-,- -7:1 -;‘P,',•--4,!.‘•=i;4, :111 , ..:,1P,:miltr.,..„t':''', '--:.:1 •vc.a;•;',...,•tvi„.,:;•4„,ii:z:iri":1',..o,„41:?:-,•,,.:f•••.i.'.', 40,44 ".. ,.-'.' .! :„.:‘,,,i..,., ,117.11• ' .'..' - .*.'-',"::',1,0'.i•V,'Y''''.-'tP. ' ':‘'-': '..':;''':''''':z''''',1" 1-1.C.:f,,,%•''',13...."::!‘:...'1. .',7•-•14--2,q ,_-',..: 'I .., ,,..,, •. . ';'.'.if:.'..44,,, 'r. , i'.1'.':'''' '-.%,,,,,.''' ',,,,,,i,■•0 ,4.,,,j,L43'''' ..' .... . .„,_ ..,.,,,,,..,:..,:,,,,, .,. ,:,,,,,.10...,AV:rpk-oilpi..or,-..,,r:-.„..,,,,i-5.,.--,,,,;44-aW.;c,•-•.?....8.-::41.1 -:... ''mm -,' . , .,,,,,,,:,,,,, ,, ,,,',0.J.s.,.-,,,,,,.4•40.0%'?;'''Nfi,"...4';'-',7;t4•.'"i'-':.14:4,-;:,';','Vq$,j.,,,,--' s.:,..':'..13a '.;-:.•• '''',`•:-' .- .-..:;,,i-' . •".‘ ..-,..--'%V.kki14,;N'4cv,Y.',,'\9-4 ., ...' " . ' .'161•7•• - .,...4,FPW;e,`,".,.,.`,: ,•,,. .4:. ',,..,,' , ,.',0,;:•::Iii.,k.,;':. ••,';'.: ,!,..-'',. c=. ..,.,,---!_tr,;.'4:...-,..z;?1,0::1-14, 4V.i.,,,,..,-.6:.6., t.,, .,..-,•• -'04-,-,-," '. -......:14?;;%eig'.q.`t• -''''' ' •---',Iir ''.'44 .,-,',-,., g4' .1.1,:,, ,‘,'',?-'-'•:-..',1-•".4.4.":;Ait-" '''-.4■174- '' ;1.1111 , .' r ';',I4-1.- ,..,,.;4'-iiiii■S'',.,' ''."'' 'r '''"7•.;,;10.-,. !!'t,...;,,t,atl ...,,- li ''::-.!7...A.I.,..'#'04-,.'i "..;',.;-.,.. -,,t,', t-, - -- - 0••• , 1_,k. r...,. '• . ‘,.- ..1,,1, ii 1 ..;: ',.. 'f, ' 'Y t.,:: . ..• EXHIBIT B rei. .1 ..., tw.* :, ,...gg B-1 2 t 21:9101, PC r r. " .q5-arP r `Yr 3t� - Y ti f ,i.: ill. 1 • 0 j 77 tI fit$ �q 7 �' 7'il 4tJ d 0 I t 3 y, Q 51 ' ill 6 • 11} , ' 1 cif^ - • iL,.•-••...„______di ;it.it • L.y; 151 ,...,. 11,...,....: E:::!.p.....-.....,1..'•.,.,,.. . J T Ag - t F � « 1x y .t 0.f r !! L � S ' : A ... I ' xlw r..1i L.1 — 4�e{1. t{ _... t � i 1A s $ J ` e• ,+ 4,':V...-...:- y i llt 4{ 1 It �>rti yFy,�tm �.- CHRONOLOGY for !I'� 13755 PELICAN Rancho Cucamonga, California CODE SECTIONS: DESCRIPTION: Section 105 CBC Permits required �l Section 106 CBC Plans and specifications Section 108 CBC Applicable fees Section 109 CBC Inspections required Section 115 CBC Unsafe building or structures CHRONOLOGY: Brief History: Three new structures underway in the backyard. All appear under 120 sq. ft., two appear within 5' of property wall and one is attached to side of house. DATE: ACTION: April 22, 2008 Complaint made by Building Inspector, Ray Slater who observed the construction while in the neighborhood. Stop Work notice posted; thirty days to obtain permits June 9, 2008 Planning denied permit request;.exceeds lot coverage. • June 10, 2008 New pictures taken to show all structures. New structures added since original inspection date of 4/21/08. New structure appears to be a fireplace. Roof sheathing added to original structure. June 12, 2008 "Letter of Notice" sent advising owners to obtain permits by 7/7/08. July 7, 2008 Owner sent letter to Mayor Kurth justifying the structures. • Second "Stop Work Notice" posted. July 8, 2008 "Final Notice" sent; final compliance date of 7/28/08. July 14, 2008 Letter received from owner to Jim Waters stating his case for the structures. • July 17, 2008 Second complaint received regarding patio without permit. Plans for patio currently in plan review. July 22, 2008 Second letter to Jim Waters from the owner. August 22, 2008 Letter from owner sent to City Planner, James Troyer. September 18, 2008 $200.00 citation issued to the owner and a repeat of the admonition of stop work and obtain permits. • November 4, 2008 Discussed complaint with Jim Waters. Need to speak with City Prosecutor regarding this issue. EXHIBIT C B-14 CF cao 1 • January 9, 2009 Jim Waters received letter from Mr. Trickett Via e-mail. January 14, 2009 Letter sent to Mr. Trickett (USPS) from Jim Waters acknowledging receipt of the e-mail from Mr. Trickett. January 20, 2009 Bench warrant issued for leaving the office conference and not returning (see attached comments from Greg Palmer). January 27, 2009 Mr. Trickett went to court and had the bench warrant resended. Next arraignment on 2/10/09. February 10, 2009 Per John Thomas, request was made to postpone arraignment. Jamar (CP) was informed by me to request arraignment continuance. The following day, 2/11/09, Jamar contacted me confirming continuance request. February 18, 2009 Pre-trial for Trickett set for 3/17/09. • • • • B-15 7 • March 4, 2009 Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, 13755 Pelican Drive — Rear Side yard Storage Shed Variance To Whom It May Concern, This letter will provide information on subject Variance request. The project was based on homeowners understanding of Ordinance 772 regarding accessory structures and additions. Our intent was to build a storage shed in the rear side yard area with 5 Ft. set-back per requirements and under the stated 16 Ft. height limit. The shed is 17 Ft. from the adjacent home on our right. As part of our planning, we have tried to make all work match the original house architecture and appearance...as such, we elected to anchor this shed to the side of our home and use the same stucco and roofing as original construction to make the shed appear to be a natural part of the home vs. a dropped in Pre-Fabricated shed one would buy from Home Depot. Unfortunately, we did not see the portion of ordinance which requires any structure anchored or attached to the primary dwelling to be treated differently than free-standing accessory structures. As we understood this storage shed to be a qualifying "non-permitted" structure, we had moved forward and completed construction. Therefore, we must request approval for a Variance so that we may keep this shed in place vs. having to demolish. I have attached some pictures of other homes in our development that have placed typical Pre- Fabricated Store Bought Sheds in their rear side yards as well as a photo of our shed. I believe anyone would agree that our shed was well executed and is very aesthetically pleasing. We feel that we have benefited the community with this type of improvement and not harmed anyone. Thank you for your favorable consideration. Sincere) , y;,r/ Je rey G. Trickett 13755 Pelican Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 • (909) 463-6277— Home EXHIBIT D pc Li o B-16 • Letters of Support From Neighboring Homeowners • • !� EXHIBIT pc I-4 B17 rom ca,e OZ2- GSA 2- `�� Fat Oz_i 24-61 August 22, 2008 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive - Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue — 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. • Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings Sincerely, .AI, cA- - 13790 .Th.011 c.A14 dive 1A■ACtin c_avuko { g173cj Signature B-18 FaccALIE- 0 az 25-7 • August 22, 2008 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue—13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Wham It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area • Storage Buildings Sincerely, M RrC Gri`41'5 Signature • B-19 August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue — 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, t'S 4c Likk )3-/70 sear,a.i t ( 11 av^c /1 0 kAAG a oiNC, `ir739 X Signature • B-20 if on August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue— 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, i372s- itt/r.2,v2,4'. /Q-42/1/14/i0 /'GKli�. K17 . 9/739 7/2 Pr Signature • B-21 z� f 022_651 5( Z7 7 August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue - 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, ! V762 s ?e,1,Can Deli Q__QetcJtJ Cue molt e. - y 7 x t Signature • B-22 ' `y # c2 ( zX42_ August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue — 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met With Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area • Storage Buildings • Sincerely, 40 1 ietnamni • [osx0 t . • V . C.)0\ %c' (& 'I q • Signature • • B-23 71z�� August 22, 2008 07th • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue — 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, /A 12F-?,v �r-c&C ,72-G (TI- Q/737 Signature • B-24 pry o 1U I August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue — 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, (diKeR k ( o 7 D pii,r '15(Lot_ �� fax MO 0 a) 04- 63i7? ,� X. r /. . Acs. Signature • • B-25 Fog gy August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue—13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, M \� \rv\ N &.VU,tot ik gabs 2- (3lkc.ctrnn PIAU' Itanc■a Cute( vyto4q,. 04 , 9 139 Signature • • B-26 August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue — 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: • Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, L16101." 4 e_ Ea MDh (.0 055 Puri 5i m a_ P Rcunclub W ca_xtil5 q_ -) 611 739 (`tot) to ok r X r. -t 1 _ j/J� 1 Signature _v , , • • • B-27 August 22, 2008 • City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga; CA 91729 RE: Trickett, Building Permit Issue — 13755 Pelican Drive, R. Cucamonga, CA 91739 To Whom It May Concern: I am a neighbor of Jeffrey Trickett as noted below and my home is within 660 Ft. of Mr. Trickett's property. This letter is to advise the City that I have met with Mr. Trickett, reviewed his plans and current building activity in the rear yard area of his home. Based on my review, I have no issues with Mr. Trickett's planned improvements at 13755 Pelican Drive, consisting specifically of: Covered Patio & Outdoor BBQ/Living Area Storage Buildings • Sincerely, I3iLD' ✓J�s 1 ?� 1 Signature • • • B-28 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code • Section 17.04.040 B. Public Hearing. The City Planner shall hold a public hearing on each application for a Non- • Construction Conditional Use Permit. The hearing and notice shall be set and notice shall be given as prescribed in Section 17.02.110 Public Hearings. C. Revisions/Modifications. Revisions or modifications of Non-Construction Conditional Use Permits can be requested by the applicant and approved or denied by the City Planner. Further, the City Planner may periodically review, modify, or revoke a Non-Construction Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the procedures of Sections 17.04.030.G. Section 17.04.040 - Variances A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Section is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size, shape, topography, or location deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same district, (consistent with the objectives of the • Development Code). Any Variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which such property is situated. B. Authority. 1. The Planning Commission is authorized to grant Variances to achieve these purposes as prescribed in accordance with the procedure in this Section, with respect to development standards such as but not limited to fences, walls, hedges, screening, and landscaping; site area, width, and depth; front, rear, and side yards; coverage; height of structures; landscaping; usable open space; performance standards; and on- street and off-street parking and loading facilities and impose reasonable conditions. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, • open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion; requirements for periodical review by the Planning Commission; and such other conditions as the Commission may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses; to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare; and to enable the Commission to make the findings required by Section 17.04.040-E. 2. The power to grant Variances does not extend to use regulations. Flexibility to the use regulations is provided pursuant to Section 17.04.030 (Conditional Use Permit) and Section 17.02.040 (Use Determination), • C. Application. An application for a Variance shall be filed with the Planning Division in a form prescribed by the City Planner. D. Public Hearing. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on each application for a Variance. The hearing shall be set and notice given as prescribed in Section 17.02,110 (Public Hearings). E. Findings. 1. Before granting a Variance, the Planning Commission shall make the following findings that the circumstances prescribed below do apply: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent • • with the objectives of this Code. • EXHIBIT 7.04-4 6/99 • l� -ca B-29 Rancho Cucamonen Development Code Section 17.04.050 • b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do • not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the • vicinity. 2. Parking. The Planning Commission may grant a variance in order that some or all of the required parking spaces be located off-site, including locations in other local jurisdictions, or that in-lieu fees or facilities be provided instead of the required parking spaces, if both the following conditions are met: a. The Variance will be an incentive to, and a benefit for, the nonresidential development. b. The Variance will facilitate access to nonresidential development by patrons of public transit facilities, particularly guideway facilities. F: New Applications Following Denial. Following the denial or revocation of a Variance application, no application for the same or substantially the same Variance on the same or substantially the same site shall be filed within one year of the date of denial or revocation. Section 17.04.050 - Minor Exception A. Purpose and Intent. In order to provide flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the • Development Code, selected site development regulations and applicable off-street parking requirements are subject to Administrative review and adjustment in those circumstances where such adjustment will be compatible with adjoining uses and consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan and intent of this Code. B. Authority. 1. To achieve these purposes, the City Planner is authorized to grant a Minor Exception for the following reasons in accordance with the procedures in this Section and to impose reasonable conditions. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requirements for special yards, open spaces, buffers, fences, walls, and screening; requirements for installation and maintenance of landscaping and erosion control measures; requirements for street improvements and dedications, regulation of vehicular ingress and egress and traffic circulation; regulation of signs; regulation of hours or other characteristics of operation; requirements for maintenance of landscaping and other improvements; establishment of development schedules or time limits for performance or completion; requirements for periodical review by the City Planner; and such other conditions as the City Planner may deem necessary to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses, to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare and to enable the City Planner tq make the findings required by Section 17.04.050-E. a. Fence Height. In any district, the maximum height of any fence, wall, hedge or equivalent screening may be increased by a maximum 2 feet, where the topography of sloping sites or a difference in grade between adjoining sites warrants such increase in height to maintain a level of privacy, or to maintain effectiveness of screening, as generally provided by such fence, wall, hedge, or screening in similar circumstances. • 17.04-5 6/99 B-30 . RESOLUTION NO. 09-19 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2009-00195, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED BUILDING-TO-BUILDING SEPARATION FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET IN ORDER TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 70-SQUARE FOOT STORAGE STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IS LOCATED WITHIN, THE LOW RESIDENTIAL (L) DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AND IS PART OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TRACT THAT WAS DEVELOPED USING THE OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LOCATED AT 13755 PELICAN DRIVE - APN: 226-512-38. A. Recitals. 1. Jeffrey Trickett has filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2009-00195, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 22, 2009, and continued to May 13, 2009, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and determined that subject Variance was in conformance with the five required findings and voted to have staff draft a Resolution of Approval to be acted upon at the next Planning • Commission meeting. 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 public hearing on April 22, 2009, and May 13, 2009, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to an existing single-family residence at 13755 Pelican Drive with a lot size of 6,753 square feet; and b. There are existing residences to the north, east, and west of the site and Banyan Street to the south; and c. The original subdivision was developed using the Optional Development Standards in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Optional Development Standards require a building separation of 20 feet between dwelling units on adjacent lots; and • d. The applicant is requesting a 5 foot reduction in the required 20 foot building separation requirement in order to permit an existing 70-square foot attached storage building. 13-31 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-19 VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 —JEFFREY TRICKETT May 27, 2009 Page 2 • 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objective of this Code, in that, without a reduction in the 20 foot building separation requirement, the applicant would be required to demolish the existing 70-square foot storage structure, which would place an unnecessary hardship on the applicant and require the loss of completed property improvements. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone, in that the applicant's house is a part of Tract 14759-3, which was developed with a large number of veranda roofs that encroach 2 to 3 feet into the required 20 foot • building separation. With the prevalence of nonconforming building separations in the neighborhood, the applicant's request is not out of keeping with the development pattern of the area c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in same zone, in that the Development Code permits encroachments into side yard setbacks for minor detached structures and equipment. Specifically, detached storage structures of.less than 120 square feet and less than 6 feet in height are permitted to encroach into the side yard setback. Because of the limited size of the • structure (70 square feet), attaching the structure to the main dwelling should not preclude the applicant from locating it in is side yard setback and utilizing the reduced setback privileges that are applicable to minor detached storage structures. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone, in that storage structures of less than 120 square feet are an accepted use on residential lots. e. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity, in that the minor reduction in the building separation requirement will have a negligible effect, if any, on the neighboring residences or property values because the 70-square foot storage structure matches (roofing material, stucco, and color) the existing house and is of similar construction to the other houses in the area. Additionally, the applicant has obtained a letter of support from the adjacent property owner. 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 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use limitations and includes variances for reductions in building separation requirements. Because the applicant is only requesting a Variance for the reduction in the required building separation requirement, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. • B-32 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-19 VARIANCE DRC2009-00195 —JEFFREY TRICKETT • May 27, 2009 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval for a 5 foot reduction in the 20 building separation standard for an existing 70-square foot storage structure, located at 13755 Pelican Drive —APN: 0226-512-38. 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's Regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MAY 2009. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • BY: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman ATTEST: James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of May 2009, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • 13-33 • "4,4, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT iti- .6 DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: DRC2009-00195 SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: JEFFREY TRICKETT . LOCATION: 13755 PELICAN DRIVE —APN: 0226-512-38 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 0 Completion Date General Requirements 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/ agents,officers,or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorneys fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. . 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 09-19, Standard / /_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The /_/_ project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: • . a) Notice of Exemption - $50 X B. Time Limits . 1. Variance, approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not / /_ • commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. SC-12-08 1 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2009-00195 Std Cond 5-271.doc B34 Project NoDRC2009-00195 Completion Date • C. Site Development —/ /— 1. 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, Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and the Community Plan. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions /_/_ of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. • 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/ /_ State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all / / other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. • • • 2 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2009-00195 Std Cond 5-271.doc 835 Planning Commission Meeting of SAW°/ RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET Please print your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS CITY ITEM 1. n0 `\\ 2. /pi / /GC �. 3. go 7 Cc, /614.-77 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.