Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-27-Agenda Packet-PC-HPC le THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ;CHO WORKSHOP OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Cao"o" AUGUST 27, 2014 - 7:00 PM* TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Howdyshell_ Vice Chairman Fletcher Munoz_ Wimberly— Oaxaca_ • II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker,making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. WORKSHOP REVIEW OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC-Site plan review of a 17-lot subdivision totaling 8.32 acres (16 lots for residential purposes and 1 lot for existing church) currently located within the Very Low (VL) Development District with a request for a General Plan Amendment (DRC2013-00961) and an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2013-00962) to change the project site to Low (L) Residential (church site to remain Very Low Residential) for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APN: 0227-061-03 and 82. Related files: General Plan • Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 rEs� IV. ADJOURNMENT 1 t PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA ;tmm AUGUST 27, 2014 ;`�' Page 2 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,or my designee,hereby certify that a true,accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 21,2014,at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, 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." . Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. 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, Califomia 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 r i ® PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AGENDA �NCHo M AUGUST 27, 2014 Cucr►edoxc Page 3 Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,533 for all 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, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us N. VicinityMap CommissionPlanning Workshoo August 27 , 2014 L ' L.1 IJ- C C- r m a o t C v = .. a = = m t � v I a e 2E MIR L . . 19th St Base Line Base Line J Church Church Foothill Foothill N L:AArnow E Arrow 1000" J rsey t 3 I 8th00 oG w i o --.. W w C 6th W 6th ; Y A 4th _ g 4th * Meeting Location: City Hall/Council Cham 10500 Civic Center Drip Item A: Workshop Review of the site plan for SUBTT18936 STAFF REPORT PLVSM14GDUARr*flM Date: August 27, 2014 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Subject: WORKSHOP REVIEW DRC2014-00625 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC - Site plan review of a 17 lot subdivision (SUBTT18936) totaling 8.32 acres (16 lots for residential purposes and 1 lot for an existing church) (currently located in the Very Low (VL) Development District with a request for a General Plan Amendment (DRC2013-00961) and an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2013-00962) to change the project site to Low (L) Residential (church site to remain Very Low Residential) for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -APN: 0227-061-03 and 82. Related Cases: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962. PROJECT PROPOSAL OVERVIEW Storm Western Development has submitted an application to • subdivide an 8.32 acre site for the development of 16 single-family residences. The site is made of two parcels of land: one parcel owned by Cross and Crown Lutheran Church and a second parcel to the south that the applicant has purchased. There has been resident opposition to the proposal and the applicant is seeking Planning Commission input prior to making any additional site layout changes. The project site is currently zoned Very Low (VL) residential and is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The narrowness of the site precludes developing a double-loaded street that meets the required 200-foot lot depth. The applicant has requested to change the zoning designation to Low (L) residential which requires 100-foot lot depths. The existing single-family residences to the east were developed prior to the City's incorporation and are within the Low (L) zoning district. The lot sizes average 7,500 square feet, below the 15,000 average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The applicant's project proposal is based on the premise that the zone change will allow for a density transition from the smaller lots to the east (L) to the larger lots to the north (VL). The new lots would also be compatible to the existing residences to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which are on lots between 15,000 and 16,000 square feet. Neighborhood Meeting #1: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on April 14, 2014. The following concerns were raised at the meeting: 1. Opposition was raised to the proposed street connection to Pinon Street to the east. Residents indicated that opening up Pinon Street, which currently dead ends into the project site, would greatly increase traffic from vehicles seeking a shorter route to Etiwanda Avenue. 2. The property owners from the Toll Brothers development to the north (along Carnesi Drive) were against the demolition of the wall along the north side of the project site (south side of Carnesi Drive) to develop a public street providing access to the project. Property owners indicated that the A— 1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00625—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 2 wall, although across the street and not part of their property, enhances their streetscape, neighborhood identification and property values. 3. The property owners to the north were also against the proposed change in land use designation from Very Low (25,000 square foot average lots) to Low (15,000 square foot lots). Residents stated that the land use change would increase traffic and decrease their home values. Residents also noted that they did not want smaller lots and homes facing their larger lot homes along the north side of Carnesi Drive. Desian Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 6, 2014. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 residents from the Toll Brothers development. The Toll Brothers residents were in opposition to the project taking access from Carnesi Drive and the removal of a portion of the existing wall on the south side of Carnesi Drive. Note: Since that meeting staff has determined that the wall was constructed by Toll Brothers with the construction of the development to the north and that the wall was constructed on the property line dividing the church property from the City right-of-way. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee recommended that the project be redesigned to take the resident concerns into consideration. Progress Meeting: The applicant presented two updated project layouts to the Planning Manager and staff on June 3, 2014. One option included a gated entrance from Camesi Drive and the other was designed with a gated entrance from Etiwanda Avenue. Approximately 25 members of the Cross and Crown Lutheran church attended the impromptu meeting and indicated their support of the applicant. The church members voiced concern that the Toll Brothers residents to the north were forcing the applicant to relocate access for the project site from Carnesi Drive to Etiwanda Avenue. The church members stressed that changing the access to Etiwanda Avenue will require the church to sell additional land to the applicant, which the church members stated would be detrimental to their interests by limiting future church growth on their remaining property. The church members wished to make sure that their collective voice was heard. Neighborhood Meeting #2: A second neighborhood meeting was held on June 19, 2014. The developer presented an updated layout which greatly decreased the amount of wall to be removed from 642 feet to 60 feet. The new layout created a cul-de-sac with an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) gate instead of a through connection to Pinon Street and relocated the 4 lots facing Carnesi Drive to face the new interior street. The residents of the Toll Brothers development remained in opposition to the new layout not wanting any portion of the wall removed in order to provide access to Camesi Drive. Residents stated that the access should be taken from Etiwanda Avenue through the church property. The church members in attendance raised concerns that accessing the site through the church parking lot would potentially encumber the church's future expansion plans. Community Correspondence: Staff has received a number of letters from community members in support and in opposition to the project. Response letters were sent on June 26, 2014, outlining where the project was in the review process and the upcoming steps in the approval process. A— 2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT ® DRC2014-00625—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 3 WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Staff will provide an overview of the project and the applicant will present the evolution of the project layout and discuss why they believe that the latest layout addresses the majority of the concerns raised at the neighborhood meetings and provides a transition in density from the smaller lot homes to the east to the larger lot homes to the north. Below is an overview of the key points identified by staff regarding each layout: Layout#1 Original layout: double-loaded street with access from Carnesi Drive and vehicle connection to Pinon Street: 1. Connection to Pinon Street: Direct connection from Pinon Street to Carnesi Drive. 2. Development Code Compliance: Requires a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from Very Low (VL) to Low (L) Development District. Complies with all Development Code requirements for Low(L) Development District. 3. Wall Opening: Requires 642 linear feet of wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive to be removed ® in order to place 4 lots facing Carnesi Drive and to construct new street. 4. Fire Safety: Provides full Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) to the existing development to the east. 5. Pros: a) Best layout in terms of providing a density transition between the existing smaller lot development to the east and the larger lot development to the north. b) Provides for a residential street scene along Carnesi Drive with houses on either side of the street. c) Conforms to all Development Code requirements for the Low (L) Development District. d) Provides for full vehicle, pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to Pinon Street. 6. Cons: a) Is opposed by the residents to the east as it will open Pinon Street and increase traffic through existing development. b) Is opposed by the residents to the north who do not want any of the wall removed or a new street connection to Camesi Drive. • A—3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00625—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 4 Layout#2 Applicant preferred layout: double-loaded street with access from Camesi Drive (cul-de-sac): 1. Connection to Pinon Street: Eliminates the connection to Pinon Street by creating a cul-de-sac with an emergency vehicle gate. 2. Development Code .Compliance: Requires a General Plan Amendment to change land use designation from Very Low (VL) to Low (L) Development District. Complies with all Development Code requirements for Low (L) Development District except it will require an exception to allow the wall along Carnesi Drive to encroach into the front yard setback. 3. Wall Opening: Reduces the wall removal from 642 feet to 60 linear feet. This design permits the minimum amount of wall demolition while permitting access to the site from Camesi Drive. 4. Smaller lot houses facing Carnesi Drive: Relocates the 4 houses facing Camesi Drive to face the interior street. 5. Fire Safety: Allows for the creation of a secondary EVA point at Pinon Street. 6. Pros: a) Addresses the neighborhood concern regarding vehicle connection to Pinion Street, greatly reducing traffic concerns. b) Partially addresses neighborhood concern regarding the wall removal along Carnesi Drive by greatly reducing the linear feet of wall to be removed. c) Provides EVA through Pinon Street. 7. Cons: a) Creates a street scene along Camesi Drive in which the existing houses on the north side of Camesi Drive face the sides of the new lots, creating a disjointed street scene (existing Toll Brothers' homeowners prefer to face wall). b) Creates two lots (Lots 4 and 5) with awkward rear yard/side yard alignments and creates two flag lots (Lots 9 and 10) with an awkward front yard layout. c) Does not fully address resident concerns regarding wall removal. Layout#3 1. Wall Opening: Requires a 72 foot vehicle/pedestrian entrance along with a 15 foot wide equestrian trail entrance for a total of 87 feet of wall to be removed. A-4 J PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT • DRC2014-00625—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 5 2. Development Code Compliance: Complies with all Development Code standards including Development District designation of Very Low (VL). 3. Street Design: Places a new street directly adjacent to the side yards of the existing residences to the east and will have the new residences facing the property line wall of these residences rather than the front yards of other residences in contrast to the proposed double-loaded street. 4. Lot Layout: Will create lots that are nearly twice as deep as the required 200 foot lot depth, which is approximately 32 percent larger than required. 5. Fire Safety: The layout does not provide adequate turning radius to provide an EVA access to Pinon Street. 6. Pros: a) Meets all development code requirements and is in conformance with the development district designation. b) Addresses neighborhood concerns regarding lot size compatibility with the existing residences to the north. • 7. Cons: a) Creates a street scene along Camesi Drive in which the existing houses on the north side of Camesi Drive face the sides of the new lots, creating a disjointed street scene (existing homeowners prefer to face wall). b) Creates a single-loaded street that faces the existing residences to the east. c) Creates lots that are nearly twice as deep as required by the Development Code which will be out of character with all lots in the surrounding area. Potentially creates lots that will be a maintenance burden with respect to water consumption because of the extra lot depth. d) Does not provide EVA to the existing development to the east, leaving only one access point from Victoria Street to the south. e) Does not fully address neighborhood concerns regarding removal of the existing wall along Camesi Drive and traffic concerns. Layout#4 Access from Etiwanda Avenue: 1. Street Design: Creates a new street off of Etiwanda through the church's existing parking lot and • requires the church to sell additional land (1/2 acre) and reduces future church growth potential. A— 5 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00625—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 6 2. Development Code Compliance: Requires a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Very Low (VL) to Low (L) Development District. Complies with all Development Code requirements for the Low(L) Development District. 3. Fire Safety: Creates a street depth of over 600 feet without a secondary point of access in violation of Fire Department protocol. 4. Lot Layout: Creates an awkward street layout with two cul-de-sacs and multiple flag lots. 5. Pros: a) Eliminates the necessity that any of the wall along Camesi Street be removed. 6. Cons: a) Creates an awkward street layout with two cul-de-sacs and multiple flag lots. b) Requires that the church sell additional land in order to create the new street, greatly reducing the church's future growth potential. c) Does not provide EVA to the existing development to the east, leaving only one access point froi,. Victoria Street to the south. STAFF COMMENTS Planning Department: Staff believes that Layout#1 (full street connection to Pinon Street) provides the superior overall design when the neighborhood's concerns are not taken into consideration. It provides the following design advantages: • Transition in density from the smaller lots to the east to the larger lots to the north • Provides for a pleasant street scene with a double-loaded street on both Camesi Drive and Street W. • New Street 'A' provides for full vehicle access to Pinon Street, thereby improving circulation and emergency vehicle access. Taking the resident's concerns into consideration, staff is supportive of Layout #2 (cul-de-sac at Pinon Street) which addresses many of the neighborhood concerns while preserving many of the positive elements of Layout#1. This includes the following: • Provides a double-loaded street that provides a density transition between the smaller lots to the east to the larger lots to the north Provides an EVA point at the terminus of Pinon Street • . Greatly reduces the linear feet of wall needed to be removed. A— 6 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT • DRC2014-00625—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 7 Staff's main concern with Layout #2 is that it creates awkward lot alignments. Lots 4 and 5 create an awkward rear yard/side yard alignment and Lots 9 and 10 create a flag lot with a visually shared front yard. Staff recommends that the lot count be reduced from 16 to 14 to address these issues and have Lot 4 face the new Street"A." Layouts #3 (VL Development) and #4 (Etiwanda Access) both create issues that make them less than optimal. Layout#3 creates lots that are almost twice as deep as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan, does not provide EVA to Pinon Street (which is part of a large housing tract with only 1 point of vehicle access) and removes a greater section of the wall along Carnesi Drive. Layout #4 creates an awkward street layout with two cul-de-sacs and multiple flag lots. It also greatly inhibits any future church expansion by creating a new access road through the church's parking lot. Staff cannot support either of these layouts due to these shortcomings. Enaineerina Department Comments: 1. The existing wall on the south side of Carnesi Drive was constructed by Tract 16279, which is the single-family residential development along the north side of Camesi Drive. The City-maintained parkway along the south side of Camesi Drive is 12 feet wide, measured from the curb face. The face of the wall is 11 feet, 6 inches from the curb face. Therefore, the wall is mostly within the City right-of-way and partially on property owned by the Church. • 2. This site currently drains to the south, so all of the alternatives will need to show how developed runoff will be directed to a public street. Plans 1, 2 and 4 can connect surface drainage facilities directly to Pinon Street. Staff has not reviewed the drainage proposal for Plan 3. 3. The existing tracts to the east of this site contain 71 single-family lots with only one access, where Pecan Avenue intersects Victoria Street. All of the five interior streets were stubbed for future extension, but subsequent developments around them have cut off 5 of the 8 possible secondary access points. Staff supported Plan 1 because it provided secondary access to those existing lots for more than just emergency purposes. Of the alternatives presented, only Plan 3 lacks any opportunity for at least providing an emergency access. 4. Regarding the length of the "dead end" street in Plan 2, we allow cul-de-sacs up to 600 feet long. The cul-de-sac does not need to extend to the south property line, so this maximum can be met. We would require a drive approach for emergency access to Pinon Street, but the east side parkway could not be landscaped. The City will not maintain this area. 5. Etiwanda Avenue is designated a Collector Street in the General Plan. In the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the segment between Victoria Street and Highland Avenue is covered by Figure 5-24, which has a 48-foot pavement width. According to the City Street Design Policy, minimum intersection spacing along a Collector, from centerline to centerline, is 300 feet. Centerline spacing for Plan 3 is about 330 feet. This is acceptable. • A— 7 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00625—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 8 TRAFFIC STUDY The applicant has submitted a Traffic Study (Trames Solutions, Inc. (August 1, 2014). The study concludes that project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment is anticipated to have .a nominal impact to the surrounding roadway network. The nearest intersection to the project, Etiwanda Avenue/Camesi Drive, would expect to have 7 additional trips in the morning and 10 additional trips in . the evening due to the proposed project. The project is expected to add less than 100 trips per day to the surrounding roadway segments along Camesi Drive. The amount of project traffic added to the adjacent roadway segments and the nearest intersection would be nominal. Therefore, additional delays because of the proposed project are very minimal and are not anticipated to result in a significant traffic impact. CONCLUSION Considering good design principles, compatibility with the existing neighborhood, and logical development, staff suggests the Planning Commission focus on Layout #2 with the following adjustments: • Reduce the lot count from 16 to 14 so that the awkward rear yard/side yard alignment relationship between Lots 4 and 5 and Lot 3 is eliminated; and • Eliminate the flag lot design of Lots 9 and 10 and combine the lot area into one larger lot; and • The area of the former Lots 4 and 5 should be combined into one lot that faces Street 'A'. Respectfully submitted, i Candyce urnett Planning Manager CB:TV/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" -Applicant Presentation Package A—8 r ty THE CITY III") RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF ;CHONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 2014 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive - ---. .- -- — Rancho Cucamonga;California-------------FFE" --- .�.-- I. CALL TO ORDER OPledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Howdyshell_ Vice Chairman Fletcher_ Munoz_ Wimberly_ Oaxaca_ II.. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. O t HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 27, 2014 Page 2 III._ CONSENT-CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSIONAND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes dated August 13, 2014 B. Approval of Adjourned (Workshop) Minutes dated August 13, 2014 IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS/PLANNING C'OMMISSION.:'.• C-. —"S—ere-6 tion of the Historic Preservation/Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman Officer Positions D. Selection of the Commission Representatives for the Design Review Committee E. Selection of the Commission Representatives for the Trails Advisory Committee V. PUBLIE HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. F. ENVIRONMENTAL.ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2014-00378 — CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC -.A proposal to construct an industrial building of 120,624 square feet on a vacant parcel of about 240,000 square feet(5.5 acres)in the General Industrial(GI)District located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue;APN:0229-262-48. Related file: Development Review DRC2008-00185. An addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project for consideration. G. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19550 — RANCHO HAVEN, LP — A request to subdivide a parcel of about 87,120 square feet(2.0 acres), that is currently developed with two (2) commercial buildings, into two (2) parcels of 54,014 square feet (1.24 acres) and 33,106 square feet (0.76 acres) in the Industrial Park (IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay District(HAOD), located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP 99-53, Conditional Use Permit DRC2012-01193, and Minor Development Review DRC2010-00400. This action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315— Minor Land Divisions; APN: 0209-262-20. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA �Ho AUGUST 27, 2014 �` Page 3 H. TIME EXTENSION DRC2014-00471 - RC 66 PLAZA -A request for a time extension for Development Review DRC2007-00657 which expires on July 8, 2014, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road in the Mixed Use Development District at 8269 Foothill Boulevard; APNs: 0207-113-23 and 0207-113-24. Related Files: Design Review DRC2007=00657, Time Extension DRC2014-00623. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(c)(New Construction). Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. I. TIME EXTENSION DRC2014-00623 - RC 66 PLAZA -A request for a time extension for Variance DRC2008-00462 which expires on July 8, 2014 and is located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road in the Mixed Use Development • District at 8269 Foothill Boulevard; APNs: 0207-113-23 and 0207-113-24. Related Files: Design Review DRC2007-00657, Time Extension DRC2014-00471. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (A) (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. J. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00425 — MANNING HOMES — A review of 5 single-family residences that will be constructed in conjunction with a previously approved subdivision in the Very Low(VL)Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place—APN: 0225-181-73. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT18747, Variance DRC2014-00535, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536. On June 12,2012, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. K. VARIANCE DRC2014-00535—MANNING HOMES—A request for a reduction in the rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 for Lots 1 and 5,Tract 18747, in conjunction with a review of 5 single-family residences proposed for development on a previously approved subdivision in the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place—APN: 0225-181-73. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT18747, Design Review DRC2014-00425, and Minor • Exception DRC2014-00536. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 27, 2014 (�orrc� Page 4 L. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES—A request for an increase in the maximum wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 3 and 4,Tract 18747, in conjunction with a review of 5 single-family residences proposed for development on a previously approved subdivision in the Very Low(VL)Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place—APN: 0225- 181-73. Related files:Tentative Tract SUBTT18747, Design Review DRC2014-00425,and Variance DRC2014-00535. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION M. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT THE COMMISSION WILL IMMEDIATELY ADJOURN TO A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936—STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT IN THE TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM. 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,or my designee,hereby certify that a true,accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 21,2014,at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 10 -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 C HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CRAUGUST 27, 2014 cAc"orrc Page 5 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. A copy of.any.such materials_shouldalso be provided_to.the_S.ecretary_to.be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. 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 fee of$2,486 for all 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, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us VicinityMap o Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting AUGUST 27 , 2014 C "a to m E � 0 C I s I ID t _ € j CL C m 19th St Base Line Base Line t J 1 Church urch Foothill4a N 1 Fo hill Arrow E w I Arro A C • J mey t c o 8th I �rrmB J, • , L . t7 6th c 6th V 9 Y WO 2 • ■ H� � 4th � 4th * Meeting Location: G City Half/Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Item F: Development Review DRC2014-00378 Item G: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19550 Item H, I: Time Extension DRC2014-00471 Item J, K, L: DR DRC2014-00425, VAR DRC2014-00535, ME DRC2014-00536 s • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF ;CHO CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 2014 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California FF7�-- I. CALL TO ORDER • Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM Roll Call Chairman Howdyshell A Vice Chairman Fletcher X Munoz X Wimberly X Oaxaca X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager, Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development,Steven Flower,Assistant CityAttorney;Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary,• and Mike Smith, Associate Planner F7. II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which • might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Item A-1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES R AGENDA (Gh AUGUST 13, 2014 Page 2 III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS None E E-IV. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Approval of minutes dated July 9, 2014 B. VACATION OF PORTIONS OF 25TH STREET, LOCATED WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE (V-224) - A request to vacate the south side of 25th Street, west of Haven Avenue and south of Arrow Route -APNs 209-104-02,-37. C. VACATION OF PORTIONS OF 24TH STREET, LOCATED WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE (V-225) - A request to vacate the north side of 24th Street, west of Haven Avenue and south of Arrow Route -APNs 209-122-19,-18 Moved by Munoz seconded by Wimberly to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Carried 4 -0- 1 (Howdyshell absent) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project Please sign in after speaking. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18912 — MANNING HOMES-A review of a proposed 45-lot subdivision of a vacant parcel of about 7.16 acres in the Medium (M)and Low Medium (LM) Residential Districts located between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue, at the north side of the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail, about 1,400 feet north of Base Line Road;APN: 1076-181-01. Related files: Pre-Application Review DRC2013-00545, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2013-00887, Development Review DRC2013-01083, Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00889, Minor Exception DRC2014-00161, and Development Code Amendment DRC2014-00626. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-01083 — MANNING HOMES -A review of a proposal for 45 single-family residences in conjunction with a 45-lot subdivision of about 7.16 acres in the Medium (M) and Low Medium (LM) Residential located between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue,at the north side of the Item A-2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Rmciio AGENDA C` AUGUST 13, 2014 Page 3 Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail, about 1,400 feet north of Base Line Road;APN: 1076- 181-01. Related files: Pre-Application Review DRC2013-00545, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18912, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2013-00887,Tree Removal Permit DRC2013- 00889, Minor Exception DRC2014-00161, and Development Code Amendment DRC2014- 00626. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2013-00887- MANNING HOMES-A request to change the zoning designation of part of a property about 7.16 acres located between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue,at the north side of the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail, about 1,400 feet north of Base Line Road from Low Medium (LM) Residential to Medium(M)Residential District in conjunction with a proposed 46 lot subdivision; APN: 1076-181-01. Related files: Pre-Application Review DRC2013- 00545, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18912, Development Review DRC2013-01083, Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00889, Minor Exception DRC2014-00161, and Development • Code Amendment DRC2014-00626. Staff has prepared a Mitigated'Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. G. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2013-00889-MANNING HOMES -A request to remove trees in conjunction with a proposed 45-lot subdivision of a vacant parcel of about 7.16 acres in the Medium (M) and Low Medium (LM) Residential Districts located between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue, at the north side of the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail, about 1,400 feet north of Base Line Road;APN: 1076-181-01. Related files: Pre Application Review DRC2013-00545, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18912, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2013 00887, Development Review DRC2013-01083, Minor Exception DRC2014-00161, and Development Code Amendment DRC2014-00626. H. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2014-00161 - MANNING HOMES - A request to allow the construction of interior property line and project perimeter walls that will exceed the maximum height limit of 6 feet (but not exceed 8 feet in height) due to grade differences between lots in conjunction with a proposed 45-lot subdivision of a vacant parcel of about 7.16 acres in the Medium (M)and Low Medium (LM) Residential Districts located between Archibald Avenue and Ramona Avenue, at the north side of the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail, about 1,400 feet north of Base Line Road; APN: 1076-181-01. Related files: Pre-Application Review DRC2013-00545, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT1891.2, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2013-00887, Development Review DRC2013-01083, Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00889, and Development Code Amendment DRC2014-00626. • I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2014- 00626 - MANNING HOMES - A request to amend the Development Code to incorporate development standards such as minimum lot dimensions, setbacks, lot coverage, etc. for Item A-3 gw HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AGENDA AUGUST 13, 2014 Page 4 single-family residential development within the Medium (M) Residential Districts. Related files: Pre-Application Review DRC2013-00545,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18912,Zoning Map Amendment DRC2013-00887, Development Review DRC2013-01083,Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00889, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00161. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Mike Smith, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation(copy on file). He said a letter of opposition was received which expressed concern about the density of the project, construction work hours, construction equipment emissions and noise emitting from them, parking for employees and construction workers, and finally, the letter suggested a common area should be developed for the residents'enjoyment. He noted that these impacts are addressed in the environmental documents. He said he also received an email asking if there were any changes to the project since it was presented to the neighbors. Commissioner Wimberly asked about the old single-family residence on site. He also noted a difference in the acreage in the report. Mr. Smith said a cultural study on the house was prepared and it was deemed not historically significant. He said the difference in acreage could be due to a rounding error, he used what is provided by the City's GIS software. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked for clarification as to where the connection to La Vine is and where the traffic route was. Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer said La Vine from the new development will jog to the north. He said the applicant will continue the installation of the storm drain improvements and then widen Ramona along his property. Jim Manning, Manning Homes, thanked staff for Mike Smith's work and the neighbors that came out. He said they received 19 signatures of support from the neighbors. He summarized the zoning change request. He said currently the maximum density would allow 76 units but he came in with a lower density with 45 larger lots at 8.8 units per acre; gross density is 6.5 units per acre. He noted the improvements they will do such as the trail improvements that will be made; widening the street, adding the storm drain, close the open culverts, add sidewalks and curbs, remove power poles and add the jogging path to the bike trail. Vice Chairman Fletcher asked if there would be direct access from the development to the trail. Item A-4 r HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AGENDA O1'i%RW AUGUST 13, 2014 Page 5 Mr. Manning responded that SANBAG did not want a connection from the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. Luis Martinez requested the installation of a light at the crossing of the Pacific Electric Trail at Ramona. Michael Voight said no mitigation for wildlife living on the site was mentioned and what will happen to them when the property is developed. Ana Arellano said she does not want a light to cross the trail. She said she believes a crossing button there is sufficient and that people just need to practice safety. Vice Chairman Fletcher closed the public hearing. • Commissioner Munoz asked staff about the feasibility of a light at the trail crossing. Mr. James said the Traffic Engineer has heard the concerns and will evaluate that location and the whole system for consistency. Commissioner Munoz said it is a difficult site; it is not large and there is no easy way to develop it with the constraints. He said the plan is fairly good, the architecture is adequate and the residents'concerns have been considered such as the elimination of the Newton Place access. He said it is probably the best plan for this area. Commissioner Wimberly concurred. He reviewed his initial concerns with staff and he believes this is best solution for this specific property. Commissioner Oaxaca concurred and said this is an example of multiple opportunities for the applicant to hear and address concerns of the surrounding community. He said the applicant went the extra mile on improvements that should really benefit the existing community. Vice Chairman Fletcher noted that it is a difficult infill property with challenges. He said the revised plan appears to be the best solution with traffic flows. He did not have a big concern about the density change; these amendments are needed. He said staff will discuss the light at the trail. He said the pests, squirrels and rats will flee the construction equipment and quickly dissipate. He said it is a good product. He reported that Manning Homes has been a conscientious, community minded builder. • Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney noted the final approval for the legislative actions rests with the City Council. He noted pages on the dais before the Commissioners which refer the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council and also added Item A-5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AGENDA CR` mcm AUGUST 13, 2014 Page 6 grading and engineering conditions. The changes also note that all the application approvals are subject to the final approval of the Zoning Map Amendment and the Development Code Amendment by the City Council. For Items D, E, F, G, H, I, Moved by Wimberly seconded by Oaxaca carried 4-0-1. (Howdyshell absent) to adopt Resolutions 14-25, 14-26, 14-28, and 14-29 approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT1892, Development Review DRC2013-01083, Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00889 and Minor Exception DRC2014-00161. Resolutions 14-27 and 14- 30 recommending approval for Development Code Amendment DRC2014-00626 and Zoning Map Amendment DRC2013-00887 will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. All resolutions were adopted as amended by staff. J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2014-00678 - GAGGLES INC - A request to modify the floor plan and hours of operation to an existing Conditional Use Permit DRC2013-00519 at a restaurant with a full service bar and entertainment in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at 6321 Haven Avenue;APN:020127206. This item is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines - Existing Facilities. Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted a prior approval condition requires that any changes in the floor plan would require Planning Commission approval and there is also a request to change the hours of operation. Michael Towles, owner of Gaggles, mentioned the menu includes good food, cold beer and peanuts on the floor. Vice Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing and hearing and seeing no comment, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz said he has no problems with the conditions. He said he hopes they do well as. the site has been there for a long time with numerous owners. Commissioner Wimberly concurred and said that if Gaggles is customer friendly like Corky's they will be well received. Commissioner Oaxaca concurred and said the applicant is proposing a concept that could be a winner. Vice Chairman Fletcher said he thinks the concept is a good idea, he hopes they do well, and he is glad to see Corky's is taking them over. item J; Moved by Wimberly seconded by Munoz to adopt Resolution 14-31 approving Item A-6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AGENDA UC"ONG& AUGUST 13, 2014 Page 7 Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00678. Carried 4-0-1. (Howdyshell absent) VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION K. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES None L. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Munoz thanked Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner for his service to the City and wished him well in his new position with the City of Seal Beach. Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, commended the Commission and thanked them for • pushing him to do more and to do his best at the DRC and at the Commission VII. . ADJOURNMENT 8:05 PM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL IMMEDIATELY ADJOURNED TO A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2014-00617 IN THE RAINS ROOM. 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. Item A-7 t. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ;WNCH%k AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AGENDA AUGUST 13, 2014 Page 8 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. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. 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 fee of$2,486 for all 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, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us Item A-8 1. DRAFT PC WORKSHOP MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2014, WILL BE REVIEWED AT THE NEXT MEETING NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN Item B STAFF REPORT _ PL-�NNING DEP_ M[ENT ' CRANCHO Date: August 27, 2014 UCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary Subject: SELECTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION/PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICER POSITIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should consider the current Chairman and Vice Chairman positions and by minute action, either affirm the existing officers or select new officers. The term is for one year reviewed annually. BACKGROUND: The Administrative Regulations for the Planning Commission provide for the Commission to select its own officers. Each year the Commission selects a Chairman and Vice Chairman to serve a one-year term from amongst themselves. Commissioner Howdyshell became Chairman and Commissioner Fletcher became Vice Chairman in July of 2012. Respectfully submitted, Candyc Burnett Planning Manager C B/LS Item C STAFF REPORT _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT RANCHO Date: August 27, 2014 CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary Subject: SELECTION OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should consider the current Design Review Committee membership and by minute action, either affirm the existing membership or select new members. The term is for one year reviewed annually. BACKGROUND: The Design Review Committee reviews the architectural design, signage, building colors, site plans and landscape plans for proposed development projects in Rancho Cucamonga. The Design Review Committee consists of the Planning Manager or her designee and two Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission selects new or affirms the existing Commission representation from amongst themselves each year. Currently, Vice Chairman Fletcher and Commissioner Oaxaca are serving on the Design Review Committee and Commissioner Wimberly is the first alternate. There are no current vacancies on the Committee. Respectfully submitted, C4��� Candyce Burnett Planning Manager CB/LS Item D STAFF REPORT _ PL-INNING DEPAMIENT ' Date: August 27, 2014 RANCHO CUCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary Subject: SELECTION OF THE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should consider the current Commission representation for the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC). By minute action, the Commission should affirm their current representation or select two of its members plus an alternate to serve for a 24- month term (2 years). A new selection is not required at this time unless a Commissioner(s) should desire to serve or not serve. BACKGROUND: The Trails Advisory Committee is comprised of two members of the Park and Recreation Commission, two members of the Planning Commission, and two Members at Large. The Members at Large serve as representatives of the biking and equestrian community. The • Committee is facilitated by a staff member designated by the Planning Director. The staff member is a non-voting member. The Trails Advisory Committee assists both the Park and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission by reviewing proposed projects that may impact the existing trail system, its use, future improvements and addressing resident concerns. The TAC reviews and recommends priorities for trail improvement projects and forwards those recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission for consideration which then are forwarded to the City Council as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Typically, the Planning Commission reviews the TAC membership in July if a Commission member is nearing the end of a term. Currently, Commissioner Fletcher serves the TAC and was installed as a regular member in 2013 and therefore has completed one-half term. Commissioner Wimberly has served the TAC since 2012 and has completed one full term. Commissioner Munoz has served as First Alternate since 2013 and has completed one-half term. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager CB/LS Item E STAFF REPORT _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT • RANCHO CU CAMONGA DATE: August 27, 2014 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager BY: Mike Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2014-00378 - CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC. - A proposal to construct an industrial building of 120,624 square feet on a vacant parcel of about 240,000 square feet (5.5 acres) within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-262-48. Related file: Development Review DRC2008-00185. An addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project for consideration RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Development Review DRC2014-00378 and adoption of an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts that was adopted by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008, by approval of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. • BACKGROUND: The project is the second phase of a two-phase protect. The first phase is located on a parcel (APN: 0229-262-29) of approximately 274,000 square feet (6.3 acres) and consists of a warehouse building of approximately 135,000 square feet and associated improvements that were completed during the mid-1980s. The second phase is located immediately to the south of the first phase and is on a separate parcel (APN: 0229-262-48) of approximately 240,000 square feet (5.5 acres) (Exhibit C). The site of the second phase (hereafter referred to as the "project site") was formerly comprised of two (2) parcels (APNs: 0229-262-01 and -31). They were combined into one parcel with a lot line adjustment (Related file: Lot Line Adjustment SUBLLA#675). The second phase, consisting of a warehouse building of approximately 124,500 square feet, and associated improvements, was originally reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee on September 16, 2008, and then reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008 (Related file: Development Review DRC2008-00185 (Exhibits L and M). Because of the downturn in the economy at that time, no further significant activity, i.e., issuance of Construction/Grading Permits and commencement of construction/grading on the project occurred. In June 2012, the applicant, on behalf of his client, proposed minor revisions to the architecture of the building. The revisions were minimal and were comprised of removing some glazing and form-lined areas of the building — the overall project was not significantly affected. The revisions were administratively approved in July 2012. On November 12, 2013, the approval of the project expired per Resolution of Approval No. 08-66, Standard Condition B1, as Building Permits had not been issued or the approved use had not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. In April 2014, a new application was submitted to the City in order to "re-entitle" the project. F- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq: North - Warehouse Distribution Building; General Industrial (GI) District South - Warehouse Distribution Building; General Industrial (GI) District East - Office/Warehouse Buildings; General Industrial (GI) District West - Vacant strip of land 22.5 feet in width and across Buffalo Avenue, Warehouse Distribution Buildings; General Industrial (GI) District B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The project site is a generally rectangular parcel of approximately 240,000 square feet (5.5 acres) located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue (Exhibit B). The overall dimensions of the project site are approximately 710 feet (east to west) by approximately 320 feet (north to south). At the southwest comer of the project site, there is a triangular extension that is approximately 280 feet (east to west) by approximately 280 feet (north to south). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses; the perimeter of the site along the street frontages is landscaped with ground cover and numerous mature trees. A part of the site is being used for parking for the building constructed during the first phase; this parking area will be removed. The property is bound on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. The overall project site is bound on the north, south, and west by warehouse distribution buildings between 150,000 and 250,000 square feet in floor area. To the east is an office complex consisting of five buildings. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI) District. The subject property is generally level. with an elevation at the north and south sides of approximately 1,100 feet and 1,090 feet, respectively. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, on behalf of Dedeaux Properties, LLC, proposes to construct an industrial building of 120,624 square feet. The new project is substantially the same as the original project that was approved by the Planning Commission in November 2008 (Exhibit L).. The only significant difference between the previously approved project and the proposed current project is the floor area of the building. Due to the reduction in (or elimination of) the floor area of the office mezzanines, the overall floor of the building has been reduced by 3,876 square from 124,500 square feet to 120,624 square feet. Staff notes to the Commission that the area of the project site was originally indicated as being 252,000 square feet (5.8 acres). Current records show that the area of the project site is about 240,000 square feet (5.5 acres). The tenant(s) for the building have not been specified, but the applicant contemplates either manufacturing or warehousing uses. The basic layout of the building will be typical for warehouse buildings (Exhibit D). The offices areas will be located at the southeast and southwest corners of the building (Exhibit F). There will be a dock loading/storage area with 12 dock doors located on the north side of the building. These doors will face the doors of the existing building to the north. The new and existing buildings will share a common loading area; access to this area will be through shared drive aisles between the buildings. There will be two F— 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00378 —CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 • Page 3 points of access — the existing one via Rochester Avenue and another via 6th Street. The landscape coverage is 20 percent; the minimum requirement is 10 percent for this development district. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of two different colors. An additional primary material will be metal accents, while a secondary material will be glass panels. Generous amounts of glass have been provided at the offices areas and at various locations along the wall planes of the building. Key features include vertical elements located at intermediate points along the primary wall planes that interrupt the wall plane with thin form-lined concrete insets and vertically arranged glass panels. Where glass has been provided, there are also horizontal metal accents that project from the wall plane. These accents punctuate the application of glass and provide shaded relief. On the east elevation, there are a couple of vertical metal accents that extend from the ground to above the parapet wall. Each office entrance will also have a metal canopy (Exhibits G and H). B. Floor Area Analysis: Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan of the General Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in the General Industrial (GI) land use category is 60 percent. As the proposed building will have a floor area of 120,640 square feet and the project site has an area of approximately 240,000 square feet, the calculated FAR for the project will be approximately 50.2 percent. C. Parking Calculations: Per Table 17.64.050-1 of the Development Code, the parking calculations for the proposed project, based on the proposed mix of office, warehouse, and manufacturing floor areas in the building, are as follows: Type of Use Floor Area Parking Number of Spaces (Square Feet Ratio Required Proposed Building (overall) 120,624 Warehousing 93,166 varies' 43 Manufacturing 21,200 1/500 42 Office 6,096 1/250 24 Total Required/Total Provided 109/1092 Existing Building (overall)3 134,952 Warehousing 120,175 varies' 50 Office 14,080 1/250 56 Total Required/Total Provided 106/1312 'For warehouse uses, the parking calculations are 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 20,000 square feet; 1 space per 2,000 square feet for the second 20,000 square feet; and 1 space per 4,000 square feet for additional floor area in excess of the first 40,000 square feet. 2The trailer parking requirement is calculated separately from the standard parking requirement and is based on a ratio of one stall per dock door. The number of trailer parking spaces that is required and provided is 12 spaces. • 3The parking calculation for the existing building is for informational purposes. The parking that has been provided for each building is independent, i.e., parking is not shared. Also, the number of parking stalls provided for the existing building does not include the parking lot that will be removed. F— 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00378 —CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 4 D. Land Use Compatibility: The project will be consistent with the Development District of the site and the surrounding land uses. There are no sensitive receptors such as residences or schools in the vicinity of the project site. The anticipated uses associated with this project are logistics (warehouse, storage, and distribution) and manufacturing. Such uses will generate noise, traffic, and glare from on-site lighting. However, these are characteristics that are consistent with the operations/activities that are permitted in the General Industrial Districts and are not expected to have a significant impact. E. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The previously approved project was reviewed by the Grading Review Committee (Addington and James) and Technical Review Committees on September 16, 2008. The Committees accepted the proposal and recommended approval at that time. The new project was reviewed by the Grading Review Committee (Addington and Miller) and Technical Review Committee on September 17, 2013. As before, the Committees accepted the proposal and recommend approval. The Committees' conditions have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. F. Design Review Committee: The previously approved project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Stewart, Munoz, and Nicholson) on September 16, 2008 (Exhibit. J). The Committees accepted the proposal and recommended approval at that time. The new project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Oaxaca and Granger) on July 15, 2014, (Exhibit K). As before, the Committees accepted the proposal and recommended approval. The Committees' conditions have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. G. 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 November 12, 2008, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2008-00185 for an industrial building of approximately 125,000 square feet (Exhibit N). 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 than 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 analyzed the proposed project and concluded that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Development Review DRC2008-00185 was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008. On November 12, 2013, the approval of the project expired as Building Permits had not been issued or the approved use had not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. In April 2014, the current subject application was submitted; the proposed project is substantially the same as the previously approved project. 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. The project will not have a significant increase in traffic based upon a trip generation/distribution analysis prepared by Arch Beach Consulting on June 5, 2014; there will not be a significant impact on biological resources F—4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 • Page 5 (specifically the Delhi Sand flower-loving fly) according to a habitat suitability evaluation prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on April 25, 2014; and, there will not be a significant impact on air quality according to an air quality analysis prepared by Vista Environmental on June 13, 2014. The Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include any additional mitigations. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with Staff's determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of the subject Development Review application and adopt an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts that was adopted by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008. 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 radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received in response to these notices. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Bur tt Planning Manager • CB:MS/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Photo Exhibit C - Overall Site Plan (including Phase 1} Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit F - Roof Plan and Enlarged Floor Plans for Office Areas Exhibit G - Building Elevations and Building Sections Exhibit H - Enlarged Building Elevations Exhibit I - Landscape Plans Exhibit J - Design Review Committee Action Comments (September 16, 2008) Exhibit K - Design Review Committee Action Comments (July 15, 2014) Exhibit L - Staff Report (Exhibits A — F only) . for Development Review DRC2008-00185 Exhibit M - Resolution of Approval No. 08-66 for Development Review DRC2008-00185 Exhibit N - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review DRC2008-00185 Exhibit O - Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for DRC2008-00185 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2014-00378 F— 5 - � YIPW MM'P llt Q ' L�"Ik �_. ,$>• NOn [� l: ..- rb E tj.EI •MNr i ] .TWIYSP _ �. tr PRN RI n `5. Q ' ® x a � RII`A_'_""i, y �k'ITIRMW r F YYR i•R .s e ! c $ $. Q M •_ y u 2v...N� t ,. '\„r ncY el NLIING STM Lr +vr �q, p 33 f s 3; N _ B� 't T .rAwAa A '� 'Z ~ SRAW y5, A<<wnA' .WA �. x R :NARSUAi M baa n,rn O < 3.s t.d'•l.uw.ptl U, $S� a wo "'- `T.T� !f�h•1'OY ..0 +.•` c 7 YrMx sr •v*' it An 3 7 RING '-. SORORA'/NE y, ic w ] - wsnd rw•J r SPRHLG MIST `2 c '']�ST PARK dM4 -FAWW CT RvEu ^hsw y „pcnxyV. �s'+fn YA I• CARNE 30 �I P i Irn x.s a aH, !.r. CASTELLO n �. &.ApRr sr "< GALA AVE MOOOC STo � �1 9i`�Iulv>aew -Acro s: g c NP.�;'4 'v7. MSL- sr 01YA t=,AVE rYR�. a 3� ��"f �- 1"" r. �- i wrla a RANCHO n uN r wA+{ a` , VALLIM g,} .�uA�>�iNf o� ,,c, Gi`I*S�aH a CUCAMONfiA.' ``'M yv azu Art Z i ET INOWNEFTE„ r COLUSA 9 TT6 ` Z •Cr P' r sx '4u.Kssr c a d r 4yP f ]$ hwlfn gra �AieA„ WINDRO GRC NY �1LY:IP'Mbl nAP'Y'Ow . xour ST vdJr STs- ,-3'NBA•V gL:rR�iiiL.roiii AA�yt >[ '� „N•�rM3''•Y. -+•L p�f, '': ¢ _ jG E i fWfi4wPK1 Y:,TtDRP�N'xUPSI OR pku T y ��. ?w.s 91 ETTf DEEOVE a cP �i33. S< .uE •• ''"'PrNIS N " °- -.�_.yi i - - -�fiaye�S=?twPOP.w1In 8t: 'Dm 'fid $.W VICT-Ci .ST P 9 xq `+T„Y. Si ST �y {} $ rr war _ �lr 8 ,'” 7 d r - 1 .. GEORGE rr ' ` •' NLG si'd'y��'rr'/K'J1ON', �FN .,,�+uW� GENda��sL cR LlOMFOOi 1 iv. a 'l xvor a 'uwiPrroer..r mea t� �v.n [ E S W i MOUTEYISTA51 : d' •t ", y T' I JESSE Cf c ryER] RArNA �uMslr'S" 3 Y RAe�EA L o•�'r?VL-1 xPiM rl'K,w �'tE s ""Taint Yw...n e d WAT' f a A t wlna .,�5 y3 GUM SAeSApG}EA;GGE OR = . 1 3Y als T 2I3 >. .. (',rPMLN u41NE d. _'b e. dYr-lucwna GcnB 'TN.ipRx •3uv ' Y ' r' ,E _. ! j LUGAND { ST c S r _ Y�A i DR tIM10R - nR Sc G Y e G IKM =AaAR[tRw xwYTPw uIG�Y)A FOX'" g SNR;aMYa;' NWG•x e v ¢w Ye w - 'VI1PR Ix'FAA c C c ��c S2NM OIr SKvxOUM ON '• z x FAP •:G•1W ST KK .,:�rK" d g OS P, .rwa. � a *IP •^glA.an - - �. [- A4 CAMgy iQK � F>:NPr awAx>J'~�c..d uwsAw s e a oyAn RAND-•HO C`;.1CA!\ONGA u.4AK,d. >< �g 47 I, ■ �!w _ a x'"�'K s'P8� nw•.g• QQ . :. C " [ }"- sE' .'vrrq '- GL`e Y v AAA c -K i�,. Fire �; fS R PFS ] xWILEvr r Stetion3 [OAMa OT YNK'JMrn EPORFY] i r ,�.e�1iP• , —� �NiN'4K 7t PPGII z•,LpN _1 m BASE �N�_�__-_��� 'n"�1p� �•w +Mc��'�A m�kta � - -- 2 .oa ST PEVPEfl ST' pwas..- uamreA Gnmw 4 _ wrrt ._,�•� srpEPCOE%p ,Q1, CGAAIRR 7NN 011 Yl N/STORK �eR' 1 c d z-00..a 3. I x'RyOA'4 JG R' r }'LR i IH •� CMRfSPORW. NY �.. OLONMMOEDRMUIRRELD Oi/ j �eiAtLAE�I 3' K ¢�. / p DOGE CT OR �.�x! W(NE MUSctr.AxNN �/ {{ -fav' ,'IPANW000.sTsawam tr cJ;, % i,NA yEdGANLE 1IR'Rmm K 3 aGMA[ti1[Y r. TARKIMGRNIR .V/GIIMIIIR if kv, - xrl All, g1rINEMTAIR MFIIRM.YO t A ', ouKeuarR 4 <Ncr* c� GUAR R t:'I�/ `t v$� PxpOE nlAND Cr '•!i e m ' t p'14n'[ '.' rs Cl xwu olb' T#PAi NG A t3> r y Ar w. PP ORNs1 NEW EMG AND OR b eAm.smw 2 pppp �aY D P TERRA•'4 # wtaVm e G 3 y MUST ! Zt' �y `'h."_qq,�"� c1m- °owlnx°oR - ®'!. VISTA e w ,RuR WAY BPIO/EW°OU OR aIIwW�w$uyg , L AW yIIM 3 tri' h A.••mac A mr 'aR"tlM�'^ .. Iuli -' vt 3'ndG on MF!Gowov vnLD OOAIA i IAD o r �" EVti "'- d \,rs� NN.aa.�•IENx¢rt' SNATL©A17Q!- . g r,",on.mae'l svfllxG MOUNTAIN DR MERCEO'Y�Sr 3 4RL�.A,�. "'oi �pipA� nq'a f� ' 1bA 'iilEaegPox'�i ksw tn®1 S eke a [� K ,' WWORwF ""'Ac'R►'��0 ii1Q7II —1- � G [8 ?I (IB ST I ,pNR 'dC,. ' Rfl HOSE .."'Rlt� ; s fA4G4FN0 OR @f "EW,Fr, Y RUTH t M�RMfG a 6 E,pRia11 °A ec—,".40 :CHESTERTON OR avt & +,_i/r'! ,ql„• IC'-- aE ;• CHURCH ST 3�T `L. . T' � J � + ALAWASIVET 11 \4" _ — CULTURALCENTER AVE 1 '{xar 3 J/p`• II ji Y� R VICTORIA GARDENS I Naffll MMA ST V q h. ARK I'A ",' S•' ST ��•- '9G P.r0•,r e�jrCOYOTE CL �,► �y'!Pl CA L7 CANYON Y.M.C.A. .t.J. .!4,N'_'A` I ,NONwR_sf SOUTH MAW ST< t_-$� R�9 4 a ha. I.: e �( y ERENSf .m ... -�� M,`..,! '1 VERS"Aus ST'� r°cy�F CNFPNILST I. . TERRA VISTA RA -- ii B°�"REC s"°"osT - dCfORIA,, a )II REGISCT - .- RANCHO POTOAPC Cr -.- .,'.�- .. 11 TOWN CENTER OSANANTOMO CEDARBROOa MEDICAL > 1 i : CENTER I• 18 COURT r ¢ P r K30rARCl_ .• {HOUSE <U1Uq_EI•ST ,ALT,'PTUS ST _ o. '• olEs.A :CITY ©- ' SEA19"WAY.. n J�tLEHIUM , PROJECT SITE WALL HERI)AGE\•I .% T ETURYCL: _... _ C,OTATIOM; •l, HOSPITAL , �}, I EnIaI OA L GNAW GNO qI # -�A'• --._ _-_ 4 A TS } -GAEFA NFS1fM ' - -•;' 1RF51Ga PAIKf R ( � �g ID5G0 11300 __ -_ .- __�--•� ....F._Zr' ..w-_ __ S R �.11POO Ix]Pa ��___�-�... ....may�...'_._'..--..ur._- .._....uu.''�:i_�..,�i.- -�...�--�-- _.' -_-' _. -_—� �Q _ ._.. _2�:�..._'-•d. RW PINJW Cr E01", tPC0MA0R _. m MAn Q: TN =, Q-RILTJNCr SOLCT o Z W T; g' c I TI AERSaaLVO ■itation 4� L Metrolink /J _-y--•--..._._-.-�_.-_-- —"- METROLINK TRAIN Station '8TH ST' WAPORfOR NflCM ST._ - � DAYTON Sr .. __OSW PO. MGTNE W ' 9 . n_ ST_ m nH 6TH 1 E;tfPlR$ CAKES. s. o GTT+sT d GOC-F COURS x 6TH STDR W ¢ i s OR C Q / wis$.NWv,S'A OR � r $G 1 Wl EXHIBIT A � - ' nurAnln F- 6 K i" Aly t t; • �je:� x� .ice-` m x ---------------- -j- EXISTING 1111DING 1 (NOT A P}Ni) / �rT Tom_ r r�fy/ I l f I I EXISTING BUILDINGS -- ' T T II I 1 (NOT A PART) j � I 120.6245F 6TH STREET ri 00 �— – - — I / , I I , acDavidAuTt RANCHO BUSINESS CENTER PH II CLIENT: DEDEAUX PROPERTIES,LLC i Awe+�•P�.r•r�n,n. MASTER PLAN/FIRE ACCESS PLAN DRAWING DATE: 05.942071 to RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA PUNNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO.DRC201400378 t rx cro m zw ra we�os nay A-2 MASTER PUN/FIRE ACCESS PUN rn I 1 --- ------ ���/ 1 -- _ W I IZ YI J .Z` I ILL 1 L =t .QOV LL �m / EXISTING BUILDINGS (NOT A PART) IN - UILDIN I :q AllI I l0 L CA 6TH STREET I I i � I TRASH ENCLOSURE(N.T.S.) PARKING DETAIL:1/8'.=1'-0' I I E / / 1L 6"CURB ADJACENT 10 HAROSCAPE 6'F 6"PAVER TYPICAL 905E WN A0.MCENi ro sroE of N q PARK • c I /' ro / : `1'OVERHANG MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH 00 IAUM WIDTH OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS nnacDDaciiftvid A �a RANCHO BUSINESS CENTER PH 11 DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC VW A— e 6 Archin e•PYmm9•hter u3 SITE PLAN DRANANO DATE: OS30 207A 1! T. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO.DRC2014-00378 �, RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA A-1 SITE PLAN M X _ -- l d 1311 FDffAll / N. l � A- • 1 1 i% / / / )d/' IV }!•'J1 ) ill ARCfL 'j_ —_ m +Y,I�/1I 1 I I P RCEC l ,a._ )s' I Iwo 1E�1T-t M ^1 / / ii 1 b-SE� LA P17vY.-N . 9530, P. 105106-81 _'-- �D.C.FD.C.MID P.LV.DEIAE 1 _ Maas off O i1 1aEEtw - -- e1�_ usv.,.. �. rarl _ ---- -- - �- --_-_- -- -- --- - -_=--- -__---- LL 1IL off MEET _-_-__-_-_-_---_-_-------- m - - --- pI �_ /.• 0 " ` GRAPHIC SCALE PAVEMENT LEGEND �--� SEE SHEET C�FOR SECTIONS IEaEI r/ / �•w''�"// t:aa cAi c DRC2014-00378 REVISIONS I PROJECT BENCH MME( 191 t 2019 SRT VIE.OAIK Tv v a119 K ca D951.CATs Mal No DESCRIPTON BY APPROVED DATE G d gra a n COTTON. CA 92329 GRADING PLAN / p[T�y ,9091 E�4-2TTs PHASE 11 L W 41I a.* »a v'r sTKE9 AYE. '�,]1L ASSOC I ATES R.C.BUSINESS CENTER v cm Br. RR ODE v solar uoeo loacsrza AwRc QICIMO4R 4 91]3p ELEVATION RIAtt AEASDIY OIQP 1093.09 DOUGLAS L. GOOD DATE MP—TO, RIZ 28500, 3-31-2016 z Q ,3 f • AA MO®Br:0.0 JOB IQ V rn s oo � �I ® cm cm cm cm cmcm cm cm Icm cm cm cm cm cm Fl I j o: A' I a. N i1 OFFICE FLOOR PLAN:1/8"=1'-0" MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN:1/8"=1'-0" MacDavidAubort RANCHO BUSINESS CENTER PH II CLIENT: ° Arcba e•Plmn" kudou ROOF PLADEDEAUX PROPERTIES,LLC ' once RANCHO UCAMO GAG CALIFORNIAAPLANNING OEPARTMEENED OFFICE U-UATE: T CASE NO.ORC2014-OM78 ! *•s.s imwans.uv A.3 ROOF PLAN m X NOTES: ALL THE DOORS PROVIDING ACCESS TO MECHANICAL/ELECATRICAL EQUIPMENT AND ALL DOCK DOORS SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING. - �• ADDRESS NUMBERS TO BE PROVIDED _ ___ _ _ .. tcou _ _ RCFD STANDARD 9-11. PER SIGNAGE LOCATION IS CONCEPTUAL. ULTIMATE LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED. ALL DOWNSPOUTS AND ROOF DRAINS 50 SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH THE Y I INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. a'r ma WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION I _ N TION TI (n4U EAST ELEVA wm rr.ra..cu s.r.: sumeo rwo,wait wcw rw 4) u.war,m cww.c.0 swr;e r4wwn r r 4eaF Haar wrwrnmaD mai naic wEr rw w ww raxa r r'4r�waa(Wool r SOUTH SECTION sa�sa�im�ciuma�c�:.m� u.m r�eear:Boor 1lmrrj. 3 S i� EAST SECTION N 3 MacDavidAubOrt RANCHO BUSINESS CENTER PH II DEDEAUXPROPERTIES, LLC CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS DRAVW DATE: 0530-2014 r.i ven om Hoo ra ws.00s av RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASE NO.DRC2014-0 78 AA ELEVATIONS rn z ...I ❑i as. o -------- - ---------- 1h a X , t - I - h W 1 Z J U H Q 1TTT - - _ u 1 SOUTH ELEVATION r _ ---- ------- ---- ----- - ------ - - --- ------ p55551 v� Y WEST ELEVATION N g� i RANCHO BUSINESS CENTER PH II < MaCDavid Aubort CLIENT: ° �A—,Pk DEDEAUX PROPERTIES,LLC ., kV-F '. ENLARGED ELEVATIONS DRAVNNGGATE: osso-au RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA PLANIMNO DEPARTMENT CASE NO.DRO70I.- A5 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS m W o .w U O.� 572' Q p �. . . . 1 p v� m. . . . Uf ---- - --------- IIIJ ------- - --------- -- ----------- - --------- --------- ` 91 =wl El p R NORTH ELEVATION W z J 2 U F yyy --------------- ---- -------------- - 1 1 [:1 LlgiE ealm 1 NORTH ELEVATION _ _ IT.-TT - -- -- s Y 9 EAST ELEVATION N g� a K Ma )ort RANCHO BUSINESS CENTER PH II CLIENT: DEDEAUX PROPERTIES,LLC ENLARGED ELEVATIONS DRANANG DATE05.10.2011 RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA PLANNINGDEPARTMENT CASE NO,DRC2014-=Io A6 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS rn DESIGN KEY NOTES: Tr-r � _ _ � � Q 1 w.wo.cue:.etFrvwlc tFaarontx nwra ©coLoft M.ExNIiM®VFIILIAM F311rt1'MVMa G«4LiM OF E'NO.PFANlIEP.¢BYT _ } @ -_ i 1 t - _ - coolWwluleuroannl MTmrsa•GOEIeE orm MTT8M PF801FrE ~!'1 1 I � I I I I I i i i Q�1EW wIDDNf®OIptDO Ca.91l M011ia Wtr219ePl.WIMO 11 II'L1J1f ' wtaP wamtllE AT O��Ff�lwmNovll�JPFn�Gea. — \I �� Y I �� � i — QJ EMQYIrp GNAlYYw L�f 11 — I lTIEET © T�Pww.e InT*�Pb.wwwrp pr FYETM PMI! rUOEIrtA K. Or �^' OGTVISY OTrBta Z WTteM—. J EWLNBWI iE11V1®MtlCf11 J !WX'TI1A a. IEW MRUOOn YENtMEA 1.381 TO RM BIAIe�EI(F'A'. l TDACC ! Q PlOFaem lgx�t pµlE RiI IEdBO. Q Ix elm J � �raw somlet•elo AawcFxrroFawPAMtro wrnNFw p Fwn.raE�tswn _ Q O PAF«.w,,,«,!I«,al.,arloEll,lN�.,�,E JunPw•EolmrEw rWJWTV..M - 0 ! �' PwaPmllozsl E•aeexlelAo eEc-rnr�Tw+ePor•Ba °!""O� PROPOSED BUILDING LU LL lEPOBfwIEFIIF4D inx.ra aa. —_ \J' I,., 1Q M.rw•Fow vFtiTr.�raFomAO Yana rrwrrowEno. ter msstaoacedcatrsur�r® ewarcpmnlftlarawloioe.sma.eu 7 —_ I 'Q oF*errtrow sAmNlwu aECF.tvx tbexEetorE rtx•ttMAreatlOEa eFeelMO a oc tmea�nExoloJr nE cream W Txx iese °rowwNt•nirmnwmewrtoPerAsorwFwErtst m rola eFmcrlutenmarvrrnE I I = awenetooNaoltmreitn wtaoow¢ I J = U -_�. MDNO LAK e r I Tr/iFwro�w4 .�. �.. a.• ..P.ra r��' • itBME,r1MNG !Yr_�le__W `,`.�'�..4 / metro ttesrr oNOlslo rt costs Aaawo emFn FtoNr WNfxP111K P1IJIrg1E — — �.'�x� C � � �' � axxrtgaarvoox Euur�wm wo nuc® nEummmsivoerxF row aseA.vno�r.erwa �'om R.ettYLitNWlLWATlEIexlp Pf311FSiBO .YL URIrtFpI1BalGIEYGAQIWI;IlIIEOeBe MYIE T Pl a \� / seteuePeetea MOWIOIMIOIe19IRLLY19/®MO WTENCV/IFiE II! _ -1 '� Ertq FfOPMMIlFIENF%.IN6a16N11Eol9pFMT ex10®® AFI MrAiR®EIY®YILLMNI! I � 6TH STREET � ���aAwiusa��Fa.�rotawtuu � � ° •MNott.toutoNas lJl a � x Fcue-�+nv s �- PLANTING LEGEND T` �. � +' x Rtll13EF1 9Mtfmoa«�w wrdo o° w 6 � � leltvtoTOMl MOEETA Favor Fla Pnur � �pNooso�^'• ® iYllaip•I�AVFx atm. � ` �� i\ n Fr,ereolMrtaeetrElplT run�tract t / Fora l�•xo.c. v of '.\ '� •ti�:� aTrraT Tiff rowTw Fwsr arEOF srH wnwuFF oan mrr. � ,�y'' , \\ Fp .aFowr•wJNo twrtAw! I � �YiaN«Nanlrtr•lrnAeatJttEml sx.s�Exaa TMxFw.lrm,1•o TP ti f ♦„'°'\\ �.,� `\: 1 � � �� �euro!cAaw.wurslta e�ori nxcExa.c. y �, ., / tticEgExon. r�a� t ItT�eF®xT«TT,TTgrterl.l�lT.boF m.,Io•.oaA+A„un�tF ;;,:���� \. \ swl.uonoP*rEFroWtu '0 � o1lMra un wwTe r«cwwroF lFn iwnYcn lo.c a�Exo.c eT eaF ovata n. wraTtora �..`\ �.. rows�rc�Paun nacoaom,�ormF xno�mncFanr mwc�.. ...7�\ �' �.` ''�:,� i - / u E �6�Yy T•F1ara0oE�enrmMT notrFnna!«e.r ® uATM FFxvFsnoacraere aotaxnu Tlarron vrsACEs. !� oxwxoeoW.c. ® _ "'✓�'D\.'. �--'' — _ _yam, e ` •'�`; e.Y ®.w�..cacu w.war,nwl..l�r �m.alEfl mrn Mrowlm smle ua '�1 ur�Taaolw.arw lsmimtae, or�eiaaxoc. ��A rTP'�'w .•. �.; ,'�'� t�`,,\ cno MrttxW.eaue rlN cam roFn rnAsc trmme •xoc. xsaz elE ®uvrNouw!*oFr+u.svrw�uvooer Bort stt _ :, z �uFeoEN.r�wmwarcww tl / raw vnwuno toTtwrne Tae ® tML s�Exo.c / / +�z.w rswrwN Eiwc ®wvuY tt�cvn�A trwr..l aateAUF noecFF• mYar �.• ! aAutrn Era wYOl srlttaN.tw rAaFn au.e�Err oc c­Oxo.c. ,rq! raw tvFtr�->:H aACAmmv rnF>< ® ®rrownw vrrv�F«uF r.vawlu F. InwoaFn Tuwllw lT,,:F (�'J �nnnrw NawiF.a ak �E!xoc � atnlcruc. .r r �+Ir'�.,`•':•. !. oFSIOW oarwrsEo w.�.,.�.. /y vn maw wv vwoErwauncaaomin.wumPuron[ I ,•'`i atwAoc.vEw / ll 10!”�^'�'«+FaPu3aua lorT�tt� ® r.alww Tower aau alEtx.Fwlrvwe �msrrrumcwtWaianw. M_.ast«IallrTweiwnarMAlwMFe ENLARGEMENT LA' OUTDOOR BREAK AREA scse M1gP �-�L /1 DEDEAUX PROPERTIES SHEET L-1 OWNER DEDEAUX PROPERTIES,LLC. (DRC2014-00378) 430 s EasT"w+AVENUE -� RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS CENTER PHASE II 9060 ROCHESTER AVE.RANCHO CUCAMONGA,91730 LOSANGDATE: 380023 8J36J2014 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:10 P.M. Mike Smith September 16, 2008 EVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2008-00185 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A proposal to construct an industrial building of about 118,000 square feet on two vacant parcels of about 252,000 square feet (5.8 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-262-01 and 31. Related File: Minor Development Review DRC2007-00647. Background: This is a two-phase project site. The first phase encompassed the north half of the site and consists of a warehouse building of about 135,000 square feet and associated improvements that were completed during the mid-1980s. The second phase on the south half of the site proposes the construction of a second warehouse building and associated improvements. Design Parameters: The second phase of the project site is comprised of two parcels with a combined area of about 241,360.square feet. The larger, rectangular north parcel is about 710 feet (east-to-west) by about 320 feet (north-to-south). The smaller, triangular south parcel is about 280 feet (east-to-west) by about 280 feet (north-to-south). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses and the perimeter of the site along the street frontages is landscaped with ground cover and numerous mature trees. A portion of the site is being used for excess parking relative to the building constructed during the first phase, which will be removed. The property is bound on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. The overall project site is bound on the north, south, and west by warehouse • distribution buildings between 150,000 and 250,000 square feet in floor area. To the east is an office complex consisting of five buildings. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,100 feet and 1,090 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to construct a warehouse distribution building of 124,500 square feet. The building is speculative at this time. Typical for this type of building are office areas which will be located at the southeast and southwest corners of the building. The dock loading/storage area with 12 dock doors will be located on the north side of the building. These doors will face the doors of the existing building. The new and existing buildings will share a common loading area with access to this area through shared drive aisles between the buildings. There will be two points of access—the existing one via Rochester Avenue and another via 6th Street. The building is required to have 98 parking stalls; however, 121 parking stalls will be provided. Landscape coverage is 20 percent and the minimum requirement is 12 percent for this development district. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of two different colors. An additional primary material will be metal accents while a secondary material will be glass panels. Generous amounts of glass have been provided at the offices areas and at various locations along the wall planes of the building. Key features include vertical elements located at intermediate points along the primary wall planes that interrupt the wall plane with thin form-lined concrete insets and vertically arranged glass panels. Where glass has been provided, there are also horizontal metal accents that project from the wall plane. These accents punctuate the application of glass and provide shaded relief. On the east elevation, there are a couple of vertical metal accents that extend from the ground to above the parapet' wall. Each office entrance will also have a metal canopy. Although glass has not been provided on the interior facing elevation where the dock loading and storage areas are, staff believes that its absence is not detrimental to the overall design of the building. Sandblasted wall panels are not proposed. • EXHIBIT J F— 16 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 16, 2008 Page 2 Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Provide sandblasting on the wall panels at the office comers and sandblasted bands/accents on all elevations. Historically, sandblasting has been used as a substitute for painted surfaces and serves to differentiate the office areas from the rest of the building and to provide variation in surface texture. 2. Provide a continuous form-lined relief (or equivalent) along the entire top edge of the building parapet. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Landscaping at the southeast and southwest comers of the site shall be intensified to ensure that the presence of the parking lot immediately adjacent to this corner is minimized. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. All existing trees shall be protected in-place. 2. All ground-mounted equipment and utility boxes including transformers, fire department connections, back-flow devices, etc. shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. This equipment shall be painted forest green. 3. The employee lunch area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on-center with minimum dimensions of 4-inch by 12-inch. Also, each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural finishes/trim used on the building such as sandblasted bases. The trellis shall be painted to match the building. 4. Re-arrange the trash enclosure and parking stalls located at the north side of the building (two locations) so that the trash enclosure is closer to the building and"blind" spots are eliminated. 5. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. 6. Incorporate undulating berms along the street frontages (where applicable), within the landscape setback and landscape areas. The highest part of the berms should be at least 3 feet in height. 7. Decorative paving shall be provided at the 6th Street vehicular access point on to the site. Decorative paving is already being installed at the Rochester Avenue driveway as a condition of approval for Minor Development Review DRC2007-00697. 8. All doors (roil-up, dock doors, emergency access, etc.) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. 9. Provide durable street furniture in the outdoor employee eating area such as tables, chairs, waste receptacles. F— 17 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES September 16, 2008 ® Page 3 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved, subject to the revisions above which can be verified by staff, and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson Staff Planner: Mike Smith The Committee reviewed the proposed project and discussed the major and secondary issues with the applicant. The applicant proposed adding form-lined concrete (as opposed to sandblasting) and a form-lined concrete "cornice" as solutions to the major issues that were raised by staff. The Committee accepted the solutions. The applicant indicated he had no objections with the other issues/polices and corresponding solutions that staff presented. The Committee recommended approval of this application to the Planning Commission. F— 18 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 PM Mike Smith July 15, 2014 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2014-00378 - CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES,LLC-A proposal to construct an Industrial building of about 125,000 square feet on two vacant parcels of about 252,000 square feet (5.8 acres)within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue - APNs: 0229-262-01 and -31. Related file: Development Review DRC2008-00185. Background: This is a two-phase project site. The first phase encompassed the north half of the site and consists of a warehouse building of about 135,000 square feet and associated improvements that were completed during the mid-19809. The second phase on the south half of the site proposes the construction of a second warehouse building and associated improvements. The second phase was originally reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Committee on September 6,2008,and then reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on November 12,2008(Related file: Development Review DRC2008-00185). Due to the downturn in the economy around that time,no further significant activity,i.e.issuance of construction/grading permits and commencement of construction/grading, on the project occurred. In June 2012, the applicant, on behalf of his client, proposed minor revisions to the architecture of the building. The revisions were minimal and were comprised of removing some glazing and form-lined areas of the building - the overall project was not significantly affected. The revisions were administratively approved in July 2012. On November 12,2013,the approval of the project expired per Resolution of Approval No. 08-66, Standard Condition B1, as building permits had not been issued or the approved use had not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. In April 2014, a new application for the project was submitted (in effect, to "re-entitle" it). The "nerve' project is fundamentally the same as the original project(described below)that was approved by the Planning Commission in November 2008. Design Parameters: The second phase of the project site is comprised of two parcels with a combined area of about 241,360 square feet. The larger,rectangular north parcel is about 710 feet (east-west)by about 320 feet(north to south). The smaller,triangular south parcel is about 280 feet(east west) by about 280 feet(north to south). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses; the perimeter of the site along the street frontages is landscaped with ground cover and numerous mature trees. A part of the site is being used for parking for the building constructed during the first phase; this parking area will be removed. The property is bound on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. The overall project site is bound on the north, south, and west by warehouse distribution buildings between 150,000 and 250,000 in floor area. To the east Is an office complex consisting of five buildings. The zoning of the proare fperty and all surrounding properties is General Industrial(GI) District. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,100 feet and 1,090 feet,respectively. The applicant proposes to construct a warehouse distribution building of about 120,600 square feet. The building is speculative at this time. Typical for this type of building are offices areas which will be located at the southeast and southwest comers of the building. The dock loading/storage area with 12 dock doors will be located on the north side of the building. These doors will face the doors of the existing building. The new and existing buildings will share a common loading area;access to this area will be through shared drive aisles between the buildings. There will be two points of access—the existing one via Rochester Avenue and another via 6th Street. The building is required to have 109 parking stalls; 109 parking stalls will be provided. Landscape coverage is 20 percent; the minimum requirement is 10 percent for this development district The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of two different • colors. An additional primary material will be metal accents while a secondary material will be glass EXHIBIT K F— 19 DRC ACTION AGENDA ORC2014-00425—MANNING HOMES July 15,2014 Page 2 panels. Generous amounts of glass have been provided at the offices areas and at various locations along the wall planes of the building. Key features include vertical elements located at intermediate points along the primary wall planes that interrupt the wail plane with thin form-lined concrete Insets and vertically arranged glass panels. Where glass has been provided, there are also horizontal metal accents that project from the wall plane. These accents punctuate the application of glass and provide shaded relief. On the East Elevation,there are a couple of vertical metal accents that extend from the ground to above the parapet wall. Each office entrance will also have a metal canopy. Staff Comments: The following comments are Intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Ma�. The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. None. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major Issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. None. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Landscaping at the southeast and southwest comers of the site shall be Intensified to ensure that the presence of the parking lot immediately adjacent to this comer is minimized. 2. All ground-mounted equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back-flow devices, shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on- center.All ground-mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fire Department. 3. The employee lunch area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 1 W on center with minimum dimensions of 4°x 12°. Each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural design and finisheslMm used on the building. The trellis shall be painted to match the building, and tables, chairs/benches, and waste receptacles shall be provided. 4. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 5. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. B. All walls,including retaining wails,exposed to public view shall be constructed of decorative masonry blocks, i.e. slump stone,split-face,or have a decorative finish such as stucco. 7. Incorporate undulating berms along the street frontages(where applicable),within the landscape setback and landscape areas. The highest part of the berms should be at least 3 feet in height. F— 20 DRC ACTION AGENDA ® ORC2014-00425—MANNING HOMES July 15,2014 Page 3 S. Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to.the site, behind the public right-of-way.These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front propertyline to the 45-foot setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 9. All doors.(roll-up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. $teff Recormnendadon• Staff recommends that the project be approved and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action. The project was approved as presented and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. Members Present Fletcher,Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner. Mike Smith F— 21 T H E C I T Y O F RANCBO CUCAMONGA Staff&poi t DATE: November 12, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Mike Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2008-00185 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A proposal to construct an industrial building of about 125,000 square feet on two vacant parcels of about 252,000 square feet (5.8 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-262-01 and -31. Related files: Minor Development Review DRC2007-00647 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00268. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. • UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2008-00268 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - A proposed Uniform Sign Program for a warehouse complex located at the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and 6th Street. Related files: Development Review DRC2008-00185 and Minor Development Review DRC2007-00647. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Warehouse Distribution Building—General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13 South - Warehouse Distribution Building—General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13 East - OfficeMarehouse Buildings—General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13 West - Vacant 22.5-foot wide strip of land — General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13; Note: Across Buffalo Avenue are additional warehouse/distribution buildings in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subareas 10 and 11. B. General Plan Designations: Project Site- General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - Generallndustrial C. Site Characteristics: The application is the second phase of a two-phase project. The application applies specifically to only two parcels of the overall project site's three 3 • APN: 0229-262-01, -29, and -31, with a combined area of about 526,400 square feet (12.1 acres), EXHIBIT L F- 22 PLANNING.COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2008-00185-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12, 2008 Page 2 arranged from north to south. The northernmost and largest parcel of the three (APN: 0229-262- 29) at about 274,400 square feet(6.3 acres) is improved with a warehouse distribution building and associated improvements built during the first phase in the mid-1980s. This building has a floor area of about 135,000 square feet. This existing building is undergoing renovations, including dock door relocation and changes to the parking lot that were approved recently through Minor Development Review DRC2007-00647. The proposed building and its associated improvements that are the subject of this application will be located on the two southernmost parcels (Exhibit C). These two parcels have a combined area of about 252,000 square feet (5.8 acres). The larger of the two parcels (APN: 0229-262-31) is rectangular and has dimensions of about 710 feet east to west by about 320 feet north to south. The other smaller triangular parcel (APN: 0229-262-01)to the south is about 280 feet east to west by about 280 feet north to south. The property is bound on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. Both parcels are minimally developed and are dominated by short grasses. The perimeter of the properties along the street frontages is landscaped with ground cover and numerous mature trees. A part of the site is being used for parking for the existing building. The parking area and the driveway at 6th Street will be removed for the construction of the new building. On the west side of the property, parallel to the west property line, is a thin parcel about 22.5 feet wide and in excess of 900 feet in length that is not a part of the project site and is owned by others. Beyond that parcel is Buffalo Avenue. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,100 feet and 1,090 feet, respectively. D. Parking Calculations: Type of Use Floor Area Number of Parking Spaces (Square Feet) Ratio Required Proposed Building(overall) 124,500 Warehousing 112,050 Floor area up to 20,000 square feet' 20,000 1/1,000 20 Floor area 20,001 -40,000 square feet 20,000 1/2,000 10 Floor area 40,001 square feet or more 72,050 1/4,000 18 Office 12,450 1/250 50 Total Required/Total Provided 98/109 Existing Building(overall) 134,952 Warehousing 120,175 Floor area up to 20,000 square feet 20,000 1/1,000 20 Floor area 20,001 -40,000 square feet 20,000 1/2,000 10 Floor area 40,001 square feet or more 80,175 1/4,000 20 Office 14,080 1/250 56 Total Required/Total Provided 106/131 F- 23 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES • November 12, 2008 Page 3 Note: The parking calculation for the existing building is for informational purposes. The parking that has been provided for each building is independent, i.e. parking is not shared. Also, the number of parking stalls provided for the existing building does not include the parking lot that will be removed. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes to construct a warehouse/distribution building of about 124,500 square feet and associated improvements on the two previously described vacant parcels. The applicant has not specified tenants for the new building. However, based on the design of the building, it is likely the tenants will be warehouses or distributors with a typical administrative office area. There will be two office areas to be located at the southeast and southwest corners of the building with a combined floor area of about 12,450 square feet(10 percent of the overall floor area of the building). The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of two different colors. An additional primary material will be metal accents while a secondary material will be glass panels. Generous amounts of glass have been provided at the offices areas and at various locations along the wall planes of the building. Key features include vertical elements located at intermediate points that interrupt the primary wall planes with thin form-lined concrete insets and vertically arranged glass panels. Where glass has been provided, there are also horizontal metal accents that project from the wall plane and form-lined concrete. These accents punctuate the • application of glass and provide shaded relief. On the East Elevation, there are a couple of vertical metal accents that extend from the ground to above the parapet wall. Each office entrance will also . have a metal canopy(Exhibit E). Vehicle parking will be provided at the southwest comer and east side of the building with vehicle access to the site via the two existing driveways at Rochester Avenue and via a third at 6th Street that will be constructed to replace the existing driveway. The twelve (12) dock doors and dock area will be on the north side of the building facing the corresponding docks of the existing building. Access to the loading/storage area will be via either the driveway at Rochester Avenue or 6th Street. Landscape coverage is 20 percent; the minimum requirement is 12 percent for this development district(Exhibit F). B. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The Grading Review Committee (Addington and James) reviewed the application on September 16, 2008. The Committee accepted the application and recommended approval. Their conditions have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. C. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Munoz, and Nicholson) reviewed the project on September 16, 2008 (Exhibit G). The applicant revised the proposal in response to minor revisions requested by staff. Their revisions included incorporating a form-lined reveal at the top of the parapet and adding form-lined concrete finish above the window panels in order to provide texture and variation in the wall plane. The Committee was satisfied with their revisions and recommend approval of the project. The Committee's conditions have been incorporated into the • attached Resolution of Approval. F— 24 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12,2008 Page 4 D. Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00268: The Design Review Committee on September 16, 2008, also reviewed a proposed uniform sign program for the proposed project(Exhibit H), which includes the existing building. The Committee reviewed the sign program and agreed with Staff's determination that the proposed sign program is consistent with the City's design standards and polices, and the City's Sign Ordinance regarding the number of signs, dimensions, locations, and general design. The Committee recommends approval of the sign program. E. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality.Act ("CEQA°) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to biological resources, hydrology and water quality, noise,and air quality, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and approve Development Review DRC2008-00185 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00268 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. Respectfully submitted, R. Jam Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT:MS/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Map Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit E - Elevations and Building Sections Exhibit F - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit G - Design Review Committee Action Comments for DRC2008-00185 Exhibit H - Design Review Committee Action Comments for DRC2008-00268 Exhibit I - Initial Study Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2008-00185 F— 25 vu � ;.. is'r'•�}�' -��"� ���r.� � Y �e� rhe .�- 6 fn �_�� +i�; i ,fir ., ' yy33[S'y¢�'�� t � �i •1ys:�k�3'.•Mj'SP:'y,� IL .. i _ `AC?'3!"''� Lg f iftA 7M W,7iA li. p MOM3 t vie a lith Street w MEN AV - ..SSb-:i ++ t r 5 C ! rr•✓_ Yi77.-R, j>c •� " �'' .}� - 9- *S�.�S',.� ..,� 3� .CT'�` -,`tom• � -yc:�s�sr�'�'.� +� ._ • � f>' ft';A �if F S'. 1 yr _ .; riga cts Fl IN fix. !:. is ate..?-- ��F�7 Y�1c�✓ /�'.a�s �L y �(' 3'A'-_..- �' � T _ _ a�� ,j i♦/.. fr :�F _ s'�Y!^ ����"':Y��.�i�'T�1 �,A��. {f 'S4. 9 -�4-0 � is 'P).' MAF z a SHF`BPD 1 ST ~ !V AA xF:S PARK r E A '1•,NILLIKER c°� ; - sr ! .. H ,wJu Y �`: IAIX p r PARK ,1G—r+eluc 4 l NORNICK. S7 ,��.d 11�,aE_m"1ltER DDPSErST! 2 -wow, RVISTA a<NQ ~ STf-d .•`•�+f..s"p.<,�`.�� luI✓ sr . Ltr�rC rn N n�uI FOOTHILL' CENTER •r I - BLVDI i FOOTH' LLQ - BLVD E- 66 u:o? a Iusca sr u<i W1RELIle, YPS �a ST 3 w yyam' _v,Ti7Rr27PucE- --- a� GNcsv �< ( ( e S B 3 SEBASTIAN I ? - I '} K•I'v"t� !i •AHI 1 CCTH I `'4' ! kFS ' NY t II ® AY HERITAGE �` WHITE s1 CIVIC CENTER DP CIVIC E - 1 < F » 1 1 INV y BIRCH �• rP,cexrEa �C� zQ $1 I o¢tsrA n !• � �`' a �`•-�A -� I I 3 •� ( IEL vs CENTER DR30m ocrt rmrnl rucE n S (slow Ar)I.2 F ALULIS - I i ARROW5 �I. ro ROUTE ARROW ROUTE . ::acc INE b- WLU4M,�150N CT' —�- -- ---�' �•T—� wg g � tl_u.:u4 np� R <TAC01y' OR �' 1'f '•+ +.�"i! !f-}t_'„ v~i IJ �I CI I N[KIntEV sr �J R �CRSEY ' BLVD JERSET IxITTPAN ! ( AY li ,ovo .26TH ST JERS � BLVD tt PROJECT SITE - ! III N A. < 25TH �'ST I:,BU: y FS a ''FERON BLVD z 1 s s OLD TOAWMIN 24TH _I n PARK '. IRNIBOLDT Ar (BNSF)(METROLIRK) ' J a d 87H y ,i Sf .€: �' ci NENPDRT ry,YTOx - 1 € 3 8TH I Q DR ACACIA ST DR of . TT I 7TH VINTIERSQ <!.s"�:U'-� IqST6TH!L S _ I :asoB b 1 EMPIRE 3 4 GIUa?C ' I I I c N '.D }� R•'0 `1 Y't s IAKES '< GWF, 3 I I GH _ I ST 1 SAO ! T r.. GOLF 8 'I li 1 I uuranu ± -A _ SPEEOMAr CTT , I u j CAURSE 6TH t. 18 6TH I IatC.c113 ill ST s:sa: I<� 6TH T t 1 17 _ 113 1 14 SYF Its °� - I W I t� �° :•a; _ J r:, ! 1 I Q ` = a :BIF)EgER 5ST a rAl[Pv ( I Q STN ST ,` o: .3-, + ,y TMDFlNRK ST lufi i •n.`.. . $, g ' BENTLEY ? LL ! !wEsr YALLIY - ,5 PRIVET I < TEPPR) +: ST CT. N[ss a, u < } DETENTION u . ( �CENTER 4THST <I 4TH ST .a 4TH ST SAH BERMAROINO .AYl �T _ acca <,sM T > TAYTAR)0 MILLS I AEOfOANL PARK � < }_ .- C'EMER Qq E CoNCIXRiS .,rtr N'k E I - O q •CONCGWRi } C r ! 3E a-am ¢ - 6. .. Kyr = 3• ,,F•A� O�,VD AL 1 `�2" �< r - .. ONTARIO MILLS a'=2(� I I PKWY a 1 LS ;aa sxELBY sr urcw)o 24 o ey ;�:� ; sa.o s 23 RDUD4r tRR■ HILN(gN0 EMP RE f ONT B` :I + TEL a wtTEs o�•lnFRul. SAN BE NARDINa FRWY I vArar)no rwi< t ENt mN SHEA CENTER OR 7: Br NwtoT( .�� 'C' y EBB C \ y '" z � I RR RD �_d ^ m \ �A =e6OD '< UP I Ji jj FL E ACNflIIE_ suAsE I Z �'-•� P 'a .y.'K j G zONTARIO INTERNATIONAL E n PO l LDID evsn aB u UP I g 49 t F� s I I SLOVEN AY �--- — I: IRPORT ,sNtwmA, E :AIRPORT DR 112 a E AIRPORT IDR f I. I.� - -- ; Ai zl� qz �.Fl .;; J I �... - •• r sml nlr - r 1 I7- 1 LL as TRAILER TO 1 I Tur 1IIIIY OOCB srA1 SA _—__—_i—__ __—_ I I` INEW E UILDINP I I = 111 i i 6w124,5 OSFysm ' I I ---- -- - +-t- �--- ----r---fi --r--- M� � , 1 -___ -- __ ---—-------_ ----------- I � - ______Jf•'y i �r 1 I i ' - _ _ I 1 1 I I I I'I 1 I I - " N casuc nl¢I I j I ' • LUNGI00 1 I I i AREA ��^ 3+�i L� _ 6TH-STM TRASH I 1'91 I '' .. � �- ,_--- �--... � __—.- -''• - � —�._. _-....... --- TRASH ENCLOSURE(N.T.S.) PARKING DETAIL: 1/8"=1'-0' I ;1 P-"' ,Y0 IWo6Mc-_/fl/i $ lr^ �-, 1 � /� :f :'�// '�-fir / ♦ qui . l „,. •M d 1 I / / ♦ �.—��-- Iw4Y A♦N`G��FT�WV IYXSIK I—M acDaUld Aubort RC BUSINESS CENTER DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC Ardl"rcNrc-Plum"•webs SITE PLAN DRAWWDDATE: 09-02-2M 16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 1! 1�ol•Jocl1L0 F•1 W]e.7rA DRC200B-0OIB5 M7 SfTE PLAN i I ISI -------------------------------- I I ITI—UTFFFTTr7 �I EXIS17NG �UILDING i (NOT A P T) - - - '^sem 64 EW UILDING ' s I- 5 I I 1 InF ii: i I "'Ifffilil „4 I _ _ --------- MacDavid )ortWd RIC BUSINESS CENTER_ __ DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC „w ns.«au.Uloo�w)or "`"�'P'"""`'b""°" MASTER PLAN/FIRE ACCESS PLAN DRAWING DATE 09 LA m ° RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA DRczooaooles A-I MASTER PLAN I FRE ACCESS PLAN rn yt F . � 1 �_ .r..: ��. .. a _. e►usi r a+�,.1=,e•`. �rte,».'r "` , v` sa r+i'�+,, / — �II ! r _�h.- � I'J(n.:�`�-• .�(�µ+.L ��t� t �•� � cf ;�x.l. � t Toy p '`� �}, z"sf 7i'•5f1 1�` � I:, 1 � `� _ _ 1 MI +s�'�_a'F�„,;4#; v �/_ tq, � t` r � ...I.i .a`.—..!_ .-,'. - '----•- �� ---r, -I} 1; i- �---'- ---_ -k— --I--- ---'-;i--ru.a... _• 'tJt--+` a. 1..' -� �- w� "°` uw 4ctaw S L * �sa� I �, i ..,..'�•,» rreg4r 'I �it i I' •!`"1 .' r'-I IIYri'IA �.J +_rlr•... '� I � ow1--' '"i. SECTION B.B a LU A" IT !DOSING LOT UI.E .LOT l0E MJ15BrJD1T 'Hc^�L ,y�'11j'.1 ' S i TR y'1; 1,�IR,(a' ! l s OR LOT T4 au'BE'ElID WN TK{7Tr' (F / f•,:' i(I[ I 10 - - TK O11Y!SURfAG1101L IsI'r• �y EyL1 --1'+T..t' I l 1 AMM W :� I J` 1 :r• - }. -- M1�"j �.` .A1- r`• ,' r r•tr.u: „ __II - "�wcnWar W I �: - `�— ,r E .ar _ •.. ..,:i=��,"r",•.°I�1.1,h�v�"�-''.y `,:,n� � '.�?f-^;"���....•e ;3 y � a,naP• ... [ Q r,'Ir` .. ..- '' - .�.1 E'B ..l ''f :,;, ,'�i�•� -.Lw _ 't-_-' '-y_-7��`}'C_ _ e ey s•= -"'r`''x`�•'', 4, - 'llsmog*ISS j1•, a ... . -� .t`•` —';IM -_i'ri%":` f ��7�y -'"^�r� �- �. - .,,.m< may— `\ r--__ / II �,\ ' •• -• - yp 'i.' _ jam._ n az. �'J'.;.-17s' _ •''ter w t•,cit..r 4`-=^=-.�__ -? ___=.f -- ra ' 6TN-'-STRE/ ;w ' •�, -A /-� _ .r -- —��-----___-------------------------Ly --------------------------- ll r - �' " +, `'•. , ' ' CONSTRUCTION NOTES {II s � tprt.,.r....n.rw..rt..w. ;� I•~,� .47,F >t ^,1+� '�'. ., f• �a ---- �...,�...«.», �...»..,,w.�a,..,mnn...�.,.,..m , •A►' y-. � p..�.ne.....n....,,.. ®..,�.. ®>.,.�»...,v...n.,�»....,.e...,... ca.Taxic state :� I 1� � ., ptmrlau.n,n.mawt.w ®nu�rtr.t�t.r.l,lwma,»a w,wa ww�n. ww.awnws. .,..w.wt..r ,s-+' i i •/� prrrw�a�run,n�. ®..�.a..»wntm..t,.,ww. ®ee,enno....»,,,t..., U.rrnw..,.t.. „syI 1 Y ®esl i�nwa ®nv„t.iuwturt,vw v.ut I tv .. II _ 11 ♦ `/ �/ .' ©®r�tw,r.�wt ®wmvtw..lwe.nv» ®ww.vrtt.Q,a,.R s n ' a.un..n.. 'TCD OML ENGINEERING h D SURVEYING ! ,ry-•�-��.r; r ` i " / / psi......... ®w�...gl.�t ,. LAN®�.mIQ,,.a COORY ENGINEERING ti�flUf �.. .,.trw....a TEI.: 542 11G-01N LAIC I I�'• J7" �'/ri ���/// 4r�aw R�It:ar,w�n.r. e�.��l.vaat:..,,a ' r ( ) <W sse-maT O Y ],Cwt"n w.y,q.9 F.Sult.1l4 Sowv C.S.rNq;CA E-M GRADING PLAN ER f PROREMM WAW 1BLL 1 )TeMso►as e,' No PHASE 11 M( / 1� / / l�a a.s t4 cm am7 u1o,gAvl DESORPTION BY APPROVES GATE 1 14ST SIX t.OF Fan, A,E. RC.BUSINESS Sinai[E�SI[R A TS i.�`-�X11 L / ,4'L��" 'f � .•'+ � M R 4 M11 Cdl li R , eWOU M'.W CA IT]p I {V rl / / � �// � PIO'Alm IOt E11Y GO19.NIOpP ELEVADW Ours su u Z w3 Cwt i r Jj; :: 'rj 1U93.08 t>4or ae aN lu la .x.-Im '�` or q qe DRC2008.00166-C2 GRADING PLAN i 5 Yi.. It. r j 2.0005r ' MEZZ. ' �i w 17x . "15 7 '�'�il� L --- DETAIL`A' DETAIL•B` CONSTRUCTION NOTES �aay.ar•a.awa�alN `iId9J�� CIVIL ENGINEENING At LAND SURVErN, dna`®•""'""""`°°`""` �A� COORY ENGINEERINC ®aae.a]q•wa.. PROS=BEND,u� I REVISIONS DETAILS NO DESCIBPTDN BY APPROVED DATE PHASE If ns v a•s CO1'°Rn.cwnr•AQ' R.C.BUSINESS CENTER WU,IDI P1!4i YE ff pWl51Dl A1C, ___ p9p]•p>QS]pI Ay— Mw—]Lt W COR OFJY@T O D] MIOIYLIIgL RQpAYO RR' WAIY•OMSDIi'GDI• EIEVATO! ou.I!! STS acRt 1•.f C.3 1093.09 1093.09 omaD rr sR m In aN-,w DRC3008-00185-C3 DETAILS 41 1.,..'f s I gq I��=�. ->t .L � _-_.�� _�- _. _ �a`^ 1�. - �.w t, '�" /L �'.4i rR � f I,`.' � /r U 7t I 1 .14 L ol r IV-11 5 c4 �4" ere' 4 rq J Z4 r VMS szc"ON 8.9 if V 77 ;�47 &I OR LM IX Mi IX RLM WIN LOT LML LOT LK T TO TK aTme5Au3AcwL su �L I ED SECTION A�A 1. iflj .......... 7 05; Lu z > gig 0 W- N-4eaf F1 ----------------------- L6 j m MAW- --—-- ---------------—--- --------------------------- -- ----—----------- — CONSTRUCTION NOTES G— GRAPHIC SCALE j,41 Hill COAL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING (D=� IRV A COORY ENCNEEFSURVEYINGNG 'Ol- (-2)--e 1—(-2) -p--—A el"1.—12a.—,F.&P—gq a I—M M�CT BENC',MAW IBM I SECTIONS REVISIONS SITE SE PHASE II DESCRIPTION BY AFPROVW DATE (b R-C.BUSINESS CENTER =4 A� erOD MATeII ATOM[ WET "I Z11, 109109 1 r2 raatae ORC2006-00185 SITE SECTIONS SMEUIOF2 T_ M_ SECTIONC-C LAJ MIU CRAPWC SCALE -11AL E.QMr L ZERWO&L-0 SURV"NG + COORY ENGINEERING OVTCl (562)BBB–&26B Fw' (BdZ)04B­0721 SECTION D-D M.".- .1,F.$.it.12..­.. •91U 1'•J PROJECT BENCH UAW mm I REVISIONS SITE SECTIONS No DESCRIPTION �ROVM CLA0V TE RC.BUSINESS CENTER 9000 ROCREM AVMC —M w AV w AK RAHCH0 OXAMONCA,Ck BUM sr,ft Ra aolA v cam E3IVA110H W.ft 109309 2 - 2 DgEgFoaias SITE SECTIONS SHEET 2 OF 2 rn NOTES: IL ALL THE DOORS PROVIDING ACCESS TO N MECHANICAL/ELECATRICAL EOUIPMENT AND ALL DOCK DOORS SHALL BE _ PAINTED TO MATCH THE BUILDING. `'r` ADDRESS NUMBERS TO BE PROVIDED lcl\ PER RCFD STANDARD 8-11. SIGNAGE LOCATION IS CONCEPTUAL. ULTIMATE LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED. in i ALL DONNSPWTS AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH THE SOUTH ELEVATION INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. IF - - WEST ELEVATION t� njW ® lo .ril 01 ® ® ® ml lnl NORTH ELEVATION —n EAST ELEVATION Mur lID uEMAwEu 4 IIOOf IQ ufOwKu aw11!' 501[11!0 MOY IINK 4L�vn�! .u^fmY N61C Yfn MM A IN NW(f Q�'NOK NV(r1KAl) rAIIMFf¢1'NOPE OOOf a1.�u SOUTH SECTION u1 IW tv vowrcu.-.I tE sortnan Iww rout vtx.m A�. rA�Ar[r s c NOR sm(mrr) d e N EAST SECTION i i MacDavid AubortRC BUSINESS CENTER DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC a o� ArcTltecnue.PWusY�.Inlerlors CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS tan mMe 6ouEVAgo WVWE,CALIFOIOIN psn� DRAWING DATE 0&2- IA Fn9a.K_my. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA DRC2008-00185 AJ ELEVAT10M Lu GIN LIGHT'SAND WHITE'IQ ALL ROOF TOP MECHANICAL SHALL BE J A1795 SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW WITH A MIN. PAINT uEDluu'PAW SPRINGS PARAPET OF 4' ABOVE ROOF (TYPICAL) CONCRETE TILT—UP PANEL NIH DECORATIVE REVEALS U O TAN_IQ A1825 CONCEPTUAL SIGN LOCATION ETAL FIN EO PAINTED TAN WITH DARK AND LIGHT ACCENTS Q O FORM LINER-HORIZONTAL Mg C FLUFFED, CLERESTROY WINDOW W9TH DECORATIVE GRAY GLAZING CLERESTORY WINDOW D SPANDREL GLASS BELOW GUARDIAN GUARD ARDL _ — E CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM METAL FINISH ON ALL METAL ANNINGS,MULLIONS.- - HARDWARE AND LIGHT + FIXTURES. n a _ SOUTH ELEVATION ' Lu z J U OLIGHT TAN ACCENT PAINT AT TEXTURED FORM LINER LOCATION Q TOP OF PANEL CONCEPTUAL SIGN LOCATION ODARK TAN PAINT AT BASE OF PANEL E@METAL AWNING A 8 A E OACCENT COLUMN T NAGE w C) ul 1 _ _ ;r SOUTH ELEVATION 6 I_.....- T -- —R — ro g i I 99� WEST ELEVATION N f MacDavid Aubort RC BUSINESS CENTER DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC t end Aeeedatee I ete A""° •'P'a""v-l""° ENLARGED ELEVATIONS ear tome aaxev�no nv�,rii satyr ung DRAWING DATE: 08,262008 T.e^'0f9p0 ��°1P'0°'�'T RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA DRC200ARGE 5 M ENLARGED ELEVATIONS I z OA Lu PAINT LIGHT'SAND VMITE*IG A1795 J (� PAINT MEDIUM'PALM SVRiNGS IAN'IG I— B A1825 Q © FORM LINER'HORIZONTAL FLUTTED' I ' GUARDIAN SUN GUARD SILVER-32 CLEAR CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM METAL FINISH ON T: ALL METAL AWNINGS,MUWONS,HARDWARE AND LIGHT FIXTURES. Ed I _ ,..., .. NORTH ELEVATION W I z J U f � Q I —n . I 01 NORTH ELEVATION METAL FIN CONCEPTUAL ADDRESS ALTERNATE SIGN LOCATION ' NUMBER LOCAfION I SIGNA — 4 df1x %^T — __ IN h EAST ELEVATION N MacDavidAu)ort RC BUSINESS CENTER CLIENT: i 81d DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC A d"� P`°"a'M1 Q01 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS DRAWING DATE: 08-2s2ooe u vn.m,rt eo,A.Evu,o nvua.G.IFUBMY,q.,. T'°'°-- f"°'°'06'8/ RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA DRc'7008-00185 A-5 ENLARGED ELEVATIONS oil I I I illililli SAT ki Im v�f "����" f �') , 1%j/,/••bier %� ����� i,1{ Mad iii•/� r �: - •••-�� *� � �p,�•�v . Nq =n=n=n=r,�yy� i-n�u=ii=1=u=u=n=n=n=n 1�•._ n-a=u- — ■ 1� i RESOLUTION NO.08-66 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CIN OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2008-00185,A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING OF ABOUT 125,000 SQUARE FEET ON TWO VACANT PARCELS OF ABOUT 252,000 SQUARE FEET (5.8 ACRES) IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, SUBAREA 13, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND ROCHESTER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0229-262-01 AND -31. A. Recitals. 1. Charles Joseph and Associates,on behalf of Dedeaux Properties,LLC,filed an application for the issuance of Development Review DRC2008-00185, 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 12th day of November 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE,it is hereby found,determined,and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: • 1. This Commission hereby specificallyfinds that all of the facts et s 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 November 12,2008,including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to two (2) parcels of land located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue—APN: 0229-262-01 and-31. These parcels have an overall combined area of about 252,000 square feet(5.8 acres);and b. These parcels are undeveloped with the exception of an overflow parking lot that is used for the building described below and a driveway at 6th Street; C. The application is the second phase of a two-phase project. The first phase was the construction of a warehouse/distribution building of about 135,000 square feet and associated improvements in the mid-1980s on a parcel located immediately to the north of the project site - APN: 0229-262-29; and d. From north to south,these three(3)parcels have respective lot areas of 274,374 square feet(6.26 acres), 210,656 square feet(4.83 acres), and 41,528 square feet(0.95 acres); and e. The combined street frontage of the parcel along 6th Street is about 880 feet,and their combined street frontage along Rochester Avenue is about 740 feet; EXHIBIT M F— 38 PLANNING COMMISSIGry RESOLUTION NO. 08-66 DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12,2008 Page 2 f. The proposed building and associated improvements will be located on these two parcels. The existing previously described parking lot and driveway at 6th Street will be removed; g. To the north,west,and south are large warehouse distribution buildings that have floor areas ranging between about 150,000—400,000 square feet. To the east,is an office complex consisting of six(6)smaller office buildings;and h. The applicant proposes to construct a warehouse building of 124,500 square feet that includes two office areas with a combined floor area of 12,450 square feet(10 percent of the building's overall floor area); and i. The application contemplates warehouse tenants. As defined in Development Code Section 17.30.030,"light"and"medium"warehouse uses are permitted in this development district Other potential uses that are permitted,subject to the availability of parking on-site,include"custom,""light',and "medium' manufacturing;and j. The applicant is required to provide 98 parking stalls. They have provided 109 parking stalls;and 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. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code,and the purposes of the district in which the she is located. The proposed project is to construct an industrial building and is consistent with development in the vicinity. b. The proposed development,together with the conditions applicable thereto,will not be detrimental to the public health,safety,or welfare or materially injurious to properties.or improvements in the vicinity. The surrounding properties are zoned industrial and the surrounding uses are industrial-oriented. C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a sign cant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto,and incorporated herein by this reference,based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination,a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter,the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. F— 39 PLANNING COMMISSIOri RESOLUTION No. 08-66 DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12, 2008 Page 3 b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and,based on the whole record before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA;and(ii)that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures,there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study,Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750. 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 is for the construction of one warehouse/distribution building with a floor area of 124,500 square feet in the General Industrial District, Subarea 13, located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-262-01 and-31. Approval also includes Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-00268. 2) Proposed land uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit as identified in Table.17.30.030 of the Development Code, shall require a separate review and approval by the Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check and occupancy. 3) Shared access,parking,and maintenance shall be incorporated in the project Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). 4) Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 5) All walls, including retaining walls, exposed to public shall be decorative masonry. Decorative means slump stone,split-face, or stucco. 6) Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend F—40 PLANNING COMMISSIO,-4 RESOLUTION NO. 08-66 DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12,2008 Page 4 from the front property line to the 45-foot setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 7) All ground-mounted. equipment, including utility boxes, transformers, and back-flow devices,shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. All ground-mounted equipment shall be painted dark green except as directed otherwise by the Fre Department. 8) Landscaping shall be installed prior to release for occupancy. 9) The applicant shall submit a final draft(incorporating any applicable technical corrections to the text,format,etc.)of the Uniform Sign Program for the City's records prior to issuance of building permits. All signs shall require review and approval of a separate Sign Permit application by the Planning Director prior to installation. Enaineerina Department 1) The frontage of 6th Street shall be improved in accordance with City"Divided Arterial'Standards. Frontage improvements shall be installed as follows: a) Remove the existing 6th Street drive approach and install the new drive approach near the westerly and of the project boundary per City Driveway Policy and City Standards. Install sidewalk crossing the drive approach at the zero curb face. b) Provide additional traffic striping, signage and related signs, and legends as required to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer including R-26(s)"NO STOPPING"signs. c) Install sidewalk from the southwesterly project comer limit to join the existing sidewalk to the east. d) Install curbside drain outlets per City Standards, as required. e) Protect or provide/replace curb and gutter, 9500 Lumen HPSV streetlights,street trees, and additional traffic striping and signage,as required. f) No median island opening will be allowed in the 6th Street median. 2) Rochester Avenue frontage shall be improved in accordance with City"Major Arterial' Standards. Frontage improvements shall be installed as follows: a) Provide new street pavement section to centerline of street. b) Provide joint-use driveway approach/drive aisle in accordance with"City Driveway Policy". c) Install curbside drain outlets per City Standards, as required. F—41 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-66 DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12, 2008 • Page 5 d) Protect existing or provide/replace; 9500 lumen HPSV streetlights, street trees, R-26's "NO-STOPPING" signs and additional traffic striping and signage, as required. 3) Buffalo Avenue improvements shall be in accordance with City"Industrial" Standards as follows: a) Protect or provide/replace damaged curb and gutter,9500 lumen HPSV streetlights,R-26's"NO-STOPPING"signs andadditional traffic striping and signage, as required. b) Protect or provide/replace damaged private landscaping and irrigation on the adjacent west property fronting eastside of Buffalo Avenue. c) Install curbside drain outlets per City Standards,as required. Building and Safetv Department Gradinal A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) must be completed, approved, notarized, and recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit, Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized,or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. F—42 RESOLUTION NO.08-66 PLANNING COM—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES DRC2008-00185 C November 12, 2.008 Page 6 Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried.overto may adjacent vvary�depending ares uponr occurs as a the time of years of of hauling. 9 construction. Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph)in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard alio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent(approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board[RW QCBJ) Y o reduce Fine Particulate Matter (PM,o) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. 8) The construction contractorshi shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where le ing g) The construction t h�Work crews will shutff equipment when shall ensure that dnot in use. ns include a statement 10) All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods(i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). 11) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 12) All industrial and commercial site tenank with 50 or more schedules in con p cluous areas. required to post both bus and Me shall be trolm 13) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 e l be peat ng schedules around the Metrr more employees olink nk required to configure o schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. F—43 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-66 DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12, 2008 • Page 7 Cultural Resources 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important,and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the • inventory, evaluation,and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations,to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) If any paleontological resource(i.e.plant or animal fossils)are encountered before or during grading,the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures(i.e.,paleontological monitoring)that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the it of the find. • Prepare, identify,and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • F—44 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-66 DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12, 2008 Page 8 Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. Geology and Soils 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Hydrology and Water Quality 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that shall be useddrapollutants to reduce maximum activities entering the storm drain system to the extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in grading plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timingds of grading and constriction to minimize soil exposure to rainy pe experienced in southern Cal.'domia, and b)An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction,temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction,to remove pollutants,street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) The applicant shall incorporatelimplement the BMPs that were identified in the Water Quality Management Plan.(W QMP)prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23,2008,to the satisfaction of the City's Building and Safety Department. F—45 PLANNING COMMISSIU1 RESOLUTION NO. 08-66 DRC2008-00185-CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES • November 12, 2008 Page 9 Post-Construction Operational. 6) The developer shall incorporate/implement the BMPs that identified in the Water Quality Management Plan(W QMP)prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23, 2008, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years,shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 8) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 9) Prior to issuance of Grading or Paving Permits, the applicant shall obtain a • Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained(i.e.,a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Noise 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.on weekdays,including Saturday,or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D,as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours;however,if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards,then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 P.M.and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays,.including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed ® 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction F-46 i PLANNING COMMISSION ..cSOLUTION NO. OM6 DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES November 12, 2008 Page 10 traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible,the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard 8.Fletcher,Chairman ATTEST: 4JamR.Troyer, AICP, U� 1, James R-Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,passed,and adopted by rn Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the Planning held on the 12th day of November 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE F—47 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ® DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: ORC2008-00185 SUBJECT. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: CHARLES JOSEPH AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND ROCHESTER AVENUE AND 31 -APN: 0229-262_01 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Comnle-Mata • 7. 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 Clty, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attomeys 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. 08-66, 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) Mitigated Negative Declaration-$1,926.75 X B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval.permits extensions dare or allowed. JJ SC-1-05 • 1APLANNINGTINALIPLNGCOMM12008 Res&5tf rep1DRC2008-00185StdCond 11-12.doc F-48 I Proleot No. 892008-00185 ComoletlonDate C. Site Development ude 1. The site shall be developed amaintained ntainexteriOmatin accordance als and colors,tth approved p landscaping, ans wh sign prolgrarn ch land site plans,architectural elevations, grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations, 2. Prior to any use of the project siteor business sat fact activity i it the Planning Director. dhreon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed othe 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 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. Revised site plans and buiilldtiing elevWtiondsapp Orval prior to the all �ssuance of bnditions of uild ng permits e / submitted for Planning Director 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement pan email bel, encroachment,coordinated oildfor J / consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree building,etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision,or approved use has commenced,whichever comes first. all J /— 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, other applicable City Ordinances,and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan,including a photometric diagram,shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style,illumination,location,height,and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. S. 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. For single-family residential developments,transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. All building numbers and individual units shall be identdied in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. D. Shopping Centers 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and �—J— debris remain for more than 24 hours. 3. Signs shall be conveniently posted for"no overnight parking and for"employee parking only.' _�—J— E, Building Design ers and other root 1. All roof appurtenances, including av ew ndition projections, shall be shielded from and the sound buffered from adjacent centuproperties and / partment. Such l be urally streets as required by thedesanniand constructed t the sat sfaction of thle Planning Director integrated with the building 9n Details shall be included in building plans. 2 I.,pLANNING\FINALIPLNGCOMW2008 Res&Stl repTFIC2008.00185SWCond 11-12.doc F—49 Project No.DRC2i 008.00186 Comoletlo—n Date 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll.up doors and service doors to match main • building colors. —1 F. 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. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). J� 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. —� 4. 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 J / stalls for use by the handicapped. 5. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls.Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feetparking at. G. 'Trip Reduction 1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifami residential projects of more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces,whichever is greater: After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided,additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a • 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater,the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 2. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial,office,and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If �J covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. 3. Category 5 telephone cable or fiber optic cable shall be provided for office buildings and other non-residential development. 4. For industrial projects with at least 40 car parking spaces, bicyclist-changing facilities shall be provided to encourage bicycle commuting per the City of Rancho Cucamonga Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted by City Council Resolution No.02-237. Accessible restrooms with storage lockers for clothing and equipment shall be sufficient. H. Landscaping 1• A detailed landscape and irrigation plan,including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 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. • I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 Res&S#rep\DRC2008-00185StdCa nd 11-12.doc F– 50 Project No.2RC2008-001 B6 • � c_'.nmoletion Date 3, A minimum of 20%of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 309/6 within I -J— commercial Jcommercial and office projects,shall be specimen size trees-24-inch box or larger. 4. Within parking lots,trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking ��— stalls. 5. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one _J-1— tree per 30 linear feet of building. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Department. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the ��— perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.These criteria shall encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed.to conserve�water through tMunicipahe principles of / Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the to issuance of Building Permits,the project landscape architect shall certify on he submitted plans that the Xeriscape requirements have been met 1. Signs 1. A Uniform Sign Program for this development permits. shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to e J- Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures,including monitoring and reportinApplicto the Plant shall be anning Director indt to post cash,letter of credit,or other forms u guarantee acceptableperformance amount of$557 prior to the issuance of building permits,guaranteeing satisfactory p and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. K. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S.Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Mufti-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4 I:\pLANNING\FINAL\PWGCOMM\2008 Res&stf rep\DRC2008-0o185swCond 11-12.doc F- 51 Project No.DRCP008-00185 Completion Date • 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) L. 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, fbdure units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning;and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., DRC2008-00185) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 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. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. S. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Department. M. 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.,DRC2008-00185). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Califomia 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. 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. ® I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2008 \DRC 5 Res&Stf re p 2008-00185StdCond 11-12.doc F- 52 Project No.DRC2008-00185 Completion Date 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Departments public counter). N. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances J—J— considering use,area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. ��- 3. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC _JJ_ Section 1505. 4. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. 5. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal,additional requirements may be needed. JJ— O. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with Califomia Building Code,City Grading J 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. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, JJ_ submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for JJ— 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 4774740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: P. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards,Northwest comer of Rochester JJ— Avenue and 6th Street. Q. Street Improvements 1. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No.88-557,no person shall make connections from a source JJ— 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, 6 I:\PLANNING\FINALIPLNGCOMM12008 Res&Stf rep1DRC2008-00185SWCond i1-12.doc F– 53 Project No.JRC2or o� e�185 2. Construct the.following perimeter street improvements Comol_.ehone including, but not limited to: Curb& Ac. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Blke Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk APPr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Rochester Avenue X X 6th Street X X X X X 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. 3. 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 J Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be Posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements,prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the 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. �J 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 J� 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 �J 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. 9• 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. 1:1PLANNINGIFINALIPLNGCOM 7 ML2008 Res&SH rep1DRC2008-00185StdCond 11-12.doc I� t F— 54 i project No.DRC2�� Completion Date 4. Install street trees per City street tree designnotes shall peaand r standards the s follows. page of the completed legend (box below) and construction no P improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction impend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet_.(typ IY 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. Mtn. Grow Street Nacos Botanical Name Common Name space spacing size a1►• Rochester Avenue Australian Willow 5' 20'O.0 15 Gal Fill in Foreground Geljera parviHlora Formal Brachychiton pop8' informal.O.C. 15 Gat ulneus Bottle Tree Background Informal• 6th Street Magnolia granditlorn NCN 8' 30'O.C. 15 Gal Fill In Majestic Beauty 7 20�O.C. 15 Gat If planting areas aro Magnolia Gmndiflora NCN less than V 'Saint Mary 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 fumished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments,as determined by the City inspector. the Engineering Department. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. ance with 5. Intersection line of sight designs adopted policy. On collectorlstbe geets, li�ines oby thfsight shall ber plottedforffoirnall project J� intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. R. Public Maintenance Areas 1, A signed consent and waiverformt�o'�nand/or►ominaemapropriate approval orassuance of building JJ cape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with City 9 permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be bome by the developer. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respectiveJ— Beautification Master Plan for 6th Street. S. Utilitiessewers e s stem,water,gas, _J—J-- 1•. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary g Y electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. J�=-- 3, Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirement of ttthlee Cucamonga Valley Water District(CVWD),Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,s Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVW D 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 B I:,?LANNINGIFINAL\pLNGC0MhA2008 Res&Stf rep\DRC200"185swCond 11•i2.doc F— 55 Project No.DRC20pg ggm _Completion Data projects. ® 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that m them. ay be received from T. General Requirements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. —J--� 2. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first,for: Joint use driveway access to Rochester Avenue. J� 3. 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. 4. 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 ��— af 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: U. Security Lighting ® 1. All parking,common,and storage areas shall have minimum maintain These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sens red I d cell. a power. 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 JJ development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. V. Security Hardware 1. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars,metal gates /J or alarmed. , W. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. ® LTLANNINGWINAUPLNGCOMM12008 Res&stf repORC200g 9 -00185StdCond 11-12.doc F- 56 i Project No.DRC2008-00185 Completion Date X. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm it needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in tum save dollars and lives. 2- Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriffs dispatch number. (909)941-1488• APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT,, FIREPROTECTION FOLLOWING PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 4T7-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED 10 I:\PLANNING\F1NAL\PLNGC0MM\2008 Res&sd rep\DRC2008-00185StdCand 11-12.doc F- 57 • I Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection ' � District Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS July 21, 2008 Dedeaux Properties 117,500 square foot Warehouse Building NWC 6th& Rochester DRC2008-00185 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-cucamonaa.ca.us/firefindex h under the Fre Safety Division & Fre Construction refers to the article. Cho Services section. Search by article; the preceding number of the standard se 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. 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(401)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 1. The required minimum fire flow for this project, when automatic fire sprinklers are installed is 4000 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 PPro. F— 58 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, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. 3. 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. 4. Fire protection water 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 public fire protection water plans are approved. 5. 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 foT 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 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in buildings as required by the2007 California Fire Code applicable and the RanchoCucamonga Protection District Ordinance @D46� a� or standards require an approved automaticfire sp � obenstalled. FSC-5 Fire Alarm System&Sprinkler Monitoring . 1. The 2007 California Building Code,the RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard, Ordinance FD46 and/or the 2007 California Fire Code require most fire sprinkler systems to be monitoring by Central Station sprinkler monitoring system. A manual and or automatic fire alarm system fire e required based on the use and occupancy of the building. Plan check app and a building permit are required prior to the installation of a fire alarm or a sprinkler monitoring system. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access Fre 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 Department Access Roadways Standard. 1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures is' 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 tum radius shall be 24-feet. c. The minimum outside tum radius shall be 50-feet. 2 F— 59 d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches. i 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. 5. Commercial/Industrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard. The following design requirements apply: a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates, plans are required to be submitted to Fire 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 fromFCS. 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. 3 F— 60 f 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. 7. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identifyFie District standards site plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval. 8. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures if appbcab emuste clearly ted be re the site plan. A on the architecturalcopy plansoved Alternative Method submitted to B&S for.plan.review. reproduced o or walls 6. Roof Access: There shall be a means ofire department d multi family residentnstructu esfwith the buildings on to the roofs of all commercial, industrial 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 with a fixed ladder shall be provided In buildings with construction features,or high parapets that inhibit roof access. c. The number of ladder points may be required to be increased; depending on the building size and configuration. d. Regardless of the parapet height or construction features the approved ladder point shall be identified in accordance to the roof access standard. e. Where the entire roof access is restricted requy high parapet walls or other obstructions, a permanently mounted access ladder E Multiple access ladders may be required for larger buildings. g. Ladder construction must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard Appendix A. ons of the roof ladder shall be submitted during plan check. h. A site plan showing the locati i. Ladder points shall face a fire access roadway(s). FSC-10 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits or building Listed are those Fire Code permits commonly associated a mitha business for approval an of permit; construction. Plan check submittal is required with the p PP field inspection is required prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit the judgment of Ithe Fire Chl be eef is likely d for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in to produce conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. 4 F—61 • Aerosol Products Magnesium Working ® • Application of Flammable Finishes Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Operation • Automobile Wrecking Yards Open Burning • Battery Systems Organic Coating • Candles and open flames in public assemblies Ovens • Cellulose Nitrate Powder Coating • Compressed Gases • Cryogenics Public Assembly Pyrotechnical Special Effects • Dry Cleaning Plants Radioactive Materials • Dust-Producing Processes and Operations Refrigeration Systems • Explosive or Blasting Agents Repair Garages • Flammable and Combustible Liquids Rubbish Handling Operations • Fruit Ripening Plants Spraying or Dipping Operations • Hazardous Materials Structures Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported • High-Pile Combustible Storage(HPS) Tire Storage • Liquefied Petroleum Gases Welding and Cutting Operations • • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings 9 Wood Products/Lumber Yards 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 Fre, Hazardous Materials Division at (909) 387-4631 for forms and assistance. The County Fire Department is the CaUEPA 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 1£ 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. 2. Any business that o erates on rented or leased roe which is required to submit a Plan, is also required to submit mita 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 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 equipment designed to store, use or dispense hazardous materials in accordance with the 2007California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances FD46 and other implemented and/or adopted standards. • 5 F— 62 all FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire marshal will e review a DistrictUBApplicatonsts for rrfor eAlternate ted when submitted. The request must be sub Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of the$92 review fee. FCS-14 Map Recordation I RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS for Fire Department Emergency Access datthatuspbeng required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property subdivided. The.reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property she P °The Fire the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy Construction Services shall approve the agreement, prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorders Office. eem Reciprocal access agreement— Pleas�xcl sprovide a ve easement, avonng they Fi eeD strid t betweeagain the owners granting irrevocable and a non access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall have prod sitons for emergewhin the ncy situations and the Department approval. The agreement b the fire District. assessing of cost recovery to the property y enant Reciprocal water covenant— Please provide b1e and non-ent exclusive sv etenance easement favoring service �thve Fire between the owners granting an i District for the purpose of accessing i naica ve Tera) thThe ccovenanttshatlhave provsons for hydrants (fire protection systems a g the to roperty by the fire District. emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery p calSumma of RCFPD Standard Conditions Chronol• prior to the PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS — Please complete the following p issuance of any building permits: J. . Private Water Supply (Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit constructeview and ion plans, em for r specifications,flow test data and calculations for the private water main Fre District Standards. approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply Approval of the on-site (private)fire underground and water plans is required prior to any building permit issuance for any structure on theance with RCFPD Standards e. private on-site iation The Building 8 Safety tic and fire supply system must be designed in acro d Division and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. rior to any iverin All private on-site fire hydrants ls e.be inF ellconstruction Services�will istaed, flushed and operle nspectthelinstallation, combustible framing materials to the witness hydrant flushing and grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. I Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan showing the 2, Public Water Supp y( approval by the Fre District and locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and CCWD. On the plan, show all existingfire Submittd Procedure Stawithin a llard of radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan All required public fire hydrants shall benstal�Dflpesh personnel nspectthe instr to allation and any combustible framing materials to the site. the site after witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services ri c.on Services pmust g ant a clearance before the public water system by CCW D. Fre Const lumber is dropped. 6 F—63 3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements • of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard. 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 The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures'. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The 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). 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 by Fre Construction Services. • 7 F— 64 o the the fire 8. Fire Access Roadways: Prior tac accordanceissuance with the approved plans and acceptable t access e roadways must be installed. in Construction Services. The CCBR's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved shall recorded roadway mapwih tat prohibit parking, the contain an approved fire access 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, commercialfindustrial and multi- family buildings shall post the address in accordance to the appropriate RCFPD addressing Standard. 10. Hazardous Materials: The applicant must obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services. 11. Confidential Business occupancy Information: The applicant shall m This form provides ll complete the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Confidential Business occupancy at the subject building or contact information for Fire District use in the event of an emergency property. This form must be presented to the Fire Construction Services Inspector_ 12. Mapping Site Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate d shall be revised by the a Ppplicant to 17' site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Stands reflect the actual location of all devices and building g features eInspector.turasequired in the standard. The site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the8 F— 65- ENVIRONMENTAL • - INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) City of Rancho Cucamonga (Please type or print clearly using ink Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) Planning Division (909)477-2750 The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuantto City Policies,Ordinances,and Guidelines;. the. California Environmental Quality Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important that the information requested in this application be provided in full. GENERAL O. INCOMPLETEAPPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal: City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. �f Q i�'� Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: YI"� C1 wM rG r Project Title: RC Business Center Phase 2 • Name&Address of project owner(s): Dedeaux Properties, LLC. 545 S. Figueroa Street Suite 1209, Los Angeles,CA. 90071 Name&Address of developer or project sponsor. Dedeaux Properties, LLC. 545 S. Figueroa Street Suite 1209 Los Angeles,CA. 90071 Contact Person&Address: Chuck Buquet- Charles Joseph Associates, 16081 Foothill Blvd Suite 395 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Name&Address of person preparing this form(if different from above): Chuck Buquet- Charles Joseph Associates, 16081 Foothill Blvd Suite 395 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • Telephone Number.- 909-481-1822 Page 1 of 9 Created on 3/14/20061:28:00 PM EXHIBIT N F- 66 PROJECT Information indicated by an asterisk(*)is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. *1) . Provide a full scale(8-112 x 11)copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s)which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries. 2) Provide a set of color photographs that show representative views into the site from the north,south, east and west, views into and from the site from the primary access points that serve the site,and representative views of significant features from the site. Include a map showing location of each photograph. 3) Project location(describe): 8900 Rochester Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,CA 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers(attach additional sheet if necessary): APN 0229-262-01,-31 *5) Gross Site Area(adsq.ft.): 7.13 *6) Net Site Area(total site size minus area of public streets&proposed dedications): 5.54 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): None 8) Include a description of ad permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other govemmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: Grading, Street and-Building Permits,Tree removal permit&WQMP. 9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the project including information on topography, soil stability,plants and animals,mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on site(including age and condition)and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of significant features described. In addition,cite all sources of information(i.e.,geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): Vacant land, surrounded by existing pad for proposed building. Site has landscaping that has been identif- ied in the attached arborist report.There are no existing structures on-site except lights and an existing fi- re access road with parking that has been there for decades.WQMP is attached for water/hydrology_ conveyance City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 2 of 9 Created on 3/14/2006 1:28:00 PM F— 67 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information(books,published reports and oral history): There are no known historical aspects of this site. • 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site(aircraft, roadway noise, etc.)and how they will affect proposed uses: Existing road way noise which and should have no impact on use. 12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an adequate description of the site in terms of ultimate use that will result from the proposed project. Indicate if there are proposed phases for development,the extent of development to occur with each phase, and the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary: This project is a proposed 114,000 SF building with a 3,500 SF mezzanine for the purposes of one to four major tenant offices, warehousing with truck loading&unloading facilities, that will be constructed as 1 building with specific tenant improvements to follow. City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 3 of 9 Created on 3/14/2006 1:28:00 PM F— 68 13) Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural,historical,or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use(residential,commercial,etc.),intensity of land use(one-family, apartment houses, shops,department stores, etc.)and scale of development(height,frontage,setback, rear yard, etc.): North-Existing warehouse distribution building(Phase 1) South -Existing eh Street with existing industrial East-Existing Rochester with industrial building West-Existing industrial beyond Buffalo St: 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern,scale or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No 15) Indicate the type of short-term and.long-term noise to be generated, including source and amount. Now will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of soundproofing are proposed? Short term constuction noise Truck traffic loading and unloading. *16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: See attached arborist report 17) indicate any bodies of water(including domestic water supplies)into which the site drains: See attached WQMP. City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 4 of 9 Created on 3/14/2006 1:28:00 PM F—69 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification,please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. ® a. Residential(gal/day) 0.00 Peak use(gal/Day) b. Commerciabind. (gal/day/ac) 13 850.00 Peak use(gaUmin/ac) 27 700.00 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ❑Septic Tank ❑Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate expected daily sewage generation: (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification,please contact the Cucamonga County Water District at 987-2591. a. Residential(gal/day) 0.00 b. CommerciaUindustrial(gal/day/ac) RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units: Detached(indicate range of pante/sizes,minimum lot size and maximum lot size: N/A Attached(indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): N/A • 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent(permonth) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: N/A 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: N/A City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 5 of 9 g Created on 3/14/2006 1:28:00 PM F- 70 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project. Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment B: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s)and majorfunction(s)of commercial,industrial or institutional uses: Proposed shell building to provide ability for tenants as per use in development code-no specific tenant at this time. 26) Total floor area of commercial,industrial,orinstitutional uses by type: 114,000 warehouse,with 3,500 mezzanine. 27) Indicate hours of operation: To be determined 28) Number of employees: Total: Maximum Shift. Time of Maximum Shift. To be determined 29) Provide breakdown of anticipated job classifications,including wage and salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each classification(attach additional sheet if necessary): To be determined 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the To be determined City., '31) For commercial and industrial uses only,indicate the source,type and amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the South Coast Air Quality Management District at(818)572-6283): Proposed project will comply with all applicable standards. City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 6 of 9 Created on 3/14/2006 1:28:00 PM F—71 ALL PROJECTS ® 32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate service to the proposed project? If so,please indicate their response. All agencies contacted have indicated their ability to provide services to the project. 33) In the known history of this property,has there been any use, storage, or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous and/or toxic materials include,but are not limited to PCB's;radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides;fuels, oils, solvents, and other flammable liquids and gases. Also note underground storage of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe their use,storage, andlor discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. None known. 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary.or long-term use,storage or discharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials,including but not limited to those examples listed above? If yes,provide an inventory of all such materials to ® be used and proposed method of disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and shipment areas,shall be shown and labeled on the application plans. No I hereby certify that the statements fumished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability,that the facts,statements,and information presented are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. /further understand that additional information maybe required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Date: Signature: Title: Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates • City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 7 of 9 Created on 3/141'20061:28:00 PM F—72 ATTACHMENT A Water Usage Average use per day Residential Single Family 600 gal/day Apt/Condo 400 gal/day Commercial/industrial General and Regional Commercial 3,000 gaUday/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1,500 gaUday/ac General Industrial 2,500 gaUday/ac Industrial Park 3,000 gaUday/ac Peak Usage For all uses Average use x 2.0 Sewer Flows Residential Single Family 270 gal/day AptlCondos 200 gal/day Commercialllndustrial General Commercial 2,000 gaVday/ac Neighborhood Commercial 1,000 gaVday/ac General Industrial 1,500 gal/day/ac Heavy Industrial 3,000 gaVday/ac Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan,6100 City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 8 of 9 Created on 3/14/2066 1:28:00 PM F—73 ATTACHMENT B ® Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school fees: Elementary School Districts Alta Loma 9350 Base Line Road, Suite F Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-0766 Central 10601 Church Street, Suite 112 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-8541 Cucamonga 8776 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 987-8942 Etiwanda 5959 East Avenue P.O. Box 248 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 (909) 899-2451 High School • Chaffey High School 211 West 5th Street Ontario, CA 91762 (909) 988-8511 City of Rancho Cucamong Initial Study Page 9 of 9 Created on 3/14/2006 1:28:00 PM F— 74 Well° n .:�•. r^ tiwn , 66 1 U 1300 Y - - `-i� _ - _ ! _.. —��-�'`-1280-��-_ ° IIS l--,i'\_/ti.•L"sy`-�� •�".• j11::�'_. - � - ��t-�',^�_� •"�:•i•q• H ,':. y; 7o x: msp, 87--'�'^�_; '" •e=s _I' - 1.A -- ' + /fin Y s 1 _ s•ove ; ^ 5p MILL-1 6R.•AyS`•. .• i�'�d - V°� s{•yp. '.� i•��.----� -.I .�i 1 � � - 11 ,It bL �C =aov=vaasc ===III n 1250 IlY '�`"' �.W `t�• ^ • `\ � `/� ` �=, _�.'� lc �_ I IF _���``u tiI�-"'"��lzzo- n .. II f ��n,.:1� e�_i /:• p ,� n e D 111213-- 66 ?ir1 ° 1 7J .. FOOT �• .•.�• .. • t' '•R �— II Tan . Park 190 ae=moavvacacv==a$= ------ ------------ 170-0 �T_� rl ���-�• 4ARROW . �•� �'•✓1 .i( ._.-- - ni :-. �1'.'.._ Iigo Ln /so IN 1,30.E15376­ 'AT - T INIculdow ®: 't Wafer Tank 1• — _ In .power 18 -- \' -�--�-- --Wit-----e=---r----- N1 p c •-- .. - - •• • -- -----------� 11 ;. :.. :....:...: _ , � -1110 110o n 1104-�:.......:::.;,,...... >. E E L ��----�«_1 n u is Y -•----•----•----•-- •i,,-`- •____��_ i��'i 'I �, ' ---:-1 / n .Wellf. If oa �a= allwater Iq 11 U n `fIl' t1 LPW �Z oil it 05 If 1. u �Y �Ij •1 .� � ti ��; ;I ---� 1 IMI -� J Welly City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II r BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Review DRC2007-00185 2. Related Files: Minor Development Review DRC2007-00647. 3. Description of Project: A proposal to construct an industrial building of about 118,000 square feet on two vacant parcels of about 252,000 square feet (5.8 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-262-01 and 31. Related File: Minor Development Review DRC2007-00647. This is a two-phase project site. The first phase encompassed the north half of the site and consists of a warehouse building of about 135,000 square feet and associated improvements that were completed during the mid-1980x. The second phase on the south half of the site proposes the construction of a second warehouse building and associated improvements. The second phase of the project site is comprised of two parcels with a combined area of about 241,360 square feet. The larger, rectangular north parcel is about 710 feet (east to west) by about 320 feet (north to south). The smaller, triangular south parcel is about 280 feet (east to west) by about 280 feet (north to south). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses; the perimeter of the site along the street frontages is landscaped with ground cover and numerous mature trees. A part of • the site is being used for parking for the building constructed during the first phase; this parking area will be removed. The property is bound on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,100 feet and 1,090 feet, respectively. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Charlie Buquet Charles Joseph Associates 10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395 Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. toning: General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject property is surrounded by industrial development in all directions that is comprised of concrete tilt-up buildings used as or for warehouse/distribution/storage, manufacturing, and, to a lesser extent, offices. There are no vacant parcels in the immediate vicinity. All surrounding properties are zoned General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 13. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mike Smith,Associate Planner • (909)477-2750 F-76 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 2 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. GLOSSARY—The following abbreviations are used in this report: CVW D—Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR— Environmental Impact Report FEIR—Final Environmental Impact Report NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NOx—Nitrogen Oxides ROG—Reactive Organic Gases PM,o—Fine Particulate Matter RWQCB—Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD—South Coast Air Quality Management District. SW PPP—Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan URBEMIS7G—Urban Emissions Model 7G ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact,". "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated,"or"Less Than-Significant-Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. (✓) Aesthetics () Agricultural Resources (✓) Air Quality (✓) Biological Resources (✓) Cultural Resources (✓) Geology&Soils () Hazards &Waste Materials (✓) Hydrology&Water Quality () Land Use&Planning () Mineral Resources (✓) Noise () Population &. Housing () Public Services () Recreation () Transportation/Traffic Utilities&Service Sy§tems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (✓) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in thjf case because revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to,by the project propone . MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Date: Prepared By: ' Reviewed By: Date: F—77 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 3 Less Than SignHleant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Sote�ca t M1VJItn Than prti pabon Significant No Impact Incorporated Imooct IrMW EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project. a) Have a substantial affect a scenic vista? () () () (✓) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but () () () (✓) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or () () (} (✓) quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, () () (✓) () which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) There are no significant vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The site is not within a view corridor according to General Plan Exhibit III-15. b) The project site contains no scenic resources and no historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway. There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. c) The site is located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue and is characterized by industrial warehouse/office development in all directions. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of this project. The design of the proposed building will match, or exceed, the City's design and technical standards and will be consistent architecturally with surrounding industrial development. City standards require the developer to underground existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No.87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. d) The project would increase the number of streetlights and security lighting used in the immediate vicinity. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on site plans which require review for consistency with City standards that requires shielding, diffusing, or indirect lighting to avoid glare. Lighting will be selected and located to confine the area of illumination to within the project site. The impact is not considered significant. 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or () () () (✓) Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a () () () (✓) Williamson Act contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment, (} () () (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in • conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? F—78 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 4 Less Than siignificard Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Thanpp g Slgnlficam untiyation Slgrdfieard No Im act ImMorMed IrMM I Ct Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue and is characterized by industrial warehouse/office development in all directions. There are approximately 1,300 acres of Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of which about one-third is either developed or committed to development according to General Plan Table IV-2. The major concentrations of designated farmlands are located in the southern and eastern portions of our City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Further,two-thirds of the designated farmlands parcels are small, ranging from 3 acres to 30 acres, and their economic viability is doubtful; therefore, they are not intended to be retained as farmland in the General Plan Land Use Plan. The General Plan FOR identified the conversion of farmlands to urban uses as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations,was ultimately adopted by the City Council: The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. c) The site is located atthe northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue and is characterized by industrial warehouse/office development in all directions. The nearest agricultural use is about 0.75 mile to the north-northeast from the project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts are.anticipated. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the () () () (✓) applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute () (✓) () () substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of () () () (✓) any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant () () (✓) () concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial . () () () (✓) number of people? Comments' a) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6),continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. F—79 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 5 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mlllgatlan Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) During the construction phases of development, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, construction worker vehicles, and energy use will generate emissions. In addition, fugitive dust would also be generated during grading and construction activities. While most of the dust would settle on or near the project site,smaller particles would remain in the atmosphere, increasing particle levels within the surrounding area. Construction is an on-going industry in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Construction workers and equipment work and operate at one development site until their tasks are complete. They then transfer to a different site where the process begins again. Therefore,the emissions associated with construction activities are not new to the Rancho Cucamonga area and would not violate an air quality standard or worsen the existing air quality in the region. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) on a project-specific basis. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit Construction Plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected • equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was Investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)as well as City Planning staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances • and use sound engineering practices. F—80 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development.Review DRC2008-00185 Page 6 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PaBf icant ally vulm Than pp 9 Significant Mitigation slynHlrant NO I eG Ineo orated I I act • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to. adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. Suspend grading operations during high winds (1.%, wind speeds exceeding 25 mph)in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce Fine Particulate Matter(PM10)emissions,In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)shall be applied to all Inactive construction areas that remain Inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures,short-term construction air quality emissions would remain significant as noted in the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (Section 5.6). Based upon the Urban Emissions Model 7G (URBEMIS7G) model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR, Nitrogen Oxide (NoJ, Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), and Fine Particulate Matter (PMI()) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore; would all be cumulatively significant 9 they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. The General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. In the long-term, development consistent with the General Plan would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 5.6-4 of the General Plan FEIR; therefore, would all be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 10) All Industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods(i.e.,in excess of 10 minutes). 11) All.industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 12) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 13) All Industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. i F—81 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 7 ® Less Than Significant Less Potentially With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated InTact IffVact After implementation of the preceding mitigation measures, the General Plan FEIR identified the citywide increase in operational emissions as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. c) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.6) continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FOR identified the citywide increase in emissions as a significant and adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The project proposed is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. d) Sensitive receptors are defined as populations that are more susceptible to the effects of pollution than the population at large. The SCAQMD identifies the following as sensitive receptors: long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes,residences,schools, playgrounds,child care centers,and athletic facilities. According to the SCAQMD, projects have the potential to create significant impacts if they are located within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors and would emit toxic air contaminants identified in SCAQMD Rule 1401. The project site is located 0.5 mile from the nearest sensitive receptor, the Empire Lakes Golf Course. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are • anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or () () () V) through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat () () () (✓) or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally () () () (✓) protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native (.) () () (✓) resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances () () () (✓) protecting biological resources, such as a tree ® preservation policy or ordinance? F—82 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 8 Less Than Significant Less poteIssues and Supporting Information Sources: ignio agY With Than PP g signlflCant Mitlga8on Significant rio In• Incorpomted I. tet I f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat () () () (✓) Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue and is characterized by industrial warehouse/office development in all directions. The site has been previously disrupted during construction of infrastructure and surrounding developments, and annual discing for weed abatement. According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is within an area of a sensitive biological resources = the Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). However, according to a biological study prepared by Ecological Sciences, on October 2008, the conditions on-site are not consistent with those known or expected to support extant DSF populations in the region. Therefore,development of the site will not affect any sensitive biological resources. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. No riparian habitat exists on-site, meaning the project will not have any impacts. c) No wetland habitat is present on-site. As a result, project implementation would have no impact on these resources. d) The majority of the surrounding area has been or is being developed,thereby disrupting any wildlife corridors that may have existed. No adverse impacts are anticipated. e) There are heritage trees on the project site. However, these trees are located along the street frontages and will not need to be removed for construction. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with any local ordinance. f) The project site is not located within a conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Exhibit IV-4. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. S. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the () () () (✓) significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause. a substantial adverse change in the () (✓) () () significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological () (✓) () ( ) resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred () () () (✓) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project site has not been identified as a'Historic Resource" per the standards of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 2.24(Historic Preservation). There will be no impact. F—83 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 9 • Less Then significant Less potentiallywTranIssues and Supporting Information Sources: significant Mitigation SignlGcent No Impact lincorporaled I= I Impact b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project site; however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential archaeological resources. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities,to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. • 0 Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources,following appropriate CEQA guidelines. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. c) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.11) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the San Bernardino County database, no paleontological sites or resources have been recorded within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the Sphere-of-Influence, including the project site; however, the area has a high sensitivity rating for paleontological resources. The older alluvium, which would have been deposited during the wetter climate that prevailed 10,000-100,000 years ago during the Late Pleistocene epoch of the Quaternary period, when the last 'Ice Age" and the appearance of modern man occurred, may contain signfficant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium per General Plan Exhibit V-2; therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be • limited to, the following measures: F— 84 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 10 Less Tian Slgnilicam Lass . PotandaIN With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Sigracant Mitigation slgnitleam No Impact Inco orated Iffmact I act • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during.the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identity, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. d) The proposed project is in an area that has already been disturbed by development. The project site has already been disrupted by construction of infrastructure and surrounding developments, and annual discing for weed abatement. No known religious or sacred sites exist within the project area. No evidence is in place to suggest the project site has been used for human burials. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 7050.5) states that if human remains are discovered on-site, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. As adherence to State regulations is required for all development,no mitigation is required in the unlikely event human remains are discovered on-site. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as () () () (✓) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? () () () (✓) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including () () () (✓) liquefaction? iv) Landslides? () () () (✓) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? () (✓) () () C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, () () () (✓) or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? F—85 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 11 • Less Than signiticanl Less Potentially With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: SgdfiCem Mitigation Signincant Na 1rnpW Incorporated Im ad Inved d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table () () () (V) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use () () () V) of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) No known faults pass through the site and it is not in an Earthquake Fault Zone, nor is it in the Rancho Cucamonga City Special Study Zone along the Red Hill Fault, according to the General Plan Exhibit V-1, and Section 5.1 of the General Plan FEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within 3 miles northwest of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 5.5 miles north. These faults are both capable of producing Mw 6.0-7.0 earthquakes. Also, the San Jacinto Fault, capable of producing up to Mw 7.5 earthquakes is about 10 miles northeasterly of the site, and the San Andreas Fault, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is about 13 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong groundshaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code will ensure that geologic impacts are less-than-significant. b) The proposed project will require the excavation, stockpiling, and/or movement of on-site • soils. The Rancho Cucamonga area is subject to strong Santa Ana wind conditions during September to April, which generates blowing sand and dust, and creates erosion problems. Construction activities may temporarily exacerbate the impacts of windblown sand, resulting in temporary problems of dust control; however, development of this project under the General Plan would help to reduce windblown sand impacts in the area as pavement, roads, buildings, and landscaping are established_ Therefore, the following fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels: 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) dally to reduce PM10 emissions, In accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM1a emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain Inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. c) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.1) indicates that subsidence is generally associated with large decreases or withdrawals of water from the aquifer. The project would not withdraw water from the existing aquifer. The site is not within a geotechnical hazardous area or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FEIR Figure 5.1-2. Soil types • on-site consist of Dehli Soil association according to General Plan FOR Exhibit 5.1=3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. F— 86 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 12 Lm Than signHwM less pow+Iaffr With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: signincent Mitfgetion Significant No I ab Inco 2led I 1 act d) The majority of Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site, is located on alluvial soil deposits. These types of soils are not considered to be expansive. Soil types on-site consist of Delhi Soil association according to General Plan Exhibit V-3 and General Plan FEIR Exhibit 5.1-3. These soils are typically used for grapes, pasture plants, alfalfa, and some citrus. No adverse impacts.are anticipated. e) The project will connect to, and be served by, the existing local sewer system for wastewater disposal. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is proposed. 7. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () V) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the () () () V) environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of () () () (1) hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, () () () V) would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an () () () V) adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) The project will not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive that any other in the state. The City is in the process of developing an Emergency Operations Plan to meet State and Federal requirements. The City has approved a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which has received State and Federal approvals. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations F— 87 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 13 Less Than Significant Less Fanwith ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated I act Invact concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy, the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No adverse impacts are expected. b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition that is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the state. The City is in the process of developing an Emergency Operations Plan to meet State and Federal requirements. The City has approved a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan which has received State and Federal approvals. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials or volatile fuels will reduce the potential for significant impacts to a level less-than-significant. The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. However, at the time of occupancy, the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No adverse impacts are anticipated. c) There are no schools located within 1/4 mile of the project site. The project site is located about 1.6 mile from the nearest existing school, Coyote Canyon Elementary School. The proposed buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. • However, at the time of occupancy, the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. No impacts are anticipated. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspection did not reveal the presence of discarded drums or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. No impact is anticipated. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 3 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip. Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. g) The City's Multi-Hazard Disaster Plan, which is updated every two years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes at least two points of public street access and is required to comply with all applicable City codes, including local fire ordinances, no adverse impacts are anticipated. h) Rancho Cucamonga faces the greatest ongoing threat from a wind-driven fire in the Urban Wildland Interface area found in the northern part of the City according to the Fire District Strategic Plan 2000-2005; however, the proposed project site is not located within a high fire hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-7. • F—88 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 14 Less Than Significant Less Potentially with than Issues and SupportingInformation Sources: Significant rumlgaflon Stgruneam No Invact Incorporated Impact Irmad 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge () () (✓) () requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere () () () (✓) substantially with groundwater recharge such that. there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? C) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the () () () (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the () () () (✓) site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed () () () (✓) the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (} () () (41.) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as () () () (✓) mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures () () () (✓) that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of () () () (✓) loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? Comments a) Water and sewer service is provided by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). The project is designed to connect to existing water and sewer systems. The State of California is authorized to administer various aspects of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The General Construction Permit treats any construction activity over 1 acre as an industrial activity, requiring a permit under the State's General NPDES Permit. The State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) through the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWOCB), Santa Ana Region,administers these permits. F—89 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 15 Less Then signiricam Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Min""�ty �'h Than significc ant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Construction activities covered under the State's General Construction Permit include removal of vegetation, grading, excavating, or any other activity for new development or significant redevelopment. Prior to commencement of construction of a project, a discharger must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain coverage under the General Construction Permit. The General Construction Permit requires all dischargers to comply with the following during construction activities, including site clearance and grading: • Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would specify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters. • Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. • Perform inspections of all BMPs. Waste discharges include discharges of storm water and construction project discharges. A construction project for new development or significant redevelopment requires an NPDES permit. Construction project proponents are required to prepare a SWPPP. To comply with the NPDES, the construction contractor of the project will be required to prepare a SWPPP during construction activities, and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for post-construction operational management of storm water-runoff. The applicant has • submitted a WQMP, prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23, 2008, that identifies BMPs to minimize the amount of pollutants, such as eroded soils, entering the drainage system after construction. Runoff from driveways, roads and other impermeable surfaces must be controlled through an on-site drainage system. BMPs include both structural and non- structural control methods. Structural controls used to manage storm water pollutant levels include detention basins, oil/grit separators, and porous pavement. Non-structural controls focus on controlling pollutants at the source, generally through implementing Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, and various business plans that must be developed by any businesses that store and use hazardous materials. Practices, such as periodic parking lot sweeping can substantially reduce the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. The following mitigation measures would be required to control additional storm water effluent: Construction Activities: 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to • ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. F—90 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 16 Less Than sgntlteant Less Pote tiany Wilk Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Vgndit tigati ft "oImp� Incorporated naM i 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment.from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) The applicant shall incorporatefimplement the BMPs that were identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WOMP) prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23,2008,to the satisfaction of the City's Building and Safety Department. Post-Construction Operational: 6) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the WOMP, prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23, 2008, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizerstpesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas,including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) According to CVWD, 43 percent of the City's water is currently provided from groundwater in the Cucamonga and Chino Basins. CVWD has adopted a master plan that estimates demand needs until the year 2030. The proposed project will not deplete groundwater supplies, nor will it interfere with recharge because it is not within an area designated as a recharge basin or spreading ground according to General Plan Exhibit IV-2. The development of the site will require the grading of the site and excavation; however, would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 288 to 470 feet below the ground surface. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs and is a significant impact; however,CVWD has plans to meet this increased need through the construction of future water facilities. c) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project design includes landscaping of all non-hardscape areas to prevent erosion. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, the project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, the project will not alter the course of.any stream or river. All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities,which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on-or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. F— 91 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 17 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than pp g significant Mitigation significant No Impact Incorporated ImpactImpacIt Impact e) The project will cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff because of the amount of new building and hardscape proposed on a site; however, all runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. The project will not result in substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. A.Grading'and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Therefore, increase in runoff from the site will not result in flooding on-or off-site. No impacts are anticipated. f) Grading activities associated with the construction period could result in a temporary increase in the amount of suspended solids in surface flows during a concurrent storm event, thus resulting in surface water quality impacts. The site is for new development or significant redevelopment: therefore, is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)to minimize water pollution. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 8) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a WOMP, including a project description and Identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WOMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. • 9) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NO1) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained(i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. g) No housing units are proposed with this project. No adverse impacts are expected. h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to convey a 100-year storm event. The system is substantially improved and provides an integrated approach for regional and local drainage flows. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, spreading grounds, concrete-lined channels, and underground storm drains as shown in General Plan Exhibit V-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Exhibit V-5. No adverse impacts are expected. j) There are no oceans, lakes,or reservoirs near the project site;therefore, impacts from seiche and tsunami are not anticipated. The Rancho Cucamonga area sits at the base of the steep eastern San Gabriel Mountains whose deep canyons were cut by mountain streams. Numerous man-made controls have been constructed to reduce the mudflow impacts to the level of non-significance within the City. This existing system includes several debris dams and levees north of the City, and spreading grounds both within and north of the City. F— 92 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 18 Less Then sipnit)cwd Less Poterrtially W8h Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: 9gocam wfigaaop slgrd" No Impact Inco orated Ira aN IrMact 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? () () () V) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or () () () (11) regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a) The site is located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue and is characterized by industrial warehouse/office development in all directions. This project will be of similar design and size to this surrounding industrial warehouse/office development. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project site land use designation is General Industrial. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and does not interfere with any policies for environmental protection. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area According to the General Plan Exhibit IV-3, and Section 5.3 of the General Plan FEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources;therefore, development will not adversely affect rare or endangered species of plants or animals because of the fact that the project is surrounded by urbanized land uses and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral () () () V) resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? Comments• a) The site is not designated as a State Aggregate Resources Area according to the City General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-1;therefore,there is no impact. b) The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure IV-1 and Table IV-1, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site;therefore, there is no impact. F—93 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 19 Lass Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiatly Significam wllh Than nt Mfllgatlon SigniOcard No impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in () () () (✓) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive () () ( ) (✓) ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise () () () (✓) levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in () (✓) () () ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, () () () (✓) where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, (} () () (✓) • would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a) The project site is not within an area of noise levels exceeding City standards according to General Plan Exhibit V-13 at build-out. No adverse impact expected. b) The proposed industrial buildings are to be constructed as speculative with no definitive users at this time. The City's Development Code requires that all industrial uses be conducted within an enclosed building; hence, no adverse operational impact to nearby commercial uses is expected. However, at the time of occupancy, the Planning Department will review each Business License for each tenant to determine the potential impacts to the surrounding residential uses and elementary schools. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The proposed activities will not significantly increase traffic; hence, are not anticipated to increase the ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. d) The General Plan FEIR (Section 5.7) indicates that during a construction phase, on-site stationary sources, heavy-duty construction vehicles, and construction equipment will generate noise exceeding City standards. The following measures are provided to mitigate the short-term noise impacts: 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. • 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as F— 94 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 20 Lees Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PoSigniMfica t With Than ncarn NOtigadon Significant No I ad In rated Imoect IrMact specified in Development Code Section 1.7.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site construction' equipment; however, do not address the potential impacts because of the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measures shall then be required: 3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a Noise Mitigation Plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. e) The site is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. Located approximately 3 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the Citys westerly limits. No impact is anticipated. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes. and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating () () () V) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The project is located in a predominantly developed area and will not induce population growth. Construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. Once constructed,the proposed project will have a limited number of employees; hence, will not create a demand for additional housing as a majority of the employees will likely be hired from within the City or surrounding communities. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project site contains no existing housing units. No adverse impact expected. c) The project site is vacant land. No impacts are anticipated. F—95 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 21 • Less Than Significant Less Pwan Than and Supporting Information Sources: significant Mitigation Significant Vo Impact Incorporated I act Impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? () () () (✓) b) Police protection? () () () (✓) C) Schools? () () () (✓) d) Parks? () () () (✓) e) Other public facilities? () (} () (✓) Comments: a) The site, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue would be served by Fire Station #4 (Jersey Station), located at the southwest comer of Jersey Boulevard and Milliken Avenue, approximately 0.5 mile from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing • facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Standard conditions of approval from the Uniform Building and Fire Codes will be placed on the project so no impacts to fire services will occur. No impacts are anticipated. b) Additional police protection is not required as the addition of the project will not change the pattern of uses within the surrounding area and will not have a substantial increase in property to be patrolled as the project site is within an area that is regularly patrolled. c) The site is in a developed area currently served by the Cucamonga School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The project will be required to pay school fees as prescribed by State law prior to the issuance of building permits. No impacts are anticipated. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park/recreational facilities, Empire Lakes Golf Course is located to the west 0.5 mile from the project site. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project will utilize existing public facilities. The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The project will not require the construction of any new facilities or alteration of any existing facilities or cause a decline in the levels of service, which could cause the need to construct new facilities. Cumulative development within Rancho Cucamonga will increase demand for library services. According to the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.9.9), the projected increase in library space under the General Plan will not meet the projected demand. The General Plan FEIR identified the cumulative impact on library services as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the EIR was prepared and • impacts evaluated. Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City built a new library within the Victoria Gardens regional shopping center of approximately 22,000 square feet, which is in excess of the projected need of 15,500 square feet at build-out of the City. F—96 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 22 Less Than significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: verenuairy With Than PP 9 Slgnitlearrt Nugminn significant! No i i an lnW 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and () () () (✓) regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or () () () (✓) require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park/recreational facilities, Empire Lakes Golf Course is located to the west 0.5 mile from the project site. This project is not proposing any new housing or large employment generator that would cause an increase in the use of parks or other recreational facilities. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay park development fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) See a) response above. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in () () () (✓) relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street.system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of () () () (✓) service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including () () () (✓) either an increase in traffc levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature () () () (✓) (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? () () () (✓) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? () () () (✓) g) Conflict with. adopted policies, plans, or programs () () () (✓) supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle.racks)? Comments: a) Implementation of the proposed project will generate 92 vehicle trips daily. The proposed project includes the development of a 124,500 square foot warehouse/office building. The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each 1,000 square feet will generate F— 97 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 23 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentiallyignifWith Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco ratod Impact Impact 4.88 trips daily. As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 5.5),continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with street improvements existing or included in project design. The project will not create a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips,traffic volume, or congestion at intersections. The project site will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site per City roadway standards. In addition, the City has established a Transportation Development Fee that must be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits. Fees are used to fund roadway improvements necessary to support adequate traffic circulation. No impacts are anticipated. b) The Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Model estimates that each 1,000 square feet will generate 1.31 two-way peak hour trip daily. In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed the Measure I extension which requires local jurisdictions to impose appropriate fees on development for their fair share toward regional transportation improvement projects. On May 18,2005,the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted a Comprehensive Transportation Fee Schedule updating these development impact fees. As a result, the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Agency waived the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Traffic Impact Analysis reporting requirement. This project will be required, as a condition of approval, to pay the adopted Transportation Development Fee prior to issuance of building permit. The project is in an area that is mostly developed with all street improvements • existing. The project will not negatively impact the level of service standards on adjacent arterials. The project will be required to provide street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk)along the street frontage of the site. No impacts are anticipated. c) Located approximately 3 miles northeasterly of the Ontario Airport, the site is offset north of the flight path and will not change air traffic patterns. No impacts are anticipated. d) The project is in an area that is mostly developed. The project will be required to provide any street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site that were not installed during the first phase of the project. The project design does, not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersections or farming uses. The project will, therefore,not create a substantial increase in hazards because of a design feature. No impacts are anticipated. e) The project will be designed to provide access for all emergency vehicles. There are already three access points onto the site; the project will have a fourth following completion. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project design will have a parking capacity in excess of the standards of the Rancho Cucamonga Development. No impacts are anticipated. g) The project design includes, or the project will be conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks,carpool parking,etc.). F— 98 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 24 Less Than Signiftam Less PotIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Sg 1JcM igo. Tffi PP g SlgNticarrt Mitigation Slgnillmnt No I am IncoMoMed Irmem 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project.- a) roject.a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the () () () V) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider,which serves or may serve the project,that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. b) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. The project is required to meet the requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding wastewater. No impacts are anticipated. c) All runoff will be conveyed to existing storm drain facilities, which have been designed to handle the flows. A Grading and Drainage Plan must be approved by the Building Official and City Engineer prior to.issuance of grading permits. The impact is not considered significant. d) The project.is served by the CVWD water system. There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. No impacts are anticipated. e) The proposed project is served by the CVWD sewer system, which has waste treated by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency at the RP-4 treatment plant located within Rancho Cucamonga and RP-1 located within City of Ontario, neither of which is at capacity. No impacts are anticipated. F—99 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 25 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: significant Potentially With Than PP 9 Significant Mitlgatlan Significant No Intoact 1 orated impact Iffoact f) Solid waste disposal will be provided by the current City contracted hauler who disposes the refuse at a permitted landfill with sufficient capacity to handle the City's solid waste disposal needs. g) This project complies with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations regarding solid waste. The City of Rancho Cucamonga continues to implement waste reduction procedures consistent with AB 939. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the () () () (✓) quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually () () () (✓) limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a • project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? C) Does the project have environmental effects that will () () () (✓) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Exhibit IV-3. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed. Based on previous development and street improvements, it is unlikely that any endangered or rare species would inhabit the site. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2001 General Plan was adopted along with the certification of a Program FEIR, Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant adverse environmental effects of build-out in the City and Sphere-of-Influence. The City made findings that adoption of the General Plan would result in significant adverse effects to aggregate resources, prime farmland, air quality, the acoustical environment, library services, and aesthetics and visual resources. Mitigation measures were adopted for each of these resources; however, they would not reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of development under the General Plan Update against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). These benefits include less overall traffic volumes by ® developing mixed-use projects that will be pedestrian-friendly and conservation of valuable natural open space. With these findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, no further discussion or evaluation of cumulative impacts is required. F— 100 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 26 Less Than sivacant LM Paenumy With Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: signiflrant IuRGgaflon Significant No Impact Incorporated IrnpactImpact c) Development of the site under the proposed land use change would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Initial Study identifies construction-related emissions of criteria pollutants as having a potentially significant impact. Proposed mitigation measures would further reduce emission levels. Additionally, impacts resulting from air quality would be short-term and would cease once construction activities were completed. The Initial Study identified potentially significant impacts associated with the exposure of people to increased noise levels. Mitigation measures contained in this Initial Study will ensure impacts are at less than significant levels. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive(check ail that apply): (✓) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027,Certified October 17,2001) (✓) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH#88020115,certified January 4, 1989) (✓) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (✓) Habitat Study for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly(Ecological Sciences,October 2008) (✓) Water Quality Management Plan(Coory Engineering,June 23, 2008) . F— 101 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2008-00185 Page 27 APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Applicant's Signature: �. �- Date: Print Name and Title: �`'tQl'�/ ,(�'� S e A-zz F— 102 • City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2008-00185 This Mitigation Monitoring Program(MMP)has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration)forthe above-listed project. This program has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). Program Components -This MMP contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action,what action will be taken and when,and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring • progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the program. Program Management-The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project planner,assigned by the Planning Director,shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the conditions (mitigation)that relate to that department. Procedures -The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. A fee covering all costs and expenses,including any consultants'fees, incurred by the City in performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant. 2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga—Lead Agency Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 F— 103 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM DRC2008-00185—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES Page 2 3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staffs is needed, as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner. 4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of development. 5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design,construction, or operational personnel. 7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. B. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall require the applicant to post any necessary funds(or other forms of guarantee)with the City. These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time. 9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring,the applicant shall provide the City with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the City's MMP and shall be approved by the Community Development Director or Planning Director prior to the issuance of building permits. F- 104 MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: Development Review DRC2008-00185 Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates Initial Study Prepared by: Mike Smith, Associate Planner Date: October 9, 2008 ResponsibleMitigation Measures No. g of Method . Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance Ai r l is WOO All construction equipment shall be maintained in good PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4 operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the PD/BO C Review of plans C 2 j' developer shall submit construction plans to the City o denoting the proposed schedule and projected Un equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4 performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards BO B Review of plans A/C 2 noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: 1 of 8 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance ■ Reestablish ground cover on the construction site BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 through seeding and watering. • Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 areas to erosion over extended periods of time. ■ Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in BO C Review of plans A 4 accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established BO C During A 4 by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public construction thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. T Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 0 ■ Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e., BO C During A 4 wind speeds exceeding 25 mph)in accordance with construction SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. ■ Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils BO C During A 4 haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other Construction suitable means. The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During A 4 soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and construction Regional Water Quality Control Board IRWQCB]) daily to reduce Fine Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C During A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean BO C Review of plans A/C 4 alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 2 of 8 Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible g of Method . Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verif ication Verif ication Date/initials Non-Compliance The construction contractor shall ensure that BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs BO C Review of plans A 4 requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate PD C Review of plans A/C 2/3 preferential parking for vanpools. All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or PD C Review of plans D 2/3 more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or PD C Review of plans D 2/3 more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to T the extent reasonably feasible. o Cultural Resources sr kx._.; h F c N.T�git fir a aiya5l v 4°i c� u V If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading,the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: ■ Enact interim measures to protect undesignated PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. ■ Pursue educating the public about the PD/60 C Review of report A/D 3/4 archaeological heritage of the area. 3 of 8 Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance • Propose mitigation measures and recommend PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. ■ Prepare a technical resources management report, PD C Review of report A/D 3/4 documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report,with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal PD B Review of report A/D 4 fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to j' protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide 00 specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: ■ Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and PD B Review of report A/D 4 equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. ■ Should fossils be found within an area being cleared BO B/C Review of report A/D 4 or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. ■ Prepare, identify,and curate all recovered fossils for PD D Review of report D 3 documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). 4of8 Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date finitials Non-Compliance ■ Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho PD D Review of report D 3 Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. 1 r. GeologyGe[ology an d 4 Vd? The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During A 4 soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and construction RWQCB)daily to reduce PM10 emissions,in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a BO C During A 4 schedule established by the City to reduce PM,o construction emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. T Grading operations shall be suspended when wind BO C During A 4 o speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions construction from the site during such episodes. Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C During A 4 RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. t:,. ,✓i;,r ?;.,'-,c ,„ �'�:rn1. 4 ir`r r N 1.,. ydrplogy;and V1l Q,f Prior to issuance of grading permits,the permit applicant BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 shall submit to the Building Official for approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 5 of 8 FrequencyMitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Date Anitials Non-Compliance An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 the grading plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures ata minimum: a)Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California,and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. During construction, temporary berms such as BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. o During construction, to remove pollutants, street BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. The applicant shall incorporate/implement the BMPs CE B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 that were identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23, 2008, to the satisfaction of the City's Building and Safety Department. The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 the prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23,2008,to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 6 of 8 Mitigation Measures • Responsible ImplementingAction Landscaping plans shall include provisions for BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years,shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 submit to the City Engineer for approval of a WQMP, including a project description and identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. 4 f NoiSe Construction or grading shall not take place between the BO C During A 4 hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, construction including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 7 of 8 Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing .r Monitoring Frequency . Date/Initials Non-Compliance Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the BO C During A 4 standards specified in Development Code Section construction 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards,then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the PO/BO C During A 4/7 hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, construction -n including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to t" and from the construction site),then the developer shall prepare a Noise Mitigation Plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Key to Checklist Abbreviations Responsible Person Mpnitori,gFr,�, { ;IllethgQ x1�icatiott;° T °`� Sanctions .v.,,: _ , n. . .,.. .. .. . CDD-Community Development Director or designee A-With Each New Development A-On-site Inspection 1 -Withhold Recordation of Final Map PD- Planning Director or designee B-Prior To Construction B-Other Agency Permit/Approval 2-Withhold Grading or Building Permit CE-City Engineer or designee C-Throughout Construction C-Plan Check 3-Withhold Certificate of Occupancy BO-Building Official or designee D-On Completion D-Separate Submittal(Reports/Studies/Plans) 4-Stop Work Order PO-Police Captain or designee E-Operating 5-Retain Deposit or Bonds FC-Fire Chief or designee 6-Revoke CUP 7-Citation 8 of 8 • City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2008-00185 Public Review Period Closes: November 12, 2008 Project Name: Project Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates .Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue-APN: 0229-262-01 and 31. Project Description: A proposal to construct an industrial building of about 118,000 square feet on two vacant parcels of about 252,000 square feet(5.8 acres) in the General Industrial(GI)District, Subarea 13. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga,acting as the lead agency,has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: • The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project,as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted,the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909)477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the review period. November 12, 2008 Date of Determination Adopted By F— 113 City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Y INITIAL STUDY PART II ADDENDUM BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: Development Review DRC2014-00378 2. Related Files: Development Review DRC2008-00185 3. Description of Project: A proposal to construct an industrial building of 120,624 square feet on a vacant parcel of about 240,000 square feet (5.5 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue; APN: 0229-262-48. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Consolidated Consulting Attn: Charlie Buquet 7375 Day Creek Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 5. General Plan Designation: • General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (GI) District 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is a generally rectangular parcel of about 240,000 square feet located at the northwest comer of 6"' Street and Rochester Avenue. The overall dimensions of the project site are about 710 feet (east to west) by about 320 feet (north to south). At the southwest corner of the project site there is a triangular 'extension' that is about 280 feet (east to west) by about 280 feet (north to south). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses; the perimeter of the site along the street frontages is landscaped with ground cover and numerous mature trees. A part of the site is being used for parking for the building constructed during the first phase; this parking area will be removed. The property is bound on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by 61' Street. The overall project site is bound on the north, south, and west by warehouse distribution buildings between 150,000 and 250,000 square feet in floor area. To the east is an office complex consisting of five buildings. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI) District. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,100 feet and 1,090 feet, respectively. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division ® 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 EXHIBIT O F- 114 Initial Study Addendum for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00378 Page 2 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mike Smith, Associate Planner (909)477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None. Project History On November 12, 2008 the City of Rancho Cucamonga certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection with the approval of Development Review DRC2008-00185 pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines. The approval of Development Review DRC2008-00185 entitled the applicant to construct an industrial building of about 125,000 square feet on two vacant parcels of about 252,000 square feet (5.8 acres). On November 12, 2013, the approval of the project expired per the Planning Commission's Resolution of Approval No. 08-66, Standard Condition B1, as building permits had not been issued or the approved use had not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. In April 2014, a new application for the project was submitted (in effect, to re-entitle it). The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for Development Review DRC2008-00185 concluded that the project would have "less than significant impact(s)" and/or "no impact(s)" relating to the following factors/resources: Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Biological Resources; Hazards and Waste Materials; Land Use and Planning; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Transportation/Traffic; and Utility and Service Systems. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the project would have significant impact(s) to relating to the following factors/resources: Air.Quality; Cultural Resources; Geology and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; and Noise. However, with mitigation measures, the impacts would be reduced to a level of "less than significant." These mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program/Checklist. Analysis Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the City may prepare an Addendum to a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions that require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Changes to previously approved project for which an EIR or negative declaration was adopted require a subsequent EIR or negative declaration if any of the following conditions are found to exist: (1) Substantial changes in the project require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows: (a)the project will F— 115 Initial Study Addendum for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00378 Page 3 have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. An Addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for Development Review DRC2008-00185 is appropriate in this case because the proposal is to re-entitle a project, i.e. re-approve a project as a result of the expiration of the previous entitlement for the project. The current project is substantially the same as the original project that was analyzed in the original Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Addendum prepared for Development Review DRC2014-00378 does not identify any additional impacts to any environmental factors/resources and none of the conditions noted above are present. Staff analyzed the proposed project and concluded that there are no substantial changes in the project which warrant major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; that no substantial changes occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration; and that there is no new information of substantial importance present which was not known and.could not have been known at the time the previous Mitigated • Negative Declaration was adopted. For example, the project will not have a significant increase in traffic based according to a trip generation/distribution analysis prepared by Arch Beach Consulting on June 5, 2014; there will not be a significant impact on biological resources (specifically the Delhi Sand flower-loving fly) according to a habitat suitability evaluation prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on April 25, 2014; and, there will not be a significant impact on air quality according to an air quality analysis prepared by Vista Environmental on June 13, 2014. The Addendum to the original Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include any additional mitigations. The project will be required to incorporate into the project, and comply with, all of the mitigation measures described in the original Initial Study, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum will be incorporated into the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration to explain the changes to the project. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of this Development Review application. DETERMINATION On the basis of this evaluation: On the basis of this initial evaluation: • ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F- 116 Initial Study Addendum for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00378 Page 4 ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have' been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a"Potentially Significant Impact" or"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standard and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. (x) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mit ed pursuant to that earlier MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisio r mitt tion measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further' uir Prepared By: Date: VA Reviewed By: Date: / 1 EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s). pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measres based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive: (X) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (X) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH#88020115, Certified January 4, 1989) (X) Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) F- 117 Initial Study Addendum for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review DRC2014-00378 Page 5 • (X) Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Health Risk Assessment Impact Analysis (Vista Environmental, June 13, 2014) (X) Habitat Study for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Ecological Sciences, Inc., October 2008 and April 25, 2014) (X) Water Quality Management Plan (Coory Engineering, June 23, 2008, and Goodman &Associates, April 22, 2014) APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I have read this Initial Study Addendum. Further, I have revised the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would occur. Signature: Date: Print Name and Title: F- 118 RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2014-00378,A REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING OF 120,624 SQUARE FEET ON A VACANT PARCEL OF ABOUT 240,000 SQUARE FEET (5.5 ACRES)WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL(GI)DISTRICT,LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND ROCHESTER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0229-262-48. A. Recitals. 1. Consolidated Consulting,on behalf of Dedeaux Properties, LLC,filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2014-00378 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of August 2014 the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 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 August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue; and b. The project site is a rectangular parcel of approximately 240,000 square feet (5.5 acres). The overall dimensions of the project site are approximately 710 feet(east to west)by approximately 320 feet (north to south). At the southwest comer of the project site, there is a triangular extension that is approximately 280 feet(east to west)by approximately 280 feet(north to south); and C. The project site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses. The perimeter of the site along the street frontages is landscaped with ground cover and numerous mature trees; and d. The project site is bound on the east by Rochester Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. The overall project site is bound on the north,south,and west by warehouse distribution buildings between 150,000 and 250,000 square feet in floor area. To the east, is an office complex consisting of five buildings; and F— 119 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 2 e. The zoning of the project site and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI)District; and f. The applicant proposes to construct an industrial building of 120,624 square feet; and g. The project is the second phase of a two-phase project. The first phase is located on a parcel(APN: 0229-.262-29)of approximately 274,000 square feet(6.3 acres)and consists of a warehouse building of approximately 135,000 square feet and associated improvements that were completed during the mid-1980s. The project site of the second phase is located immediately to the south of the first phase; and h. The second phase was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008 (Related file: Development Review DRC2008-00185). Because of the downturn of the economy at around that time, no further, significant activity, i.e. issuance of Construction/Grading Permits and commencement of construction/grading, on the project occurred. On November 12, 2013, the approval of the project expired per Resolution of Approval No. 08-66,. Standard Condition B1, as Building Permits had not been issued or the approved use had not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval; and i. In April 2014,a new application was submitted to the City in order to"re-entitle"the project; and j. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up construction. The basic layout of the building will be typical for warehouse buildings. The offices areas will be located at the southeast and southwest comers of the building. There will be a dock loading/storage area with 12 dock doors located on the north side of the building. These doors will face the doors of the existing building to the north. The new and existing buildings will share a common loading area; access to this area will be through shared drive aisles between the buildings; and k. The parking requirement for the project, based on the proposed mix of office, warehouse,and manufacturing floor areas in the proposed building,is 109 parking stalls;the project will have 109 parking stalls. The trailer parking requirement, based on a ratio of one stall per dock door, is 12 parking stalls; the project will have 12 parking stalls; and I. The proposed building will have a floor area of 120,640 square feet and the project site has an area of approximately 240,000 square feet The calculated FAR for the project will be approximately 50.2 percent. Per Chapter 2, Figure LU-2 Land Use Plan of the General Plan, the maximum Floor Area Ratio(FAR)in the General Industrial(GI)land use category is 60 percent;and m. The current project is substantially the same as the original project that was approved in November 2008; and n. A review and request for approval of land uses are not included in this application. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented of facts in in 1 ion during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings ts et forth and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: F— 120 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 3 a. The proposed project is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to construct an industrial building of 120,624 square feet. The underlying General Plan designation is General Industrial. b. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The potential land uses that would be associated with this project are consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the subject property and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI) District; C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City including building and parking setbacks, average landscape depth, floor area ratio, parking, dock and storage area screening, landscape coverage, site planning, and architecture. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: • a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 12, 2008, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2008-00185 for an industrial building of approximately 125,000 square feet. 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 more severe impacts than previously considered; or(iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. b. The Planning Commission finds,in connection with the current proposed project to construct an industrial building of 120,624 square feet,that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. Development Review DRC2008-00185 was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008. On November 12, 2013, the approval of the project expired as Building Permits had not been issued or the approved use had not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. In April 2014, the current subject application was submitted; the proposed project is substantially the same as the.previously approved project. The Planning Commission 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. The project will not have a significant increase in traffic based upon a trip generation/distribution analysis prepared by Arch Beach Consulting on June 5, F— 121 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 4 2014; there will not be a significant impact on biological resources (specifically the Delhi Sand flower-loving fly)according to a habitat suitability evaluation prepared by Ecological Sciences, Inc. on April 25, 2014; and,there will not be a significant impact on air quality according to an air quality analysis prepared by Vista Environmental on June 13, 2014. The Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration does not include any additional mitigations. C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record,the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of Development Review DRC2014-00378 and adopts an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts that was adopted by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008. 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 attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of one industrial building with a floor area of 120,624 square feet within the General Industrial(GI)District, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Rochester Avenue- APN: 0229-262-48. 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. 3) Proposed land uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit as identified in Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code,shall require a separate review and approval by the Planning Manager and/or Planning Commission prior to submittal of documents for plan check, issuance of a Business License, and building occupancy. 4) Shared access,parking,and maintenance shall be incorporated in the project Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). 5) Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the building. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 6) All doors (roll-up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. 7) All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or a similarly dark color. 8) New walls, including retaining walls,shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building. F- 122 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 5 • 9) All ground-mounted equipment and utility boxes including transformers, back-flow devices, etc..shall be screened by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on center. This equipment shall be painted dark green. 10) All Double Detector Checks(DDC)and Fire Department Connections (FDC)required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations generally in front of,and along,the screen walls that enclose the dock areas and not within direct view or line-of-sight of the office corners of each building. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks(DDC)and Fire Department Connections (FDC) are to be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or poured in-place concrete with design elements incorporated to match the building. 11) The output surface (face) of all lamp heads on wall-mounted light fixtures and the light standards shall be parallel to the ground in order to eliminate glare and minimize lighting on adjacent properties. The maximum height of light standards,including the base,measured from the finished surface is 25 feet. • 12) The employee lunch area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural design and finishes/trim used on the building. The trellis shall be painted to match the building, and tables, chairs/benches, and waste receptacles shall be provided. 13) All trash enclosures shall be constructed per City standard. The design of the trash enclosures shall incorporate the materials, finish, color, and trim used on the buildings. 14) Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the 45-foot setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 15) Incorporate undulating berms along the street frontages (where applicable), within the landscape setback and landscape areas. The highest part of the berms should be at least 3 feet in height. 16) Landscaping at the southeast and southwest corners of the site shall be intensified to ensure that the presence of the parking areas immediately adjacent to these corners are minimized. • 17) The landscaping shall be installed prior to release for occupancy. F— 123 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DE DEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 6 En-gineering Services Department 1) The frontage of 6th Street shall be improved in accordance with City "Major Divided Arterial" standards. Frontage improvements shall be installed as follows: a) Remove the existing 6th Street drive approach and install the new drive approach near the westerly end of the project boundary per City Standards. The sidewalk shall cross the drive approach at the zero-inch curb face. No accent paving within the public right-of-way. b) Provide additional traffic striping, signage and related signs and legends as required to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer including R-26 (s) "NO STOPPING" signs. c) Install the sidewalk from the southwesterly project comer limit to join the existing sidewalk to the east. d) Install the curbside drain outlets per City standards as required. e) Protect or provide/replace curb and gutter, 9500 Lumen HPSV equivalent LED street lights, street trees, and additional traffic striping and signage as required. f) No median island opening will be allowed in the 6th Street median. 2) Rochester Avenue frontage shall be improved in accordance with City "Major Arterial" standards. Frontage improvements shall be installed as follows: a) Provide new street pavement section to centerline of street. b) Protect the existing or provide/replace; 9500 Lumen HPSV equivalent LED street lights, street trees, R-26 (s) ."NO STOPPING" signs and additional traffic striping and signage. 3) Buffalo Avenue improvements shall be in accordance with City "Industrial" standards as follows: a) Protect or provide/replace damaged curb and gutter,9500 Lumen HPSV equivalent LED street lights, R-26 (s) "NO STOPPING" signs and additional traffic striping and signage, as required. b) Protect or provide/replace damaged private landscaping and irrigation on the adjacent west property fronting eastside of Buffalo.Avenue. 4) The parkway landscaping shall conform to the 6th Street Beautification Master Plan. F- 124 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 7 • 5) Revise the existing public storm drain plans to show private storm drain connection to the existing catch basin on Rochester Avenue. 6) All missing public improvements along 6th Street and Rochester Avenue shall be installed per the approved improvement plans, Drawing Nos. 793, 1120, 1049, 1752 and 2268-S. It will be necessary to recheck the plans for conformance to current City Standards, since more than a year has elapsed since their approval. Building and Safety Department—Grading 1) All roof drainage flowing to the public right of way must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Services Department. 2) The applicant shall provide a copy of EPA Form 7520-16(Inventory of Injection Wells) with the Facility ID Number assigned to the Building and Safety Services Department Official prior to issuance of the Grading Permit. 3) Final WQMP shall be submitted. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan has been deemed"Acceptable". Prior to the issuance ® of a Grading Permit a final project-specific Water Quality Management Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official. 4) A Grading Bond will be required to be submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department Official for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 5) RC memo submitted prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit,the City of Rancho Cucamonga's"Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan"shall be submitted for review and approval by the Building Official and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 6) The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 7) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number(WDID). F— 125 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 8 Environmental Mitigation Air Quality 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the developer shall submit construction plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment.use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized,or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)as well as City Planning Staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. • Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e.,wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. F— 126 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 9 ® Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB])daily to reduce Fine Particulate Matter(PM,o)emissions,in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean altemative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 10) All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). ® 11) All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. 12) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. 13) All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. Cultural Resources 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities,to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments,using their special 40 qualities as a theme or focal point. F— 127 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 10 • Pursue educating the public approximately the archaeological heritage of the area. Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. Prepare a technical resources management report,documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide. specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures(i.e., paleontological monitoring)that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate,the program must include,but not be limited to, the following measures: Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped,to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository(i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. Geology and Soils 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with F- 128 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 11 vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Hydrology and Water Quality 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. 2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in grading plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This • Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. 3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. 4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 5) The applicant shall incorporate/implement the BMPs that were identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23,-2008, to the satisfaction of the City's Building and Safety Department. Post-Construction Operational: 6) The developer shall incorporate/implement the BMPs that identified in • the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Coory Engineering on June 23, 2008, to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. F— 129 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 12 7) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. 8) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004. 9) Prior to issuance of Grading or Paving Permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (Le., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number)shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Noise 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D,as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to,a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 3) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally,if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips(counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. F— 130 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-32 DRC2014-00378—CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC August 27, 2014 Page 13 • 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 August 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ® NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: F— 131 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2014-00378 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: CONSOLIDATED CONSULTING FOR DEDEAUX PROPERTIES, LLC LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND ROCHESTER AVENUE-APN: 0229-262-48. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements Comoletion 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. 14-32 or Approval Letter, 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 Manager hearing. a) Mitigated Negative Declaration -$2,206.25 X 1 F— 132 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date B. Time Limits 1. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 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. 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 Manager. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California 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 Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. . 4. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating.all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for �— consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development �— Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and �— approved by the Planning Manager and Police Department(477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. 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 Manager. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 10. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property �— owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Manager and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. D. SHOPPING CENTERS 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 2 F- 133 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash • and debris remain for more than 24 hours. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be 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 Manager. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 17 feet long with a required 1-foot overhang (e.g., over a curb stop). 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet. • 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. G. Trip Reduction 1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided at a rate equivalent to 5 percent of all required motorized vehicle parking, with a minimum of one rack with a capacity for two bicycles. H. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development,shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Development Code Section 17.80.050, 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. A minimum of 20 percent of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30 percent within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 4. Within parking lots,trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking —/—/— stalls. 3 F– 134 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion.Date 5. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 6. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. I. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting. Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the Planning Manager in the amount of $ 581 prior to the issuance of Building Permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. J. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 2. The applicant shall comply with all Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board and Federal EPA water requirements. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT(909)477- 4100 FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. K. PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Services Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S). L. Building and Safety Industrial and Commercial Standard Conditions 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; 4 F- 135 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 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 (DRC2014-00378) clearly identified on the outside of all plans 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of 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. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. —/—/- 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by �— the Building and Safety Services Department. 6. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can _/—/— contact the Building and Safety Services Department staff for information and submittal requirements. 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 (DRC2014-00378). 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 Services Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for a new residential project or major addition, the —/—/— applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not.limited to: Permit and Plan Check Fees, Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. The applicant shall provide a copy of the School Fees receipt to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to permit issuance. 3. Prior to issuance of permit issuance for a new residential 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, and Transportation Development Fee. 4. 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. The applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to permits issuance. 5. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map _/—/— recordation and prior to issuance of Building Permits. 6. For projects using septic tank facilities, shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to the issuance • of Building Permits. 5 F– 136 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 7. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday,Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 8. Construct trash enclosure(s) per,City Standard (available at the Planning Department public _/—/— counter). 9. All commercial/public/multi-family development swimming pool plans shall be submitted to �— the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services Department for review and approval prior to approval from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 10. The following is required for side yard use for increase in allowable area: �— a. Provide a reduced Site Plan (8 1/2-inches by 11 inches), which indicates the non- buildable easement. b. Recorded "Covenant and Agreement for the Maintenance of. a Non-Buildable Easement,"which is signed by the appropriate property owner(s). New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use,use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. —/— 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturers"high wind" instructions. —/—/- 4. Plans for food preparation areas shall- be approved by County of San Bernardino �— Environmental Health Services prior to issuance of Building Permits. 5. Provide draft stops in attic areas in accordance with CBC Section 1505. —�- 6. Roofing materials shall be Class"A." �- 7. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC . —/- 8. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC. �- 9. Walls and floors separating dwelling units in the same building shall be in accordance with —/_/— the CBC. 10. Provide smoke and heat venting in accordance with CBC. 11. Upon plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. —/—/— APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. 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. The lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 6 F– 137 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 3. The lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.ON. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal �— gates, or alarmed. O. Security Fencing 1. All businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the —�— police with a keypad access and a unique code. The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed because of a change in personnel or for any other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24-hour dispatch center at(909)941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at(909) 477-2800 extension 2474 or extension 2475. P. Windows 1. Security glazing is recommended on storefront windows to resist window smashes and impede entry entry to burglars. Q. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for —�— • nighttime visibility. R. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on 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 Sheriffs dispatch number: (909) 941-1488. 941-1488. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The project must comply in design and constructed in accordance with the 2010 California Building and Fire Codes, the RCFPD Ordinance FD50 and the RCFPD Standards. The RCFPD ordinance,procedures & standards which are referenced in this document can be access on the web at www.citvofrc.us. S. Industrial Fire Standard Conditions FSC -1 Public and Private Water Supply Design Guidelines for Fire Hydrants: Reference the RCFPD Standard 5-10. —�—�— FSC.-2 Fire Flow 1. The required fire flow for this project is calculated gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with • California Fire Code Appendix, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. The required minimum fire flow for this project may be reduced by 50 percent when automatic fire sprinklers are installed. 7 F– 138 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 2. Public fire hydrants located within the immediate vicinity 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. tans are required for all projects that must extend the existing �- 3. Fire protection water supply p P 1 water supply to or onto the site. Building Permits will not be issued until the fire protection water supply 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 Pre-requisite for submittal of Overhead.Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems 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 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in buildings as required by the current editions of the California Fire Code, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance and/or any other applicable standards that require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed. FSC-5 Fire Alarm System &Sprinkler Monitoring 1. The current edition of California Building/Fire Codes, the RCFPD Ordinance and Fire Alarm Standard 9-3 require most fire sprinkler systems to be monitored by a Central Station sprinkler monitoring system. A manual and or automatic fire alarm system may also be required based on the use and occupancy of the building. Plan check approval and a Building Permit are required prior to the installation of a fire alarm or a sprinkler monitoring system. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standards. Refer to the specified documents for the system requirements. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access: Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets and highways, as well as private roads, drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Department Access Roadways Standard 5-1. 1: Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1 st story exterior wall shall be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measured 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 24 feet. c. The minimum outside tum radius shall be 50 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 percent. 8 F- 139 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date i. Support a minimum load of 80,000 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 current edition of California Building/Fire Codes 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. 5. Building Access: Knox boxes for site and building access are required in accordance with —/—/— RCFPD Standard 5-9. 6. Commercial/Industrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall —/—/— be in accordance with Fire District Standards. The following design requirements apply: a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates, plans are required to be submitted to Fire 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. The lock must be purchased at the Fire Administration Office. 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. 7. 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 the Building and Safety Services Department for approval. 9 F– 140 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 8. 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 the Building and Safety Services Department for plan review. 9. Roof Access: must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard. There shall be a means of fire department access from the exterior walls of the buildings onto the roofs of all commercial, industrial and multi-family residential structures more than 10,000 square feet or with roof more than 15 feet in height and less than 75 feet above the level of the fire access road. a. This access must be reachable by the Fire Department aerial ladder. b. A minimum of one ladder point with a fixed ladder shall be provided in buildings with construction features, or high parapets that inhibit roof access. C. The number of ladder points may be required to be increased, depending on the building size and configuration. d. Regardless of the parapet height or construction features the approved ladder point shall be identified in accordance to the roof access standard. e. Where the entire roof access is restricted by high parapet walls or other obstructions, a permanently mounted access ladder is required. f. Multiple access ladders may be required for larger buildings. g. Ladder construction must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard Appendix. h. A Site Plan showing the locations of the roof ladder shall be submitted during plan check. i. 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. Aerosol Products Magnesium Working Application of Flammable Finishes Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Operation Automobile Wrecking Yards Open Burning Battery Systems Organic Coating Candles and open flames in public assemblies Ovens Cellulose Nitrate Powder Coating • Compressed Gases • Public Assembly 10 F- 141 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date • Cryogenics ® • Pyrotechnical Special Effects • Dry Cleaning Plants • Radioactive Materials • Dust-Producing Processes and Operations • Refrigeration Systems • Explosive or Blasting Agents • Repair Garages • Flammable and Combustible Liquids • Rubbish Handling Operations • Fruit Ripening Plants • Spraying or Dipping Operations • Hazardous Materials • Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures • High-Pile Combustible Storage(HPS) • Tire Storage • Liquefied Petroleum Gases • Welding and Cutting Operations • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings • Wood Products/Lumber Yards 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) 3874631 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 the Building and Safety —/— Services Department 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. 2. 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 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 —/—/- 1. 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 current editions of the California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances and other implemented and/or adopted standards. 11 F– 142 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 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 review fee. FCS44 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, Recorder's Office. 2. 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. 3. 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. The Building and Safety Services Department and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. 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 CVWD. 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. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed,flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CVWD personnel shall inspect the installation and 12 F– 143 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after ® acceptance of the public water system by CVWD. 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. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14 feet,6 inches above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow:.A current fire flow letter from CVWD must be received. The applicant is responsible —/—/— for obtaining the fire flow information from CVWD 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 The 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 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). 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 by Fire Construction Services. 13 F– 144 Project No. DRC2014-00378 Completion Date 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: Must be in accordance with the RCFPD Standard 5-7, 5-8 and/or 5-5. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commercial/industrial and multi-family buildings shall post the address in accordance to the appropriate RCFPD addressing Standard. 10. Hazardous Materials: The applicant must obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services. —I 1_ 11. Confidential Business Occupancy Information: The applicant shall complete the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District "Confidential Business Occupancy Information11 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: Must be in accordance with the RCFPD Standard 5-11. Prior to the issuance ofa Certificate of Occupancy, a 8 '/i' x 11" or 11" x 17" Site Plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard 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. 14 F– 145 STAFF REPORT PLANNNGDEPARTMENr Date: August 27, 2014 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner Subject: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19550 — RANCHO HAVEN, LP — A request to subdivide a parcel of about 87,120 square feet (2.0 acres), that is currently developed with two (2) commercial buildings, into two (2) parcels of 54,014 square feet(1.24 acres) and 33,106 square feet (0.76 acres) in the Industrial Park(IP) District and Haven Avenue Overlay District (HADD), located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street. Related files: Conditional Use Permit CUP 99-53, Conditional Use Permit DRC2012-01193, and Minor Development Review DRC2010-00400. This action is categorically exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315—Minor Land Divisions; APN: 0209-262-20. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19550 by • adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Office building; Industrial Park (IP), Haven Avenue Overlay District (HADD) South- Industrial building; Industrial Park (IP), Haven Avenue Overlay District (HAOD) East - Office building; Industrial Park (IP), Haven Avenue Overlay District (HAOD) West - Industrial building; Industrial Park (IP) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay North - Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay South- Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay East - Industrial Park, Haven Avenue Office Overlay West - Industrial Park C. Site Characteristics: The project site is a commercial center with an overall area of approximately 87,120 square feet(2.0 acres) located at the northwest comer of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street at 9280 Haven Avenue. The project site contains the ARCO/Subway service station and convenience center, and the EI Ranchero restaurant. The overall dimensions of the project site are approximately 264 feet(east to west) by approximately 331 feet (north to south) (Exhibit B). The commercial center, which was approved by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2000 • (Related file: Conditional Use Permit 99-53), was part of a larger 4 acre, 2-parcel project site for the development of a three-story 32,000 square foot office building (with multiple tenants), a G— 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM19550— RANCHO HAVEN, LP August 27, 2014 Page 2 4,450 square foot automotive fueling service and convenience center(ARCO/Subway), and a 3,500 square foot restaurant(EI Ranchero). Subsequent applications(Related file: Conditional Use Permit DRC2010-00400 and Minor Development Review DRC2012-01193) were approved and then modified to include a proposed 940 square foot self-service carwash. The property to the north and east contain office buildings and the property to the south and west contain industrial buildings. The zoning of the properties to the north, south, east, and west are Industrial Park (IP) District, while the properties to the north, east, and south are also within the Haven Avenue Overlay District(HAOD). ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant, Rancho Haven, LP, proposes to subdivide the subject parcel into two (2) parcels of 54,014 square feet (1.24 acres) and 33,106 square feet (0.76 acres) (Parcels A and B, respectively) (Exhibit B). Following the subdivision, each of the two buildings that comprise the commercial center will be situated on their own exclusive parcel. Parcel A will contain the ARCO/Subway and proposed car wash, and Parcel B will contain the EI Ranchero restaurant. Beyond the proposed car wash the applicant does not propose any physical changes to the site such as modifications to the parking lot, landscaping, or vehicular access/circulation as the site is fully developed. As the parking lot will be subdivided by the new property line, to minimize the potential for problems regarding vehicle access, parking, and/or maintenance, a condition of approval has been included in the Resolution of Approval requiring the submittal to the City applicable recorded documentation that establishes, and/or ensures the continuation of, agreements, easements, etc., for the purpose of mutual/reciprocal access, parking, and maintenance of the parking lot and associated areas within the shopping center. Both lots will exceed the 0.5 acre minimum lot size established by the Development Code (Table 17.36.040-1). B. Grading Technical and Design Review Committees: As the project is only for the creation of a new property line on a fully developed commercial property and development of the site (i.e., grading, public improvements, and buildings) is not proposed nor required, staff determined that a review by the Committees is not necessary. 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 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 — Minor Land Divisions — as the project is a division of industrial zoned property into four or less parcels, is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designations, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the proposed parcels to local standards are available, the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. There is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. G- 2 • PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM19550-RANCHO HAVEN, LP August 27, 2014 ® Page 3 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 radius of the project site. No comments have been received. Respectful) submitted, is &-Cq Candyce` urnett Planning Director CB:TG/ls Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT19550 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19550 G- 3 Goc Maps 1 of 1 To see all the details are visible on the M i l ' screen,use the Print"link next to the map 14, ° .. z x r vis.C. �..+ �• 3 ��, ♦ 4 v `s Aa.. R z x � Lv i s. https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl �,�n/I I m TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 19550 m: IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA pati 5 5 — BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 6 OF PARCEL MAP NO.7731,IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 84 PAGES 94 AND 95 OF PARCEL Pa JE r�Ih — MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. A.J.KOLTAVARY,CIVIL ENGINEERS APRIL 2014 ANDREW J.KOLTAVARY RCE 25571 mnowown,Y.uawYn.uaaY, .„..,.,___...—._.. NCK11rY MAP® ... . i . I ... ; ............ ..............:............... . ::'...... ...................^:^NOD;z..,. z. ... .. - OWNEbR/SU9 .... 13 DIVIDER UTILITY COMPANIES n AT-1 Yel Yra, .cokors.uw,s �. �is : M, 1��\ .._................... , ....:.. t. .: .: =. LEGAL.. . _ ........._..... ........... .......................... :. _._._....... ....._ _ .::.:.:::: lb, ......_...._...._..:_:=:.:::::_:_.:::.� m'1::s.•{. . r»,Ns,:Enndau.c,ocurranr ralNnd w.auswoNo. nrmi�.koaruoovo:avv� wr[Y Iwl alwiEddifOlM\A9[fA MNkECq,CEONIOOItM PIGFaYNOYd NAISE YVa.N i,E i i }::: i ._..._........ (DO .:e”0 "7<'::� .. arced rle munrxaY[Er,d s:ao<uNrr. awnkN.u,rdNYGa[o,eun V - APR oYaaaao:s000 YkexraY av[YE YEl.xr-vYVEa NOO.22'41w :/ akrrwo uNw iYol.[,-nY EASEMENTS [SEswrE. IYowaxYsw %..-'..::: .. _ ,ti .. _....... .. akuY,nn uiF<rw rkar Pokinxd awwYunrm r:r e:Yv<Yannm lrkEnw Txa,WkrwN r,vFYr �Jl NYYwTY P:NP0Yatl PkovrEDNl,rrouoTmG wu4GN y .............................................�—.�-..-.,�_.....�...,.' ._..__ .._-.._ .._ ........... .. .......... ._-. ._._ ..... -. ..... _ _ •.a.:,... �':"__ � ,a ONX,FOIO:Y,UaIY,GI,FwrIwrD CO,WNY .: r.•,.. ...._,,.:..: -- _....... a0T1 �Tkd�IXrt:WM�rFA ,...._......... - eM,MgY NK,YE.Ga,rY� it .......1: 4..:...:.._.. ::,: :-..... •'�.•....., :... •, ,L_-,J `---fQ u, <EwaErLMwF[FclEa,k.,IPmnOk Or YD W.Y NO[PtnE NYroEG ai.iEO,EAFN HO i' .............................................................. ...-......_ _..:....... •KRxIY MroaF]tlfr0,nfo Nlrr rYEaMY 6' .........._ dEax,YgpKa3,Ylaa wla 'PN«Wakalgr ......., P 6 g �._... I ::�k�xY.Ndr • ... ARC. :.i A, ..:....... [N:,e,"sNaw.mTrtxE.: CEL MAP O 773 is i ....._.:_ .... ...... 4-~ © r n .rrec,.c,w.rnkrYl,dvo lw.o rwrG nenal.osEEnaTm Yxxara �. .....:+i: F r� aurrtmanrp dkwnunKwsld�c,awYwr.cdraunv. P LU PARCEL PAG N94 AN 7 9Fi wYaYY _—.. __ cY®:Surk�.�a> NdrksYk[cYsnw,wr,nY.Y[nmrma,s. I� :rr[cn:as tF � :; #..�-:._.� -:.::.'....,.. _5.�y1: .a _.__ ... vw�aYr:rrtenernar:Yiran,Yndsw vrxor,ro r<krr,[edroaaaaaorEnearuo NI 3 ! ...................� .'� ... ..... �nJej1 s ; ........ .;n...:.......:.._._..__�.�..:....._...._.._.....____::_._...____ ._.-__:.. _ OkakRO,O:TK YIYO aakOq Elk'wYOMFwYaiIY<YMdwlka. I ..... ... ..... ..., W PARCEL A .. ........ ..... cl _ O _ .... �`� k[c<„vstlwrY.rw,Yam sm.mxu Vl . . ;. . .._...... J=rz , .� _:......a.:.:.;....s_....... PARCEL 8 1.24 ACRE . ._ CRE a4nn a :�® .N ,YMFosµ,oknl.waouuYe w,uudeow.,.�rmlRki!o«sk`"ma0°roiwtl.kws".w,"kw uwYFN'dn,rY.,vaYur:a:r nw YA0aasaw,aYmn cxNwo N L. ioll�TlE�k BtlrrYR t0 • �� � " :� -•' ' _ �r wrew<iY,oa wi�N.wro,d nY l.rm.,n sok,>E wwaseasurmws+,ro ......... 'P:':ISt x a i® ®:. NcoEk,aE vu,rosesas eawlYnNrerr uN[rFUTO:EYn,rlNrrlrG.r atl<� ;`. i :I c,.......', I ® rNWf34'SlT.rr[crNc nu,eG,lokdaw,.xo Norak,re ewroYSFrw,[o,crtNvno I— •.- ::' • ......... TO'a0,,,,Ellk GtldMafW<MfoMaN'x w<NWMraTx `: :. .' , :. r:.�.'��_•... rtlrrE'cn ,ccaYatlwTwark,Ywen,Y,00r,w .............. ZONE;.... ........ :u.oacasc,YnYwstlnxive,lYk[wkN[ Narn S f I I L : i .. ...... .................._..... - ,._..............._ _ ..... _.........._..... R-24, - ... ..... - 152.65' 153.96' e =37.97 ♦_ _ -�- 500'22'41-E 3 6.61' 90'36'21 1 p DATE:03131114 R " I RANCHO CUCAMONGA ....I... .......... ..,. .. . .....:..:......t.—.--AVENUE ...................... CITY OF ..............................._.............._..,......_.............._...._.....,..._........................_.._........................ ............ ... ................. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO 19550 HAVEN ARCO GAS STATION i 9280 MAVENA VE j !o' w' u' aa' RANCHO CUCAMON.4.CALIFORNIA O�YfY.YN{ � _ OEfM „1k�L1w�MY�C kENGINE,E�k[OOrElaFO ®® 701E w r as Yui w,w"ppgruYY Yan 4i8-410 4r1%xY wartF s aaa�v w w w w wxkj a<axo °'a'p wl. oka[Ysora un: aexo RESOLUTION NO. 14-33 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19550, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL OF ABOUT 87,120 SQUARE FEET (2.0 ACRES), THAT IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH TWO (2) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, INTO TWO (2) PARCELS OF 54,014 SQUARE FEET(1.24 ACRE)AND 33,106 SQUARE FEET(0.76 ACRE) (PARCELS A AND B, RESPECTIVELY) WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK (IP) AND HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY DISTRICT (HAOD), LOCATED AT 9280 HAVEN AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0209-262-20. A. Recitals. 1. Rancho Haven, LP, filed an application for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19550, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of August 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 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 August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a commercial center located at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Street at 9280 Haven Avenue; and b. The commercial center has an overall area of approximately 87,120 square feet(2.0 acre) and overall dimensions of the project site are approximately 264 feet (east to west) by approximately 331 feet (north to south); and C. The commercial center is comprised of an auto service court (4,450 square foot gas station with a convenience store and proposed 940 square foot carwash) and a restaurant of 3,500 square feet; and d. The zoning of the properties to the north, south, east, and west are Industrial Park (IP) District, and the properties to the north, east, and south are also within the Haven Avenue Overlay District (HADD); and e. The application contemplates the subdivision of the subject parcel into two (2) parcels of ® 54,014 square feet (1.24 acre) and 33,106 square feet (0.76 acre) (Parcels A and B, respectively); and G- 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-33 SUBTPM19550— RAHCNO HAVEN, LP August 27, 2014 Page 2 f. Both lots will exceed the 0.5 acre minimum lot size established by the Development Code (Table 17.36.040-1); and g. The applicant does not propose any physical changes to the site such as modifications to the parking lot, landscaping, or vehicular access/circulation, beyond the previously approved self-service car wash. As the site is fully developed, new construction of a building or installation of new minor improvements such as parking lot lights are not proposed with this subdivision. 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. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into two parcels and is consistent with the development district of the project site; and b. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project is to subdivide the property into two parcels — no development of the site is proposed; and c. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed subdivision meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 — Minor Land Divisions — as the proposal is to subdivide the property into four parcels or less, is in conformance with the General Plan and zoning designations, no variances or exceptions are required, all services and access to the.proposed parcels.to local standards are available,the parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an average slope greater than 20 percent. In addition, 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. 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 is for the subdivision to subdivide a Parcel of approximately 77,028 square feet (1.77 acre), that is currently developed with two (2) commercial buildings, into two (2) parcels of 54,014 square feet and 33,106 square feet (Parcels A and B, respectively) within the Industrial Park (IP) District, located at 9280 Haven Avenue—APN: 0209-262-20. G-7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-33 SUBTPM19550— RAHCNO HAVEN, LP August 27, 2014 Page 3 • 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. 3) Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall submit to the City applicable recorded documentation that establishes, and/or ensures the continuation of, agreements, easements, etc. for the purpose of mutual/reciprocal access, parking, and maintenance of the parking lot and associated areas within the shopping center. Statements noting these agreements, easements, etc., shall be included on the Final Map. 4) Any proposals for development within the project site shall require the review and approval of the City's Planning Department prior to construction and/or installation. 5) A reciprocal agreement is required for the maintenance and use of the on-site fire protection (fire hydrant). 6) All Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 99-53, Conditional Use Permit DRC2012-01193, and Minor Development Review DRC2010-00400 shall apply. 7) All signs shall comply with Chapter 17.74 (Sign Regulations for Private • Property) of the Development Code. No additional ground or mounted signs shall be allowed by virtue of this subdivision. Engineering Services Department 1) Provide reciprocal access easement ensuring access between parcels and cross lot drainage easement. 2) The final parcel map shall be submitted for review and approval. Plan check fees will be required and determined at the time of submittal. a) Monumentation cash deposit and printing fees will be required prior to approval of the map. Building and Safety Services (Grading) Department 1) Prior to recording of the parcel map the land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the underground storm water quality best management devices (BMP's) to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground BMP's are the responsibility of the land owner. ® 2) A Storm Water Quality Management Plan is on file with the Engineering Department's Environmental Programs Division under file number DRCCUP99-53. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map the applicant shall G-8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-33 SUBTPM19550— RAHCNO HAVEN, LP August 27, 2014 Page 4 provide to the Building Official (or his designee) a copy of the previously recorded Storm Water Quality Management Plan "WQMP Certification". In addition, all added appendix including the project Codes, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) listing the storm water quality management plan treatment devices (commonly referred to as BMP's), including the required inspection and maintenance of such storm water treatment devices, will be provided to be inserted into the copy on file with the City. 3) Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map a copy of the SUBTPM19550 conditions of approval along with all previous discretionary permit numbers such as DRCCUP99-53, DRC2010-00400, and DRC2012-01193 conditions of approval shall be included in the amended Storm Water Quality Management Plan in condition of approval. 4) Prior to recording of the Parcel Map the applicant shall install all the storm water quality best management practices (BMP's) as described in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) filed with the City under number "DRCCUP99-53", and shall request an inspection of all required BMP's by the Engineering Services Department Environmental Programs section. A written inspection report shall be submitted by the Environmental Programs Manager (or their designee) to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. 5) Prior to recording of the Parcel Map the applicant shall complete all required storm water quality best management practices as described in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) DRCCUP99-53, including but not limited to the following items described in said WQMP: a) Paving patterns to be used in areas to allow for greater permeability(page A-9); b)Walkways will be open jointed to allow for percolation at joints(page A-10); c) Dry wells and infiltration Trenches Roof downspouts can be directed to dry wells or infiltration trenches. A dry well is constructed by excavating a hole in the ground and filling it with an open graded aggregate, and allowing the water to fill the. dry well and infiltrate after the storm event; d)Vegetated area to be placed in numbers and locations that allow for a longer path of flow, in order to allow for greater percolation; e) Install storm drain inserts. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary G—9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-33 SUBTPM19550—RAHCNO HAVEN, LP .August 27, 2014 Page 5 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 August 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: G— 10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: SUBTPM19550 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP APPLICANT: RANCHO HAVEN, LP LOCATION: 9280 HAVEN AVENUE -APN: 0209-262-20 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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. 14-33, 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. I. 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 Manager hearing. a) Notice of Exemption - $50 X 1 G- 11 Project No. SUBTPM19532 Completion Date B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning �— Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval. 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. 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 Manager. 3. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances,and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. D. SHOPPING CENTERS 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. �- 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 2 G— 12 ® STAFF REPORT PtArNNING DEPARTME[vr -� Date: August 27, 2014 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner Subject: TIME EXTENSION DRC2014-00471 - RC 66 PLAZA - A request for a time extension for Development Review DRC2007-00657 which expires on July 8, 2014, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road within the Mixed Use Development District at 8269 Foothill Boulevard; APNs: 0207-113-23 and 24. Related Files: Design Review. DRC2007-00657, Time Extension DRC2014-00623. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (c) (New Construction). Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. TIME EXTENSION DRC2014-00623 - RC 66 PLAZA - A request for a time extension for Variance DRC2008-00462 which expires on July 8, 2014 and is located at the southwest • corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road within the Mixed Use Development District at 8269 Foothill Boulevard; APNs: 0207-113-23 and 24. Related Files: Design Review DRC2007-00657, Time Extension DRC2014-00471. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305 (A) (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations). Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Time Extensions DRC2014-00471 and DRC2014-00623 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. ANALYSIS: A. General: On May 20, 2014, the applicant, RC 66 Plaza, submitted a request to extend the duration of the entitlement approvals (hereafter referred to as time extensions") for Development Review DRC2007-00657 and Variance DRC2008-00462. The applicant does not propose any changes to the project (Exhibit A). The project was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2009 (Exhibits B and C). Per Resolution of Approval No. 09-26 for Development Review and 09-27 for Variance, the approval of the project was set to expire "if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within five (5) years from the date of approval." Thus, the approval of this project was set to expire on July 8, 2014. Per Section 17.14.090 (C), of the Development Code, "(a)n application for extension shall be filed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of the permit, along with appropriate fees • and application submittal materials." The City received the time extension requests on May 20, 2014, therefore, the request was received within the time frame allowed. Also per H & 1- 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00471 AND DRC2014-00623— RC 66 PLAZA August 27, 2014 Page 2 Section 17.14.090(C), an initial time extension request may be granted that extends the expiration date for two (2) years from the original expiration date. Near the end of that two-year period, a second, and final, time extension request may be granted that extends the expiration date for one (1) additional year beyond the expiration date granted by the first time extension. Both time extension requests are subject to the review and approval by the same authority that approved the original project. If the applicant's request is granted, the approval of the project will expire on July 8, 2016. B. Design Review Committee: The applicant does not propose any changes to the project in conjunction with these time extension requests, no further action by any of the Committees are necessary. C. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission determined that the original project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (c) (New Construction) in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007-00657 and Section 15305 (A) (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) in connection with the City's approval of Variance DRC2008-00462 on July 8, 2009. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No changes are proposed to the project; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. There are no changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated when concluding the project was categorically exempt. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not analyzed in the previous environmental review, and will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed. 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 radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received. Respectful ubmittted, Candyce nett Planning Manager CB:MN/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Time Extension Request Letter(prepared by the applicant) Exhibit B - Staff Report for Development Review DRC2007-00657 and Variance DRC2008-00462, dated July 8, 2009 Exhibit C - Resolutions of Approval No. 09-26 for Development Review and 09-27 for Variance Draft Resolutions of Approval for Time Extensions DRC2014-00471 and DRC2014-00623 H & 1- 2 ® May 20,2014 RC66 Plaza,LLC 50-855 Washington Street Suite C234 La Quinta,CA 92253 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Planning Department Staff, RC66 Plaza,a proposed 3,853 square foot retail/office building project located at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and San Bernardino Road has been approved by the City Of Rancho Cucamonga to be developed by July 8,2014. As part of the approved development,the City's engineers and the Project Engineer are in agreement that extensive plumbing/engineering work must be completed on the property's corner intersection to help alleviate some of the street flooding issues currently experienced at this corner during heavier rain storms. When the property owners sought approval of said building development; it was the owners understanding that Cal Trans wa: planning to continue their Route 66 development extension to the City's border with Upland. Such an extension could mean changes along the stretch of Route 66 that this approved project lies upon. Consequently,the Project Engineer(Michael Platt)advised the owners to wait on their forthcoming final plans until it is apparent that Cal Trans has begun work on said Route 66 extension. In reaction to the fall of the economy,the State of California delayed a number of projects including the finalization of the ® Route 66 improvements along this stretch of the extension. Consequently,the owners of this property have delayed the development of this project for the reason stated above and due to the economic hardship the owners would incur from having to incur the cost of the drainage improvements for this site. Fortunately,the City's Planning Department did notify the owners and explain how the City has been reviewing projects that have been delayed due to the economy over the past five years and that is why the Project's Owners are requesting a two year developmental extension for the proposed building located at the intersection of Foothill Blvd.and San Bernardino Road. Site Developmental Data: Project Code: DRC2007-00657 Project Address: 8269 Foothill Blvd.,Rancho Cucamonga 91730. Parcel Numbers: 0207-113-23 &0207-113-24 We have also attached the requested RC66 Plaza site utilization map,a 660' radius ownership list on gummed labels and have provided a$679.25 check to pay for"Time Extension Fee". Please notify us on the City's decision regarding an extension as soon as possible. Sincerely, Blake Miraglia Jimmy Se a fe Project Owner Project Manager CC: Michael Platt,Project Engineer EXHIBIT A H & 1- 3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT f • DATE: July 8, 2009 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Steven Fowler, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00657 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE - Design Review of a proposed 3,700 square foot building and parking lot on 0.55-acre of land in the Mixed-Use District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road - APN: 0207-113-23 and 24. Related Files: Variance DRC2008-00462 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-01014. This project is categorically exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(c) (Class 3 Exemption - New Construction). VARIANCE DRC2008-00462 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE - A Variance request for reduced parking setback from 45 feet to 25 feet and building setback from 25 feet to 22 feet on Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road and for a maximum height limit increase from 20 feet to a maximum of.26 feet due to an odd, triangular-shaped lot and grade changes in conjunction with Development Review DRC2007-00657 - APN: 0207-113-23 and 24. Related Files: Development Review DRC2007-00657 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-01014. This project is categorically exempt from the requirement of the California Environmental Quality • Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305(A) (Class 5 Exemption - Minor Alterations In Land Use Limitations). UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2008-01014 - RC66 PLAZA LLC - A Uniform Sign Program for RC 66 Plaza. The application includes a monument sign and building identification signs at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road - APN: 0207-113-23 and 24. Related files: Variance DRC2008-00462 and Development Review DRC2007-00657 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Restaurant in the Mixed-Use (MU) District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Specific Plan. South - Carwash and Residential in the Mixed-Use (MU) and Medium Residential Districts of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Specific Plan East - Commercial Center in the Mixed-Use (MU) District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Specific Plan. West - Vince's Restaurant in the Mixed-Use (MU) District of Subarea 1 of the Foothill Specific Plan. B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Mixed-Use North - Mixed-Use South - Mixed-Use and Low Residential East - Mixed-Use • West - Mixed-Use EXHIBIT B H & 1-4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00657 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA &JIMMY SEALE July 8, 2009 Page 2 C. Site Characteristics: The .55-acre triangular shaped vacant parcel is located at the southwest corner of San Bernardino Road and Foothill Boulevard. The site is surrounded by existing development that is generally commercial use, but there is residential southwest of the parcel. D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Square Parking Spaces Spaces Type of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Retail 3,700 1 space per 15 15 250 square feet ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-tenant commercial retail building at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. This site is on the; south side of Foothill Boulevard in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Subarea 1, Mixed-Use Commercial District. A Variance application DRC2007-00462 for the building setback and a Uniform Sign Program Application DRC2008-01014 are also being processed concurrently with this application. The proposal is to construct a 3,700 square foot building on a triangle shaped, vacant .55-acre parcel. The proposal is following the Route 66 theme and has a Mediterranean Revival Style. Architecture with low pitched roofs, simple ornamental wrought iron details, and stucco walls. The building will be a single-story three tenant building with a maximum roof height of 26 feet tall for a couple of the tower elements and the remainder of the building maintaining the required 20-foot maximum height for this district. The 20-foot height limit for a single-story building adjacent to Foothill Boulevard within this district could be increased if the building is moved further back from Foothill Boulevard. The Variance request is to allow for the architectural elements to remain without having to move the building back. This cannot be done because of the site configuration. The building is situated along a reduced setback on Foothill Boulevard that should be 25 feet for a single-story building, but the applicant is requesting the Variance to reduce this setback to 22 feet for 6 liner feet as the rest of the building is situated at the required 25-foot setback. The trash enclosure and parking area are also at a 25-foot setback because of the configuration of the parcel, but the parking area is required to be at 45 feet. This could not be achieved with the triangular lot, thus requiring the Variance to allow one parking stall to be at 43 feet. The parking area contains 15 parking stalls to meet the required parking ratio for a retail. building. The landscape is proposed to have artificial turf for the groundcover and various types of plants in the planter areas. The landscape and hardscape design conform to the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan for this site. B. Uniform Sian Program: The Uniform Sign Program addresses the location of the signs on the building.and the monument sign. The signs on the building will be individual channel letter's and a designated space to be located on the building. The monument sign will allow an area for all three tenant business names to be displayed. It will resemble a portion of one of the H &1- 5 MZA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT vof/ DRC2007-00657 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE July 8, 2009 • .Page 3 elevations from the building and be located along Foothill Boulevard. The letters on the building identification signs will not exceed 18 inches in height. If a single user occupies the building, only three total signs will be allowed for that use. No more than two lines of copy per sign, and in no case shall the overall sign exceed 36 inches in height. C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, and Nicholson) on May 19, 2009. The Committee approved the project as presented, finding the project to be well-designed and thanked the applicant for proposing a high-quality design for such a difficult lot. The Committee did request that the applicant provide a materials board indicating the types of roof the and color of the stamped concrete and the applicant agreed. The Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final approval. D. 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 under as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (c) (New Construction) because the building is less than 10,000 square feet and within an urbanized area and all necessary public services and facilities are available and there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 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 an increase in the-20 foot building height requirement and reduction in the 25-foot building setback along Foothill Boulevard, the applicant would be required to reduce the height of two tower elements which would change the entire north elevation, reduce parking and reduce the building footprint, which would place an unnecessary hardship on the applicant and require the loss of architectural elements that greatly improve the aesthetics of the building. 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 parcel is unusually shaped and small compared to the other parcels within this development district. The parcel is triangular in shape and approximately .55 acre. This configuration greatly limits the applicant's ability to develop this parcel. 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. H & 1- 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00657 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA& JIMMY SEALE July 8, 2009 Page 4 3. Fact: The Development Code permits height increase to buildings that are moved away from Foothill Boulevard. The applicant does not have the ability to move the buildings because of meeting the setbacks on two street frontages. These street frontages also lessen the ability for the applicant to provide movement in the elevations by providing exterior walls to stagger. The reduction in the front yard setback along Foothill Boulevard is an encroachment of 3 feet for a distance of 6 feet to allow for this architectural design and approximately another 3 feet for a distance of 3 feet near the west property line to allow for an additional parking space. The first encroachment is located near the closest narrowest part of the parcel, and the General Plan requires exceptional exterior building design. 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: The retail building is an accepted use, and the Route 66 building theme is encouraged per the Foothill Specific Plan and Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. 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 reduction in the building setback and the increase in the building height requirement will have a negligible effect, if any, on the neighboring properties because the 3,700 square foot retail building will blend with the surrounding properties and has a Route 66 design style to the building which will compliment the area. . 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. 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 radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review DRC2007-00657, Variance DRC2008-00462, and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-01014 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Ja R. Troyer, AICP Pla ing Director JRT:SF/ge H & 1-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2007-00657 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE July 8, 2009 ® Page 5 Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Land Use Exhibit C - Ariel View Exhibit D - Elevations Exhibit E - Uniform Sign Program Exhibit F - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated May 19, 2009 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2007-00657 Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2008-00462 I i I ® i H & 1-8 6-IVH cl e A Da b 11131HX3 ........... „r D Z Z , D r/ Z 81 D ^.y / r /y / ' r //l I m n ci Z %/' /i � Iii \ l lji lr l' r' / ® f o e x.73, £ice i! }.F f! FF' iY ' \ �E. .� � f�� F° � IgE � � (n, c oi3.E: i _ gE X02 Es YYYYC ° A Now Commercial Balding I( i PSITE PLAN Y RC66 Plaza jf'"3� i% ',4',4 4ra� $ •� At Ranrho Cucamonga DRC 2007-00657 Foothill Blvd.and San Berardino Road,Rancho Cuomango,CA AP, . .. ............ T ` - lk fie OF ;. _ .,L,►d�, .E�,���7+rrrP3S�c a� f.S�,g����enrrc•.,a ...:.... .. ... ... . . .. Jsa',E� � a .-`, , FA opy woffos � '+tJf i�aet E r � I SII A Y J i ! ;�� , -- Im Nil Y � Zell p } SA N T ER NA RDINO r f? NOW x 1 1 r r � F - : EXHIBIT C H & 1- 11 rn ELEVATIONKEY NOTES CD 13 J-A LI 13 L•' ��. m�•� .aema�e vwure. ��` TI Wendell W.© lit A CORNER ELEVATION cut ay.ra WEST ELEVATION . .anw.manea U 0 r �7 8 'T -------I --------- --- ..i m ^ m In i TENANT O TENANT T-.. A O AIRILIIVIM FOOTHILL BLVD.(NORTH)ELEVATION z U, F 0 to Z LDw mCl C,Ip W a _ i SAN BERNARDINO ROAD(SOUTH)ELEVATION PA2 cut uwro M X 3 tll� J ni Sign Program The purpose of this sign program is to establish guidelines necessary to achieve a visually coordinated balance among all leaseholders.This will RC 66 Plaza allow adequate identification while maintaining a harmonious sign environment for all Tenants. LANDLORD I TENANT REQUIREMENTS, 1. EachTenant shall submit three(3)sets of detailed sign plans for the Landlord's written approval. _ 8269 Foothill BI. 2. Tenant shall be fully responsible to meet all Landlord requirements. Rancho Cucamonga CA 3. Tenant shall obtain all necessary Planning approvals with electrical and building permits prior to installation from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 4. Any damage to the building fascia or sign area resulting from the installation or removal of any sign by Tenant shall be repaired and painted to match by Tenant Landlord : RC 66 Plaza LLC 5. Tenant shall be responsible for all electrical service to the sign. 50855 Washington St. 6. Tenant shall be responsible for assuring that their Licensed /^ Sign contractor repairs(in good working manner)any damage La Quinta Ca. 922253 caused by the installation and or service within two(2)days after such damage is caused. 760 - 485-0804 T. The Tenant shall maintain the sign in working order at all times. a. Tenant shall by fully responsible for the work of their licensed sign contractor. 9. Exceptions to these standards shall not be permitted without written approval from the Landlord and will require approval of a modification to the sign criteria by the city at the Tenant's expense. 10. No exposed raceways or conduits shall be permitted. inland Empire(90MI15d476 - - - C.-h.11a valley(760)30-8370-High Desert(760)9559146 I__..._._.____..___..._....._...._.........__...__......._.......__.__.� EXHIBIT B I TO n to' lei t----------- .�Ip s F y8269 I i 'ea s t �r , r fes" Ar�ep Sign Elevation ~ `, 0 �•,,? ; •- ' ^L Scale 3/8„_ 1,-0" MONUMENT SIGN: Double faced Internally illuminated. Sign Area:29.34 Square Feet Logo Area: 1.62 Square Feet 4 1. One(1)Multi Tenant monument sign @ Vin height. SAN BERNAlIDWO ROAD SITE PLAN 4 I 2. SyNor To u En shall include three(3)Tenant panels @ 8 square feel each ` I : -.� _-�_,_.��.; 3. Tenant copy and placement shaft be approved by Landlord. _....._.-,_...._.__—...... __.,___1.............__...__...._...._._._ ..�-_-,,— _—_ ., 4. Syn base and colors shall be architecturally compatible with the building design. Colors to match DE 6130 Wooded Acre and DE6132 Big Stone Beach. 5. Syn shall include the center's address numbers. 1BnBEK SlLlis P9 YlltstAIR PURCHASER:66 ImmY SealPNONExO.: t #�ip _ A .... rr ApGroval for S.,.Design 8 vv or CY6*. SIII�i IJIII== 1 NAME RC Plaza ._._-.... _.._____.—._. g_U f W, .-.._.... ..._ X ayrOupc[taidaMg Rc»2atl6yad2tBtde paPehdQ/El 1 rueM Bx�-ttc Sg+Sesk^Ca he. ADDRESS:8296 Foothill 81.Rancho CMcamonDa.CA WAa4 ak tdAW aikg TDDNmb 6 ..1— pnwaM!__-...._-__ u ltww vrn nai Inland Empire(909188.5-4476 *o1v Art Sal ck=g s AlrvW aN h cmwfCn Ndt D POW teN COMPUTER FILE. RC 66 Plata 118459 2D1k.th ---- - -• - C-1.11a Valley(760)347-8370-Kgh O—rf(760)955-7446 paredfa Yauaa sR flL--MVW we**aMtnd b ce BMW baKm DATE DRAWN: 11114/B SERVICE NO, - ----- - - 1 Fn.:(909)888-2239•Sales@quie!signs.com atiY yalapzdmartx2d¢BS acgaaftyapma akg DRDmAM4 DRAWK Br: IES JOB NO.: --- ------• ____.. _._. cdwed4cmmdk4d6V69csFecNcsFCu.tcn.atg SALESPERSON: 7+—V DRAWINDNO: 09459.20 EXHIBIT C F7pti CORNER ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE WEST ELEVATION NOT TO SCALE +,v.. + _ NAND o --- TIMo o �, , = .... __....__._.-___...---........ F00TFi1LL BLVD.(N0RTHI ELEVATION 90 NOT TO SCALE I Ln 11'�i II .......... ..� ... SAN BERNARDINO ROAD(SOUTH)ELEVATION a NOT TO SCALE Drawing and photos of sign is a concept drawing of signs,colors,saes and locations will vary,and not to scale r" -- ,. PVRCHASER: DnRNuI 9 da tlnl,� p C P Ip,'111 4 i:.".plylld Ya` "" '"••� ..: _Jimmy sedPMOHE NO.: 4FprJval lJI SIZC.DBsign 3�CICri NAME w Ncw clevaltons ) lwq uN UK[IIlia N6Y.76a�JDFti�P900d96a�kOMagele7�E�tld�1 RCfi6Foot Neweleweons , Nor .roP X BcQ Eea1t 9q1 Eeace Ca.Inc,�°Gtq crly rcUOed avcrip lbjerais fi ADDRESS:8269 f0Dih111 BI.Rancho CUcamon°a.CA --- - -—.._._._.._..__... __. ..___ ..__._..__. .... ........._. Inland Em i.(909)885-4476 Wwom FIM Sdi 4 COMPUTER RLE. RC 66 Plaza 0845446 P d�sig E ibli`a7 ttly h N1NOt0 M D p'DR.I OB+ DATE DRAWN: t 1121/■ SERVICE NO.: Coachella Volley(760)347 3370-High DesM(760)9557416 Ptrre3tuY�u atl he 6mreuVa■pesrl ademlbte�lcObapD-z Fax:(909)888-2139•Sales@quielsigns.CDm DJIW*lt'U0ga1'deo 2 iced-OOP by ff KU*1 aAnxxas DRAWN 6Y: IMuk5 Joe NO.: abtYNd kYR71D?radQul5r.A f92DVCo.F'C Rt■0YjSALESPERSON: Tammy DMWING NO.: 08459-1a8 ,n,� �, yµ • ' ' EXHIBIT D BUILDING SIGN SPECIFICATIONS: I. The following types of sign construction shall be allowed: A. Nationally recognized,trademarked or corporate logo styles. B. Acrylic face pan Individual channel letters 2. All colors must be approved by the Landlord prior to submitting to the City of Rancho Cucamonga_Sign face colors shall be compatible with the building architecture within the center. No fluorescent colors will be allowed. - Logo \ ._, � 3. Multi colors,nationally recognized or trademarked logos shall be �'`*'`�r"� allowed with Landlord approval. (�L 4. Sign returns shall be Dark Bronze with Gold trim cap. Channel Letter TVUICdI Concept centered sign length shall not exceed 70%of the Tenant's lease space and centered equally on fascia. 6. Sign area shall be 10%of Tenant's lease space not to exceed Fifty(50) square feet per elevation. bepan9 nel-------------------5::— "1 7. Maximum letter height shall be eighteen inches(181 for single row h PlWUn4"Wamcmr icopy with a minimum letter height shall be ten Inches(10"). ....._....._. I RP all yu pass h. 8. Double stacked co shall not exceed thir six inches(36")over all trhn um er14�r,p"—�-- �•vl8i GID pass Nw PV ty- hPola lk 10.1--lie .I........_.._...._._..__._._.._ height,with a 41nch space between lines. F- iooL - DIs..�mnen I n } U """" 9. Tenants shall be allowed two(2)building signs,one(1)per elevation it hP.':r1"l—n .d I ' She.—J hbm ,l WIIh Landlord approval. Yn,woe lramrmmer roanay. apP 01 E u4mni9 .�-- nauea m naueap * l) venn.ran.•+°me, 10. Signs shall display the U.L.and Manufacturer labels as per city code. u` rxvn ernenwd me wpporlc -......._�.-- — mrge M Iw14N w nor tk Ira e0 Sh°n - r' ? it. Each Tenant shall be allowed 144 square inches on while vinyl lettering on entrance door for Business Name,Hours and Phone ekclnf4eI ffAkelutle mn.lour per iClltt arrn:cne number. „ rlunr tlW u9ehnk� 117 U.L. LISTED 12. Tenant shall revert to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Sign Ordinance R➢k'a1311 M1" ------ for` for all other Issues not referenced. a 1;:•mlm ancna. Drawing and photos of sign is o concept drawing of signs,colors,sizes and locations will vary,and not to scale cs 77-T /V\ n ,. PORCNASErimmvsalPNONexo.: on rrr u �erxv+9n - 4DWovalfor Size.DeNgn80dors PRNr HIS NAME Rc 66 Pla A ■evtsronm copy 11 r�ery mi. '" •-a,_ ra eSrr r. i�BYi�Fi Ei9.i WJiY Uss mind irpiiV>YJ Ocwga_,-Md tYmisferde Rlriprd Ozs .._.... .. ... X `�� L� 6c¢Ek�-rc Sgl'.�(x?Via.yG ar tt+rg a1r'rcW:!amap 1pG9'mi r ADDRESS:8I69 FOolhlll BI.Rancho WcamonQa,CA .-............ ....._..... _....._.___...._._........_.._. _._...__. ...._.._ Da;e COMPUTER FILE: RC 66 Plaza 08459.3A --------- •--- - �.,, Nand Empire(909)885-1476 Aaxdp?reit hd?:+Yq 6 shli'w aq n arrec"a,ydt 0 pgxi ta'g Coachella Volley(760)3A7-8370-High D-1(760)9557446 parer k.y]l oW to wwmpixcAwt aid a Id U by ONAd b Orae DATE DRAWN: 10129/8 SERVICE NO.: -- Fa4:(909)888-2239•SDles@quielsigns.com Nopi."W njVaV.,1!%,dXeA n aw rn Qvia Dim F DRAWN BY: J.V-kS JOB NO.:--- -- mt,*.6,m7Cv irs EH.^z 4m C,..VCi1xr.2'+: SALESPERSON: Tammv DRAWING NO.: 0845471 ACTION AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY MAY 19, 2009 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER RAINS ROOM 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA Committee Members: Lou Munoz Pam Stewart Corkran Nicholson Alternates: Ray Wimberly Fri nces Howdyshell Richard Fletcher CONSENT CALENDAR NO ITEMS SUBMITTED. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS This is the time and place for the Committee to discuss and provide direction to an applicant regarding their development application. The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. 7:00 p.m. (Mike/Cam) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00247 — JWDA - A proposal to construct a 27,000 square foot officelwarehouse building on a vacant property of 1.7 acre in the General Industrial!(GI) District, Subarea 6, located at the southwest comer of Arrow Route and Utica Avenue -APN: 0209-491-05. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. 7:20 p.m. (Steve) UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2009-00207 - RANCHO TERRACE - JOHN BLUCKER -A USP for Rancho Terrace Retail Center located on 9581-9625 Foothill Boulevard. 7:40 p.m. (Steve/Cam) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00657.- BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE - Design review of a proposed 3,700 square foot building and parking lot on 0.55-acre of land in the Mixed-Use District, Subarea 1, of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. Related Files: Variance DRC2008-00462 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-01014. VARIANCE DRC2008-00462 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE - A variance request for reduced parking setback from 45 feet to 25 feet and building setback from 25 feet to 22 feet on Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road and for a maximum height limit increase from 20 feet to a maximum of 26 feet because of an odd, triangular-shaped lot and grade changes in conjunction with Development Review DRC2007-00657. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2008-01014 - RC66 PLAZA LLC - A USP for RC 66 Plaza for a monument sign and building identification signs at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. Related Files: Variance DRC2008-00462 and Development Review DRC2007-00657. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. •ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. PC r7 9--Cq EXHIBIT F H & 1- 17 ------------ DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:20 p.m. Steve Fowler May 19, 2009 UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2009-00207 - RANCHO TERRACE - JOHN BLUCKER - A USP for Rancho Terrace Retail Center located on 9581-9625 Foothill Boulevard. Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing a Uniform Sign Program for an existing commercial retail center located on the south side Foothill Boulevard between Archibald Avenue and Malachite Avenue. The two buildings total 24,840 square feet of multi-tenant commercial building space. Building "A,"which is 13,860 square feet and faces north towards Foothill Boulevard is set back for the street over 200 feet and Building "B," which is 10,980 square feet faces east but has one tenant that faces Foothill Boulevard at the front setback line. The sign program is being established to remove the existing can signs on the now dated rectangle fagade. It will require the new signs to be individual channel letters that will be installed on the new facade which will incorporate the Route 66 theme into the building to be consistent with the surrounding buildings, such as the McDonalds and historic gas station on Foothill Boulevard near Archibald Avenue. This program consists of one monument sign located on Foothill Boulevard with three identification panels on each side. The applicant's proposal provides for a good design of the monument sign that reinforces the character of the design of the buildings without detracting from them. The face area of the monument sign is 24 square feet, and the overall sign height is 8 feet. The minimum letter height is 8 inches. The sign program allows for each business to have a total of one sign and possibly a space on the monument sign except the north end tenant on Building "B" and the east end tenant on Building "A," which could have two building identification signs and a spot on the monument sign. In no case may a tenant have more than three signs total. The maximum height of the letters on the building identification sign will be 24 inches, with no more than two lines of copy not to exceed 36 inches and a maximum width of 70 percent of the linear business lease space. The maximum sign area can not exceed 10 percent of the building face area and not to exceed 150 square feet. For two line copies on a building identification sign, a flinch gap must be provided between the lines. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for the Committee discussion regarding this project. Major Issues: The applicant worked hard with staff to follow the City's Sign Ordinance and comply with the design criteria outlined in the Development Code. There are no major issues regarding this project at this time. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the Uniform Sign Program. Design Review Committee Action: The Committee members approved the Uniform Sign Program as presented. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Nicholson Staff Planner: Steve Fowler H & 1- 18 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:40 p.m. Steve Fowler May 19, 2009 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00657 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE - Design review of a proposed 3,700 square foot building and parking lot on 0.55-acre of land in the Mixed-Use District, Subarea 1, of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. Related Files: Variance DRC2008-00462 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2008-01014. VARIANCE DRC2008-00462 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE - A variance request for reduced parking setback from 45 feet to 25 feet and building setback from 25 feet to 22 feet on Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road and for a maximum height limit)increase from 20 feet to a maximum of 26 feet because of an odd, triangular-shaped lot and grade changes in conjunction with Development Review D RC2007-00657. UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM DRC2008-01014 - RC66 PLAZA LLC - A USP for RC 66 Plaza for a monument sign and building identification signs at the! southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. Related Files: Variance DRC2008-00462 and Development Review DRC2007-00657. Design Parameters: The applicant is proposing to construct a multi-tenant commercial retail building at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road. This site is a triangular-shaped parcel on the south side of Foothill Boulevard in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Subarea 1, Mixed-Use Commercial District. A Variance application DRC2007-00462 for the building setback and a Uniform Sign Program Application DRC2008-01014 are also being processed concurrently with this application. The proposal is to construct a 3,700 square foot building on a vacant triangular-shaped .55-acre parcel. The proposal is following the Route 66 theme and has a Mediterranean Revival Style Architecture with low pitched roofs, simple ornamental wrought iron details, and stucco walls. The building will be a single-story three tenant building with a maximum roof height of 26 feet for the tower elements. The height limit for a single-story building adjacent to Foothill Boulevard within this district is 20 feet but could be increased if the building is moved further back from Foothill Boulevard. The Variance request is to allow for the architectural elements to remain without having to move the building back because of the site configuration. The building is situated along a reduced setback on Foothill Boulevard that should be 25 feet for a single-story building. The applicant is requesting that it be reduced to 22 feet for a 6-foot area; the rest of the building is at the required 25-foot setback. The trash enclosure and parking area are also at a 25-foot setback because of the configuration of the parcel, but the parking area is required to be at 45 feet; this could not be achieved with the triangular-shaped lot. The parking area contains 15 parking stalls to meet the required parking ratio for a retail building. The landscape is proposed to have artificial turf for the ground cover and various types of plants in the planter areas. The landscape and hardscape design conform to the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan for this site. The Uniform Sign Program addresses the location of the signs on the building and the monument sign. The signs on the building will be individual channel letters with a designated space to be located on.the • building. The monument sign will allow an area for all three tenants on it. It will resemble a portion of one of the elevations from the building and be located along Foothill Boulevard. The letters on the H & 1- 19 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2007-00657, DRC2008-00462, AND DRC2008-01014 May 19, 2009 Page 2 building identification signs will not exceed 18 inches in height. If a single user occupies the building, a total of three signs will be allowed for that use. No more than two lines of copy per sign are allowed, and in no case shall the overall sign exceed 36 inches in height. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for the Committee discussion regarding this project. Maior Issues: The applicant worked. diligently with staff to follow the criteria outlined in the Development Code. There are no major issues regarding this project at this time. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of This application to the Planning Commission. Design Review.Committee Action: The Committee members approved the project as presented. The Committee did request the applicant to identify the materials and colors to be used for the roof and sidewalk outside the building. Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Nicholson Staff Planner. Steve Fowler H &1- 20 1 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS May 19, 2009 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ' i Respectfully submitted, CA�AVA LL Corkran W. Nicholson ' Assistant Planning Director H & 1- 21 RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00657, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SAN BERNARDINO ROAD IN THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT OF SUBAREA 1 OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0207-113-23 AND 24. A. Recitals. 1. Jimmy Seale and Blake Miraglia filed an application for the approval of Development Review DRC2007-00657, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referredl.to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of July 2009,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. i 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on July 8,2009, including written and oral staff reports,this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, with a!street frontage of 277 feet and lot depth of 126 feet on the west side and 24 feet on the east side and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is a restaurant, the properties to the south consist of an apartment, carwash, and a vacant parcel; the property to the east is a commercial center, and the property to the west is a restaurant; and C. The applicant has concurrently applied for a Variance to reduce the maximum building height at the front yard setback from 25 feet to 22 feet for the building and to increase the maximum building height from 20 feet at the front yard setback to 26 feet; and d. The use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and e. The design and exterior materials of the proposed building will be consistent • with the surrounding area and the Route 66 theme. EXHIBIT C H & 1- 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657- JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8, 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. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. The proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 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 the Class 3 exemption under State CEQA.Guidelines Section 15303 (c) New Construction less than 10,000 square feet within and urbanized area because the project is less than 4,000 square feet that is zoned for a retail use and all necessary public services and facilities are available. In addition, 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. 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 the Site Plan, exterior building design, and landscaping for the 3,700-square foot multi-tenant commercial building at the subject site. Plans submitted for plan check shall conform to the plans approved by the Design Review Committee on May 19, 2009, and final Planning Commission approval on July 8, 2009. 2) No exterior changes to the design of the project, including exterior materials, shall be permitted without prior City review and approval. 3) All applicable conditions of approval for Variance DRC2008-00462 shall apply. 4) Final project approval shall be subject to approval of the associated Variance DRC2008-00462. H &1- 23 i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657 - JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8, 2009 I Page 3 5) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 6) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the developer shall submit Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized,or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. 1 7) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. 8) All asphalt shall meet or exceed 'performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. ® 9) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: a) Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. b) Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. c) Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. d) Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. e) Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. f) Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occur as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. g) Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e.,wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements. H & 1- 24 war - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657 - JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8; 2009 Page 4 h) Maintain a minimum 24=inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 10) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 11) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. 12) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 13) The construction contractor shall ensure that Construction Grading Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 14) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air-conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 15) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. 16) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)daily to reduce PM70 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. 17) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 18) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 19) Construction or grading on weekdays shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6`30 a.m., including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 20) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in the Development Code H &1- 25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657 -JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8, 2009 Page 5 i Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 21) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in the first phase. 22) Haul truck deliveries on weekdays ;shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site),then the developer shall prepare a Noise Mitigation Plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. i Engineering Department • 1) Coordinate the installation of Foothill Boulevard frontage improvements with the City's Foothill Boulevard Street Widening Project. Foothill frontage improvements are to be installed in accordance with the City's "Major Divided Arterial" standards, the Foothill Boulevard District's guidelines outlined in the Development Code, and the Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan (VIP). a) Provide curb and gutter, commercial drive approach (minimum width 35 feet), catch basin, local depression at catch basin, Activity Center sidewalk treatment per the VIP, street trees, street lights, etc. b) Reconstruct the curb return at San Bernardino Road with a 22-foot radius. c) Provide 27,000 and 16,000 lumen HPSV ornamental street lights, in accordance with the VIP. d) Protect, relocate, or replace existing R26(s) "NO STOPPING" signs in and along the street frontage. e) Protect and/or provide additional traffic striping and signage, as required. • H & 1- 26 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657-JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8, 2009 Page 6 2) San Bernardino Road frontage improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City's"Secondary Arterial"standards including,but not limited to, the following: a) A 6-foot reduction in the normally required 32-foot width of paving to centerline to 26 feet is permitted. North curb line shall be 58 feet north of the south curb. Provide a concrete curb and gutter transition to the existing curb to the west. b) Provide curb and gutter, property-line-adjacent sidewalk, commercial drive approach, a single ADA access ramp for San Bernardino Road crosswalk,catch basin, local depression at catch basin, street trees, street lights, etc. C) Provide a 4-foot wide property-line-adjacent sidewalk along San Bernardino Road frontage except where adjacent to the parking lot screening hedge, where a 5-foot sidewalk width is required. Adjacent to the hedge, "property-line-adjacent" positioning of the sidewalk shall adjust for the 2-foot wide hedge planting area. The western end of the sidewalk shall be 4-foot wide, property-line-adjacent, with proper transition. d) Reconstruct the asphalt pavement to the centerline along the project frontage. e) The proposed drive approach on San Bernardino Road shall align with the driveway to the south f) Provide 9500 Lumen HPSV street lights per City Street Light Standards. g) Protect, relocate or replace existing R26(s) "NO STOPPING" signs in and along the street frontage. h) Protect and/or provide additional traffic striping and signage, as required. 3) Modify the existing traffic signal at Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road as required. Protect and, if necessary, relocate traffic signal equipment. 4) The Foothill Boulevard parkway improvements, including the . ornamental street lights, patterned sidewalk with tree wells, brick style concrete pavers on corners, etc. shall conform to the Grove Avenue/Western Gateway Activity Center requirements of the Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) and the Foothill Boulevard Districts guidelines outlined in the Development Code. Sidewalk brick banding pattern shall include H & 1- 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657 - JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8, 2009 ® Page 7 bands along the back of curb, back of sidewalk,tree well perimeters,in addition to bands perpendicular to the curb. ADA access ramp, per City Standard Drawing No. 102, shall be constructed with integral concrete coloring to match brick style concrete pavers. 5) Catch basin on San Bernardino Road shall discharge to a temporary, on-site drywell via a public storm drain lateral. Lateral shall also extend northerly to the Foothill Boulevard catch basin, but the extension shall be blocked until the Foothill Boulevard Widening Project storm drain is functional. Lateral will be a public sform drain; drywell will be a private facility. i a) At the sump, the one catch basin shall have the capacity to handle 2 times Q,Do, thus providing redundant catch basin capacity should plugging occur. b) Public drainage facilities shall be designed to contain Q25 within tops of curbs, Q,00 within rights-of-way and provide a 10-foot dry lane in 010. c) Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe, measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. ® 6) Record a temporary Drainage Acceptance Agreement (accepting public runoff from San Bernardino Road), to be relinquished upon removal of the plug in the storm drain lateral to Foothill Boulevard. 7) Dedicate the following rights-of-way to the City prior to the issuance of building permits: a) Dedicate a 12-foot public storm drain easement for the lateral between the two catch basins. Private drywell shall be located outside of the public easement. b) Dedicate sufficient"corner cutoff"right-of-way for a single access ramp at the Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road intersection per the requirements of City Standard Drawing No. 102, as well as VIP sidewalk treatment. 8) The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except for the 66 kV electrical) on the project side of San Bernardino Road, shall be undergrounded from the on-site pole on the north side of San Bernardino Road to the first pole off-site west of the west project boundary, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing San Bernardino Road 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 H & 1- 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657- JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8, 2009 Page 8 agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City,all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 9) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top-of-curb to 1-foot behind the sidewalk along all street frontages. 10) For pads below streets, the first 6 feet of the driveway on private property(behind drive approach)should slope no more than 6 percent. 11) The driveway accent paving shall be located outside the public right-of- way. 12) Public improvement plans shall be 90 percent complete prior to the issuance of 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. 13) A contribution in lieu of construction for the future landscaped median in Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The amount of the contribution shall be one-half the cost of the median times the length of the project frontage. 14) A contribution in lieu of construction for one-fourth the future cost of constructing Activity Center pavers within the FoothilUSan Bernardino intersection shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. The amount of the contribution shall be based on the square footage of the intersection. Grading 1) The applicant shall provide a copy of EPA Form 7520-16(Inventory of Injection Wells) with the Facility ID Number assigned to the Building and Safety Official prior to issuance of the grading permit. 2) An HCOC exists for the downstream receiving water. The downstream receiving water (Mill Creek, Prado Area) is experiencing significant degradation of its banks. The project must implement a volume-based treatment control BMP (retention/detention facility). The Storm Water Quality Management Plan and the Grading Plan must contain an appropriate volume based BMP prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3) Prior to removing fences or walls along common lot lines and prior to constructing walls along common lot lines the applicant shall provide a letter from the adjacent property owner(s) allowing work on the adjacent property. H & 1- 29 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-26 DRC2007-00657 -JIMMY SEALE AND BLAKE MIRAGLIA July 8, 2009 ® Page 9 4) Maintenance of BMPs identified in the WQMP shall be addressed in the project CC&Rs. 5) A Storm Water Quality Management Plan shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2009. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard . Fletcher, hairman /1W,44-, ATTEST: ® am R. Troyer, AICP, Secreta I, James R. Troye 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 8th day of July 2009, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STEWART H & 1- 30 COMMUNITY DEVELOP MEN T r . DEPARTMENT r STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2009-00657 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: BLAKE MIRAGLIA & JIMMY SEALE LOCATION: 8269 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD-APN: 0207-113-23 AND 24 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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. 09-26, 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. 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-12-08 1 [APLANNINGTINAUPLNGCOM2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8.doc H & 1- 31 Project No.DRC2007-00657 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, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and the Route 66 Visual Improvement 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. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced,whichever comes first. 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. 5. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram,shall be reviewed and approved / by the Planning Director and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location,height;and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 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. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 7. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 8. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Shopping Centers 1. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. a. Architecturally integrated into the design of(the shopping center/the project). b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to include self-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. / d. Roll-up doors. e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. _/ /_ g. Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 2. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. I I 2 I:\PLANNINGTINAL\PLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8.doc H & 1—32 Completion Date 3. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 4. All operations and businesses shall be conducted to comply with the following standards which • shall be incorporated into the lease agreements for all'tenants: a. Noise Level - All commercial activities shall not create any noise that would exceed an exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10 p.m. until 7 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7 a.m. until 10 p.m. I b. Loading and Unloading-No person shall cause the loading,unloading,opening,closing,or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 p.m.and.7 a.m. unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. 5. All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for Planning Department approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be 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. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design • and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. F. 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. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. G. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. • 3 1APLANNINGTINAUPLNGCOMM12009 Res&StfRpAORC2007-00657SWCond 7-8.doc H & 1—33 ;= Project-No.13RC2007-00657 Completion Date 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees-24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Department. 6. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. H. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 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) I. 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., DRC2007-00657) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 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. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. _I / 4 1APLANNINGTINALTLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRptlDRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8.doc H &1=34 • - - - - , - -� . � 1 V�GV\nv.uwavyi'VUp.7l / Completion Date 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Department. �. . 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., DRC2007-00657). 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. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department's public counter). K. 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. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC Section 1505. 4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A 5. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. 6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. L. 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. 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. 5. SEE ATTACHED CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN COMPLETENESS REPORT. 5 I:%PLANNING%FINAL\PLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2007-00657Stdcond 7-8.doc H & 1— 35 ' ..� . .-�v r•.•v.r..•v�Vv.-VVVJ1 Comoletion 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas,street trees,traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets(measured from street centerline): 60 total feet on Foothill Boulevard 38 total feet on San Bernardino Road 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. N. 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 Foothill Boulevard X X X X X X (d) San Bernardino Road X X X X X X 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. 6 1:\PLANNING%FINALIPLNGC0MM12009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8-doe H & 1- 36 __-. ..._ .. �. . . ro r iecr IJKI.LUU/-UU557 roo. . I Completion Date 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. 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 _I_I accordance with the City's street tree program. 7 I:\PLANNINGTINAL\PLNGCOMM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8.doc H & 1- 37 Project NoQRC2007-00657 Completion Date 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. Min. Grow Street Name Botanical Name. Common Name Space Spacing Size Qty. San Bernardino Lagerstroemis indica Crape Myrtle Hybrid—Pink 3' 20'0.C. 24"Box Tuscarora' Foothill Boulevard Lagerstroemia indica' Crape M:yrtte Hybrid— 3' 15'O.C. 24"Box Activity Centers Muskogee' Lavender Triangular spacing 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. 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. O. Public Maintenance Areas 1. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard VIP. 2. 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. --- P. Drainage and Flood Control 1.' A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 3. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. — Q. 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 8 1:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGC0MM\2009 Res&SttRpt\DRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8.doc H &1-38 Project No.DRC2007-00657 Completion Date 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. R. General Requirements and Approvals 1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into one parcel prior to issuance of building permits. 2. 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. 3. 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: S. 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. T. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. 2. Storefront windows shall be visible to passing pedestrians and traffic. 3. Security glazing is recommended on storefront windows to resist window smashes and impede I_I entry to burglars. U. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and / I 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 Sheriffs dispatch number. (909) 941-1488. 9 I:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGC0MM\2009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8.doc H & 1- 39 Project No.QRC20 U-'00657 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED 10 hPLANNINGTINAUPLNGCOMM12009 Res&StfRpt\DRC2007-00657StdCond 7-8.doc H & 1-40 City of Rance o Cucamonga Y" Building&Safety Department _ 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 T: (909)477-2710 F: (909)477-2711 PROJECT COMPLETENESS REPORT CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN Project No.: DRC2007-00657 Type: Commercial Center— RC66 Plaza Location: 8269 Foothill Boulevard (SW corner San Bernardino Road) Planning Department: STEVE FOWLER APN: 0207-113-23 & 24 P&E Meeting: March 03, 2009 By: Matthew Addington Accepted as Complete: Yes: xxx No: e This project may move forward to the technical committees. Prior to submitting the conceptual grading and drainage plan'for review by the Grading Committee please address all items below. e Note: Building and Safety—Grading will review and comment on future submittals for this project. A. COMPLETENESS—ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FINDING THE APPLICATION COMPLETE,THE FOLLOWING ITEMS NEED TO BE SHOWN ON THE CONCEPTUAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: 1. This conceptual grading and drainage plan is close to completion. The following few items should complete the grading plan for technical committees. 2. Please follow the Planning Department hand out for the preparation of Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plans. 3. Provide a color cut/fill exhibit. 4. Provide a project legal description. 5. Provide the utility purveyors with the serving utility name, address and telephone number. B.ISSUES—PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL ISSUES: 1. At the catch basin/drywell systems show elevations to determine the direction of flow on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. 2. The right side of sheet 3 shows a detail. Provide a name for this detail. In addition, show the inlet with conceptual elevations for the drywell. 3. All sections; show the slope ratio(s). C. Water Quality Management Plan 1. Maintenance of BMP's identified in the WQMP shall be addressed in the project CUR's. isVauilding\permits\dre2007-00657\dre2007-00657 p&e#4 grading project complete report,03-03-09.doc 1 Of 3 H & 1-41 :�. City of Rancho Cucamonga Building&Safety Department _ 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 T: (909)477.2710 F: (909)477-2711 2. Provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP),.to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. An updated San Bernardino County WQMP for New Development and Redevelopment Projects can be accessed at the following website: htta://www.swrcb.ca.aov/rwgcb8/html/sb wamp.html. This site provides Guidance and Templates that can be filled out electronically and printed. Adhere to these guidelines and use the templates provided. Include the BMPs identified in the plan on grading plans when submitted for plan check. 3. An updated Water Quality Management Plan was not submitted for review. The previously submitted Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by Hacker Engineering,. dated November 03, 2008 was deemed substantially complete as of December 16, 2008. Include the Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the WQMP on the grading plan submitted for plan check. The following items need to be completed: Section Correction Item The document must include the educational materials in the attachments at the end of the document. Section 1.3 Provide location map and site plan identifying storm drain facilities and structures, structural BMP's, stormwater flow(drainage) and the receiving water. Please describe where in the report the exhibit is located. The exhibit should be on folded ledger(11"x 17") paper as a minimum size or preferable a full size 24"x 36" sheet. Section 3.4.1 Provide BMP design calculations per the revised June 9, 2005 template. Section 3.4.1 Provide calculations and details concerning the Vegetated Swales. Section 3.4.2 Provide a reference as to where to find these calculations in the WQMP. Section 5 Complete this section. Include the party name, contact name, address and telephone number. Section 6 Notarize and record the City of Rancho Cucamonga's 'Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan". Copies are available at the Building and Safety front counter. We recommend that you provide a draft copy to Matthew Addington in the Building and Safety Department for review prior to the recording of the memorandum. .Plan Review Locate the proposed BMP's on the grading plan. Attachment A Remove Attachment A-1 from the WQMP. Attachment D This attachment must include your BMP calculations. Only putting in the sample calculations from the template is not acceptable. i:lbuilding1permitsldm2007-o06571dre2007-00657 p&e#4 grading project complete report,03-03-09.doc 2 of 3 H & 1-42 ' City of Rancho Cucamonga Building& Safety Department _ 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 T;(909)477-2710 F: (909)477-2711 4. The Water Quality Management Plan should be completed, approved and recorded prior to Planning Commission approval, and must be completed, approved and recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. D. BUILDING AND SAFETY—GRADING SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. EPA Form 7520-16"Inventory of Injection Wells"must be completed and a copy placed on file with the Building and Safety Official for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. i:\building\permks\dre2007-00657\dre2007-00657 p&e#4 grading project complete report,03-03-09.doc 3 of 3 H & 1-43 Me Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District -- Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS April 2, 2009 The Vineyards 8269 Foothill New Commercial Building D RC2007-00657 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. 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 1. The required minimum fire flow for this project, when automatic fire sprinklers are installed is 1750 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, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. H & 1-44 3. 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. 4. Fire protection water plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until fire protection water plans are approved. 5. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 6004eet 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 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in buildings as required by the2007 California Fire Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fre Protection District Ordinance FD46 and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinklersystem to be installed. FSC-5 Fire Alarm System &Sprinkler Monitoring 1. The 2007 California Building Code, the RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard, Ordinance FD46 and/or the 2007 California Fire Code require most fire sprinkler systems to be monitoring by Central Station sprinkler monitoring system. A manual and or automatic fire alarm system fire may also be required based on the use and occupancy of the building. Plan check approval and a building permit are required prior to the installation of a fire alarm or a sprinkler monitoring system. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard. 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 Department Access Roadways Standard. 1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1" 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 tum radius shall be 244eet. c. The minimum outside tum radius shall be 50-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). 2 H & 1—45 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. 5. CommerciaUlndustrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in accordance with Fire District Standard. The following design requirements apply: a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates, plans are required to be submitted to Fire 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. The lock must be purchased at the Fire Administration Office. 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. L 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. 7. 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. 8. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved FD access must be clearly illustrated on the site plan. 9. 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 with a fixed ladder shall be provided in buildings with construction features, or high parapets that inhibit roof access. c. The number of ladder points may be required to be increased, depending on the building size and configuration. 3 H & 1-46 d. Regardless of the parapet height or construction features the approved ladder point shall be identified in accordance to the roof access standard. e. Where the entire roof access is restricted by high parapet walls or other obstructions, a permanently mounted access ladder is required. f. Multiple access ladders may be required for larger buildings. g. Ladder construction must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard Appendix A. h. A site plan showing the locations of the roof ladder shall be submitted during plan check. i. 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 Fre Chief is likely to produce conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. • Candles and open flames in public assemblies • Compressed Gases Public Assembly Dry Cleaning Plants Refrigeration Systems Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings 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 2007. California Building, Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes, RCFPD Ordinances FD46and 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-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District #85-1 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 4 H &1-47 14 Standards. The Building & Safety Division and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. 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. 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. 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. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The 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). 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. • 5 H & 1-48 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 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 in accordance to the appropriate RCFPD addressing Standard. 10. Hazardous Materials: The applicant must 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 '/2" x 11" or 11" x 17" site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard 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. 6 H & I-49 RESOLUTION NO. 09-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2008-00462 TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 20 FEET TO 26 FEET, REDUCE THE MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 22 FEET AND THE PARKING SETBACK FROM 45 FEET TO 25 FEET ALONG FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SAN BERNARDINO ROAD IN THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT OF SUBAREA 1 OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 0207-113-23 AND 24. A. Recitals. 1. Blake Miraglia and Jimmy Seale filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2008-00462 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of July 2009,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 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 July 8, 2009, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony,this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, with a street frontage of 277 feet and lot depth of 126 feet on the west side and 24 feet on the east side and is presently vacant; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is a restaurant;the properties to the south consists of an apartment, carwash, and a vacant parcel; the property to the east is a commercial center; and the property to the west is a restaurant;and c. The use,together with the conditions applicable thereto,will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The design and exterior materials of the proposed building will be consistent with the surrounding area and the Route 66 theme. • H & 1- 50 PLANNING COMMIS1 N RESOLUTION NO. 09-27 VARIANCE DRC2008-00462- BLAKE MIRAGLIA &JIMMY SEALE July 8, 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 regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. Without an increase in the 20-foot building height restriction and reduction in the 25-foot building setback along Foothill Boulevard,the applicant would be required to reduce the height of two tower elements which would change the entire north elevation, reduce parkir-:� reduce the building footprint, which would place an unnecessary hardship on the applicant a; J require the loss of architectural elements that greatly improve the aesthetics of the building. 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 district. The parcel is unusually shaped and small compared to other parcels with in this development district. The parcel is triangular in shape and approximately.55 acre. This configuration greatly limits the applicant's ability to develop this parcel. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the .74pplicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district The Development Code permits height increases to buildings that are moved away from Foothill Boulevard. The applicant does not have the ability to move the buildings because of meeting the setbacks on two street frontages. These street frontages also lessen the ability for the applicant to provide movement in the elevations by providing exterior walls to stagger. The reduction in the front yard setback along Foothill Boulevard is an encroachment of 3 feet for a distance of 6 feet to allow for this architectural design and approximately another 3 feet for a distance of 3 feet near the west property line to allow for an additional parking space. The first encroachment is located near the closest narrowest part of the parcel, and the General Plan requires exceptional exterior building design. 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 districL The retail building is an accepted use and the Route 66 building theme is encouraged per the Foothill Specific Plan and the Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. 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. The reduction in the building setback and the increase in the building height requirement will have a negligible effect;if any,on the neighboring properties because the 3,700 square foot retail building will blend with the surrounding properties and has a Route 66 design style to the building which will compliment the area. 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 the Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305(a)Minor alterations in land use limitations because the project is requesting a minor reduction in the setback requirement and height requirement not resulting in the creation of a new parcel. In addition,there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Departments determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment,concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. H &1- 51 PLANNING COMMISS'. .J RESOLUTION NO. 09-27 VARIANCE DRC2008-00462 - BLAKE MIRAGLIA&JIMMY SEALE ® July 8, 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 the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) The building along the north property line shall be constructed no closer than 22 feet at the eastern most portion of the building. 2) The parking stalls shall not be located closer than 42 feet from the northern property line. 3) The building height shall not exceed 26 feet. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2009. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA l� BY: ® Richard . Fletcher, hairman ATTEST:4mR. f Z,.� royer, AICP, Secreta1, James , 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 8th day of July 2009, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: STEWART • H & 1- 52 RESOLUTION NO. 14-34 ® A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TIME EXTENSION DRC2014-00471, A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEARS FOR DRC2007-00657,LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SAN BERNARDINO ROAD WITHIN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD OVERLAY;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-113-23 AND 24. A. Recitals. 1. RC 66 Plaza filed application DRC2014-00471 for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval ("time extension")for Development Review DRC2007-00657 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On July 8,2009, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 09-26,thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On August 27, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant does not propose any changes to the original project in conjunction with this time extension request; and b. The previously approved Development Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and C. The extension of the approval of the Development Review will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans,ordinances, plans,codes,or policies; and d, The extension of the approval of the Development Review will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the • vicinity; and e. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. H & 1- 53 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-34 DRC2014-00471 — RC 66 PLAZA August 27, 2014 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(°CEQK)and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission determined that the original project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (c) (New Construction) in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007-00657 on July 8, 2009. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No changes are proposed to the project; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. There are no changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated when concluding the project was categorically exempt. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not analyzed in the previous environmental review,and will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed. 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 Time Extension DRC2014-00471. b. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record,the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the Time Extension DRC2014-00471 for Development Review DRC2007-00657. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1,2,and 3 above,this Commission hereby extends the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two(2) years and modes the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 09-26 and to read as follows: Planning Department 1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval (Time Extension DRC2014-00471) for Development Review DRC2007-00657 and modification of the applicable approval time limit as described in Resolution No. 09-26 that was adopted by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2009. 2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2)years. The new expiration date for Development Review DRC2007-00657 is July 8, 2016. 3) Any requests for future time findin s as set forth n Section 11714.090 of ect to the procedures,conditions,and g the Development Code. H & 1- 54 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-34 DRC2014-00471 — RC 66 PLAZA August 27, 2014 • Page 3 4) All other prior conditions of approval, including all of the Standard/special conditions of approval from other City departments for Development Review DRC2007-00657(Resolution 09-26)shall apply. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 August 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • H & 1- 55 RESOLUTION NO. 14-35 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TIME EXTENSION DRC2014-00623, A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEARS FOR DRC2008-00462,LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SAN BERNARDINO ROAD WITHIN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD OVERLAY;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0207-113-23 AND 24. A. Recitals. 1. RC 66 Plaza filed an application DRC2014-00623 for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval("time extension")for Variance DRC2008-00462 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as"the application." 2. On July 8, 2009, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 09-27,thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On August 27, 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant does not propose any changes to the original project in conjunction with this time extension request; and b. The previously approved Variance is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and C. The extension of the approval of the Variance will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan,specific plans,ordinances, plans,codes,or policies; and d. The extension of the approval of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and e. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. H & 1- 56 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-35 DRC2014-00623—RC 66 PLAZA August 27, 2014 Page 2 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission determined that the original project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305(A)(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)in connection with the City's approval of Variance DRC2008-00462 on July 8,2009. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No changes are proposed to the project; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. There are no changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated when concluding the project was categorically exempt. Staff further finds that the project will not.have one or more significant effects not analyzed in the previous environmental review,and will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed. 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 Time Extension DRC2014-00623. b. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record,the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the Time Extension DRC2014-00623 for Variance DRC2008-00462. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1,2,and 3 above,this Commission hereby extends the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two(2) years and modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No.09-27 to read as follows: Planning Department 1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval (Time Extension DRC2014-00623)for Variance DRC2008-00462,and modification of the applicable approval time limit as described in Resolution No. 09-27 that was adopted by the Planning Commission on July 8, 2009. 2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2)years. The new expiration date for Variance DRC2008-00462 is July 8, 2016. 3) Any requests for future time extensions shall be subject to the procedures,conditions,and findings asset forth in Section 17.14.090 of the Development Code. 4) All other prior conditions of approval, including all of the Standard/special conditions of approval from other City departments for Variance DRC2008-00462 (Resolution 09-27), shall apply. H & 1- 57 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-35 DRC2014-00623 —RC 66 PLAZA August 27, 2014 ® Page 3 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 August 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: H & 1— 58 y _ STAFF REPORT ' PLANNING DEPARIMENr Date: August 27, 2014 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C,UCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner Subject: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00425 — MANNING HOMES — A review of 5 single-family residences that will be constructed in conjunction with a previously approved subdivision within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place—APN: 0225-181-73. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT18747, Variance DRC2014-00535, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536. On June 12, 2012, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration. • VARIANCE DRC2014-00535—MANNING HOMES—A request for a reduction in the rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 feet for Lots 1 and 5, Tract 18747, in conjunction with a review of 5 single-family residences proposed for development on a previously approved subdivision within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place —APN: 0225-181-73. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT18747, Design Review DRC2014-00425, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES—A request for an increase in the maximum wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet along the southern boundary of the project site, adjacent to Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 3 and 4, Tract 18747, in conjunction with a review of 5 single-family residences proposed for development on a previously approved subdivision within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place —APN: 0225-181-73. Related files: Tentative Tract SUBTT18747, Design Review DRC2014-00425, and Variance DRC2014-00535. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Design Review DRC2014-00425, Variance DRC2014-00535, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536 by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. BACKGROUND: On June 12, 2012, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747 (a 5-lot subdivision), Development Review DRC2009-00010 (a 5-lot design review), • Variance (DRC2010-00963 (a lot depth reduction for 2 lots), and Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00974 (to remove one tree). The project site was subsequently sold, and the applicant has submitted revised architecture for the project site. J—L— 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00425, DRC2014-00535,AND DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-Family Residences; Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan South- Single-Family Residences; Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan East - Single-Family Residence and Telephone Company Facility; Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan West - Single-Family Residences; Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low Residential North - Very Low Residential South - Very Low Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Very Low Residential C. Site Characteristics: The project site is a vacant parcel with an area of approximately 146,000 square feet (3.4 acres). The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 442 feet (east to west) by approximately 331 feet (north to south) (Exhibit B). There is one tree within the project site and several others off-site along the south property line. To the north, west, and south of the project site are single-family residences. To the east there is a single-family residence and a telephone company facility. The only street access to the property is via Arapaho Road, which terminates at the midpoint of the west property line of the site. Adjacent and parallel to the north property line is a Community Trail of approximately 20 feet in width, while adjacent and parallel to the west property line is a local equestrian trail 15 feet in width. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan. The subject property is generally level with a southeasterly slope; the elevations at the northwest and southeast comers are approximately 1,462 feet and 1,448 feet, respectively. ANALYSIS: A. General: The project proposes the development of 5 single-family residences within a previously approved subdivision. The 5 lots are situated on the terminus of a cul-de-sac with single-story and two-story floor plans (Exhibit B). The two lots on the westem project boundary (Lots 1 and 5) will be single-story, while the 3 lots at the end of the cul-de-sac, along the eastem project boundary (Lots 2, 3, and 4)will be two-story. With the exception of the lot depth reduction previously approved through Variance DRC2010-00963, all lots will comply with the development standards applicable to this zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Individual lot areas will range between 20,494 square feet and 30,051 square feet, which are in excess of the minimum of 20,000 square feet that is required. The minimum average lot area is 25,835 square feet., which is in excess of the minimum 25,000 that is required. The depth (measured east to west) of Lots 2 through 4 will be at least 200 feet, as required, while the depth (measured north to south) of Lots 1 and 5 will be approximately 135 feet. Variance DRC2010-00963 approved a lot depth reduction from 200 feet to 135 feet. The width of each lot will meet the required 90-foot dimension. All lots will be generally conventional (i.e. rectangular in shape) allowing for conventional house plotting. As the subject property is located within the Equestrian Overlay, each lot will have a dedicated corral area of 24 feet by 24 feet for horse-keeping, and equestrian trails will be provided along the rear of each lot. A 15-foot wide local equestrian trail will be constructed along the east side, and part of the J—L— 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00425, DRC2014-00535,AND DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 • Page 3 south side of the project site to provide a connection to the existing Community Trail for Lots 2 through 5. Access to the Community Trail from Lot 1 will be direct as the rear of that lot is contiguous with it (Exhibits B and C). In conjunction with the tentative tract map, the applicant proposes to construct a single-family residence on each lot for a total of five (5) single-family residences (Exhibit E). The houses on Lots 1 and 5 will be single-story, while the houses on Lots 2, 3, and 4 will be two-story. This mix of single and two-story homes is consistent with the policy adopted by the Planning Commission requiring that 25 percent (minimum) of the proposed houses must be single-story. The architectural styles for the projects two-story units are identical to the architecture used in the development of SUBTT18819, located at the southwest corner of Victoria Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. This includes the following: Lot 2—Bungalow, Lot 3—Traditional, and Lot 4—Spanish. These architectural plans were submitted unrevised from this previously approved architecture. The architectural style for the single-story unit, located on Lots 1 — Spanish, and Lot 5 —Tuscan, were designed to be compatible to the style, massing, and use of materials of the two-story units. Each house will have a well-articulated footprint/floor plan and profile, i.e., neither the footprints nor the profiles will be square or boxlike. Because the footprints and profiles of each house are varied, there is a substantial amount of movement in the wall planes and roof lines. Projections such as prominent chimneys and dormers and a mix of hip and gable roofs will provide additional interest in the profile of each house. Each house will also have large solid or lattice patios and balconies on the two-story houses. There will also be details such as wood brackets at the roof eaves, • wall-mounted light fixtures, decorative trim around the windows, molding along the top of the stone veneer wainscots, and decorative wood garage and entry doors. B. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted to gather input and comments from the owners of the surrounding properties within 660 feet of the project site. This meeting was held at Summit Intermediate School on June 23, 2014 (Exhibits F). Several property owners from the surrounding community attended. Although none of them had any specific objections to the project, there were questions relating to the height of the homes on Lots 1 and 5, the timing of development, as well as several questions regarding nearby projects. The applicant confirmed that the house on Lots 1 and 5 will be single-story. Staff added that the project complies with the City policy, applicable to new residential subdivisions, requiring a minimum of 25 percent of the housing stock to be single- story. C. Gradinq and Technical Review Committees: As the proposed grading. is consistent with the previously approved grading of the project site, staff determined that a review by the Committees is not necessary. D. Design Review Committees: The Design Review Committee (Wimberly, Oaxaca, and Granger) reviewed the application on July 15, 2014 (Exhibit G). The Committee reviewed the project design and accepted the proposal as submitted. The Committee recognized that the project was well designed and that the proposed setbacks for the houses were in excess of the minimum setbacks applicable to the zoning district. Staff explained the circumstances for why Lots 1 and 5 do not comply with the minimum rear yard setback; the Committee recognized that physical limitations on the site preclude practical alternatives. The developers were praised for architecturally incorporating • design features that convey the characteristics of Etiwanda. They also praised them for being consistent with the design goals and policies of the Design Review Committee and Planning Commission including "360-degree architecture" and extensive use of high-quality materials, and for J—L— 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00425, DRC2014-00535,AND DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 4 the general consistency of the proposed development with the surrounding community. The Committee accepted the proposal and recommends approval. E. Variance DRC2014-00535: Variance DRC2009-00693 was previously approved for the project site to allow the lot depth of Lots 1 and 5 to be less than the 200-foot minimum lot depth as required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Lots 1 and 5 are located on the western boundary of the project site on the north and south sides. This Variance resulted in a lot depth or approximately 135 feet for these two lots, with a lot width of 180 feet, substantially exceeding 90-foot minimum lot width requirement. This resulted in Lots 1 and 5 being 25,910 and 24,309 square feet, respectively, far exceeding the 20,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement. Because of this lot design, the buildable area for Lots 1 and 5 was reduced and created an awkward footprint. The applicant submitted Variance DRC2014-00535, requesting a reduction in the rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 feet. Facts for Findings: The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards. 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. The following are facts to support the necessary findings: 1. 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. Fact/s: The proposed residential subdivision is an in-fill project with limited reasonable lot configuration options. The overall north to south dimension of the project site is approximately 331 feet. If it were possible to not have a public street serve the subdivision, Lots 1 and 5 would still be only approximately 165 feet in depth and an associated result would be that Lots 2 through 4 would have no direct access to a public street, which is not a permissible condition. The project site is bound on all sides by existing development. Therefore, there was no opportunity to acquire additional land, specifically to the north or the south, which would allow Lots 1 and 5 to be greater in depth. Requiring the applicant to maintain the 60-foot rear yard setback creates practical difficulties in the design and function of floor plans for the new homes on these lots. Additionally, because of the lot configuration, there is still adequate rear yard private open space and adequate separation between these proposed residences and existing structures to the north and south. 2. 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. Fact/s: The project site is located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of that street with Choctaw Place. The project site is bound to the north, south, and west by existing residential development and associated improvements. The extension of Arapaho Road will generally bisect the project site. Alternate alignments of the proposed extension such as shifting it further south or north were not possible because of the limits imposed by technical standards for street design including minimum dimensions for street width, curve radii, and cul-de-sacs. The project site was part of a larger parcel that was partially developed with a telephone switching facility on the east side. In May 2006, the larger parcel was subdivided into two (2) parcels. The part of the property that was J—L— 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00425, DRC2014-00535,AND DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 ® Page 5 larger parcel was subdivided into'two (2) parcels. The part of the property that was developed with the telephone switching facility became a separate parcel, while the larger, undeveloped part of the property was sold for this project site. As the telephone facility occupies the entire smaller parcel, it was not possible at the time of the subdivision, nor is it possible now, to consider the option of a street connecting the project site with East Avenue that, in turn, could have provided the applicant the opportunity to propose an alternate subdivision design. This limited subdivision design created wider and shallower lots on Lots 1 and 5, which do not generally apply to other properties in this same zone. 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 the same zone. Fact/s: The overall tract design and lot configuration approved with SUBTT18747 resulted in 5 lots that substantially exceeded minimum lot areas standards. Because of the limitations of street design Lots 1 and 5 were designed with a reduced depth, but excessive side yard areas. There are a significant number of residences in the immediate area that were developed under a prior code standard that required a 30-foot minimum rear yard setback. The reduced rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 5 would be compatible with these other properties in the vicinity. ® 4. 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. Fact/s: Within the Very Low Residential District, lots are required to provide a minimum 200-foot lot depth and a 60-foot rear yard setback. The principal purpose of the minimum lot depth standard is to allow horse keeping, while still maintaining a minimum separation of 70 feet between horse corrals (or similar equestrian facilities) and dwellings on neighboring properties per Section 17.08.030(E)(2)(b) of the Development Code. The lot depth reduction from 200 feet to 135 feet was determined to not be in conflict with this requirement as it was off-set by the width of each lot. Lots 1 and 5 are approximately 190 feet wide, while the minimum lot width in this development district is 90 feet. The proposed rear yard setback reduction from 60 feet to 30 feet is compatible with the existing setbacks currently enjoyed by adjacent property owners. 5. 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. Fact/s: The reduced rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 5 will not affect the neighboring properties and/or property owners. Practical differences in the physical attributes/characteristics between the lots in the surrounding area and the subject lots will be limited. Although the subject lots will be approximately 135 feet in depth, they will be approximately 190 feet in width, thereby providing sufficient areas for private open space and the location of horse corrals. The separation between ® structures and common property lines will be consistent with the existing residential development within this development district. The floor area of each of the proposed single-story homes on the subject lots is generally consistent with the floor areas of the surrounding homes. The overall floor area of the homes on Lots 1 and 5 will be J—L— 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00425, DRC2014-00535,AND DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 6 3,995 square feet. Similarly, the overall area of Lots 1 and 5 are 25,910 and 24,309 square feet, respectively; the lot areas of the neighboring properties to the west at 13186 Arapaho Road and at 6323 Choctaw Place are 22,165 and 21,168 square feet, respectively. F. Minor Exception DRC2014-00536: The applicant submitted a Minor Exception to allow the construction of combination walls (garden/screen walls on top of retaining walls) with a height of up to 8 feet along the interior property line between two lots within the proposed subdivision (between Lots 3 and 4) and the project perimeter walls at Lots 4 and 5. Per Table 17.48.050-1 of the Development Code, the maximum wall height of fences and walls is 6 feet. The proposed walls will be located generally where there are grade differences (Exhibit C) that warrant retaining walls. Generally the natural terrain of the project site slopes from north to south. Therefore, the usual alternative, an earthen slope, is not practical because of the lack of available space in the side yards between the house, the location of equestrian trails, and the property line wall. Because of the location of the walls and the proximity of the tract to adjacent roadways the increased height of the walls will not be observable from public view. The walls will be most observable from the interior of the project site (at Lots 3, 4, and 5) or from the property to the south. G. 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 June 13, 2012, in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747. 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. No substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; and no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. There have been no substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Negative Declaration. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous 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. 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 radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Design Review DRC2014-00425, Variance DRC2014-00535, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536 by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Respectfully submitted, ZCand4yycern:et"t Planning Manager CB:TG/ge J—L— 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00425, DRC2014-00535,AND DRC2014-00536—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 ® Page 7 Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Conceptual Grading & Drainage Plan Exhibit D - Landscape Plan/Wall Sections Exhibit E - Elevations and Floor Plans Exhibit F - Neighborhood Meeting Sign-In Sheets (June 23, 2014) Exhibit G - Design Review Committee Action Comments, June 3, 2014 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2014-00425 Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2014-00535 Draft Resolution of Approval for Minor Exception DRC2014-00536 J—L— 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA rn SITE UTILIZATION MAP FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18747 g. 8 ca E PIT. T. 5.02 AC. 9;, � � „ Q 0 CHRISTMAS 0 TREE 5 AC. FARM 0D o C-0 240 0 • 6 108.07 2.49 AC.: Go I t 261.68 1 lJ D 25 n 206 Vol]A C 7 • VL Flo ' VL 0 U A I, T 0 0 V A A N T 9.13 A:( 000 VEROIZON 0 BLDG. 0y tat I 0' I '•' 0 001 :4"V A C A N T 003 ! 11! 0 9.08 A, sn io (Eo $ 0O 0 Oc 1A.------------------- H. t h. /11 A C A N T (15 VL V A C A N T 5 �2 0) 6.32 ;�W.S. 2 N �7 x 10 c F i.Li a.Z Iti at 0 2 U) 6 Cc'o SIA TE CT) Roure 210 13 FREEWAY Cc"a (5 y N I co Z 0 U _--VL(--TLM)­THE­, Q H Xu F N GRAPHIC SCAU LANMCAPE A0299a, MANINO HOMES/WATER MILL HOMES W&W TECHNOLOGIES,INC WNA I WILLIAM HEZIVAL—CH ARCHITECTS,INC. FRANK RADMACHER ASSOCIATED,INC. ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING.INC. 7 1 20151 SW BIRCH STREET,SUITE 150 2335 W.FOOTHILL BLVD..SUITE 11 2.10 RECHU.AVENUE.SUITE 200 4841 YORBA STREET.STE.204 2860 WALNUT AVENUE NEWPORT BEACH,CA 926W UPLAND,CA 91796 SANTA ANA,C�92075 TUSTIN.CA 92780 SIGNAL HILL,CA W755 CONTACT: RAID KOZMA CONTACT — CO WSTON LIU.PE CONTACT:BOB LHELIA CONTACT:=RADMACHER COMA T:TED RIDDELL 2W-200 (909)608-7118 250-0607 EXT.8778 (714)832-1774 (562) 126-7990 6 SUBTT18747&DRC2009-00010 zl CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA a m TECHNICAL SITE PLANsv TRACT NO. 18747 R S]Ko BUILDING \ � d LOT 34 LO"i 42 LUT 43 LOT=l4 Np ~ d^ I'd i Pd I -i R<4C I'18t16 �'1 TRAC f'IGtlt TRAC!18TI(i \y' I "fRAC7 itiTl(i d%-U:I I MI3.297/0/-03 M.B.29V87-03 /,` MS.201/87-UJ W.B.2D'Vb7-0:9 GRAPHIC SCALE 5 -- _----reD.01NG `. _ ___ h�IL:uNt- }llil I• I ,....a n o�d RMY i . wlI1G�uN.Yl6 , _. v.. c -_ _. __., -. .{ a .—o—.v_.em•.w•"T G N1.BIL MUR.�MMi MANNING MANNING HOMES T: 061M0 �. dA� _ r-____ _ _ _ ___ •_ - .� .. I I ,r__ _-I_T T } �> ------------------ _ _ _ ________________T / NflVPORIwMA`N-G92660UTE I50 a iI ut. 1, ; ------------� i.�__ _,.__ ____ -------- ________ i ____ rcu(9,9)95o-,2w MUL SMI'°w.A LOT 2I I U I. TOT oE�ND IMPEI US AREA I RA,'T'12$70 1 I I I;% nil.6.20%/72Ti I I __ \(}'l� _ I`d 2AR I ro°o r 11N'E�./ 2. To-NEw I PCRV ,AREA: ]. to REMOVAL ANO PEAC PLEUENI • I - OF I PERVIOVs AREA LOT 1 "I ; lit o sF I I R i 'D I r ♦. TOTAL mss MEw: 1B ;►;_ \ I PORTION OF LOTD,BI-OCK 6.429 sr.].]6 KJLE J E,ETIWANTA COLONY LANDS,M.B.2/24 ,. N0.fL00fl PUN ELEVATgN LOT OOYERAG PUN Is SPMISH 19ABx 2 PUN 2M BUNCILOW i3.]2% a— I. PUN 2C R DRp 18.22x L. I to `�¢ "-- :� �� _ ♦ PLNA 26R —ISH 12.{6x 4 I f NA to ITUWAN 20.T6x ♦ Jct 1'I AREA SUYY�RY �y p LOT 3 .`l' -VIM, / I LOT NUMBER Lo,MEA(sFJ 2C I I L,1 .910 • - -— I. -IL I C/L ARAPAHO ROAD l I I of sDoos I �I I io 4 v la C/L ARAPAHO_ROAD; MMAHO ROIL 1J 560 ...1E lO,AL 1,6.,29 I �r .M II I PARCEL.1 I 1 PARCEL'Ifi0U0 I IR a , (I� '•;r' / I I,6�� I I' 11/ I ---- LOT LINE BDUNDMv CEMERLW[ m SEELOTS EASEMENT c o a < lxmva al +� I 1D 1_ .� rl,:j LOT 4 I I/_;•:-. I �J PMOPOSED 2:1 FILL SLOPEo Q p a LOT 21 26R Z dr u t I, r;r, I PREF srxwawc eww weu z F I FtAI'I :i170 1:11' M+6 I PVC]-RNL FENCE 0 U M.B.2(17/%2-73 II 1R --'I a o - 1li' L ------ --- ---� ► i� I ki% i gy Dov C w 2 1 yy \ mm lm �IF'- I \�_ // , T .'N. / _� II mtn US AvwR ON F / r \ z, '�%r ''`l In u�3 1 — Nea So'olw,,x1.96' . I_;11 2V I �• (IAC'r Ild7t1 Ino 207/%2-70 t+ PORTION OF LOT 0,BLOCK I E,ElIWANlA COLONY n 2 21 g LANDS,MB.2/24 SU6TT18747&DRC2009-0(H110 _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN m TRACT NO. 18747 6's Xp� SUBDIVIDER: FNrIHPER; BENCH PARK: LyC HOMES/WATER uRl HOMES WAw IEMNOLOGIES.INC COftA.Bu/10090 ELEV=1531.371 NAVD BB \ V� F BIRCH STREET,SUITE 150 2J35 W-FOOTHILL BLVD..SUITE/1 2"BRASS pyx IN COW.CURB STAMPED"CUY OF NJ. ~ CCC fflliii BERACN,G 92680 UPLAND,G 91786 RANCHO CLM/1MONGA BM10090 1902'AT SOUTHEAST St S�� C G x02MA COWACT. WINSTON LIU,PE CORNER OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND ETWIANOA AVENUE.AT — ...... (909)608-7116 END OF CURB RETURN. I FOAL DESCRIPTIDN °� < Blue(9Nm � A II I -� �• �E n F BEARINGS: 7'' 04 sWLWA BEING A STHE CITY OF PARCEL 1 CUCAMONGA.PARCEL MAP NO. NCS FRE BASED ON EHE 16969.G THE CITY d RANCHO SKRCOUNTY OF A o ° •�•J•:ice" .�l\ SL0 Vn,0 [INE Of PARCEL 2 BEING SOUTH OS ANGELES,SLATE Of CALIFORNIAMA A9 PER YAP a�•—FT ARAPAHO ROAD 'EST PER PARCEL NAP NO, RECORDED 1N BOOK 113,PAGE 91 IN ME OFFICE OF ME xis u 213 PG.9T COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY 210 CTickma,SI. (� Hi9x1°n0 Ave, 90� ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER UTILITY PURVEYO CY RS Y < 7.70 5. 0215-181-7] SOUTHERNYCALIFORNIA EDISON CO. o 5.780 OTE: DEVELOPMENT AREA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA US GO. • N < 2 TIES1SHOWN HEREON ME FOR D BONDING PURPOSES ONLY. GROSS AREA.116,129 SF, ACRE WATfR�vlVf8 a THE CONTRACTOR S—L VERIFY QUANTITIES CUCAMONGA VALLEY YMMR M MCT PRIOR TO SMART OF GRADING 10440 ASHFORD STREET, RANCHO CUCAMONGA U 91730-2799 LOCATIO ICINITY YAP EEL:(909)987-2591 POE TO SCALE PA ve I ,n I Ems°in°ia LOi t r[PA°�N e°[° I rA W6s °W.DNe° 11.1• ko TIMUZ — LOT s II XI9X[�1�,.IPW.N..L J �EN�i1Xr6xNq,LWPNPou�9° rPW WF -.-S-...--- --------- P• L ,H,q95�.ex n A.a ---------- ,RET- ---! -------- -------------- - ----- .p .e -- - r - .W !L ' SECTION A-A • � 9 � Pn e' 7- a 1sr x.r PFou°°Lr.nLAT 2 GARAGE 1 euLgX° WT 3wSsYaGARAGELAT A GARAGEPAOWS[q IDI, e cn. E,pqg_ d is Nx. A JJINC x$ WAL ,1xNerE nw rMOKx .° _p________M•n � � F-- -—_—_W5d________ E� �NIA:SECTION B-B 11;RDXAttwNe — IF YUH E [Anw •1P .` r°1°`I`NR,1I RirA.WR mom,qqG = - l"wwaXo Plne. LOT Y o LauLzual Pvc E L s PRo%b xNA Q r 1e. : LNSRx:1s.°'.I 1eML 1 La°ESAw EAx w'LL aq.aXi° c� s .P.o� 1A. O 3 1a.P E�m/D°16[� J K R I ugBP[rNL Ns'P LOT i OC(rr.1 1 F) _______ wo -__ SECTION E-E roR •-1W CM— (n LL U F ux[ G SECTION C-C=1 1_Io 1•10 AI O D P s U o u 5 PA I— Nwi C a ,I PONiaN°E5 I LOT 4 O W K C s LAuxLm q nom' LOT 3 ;.0 I tau ^�rz a VP nis,WP 1s.P':� N�wL°1OCM .1s'i PNmros[P ev' _ I l--i y Lvs11rA EwrnAw E � woa�D I Px°wuq 15.R' BULgINR PM•s1' __ I a ,I•.° Pvc�rtNC"ai LAT 5 E I gg' I 1 j? 1 � rtOW 3 Sew I --_ ,Nlr PAD.S,P �ANL AK YY _ 11. " -- - - ------------------ 1—x --_----- ______-- 1 � rtNaXLr �qrc eN71.r1. 2. /___�__. �� woL Xc/ � SECTION C-C .ix1r.[1 1s H IxNue� $ roxc.ara EZBt�MJ e• LME aq0[ wWIA. 6 SECTION 0-D 1NR1.r-.,e'° SECTION F-F — mrNc m,cX x[[E 3 o nAnul 1-m vERUW 0' 21 SUBTT18747&DRC2009-00010 1 i 8 i 1c I HUILIiIN(; ' I I BUILDING ;.a LUT 34 LOT 42 / LUT 43 ,' I LOT 44 \ 1""RAL'f'1AI1U I 7RAl(10tIU .TRAG""F-If"t)- ^. TRACT 7A1i� ` -.�__- yI \ TRACT 18178 g MB.2i1V87-03 M3PV87-pa. ,N 20'UA7-U�\. ag• 11lI I _ / M8.201/87-U3 a EUII01141. --- -- �Y F .�. L "D�__. I II - •O __ -__ _ _._-1I 41 GRAPHIC SCALE 06 v 14, y9'-_ � ? A --- ----- �''''�-- -'��l-(1466) ---_— _'9" °'I'R "� .:E- _ ,I) _ ��._�---•.�.e,. `. �� t _ ;°,� a.�l+\` `ter> •.sr^;"";�� 1r 1 � \V l -•..-!'� I�_.�_:.,M-� —__�_' .r` rxp' ----aY-Arr---- ------ -----6 /A �lAse a=—�-•�- a nt- ---LOT--2-- ' waom 2AR I I I4wo>m r I° ' �^F'".� /j J ---'-- NLt:. 11717:!-"'. r I s „ --- (� l (•...ti) PAD=1456.1 I l i:+'�wR.l I • '- 3 1 .f 1i�1 I •'Yr..l __ ,;r':;z. - . -".•, �� __�I- yE. _._----E' _."'_ I �I __ /� E /,Nod /, U I F.F.=1460.07 LOT 1jH 1 BUILD ;I PAD=1459.4 fION X33 w / yUR- OF!_O-(U'BLOCK ..! 1 1 _ ( , EF,=ia56:2T"-_I-� /� E,ETIWANTA.EOLONY MH.2/24 \ i/�4 _ � .. __' _ -.� tiff•.', ..�' nW .�''+F - / PROPERIr Bg1NpARY r DJJ` C•\ l '� / \ ,!� - 7 `•--- .11 1\ �,y�L CEF.TE RE -�Z`" _ -:fli•-r -�'__�"-"^- _. _-_-_ EAMNENr INE 1456A7-: 611 lv / 2 •`. - / .y.• I�'1 I. V A L�x[� SA LOT 3 A`pl`1•. II - WATFn URE `- •�, , I 11 ��_, ,+% d� - 2C s�4a 1 ��,,.- ^✓/ S /. CONC. I)EWPLK p""R -CL ARAP_ HOAO �F='456-..s7 NosREBo r.1 nu s P PAD=14 .9F CUT FILL iRAR4wLINEARAPAHO ROAO� ED-_- o[a DEEPENED FN TDP ELAIII EE WALLA ° AFiC 1 n i sr�Yoonw' a , n»Ka 1 z N'PARM -Ilf(If11J I FD PROPOSED FINISH GROUND Q +1nm mWc 1 /. I _ �� 4'b� P.M,.213/W'':�.,/Jy 1 TG av a CRATE U. 711 W / % V IF tOP OF RLOCN WALL fO01wG WA, VOAM . �. �,U SW SEWER �r d "II skEa\ / H.• // �II14 IN - c SING DRAWAGE PAT aN Z RETUNING BLOCK WALL STA _ F.F.=1453.17 - ..•j' f „ FREE -BLOCK-i d D D / LOT5 1 // Ii wm PAD=1452.5 I •// I <-_�- v6avosEo Two- L C LOT 4 P 1D I _(TA ; r' VC ElxoESTRIARRFT.CE % r4mxs Ie'IioK 'I F.F.-y1455.57 'a G // (i I L.� °t A'- i IPw IRI.441IKNI WAN / � --PAD W 1434 9. _ ��1 t-r f�� �$R� 1 .. '/ :: C: d y J i..... Y: y r Z i_(1" 1 / m TFoAt.. f.370 1. Dvo:°WI I rr°:: oi Irr i•'1 r.'f;,.' 1x1 H:cARti V.:> - '`Ka '1"'% •� 11 9 rc G 5 'S 11 I 4 ..,." T4-0i FBF.=1452. rp l---II.F. •y/ L °, �I� I r o _ ME.2U7/7�--7.,r• I Q p 090 a o KI Ri _ a KW �.1yi :W N. w '•�," " 1'i7 �i.)•%\ Y r -- - ------ -------- it°v CL LL :;I�^'1 illi!, ,.• -_ . ;. '; . .i.�?- 1 Nli+ � 3' I" - ._(144y1._ .KonWnu',mlr"°iK^ elu, rRa RWieL "+ \_ - loo:lw .. O r u C (144 f •�•'I�`�. ..w(rn _- RWe w rs elrnc>K.A amv_. T.Lw..,o" 'w.nn 1n lgi C- A P •;+ .•.or ° Sys wK.amww °r....M .431 E LD. 'I) I y/ ,TH /L-�_ _ l)'PM g (f1AL� "=17U I /Ir (1445)�__� \ 'I PORTRJN OF LUT O'BLOC)( - •� -(14n5)--- c PnB "/2.rt; I NH¢1 1 E,F.T�WANTA COLONY aru:I_ /23 ) , ,• EIALDING �- —Q44rL N<E 4 21 sKLIs SUBT(18747 8 DRC2009-00010 ,�o.,�..e. m Z a rnnlLnccEss-wnucasmrn¢w- d -"nb DBlALLB/LI W 1 Fllsmwe+T1RM Y O_ a �SIFF]nRn1F3" fOpR­L�� t1 1 I - ► 1 Lu m'ERFD ':S C��itiSRa i � I LOT 2 sroxWALKuxE 2AR "nro m2rro"suL Wn"` wOD Rl!(T I € GARK# I dtY ALdU TA(8� i LOT t-'nletMR U IV n81.GnT6 Q "_t"Itn-uN"nnl�6r" LwIl ozy b' .i'^DNCRRIB W LX \`.. l/aIPJRnO."N1Tr�" V O �- 94 _ - Ox z= y GARAGE i { - Z t 9 "" LOT 3 A­ALK.___MTB -`:ir'9Pn"AtTiL/ v ARAPAHO ROAD R G - BrnLL ;. 2C v s Rr8P3 :' TRAOITKR+AL �MTy Q x 3 1-}'NNUTAR 1 L r tMxstxw,ws sL'DNcxRNR I � I WAsx s''„ N LOT 4 Dom �j Feu nxD t 1 26RPrP�e" RnDD ssxa - LOTS Ir > SPANI5x "n nr I x 1D I 'sty ns - IINBGAN 1 15x -C°PnRRnt'RL 3 -@ 9 WALL LEGEND I Ir ---------- 1 3 82 9 SP LR FACE MASONRY WALL -SEE DETAIL*A•IL-1 I —•t-RNSULnR i L • SPLIT FACE MASONRY COLUMN -SEE DETAIL'B'l L-1 ��® sTgLL cdlFs I « Aai ! PRECISION BLOCK MASONRY WALL -SEEDETAIL'CIL-1 j �ss'aNs roRML _ 1 --�� PVC&RAIL FENCE -SEE DETAIL'D-IL-1 jk� 1 - - t t-snmDLnR j srm,Mres s NOTE: SOUTH P.L.WALL IS fi'HIGfNTATOP A LOW RETAINING WALL L I 4'cewm rotrur u. Ya•mm ro•rAR rr �.—.� � y } i aaaum rnerre u' � < 2 w•�ooc. mLaR ra 6O"` nalw reac. 7—.� --•— � S o aw..� aa,.w euryon SL SITE-1 y seurRAa soot. - oR.Re Aw.o• I .m, 210 Chkkaso•s ° r R o " Highlmd Aw. # — M M.WAa. N. ras -WWLffilffKl M ,.nRR:nw.L ULrJ.�aD I.erwR:n.UL GLLd.R•9 -- --- — V I�FACE WALL �BPL�i CAGE GOt.IMI V PREM[ION SLO—M WALL O O LOCATINOT T /PVICIN/ITY MAP a Z - __ — z J sTRut W a { /Irlr/�zxrr�anrrczr c) ilk LU LU N EL Z LOT 2 ----------1 J • 2AR u>23 roennL GARKaE •.•� e1R+GaLow mn(n\ ! LOT - 1 BiBu .• Gnlraee GAa GE s i2 z i a Z S I, LOT 3 rx2.faxRnL� — Z p y� ARAPAHO ROAD •- 2C xrnm _ G y r.ANOSCAPK IRRIf.AT1ON 3PC1&M . • TRAprbNdL f �U � !} n IIN ml mmnie n+xmllw rill Aeeank NlM1e m1'.pTl\RrfON11t(JIIR'MN _f � - nalellmnnrtnm+rmhemlJeexml rnlm mnl«IN lne bcnl molM1w Nmxn wJF.p ♦ ` ` a' �'� yy •• I r 3 aFw nfnemnlmw dww.MNm[.lwaelle imwfn wimlm mm nxn•Odmlvro -T :- • • ` 3 uill namm�\nllcaFlndmnlFu nx nm Alnng rein.Fromm roll Fc rm[nmmNw --- - -- — • • • _ . a eie.Illl vnrcel.m rn mmniu erWllirt'^'F• m The _ — . . . . F mlrNbr nulmmel ell.m s Ifr I n•Gnnm . L, ���� .�. •a.nl IlN end mn.Imnn- � - r 11. All nLlwa xvwm nry Je N gn xa p <xN N - 3 .ml'm Jnr nnrtlw r 'do R dd' IIn1M PNa mN i f. IlmmbuA A Ip mri a R IIN -Nefid t { ,J LOT 4 .I .fi"m• 1e ;anmmwa- M1mm�„ma. 2BR e ll I g alvl.u...gralawmenr.+ae<Pw.ImminallaclAnnNemLOTS r- {• BrAIABN ael'�a•� $3 1D { i a r. I 'n eM[rmnMmam nm I J I 1 n1w � lU8Cb1 '' 'lY1RRIJ.` La13 SPA limv;ma f. I nlim m II h rrvYvnmmv e+rF 'nJe av G�E .. ;� 'mxl.nJwnmwpnreln f 'B_=a IS— H. VIIdaNellnb:Fallwlgn wilM1amimmumnf t a1mRnlNvrNruSkrlMA 1.___.—_-__I \-\}1 yty �'t! mxkF le M1elrm.mlam mA mmnwrv. � ' •� G� �r'-S I. cNcw PNlni w�ex nxnllbaPn Inpm mel c[ aFmmmlmlm mm>mo ` I y 'lwZo meI m w maa .- •.{ y mllPmn mn I F-��SPn�[T'l'OPR\L .• `• a .r� ' ) at'� =�K a - i e 1 tylia mmnm,innnmlJy wax nn m,.wnln nrenxr i.nmAAl waw � I .. ..- .. .. .. _ !' -J mmnnnw,ti,.nrrdwa lmawaw m.[n lmiwli.n amrynem rumor[ PLANTING LEGEND 6 NOTAMI'ALN.\AF. fMONN Nnlfll cr/F,I[/sMllNl: BUTaNR'nL Nnkff. IOSNIAN NnI.w .t I+.IF.I'/.arA(lAv: TREGS SHRUBS 1HAED Z } S KOR,RRITFRIA NI%NNAT.n L1aNaae%.nov Tor. 3a'Ixa fA dN"a.v. 31 A US A.OSPFMDCA1 IASA1IN EA1 Y1aN.mnum 1— .11.N.IA111USBNTITNAttIR1A BxulJ 1.—," pl SRN.natnt Bfn1US AL 1AMTI I EELFW BI WRAF' ly vna.•PmvwuM 5 Sn1. JMIN DN\IDLAf)i\ PA.I n Ttwpn p R.U.eln6vl a PFak-OC I1MT.nBRIDA DRARF D•.vi M1lmkthvlR+ SR.I. )ASA1RIlrM POLI'ANTI 11N1 PIN:I.uwkN SRal.nmkwl 3 tRI3TAN1A tY)NFPJtt'A &vh+m Wu N'Nw HR.IRROCAILS111'BRIDA Dn)I.ily Ipnl. PANDORA IASAlINO1DEY'ROSIL\\'AR' \'mip lLlt Ryan IRnl.mntnl 3 I.IRIOPBAIUSCA0.1 DiR BNw LJa T�af Ipnl. 7 PrROSMRUN TDWAS JIN ItOMplll' fnlf RaBKNxJni PLnTnNUS ntTiRIFOLIA Lanxhl Plvle 3a'Ixu RAMUDLRPISINDICA I7LAIUTAl1: W4.01--.A_ Rpt. GROVNDCOVBRS s M%IIOI.FMSINDICA't]A.11 41aia lb.A_ �FeL f.UlISDiAIONMBELllli IDIIN Pvni C.Jxnem�n !pal. 3 f(H'OS pL11A10.YA Unm Paha 3a-/.16'hu -KHO DAICEB TBNOR' 1'nxlr H.mwllvK .IML FIARATIION ii Dw'ARI'fli{111IitlL1'lID LAt\"H I•ROM SUD w/SIID\liL t'IR IiD(ili LIM,FLORIB-IIII'IIBLRt' Rl1ilelnineR Rme SA.L px LIOIN IS C.AI OUNL-1A1 Trtv Pria'n S Fd, 3 OI.RA IlIROPAC•A Okvc W.13 RIO maMI p0.11N115CAROMACIA'l'OAIPAI'fA' Dw.rul, uu(TmT Spy.rMaml l'n plvl •_ i I..v pODtICARPUS t)RAf1GDR Pml Pule I�pol.mllurvalrr pinll '.11A\'. SNRUDS/PL\Nf R1iDS w/1•/'DVPR.I•IIRPST FlARM SIIRF.DDID BARK A/UI.Cl1 1/v�Jl'a(�//'r}/7 )rYLOBA MMNOF_RUkI Arun\aimm� 15 RIMS L\NfM AMcwl Amwx. IUNIPFRUS CitMFN513 SPARTAN' AIrrIml Fmiyw I�pnl.caivnnll 1.^IJmI _ Ill g N TIMA MASE Rea-Tp�pM Plxnklu SFaI. %%7//7/�} r AIYRTl13 MAIANNIS'Cr1At1'.ACTA' Arya11e SFd, l�-�4 SI.OrfS-1.1.\NT wflll'ROUND t'DVIeR3/RUr1TFD(trITNtU [d S� 1'iRUS('.'ARISTtN'MT' Arinarm%mmilW Pry n Ivn AIORARA BICOLOR ILnuirA,Lily 1 pN. RO3ASARINUS O.PIlDn`RATA.L0Mr )JIAUJAM. � 4 ' ESCALLDMA FRADESU N.f.N. Ipal. %WA MA)t1R rlk IN- IWA\ISRILARSPAON(1R'HII IN-LlVFA.%IMEDDID NARK W-L(lI. (IrPAN1OP313 nNnt'ARDIOIDIS Cawwrwnl )n'4m ""RIM NOBIIJS Swm B" `W.entad DODONARA\T.pCOM TURPIIRIL\' PaIYnllgveM Blnx .pL ABpJA 0,'ED Op11CNBN' P—N—lim .1'l. -NUS.M- nNAU.1 S%'. RncnmT tpnl. t111PJI S III\ IINI)oak an-hw SLIIINUS%OI.iJ: I'lik ii Prlpwt tp'Iva 1 a 2 M { Lot 2:Plan 2AR Bungalow � Lot 1 :Plan 1B Spanish r �`` � ;j- ��. "" - \ � ',� �'h �_yr `�� E - - f-71-11-1, •�. � , 4 Lot 3:Plan 2C Traditional AWN Lot Lot 5:Plan 1 D Tuscan INDEX ' Cover 1 -Site Utilization Sheet 11 -Plan 2 FloorP Ian 2-Technical Site Plan 12-Plan 2 Floor pan(Room Options) 3-Conceptial Grading Plan.Sheet 1 13-Plan 2A&28 Front Elevations 4-Conceptial Grading Plan.Sheet 2 14-Plan 2C Front Elevations 5-Preliminary Landscape Plan.Sheet 1 15-Plan 2A(4)Sided Elevations 6-Preliminary Landscape Plan.Sheet 2 16-Plan 2C(4)Sided Elevations 7-Plan 1 Floorplan 17-Plan 28(4)Sided Elevations 8-Plan 1 Front Elevations 18-Preliminary WQMP.Sheet 1 y Lot 4:Plan 2BR Spanish 9-Plan 1 B(4)Sided Elevations 19-Preliminary WQMP.Sheet 2 10-Plan 1 D(4)Sided Elevations 20-Cut Fill Map ARAPAHO ESTATES ' Rancho Cucamonga, CA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH Manning Homes Tract No. 18912 2 RE C 99 1 7 E C T 5 1 N W. 2014017 1 3*11,2014 1950 PE09C�H I SURE 90051:19A�SW,C I9110SC, 99M 0901 we.Matlie — W 999 250 SSN e Nra.. I e ------�u----- II i NODI( nsvAn�A�I IF�—W I1 BEDROOM r{a II _ GARAGE IATA — — a GREAT ROOM MR/ffiC4 -�� RTTCAEN FAMILY ROOM ® ` q"q � t Ir.ror Irr,lrr wit MASTER BEDROOM I I 1T Q-r,nr ___ I I f.ro• s: ®301e WIWl.11fAWW1tlI AACItIECI5.R1G LQI 1 Llai A i , I I rowAFal� ' y__N_. ____________' UAEA/SIBh1EE LAOACI .I ____ I I e: a WBITDR1R00 • _ A II----- ---- ----'II it II H w-- iitt I '41 ; _ WIC I i FOYER van --- tIl DINING ROOM PARIAR/DEN MQar` MASTER Ei GUEST SUITE - yvr.rRor WIC BEDROOMSLTLCROOM . .. MBA_AST.TR FB !yyOO O. ^. ^, .. •r . i _ II MSBITE 1 I Nitfr GUEST Sun ■.�a S x BEDROOM TV vr,rcr RJ•ly RESIDENCE ONE T APPROXIMATELY 3.955 TOTALSQUARE FEET BEDROOM 14.5 BATH I PARLOR I INCLUDING GUEST SITE - -� 3-CAR GARAGE FL"ARF M ft IA wvanaanRul xbf0.it N.1 AY1¢H Lot l ; Plan 1 B Spanish ARAPAHO ESTATES Bi---- I A 12 Rancho Cucamonga, CA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH A R C H 1 T E CT S I N C. 2DI4D,TIJUyIT.20r• Mannir^ Homes Tract No, 18912 Al .l �Fw•'AEmw.stltMmmAWW9Q150115 L EYtaE3' �� i E t P•tE�-�`�i�8 ff k�5•{� TZ_, Z; � � 4 #8YA}A!$t� a s��3YtY na:mEm>:Y;t�!➢e�Ixrt++••ELYEEI to r s _ art i �.�� - _ -, 'i{15ItY! E.P177tttYt. P r}2i8➢/N➢t:, tscFPC➢➢aE EEFt`--:E285f c F /'aa t9➢a ?t�aPa�-t■d{v 9NE;td?.aP3F4ta �+�}��.xxtn aR4'S� Yaa°' - - i r4 ''�•4, .s t '44a11;1•I.Pnrtta P! �Ea!Pllg4dsq eALAj Al Pr I� ON Y y � h .S • . 3 S -•Zi' �?!-. • t£! td➢ !lxFa WI Ugri a6!:♦7.. --_S td'Jp =Et is P7zi.9EA}d$[EB k➢¢t a � -s _..._ r t-• Y�F3+c7$ ErtdatSc fiA=¢ [a7 iit58 Sy'&3l73fP➢Pi3W�$rES! :.'f➢1! 42El.� t u tsi�� -,• 3 ➢714if, : � 7 Y 'fi { .E=7_daiEPEt<<!F �tEitP37r EaF;r�� '.9' � °+': ;, 61 i .-1M ; d➢tP ,�73 o8 YfrsY R�k•[➢F ftE i t - . IME: iai> !i'3 +!a , ,•' �- d; at 1 t �ZfB 1 'Ik'1#ta➢ '�iFf:'.�.➢Ea -ice o 1 � _..— aetieear�xaatEaat�nEu➢�y,.`<� { SPANISH: ;1 --- --- ROOF: CONCRETE S TILE ROOF ti FASCIA: 2X6 WOOD FASCIA BOARD WITH RAFTER TAILS ! ; I BARGE BD: 2X6 WOOD BARGE BD. GABLE: WOOD CORBELS I WALL- STUCCO WITH(LIGHT LACE)FINISH WINDOW TRIM: STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM WINDOW: EXTERIOR GRIDS o' ACCENT DETAILS: DECORATIVE SHUTTER PER ELEVATION STYLE, s WROUGHT IRON GRILL ACCENT, DECORATIVE COACH LIGHT ACCENTS, ! WOOD POTSHELF -- FRONT DOOR: DECORATIVE FRONT DOOR , GARAGE DOOR: DECORATIVE SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR ---- --- ROOF PLAN WITH COACH LIGHTS SCALE 1/8"=V-0- --------- '-0-o......-- INN F49 yf r° •--►' RIGHT _ REAR 1 M- 7'. _ - S AMII WNILAM NE➢.'nwlcNM,:Mr.-cti e+[. _ _ — — _ � � _ ___ —_ __ LEFT' FRONT Lot 1 ; Plan 1 B Spanish ARAPAHO ESTATES ° 16 Rancho Cucamonga, CA g WILLIAM HEZMA A R C H I i E C i 1 5 I Pq N cC.. 2014011 1 J*11.2014 Mannin- Homes Tract No, 189121 A 1.3 �^�pE�- ^^�^CA9tE=�,1 . 2M r.M,a'rlilery.mn h. E0 ISE -"="---- - ---------------------- r I TUSCAN; ' 02 -- , ROOF: CONCRETE S TILE ROOF M FASCIA: 2X6 WOOD FASCIA BOARD WITH RAFTER TAILS BARGE BD: 2X6 WOOD BARGE BD. WALL: STUCCO WINDOW TRIM: STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM PER ELEVATION STYLE0j ti 1 WINDOW: EXTERIOR GRIDS ACCENT DETAILS: DECORATIVE SHUTTER PER ELEVATION STYLE, -------------- DECORATIVE COACH LIGHT ACCENTS, I WOOD POTSHELF DECORATIVE WROUGHT IRON GRILL AT ENTRY FRONT DOOR: DECORATIVE FRONT DOOR it �o GARAGE DOOR: DECORATIVE SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR WITH COACH LIGHTS I 0 ; VENEER: EL DORADO MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER ---------- ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/8'=1'-0' 00 .4 RIGHT REAR - 3 � f``r- I 2014 W.UW W"LCRWMECZ.IK. LEFT FRONT Lot 5 : Plan 1 D Tuscan ARAPAHO ESTATES 1�t " 0 auEro--r.. 16 Rancho Cucamonga, CSA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH Manning Homes Tract No. 189121 A 1 .4 wm H�Sm111C, �50 X17�.uv 11.Z/1E MpE91LL4vEWL5u MBNIf,N1.CAR10Sw VIP —2a. — rta —-- —>tr { N i IrL V7 R11R,WSRMIIIeRwe6 t R 1 � I �SeOSN ]R 5 i61e SN ! 1 I j arryrRr ; ' r-------- ---------, 11bRF _ _ _ _ _ NO A Se50 61 Z�•511 Smr k Igc-r—rFWDR;I�IIII;IIIII -!2-•-•r-ra'---r�-a---a-- p BEDROOM 4/ Tax DPTRETR ;;1ii1!l•�•x-�•`1 BEDROOM EDROOMa 2 FAMILY ROOM GREAT BOOM NOOK MASTER BEDROOM MII BUNtrDgSlxBOOM udY WEE um- I X .W. TO O O y Yn3O i9 R---- — -------------- -- ---- -- sRtsAvl d� �SFIIIIi y V --- . i.I i .e.r.rasra.rwowa 5 \ RtiSt BEDROOMS p -i'1 1 i m-------- ---------- FOYER BWG p R ? LOFT/ ----- vreua Nq i i R -_-- raa i I MA Trot STER OFT.BEDROOM6 BEDROOM3 i WICqq RnRr LADND R.Ir.rs-r 1 I I II T tier 1 Illy ROOM � rql I rtryy I'I I I a trm S e„R r I I 1 ft !Re 0. i! rte■ D __- LOWER LEVEL seen------_--� >an UPPER LEVEL awes .®el-- - ------- —.-- — - COVERED mea MIT– I RESIDENCE TWO APPROXIMATELY 4.983 TOTAL SQUARE FEET 5 BEDROOM 1 4.5 BATH I PARLOR/DEN I LOFT I BONUS ROOM PLAN OPTIONS:MASTER RETREAT I BEDROOM b 1 IN-LAW SURE WITH BATH 5 4-CAR GARAGE alooa alae SAetE niwxn wta nooan,srl tln w*Sa nooartal ttn5o.nN row weroR snaax eRsn Lot 2 : Plan 2AR ARAPAHO ESTATES 6 4 1 u Rancho Cucamonga, CA WIR CIHM FIEZCMASLHANCCH Mannir'- Homes Tract No, 18912 A2.1 9t HORMR.AAWAA mwm""t9?S 2014011 1 MILV- vo s, gas al �A 10W I+aeml >-n sx ph�YI,IaaNGYwaaFMB.IN'LP9C ^O BEDROOM 0 $e~ INLAWSUE MAM RETREAT B�nq rr MASTER BEDROOM 1 ATN2 .ra il�Rlwr it rr01. BEDROOM 2 D SA BEDROOM A nrm:r O ra BATH Id O c O MEN sri LIN01 AATIIS �`� UNIA '— aid I I R I i i Llre i 7C I I UNIN ii I>4 I i - IN-LAw sarrE;; I uR60°El; OPTIONAL MASTER RETREAT AT BEDROOM 4 _ t ,, r O O -- 6 REDROOM7 O O LIVING ROOM ma r RATN3 — irr94 lnlr UTN3 PAN rh LV re a 0 7�� wOAolAVALIW�U"HALwAa nCMZwllASfER gg BEDROOM A BEDROOM 3 BEDAOOM3 BE8 f.r,lzr LABNDIN .n:-r ID lA—. x' rioc R�` rTelc .. ew OPTIONAL BEDROOM 7&8 AT OPTIONAL IN-LAW SUITE AT BONUS OPTIONAL BEDROOM 6 AT LOFT BONUS ROOM WITH BATH 5 ROOM WITH BATH 5 Plan 2 - Options ARAPAHO ESTATES B}--4 8 1212 Rancho Cucamonga, CA WILLIAM HE:ZMALHALCH ARCH ITE C T 5 I N C. 2014017 1 Myll.20W Manning Homes Tract No. 18912 � A2.2 M9.1z 1Al A'—' 9UME Mr__' AMA%9Zr4 c,,' 019 K HO .awcra.W h.919 9M0 MMM w ;tPf....?�. @4•tw '+"a�sam ,f -as-aa "s' �-cear rdf:. nZ.0 J�I�GG•.�I�I���I'�I�I�,IrY.��i:;`�::a "7 `r E (dI nd,'�""•�i i'vl - s+..r :,-� s ;�•n-,a' -'; - �' - �"�'�'� 1 nMmT anacnil I itii_ '•--'iwln n/an „ e. J Zola ifllfl ill Pli •FI D PRA YIPI IQDI/!AI -7 IAt11�R I�11lCIAli � 1_ 11 CI itR P�A��Ilgi q ?-;.7j -f 19 RFRIli�i:lllCYt! ail �4iA Cil!]Dlt ' r Fit [IIA1BIi II~Dllo t Iit3.��.tt.{�_��.._Llyyt■■CP RFAI -<•• t S jje �OilYi�ill P.Wr�7�� FS-9 /1F4 n "A fi•Ili� al - w, IN, RIPDI�IIFLtIFiRtliJiiiP iFRAit„t •I S ;Mix .a L--t- 1 i 1 • ra ` � itr3f I A �� -•: a4„ 4 Y. t lily ,i f" �•'c.;lQdllldf 11 'Z. _� i •5�S • ' • C •• • d r -' sa1 }E}E :•A-T }}caa >a�K}Ri'F•A�ate1 Za'i. .. _. '...:. =$ � --f''iBR�6iM•�'�5-�sIRF,�i-a ____ - tw_Ei:ZL-."_ � _g�'>^3R�gER,.-` '{* _'z i •' r — .�,ce:rs..ar�:. ,_". —— :� — mss--— _ —_ ___ ����m •�,�� } ♦ • 1 • E 1 V 7WI N -n �S K x11E VIILLLVAHFA,al1W01 RRCt,iEC,S..NL. Lot 3 ; Plan 2C Traditional Plan 2 Front Elevations 0 4 N 12 ARAPAHO ESTATES Rancho Cucamonga, CA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH A R C 11 1 1 1 C T S I N C. 2GI6017 1 MY IL 2014 Manning Homes Tract No. 189121 A2.4 �,��AVEY.v.WdeiU �A AWM YAib BUNGALOW: r== r-------------- ROOF: FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILE WITH - cl,y ------ OUTLOOKER WITH KNEE BRACE AT GABLE FASCIA: 2X6 TYPICAL FASCIA&DECORATIVE RAFTER TAILS I BARGE BD: 2X8 SHAPED WOOD BARGE BD. I GABLE: FIBER CEMENT BOARD&BATTS WALL: STUCCO I I TRIM: STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM FOAM SHAPE I PER ELEVATION STYLE/WOOD TRIM AT SHINGLE SIDING I v I SIDING: —FIBER CEMENT SHINGLE SIDING(CEDAR MILL FINISH) P ----- ----{ WINDOW: WITH EXTERIOR GRIDS i ACCENT DETAIL: WOOD CEMENT COLUMNS WITH THIN BRICK CAP �� I NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE AT ENTRY PORCH WITH WOOD RAILING 6--------- --� FRONT DOOR: DECORATIVE FRONT DOOR . --------- GARAGE DOOR: DECORATIVE SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR WITH GLASS LITES AT TOP PANEL11 z ►,Re AND COACH LIGHTS ROOF PLAN VENEER: NATURAL RIVER ROCK STONE VENEER rin SCALE 1/8'=1'-0" I II I' a ROOF PLAN - N r SCALE 1/8"=1' " 1 ;,. w RIGHT REAR _ iL s a R"14 WILLVM AEnwlulcihPCNicls.nc. LEFT FRONT Lot 2 : Plan 2AR Bungalow ARAPAHO ESTATES U -- 16 Rancho Cucamonga, CA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH -�� A R C H I T E C T S I N C. 20140» 1 *11,2014 Mannino Homes Tract No. 189121 A2.5 AVE . ���, ,� TRADITIONAL r_______ j w� � is i ROOF: FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILE --______-_j FASCIA: 2X6 TYPICAL FASCIA ' BARGE BD: 2X6 SHAPED WOOD BARGE BD. WALL: STUCCO&FIBER CEMENT HORIZONTAL SIDING SIDING: FIBER CEMENT HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING TRIM: STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM FOAM SHAPE I kv PER ELEVATION STYLE/WOOD TRIM AT SIDING I WINDOW TRIM: STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM FOAM SHAPE f____________ I PER ELEVATION STYLE Y o= WINDOW: WITH EXTERIOR GRIDS W' ACCENT DETAIL: BUILT-UP WOOD CEMENT COLUMNS WITH WOOD RAILING I I DECORATIVE SHUTTER PER ELEVATION STYLEI F -------- --------------------- ? FRONT DOOR: DECORATIVE FRONT DOOR * GARAGE DOOR: DECORATIVE SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR WITH GLASS LITES AT TOP PANEL ✓a«=,���� =rxno AND COACH LIGHTS ROOF PLAN VENEER: THIN SET FULL BRICK VENEER AND CAP SCALE 1/8'=11-01 t1 RIGHT REAR Q J ®SUIS wuuu.FDMlwttG NKIITCR iG. _- LEFT FRONT Lot 3 : Plan 2C Traditional ARAPAHO ESTATES it II IF Rancho Cucamonga, CSA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH 2014017 1 Jury It.2D14 Manning Homes Tract No, 18912 A2.6 2 -A"<a 1 ____________ SPANISH. ROOF: CONCRETE S TILE ROOF K FASCIA: 2X6 WOOD FASCIA BOARD WITH RAFTER TAILS tit BARGE BD: 2X6.WOOD BARGE BD. � 4U GABLE: WOOD CORBELS WALL: STUCCO WITH(LIGHT LACE)FINISH 1 j WINDOW TRIM: STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM WINDOW: EXTERIOR GRIDS ACCENT DETAILS:DECORATIVE SHUTTER PER ELEVATION STYLE, _ WROUGHT IRON GRILL ACCENT, -- DECORATIVE COACH LIGHT ACCENTS FRONT DOOR: DECORATIVE FRONT DOOR GARAGE DOOR: DECORATIVE SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR WITH _ COACH LIGHTS ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/8"=F-0" N i• I r--- .,h RIGHT REAR ZI pj.111t VILLVA1e1FlMM1ULCIIAPCIGFCR K. — -- LEFT FRONT Lot 4 : Plan 2138 Spanish ARAPAHO ESTATES 4 U - ......F° -1 Rancho Cucamonga, CA WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH A R C H I TE C N T S I C. 2014017 My 11.2014 Manninn Homes Tract No. 189121 A2,7 9�I9 w�4FN�E SIII �rA�b�i 9u1925015Ar x Neighborhood Meeting Monday,June 23,2014 ARAPAHO TRACT18747 Address Phone No. Email Print Name Sign 1 3 oCT#w x'11. d 9 y^'�O 1 ^ o S! o f 4 4 '6N. C.o �` 4Qlt sol- .4 2 3 C�acrw i^'1 1?01 z^01 l solva 3 l0 3 74 ,Las 7- RV q - R"1-l fL R PERofW 4 3/;r e— Y- O"If a �7 5 �,� y3 C�G�4r✓ p� 9a 9-�y9�,�3/ /;,, r�C �,n JA. f Jif s !;28 -6("/,�, i `G 416- ?5' G.+csrwce(Ac3dPWc �vl o7l-na�e.4�,(. CAAe� (c,,fc 7 13a4R Ag".444o qQq - $ Owl �3.�5' t d GM ,/•s al 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS • 7:00 p.m. Tomr G ahn July 15, 2014 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2014-00425 - MANNING HOMES - A review of five (5) single-family residences that will be constructed in conjunction with a previously approved subdivision within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place -APN: 0225-181-73. Related files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747, Variance DRC2014-00426, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00427. Design Parameters: On June 13, 2012, the Planning Commission approved SUBTT18747 for the subdivision of 3.4 acres into 5 lots, Development Review DRC2009-00010, for the design of the five (5) single-family residences, and Variance DRC2010-00963, which provided for a reduction in the minimum lot depth on the two most westerly lots (Lots 1 and 5). Following that approval, the property was sold to the current applicant who submitted a revised architecture for the project site. The project proposes the development of five (5) single-family residences on a cul-de-sac with single-story and two-story floor plans. The 3 lots at the end of the cul-de-sac, along the eastern project boundary (Lots 2, 3, and 4) will be two-story, while the two lots on the western project boundary (Lots 1 and 5) will be single-story. ® Additionally, the applicant submitted Variance DRC2014-00426, for a reduction in minimum lot rear yard setback from 60 to 30 feet for Lots 1 and 5. The original Variance application permitted a reduction in the lot depth requirement for these two lots, but did not address any reduction on lot setback requirements in their eventual development. The architectural styles for the projects two-story units are identical to the architecture used in the development of SUBTT18819, located at the southwest corner of Victoria Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. This includes the following: Lot 2 — Bungalow, Lot 3— Traditional, and Lot 4 — Spanish. These architectural plans were submitted unrevised from this previously approved architecture. The architectural style for the single-story unit, located on Lots 1 —Spanish, and Lot 5 — Tuscan, were designed to be compatible to the style, massing, and use of materials of the two-story units. Staff Comments: Maior Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. There are no major design issues. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: = 1. There are no secondary design issues. XHIBIT G J—L— 27 DRC ACTION AGENDA _ DRC2014-00425— MANNING HOMES July 15, 2014 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Development Review DRC2014-00425. Desiqn Review Committee Action: The project was approved as presented. Members Present: Fletcher, Wimberly, Granger Staff Planner. Tom Grahn J-L- 28 RESOLUTION NO. 14-36 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00425, A REVIEW OF 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE VERY LOW(VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE EAST . TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-181-73. A. Recitals. 1. Manning Homes filed an application for the Design Review of Tract DRC2014-00425, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of August 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga noticed public hearing to consider the application. 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 August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a.. The application applies to a parcel located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place; and b. The project site is a rectangular parcel with an overall area of approximately 3.4 acres. The overall dimensions of the site are approximately 442 feet deep (east to west) and 331 feet (north to south) and is currently vacant; and C. To the north, west, and south of the project site are existing residences;.to the east is a telephone facility; and d. This application is in conjunction with the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00963, and the current applications Design Review DRC2014-00425 and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536; and • e. The proposal is to construct a single-family residence on each lot of a 5-lot subdivision (Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747) that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2012, for a total of 5 single-family residences; and J—L— 29 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-36 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00425—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 2 f. The applicant proposes two (2) distinct footprints— Plans 1 and 2—and reverse footprints of each for a total of four (4) footprints. The number of available footprints will comply with Figure 5-45 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and g. Plan 1 will be a one-story, and Plan 2 will be a two-story. The mix of one- and two-story homes is consistent with the policy adopted by the Planning Commission requiring that 25 percent (minimum) of the proposed houses must be single-story. The houses on Lots 1 and 5 will be single-story as required per Section 5.42.608 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and h. The project will comply with Section 5.42.606 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan that requires that 50 percent of the garages to be oriented or situated in a manner that minimizes the visual presence of the garage; and i. The proposed houses will comply with the development standards applicable to this zoning district as described in Figure 5-2 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The architecture of each house will be consistent with the general design requirements outlined in the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 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. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to construct a single-family residence on each lot of a 5-lot subdivision (Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747), that was previously approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2012, for a total of 5 single-family residences. The underlying General Plan designation is Very Low Residential; and b. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and all the surrounding properties is Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan; and C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 13, 2012 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747. Pursuant to CEQA J—L— 30 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-36 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00425—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 3 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 than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the Design Review DRC2014-00425, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. SUBTT18747 provided for the subdivision of 3.4 acres into 5 lots. Design Review DRC2014-00425 provides for revised architecture to that approved subdivision, Variance DRC2014-00535 provides for a reduced rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 feet on two lots, and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536 provides for an increased wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet between two lots and along the south boundary of the project site. 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. The project provides for the development of the same 5 lots considered in the approval of SUBTT18747 and the current application proposes the development of those same lots with single-family homes. C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the.Design Review DRC2014-00425. 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 is for the development of 5 single-family residences in conjunction with a previously approved 5-lot subdivision of approximately 3.4 acres within the Very Low (VL) Residential District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place side of East Avenue, approximately 150 feet north of the Foothill Freeway (SR-210) -APNs: 0225-181-73. 2) The development of all lots shall be in accordance with the standards and requirements applicable to the Very Low (VL) Residential District as described in Figure 5-2 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections • of the Development Code, Etiwanda Specific Plan, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 1—L— 31 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-36 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00425— MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 4 4) Model homes shall require the review of a separate Temporary Use Permit (Model Home) and fee prior to the submittal of documents for plan check and construction.. Note: Parking in the street will not be permitted for this purpose. A temporary off-street parking area that complies with all applicable parking requirements will be required and must be shown on the plans for this permit. 5) All Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747 (including all Mitigation Measures identified in the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration), Variance DRC2014-00535, Minor Exception DRC2014-00536, and Tree Removal Permit . DRC2010/00964 shall apply. Engineering Services Department 1) All pertinent conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-27 approving Tentative Tract Map 18747 shall apply. 2) The required street lights shall be LED per Rancho Cucamonga Utility Standards. 3) Private vehicles are not allowed on Community Trails. Vehicular access to private local trails serving all 5 lots shall be taken from Arapaho Road. A private interior single gate (Standard Drawing 1009-13) from Lot 1 onto the Community Trail will be allowed if the Planning Department allows vehicular access to the corral area directly from the street. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 August 2014, by the following vote=to-wit: J—L— 32 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-36 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00425—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 5 • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: J—L— 33 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : DEPARTMENT • STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2014-00425 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW APPLICANT: MANNING HOMES TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE - LOCATION: APN: 0225-181-73. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT,. (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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. 14-38,or Approval Letter, 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. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 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, the Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 1 J-L- 34 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date 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 Manager. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California 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 Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 4. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _/_/_ submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manager and Police Department(477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location,-height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 9. Local Feeder Trail entrances shall also provide access for service vehicles, such as veterinarians or hay deliveries, including a 12-foot minimum drive approach. Entrance shall be gated provided that equestrian access is maintained through step-throughs in accordance with Engineering Services Department Standard Drawing 1006-B and 1007-B. 10. Local Feeder Trail grades shall not exceed 0.5 percent at the downstream end of a trail for a distance of 25 feet behind the public right-of-way line to prohibit trail debris from reaching the street. Drainage devices may be required by the Building and Safety Official. 11. Provide a 24-foot by 24-foot or 12-foot by 48-foot corral area in the rear yard adjacent to the Local Feeder Trail. Grade access from corral to trail with a maximum slope of 5:1 and a minimum width of 10 feet. 12. For single-family residential development within the Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, at least one model home shall be provided with a constructed 24-foot by 24-foot corral with appropriate fencing. 13. Where corner side, interior side or rear yard property lines are adjacent to local equestrian trails, construct minimum 6-foot high decorative masonry walls. Decorative masonry shall mean split-face double sided block, 'slump stone'or an alternative material that is acceptable to the Design Review Committee. 14. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering 2 J—L— 35 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date Services Department and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the • Final Map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 16. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Manager and Engineering Services Department approval; including, but not limited to, public notice requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction activity, dust control measures, and security fencing. 17. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owners at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project perimeter. 18. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 19. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. 20. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 21. For single-family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two 1/2-inch lag bolts,to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall ® extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 22. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 23. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. -- 24. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. The 5-foot wall/fence setback and the parkway shall have landscape and irrigation in addition to the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. The parkway landscaping including trees, shrubs, ground covers and irrigation shall be maintained by the property owner. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the parkway maintenance requirement, in a standard format as determined by the Planning Manager, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 25. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. D. Building Design 1. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for Planning Manager and Building and Safety Official review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be 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 Manager. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an 3 J-L- 36 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 3. For all residential development, provide conduit from each unittlot and a pull box to connect to the street. Provide interior structured wiring for each house/building with minimum Category 5 copper wire, Radio Grade 6 coaxial cable, and a central distribution panel, prior to release of occupancy (fiber-to-the building, FTTB). Plans shall be submitted for Planning Manager and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. E. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 2. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 3. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition,slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5- gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 5. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Manager review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 8. New windrow planting of Eucalyptus Maculata (Spotted Gum) is required. The size, spacing, staking, and irrigation of these trees shall be in conformance with the City's Development Code Chapter 17.80. 4 J-L- 37 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date F. Other Agencies ® 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. G. Building and Safety VHFHSZ Tract Standard Conditions NOTE: The construction of this tract must be in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan and/or the California Building; this tract is located in the VHFHSZ. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan and reverse foundation plan (when applicable); C. Floor Plan; d. Roof and Floor Framing Plan and reverse Roof and Floor Framing Plan (when applicable); e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of 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 (DRC2014-00425) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of 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. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can contact the Building and Safety Services Department staff for information and submittal requirements. 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 (DRC2014-00425). 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 Services Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. ® 2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for a new residential 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 5 J-L- 38 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Data Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to permit issuance. 3. The Building and Safety Official shall provide street addresses 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. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Residential/Code Building Code (CBC/CRC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive construction. 2. Construction of the home must be in accordance with the approved Fire protection Plan and/or Chapter 7A of the CBC; this tract is located in the VHFHSZ. 3. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 4. The structures in this tract must be equipped with automatic fire sprinkler in accordance with the approved Fire protection Plan and The California Residential Code. 5. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. H. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The grading and drainage plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual grading and drainage plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or engineering geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. As a custom-lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on- site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of Grading Permits. b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of grading and Building Permits. C. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of Building Permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a Building Permit is requested. 6 J—L— 39 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date d. Final grading plans for each parcel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety —/—/— • Services Department for approval prior to the issuance of grading and Building Permits (this may be on an incremental or composite basis). e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses —/—/— or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code. 6. In hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with —/—/— the standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.132.020 of the Development Code Update 2012; Section 17.24.070 of the old Development Code) 7. A separate Grading and Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and —/_/— for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 8. If human remains are discovered on-site before or during grading, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. 9. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign on the project site prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 10. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official _/—/— • for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from the Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 11. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on=site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on- site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. 12. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage l l easements prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. — 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage —/_/— acceptance letter(s) from adjacent downstream property owner(s) or discharge flows in a natural condition (concentrated flows are not accepted) and shall provide the Building and Safety Official a drainage study showing the proposed flows do not exceed the existing flows prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. 14. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owners to construct walls on property lines or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed off-set from the property line. 15. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible, and provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 16. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot off-set from the public right-of-way or adjacent private property. — — • 17. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted —/—/ California Plumbing Code. — 7 J—L— 40 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date 18. The maximum parking stall gradient is 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the current adopted California Building Code. 19. The final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100 feet beyond the project boundary. 20. The applicant shall provide a grading agreement and grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the Building and Safety Official. 21. Provide documentation for C\/WD sewer off-set program to the Building and Safety Official for review prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. 22. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 23. The precise Grading and Drainage Plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit." 24. Grading Inspections: a. Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall.request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the Grading Permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b. The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Services Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i. The bottom of the over-excavation; ii. Completion of rough grading-The grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety.Services Department front counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv. The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 25. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) best management practices (BMP) devices. 26. Roof storm water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway and shall be directed to an under parkway culvert per City of Rancho Cucamonga requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. I. Water Quality Management Plan 1. The Water Quality Management Plan shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 8 J—L— 41 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. 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. K. Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. —/—/- 2. 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. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. —/—/— L. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be —/—/— lifted from frame or track in any manner. M. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for —/—/— nighttime visibility. •N. Alarm Systems 1. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriffs dispatch number: —/—/— (909) 941-1488. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AT, (909)477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The project must comply in design and constructed in accordance with the 2010 California Building and Fire Codes,the RCFPD Ordinance FD50 and the RCFPD Standards, The RCFPD ordinance, procedures & standards which are referenced in this document can be access on the.web at www.cityofrc.us. O. Single-Family Tract Standard Conditions FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply 1. The public water supply and fire hydrants shall be design in accordance with RCFPD and CVWD Standards and Policies. -- — 2. The private water supply (when applicable) and fire hydrants shall be design in accordance with the RCFPD Ordinance, Standard 5-10 and the current edition of the California Fire Code. FSC-2 Fire Flow 1. Fire review and approval of the public water plans to be submitted to CVWD for permit issuance. —/—/ 2. Building Permits will not be issued until public fire protection water plans are approved and adequate water supply is provided for construction purposes. — — • 3. On all architectural plan sets to be submitted for building plan check provide a Site Plan that illustrate all the proposed public and private fire hydrants located on/and within 600-feet of the project site. 9 J-L- 42 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion'Date 4. The required fire flow for this project is calculated gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. The required minimum fire flow for this project may be reduced by 50 percent when automatic fire sprinklers are installed. 5. Public fire hydrants located within the immediate vicinity 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. FSC-9 Single-family Residential Sales Model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water supply from a public or private water main system before construction. FCS-10 Fire Sprinklers: All structures must.be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers in _/_/_ accordance with NFPA 13D and the current edition of the California residential Code. 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 review fee. FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: the project must be annexed into the Community Facilities District #85-1 or#88-1. The annexation must be completed 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. 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 CVWD. On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Standard#10-5. 2. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #14-1. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road. 3. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CVWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CVWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 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. Public 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. 3. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 10 J—L— 43 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date P. Fire Conditions for Single-Family ResidentialNHFHSZ Standard Conditions • 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. For single-family residential projects in the designated Hazardous Fire Area, the Fire hydrant design and installation shall be in accordance to RCFPD Policies and Standards. b. If any portion of a facility or building is located more than 150-feet from a public fire hydrant measured on an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, additional private or public fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided c. Provide one fire hydrant for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow or fraction thereof. FSC-2 Fire Flow 1. The required fire flow for this project is calculated in gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20 pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with current edition of the California Fire, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinance 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. Fire service plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building Permits will not be issued until fire service plans are approved. • 4. On all Site Plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. FCS-3 Fire Access Roadways: Public and private roads shall be improved as approved by the fire district in the Fire Protection plan before an occupancy release can be granted by the Fire District. FSC-4 Requirement for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems: The Current editions of Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance, the California Fire Code and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in Buildings with an R occupancy fire area. FSC-7 Hazardous Fire Area: This project is located within the"State Responsibility Area" (SRA), the"Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone"(VHFHSZ), City of Rancho Cucamonga"Hillside District", and/or within the area identified on the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Exhibit V-7 as High Probability-High Consequence for Fire Risk. These locations have been determined to be within the "Hazardous Fire Area" as defined by the Fire District. The Hazardous Fire Area is based on maps produced by the California Department of Forestry as adopted by the RCFPD. 1. Hazard Reduction Plans: The applicant shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan and obtain approval of the plan by RCFPD. The FPP addresses the following: a. Fire protection water supply b. Fire resistive non-combustible roof assemblies c. Fuel Modification by vegetation management d. Fire District access roadways ® e. Ignition resistive construction and protection of openings f. Fire sprinkler systems 11 J-L- 44 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion;Date g. Fire flow criteria h. For construction requirements in the "Hazard Fire Area" refer to the current editions of the CBC Chapter 7A, The California Residential Code, the RCFPD Ordinance, and the applicable, standards and policies. 2. The architectural plans for the construction of the buildings must be in accordance with the current editions of the CBC Chapter 7A, The California Residential Code, the RCFPD Ordinance, the applicable standards and policies, the County of San Bernardino's Development Code and the approved Fire Protection Plan. 3. Mobile, stationary or portable power-operated equipment in the Hazardous Fire Area shall not be used without the Fire Safety Division's written approval. Specific fire protection measures that may be required to mitigate the hazard include, but are not limited to: a. A stand-by water tender, equipped with a pump, fire hose and nozzle. b. Pre-wetting of the site to avoid the production of sparks between blades or tracks and rocks. c. Conducting a fire watch for a minimum of one-hour following the cessation of operations each day. d. For welding, cutting or grinding work, clear away all combustible material from the area around such operation for a minimum distance of 10-feet. A "hot-work" permit must be obtained from Fire Construction Services prior to cutting, welding or grinding work. e. Maintain one serviceable round point shovel with an overall length of not less than forty-six (46) inches and one five (5) gallon backpack water pump-type fire extinguisher fully equipped and ready for use at the immediate area during the operation. FSC-8 Chronological summary of RCFPD Hazardous Fire Area requirements Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit the applicant shall record the approved Fire Protection plan with the county's recorded office. Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the property must be inspected and accepted by the Fire District staff. .Schedule the inspection with Fire Construction Services at 909-477-2713. FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel 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 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. 12 J—L— 45 Project No. DRC2014-00425 Completion Date 4. Fire sprinkler monitoring must be installed tested and final by FCS. ® 5. 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. 6. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with noncombustible 4-inch tall numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100 feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. 7. The Fire Protection Plan: The approved plans shall be recorded with the county recorder's office. ——— 8. Vegetation Management: The landscaping shall be installed and/or modified in accordance with approved FPP and or the RCFPD Standard. --- 9. All requirements of the FPP or the RCFPD Standard must be completed before an occupancy /— release may be granted. — 13 J–L– 46 RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. DRC2014-00535 A REQUEST FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 60 FEET TO 30 FOR LOTS 1 AND 5, TRACT 18747, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REVIEW OF 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT ON A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE VERY LOW(VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE. EAST TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 0225-181-73. A. Recitals. 1. Manning Homes filed an application for the issuance of Variance DRC2014-00535 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of August 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. • 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 August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a parcel located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place; and b. The project site is a rectangular parcel with an overall area of approximately 3.4 acres. The overall'dimensions of the site are approximately 442 feet deep (east to west) and 331 feet (north to south) and is currently vacant; and C. To the north, west, and south of the project site are existing residences; to the east is a telephone facility; and d. This application is in conjunction with the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00963, and the current applications Design Review DRC2014-00425 and Minor Exception DRC2014-00536; and J—L— 47 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535— MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 2 e. The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 feet for Lots 1 and 5 within the subdivision; and f. Per Figure 5-2, Page 5-9 of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, the rear yard setback is 60 feet. 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 regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. The proposed residential subdivision is an in-fill project with limited reasonable lot configuration options. The overall north to south dimension of the project site is approximately 331 feet. If it was possible to not have a public street serve the subdivision, Lots 1 and 5 would still be only approximately 165 feet in depth and an associated result would be that Lots 2 through 4 would have no direct access to a public street, which is not a permissible condition. The project site is bound on all sides by existing development. Therefore, there was no opportunity to acquire additional land, specifically to the north or the south, which would allow Lots 1 and 5 to be greater in depth. Requiring the applicant to maintain the 60-foot rear yard setback creates practical difficulties in the design and function of floor plans for the new homes on these lots. Additionally, because of the lot configuration, there still adequate rear yard private open space and adequate separation between these proposed residences and existing structures to the north and south. 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 district. The project site is located at the east terminus. of Arapaho Road approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of that street with Choctaw Place. The project site is bound to the north, south, and west by existing residential development and associated improvements. The extension of Arapaho Road will generally bisect the project site. Alternate alignments of the proposed extension such as shifting it further south or north were not possible because of the limits imposed by technical standards for street design including minimum dimensions for street width, curve radii, and cul-de-sacs. The project site was part of a larger parcel that was partially developed with a telephone switching facility on the east side. In May 2006, the larger parcel was subdivided into two (2) parcels. The part of the property that was developed with the telephone switching facility became a separate parcel, while the larger, undeveloped part of the property was.sold for this project site. As the telephone facility occupies the entire smaller parcel, it was not possible at the time of the subdivision, nor is it possible now, to consider the option of a street connecting the project site with East Avenue that, in turn, could have provided the applicant the opportunity to propose an alternate subdivision design. This limited subdivision design created wider and shallower lots on Lots 1 and 5,which do not generally apply to other properties in this 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 district. The overall tract design and lot configuration approved with SUBTT18747 resulted in 5 lots that substantially exceeded minimum lot areas standards. Because of the limitations of street design Lots 1 and 5 were designed with a reduced depth, but excessive side yard areas. There are a significant number of residences in the immediate area that were developed under a J—L— 48 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535— MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 3 prior code standard that required a 30-foot minimum rear yard setback. The reduced rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 5 would be compatible with these other properties in the vicinity. 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 district. Within the Very Low Residential District lots are required to provide a minimum 200-foot lot depth and a 60-foot rear yard setback. The principal purpose of the minimum lot depth standard is to allow horse keeping, while still maintaining a minimum separation of 70 feet between horse corrals (or similar equestrian facilities) and dwellings on neighboring properties per Section 17.08.030(E)(2)(b) of the Development Code. The lot depth reduction from 200 feet to 135 feet was determined to not be in conflict with this requirement as it was off-set by the width of each lot. Lots 1 and 5 are approximately 190 feet wide, while the minimum lot width in this development district is 90 feet. The proposed rear yard setback reduction from 60 feet to 30 feet is compatible with the existing setbacks currently enjoyed by adjacent property owners. 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. The reduced rear yard setback on Lots 1 and 5 will not affect the neighboring properties and/or property owners. Practical differences in the physical attributes/characteristics between the lots in the surrounding area and the subject lots will be limited. Although the subject lots will be approximately 135 feet in depth, they will be approximately 190 feet in width, thereby providing sufficient areas for private open space and the location of horse corrals. The separation between • structures and common property lines will be consistent with the existing residential development within this development district. The floor area of each of the proposed single-story homes on the subject lots is generally consistent with the floor areas of the surrounding homes. The overall floor area of the homes on Lots 1 and 5 will be 3,995 square feet. Similarly, the overall area of Lots 1 and 5 are 25,910 and 24,309 square feet, respectively, the lot areas of the neighboring properties to the west at 13186 Arapaho Road and at 6323 Choctaw Place are 22,165 and 21,168 square feet, respectively. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 13, 2012, in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747. 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 than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different • mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the Variance DRC2014-00535, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the J—L— 49 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535—MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 4 project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. . SUBTT18747 provided for the subdivision of 3.4 acres into 5 lots. Design Review DRC2014-00425 provides for revised architecture to that approved subdivision and Variance DRC2014-00535 provides for a reduced rear yard setback on two lots within SUBTT18747. 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. The project provides for the development of the same 5 lots considered in the approval of SUBTT18747 and the current application proposes the development of those same lots with single-family homes. C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record,the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the Variance DRC2014-00535. 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. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the reduction in the rear yard setback (from the required 60 feet minimum to 30 feet) for Lots 1 and 5 of a proposed 5-lot subdivision within the Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place -APN: 0225-181-73. 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. 3) All Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747, Design Review DRC2014-00425, Minor Exception DRC2014-00536, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2011-00964 shall apply. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary .J—L— 50 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 VARIANCE DRC2014-00535 — MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 5 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 August 2014 by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: J—L— 51 �. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC2014-00535 SUBJECT: VARIANCE APPLICANT: MANNING HOMES TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE - LOCATION: APN: 0225-1881-73 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. 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. 14-37, 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. Variance approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 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, the Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 1 J—L— 52 Project No. DRC2014-00535 Completion Date 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 Manager. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California 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 Services Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance and final acceptance granted prior to occupancy. 4. Revised Site Plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Manager review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,- building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. i 2 J-L— 53 RESOLUTION NO. 14-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2014-00536, A REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT FROM 6 FEET TO 8 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROJECT SITE, ADJACENT TO LOTS 4 AND 5 AND BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4, TRACT 18747, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REVIEW OF 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT ON A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE EAST TERMINUS OF ARAPAHO ROAD BETWEEN EAST AVENUE AND CHOCTAW PLACE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0225-181-73. A. Recitals. 1. Manning Homes filed an application for Minor Exception DRC2014-00536 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 27th day of August 2014, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. • 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 27, 2014, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a parcel located at the east terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place; and b. The project site is a rectangular parcel with an overall area of approximately 3.4 acres. The overall dimensions of the site are'approximately 442 feet deep (east to west) and 331 feet (north to south) and is currently vacant; and C. To the north, west, and south of the project site are existing residences; to the east is a telephone facility; and d. This application is in conjunction with the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2009-00963, and the current applications Design Review DRC2014-00425 and Variance DRC2014-00535; and J—L— 54 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-38 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2014-00536— MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 2 e. The applicant is requesting a Minor Exception to allow the construction of combination walls (garden/screen walls on top of retaining walls) with a height of up to 8 feet along the south property line of the project site and between two lots within the subdivision; and f. Per Table 17.48.050-1 of the Development Code, the maximum wall height of fences and walls along the rear and interior property lines is 6 feet. 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. The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan designation of the project site is Very Low(VL) Residential and the zoning of the property is Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan. The Minor Exception does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning.designation, or the residential purpose of the project site. b. The Minor Exception is compatible with the existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The Minor Exception will not result in a substantially larger house, an increase in lot coverage, an increase in density, or adjustments to the physical lot area of the subject lots. C. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The proposed walls will be located generally where there are grade differences that warrant retaining walls. Generally, the natural terrain of the project site slopes from north to south. Therefore, the usual alternative, an earthen slope, is not practical because of the lack of available space in the side yards between the house and the property line wall. d. The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Minor Exception will allow the applicant to construct.walls that will provide adequate property screening/security and usable yard area and are similar to other walls that have been constructed for the same purpose because of similar site conditions. The walls will be consistent with the standards and guidelines of the City. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 13, 2012 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747. 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 J—L— 55 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-38 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2014-00536— MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 • Page 3 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 than previously considered; or(iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the Minor Exception DRC2014-00536, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration. SUBTT18747 provided for the subdivision of 3.4 acres into 5 lots. Design Review DRC2014-00425 provides for revised architecture to that approved subdivision and Variance DRC2014-00536 provides for an increase in wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet between Lots 3 and 4 and along the south property line of Lots 4 and 5 within SUBTT18747. 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. The project provides for the development of the same 5 lots considered in the approval of SUBTT18747 and the current application proposes the development of those same lots with single-family homes. C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission • concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the DRC2014-00536. 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. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of interior property line and project perimeter walls that will exceed the maximum height limit of 6 feet (but not exceed 8 feet in height) because of grade differences between lots in conjunction with a proposed 5-lot subdivision of a vacant parcel of approximately 3.4 acres within the Very Low (VL) Residential Districts, Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the terminus of Arapaho Road between East Avenue and Choctaw Place - APN: 0225-181-73. 2) The wall segments that are visible to the public and/or are located along the perimeter of the project site shall be constructed of decorative masonry block such as slumpstone or stackstone or have a decorative finish such as stucco. Final design shall be subject to Planning Manager review and approval during plan check. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, Etiwanda Specific Plan, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. J—L— 56 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-38 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2014-00536— MANNING HOMES August 27, 2014 Page 4 4) All Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18747 and Development Review DRC2014-00425 shall apply. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 August 2014, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: i J—L— 57 SIGN-IN SHEET RANCHO PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP CUCAMONGA AUGUST 27, 2014 NAME COMPANY ADDRESS/EMAIL C=v 1i,itLu Q nK s,). o i)=4' S r cil..c�lJe, C 00 00 Ara',, /Z 4MA, r,4s c/ 14)L I-e (03 "g a 59 44 le Rd,.,o c, 5 cf�a efer Cross cin� J ap I vi io 0_-e f1cor �. E,v� uSS� �/2 a ss� � �z.oL✓�/ C.rt�ss C V-af"O'L 6N D C f eff—rLn,-�� slt �� GS� GY�ti.3 ��cqc? (F, V Je�sar� Vv�;3�6�o�,P c/�hcJca. c%�fi4�4�-5 lo"."u co-, /fiord-(w Dg. �2��C'A4zC d �J � ro I TO4L Gtr t a►�� V(,4,E Itc_MIA C re's ow I riu l c� 77 i S os� or A Irr (E . Abb P Z- Z- 6 Z G12 ne — t-t�gl JL A2� - 3 i r /'0' R PRT e— Mo,J 9as-o Of—ecAve i 17 C Calgilly, Z i ,Or a Pr X,41 AA C44n,,19-y LO 3 a 3 ne s i 7/ 73 i m L SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUGUST 27, 2014 NAME. COMPANY ADDRESS/EMAIL S` CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING a Planning Commission At its re ular meeting held on August 27, 2014 the Rancho Cu 10, 2014- 0, 2014. continued the following A g item(s) to its meeting to be held on Sep nest to subdivide a _ LP —A req 2 commercial TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBT 2 19550),tRANCHO currently developed with 6 o square feet (0.76 parcel of about two (2) parcelsare feet of 54,014 square feet (1.24 acres) and 33,10 q located at the buildings, into two (2) P . Related files:Conditional Use Permit CUP 400 ' the Industrial Park(IP)District and Haven Avenue Overlay District(HAO 99- acres)in northwest corner of Haven Avenue and Sixth Streetpursuant to Use Permit DRC2012-01193, and Minor D vPQuality y Act(CEQA)P 53, Conditional y per the California Environmental This action is categorical) exempt p State CE QA Guidelines Section 15315—Minor Land Divisions; APN: 0209-262-2 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at he Rancho Cucamonga Civic The meeting will be held Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, Said continuance was passed by the following vote: Ayes: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY Noes: NONE Absent: NONE Abstain: NONE Date: August 28, 2014 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Lois J. Schrader, declare as follows: Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; held on; that at a regular August 27, 2014, I am the Plan g Commission of the City of Rancho meeting of the Planning m.,a copy of said hearing was opened and continued to the time and the hour 4:00 p the NOTICE O said public he 9 was held. CONTINUANCE shownconspicuousv ;andthat o near the door0 n which said meeting notice was posted in a I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on August 28, 2014, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. i i Lois J. Sc der i Planning Commission Secretary i r "all X. RNCHO UCP►MOIVGA eALIWoMUPlanning Commission August 27, 2014 Development Review DRC2014=00378 Background CHO UCAMONGA ALWORNIA • First phase: 135K square foot logistics building completed during the mid-1980's • Proposed second phase: located immediately to the south of the first phase on a separate parcel of 5.5 acres • Second phase first approval: 124K square foot logistics building was originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 12, 2008 • The building was never constructed because of the downturn in the economy and the entitlement expired on November 12, 2013 • In April 2014, a new application was submitted to the City in order to "re-entitle" the project Development Review DRC2014-00378 At ro r' {s ..r Project Site ., n i 'R �a ," - ' �- _ 6th Street 4 110. r r ` (v ..�CD CD it II i ,r RA�NCHO Project Proposal UC'.AMONGA tALIFORNIA • The "new" project is substantially the same as the original project that was approved by the Planning Commission in November 2008 • No specific tenant at this time (future manufacturing or warehousing ) 4 _ __ -- -_- _-- _-_---_-__ EXIS77NG QUILDING II (NOT A PART) ui F0 X 'm m rff I Nlot EXISTING BUILDINGS __ i r (NOT A PART) I I I I - r-t-I---I---NiW��N�-* -`- -�-- :120,6N, SF ' -r--r-r----a-- I � r t I }� Y . 1 STH STREET I •� ar�..Cvw .'w�.� � .� �� �rrr���a.��s.�� s *�.rae :� 7 "�"—. r�_.�i3�F:� � ! °"�• __,_- � .�. "�'a?�',��. 1 �"�:_.,.IRII�__. 1�➢►__�II t �'�, - w.. ,.wn..�,.� t. own 9r ON Ito Zug svww .w �i�i4 — � • ? I1f -� f i 1 NMI RANCHO Environmental Assessment CU(AMON(;A CAL1FORNLA • The City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 12, 2008 in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2008-00185 for a 125K square foot industrial building • Pursuant to Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project • No substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration • No further environmental review is needed T T Conclusion ANCHO UCAMONGA CALIFORNLA, Staff Recommends: Approval of Development Review DRC2014-00378 Adoption of the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was adopted by the Planning � - -- -- :_ _ : � ._. � � - �. „ �... . � 2 , 2008 l�0 f 111 IIJS10 1 01 1 INvvGi i 10E;I i 1 RANCHO U(:AMON(;�1 �. � IFO�,►N Planning Commission August 27, 2014 SUBTPM19550 NMI1 ns Background RA'N'CHO UC.AMONGA CAL1FORNU • Previous approvals: — On July 12, 2000 the Planning Commission approved CUP 99-53 — A 4- acre commercial development of a 3-story 32,000 square foot office building (on a 2 acre parcel), and a 4,450 square foot gas station & convenience center, and a 3,500 square foot restaurant (on a 2 acre parcel). — Subsequent applications CUP DRC2010-00400 & ME DRC2012-01193 approved to allow a 940 square foot carwash. • Current action Includes: — SUBTPM19550 to subdivide one 2-acre parcel into two parcels. Parcel A = 54,014 square feet (11 .24 acres) for the gas station/convenience store and future car wash. • Parcel B = 33,106 square feet (0.76 acres) for the restaurant. L. 1 t' dab r� ►�! �t 1 f w or - A I ` -9-0 44 ..�•. � -mo ... sit RA-NCHO UCAMONGA AALIFORNIA - ------------ Staff Recommends Approval of SUBTPM 19550 RANCHO UC',AIVIONGA ALIFOI2NIA Planning Commission August 27, 2014 Design Review DRC2014-00425 RANCHO UC.c MV1vGA �ALIFORNLL • Planning Commission action on June 13, 2012 included: — SUBTT18747 — 5 -Lot subdivision. — Development Review DRC2009-00010 —Architecture for 5 homes. — Variance DRC2020-00962 — Reduced lot depth for 2 lots. — Tree Removal Permit DRC2010-00974 — Removal of 1 eucalyptus tree. • Current proposal includes: — Design Review DRC2014-00425 — New Architecture for 5 homes. — Variance DRC2014-00535 — Reduced rear yard setback. — Minor Exception DRC2014-00536 — Wall height increase. 11 '--W Proposal RIA�CHO UCAMONGA SALIFORNLA, • Design Review DRC2014-00425: — Single -Story Elevations on Lots 1 & 5. — Architectural Theme: Lot 1 — Spanish, Lot 5 — Tuscan. — Two Story Elevations on Lots 2, 3, & 4. — Architectural Theme: Lot 2 — Bungalow, Lot 3 — Traditional, Lot 4 — Spanish. — Architectural designs for Lots 1 & 5 are new, while the designs for Lots 2, 3, & 4 are identical to Tract 18819 at SWC Etiwanda & Victoria. • Variance DRC2014-00535 — Reduced rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 feet to improve the buildable area of the Lots 1 & 5. • Minor Exception DRC 2014-00536 — Combination garden/retaining wall height increase from 6 feet to 8 feet. Proposed between Lots 3 & 4 and along rear of Lots 4 & 5. 5 0 A':. �- Na t : At CRRISTY•s V SAC. FARM . 6 100_ `` .� 0.J _ --6s 7 � _ I9 JO � � _ � Q - - -_ r •� zq� 51 �p X00, i'S •� I7 VL _ •, VAC�MT •� P O I_ ______ _. v a'c• Y TVI 9.17 Al RIM )LOW �i O C �. :� v • a R r :--'O7 'oO 9.0E A ''O VACANT ..« A i avS O• t .` ^�• O �. i V A t A Y T Ij E 1' P - V A C" • Y T _•' VL ri __ IE 71 n 6t, I rar Rou rc v I I z:o 13 •� RANCH�O U(AMOiVGA k 0 q � D v �a Q > �0> T mp o o a m 00M m � cn < D Q Oq o Dm :3 Q z 0 Eo �o N r0 f4 -> d zr � 1 ..M. �i owns owns s eee:l, m Q z 0 N I 9 0 D r 7 0 � 0 0 m 3 c NDD Q M Z3 cn Q z 0 I I E D A D v w > 7 O O > R°s O ° I3 m O ° N v —� Z Q to m D D --i M D cn 0 0 z 0 Eo - •o N D N A ri O D W n �0 N Q ° map o ? C) =o m m ° o cn (D" < a ��D Q o o m Q 0 0 z 0 Eo - •o N D N A R ►NCHo UC:AMONUA BUNGALOW: ROOF: FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILE WITH OUTLOOKER WITH KNEE BRACE AT GABLE FASCIA 2X6 TYPICAL FASCIA & DECORATIVE RAFTER TANS BARGE BD: 2X8 SHAPED WOOD BARGE 81). GABLE: FIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTS WALL- STUCCO TRIM: STUCCO OVER RIGID FOAM TRIM FOAM SHAFT PER ELEVATION STYLE I WOOD TAM AT SHINGLE SIDING SIDING: FIBER CEMENT SHINGLE SIDING (CEDAR MIL FINISH) WINDOW: WITH EXTERIOR GRIDS ACCENT DETAIN: WOOD CEMENT COLUMNS WITH THIN BRICK CAP NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE AT ENTRY PORCH WITH WOOD RAILING FROM DOOR DECORATNE FROM DOOR GARAGE DOOR DECORATIVE SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR WITH GLASS LTTES AT TOP PANEL AND COACH LIGH'IS VENEER: NATURAL RIVER ROCK STONE VENEER RIGHT ■ ROOF PL4 SCALE 1/8'- T 4—F-4 may,. ROOF PLAN " •. SCALE 1/8- - V-0' Lot 2 , Plan 2AR Bungalow ARAPAHO ESTATES Rancho Cucamonga, CA 1v Manning Homes REAR fi FRONT 4 W[LUA i HEZMAi HA NCH Tract No. 189121 A2.5 D o �a a w 3 D a'o 0, =O N n o ; m —' 3(0 Q CD C)- 0 D O m cn Q I 1 111DRZ 9- 19, 9 4 qif s 1._ �■1 i, � D gg g � � � y T iC X - ,f n NNN IQs m 6 I 0 z 0 �o N D N m i ;MSI Fn 23 L II1 z �SmU18H §494 ��pN 8 >00 G� Hw lu J D � � Z b A,HO CR UCAMONGA - ------------ Staff Recommends Approval of: Design Review DRC2014-00435 Variance DRC2014-00535 Minor Exception DRC2014-00536 er�7l/y oAKJhzo,-* 1�e�h Workshop DRC2014-00625 (SUBTT1 8936) �Ci ty of - - - RANCHO Lam_ CUCAM C A L f F 0 .: Project Proposal • A request to subdivide an 8.32 acre site for the development of 16 single-family residences • A request to change the land use designation from Very Low (VL) to Low (L) Residential Original Site Plan 1. Requires demolition of wall on south side of Carnesi Drive. 2. Provides new street connection to Carnesi Drive. 3. Provides new street connection to Pinon Street. Project History • Neighborhood Meeting #1 (April 14th): Neighborhood opposition to new street connection to Pinon Street and access to Carnesi Drive requiring demolition of existing wall. • Design Review Committee (May 6th): Recommended project be redesigned to take neighborhood concerns into consideration. • Neighborhood Meeting #2 (June 19th): Pinon Street neighbors support cul-de- sac designs ai �d 1 Ieig�ibor s to the north still opposeu to reuuced wall r emvval. Boom"Win: Original Site Plan Pros: a) Best layout in terms of providing a density transition between the existing smaller lot development to the east and the larger lot development to the north. b) Provides for a residential street scene along Carnesi Drive with houses on either side of the street. c) Conforms to all Development Code requirements for Low (L) Development District. d) Provides for full vehicle, pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to Pinon Street. Cons: a) Is opposed by the residents to the east as it will open Pinon Street and increase traffic through existing development. b) Is opposed by the residents to the north who do not want the wall removed or the new street connection to Carnesi Drive Current Site Plan Pros: Addresses neighborhood concern regarding vehicle connection to Pinion Street, greatly reducing traffic concerns. Partially addresses neighborhood concern regarding wall removal along Carnesi Drive by greatly reducing the linear feet of wall to be removed. Provides emergency vehicle access through Pinon Street. Creates a street scene along Carnesi Drive in which the existing houses on the north side of Carnesi Drive face the sides of the new lots, creating a disjointed street scene (existing Toll Brothers' homeowners prefer to face wall). Creates two lots (Lots 4 and 5) with awkward rear yard/side yard alignments and creates two flag lot (Lots 9 and10) with an awkward front yard layout. Does not fully address resident concerns regarding wall removal. City of 114 RANCHO CUCAM L3-Z� C A L t F O cNaies� Dave Pros: Meets all development code requirements and is in conformance with the development district designation. Addresses neighborhood concerns regarding lot size compatibility with the existing residences to the north. Creates a street scene along Carnesi Drive in which the existing houses on the north side of Carnesi Drive face the sides of the new lots, creating a disjointed street scene (existing homeowners prefer to face wall). Creates a single -loaded street that faces the existing residences to the east Creates lots that are nearly twice as deep as required by the Development Code which will be out of character with all lots in the surrounding area. Potentially creates lots that will be maintenance burden with respect to water consumption because of extra depth. Does not provide emergency vehicle access to the existing development to the east, leaving only one access point from Victoria Street to the south. Does not fully address neighborhood concerns regarding removal of the existing wall along Carnesi Drive and traffic concerns. 11,7li li L17 I SF v 34735 f s u7msF rl u AM— I 10, — 7 Jr n,7"SF JMW3F 2Z=SF o 24:7Now, lFJ Pros: a) Eliminates the necessity that any of the wall along Carnesi Street be removed. Cons: a) Creates an awkward street layout with two cul-de- sacs and multiple flag lots. b) Requires that the church sell additional land in order to create the new street, greatly reducing the churches future growth potential. c) Does not provide emergency vehicle access to the existing development to the east, leaving only one access point from victoria Street to the south. Recommendations 1. Staff supports the layout with the cul-de-sac taking access from Carnesi Drive as the best compromise when taking the residents concerns into consideration for the following reasons: • Provides a double -loaded street that provides a density transition between the smaller lots to the east and the larger lots to the north • Provides an emergency vehicle access point at the terminus of Pinon Street • Greatly reduces the linear feet of wall needed to be removed. 2. Staff's is concerned that this layout provides for awkward lot alignments and recommends that the lot count be reduced from 16 to 14 to address these issues. i r s �CL13 U U ID p„ Llld k v 0 ■' 4r i 4 !: rr . As i *I • • C-- 3 3 w ■ u s I mo`mobil3� W c ■in op to a —m j.._ I 7 h"U;tc'.1a Ct r; �. �oo ��AyacpucA+93 ( ny'Repuemit n 0 � C S 3:, IEclxo j � u n Tl f e tita F'1 N ( tip tri S�gClq Y `# r A 4 10 Oft �`4� 10 4 46 40 L fir g -Id .jndsuirnl • 0 M an c/� %7� a M M 7d Z d M C M r O 7� r� M z z n Company Overview Histor ■ Storm Industries started in 1932 as a small machine shop in Los Angeles ■ Family owned business ■ Based in Torrance, CA ■ Built residential projects since 1972 in Yucaipa, Torrance, Lomita, ... Core Values ■ Integrity & Trust ■ Build Customer Value ■ Pursue Excellence ■ Work & Win as a team ■ Optimize results Project Description Site: South side of Carnesi Drive & East of Etiwanda Avenue (APN: 0221-061-03 and 0227-061-62) 17 -lot Subdivision (16 residential, 1 existing Church) Tentative Tract Map SUBTT 18936 Zone Change: Very Low ' L" to Low T' General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 Project Status Review 1. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) Submittal (Oct'13-Present ): Multiple modifications to staff satisfaction 2. Neighborhood Meeting #1 (April 14t'): Neighborhood opposition due to Pinon connection and Carnesi wall removal 3. Design Review Committee (DRC) #1 (May 6th ): DRC requested SWD to work with neighbors 4. Neighborhood outreach: • East Neighbors: Presented modified site plan to obtain support letters from neighbors • South & West Neighbors: Presented site plan to obtain support letters from neighbors • North/Toll Brothers Neighbors: Requested meeting twice with neighbors, no response 5. Neighborhood Meeting #2 (June 19tn): • Neighborhood support from East and West for modified plans • Toll Bros community still in objection to Carnesi wall removal / entry 6. Planning Commission Workshop: Looking for direction G, I I Aiftft- a TT FW •ON "I " r FTS wo 0 all Proposed Site Plan Features C-NESI MW ✓Street Design: • Livable street design: double loaded / front -yards on both sides • Neighbors concern addressed with Elegant entry at Carnesi Dr G) 0 0 -h C,*) .P�b N pit t PL m 3 Proposed Site Plan Features CM ESI DANE ✓Street Design: • Livable street design: double loaded / front -yards on both sides • Neighbors concern addressed with Elegant entry at Carnesi Dr ✓Carnesi St Wall Opening Minimized: • Only 60' of 642' of Church's property wall removed (9%) ✓Traffic Mitigation: Cul-de-sac eliminates all neighbors concern of through traffic ✓Lots layout: • All lots are in conformance with the requirements of'L' Zoning • Toll Brothers neighbors concern addressed by facing lots 1 & 16 towards new street vs. Carnesi Dr • East Neighbors concerns addressed by proposing back -yards against their side -yards vs street traffic and noise with "VL" zoning design ✓Fire Safety: 2nd emergency vehicle access for community to the East ✓Provides transitional density: "L" (Low) on West; "LM" (Low Medium) on East, "VL" (Very Low) on North ✓Meets the Intent of Etiwanda Specific Plan: Site plan provides "Good livabilitv" Original Site Plan Site Plan Comparison Current Site Plan NEIGHBOR CONCERNS ADDRESSED 1.1-ots oriented towards Carnesi Dr ✓AAI Intc fare nPw intarinr ctrPPt 2.Demolition of 425' of wall ✓Removal of only 60' of 642' length (9%) for street access 3.Traffic / Connection to Pinon St. ✓Cul-de-sac with emergency vehicle access only Staff Concern #1 1. Rear yard/side yard alignment for Lots 4 & 5: • Design is very common and exists on almost all streets with 90° turn • Proposed project provides for transitional landscaping at the intersection N N to PF ■ .1' 0) 04 4) 101CL IIIIICL 0 CL a SE z m ME s Q 0 0 0 CL Staff Concern 02 2. Flag lot condition on Lots 9 & 10: • Design is again very common and exists on numerous streets • Front yard landscaping minimizes affect • From marketing perspective, desirable due to additional parking and privacy r O y X S 3 MN O Mb ou t� Q&-1 R Al m x mn ME to z 0 ME s CIE 0 300 0 an I P2� N t :i: Survey Of Wall Along Carnesi Dr. \ 1 j r X M CARNM DRIVE �~ _i r -' N89'$711- ° - - - - 1365.2;' - � - - r_ 1 t u - - - _._.-tC�rrSoart O Survey 8" block wall: ■ Block 4.5" into Church's property ■ Block 3.5" into City right of way Title: Property walls built on P/L along city's right of way are owned by Property owners and NOT the City ■ All neighbors on South side of Carnesi Dr. NothingLCIUfUCU on l lll�rlll J plUpelty tIIIC U�/ IVII UI Vthers E'L" _ PP ON PROPERTY UNE BU1lf 125' BULLI iY 1.1' FNC:E Y 1 DWY Y — 0.7 FNQ E'LY 3.7 CURB}EIY _ I� 19 15,000 SF lot, (12k -22k SF) Zoning Review 22,000 SF 8,000 SF 13,000 SF Mo 04 O v O CL PF 3 VL Zoning Site Plan CHALLENGES: - - -- - — - - - - - 1. Wall Openings: Worse as requires two openings on Carnesi is Dr. 2. Street Design: Not livable - Inferior, long, dead-end street. Front yards facing 5' side yards 3. Traffic/Noise Issue: Vehicular and pedestrian traffic within 5' of the homes to the East, leading to noise for residents 4. Privacy Issue: Lack of privacy for homes to the east as pedestrians within 5' of the side yard of homes with less than 6' property walls 5. Lots layout: Not practical as long & narrow a) Lots are not practical, twice the required depth b)Lots are 32% larger than the required lot area c) Landscaping / water conservation issues 6. Equestrian Trail: Not practical: a) Dead end trail, with homes on all sides b)Requires a 2nd wall opening onto Carnesi dr. c) Safety problems 7. Intent of Etiwanda Specific Plan: Does not meet the intent of "Good livability" due inferior design and issues stated above Etiwanda Entry Site Plan c a■ �9■ d ._.�►� .a�s�N �iA_.ti� sus ♦� ,.y. .� � sr•T��.�.�fr.:.mss:.�.ns=sns� 0 o 'O FA ■ II CHALLENGES: 1. Growth restriction on Church: Prominent neighborhood member for 30+ years a) Give up additional % acre land b) Eliminate proposed children classrooms c) No additional parking space d) Confines Church's ability to grow 2. Street Design: Not livable a) Requires Variance, as it does not meet city engineering street spacing guidelines b) Access street adjacent to side yard of residence along Etiwanda 3. Traffic/ Safety/ Noise Issue: Safety concerns, increased accident potential and noise, as cars slowing down to turn into the new street while traffic turning South on to Etiwanda from Carnesi Dr. (less than 300' away) is speeding up 4. Fire Safety: Not able to provide much needed 2nd emergency vehicle access for community to East at Pinon St. 5. Lots layout: Not practical as too many flag lots 6. Intent of Etiwanda Specific Plan: Does not meet the intent of "Good livability" due inferior design and issues stated above FEATURES: 1. Wall Openings: All wall openings eliminated along Carnesi Dr. :- J Yn.gi`�.Bb:�i9c:SE'iZSIMOa51' Vias e t.".ssxas..:Qee�a.l•.x•�r"#low. r•s+�.s.•S R Riii�1�'33 a�"��� a�iM4d.1414T ifs �E.A�d'MIN ill, 10E AI a a CA z C� Company Overview History ■ Storm Industries started in 1932 as a small machine shop in Los Angeles ■ Family owned business ■ Based in Torrance, CA ■ Built residential projects since 1972 in Yucaipa, Torrance, Lomita, III Core Values ■ Integrity & Trust ■ Build Customer Value ■ Pursue Excellence ■ Work & Win as a team ■ Optimize results Project Description Site: South side of Carnesi Drive & East of Etiwanda Avenue (APN. 0221-061-03 and 0227-061-62) 17 -lot Subdivision (16 residential, 1 existing Church) Tentative Tract Map SUBTT 18936 Zone Change: Very Low "VL" to Low "L" General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 Cross & Crown Lutheran rt Church W. w: 1R Church of Jesus Christ — 1 Latter Day Saints 1- L=' Ali 044 R i ia Project Status Review 1. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) Submittal (Oct'13-Present ): Multiple modifications to staff satisfaction 2. Neighborhood Meeting #1 (April 14th): Neighborhood opposition due to Pinon connection and Carnesi wall removal 3. Design Review Committee (DRC) #1 (May 6th ): DRC requested SWD to work with neighbors 4. Neighborhood outreach: • East Neighbors: Presented modified site plan to obtain support letters from neighbors • South & West Neighbors: Presented site plan to obtain support letters from neighbors • North/Toll Brothers Neighbors: Requested meeting twice with neighbors, no response 5. Neighborhood Meeting #2 (June 19th): • Neighborhood support from East and West for modified plans • Toll Bros community still in objection to Carnesi wall removal / entry 6. Planning Commission Workshop: Looking for direction Ar 600-1 tSevilla PI 49 - ILI , 4 7 Santolina PI - & pa jr L iWarida Ave r) j* tit _lD e4@ijn" oPt-4-ci i i Ave Pecan.Ave (D 'A IOU Dicarlo Pi It A Air Ash rD 0 fD r) F'oxtall Ct it 0 Ar 600-1 tSevilla PI 49 - ILI , 4 7 Santolina PI - & pa jr L iWarida Ave r) j* tit _lD e4@ijn" oPt-4-ci i i Ave Pecan.Ave (D 'A IOU Dicarlo Pi It A Air Ash Proposed Site Plan Features ,/Street Design: • Livable street design: double loaded / front -yards on both sides Neighbors concern addressed with Elegant entry at Carnesi Dr Elegant Entry cn .I m m D CARNESI DRIVE 60' of 642' length (9%) wall opening Proposed Site Plan Features Ce NEs D—e ✓Street Design: • Livable street design: double loaded / front -yards on both sides • Neighbors concern addressed with Elegant entry at Carnesi Dr ✓Carnesi St Wall Opening Minimized: • Only 60' of 642' of Church's property wall removed (9%) ✓Traffic Mitigation: Cul-de-sac eliminates all neighbors concern of through traffic ✓ Lots layout: • All lots are in conformance with the requirements of'L' Zoning • Toll Brothers neighbors concern addressed by facing lots 1 & 16 towards new street vs. Carnesi Dr • East Neighbors concerns addressed by proposing back -yards against their side -yards vs street traffic and noise with "VL" zoning design v' Fire Safety: 2nd emergency vehicle access for community to the East ✓Provides transitional density: "L" (Low) on West; "LM" (Low Medium) on East, "VL" (Very Low) on North ✓Meets the Intent of Etiwanda Specific Plan: Site plan provides "Good livability" Site Plan Comparison Original Site Plan _._._. _._._. ol } Current Site Plan NEIGHBOR CONCERNS ADDRESSED 1. Lots oriented towards Carnesi Dr ✓AII lots face new interior street 2.Demolition of 425' of wall ✓Removal of only 60' of 642' length (9%) for street access 3.Traffic / Connection to Pinon St. ✓Cul-de-sac with emergency vehicle access onl Staff Concern #1 1. Rear yard/side yard alignment for Lots 4 & 5: • Design is very common and exists on almost all streets with 90° turn • Proposed project provides for transitional landscaping at the intersection Existing Rear Yard / Side Yard Alignments In Neighborhood Staff Concern #2 2. Flag lot condition on Lots 9 & 10: CARMa WrM • Design is again very common and exists on numerous streets • Front yard landscaping minimizes affect • From marketing perspective, desirable due to additional parking and privacy 't 3 bt ;:)aroad JO al!W z/,. UlLlmM 5401 6eu I -- ��., �-L t � � Suffolk 411 tit Day Cr - flay re 01\ Q O ase PI a. O F < rD r� wt. r•Y EtonD� '�► i i D rD m6od O r$t