Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-08-12-Agenda Packet-PC-HPC
r THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2015 - 3:30 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca _ Munoz_ Macias _ Fletcher II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS F= 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. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE INITIAL PLANNING CONCEPT FOR THE NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROJECT OF 4,115 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY AND EAST OF HAVEN AVENUE TO THE CITY'S EASTERLY BOUNDARY. IL PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AUGUST 12, 2015 RANCHO Page 2 UCAMON IV. ADJOURNMENT 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 6,2015,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, California 91730. These PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP AUGUST 12, 2015 R�NCHO Page 3 UCAMONGA 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 V STAFF REPORT = ; PL. NNING DEPARTMENT DATE: August 12, 2015 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Karen Peterson, Planning Manager Tom Grahn, Acting Senior Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING -COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROJECT (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749, ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750; NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPCIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00751, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752, AND PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA) — A workshop on the initial planning concepts for the project. RECOMMENDATION: Following the presentation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss and provide comments on the initial planning concepts for the project. • BACKGROUND: In January 2015, the City Council reaffirmed the goal of pre-zoning and annexing a 4,100-acre portion of the City's northern sphere of influence. In May 2015, the City Council executed a Professional Services Agreement with Sargent Town Planning to assist staff with the project. The pre-zoning phase is anticipated to be completed by mid-2016 and the annexation phase is anticipated to be completed by early 2017. The area to be annexed is currently within the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino. Generally located north of the 210 Freeway and east of Haven Avenue to the City's easterly boundary the project area consists of 4,115 acres of mostly undeveloped lands and open space (Exhibit A—Annexation Area). In August of 2005, the City Council executed a Professional Services Agreement with Michael Brandman Associates for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation project. At that time the project proposal was to annex approximately 4,115 acres into the City limits consistent with the City's General Plan with a large portion of the area pre-zoned by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan as Flood Control, Resource Conservation, and Hillside Residential. Approximately 680 acres of the 4,115 acres has no City zoning designation and was to be pre-zoned in conformance with the existing General Plan to Flood Control/Utility Corridor (390 acres), Open Space (268 acres), and Hillside Residential (21 acres). In October of 2006 the project was placed on hold based on a request by the County of San Bernardino. SITE DESCRIPTION: Historically, very little development has occurred in the annexation area, which is characterized by mostly undeveloped and rural properties designated Flood Control/Utility Corridors, Open Space, and Hillside Residential. Existing development and uses within the annexation area include: Item A—1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROJECT August 12, 2015 Page 2 • Scattered single-family residences; • Ling Yen Mountain Temple; • Water wells; • Southern California Edison transmission lines; • Dirt.trails that traverse the area and lead to the San Bernardino National Forest; • Southern California Edison transmission lines; • Storm water detention/retention facilities that channel and control drainage from three watersheds including Deer Canyon, Day Canyon and East Etiwanda Canyon; • Day Creek and Etiwanda spreading grounds; and, • Former aggregate mining/rock crushing operations in the westerly leg of the annexation area. ANALYSIS: A. Proiect Proposal: The proposed project would reimagine future development in the annexation area. A significant portion, approximately 2,915 acres, of the northerly portion of the annexation area would remain as open space area or allow for very limited development. However, approximately 1,200 acres in the southern portion of the annexation area is envisioned to be developed as a vibrant residential "village" with neighborhood services and a distinct sense of place. Specific land uses, types of development, and the amount of dwelling units and square footage will be evaluated during the planning process. In addition, a number of design principles that encourage a healthy, active, and sustainable lifestyle will be incorporated into the project. B. Site Constraints: A majority of the area is devoted to public facilities and uses, and includes resources or conditions that have constrained development, such as the following: • There are a number of facilities that control storm runoff from the mountains, including the Deer Canyon Debris Basin, Day Creek Debris Basin, and a levee extending east to west within the central portion of the annexation area. With these improvements, a portion of upper annexation area is designated as a Special Flood Hazard Zone within the 100-year floodplain while areas to the east and west of this area are in the Minimum Hazard Area. The area to the south that is protected by the levee is designated as a Moderate Hazard Area within the 500-year floodplain; • Extending east and west along the upper reaches of the annexation area is the Cucamonga Fault, which is an existing, designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. The southernmost central leg of the annexation area is traversed by the Red Hill Fault, which is designated as a Low Ground Rupture Potential Zone; • The annexation area contains significant aggregate resources, as designated by the California Geological Survey (CGS); • All of the annexation area is within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire)...e_A majority of the annexation area is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA). Cal Fire is financially responsible for the prevention and suppression of wildfires in SRAs; and, Item A—2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROJECT August 12, 2015 Page 3 • A majority of the annexation area is within County Service Area (CSA) 120 boundary. The purpose of the CSA 120 is to provide for the management, protection and biological monitoring of open space habitat accepted by the special district as mitigation land required for the development of projects both public and private. The CSA 120 overlay boundary extends into Upland, Fontana and generally overlays the City's Sphere of Influence. Formed in July 2009, with the dissolution of CSA 70 Zones OS-1 and OS-3, the CSA 120 is governed by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and has an advisory commission. Located within the CSA boundary, the North Etiwanda Preserve was established as a habitat preservation area on February 10, 1998, when the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors accepted mitigation land from San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) for impacts related to construction of the 210 Freeway. The San Bernardino Associated Governments purchased the initial 762 acres, forming the North Etiwanda Preserve to be preserved as a natural habitat for impacts to the Coastal California Gnatcatcher and similar habitat consumed by the development of the 210 Freeway. This area consisted primarily of a unique Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub plant community. A significant portion of the annexation area is owned by public entities, including: • Cucamonga Valley Water District; • • San Bernardino County Flood Control District; • County of San Bernardino; • County Service Area 120; • Metropolitan Water District of Southern California; • Southern California Edison; • City of Los Angeles; and, • United States of America (USDA). It is important to note that the southernmost 1,200 acres is comprised of several parcels that are owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, which is in support of the City's effort to pre-zone this area for future development. In addition, there are approximately thirty (30) private property owners in the area, including the Ling Yen Mountain Temple, which own a significant amount of land in the eastern portion of the annexation area. Surrounding the annexation area to the south and east are single-family residential developments. To the north and west is generally undeveloped area, including the San Bernardino National Forest, and rurally developed properties. C. Proiect Entitlements The City's General Plan currently designates the project area as being within the City's sphere of influence. The area is currently under the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino. • General Plan land use designations within the project area include Hillside Residential, Conservation, Open Space, and Flood Control/Utility Corridor, as depicted on the Land Use Plan (Exhibit B — Land Use Plan Figure LU-2). Approximately 3,450 acres of the easterly Item A —3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROJECT August 12, 2015 Page 4 portion of the area was pre-zoned by the City in 1992 as part of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (Exhibit C — Etiwanda North Specific Plan Land Use Plan). The remaining 685 acres is outside of the ENSP (Exhibit D —Zoning Map). Planning entitlements will include: • General Plan Amendment: An amendment to the General Plan will be necessary to support land use and other policy changes needed to support the project and create consistency between the proposed Specific Pan and Development Code Amendment. Amendments to each of the elements, including, but not limited to, Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Element, Community Mobility Element, Resource Conservation Element, Public Facilities and Infrastructure Element, and Public Health and Safety Element will be necessary. • Pre-Zone/Specific Plan/Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Amendment: An amendment to the ENSP to remove the annexation area from the ENSP as well as the creation of a new Specific Plan to address the goals and objectives for the entire annexation area will be necessary. At a minimum, the new Specific Plan will need to include a land use plan and regulations, design guidelines for all project components, infrastructure master plans, a phasing plan and implementation measures, including anticipated financing measures. It is expected that the Specific Plan will be based upon sufficient conceptual engineering to establish the feasibility of the land use and infrastructure plans. The Plan will also include a number of graphics to successfully convey the expected character of the community, development concepts, and design guidelines. • Development Code Amendment/Zoning Map Amendment: Changes to the Development Code and Zoning Map will be necessary to support the anticipated land use changes and establish any associated regulatory provisions. • Program Environmental Impact Report: Environmental documentation, including all necessary technical studies, to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for all project components will be prepared. D. Purpose of Workshop: The purpose of the workshop is to solicit the Planning Commission's input on the initial planning concepts for the project. In the past few months, the project team has met with City staff, key community stakeholders, and service providers. Based on this input, the project team has prepared an initial concept plan that will be presented at the workshop. In general, the overall plan is based upon maintaining open space and conservation on 2,915 acres in the northern portion of the annexation area and allowing for a "residential village" on approximately 1,200 acres in the southern portion of the annexation area. The majority of the workshop will focus on the planning concepts for the "residential village." Early concepts for this area include a mix of residential product types, a central "town center" with neighborhood retail and restaurants, and public uses and amenities arranged in a compact and walkable land use pattern that would encourage active living. Item A—4 i PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROJECT August 12, 2015 ® Page 5 Respectfully-submitted, Candyce Arnett Planning Director C B:KP-TG/Is Exhibit A: - Annexation Area Exhibit B: - General Plan Land Use Plan Figure LU-2 Exhibit C: - Etiwanda North Specific Plan Land Use Plan Exhibit D: - Zoning Map Item A—5 Legend North Eastern Sphere Annexation Boundary Cucamonga Valley Water District & Inland Empire Utilities Agency Boundary City of Rancho Cucamonga I Parcels San Bernardino National Forest n � Z�' c) /,� o ✓/ / L$ON/ , / ' / / J ,' / WTLSON / WI LS "" —7;'•~ J ' / / / % —9y--., r '7 Q., Z Ly i w .Z 77 ' � ,/ / i. , � •.,! /. X21 Q' / / / HICi �2 HI-AN4 -q J / / / 11 / j' / e VICTORIA BASELINESour//..� . / �. ' ;� �. �•�'/ / - EXHIBIT A J@Paq Esri 0?�eLor�N oV EQ g) Es IThadap Tom, 2NRCAN Esri 13 J Japaa .METI. Esn China (Hong:Kdngi. Esr,.iThailand;.TomTcm. 2013 �V A 0 1 2002 400 4 800 7.200 9.600 Fe Item A -7 Local Vicinity Map m „ _ Land Use Designations X 5 A N HERNARDINO N n I 1 II Iv'n 1 f O Reaiaantiel N J — _'� a .•�[ — ar r. uc )cl L-w(2.0-4 dlOac) Lw Melon,1N.0-B.0 .lM! 16Y-140JW.cl M n Hph olio 24 0 aulacl R\,[LLNHwn(2a.0-]so ( 1'GUOV G\Comma i l O@ 10/0-IaFARI assailNeghharhrwd CeM'sfaal(035 035 FAR) I••_ Ipaw wo -. l —•-T ;•— —' - •'-- -----1+.r -L ] _COmin, mm10. 35 FAR) General CommadM(025-0,35 FAR)• 7caakrigLel I C ',I s cl1`! OE Mlud va. 1 -L J _.I� 0 • fnv In RA �Inn dMl..E W.(0.25-LO FAR) In u I IM I IP k(0.40-OBS FAR) E E � ry as Is g - I - G IIM Id.1 SO.50-0.60 FAR) 1 y I Itl4 ® c, yl rl I -' _ f H Ia110 a0 0.50 FAR) I1M 6i F w-VI!' a - a ....A,.. I _ rYMwn M. { _!_ L 0'..Sp... 131T-meq'-�.-Y-" Q MYpa.R.eaenhal Ail TO auray S X�. eaYmsii _ F 9 r1 yyyy.� a[ �• � s'c.lo of mvnv) V I-:. a (r•r q••• f• ,--3'- ;-A, -I L J �'n g �' FUIW FInM COnlroLlHlyry Lon111or } f 1 1 Public Faclbry CivWnievanal(0x0 1.0 FAR) In elII. e g!• Schaub 1010 020 FAR) _ , Perks \` I �r2t} •f � -�I. '_ - - Q LeausoN.as ''1/ io J. Mu� al I.T.- ,,s' n. 1 enn M Rnx sP.I.0 Ylen ,..m r,ml.r N I r GF r L 1�' rY' °" na.ndeMas X...n M. Is wnr.ae ur1AN1 t _ t. .L fr f — tr I\.rr.vma a.F muw o cn.�a `J p p'� ..foonrY M,a mp a'I 5 D ,ner ....was !, �' �� �] I �y ';' J 1 ✓'..BMs ha+� l f, IS ` -y Lx..M, S.Fu�NY WwYexcmrernvr Nile Y �f IF IJJ �l i, .ra] X.wnwa 1n. n.,nne sn, ""a. IprcMe.lAMeS 12, XukW tl X.Ima BHd I].X ar As.L � � 4 rl�lll 1 ,-}I Svy�ifA`� .� I lli�. �• I� � n..anXmr..n.,sn nm.mr•rs. a r O-A." Schooh and Parka Haven A.enueama: © El.nr.oSYsd.d _ e�li- Egn.alrlaluRmal Arna 0 Junto,High sch..l O' fdaaler Plan H © Uh School a .rlr _ _ :66 ' 66 - r+� r..l lu Frage, ProP.fI pJ xd PeM(1) eaa.L,yera J ■pI � 1 a, --••cty Rovraan Flaewny Is pk 01 S ( 1 --_synere.l InM1r.nc. R.ad. F..:.'Y.-. r r -,-.. wewlwava Ralr.aes !r 1 # + nla IOmymn . P=•ba ..uua.mamwtla.akm.am 1.614.11. •,\ � I II � i 1 = .bralnq na.ae - -- -� ICITY OF Some.un,f.Lmmun9e ma 5entlnnuN,.cuunryAu.zmr?cJ4 r' S ` FONTANA wa y^aha4A > `�-:—�-- .qr-. C.._>_,..-. p$$p� wne.n..ran.M. • Y s yy.a r.. kk I'.I l y .1 nNlnl<1O 3 zI — » F �I Figure LU-Z: ® tl g 5 05 1 15 2�° a — Land Use Plan Managing land Use,Comma n ty Design,and Hlstodc Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN LU-11 Sen Bemerdl a Natlanal Foeeal a os F (RC _ OS OS IDS 3 IDS AR a adv FC Os L� c c , WR FC OS NR ''' _ ao UC PC �VLS ACOS VL YL ' YL:. FC' RC '— YL PC _ (RC) VL (RC) J :-�-UC I UC --- UC FC REvnPROPOSEDGIONAL PARK T (VL) (RC) O < FL 1 VL. �'^'�' ' RC YC FC x FO L /� ` LI (RC) L — WN Av n i nn W L4 PC ar.n (MC) r.r%rlff•`?- (L) FC (RC) UC— Ra Ba n 1 1 Ave I < HI Mand Avenue uture 1.10 50) _ LEGEND io...m xn,in 5It�sr ply i Lii'r:::? Low Density Resictentul(2-{DU/AC) Very LOw Densdy Residential(<2 OU/AC) TrPpoae0 Tem Wee Geyinii Stati. VL6: Very Low Residential Estate(I DU/AC) jU� E Proposed Eeuaau4n F.cllity * Hillside Residential((2 DU/Net Swldade Ane) . e . Hillside Residential Estate((1 OU/Netuil /Net Bdade Ave) S Propowd SeeeOl Site �;; I I 1•�', FC Fired CenaetlRlpet4n P PtePe..d Pets Sita J� UC Utility Carridor P E.wtwQ Pett Sita I' OS Open SPete It HOTE: •/ IN Instlluti(wal TT..sI. w.r•. nv..nr w..x I u ir menbn ma semis. tx• FZ Favlt Zone s.xanw or. •n. .ai.•new or. RCemn• r'�ner n •.ai.•ua Resource Conservation Area ..m cur. I.s.n•m it,...aw «ea .NC) NegnCornood Commercial (L,VL,VLE,RC) aerzbTu.ruTvae uao use oesxaenox * PrOPOsed Sphere Area LAN© USE PLAN EXHIBIT 10 0 1000' 2000' 40DO' . Etiwanda North Specific Plan City of EXHIBIT C � OPTED 1/1/92 anchoCucamonga Item A -11 M CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING MAP ::4- �a r ` > i Residential Oen Space p [)J ^�' ) iei s 4� t II 7 L' _ipqq ( �..,.. Specific Plan II. P/ ✓'� tee i .1 J.:'11 i +�,.:I x' -- I .,Commercial/OHwe i. � I.. a �.._... - W r I I " i ,' // •� .+ Planned Communities m. , ..y,.. . Mixed Use Overlay District q i r ILLL.j - Industrial w: J-). . (+j ` Ii`I iravi.iava n,u�umm ,Y /' �,arrc.i M W,'.mmY VWI 77 FWN l 1{�.f 1 I11T� � I � inrvlxunFW lM ,.uW IM 1A �' el_ THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF RANCHO CUCAbtONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 12, 2015 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California =E-- I. CALL TO ORDER ® Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca Munoz_ Macias _ Fletcher II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS M�l 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO AUGUST 12, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 2 FIF�III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. PRESENTATION OFA RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION HONORING THE SERVICE OF COMMISSIONER FRANCES HOWDYSHELL, RETIRED B. OFFICIAL WELCOME TO COMMISSIONER RICH MACIAS IV. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVA'T'ION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION C. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES DATED JULY 22, 2015 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/orposted 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. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 —PULTE HOMES—A request for the architectural and site design of 5 single-family residential homes on 5 lots in the Low(L)Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive — APN: 1087-281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines,the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139 and no further environmental review is required. E. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580 — PULTE HOMES - A request to increase the allowable wall heights for a total height of 8 feet along the side yards of Lots 1 and 5 in connection with the proposed development (Design Review DRC2015-00111) of 5 residential homes located in the Low(L)Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive—APN: 1087- 281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139 and no further environmental review is required. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC—A request to change the General Plan land use designation for an 8.32 acre parcel of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area from Very Low(VL)Residential(.1-2 dwelling units per acre)to Low(L)Residential(2-4 dwelling units per acre) for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Co AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 3 Avenue-APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Cases: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Variance DRC2014- 00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00962 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC —A request to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation for an 8.32 acre parcel of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area from Very Low(VL)Residential(.1-2 dwelling units per acre)to Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue - APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Cases: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113.This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936-STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC —A request to subdivide 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots (Lots #1-16 for residential purposes and Lot#17 for an existing church) for a site located within the Very Low(VL)Zoning District(.1 -2 units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue - APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Cases: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC—A request to increase the maximum permitted property line wall heights from 6 feet up to 11 feet related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for a site located within the Very Low(VL)Residential District(.1-2 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue-APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of the environmental impacts for consideration. Related Cases: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-00113 — STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC. -A request to remove up to 50 trees related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for a site located within the Very Low (VL) Residential • District(.1-2 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO AUGUST 12, 2015 CL'CAMONGA Page 4 Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 and Variance DRC2014- 00219. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use development district, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. Related Files: CEQA Review CEQA2015-00018. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION L. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES M. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT 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 6,2015,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 Q HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO AUGUST 12, 2015 CliCA.'NONGA 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 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. GAVAILABILITY 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$2,533 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.CityofRC.us. O THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF RANcxo C'UCA''iSONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 22, 2015 0 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ter COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER ® Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM Roll Call Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz_A Howdyshell X Fletcher X 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. None Item C —1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION-MINUTES `RANCHO J 11 LY 22, 2015 G�,C_ 0NGA Page 2 . III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration of Regular Meeting Minutes dated July 8, 2015 B. Consideration of Workshop Minutes dated July 8, 2015 Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-0-1 (Munoz absent) to adopt the Consent Calendar. IV. SCHEDULED MATTERSIPLANNING COMMISSION C. SELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 4-0-0-1 (Munoz absent) to reaffirm Commissioner Wimberly as Chairman and Commissioner Oaxaca as Vice Chairman. D. SELECTION OF TRAILS ADVIORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS (COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES) Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 4-0-0-1 (Munoz absent) to select Commissioner Wimberly to serve on the Trails Advisory Committee for a 2-year term, Commissioner Munoz for a 1-year term and Commissioner Fletcher as the First Alternate. E. SELECTION OF DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS Moved by Howdlyshell, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-1 (Munoz absent) to reaffirm Commissioners Fletcher and Oaxaca to serve on the DDRC and Commissioner Wimberly as the First Alternate. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION 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. None Item C—2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JULY 22, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 3 f I F. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2013-00789-ROUTE 66 IECA-A request to preserve the historic Cucamonga Service Station including review of the"Richfield"signage I and paint scheme for the front building (Phase 1), restoration of the front building and related site improvements (Phase 2) and to reconstruct the rear 1,882 square foot service garage (Phase 3)within the Foothill Boulevard Specialty Commercial (SC)District, located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0208-153-05. Related Files: Variance DRC2013-00790. (This review is for Phases 2 and 3 only). Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 31 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15331)exemption which covers historical resource restoration/rehabilitation. G. VARIANCE DRC2013-00790-ROUTE 66 IECA—A request to reduce the rear yard setback by 20 feet, reduce the side yard setback by 4 feet and reduce the required parking in conjunction with Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2013-00789, located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard;APN: 0208-153-05. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and the • I City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 5 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15305) exemption which covers minor alterations in land use limitations. H. VARIANCE DRC2015-00667- ROUTE 66 IECA — A request for the reduction of three (3) i parking spaces below the minimum requirement in conjunction with Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2013-00789, located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0208-153-05. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements j of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 5(CEQA Guidelines Section 15305)exemption which covers minor alterations in land use limitations. Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner gave the staff report and a brief PowerPoint presentation. Anthony Gonzalez, President of the IECA, thanked the City, staff and volunteers for the hard work and effort. He said Staff has been exceptional with their assistance and support. i Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and hearing no comment, closed public hearing. Commissioner Howdyshell said she has attended many events, and saw the accomplishments there and could not have happened without the work of many volunteers and staff She said it is history coming to life. ® Commissioner Fletcher said he agrees with all staff recommendations. He said when it is complete it will be a beacon;a great community project. He said the Variances are needed. Item C—3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Y AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J R�NcHo JULY 22, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 4 Vice Chairman Oaxaca congratulated to Mr. Gonzalez and all the participants and said their focus on this one effort is what has helped to bring it about. He said he looks forward to seeing it completed. Chairman Wimberly concurred and said he has watched the organizations grow, morph and change with the result being an outstanding property to be unveiled. He said he looks forward to seeing it completed. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-0-1 (Munoz absent) to adopt the Resolutions approving Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2013-00789 (Phases 2 and 3) and for Variances DRC2013-00790 and DRC2015-00667. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. 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. I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00931 — DON CLOUGHESY FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (RCFPD) - A request for site plan and architectural review of a proposed Rancho i Cucamonga Fire Protection District(RCFPD)training center at the existing Jersey RCFPD Station #174 located in Medium Impact Heavy Industrial (MINI) Development District at 11297 Jersey Boulevard — APN: 0229-111-34. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of the environmental impacts for consideration. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00932— DON CLOUGHESY FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT (RCFPD) -A request to operate a Fire Training Center at an existing Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) Station #174 located in the Medium Impact Heavy Industrial (MIHI)Development District at 11297 Jersey Boulevard—APN:0229-111-34. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of the environmental impacts for consideration. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. In response to Commissioner Howdyshell, he said conservation measures for the project includes a solar canopy. He said they will preserve a 60,000 gallon tank on site to irrigate and wash vehicles. They said in the future it will be used for fire-fighting training exercises. He said the helipad removal can be explained by the RCFPD representative. He said the target start date is late 2016 or early 2017. He said the project includes a design for a 911 memorial. Item C—4 i ® HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION i AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i RtANCHO JULY 22, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 5 i Commissioner Fletcher asked how many permanent employees will be there daily and if the smoke used for training is real. Mr. van der Zwaag said they have 18 employees and the smoke is real. Cheryl Roberts of RCFPD said they have done due diligence in addressing all the issues and they are trying to be conscientious about the environment and the neighbors. She said they will have a smoke filtration system and it wid reduce toxins from entering the atmosphere. She said water reclamation is very important as they need to train with high pressure so they will be more prepared for the real thing. The facility will be built to do many things and it is unique for San Bernardino County. She said they will partner with the Police Department and community colleges. She said they are looking for donations for a public education center. She said this facility is 25 years in the making. She said there is a i wide area remaining that could accommodate 2 helicopters. Commissioner Fletcher noted the abundant parking. He asked about other outside people • coming to the facility. Ms. Roberts said their classes will grow from 20-25 students to 30-50 in attendance. I Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment closed the public hearing. j i Commissioner Howdyshell said it is wonderful to have a state of the art facility. Commissioner Fletcher said it is a great facility, it will be one of a kind in the region. He said it is a great asset and is fully funded through the Capital budget; it has been planned for a long time and paid for. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said it is an example of Rancho Cucamonga's commitment to.public safety; we are a leader in this and this facility benefits our firefighters and others. He said he is happy to see it become a reality. Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-0-1 (M,unoz absent) to adopt the Resolutions approving Design Review DRC2014-00931 and CUP DRC2014-00932. K. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-01139-FRITO-LAY - A request to construct a 46,836 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 430,643 square foot office, warehouse, and manufacturing facility on 37.05 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and ® Fourth Street; APN: 0210-071-28. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-01135, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-01136. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. i i Item C -5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J RANCHO JULY 22, 2015 C�iJCAhlONCA Page 6 L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-01135— FRITO-LAY-A request to exceed the 75 foot maximum building height for the construction of a 92-foot high, 46,836 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 430,643 square foot office, warehouse, and manufacturing facility on 37.05 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street; APN: 0210-071-28. Related Files: Design Review DRC2014-01139 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-01136. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Tom Grahn, Acting Senior Planner gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. Vice Chairman Oaxaca asked about the permit obtained from the FAA that expires in February of next year. Mr. Grahn said they can start construction prior to that or seek a continuance. He said special lighting is required and no cranes or equipment may exceed 100 feet in height. The representative for Frito Lay- said they produce 140 million pounds of snack foods per year. He said they are celebrating their. 46h anniversary. He thanked staff for the partnership and the Commission's consideration. He said their new computerized process will have customized shipments to their customers in 2-3 days instead of 4-5. He said only a few employees will be added, mostly mechanics to support the technology. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Javier Alpio said he resides on the west side of Archibald. He said he hears noise and it is bothersome- he hears forklifts, backup beepers and silo noise late at night. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director said the environmental documents consider noise both short term and long term. Mr Grahn said they looked at noise impacts during construct and operations. He said there will be short term construction impacts and the operational noise should be mitigated by the hours of operation. He said the silos are on the north side of the site. Commissioner Fletcher noted the City does have sound requirements. He advised staff to have someone go out and check it and if they exceed it, then the applicant must remedy the problem. He said this is the first time he has heard a complaint about noise. He said the facility has innovative and good design. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 4-0-0-1 (Munoz absent) to adopt the Resolutions approving Design Review DRC2014-01139 and CUP DRC2014-01135. Item C—6 • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES } RANCHO JULY 229 2015 CIICtLMMA Page 7 M. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT DRC2014-01040 — TILTED KILT — A request to provide entertainment at an existing pub and eatery located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard I in the Community Commercial(CC)Development District at 12770 Foothill Boulevard;APN 1090-601-11. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines as a Class 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301)exemption which covers existing facilities. Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation. In response to Commissioner Fletcher she said Entertainment Permits without dancing are generally compliant and have far fewer problems. She said it has been difficult to get tenants into this particular development that was originally intended for an international theme restaurant area and the Tilted Kilt is their marquee business. She added that all servers and bartenders had the ABC's LEAD training and they are committed • to security; they will have 1D scanners during entertainment. i Kelly O Callahan said he is the General Manager for the Tilted Kilt. He said they are committed to the community and may use their venue for community outreach specifically local causes. He said he has spoken with the PD sergeant and they have good j communication. He said he has 25 years experience in the food service industry and he likes to effect immediate change when needed. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-0-1 (Munoz absent) to adopt the Resolution approving Entertainment Permit DRC2014-01040. N. DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00610 AND ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(FPEIR)(SCH #200061027)— CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to modify landscaping standards and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures and correct prior errors and omissions as well as a proposed addendum to the General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report(FPEIR). This � item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. I Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner gave the staff report and brief PowerPoint presentation. In response to Commissioner Howdyshell, she reported that she is working on a brochure to give to the public. She said staff has collected many pictures for this. She said we hope to bring in experts and folks from CVWD to help educate the public. She said • these changes will become the "new normal". In response to Commissioner Fletcher, she said the restrictions for parkway materials is to help avoid injury and ensure the life of trees. She said gravel in parkways end up on the sidewalk and becomes a slipping hazard and a Item C —7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CHo JULY 22, 2015 G`CC14'►4oNGA Page 8 liability for the City. She said the Building Standards Commission allows for even less water for new construction; that will go into effect in December. She said a new temporary policy will aNlow lawns to go brown, but we still need to maintain trees, and keep the lawn areas weeded. She said the City Council will be approving a policy for the temporary suspension of our green lawn requirement. An error was noted on page 6 which she agreed to.correct. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Moved by Howdyshell, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-0-1 (Munoz absent) to adopt the Addendum to the General Plan Program EIR and the Resolution for Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00610 recommending final approval by the City Council. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION!AND PLANNING COMMISSION O. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES None P. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Howdyshell announced an event at the Historic gas station this Saturday including a car show and dinner, tickets are $50 and available on-line. She also noted that this evening is her last official meeting as a Commissioner as she is retiring. Commissioner Fletcher asked what efforts are being taken by the League or the City to get the State to create effective water projects. He said collecting, retaining and moving water is more the issue-infrastructure is needed, far more than a high speed train. He said the State mandates are frustrating; the brown lawns and medians look bad and the water companies will likely raise their rates rather than make other cost saving measures on their end. Ms. Nakamura said the League evaluates any legislation that is being proposed. She said the governor is working toward a Delta tunnel plan but it has limited support. She said more cities are becoming less dependent on external sources and Riverside is suing because of the State mandates because they believe their water supply on site makes them independent of the State run resources and by extension, the reduction mandates imposed on all cities. She said in the month of June the statistics show a significant reduction. Item C—8 • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION } AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES l RANCHO JULY 22, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 9 Specifically, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has cut water usage by 29%. It was noted that Rich Macias has been selected as the new Commissioner and will be ' sworn in on August 5th by the City Council and will take his seat on the Commission on August 12th. Commissioner Howdyshell will be recognized for her service and contribution as well at the August 5th Council meeting. F=� VIII. ADJOURNMENT 9:05 PM 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 July 16, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. I I 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. I If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is j 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. j Item C-9 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J ANCH [TCAMO O JULY 85 2015 Page 10 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$2,533 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 inv session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us. I i Item C—10 STAFF REPORT Pl_-�NNING DEPARTMENT DATE: August 12, 2015 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C;UCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 — PULTE HOMES — A request for the architectural and site design of 5 single-family residential homes on 5 lots in the Low (L) Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive —APNs: 1087-281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139 and no further environmental review is required. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580 — PULTE HOMES — A request to increase the allowable wall heights for a total height of 8 feet along the side yards of Lots 1 and 5 in connection with the proposed development (Design Review DRC2015-00111) of 5 residential homes located in the Low (L) Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive — APNs: 1087-281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139 and no further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Design Review DRC2015-00111 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 2.2 dwelling units per acre B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-Family Residences—Low Residential (L) District, Etiwanda North Specific Plan South - Single-Family Residences—Low Residential (L) District, Etiwanda North Specific Plan East - Vacant—Very Low Residential (VL) District West - Single-Family Residences—Low Residential (L) District, Etiwanda North Specific Plan C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential East - Very Low Residential West - Low Residential D,E - 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 2 D. Background and Site Characteristics: On July 12, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a 119-lot single-family residential subdivision (Tract 14139), which included the subdivision of the. subject 5 lots. On March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR 14139) to construct homes within the tract. Because the site lacked permanent drainage improvements, an on-site storm water detention basin was required to be constructed within Lots 1 through 5 as an interim drainage solution. As a result of having to construct the detention. basin, Lots 1 through 5 were unable to be developed concurrently with the remaining lots in this tract. The temporary detention basin remained until 2012, at which time the Planning Director approved a Minor Design Review (DRC2012-00196) to allow for the demolition of the detention basin and the grading of Lots 1 through 5. The basin has since been filled and the lots are currently semi-rough graded and vacant with all necessary street improvements already in place. ANALYSIS: A. General: The subject property is located within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), which requires development to comply with specific site and architectural design guidelines. Particular primary" architectural styles, such as Bungalow, Ranch, and San Juan are required to be used on at least two-thirds of the proposed units. The applicant has chosen to use only primary architectural styles and will therefore be in compliance with this requirement. The San Juan elevation incorporates a stucco exterior, exposed rafter tales, shed roof awning with wood braces, and recessed windows with decorative shutters. The Ranch style incorporates brick veneer wainscot, decorative gables, decorative shutters, and exposed wood headers. The Bungalow style incorporates stone wainscot and porch column bases with battered columns, decorative gables and -shake siding as well as 12-inch and 18-inch decorative corbels. In place of the ledgestone that is proposed to be used on the Bungalow elevation, staff has included a condition that requires the applicant to incorporate cobble stone, which is more compatible and complimentary to this architectural style. The applicant initially proposed solid covered patios as an option along the rear elevation of all. residences. The Planning Department has requested that because of the lack of building articulation along the rear elevation, that the solid covered patio be provided (not optional) on all residences. The plans have since been revised to reflect this comment and the patio covers. along the rear elevations on all lots are now provided (not optional). The ENSP Low Residential District development standards require a maximum lot coverage of forty (40) percent, maximum height of 35 feet, minimum front yard setback of 32 feet with an average front yard setback of thirty seven (37) feet (measured from the right-of-way), 5 and 10- foot side yard setback measured from the property lines and twenty 20-foot rear yard setbacks measured from property line. The ENSP also requires that all lots have decorative driveway treatments and at least thirty (30) percent of all homes within a phase/tract to have a recessed, side-on or detached garage. The applicant initially did not meet this requirement, but has since revised the plans to provide decorative driveway treatments and two lots with recessed garages.. Furthermore, staff has verified that the site layout is now in compliance with the ENSP development standards. The 5 lots range in size from 10,094 square feet to 15,643 square feet, with an average lot size of 12,019 square feet. There are a total of three floor plans proposed that range in size from a 3,253 square foot plan to a 4,168 square foot plan. One of-the homes is single-story, while the D,E - 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 3 other four are two-story, which is in compliance with the ENSP requirement that a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the lots contain single-story homes. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows the proposed landscape throughout the front yard areas as well as along the rear yard slopes and along the corner side yard of Lot 1 (east perimeter). Based on the size of the landscape area for the site, the types of proposed landscape and plant materials, and the regional location, the water budget calculations show that the project will be in compliance with the City's water budget requirement. The Conceptual Landscape Plan also indicates that the applicant is proposing 990 square feet of new Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) area in addition to the 3,300 square feet of existing LMD area. Staff expressed to the applicant that the.addition of new LMD area would only be supported by staff if the entire new area as well as an equally sized area within the existing LMD were designed to incorporate material that does not require water usage. The applicant is now proposing to install rockscape (native gray cobble rock) within the 990 square feet of new LMD area as well as within 910 square feet of the existing LMD area. B. Minor Exception: The project involves a request for a Minor Exception to allow for an additional 2 feet of wall height. Per Table 17.48.050-1 of the Development Code, the maximum allowable wall height within residential side and rear yard areas is 6 feet. The requested increase in wall height to allow for walls up to 8 feet will only occur on the corner side yard (east perimeter) of Lot 1 as well as on the interior side yard (west perimeter) of Lot 5, as shown on the rough grading plan and sections and details plan (Exhibit E), where there are grade differences that warrant the increased wall height.According to the rough grading plan, the proposed pad grades 0 are consistent with the pad grades shown on the Conceptual Grading Plans that were approved in 2012 by the Planning Department through Minor Design Review DRC2012-00196 which allowed for the demolition of the detention basin and the grading of these lots. Furthermore, the pad elevations of the five lots in question will generally be consistent with the surrounding established neighborhood. Approval of the Minor Exception request is warranted based on the facts for findings that are listed below, and included in the attached draft resolution of approval: 1. The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The General Plan encourages development of this site for single-family residences with an allowable density range between 2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre, which is compliant with this requirement. Furthermore, the Minor Exception does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and 2. 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. 3. 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 8-foot tall walls will be located generally where there are grade differences that warrant retaining walls. By utilizing a retaining wall along the east end of Lot 1 and along a portion of the west end of Lot 5, the applicant is able to eliminate unusable sloped areas and create additional usable space within the rear and side yard areas of these lots. D,E - 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 4 4. 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. C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Fletcher, Oaxaca and Granger) on June 30, 2015. There were no major issues brought up at this meeting. There were, however, a few secondary issues involving minor elements that staff recommended to be incorporated into the design of the proposed plans/elevations, which included the following: 1. Plan 1 Ranch was proposed to incorporate a covered porch entrance along the front elevation. However, the plans were not clear as to whether the siding will wrap around the side elevations of the projection. Therefore, staff recommended requiring the siding on the porch to be wrapped along the side elevations. 2. Plan 2 San Juan was proposed to incorporate a shed roof awning above the first floor window on front elevation. Staff recommended requiring the awning to have exposed rafter tales to match the eave design along the rest of the house. 3. Plan 3 Bungalow was proposed to incorporate battered stucco columns along the front and rear elevations. Staff recommended using a different material, such as wood, that is more complimentary to this architectural style. 4. Plan 3 Bungalow was proposed with a mix of different .window types, from horizontal sliders to double hung. For consistency purposes, staff recommended providing double hung windows along the second-story of the front elevation. 5. The applicant was previously encouraged to provide additional design elements/materials along the rear elevation. In doing so, material/stone wainscot was added. Staff did not find the addition of this material to be in good design and requested that the material be removed. 6. Four of the homes were proposed to have decorative shutters. However, the previous submitted plans did not show the type of material to be used.for the shutters. In an effort to keep other materials from being used that may not be complimentary to the design of the home, staff recommended that the applicant use a high density wood grain foam for; all shutters. 7. The previously submitted plans showed that all elevations on all homes were designed to have stucco coated window and door trim. Staff recommended that the window trim as well as door headers be designed to be trowel-smoothed stucco. 8. Various elevations previously included white garage doors. However, staff was concerned that this color is too generic and should be changed to something that will complement the color palette of.these homes. Therefore, staff suggested providing a condition that D,E -4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580 — PULTE HOMES • August 12, 2015 Page 5 allows the Planning Director to review and approve an alternative garage color in place of the proposed white garage doors. During this meeting, the applicant indicated that all of Staff's recommendations would be incorporated into the design of the project. The Committee and the applicant also discussed the State of California Water Board's Executive Order B-29-15, which prohibits irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes that is not delivered by drip or micro spray systems. The applicant understood this requirement and agreed to comply. Following the discussion, the Committee forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. Additionally, conditions relating to each of these items are included within the attached conditions of approval. D. Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting for Design Review DRC2015-00111 was conducted to gather input and comments from the owners of the surrounding properties within 660 feet of the site. The meeting was held in the multipurpose room at Day Creek Intermediate School, located west of the proposed subdivision at 12345 Coyote Drive, on Wednesday, May 11, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. A total of three people attended the meeting. Questions were discussed regarding the floor plans, square footage and price of the future homes. No concerns were raised. The meeting concluded at approximately 8:00 p.m. E. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 • in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139. 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 evaluated Design Review DRC2015-00111 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 and concludes 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 Negative Declaration. The project involves the development of 5 lots for single-family residential purposes, which is consistent with the previous approvals for this site. The size (dimensions and area) of the 5 lots will remain the same as they were previously approved. 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. The project does not involve an increase in the number of lots to be developed. Furthermore, the project complies with the same development standards that were required for this site at the time Tentative Tract Map 14139 was reviewed and approved. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of the Design Review DRC2015-00111 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00580. D,E - 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 & MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 6 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. Respectfully submitted, Candyce ett Planning Director CB:DP/jp Attachments: Exhibit A - Aerial Map Exhibit B - Architectural Plans Exhibit C - Site Utilization Map Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Grading Plans Exhibit F - Landscape Plans Exhibit G - Wall and Fence Plans Exhibit H - Color and Material Pages Exhibit I - Design Review Committee Action Agenda dated June 30, 2015 Draft Resolution of Approval for Design Review DRC2015-00111 Draft Resolution of Approval for Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 D,E - 6 z J .. • f 4 r^ NJ CD Ln Un CD Co • - Y �r� M X 00 7, tPulte 03 Ridgevimew Pulte 4th Submittal Set (a.k.a. RV5) (�1[C June 10, 2015 y VT ate: OV"O W- I jo� r-er1 1 • �:mlXu �nln ""• — 'xixN INI II Imo- � of .l »tXtll„ I �f Ilt,\I INI\I 0 ® / nt\II xl�N,Xfll ..It,ta Front Elevation 'C'-Ranch tI�IN�M1IIII,X I...IIx,t..... \ I\NI I'NI,I SII ltxl N t. 1•I II\N XIIIN 11.1111 �1 i\I'I'\ISI 1� �,111.n 1tx 1'\tA\t.l I It Ldh 1w s Left Elevation "CRight Elevation C Rear Elevation 'C" PLAN 6032-1 ■ 3,253 SQ.FT. ■ PLAN 1 RIDGEVIEW lte dfagpg "IS PoX6ouylNl 401fi ELEVATION "C" e Rear Elevation w/Opt Center Sliding Rear Elevation w/ Opt Folding Glass Door A Gathering Glass Dour a!Gathering O T 4 _ � IIIII Right Elevation w/Opt Rear Elevation ev/ Opt Fixed French Doors 2¢n Cate Fixed French Donrs Calc PLAN 6032-1 ■ 3,253 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN I RIDGEVIEW ��Ite' _, ,, ELEVATION 'C' lA.1�d m w - ,,r 41 / qj Flour Plan Rixwf Plan PLAN 6032-1 ■ 3,253 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN I RIDGEVIEW 1'1 ELEVATION 'C' S ..-. M V.I . 14 { I n111 \Mllx.l � M,x,l IIII 0 1111 ul nu I pxn,ual. X111 x\xll\1 I��XIYI x `yam I.I 4�'IIIIX �I,YI III I Front Elevation 'A' -San Juan NIWxN 111n X111N NI\a.\I\1 MN NI 11,IN\111\NI1'X1.1\II I�IxI 1111%Ix,�llx,. 1}i�M Illll l(I��I111 \ I\I I'\1\1 I.clt Ievation 'A' �—_ Right Elevation 'A' _ I W� w 1� �o Rear Elevation 'A" PLAN 6434-1 ■ 3,491 SQ.FT. ■ PLAN 2 RIDGEVIEW TkiIte ELEVATION "A" I�Iwyv'Nllil.xllfi PINIM,ouN.Nx. 4u� u G Gu u L 1 n M L EL�r w I, Lclt 11twatiun w/ Opt Balcony Rear Elcvahon w/ Opt Balcony Right Movation w/Opt Balcony 1 u �u1 ,1 Mh�*Nv 1 u ryry nuu ail 1' liuyy ry y. 1 Il - f G, Ir 4 1 I N MNIn f 46 i,11 1.1 ' ;111 I.In./'. {111 LI 11 111, I {41m11 V r 1 1 1.11 '1 1 1 L1111441Vu411AG1 y1l�ltll 11V 1 ✓il ! 44, _ rrl� i j 1r +1 , 1»4G1, , tn VH hat »J{Ill1l 0- I' 1Y �� �l I ., 11 pl♦ 1 ' 1:11 11 r1 � I I � —_ r 0 1 J'�.".11,; 5 1 {r `I l t�}144 +V 11�n l♦V1 L.,v l ♦ I Ill�l Rear Elevation w/ 01A Rear Elevation w/ Rear Flovalion w/ of .car 'hwatinn w/ Opt Center Sliding,Utas Sliding Glass Door Opt French Door Fixed French Doors v?Cate Doors wt Gathering&Calc 11h 1 1 1n r1 - nr r a n n" 1 , 1 1 51 NA uVl H. x i I. r111. 4C1� al�{ 411 a,,61'.1 » u MmrII{uu M 1 M .♦4��1, __ r 1 LSI ph ♦u f - a .; ;»Grn 11;'4�V4u4 I�I�II��II�I�IIIIIIIl011�I110�l�llll @Ilfllll n n 1 Rear Elevation w/Opt Rear Elevation w/ Opt Rear Flcvation w•/Opt Covered Patio 2&Folding Bay Window an Cate Center til iding Glass Door Panel Doors w:Gathering W Balcony POWPLAN 6434-1 ■ 3,491 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN 2 RIDGEVIEW ELEVATION 'A' ' r w r.r M .r • i All m — ... f -- �•� .. - �1 Wl 1tl � • u: n First Fluor Plan Second Fluor Plan Runl Plan J%ulte, PLAN 6434-1 3,491 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN 2 RIDGEVIEW ELEVATION 'A' ,y • a .T" .�'W hw� IF� 7 •,' WW \.. nn, m mu, X ' M:x111:Yn: Front Elevation 'C'-Ranch «« « o T Left Elevation 'C" Right Flevation 'C' „tr wini Rear Elevation 'C' ��� PLAN 6434-1 ■ 3,491 SQ.FT. ■ PLAN 2 RIDGEVIEW Tki ...p',a�::,:x,�,:: ELEVATION "C" we:x' vurzsis r ® I I �I .0111 lb First Fluor Plan Scnaxl fluor Plan Rnra I'I,in atPLAN 6434-1 ■ 3,491 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN 2 RIDGEVIEW e` ELEVATION 'C' Lk ii " . Lett Elevation w/ Opt Balcony Rum Elevation w/ Opt Balcunv Right Elevation w/Opt Balconv �0 N Roar Elevation w/ Upt Rear I'levatiun w/ Rear Elevation w/Opts .oarElevation w/ Opt Center Sliding Class Sliding Glass Door Opt French Dom Fixed French Duurs im Cate Doors Gathering&Cale i Rear Elvation w/Opt Rear Elevation w/Opt Rear Elevation w/Opt Covered Patio 2&FOlding Bay Window ve Cate Center Sliding Glass Dour Panel Doors uU Gathering i Balcon �o PLAN 6434-1 ■ 3,491 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN 2 RIDGEVIEW �.���e ELEVATION 'C' f a,, XYW .T � �. .. �� Civ,. �•H n-��L.' �`M-'t!M,a.: +ye+'......� _ �� - �. ,♦ I � _ - W,11,1 SII MlxN 11111 Y � I'NN II II NIx II, i N,1 II N I,II\ IN I IM,II,I � VII II 11111 INI\II • � \\111NY Front Elevation 'A'-San Juan ��� ,I M1111'NI11';II,II x111411.1,1 i1 u Im• i \1 IpI,V.M'I11 Nx11'N'I , ,I\I ,� T� N J11 Left Elevation 'A' Right Elevation 'A' I 11111 4 I � ; in Rear Elevation 'A' 11,ulte PLAN 5841-1 4,168 SQ.FT PLAN 3 RIDGEVIEW ELEVATION "A" ul copYAmxou vwlNwaun,l,c s INrzms rr4ryyll)1 N 1 f 4!4# A41A ll � N4�AUN n+ u 1' � 1 u 4u HW4 u Y r I NNN � VM1 Ir ''. N IQ 13 Ili I p.a r I Irl I II �II� I L 11 � 11 u 1 . Right Elevation w/ Rear Elevation w Opt Balcony Loft Elevation w/ Opt Balcunv / p - Opt Balcony v `m V 1 IS 1.`} iin}�F.i� x.naiii n. Nv>r + n rt 1 n riAi � dlGf r>4ur � !tlnnl+✓��V FI rtd H -rti Ln. Irl k t Ills I 1. Il I r l 1 I � l I lMl�nnrt - II + of I i 1 1 I I IIIFED I Rear Elevation w/ Opt Folding,Claes Door Rear Elevation w/ Opt Fixed Rear Elevation w/ Opt Cl'ntCl- "i Ge thvring French Doors m!Cafe Sliding Glass Door un Gathering 1310te, PLAN 5841-1 ■ 4,168 SQ. FT. • PLAN 3 RIDGEVIEW ELEVATION 'A' First Fluor Plan Second Fluor Plan Roof Plan PLAN 5841-1 ■ 4,168 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN 3 RIDGEVIEW Puitt ELEVATION 'A' .r ' ' • • - - - Nxllllll— I I�1111X1\I ' �IMIXII II �\ � 41pv� ,i�\�III XiI II x\11,1111 11 \1\Ilx Front Elevation 'B' -Bungalow WINIMI NNl llx li�lll �I\1 v I R w w t t A N V Left Elevation 'B' Right Elevation 'B' I t Rear Elevation "B' 1k, ItePLAN 5841-1 ■ 4,168SQ.FT. ■ PLAN 3 RIDGEVIEWELEVATION "B" ICI Copy�gM1l P015 PIu1e(ilmiV'��� 00 ., IJ _l 1 First Fluor Plan Second Flow Plan Roof Plan .antPLAN 5841-1 ■ 4,168 SQ. FT. ■ PLAN 3 RIDGFVIEW e - - ELEVATION 'B' I�@�II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � k — k f Right Elevation w/ Rear Elevation w/Opt Balamleft Elevation w/ Opt Balcoery V Opt BalcunV v T _ Rear Flrv,itiun w/Opt Folding Glass Ducar Rear Elevation w/Opt Fixed Rear Elevation w/ Opt C'cnter W Gathering French Doors pp Cafe Sliding Glass Door ^Gathering PLAN5841-1 ■ 4,168SQ. FT. ■ PLAN3 RIDGEVIEW ELEVATION 'B' Pulte• m x W r r + r r M ( �:s 4 1 MOJECT WE e{. _� I SHEET INDEX � e. ��n .� � `.r• e ( ,,,f�°�}w t��. YICNIY MAP' 'l � f 2 OETAIID 91E RAN :�j i + 9RONBIpiC, Es 4. M` RAN •� �� s. nouoN amorao R-AN i LEGEND L LOW(2-4 MAC) F[ FAIA_TZCIE VL reaY Lav(z SMAC) uturY cannon • �. r TAACT 4138 AW 246166-Tfi .14.. ! E — r —GW RADW ♦T � �, y7 A y .E r .' + ` `" �" "" ." � - PREPARED FOR j6. \'�} rS ]A��¢. CBAE m OiK fAIE GUfIPOPAMW xl l _11 L ' At 1 �q RITE GROUP Bd R BN CA fUflNA w.�JGCA rw1 >o„ L Com.° r. " y , `A t PREPARED 9Y: -- REVISED: MAY 13, 2015 ' DRC 2014-00111 TRACT No. 14139, LOTS 1-5 SITE UTILIZATION MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sheet 1 of 6 rN�i�l D,E- 32 m X R ECT SITE Il CHEYENNE � COURT SAGEBRUSH COURT GOLDEN PRAIRIE DRIVE IT Lu y i nimsRe t r-Iwa r3AR wi C �I r N ,.; �T € i ew it a -'IF i I 5 4 — ;.i � I 3'i� Lu jl �m �. L _ .. III .,2 __ _I _ TRA T 1413 _ _ 0 I/ ,„,FIT. / EPARED FOR YRACY NO. 14380xREAL EsrA7E COWo n .. / ,' do PUL7E aRo1PBW111EW1 cALrCWiA 246/62.67 / �-�J(X c•11111 LIEGE 1 PLOTTI G MIX REAR SLOPE TABLE PREPARED BY va . wF,w», REVISED MAY 13, 2015 II-11 ;,w.,� ...,..-, t DRC 2014-001111 ® "�=�ff •'�""'"" REOUIRED SET BACKS DECORATWE DRwEwAY WTE: TRACT No. 14139, LOTS 1-5 �1�M .11E.,.+W. � .,.µ< < 111101Lµ ,.��., ��.�� wwDETAILED SITE PLAN „" "' C" OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA u�. .,.."""."•��,, ,� �."o aE.,.,.r Sheetof 6 m2 m x W PROJECT SITE CHEYENNE SAGEBRUSH "vw COURT COURT �- -- �1 ; -- ---- -- — Tr ( PRAIRIE DRIVE ... '. ••.; i u.�.r 1 x -- —� ( . - --r 411, GOLDEN - �* I a II w39 3AR ,C 50 TCR I. o_nme Ipp ' . T JAR 44 B,' bPl x -..^a �( ct lr� i� ^ ,^oo l __ JAuww,✓rm p �l I I+ I I � I T 5 4 _ _ ____IW Ill tiG. W III 11 1 / 1 REPARED FOR: t CENTEX F GATE COflPORATplJ PRRGY NO. 143®O ,' / do P TE oR01IP SOUTHERN cALFOEYJA WIN. 246/62-61 LEGEND:V ..N� '� PREPARED BY: r I T .xJrrssux,s<�, :,�,ouw _•.•::� " REVISED: MAY 13, 2015 F..�.,,....,r,., EET�E 4p ffE' DRC 2014-00111 TRACT No. 14139, LOTS 1-5 ; CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sheet 3 of 6 TRACT NO . 14139 SHEET i OF II SCALE' /• - '°- TRACT NO , 14139 SHEET 3 OF 11 "• :earuw. cw •• .. �. F� ^.�'•^.c .n no�.e a x. SEE SNEE! NO to I SEE SHEET NO, / I. :., II Q so to u,.w ... .,, ,..,,..... .. ..:...... ^l9 : 6U r. E 'M: .. ,.... ... W ~�GN I'MAlftlt ON V LX G - �.. PREPARED CBAE%PEAL ESTATE CONPOfUIgN Go PSLTE CF SOVIIBN CALF-0HU n u.Pus a Irc.. vris>oa '•• uusw:vK.°.a a)zs mwT Pee)vo emo ?. � cw,.c, =,M rwro .n ,n...... ...., : e�irciwwourz c°u PREPARED BY: b.�.•ma i'f;"� = , ---- REVISED: MAY 13 2015 DRC 2014-00111 TRACT No. 14139, LOTS 1-5 YC9L'NG..NK tJL. SUBDIVISION MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Sheet 4 of 6 II T GOLDEN PRAfiE DRIVE - cam-- - . I ztsi Il( vevmll],re __ _ I �. _ xm.,, Ci �^I !I \ Jvm.w O luw Ll, Q e+1 + O r 1 snl nrul mill 1 n. ,m, � Ixxa _ T _ �`M_ l \• mFowacware¢c a¢1W ---zw snt�nK N• — — ---rlaxn same— ns I I� -- Xuyrs�rsXr-rs- IXum wavn«e mvex lM.xs^-I �� '1 -eO I i 'I� I I ^°f09f01Hi°�°I o'AI i nmvv w I I I I II I rmww I ✓� � ! �/ / L- nn:l I.ms I>,we:r.umn cl j j sl cross r u s: Gm / —vrc.re.c ! ! / w P) inmu mIs 1 v.msv 5 C 4 3s 2 I ,y f I nus zl a �ea.o �"f I nszs Oil II Hess vaa37 � I 1 112 f L c 11 la I "STl m„X ' I _ } I. I ,,D o ° / �!' ria I-f / I l Vimsa uXrs IGI )a i vzlsn n° (_vsn » \ .... 1 II 1 x p b)eiur 11 a� `� -m ! le ml / �❑° ! ,P ABED FOR OENtEX IEAL EBfATE CDPP(N1AMN1 , c/o PULTE ORDDP 9pRR9N CP1FOfNA I,i�i /'i'i wSLn,'.'PPmifPmw xw,wttE.,w EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY NOTE. NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES sM w,W NSYmPll6 mlXw Xa PXN.e,XIX, PREPARED BY: usiaev ar w Ixly vWxv a s-)I-.s © I”"Gmur amcwN.Imran x NIR � www IMIw v PLL swwa�rmxlwsx ral�G u � Xwu�IMIYIC waP�lrxn my wN.,«mX mxwut a«n I MIw luY[w Il SXXWIX.RClln N Pw [UXII CIICX X 9>sY4[.lel 11( ler sIPMWt ) ps INsme ulcx aax,Nmnn x PVLI Ox aMrMxl f cum(mG Wlx r ev.swe Nx ttclmx I-I ep eGmcel ner/N stns G la w«e«wM aaX wu m xva E LI-I [AXIk MI[P ICIIX.fl01[CI IIa N.YL «UM1 W L[(1) da«X(B!YPMAI[RlcYll(L(51[ItlX 1-f UN 51[n J) — �I tMIXW YIIT YMXI,Wpll[I W a)LI U cM51Wl,IC•,m�lf«a bXXIXS wv ICN 1 W VI X/,� Q9 [G51 6'aJM l0.rl XNI A wwl&YHP Im SlPµyl 1 _ tlNlt WII PIIWII(YI s [-1 Ux SXt(1)f L_n NO. n (u51YG slXFll,%GXXI,PXpI[o w qµt I (� w9Ht f aNM[XC M:CPY WI ldMmlLl xY MIO,[sWMAr e❑ IMI , NX PWuC lNe1If.1MnLLlaXIHPIIPMSe XOGs a,x(a euwl wnr � cvXaW.I,IwM mn Nxct tm aPmv NWn REVISED MAY 13, 2015 -00111 w MIwlDRC 2014 MNC)wl m aPI N « TRACT No. 14139, LOTS 1-5 r1' n IM,wc.IeXI rNle wl.PXPaeI N Pm« ROUGH GRADING PLAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA m ow OMEN^� Sheet 5 of 6 na..w un.rzx¢ �' n�aurfo Wa r°Au OOLOd PPM1E dYUE_ Nx 11 Gn IrY ya cplp 0.PISEPWJI%dnl I W rNi P [M[9mhrwc6cmRl e/x1 . _ -apIW�pEpqMxNp KY) / 1 1Mu[x0.t Hills xLL HMw.1° WW,-J-/f n� •• "� rx ,JH M4N WL{IM ],[p G11w151 W NlAGIt 2P]SW WW[t w oxW J ctm :fu axillo r;%nw� Nrtturz apRn�l�i°et 1 _ WR'wni'xWY u[umwx ]mw R4vc vu IRT(WxS�' �,nR Wa.ru rN1.xv5 'ru ,x�""gA"g',� 1 w[NRR pfdGviFMIE]tH£f r-[NWox M6RYI IEARYAPD 801E rG]itww n°G _ ..,.. § E%44TN3 gGTpN A-A rtwow.rz°vn ��g 4 w I 'J.,h " AwP,v � e°WxWNR"Invwl INSIW4 x40 r1x4 I _ "� ro 1411 Nx'Y�OWI r RN IUON.YY%W,It xi. vxpOSf° gw:xl�Wwxt ,mxr5 .OWIKKW .451M -_ \III*HI[[ MST TMCT ,IM�,MWMx' I., lVRUL rot r£[IL Ir' n rrsrM� Imi°"rO u4xo '. i I � rM xsx mNt ' luflx:_uMIM y� H Pldlil—// - x rIMPY Y[[rlwWXs &� rlf I°5 x-1]I[R T SGS IXm([IfS M[[MC1011gM 3 �[ � n Bd m {oRBI RYui°Y RRu[t° MST I ACT 8gH Y VT I C LOT) Sh IN9x4 uMY/fM1+ - Ib1WL MYJ RETAMIn PgiTKKI PETIMW FOHIHM! vWl[G[°W xlYa t y,r NS[ill XIx-WMX¢N[Ylit 9ECi1W BY01 9ECIpX 83-22 601MMY FARIAACr BOIIDMY 6 WVMI°IWY MOM FARr T TRAm 9ECTI0[O nLTeN7E'9EC150fO �,,/r Ia r nt °,Mauw naaN(rm _ _ v •• IW UP IWIH[IM1VI - � YIMNR]-5 T wWr°.'�rWuui/x°rawer(ml ray '-1 .V[u loll ml SV S Rw" xYn Rx IWC%W I \1 Ns wl 11°I,-rwX¢mFSa[ m rw[S",oo I`LL�q MRMTo[awl.vl MPM r-Sa aVR aXCWo.YMPM star 4 IM A yA W.lM rin R SaIW3x°I I° l IaIXSO[MaYSRU t GrtPS¢/OS ll]n WNX T. m+cx Lrw W a Hw +c rN ImR 1°I X=-)\ %a IW rultlR ¢°rtwa[Itl1IMNrto foto) LW RCMXO HIYFtx rdxtl9M Ytl ' , Y MJ Sxl "Ai5 _ �.S 1 1 6 RIrW [I'MIHR n5T I[W M U t5Xr3RY ) 1°Ix1114P 14 \� IflYY.VwU Wdp CNAIlEIi W a(fOf WP'IG PREPARED FOR: MERpP mlENA H.CpE enEtFon FOEVFPo 9L01E CENM PEN.ESTATE COIFORATM —— FRONTyNo BLOFF9 _ _ — _ _-- �4L7)]N PC —..SIZT!CN F-F SECl10No-6 All c/o PULTE OIIOIIP BOOIHERI CNFOINA n�. .. ♦RFu.3smR m 4R 0.)fb-aw° n[H r4m skwia�iuTiwY PREPAFED BY., nMWC WU WIx xxRlmn 'sraiRxa- �1�1�1�1,1;:�1.'1�1� i Mx rIM[w rG ra%wn REVISED: MAY 13, 2015 ' 1�RMILN['i, DRC 2014-00111 ols.. TRACT No L . 14139, LOTS 1-5 SECTIONS AND DETAILS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA m I, Sheet 6 of 6 BECTICH E-E Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 Wall Locations wv 17 ' 4 - - i � 1#� i . m11R - ae nc 1`N y • NIH �L:,, -E- L�%-. _: EPL-1, =CLITL •_L E'1:TI',, I:'. L-P. ., - E IL HI L t -LLL E=:EfAE T E.=.EUPT L" --E -,�I E -,E� - i- T T) 'q' L:T` F T-'7, I FILL— i- � I +r hl U �.. . ESITI_'- _ r=- !f-ELI-11 l -'Ef=111f.C. LE. T.NE E(IJIN- L- .: E WEST TRACT BOUNDARY I P :TE TE 1 L E „ (AT REAR OF LOT) EAST TRACT BOUNDARY - RETAINING PORTION SECTION D-D SECTION 132-82 (ULTIMATE SECTION) D,E - 39 D,E -40 . ITl oOLDEN. PRAIRIE flR „ 5 AT ' 1v �I♦��+}-�) t ._� i�yj 14 En siwI.P£ J n.xo _r •\ __P LOTS R i % PLAN 55 4 1 PLAN LOT23 R PLOT 2C PLAN LOT AR i w V I- x � i i ¢• �1> � tl 9r Lt 9. �- (5)• IL 51 4 o? I& pp _ x, u O W / L; SHRUB VINE.¢CROVNp DOVER LIST -. U m , .x_.5 .. ,cc.> _ PATE 1.-1 IS U 5 EET Lt OF�L� T J WALLL FENCE LEGEND. p. - '. x - - ..-- LU ...tee.. ... . VJ H ® INI ..., -..... .. ,. ..... ...... .. ..,, ..r. .,......, - .. °. �: ..,..... .. O LL EXISTING LANDSCAPE NOTES TREE LEGEND '""'w' '- `°` ""•"° - • � -� > .«.. a... _.n.,,.. 2 WATER BUDGETS. W UJ M P r � eer O9. r ,. wu. ew x,.n.°n ea . .ui wun, [rntl« _'_� i1 , vnwuueuw,auunw4,Yvva a ..r.. i D,E -42 III x GOLDEN PRAIRIE DRIVE � V i la ui rN�) � __PLAN 2CRY „� Y'° PLAN 2AR wPLAN 1 GLOT 5 LOT 3 LOT 2 PLAN 3ARY :: 1 1 \ 1 ; y _..a_ _ 1 1 Y Y \ J Y_ 1 Y I I � � � � f • I]� •�• uwx.un .m i Q RRR -. ♦ j ' Iii U T U I i O A � v w _ u _ WALL a FENCE LEGEND Q mo-n '.Ytu�w lY © _. 8 .... . .. ., . ....,.. LU LU 4/�v WC Q G U) w W . . . ... . , ai;_ . W sHEE'L30F L: ^ N idgelview Rancho Cucamonga, CA 5 LOTS - Single Family Homes CaP63 REVISED Exterior Color Schemes only For City review only for I t Exterior Colors and Materials by .. Nlichelle,Brdles, , i , Zsultant Al Revised Digital binder only 6-5-15 schemes only inlcuded due to city revision requests. NOTE:All photographs of stone,brick,masonry and roof tiles are for representation only-See actual samples for exact colors. MBACC not responsible for manufacturer color printed materials being off from actual materials. EXHIBIT H D,E -45 _—� PROJECT: Ridgeview - Rancho Cucamonga, CA ;Id I nl Vs to m espond Allh coned elevations I BUILDER : Pulte Group UPDATED cellouts EXTERIOR COLOR SCHEMES DOCUMENT(ECS) 5-14-15 Revised per dry request 5-12-15 RENAMED ELEV STYLES 1-15-15 Use at Rldgeview-fm Meadowlark/REVISED roofs 7-17-14 MBACC added gutter/downspout colors COLORS BY: M I T I I I LLE.BRIDGES—kit(I I I I I'II I I RAL t'OLOIt I'ONSII fI%N'1 562-2431,385 1-10-14 MBACC Added stucco colors SEE COLOR KEYED ELEVATIONS/COLOR KEYED ECS FOR EXACT PLACEMENT OF COLOR 1-2-2014 As approved by Pulte Group STUCCO'. OMEGA STUCCO-SAND FINISH STONE: CORONADO STONE PRODUCTS PAINT: SHERWIN WILLIAMS BRICK: CORONADO THIN BRICK ROOF: BORAL(MONIERLIFETILE ROOFS) MORTAR:OBP MAC PLUS-LT KHAKI U.O.N GARAGE DOORS: CLOPAY GARAGE DOOR STANDARD GUTTERS ONLY: RGS COLORS FUN b COLOR SCHEME COLOR APPLICATION 1 LOT 3/PLAN 6434-2A 2 -N/A 3-LOT 1 /PLAN 5841-3A STUCCO BODY 1/2-12 48 FASCIA I EAVES IALL TRIM SW 7525 SW 0038 TREE BRANCH LIBRARY PEWTER STUCCO BODY ACCENT SW 7519 SW 7535 MEXICAN SANT SANDY RIDGE GARAGE DOORS. CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS CHOCOLATE BROWN CHOCOLATE BROWN FRONT DRS I SHUTTERS SW 6237 SW 7510 DARK NIGHT CHATEAU BROWN DECORATIVE METAL 8 RAILINGS)ACCENT SW 7069 SW 7069 HINGES RINGS ETC ON SHUTTERS IRON ORE IRON ORE CLAY DECOR PIPES AT GASUES'DECORATIVE GAeIE CETML I 5'M Wel TANBARK SW"I TANBARK FULLS'ROOF TILE-COOL TILE 1SCCS 6160 1BCCS 6330 AUTUMN BLEND/aoed SRI 24 SALERNO CLAY/a ed SRI=22 GUTTERS=G 1 G=WOOD BEIGE I G=TERRATONE I =LINEN D=ADOBETAN STONE VENEER AT EXTERIOR FIREPLACE ONLY CORONADO HONEY LEDGESTONE' CORONADO HONEY LEDGESTONE TIGHTFIT INSTALLATION COLOR:SHASTA BLEND COLOR:ASPEN bUNUALUWb ELhATON- COLOR COLOR APPLICATION 4-LOT 41 PLAN 5841-38 5 -N/A 6-N/A STUCCO BODY 314 A 87 FASCIA/EAVES/KNEES BRACES SW 7528 ALL TRIM/POSTS I WOOD RAILINGS WINDSOR GREIGE GABLE SIDING INSETS SW 2807 ROOKWOOD MED.BROWN GARAGE DOORS DESERT TAN CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS FRONT DOORS I SHAKE SIDING SHINGLES SW 6159 HIGH MA STONE VENEER(Use for Exterior Fireplaces also) EASTERN MTN.LEDGESTONE TIGHT FIT INSTALLATION COLOR:CHABLIS GUT UERS=G/ G=ADOBE TANI FLAT SHAKE ROOF TILE-COOL TILE 1FBCJ 3233 BROWN BLEND Iaged SRI=21 C' -RANCH ELEVATIONS COLOR SCHEME COLOR APPLICATION 7-LOT 51 PLAN 6434-20 8-LOT 2l PLAN 6032-IC 9 -N/A STUCCO BODY 1574 3/8 A 586 FASCIA/EAVES/ALLTRIM INCLUDING SW 7554 SW 7554 TIDING TRIM BOARDS I GABLE SIDING ASE I STEAMED MILK 8TEAMED MILK HORIZONTAL LAP HARDIE SIDING BOARDS SW 2823 SW 6172 ROCKWOOD CLAY HARDWARE GARAGE DOORS ALMOND WHITE CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS FRONT DRS I SHUTTERS SW 6047 SW 7622 DECORATIVE METAL i RAIJNGS I ACCENT HINGES, SIN 7D69 SW RINGS ETC ON SHUTTERS ORION nlOP IRON QRF BRICK VENEER(Use for Exterior Fireplaces also) EAGLE BUFF CHARLESTON STANDARD MORTAR JOINTS-OBP LT.KHAKI SPECIAL USED N WNGrDBRICK GUTTERS=GI G=LINENI G=LIN / DOWNSPOUTS=D 0-ADOBE T =LT.PECAN FLAT SLATE ROOF TILE-COOL TILE )FACS 6099 1FACS 0141 All Colors antl 0.77a/s are recommendations based solely upon a ffi value for the exclusive interna/use by SAIDit SRI =BUILDER.Any other use is prohibhen Color hexclusivef MBACC Am reus.of env C 6 M Selwims otherthan t bo d Property,must rescely,approval by MBACC MBACC shall not be held liable for any errors or product tailure on manufamners w contractorlsubcontraclors part In Me field IF e.stucco masonry,paint manufacturers enors.etc). NOTE. MANDOORS 8 VENTS TO BE PAINTED ADJACENT COLOR-UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NOTE'.ALL PAINT BREAKS TO BE TURNED AND FINISHED AT INSIDE CORNERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NOTE.SUBSTITUTIONS FOR ANY MATERIALS ARE NOT TO BE MADE WITHOUT THE FINAL APPROVAL FROM MBACC OFFICE NOTE:SIDE ENHANCED ELEVATIONS TO RECEIVE TYPICAL TREATMENTS AS FRONT ELEVATIONS--SEE ELEVATIONS FOR COLOR PLACEMENT —NOTE SrUCCO hes been eye maldled toparol by MBACC IOr mndemp use Dory Oo riot use Mrs paMl calor in held ca for an exact makn to stucco D,E —46 idgevZew - Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Pulte Group, Inc Exterior Color Scheme COLOR MATERIAL MATERIAL SAMPLE 1 -LOT 3/PLAN I APPLICATION SPECIFICATION STUCCO BODY 1/2-12 OA4EGA STUCCO FASCIA(EAVES/ALL TRIM SW 7525 Sherwin TREE BRANCH Williams Paint SW 7519 Sherwin STUCCO BODY ACCENT MEXICAN SAND Williams Paint CLOPA GARAGE DOORS: CHOCOLATE STANDARD CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS BROWN COLORS (Digital color for reference onry) FRONT DRS/SHUTTERS SW 6237 Shemin William DARK NIGHT Paint DECORATIVE METAL&RAILINGS i SW 7069 Sherwin ACCENT HINGES.RINGS ETC ON Williams SHUTTERS IRON ORE _ Paint CLAY DECOR PIPES AT GABLES, SW 6061 Sherwin DECORATIVE GABLE DETAIL TANBARK Williams Paink MASONRY VENEER Coronado Stone Products CORONADO HONEY LEDGESTONE: _ COLOR: SHASTA BLEND FOR EXTERIOR FIREPLACES ONLY r - t N/A on Exterior of Actual Residence 1-15-15 Ridgeview 5 lots ROOFMATERIAL Revisions per city 5-14.15 Boral(Monierlifetile)-So. Cal LOT #'S UPDATED 6-5-15 1 BCCS 6160 AUTUMN BLEND/ aged SRI = 24 FULL'S'PROFILE EXTERIOR COLORS&MATERIAL by MICHELLE BRIDGES D,E - 47 idgev ew - RanchoCucamonga, Ca Pulte Group, Inc Exterior Color Scheme COLOR MATERIAL MATERIAL SAMPLE 3 APPLICATION SPECIFICATION STUCCO BODY 48 OMEGASTUCCO SW 0038 Shemin FASCIA/EAVES/ALL TRIM LIBRARY PEWTER Williams Paint SW 7535 Sherwin STUCCO BODY ACCENT SANDY RIDGE Williams Pain CLOPA GARAGE DOORS: STANDA CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS CHOCOLATE BROWN COLC (Digital color M reference oniv) FRONT DRS/SHUTTERS SW 7510 Sherxin CHATEAU BROWN William Paint DECORATIVE METAL&RAILINGS! SW 7069 Sherwin ACCENT HINGES,RINGS ETC ON IRON ORE William SHUTTERSPaint CLAY DECOR PIPES AT GABLES! 5 W 6061 Shewn DECORATIVE GABLE DETAIL TANBARK William MASONRY VENEER Coronado Stone Products _ CORONADO HONEY LEDGESTONE: COLOR: ASPEN ��,- p FOR EXTERIOR FIREPLACES ONL — NIA on Exterior of Actual Residenc,_ r-r 115-15 Ridgeview 5 lots ROOF MATERIAL j Revisions per city 5-14-15 Boral (Monierlifetile)-So. Cal LOT#'S UPDATED 6-5-15 1BCCS 6330 SALERNO CLAY/aged SRI = 22 FULL 'S'PROFILE EXTERIOR COLORS&MATERI. by MICHELLE BRIDGES D,E - 48 IRidgev ew - Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Pulte Group, Inc Exterior Color Scheme COLOR MATERIAL MATERIAL SAMPLE 4-L0T 4/PLAN 5841-3B APPLICATION SPECIFICATION i• STUCCO BODY 314 A 87 OMEGASTUCCO FASCIA I EAVES KNEES BRACES/ SW 7528 Sherwin ALL TRIM/POSTS 1 WINDSOR GREIGE Williams WOOD RAILINGS Paint SW 2807 Sherwin GABLE SIDING INSETS ROOKWOOD MED. Williams BROWN Paint >, -:'r, r .:, .-r. CLOPAY GARAGE STAN DOORS: DESERTTAN _ � � '' -N. .: ;,r..` STANDARD COLLORS CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS (Digital cobr for rekrerwe only) FRONT DOORS/ SW 6159 Sherwin SHAKE SIDING SHINGLES HIGH TEA Williams Paint MASONRY VENEER Coronado Stone Products EASTERN MTN. LEDGESTONE: COLOR: CHABLIS STONE VENEER(Use for Exterior Fireplaces also) TIGHT FIT INSTALLATION 1-15-15 Ridgeview 5 lots ROOF MATERIAL Revisions per city 5-14-15 Boral(Monierlifetile)-So. Cal LOT#'S UPDATED 6-5-1 1FBCJ 3233 BROWN BLEND /aged SRI = 21 FLAT SHAKE ROOF PROFILE - - EXTERIOR COLORS 8 MATERIAL by MICHELLE BRIDGES D,E - 49 RidgevZew - rancho Cucamonga, Ca I Pulte Group, Inc JOL7 Exterior Color Scheme COLOR MATERIAL APPLICATION SPECIFICATION MATERIAL SAMPLE i L OT 5 PLAN 6434- STUCCO BODY 1574 ONIEGA STUCCO SCIA I EAVES/ALL TRIM Sherwin I FANCLUDING SIDING TRIM SW 7554 Williams STEAMED MILK GABLE SIDING INSETS Paint HORIZONTAL LAP HARDIE SW 2823 Sherwin SIDING BOARDS ROCKWOOD CLAY Williams Pain CLOt GARAGE DOORS: STANDARD CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS ALMOND -- COLORS (Digital color for reference SW 6047 Sherwin only) FRONT DRS/SHUTTERS Williams HOT COCOA Pamt DECORATIVE METAL 8 RAILINGS I SW 7069 ACCENT HINGES,RINGS ETC ON IRON ORE AHUTTFPq _ _ I MASONRY VENEER Coronado Stone Products EAGLE BUFF - SPECIAL USED BRICK VENEER(Use for Exterior Fireplaces also) STANDARD MORTAR JOINTS-OBP LT.KHAKI .r• 1.15-15 Ridgeview 5 lots ROOF MATERIAL Revisions per city 5-14-15 Boral (Monierlifetile)-So- Cal LOT #'S UPDATED 6-5-15 1 FACS 6099 COPPER MTN. BLEND/aged SRI = 46 FLAT SLATE ROOF PROFILE EXTERIOR COLORS&MATERI. by MICHELLE BRIDGES D,E - 50 IXidgeview - Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Pulte Group, Inc Exterior Color Scheme COLOR MATERIAL MATERIAL SAMPLE - I OT 2 PLAN 6032- 1C APPLICATION SPECIFICATION STUCCO BODY 318 A 586 OMEGASTUCCO FASCIA/EAVES/ALL TRIM Sherwin INCLUDING SIDING TRIMHED Williams BOARDS/ Pain GABLE SIDING INSETS HORIZONTAL LAP HARDIE Sherwin SIDING BOARDS Williams Paint CLOPAY GARAGE DOORS: WHITE STANDAR CO ORS CLOPAY STANDARD COLORS (Digital color for reference only) SW 7622 Sherwin FRONT DRS/SHUTTERS Wiliam HOMBURG GRAY Paint DECORATIVE METAL 8 RAILINGS i SW 7069 ACCENT HINGES,RINGS ETC ON IRON ORE MASONRY VENEER Coronado Stone Products CHARLESTON - NEW HARLESTON - .1 NEW ENGLAND BRICK BRICK VENEER(Use for Exterior Fireplaces also) STANDARD MORTAR JOINTS-OSP LT.KHAKI Jr. 1-15-15 Ridgeview 5 lots ROOF MATERIAL Revisions per city 5-14-15 Boral (Monierlifetile)- So. Cal LOT #'S UPDATED 6-5-15 1 FACS 0141 BUCKSKIN /aged SRI = 24 FLAT SLATE ROOF PROFILE EXTERIOR COLORS&MATERIAL by MICHELLE BRIDGES D,E - 51 D,E - 52 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ACTION RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUNE 30, 2015 - 7v00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca X 7.00 PM Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger X • Alternates: Ray Wimberly_ Frances Howdyshell_ Lou Munoz_ II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. A. DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-001 11 —PULTE HOMES—A request for the The Committee architectural and site design of 5-lots in the Low(L)Residential District of recommended the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of approval subject to Golden Prairie Drive and Etiwanda Avenue. Pursuant to the California staffs comments and Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, suggested the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989, in connection conditions. with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139 and no further environmental review is required. • 1 of 2 EXHIBIT I D,E - 53 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAMH JUNE 309 2015 CUMMONGA B. DRC2015-00580—Pulte Homes-A request to increase the allowable wall The Committee heights for a total height of 8 feet along the side yards of Lots 1 and 5 in recommended connection with the proposed development (Design Review approval subject to DRC2015-00111)of 5 residential homes located at the southeast comer of staffs comments and Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive. suggested conditions III. PUBLIC COMMENTS alone This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to rive minutes per individual. IV. ADJOURNMENT 7:25 PM The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m.adjournment time. if items go beyond that time,they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 1, Gail Elwood,Office Specialist 11 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga,hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 18, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. 2of2 D,E — 54 DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 .m. P Dominick Perez June 30, 2015 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 —PULTE HOMES—A request for the architectural and site design of 5-lots in the Low (L) Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Golden Prairie Drive and Etiwanda Avenue. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139 and no further environmental review is required. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES —A request to increase the allowable wall heights for a total height of 8 feet along the side yards of Lots 1 and 5 in connection with the proposed development (Design Review DRC2015-00111) of 5 residential homes located at the southwest comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive. Background: On July 12, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a 119-lot single-family residential subdivision (Tract 14139), which included the subdivision of the subject five lots. Then on March 22, 1995,the Planning Commission approved a Design Review(DR 14139)to construct homes within the tract. Because the site lacked permanent drainage improvements, an on-site storm water detention basin was required to be constructed within Lots 1 through 5 as an interim drainage solution. As of result of having to construct the detention basin, Lots 1 through 5 were unable to be developed along with the remaining lots in this tract. The temporary detention basin remained until 2012, at which time the Planning Director approved a Minor Design Review (DRC2012-00196) to allow for the demolition of the detention basin and the grading of Lots 1 • through 5.The basin has since been filled and the lots are currently,semi-rough graded and vacant with all necessary street improvements already in place. Design Parameters: The subject property is located within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP), which requires development to comply with speck site and architectural design guidelines. Particular "primary" architectural styles, such as Bungalow, Ranch, and San Juan are required to be used on at least two-thirds of the proposed units. The applicant has chosen to use only primary architectural styles and will therefore be in compliance with this requirement.The San Juan elevation incorporates a stucco exterior, exposed rafter tales, shed roof awning with wood braces, and recessed windows with decorative shutters. The Ranch style incorporates brick veneer wainscot, decorative gables, decorative shutters, and exposed wood headers. The Bungalow style incorporates stone wainscot and porch column bases with battered columns, decorative gables and shake siding as well as twelve inch and eighteen inch decorative corbels. The applicant initially proposed solid covered patios as an option along the rear elevation of all residences. The Planning Department has requested that because of the lack of building articulation along the rear elevation, that the solid covered patio be provided (not optional) on all residences. The plans have since been revised to reflect this comment and the patio covers along the rear elevations on all lots are now provided(not optional). The ENSP Low Residential District development standards require a maximum lot coverage of forty(40)percent, maximum height of thirty-five(35)feet, minimum front yard setback of thirty-two (32) feet with an average front yard setback of thirty seven (37) feet (measured from the right-of-way), five (5)- and ten (10)-foot side yard setback measured from the property lines and twenty (20)- foot rear yard setbacks measured from property line. The ENSP also requires that all lots have decorative driveway treatments and at least thirty (30) percent of all homes within a phase/tract to have a recessed, side-on or detached garage. The applicant initially did not meet this requirement, but has since revised the plans to provide decorative driveway treatments and two lots with recessed garages. Furthermore, staff has verified that the site layout is now in compliance with the ENSP development standards. D,E - 55 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA DRC2015-00111 AND DRC2015-00580—PULTE HOMES June 30, 2015 Page 2 There are a total of three floor plans proposed that range in size from a 3,253 square foot plan to a 4,168 square foot plan. One of the homes is single-story, while the other four are two-story, which is in compliance with the ENSP requirement that a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the lots contain single-story homes. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows the proposed landscape throughout the front yard areas as well as along the rear yard slopes and along the comer side yard (east perimeter). Based on the size of the landscape area of the site, the types of proposed landscape and plant materials, and the regional location,the water budget calculations show that the project will be in compliance with the City's water budget requirement. The Conceptual Landscape Plan also indicates that the applicant is proposing 990 square feet of new Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) area in addition to the 3,300 square feet of existing LMD area. Staff expressed to the applicant that the addition of new LMD area would only be supported by staff if the entire new area as well as an equally sized area within the existing LMD were designed to incorporate material that does not require water usage.The applicant is now proposing to install rockscape(native gray cobble rock) within the 990 square feet of new LMD area as well as within 910 square feet of the existing LMD area. Related Cases: The project involves a request for a Minor Exception to allow for an additional 2 feet of wall height.The requested increase in height will only occur on the comer side yard(east perimeter) of Lot 1 as well as on the interior side yard (west perimeter) of Lot 5. According to the rough grading plan and details, the proposed pad grades match the Conceptual Grading Plans that were approved by the Planning Department and no changes are being requested. Staff is in the process of notifying the adjacent property owners of the Minor Exception request and will update the Design Review Committee on any feedback received. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. None. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that the architectural styles listed above are accurately represented. There are, however, a few minor elements that staff recommends should be incorporated into the design of the proposed planslelevations: a. Plan 1 Ranch incorporates a covered porch entrance along the front elevation. However, the plans are not Gear as to whether the siding will wrap around the side elevations of the projection. Therefore, staff recommends requiring the siding on the porch to be wrapped along the side elevations. b. Plan 2 San Juan incorporates a shed roof awning above the first floor window on front elevation. Staff recommends that the awning have exposed rafter tales to match the eave design along the rest of the house. D,E - 56 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA DRC2015-00111 AND DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES June 30, 2015 Page 3 C. Plan 3 Bungalow incorporates battered stucco columns along the front and rear elevations. Staff recommends using a different material, such as wood, that is more complimentary to this architectural style. d. Plan 3 Bungalow shows a mix of different window types, from horizontal sliders to double hung. For consistency purposes, staff recommends providing double hung windows along the second-story of the front elevation. e. The applicant was previously encouraged to provide additional design elements/materials along the rear elevation. In doing so, material/stone wainscot was added. Staff does not find the addition of this material to be in good design and requests that the material be removed. f. Four of the proposed homes have decorative shutters. However, the submitted plans do not show the type of material that will be used for the shutters. In an effort to keep other materials from being used that may not be complimentary to the design of the home, staff recommends that the applicant use a high density wood grain foam for all shutters. g. The submitted plans show that all elevations on all homes are designed to have foam window and door trim. Staff recommends that the window trim as well as door headers be designed to be trowel-smoothed stucco. h. Various elevations include white garage doors. However, staff is concerned that this color is too generic and could be changed to something that will compliment the color palette of these homes. Therefore, staff suggests providing a condition that allows the Planning Director to review and approve an alternative garage color in place of the proposed white garage doors. 2. The Conceptual Landscape Plan does not indicate the proposed methods of irrigation throughout the project site. Due to the recent drought related changes,the State of California Water Board (Executive Order B-29-15) is prohibiting irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes that is not delivered by drip or micro spray systems. Therefore, staff recommends including a condition that requires micro spray or drip irrigation only to be provided. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project subject to the applicant revising the plans to resolve the above-mentioned Secondary issues. D,E - 57 RESOLUTION NO. 15-58 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO. DRC2015-00111, A REQUEST FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN OF 5 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON 5 LOTS IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND GOLDEN PRAIRIE DRIVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APNs: 1087-281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05 A. Recitals. 1. Pulte Homes filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. DRC2015-00111, 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 August, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 meeting on August 12, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive (APNs: 1087-281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05)with approximately 475 feet of street frontage along Golden Prairie Drive and approximately 130 feet of street frontage along Etiwanda Avenue. The street frontage of the site is currently fully improved, including sidewalk, parkway landscaping, curb and gutter, and b. The subject property is located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and is currently semi-rough graded. The properties to the north, south and west of the subject site are also located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and consists of developed single-family residences. The property ® to the east, across Etiwanda Avenue, is located within the Very Low Residential (VL) District and is currently vacant; and C. On July 12, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a 119-lot single-family residential subdivision (Tract 14139), which included the subdivision of the subject 5 lots. On D,E - 59 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-58 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 — PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 2 March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR 14139) to construct homes within the tract. Because the site lacked permanent drainage improvements, an on-site storm water detention basin was required to be constructed within Lots 1 through 5 as an interim drainage solution. As of result of having to construct the detention basin, Lots 1 through 5 were unable to be developed along with the remaining lots in this tract. The temporary detention basin remained until 2012, at which time the Planning Director approved a Minor Design Review (DRC2012-00196) to allow for the demolition of the detention basin and the grading of Lots 1 through 5.The basin has since been filled and the lots are currently semi-rough graded and vacant with all necessary street improvements already in place; and d. The project involves a request to develop 5 single-family residential homes on 5 lots in the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and e. The subject property is located within the "Upper Etiwanda" neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which requires development to comply with specific site and architectural design guidelines. Particular "primary" architectural styles, such as Bungalow, Ranch, and San Juan are required to be used on at least two-thirds of the proposed units. The applicant has chosen to use only primary architectural styles and will therefore be in compliance with this requirement; and f. The project complies with the Development Code and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Low Residential (L) District development standards, including, but not limited to maximum lot coverage, maximum height and minimum setback requirements, with the exception of the City's wall height requirement. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting approval of a Minor Exception (DRC2015-00580) in conjunction with the subject Design Review application to increase the allowable wall heights for a total height of 8 feet along the side yards of Lots 1 and 5 in connection with the proposed development; and g. There are a total of three floor plans proposed that range in size from a 3,253 square foot plan to a 4,168 square foot plan. One of the homes is single-story, while the other four are two-story, which is in compliance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan requirement that a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the lots contain single-story homes; and h. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows the proposed landscape for the project will be in compliance with the City's water budget requirement. The Conceptual Landscape Plan also indicates that the applicant is proposing 990 square feet of new Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) area in addition to the 3,300 square feet of existing LMD area. Staff expressed to the applicant that the addition of new LMD area would only be supported by staff if the entire new area as well as an equally sized area within the existing LMD were designed to incorporate material that does not require water usage. The applicant is now proposing to install rockscape (native gray cobble rock)within the 990 square feet of new LMD area as well as within 910 square feet of the existing LMD area; and i. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Fletcher, Oaxaca and Granger) on June 30, 2015. There were no major issues brought up at this meeting. There were, however, a few secondary issues involving minor elements that staff recommended to be incorporated into the design of the proposed plans/elevations. During this meeting, the applicant indicated that all of Staff's recommendations will be incorporated into the design of the project. The Committee and the applicant also discussed the State of California Water Board's Executive Order B-29-15, which prohibits irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes D,E —60 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-58 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 — PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 • Page 3 that is not delivered by drip or micro spray systems. The applicant understood this requirement and explained that this will be complied with. Following the discussion, the Committee forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval; and j. A neighborhood meeting for Design Review DRC2015-00111 was conducted to gather input and comments from the owners of the surrounding properties within 660 feet of the site. The meeting was held in the multipurpose room at Day Creek Intermediate School, located west of the proposed subdivision at 12345 Coyote Drive, on Wednesday, May 11, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. A total of three people attended the meeting. No significant concerns were raised and the meeting concluded at approximately 8:00 p.m.; and k. 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. 3. Based upon the substantial.evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The General Plan encourages development of this site for single-family residences with an allowable ® density range between 2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre, which is compliant with this requirement; 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. The project is within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which allows for the establishment of single-family homes; and C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project complies with the Development Code and Etiwanda North Specific Plan Low Residential (L) District development standards, including, but not limited to maximum lot coverage, maximum height and minimum setback requirements, with the exception of the City's wall height requirement. Therefore, the applicant is also requesting approval of a Minor Exception (DRC2015-00580) in conjunction with the subject Design Review application to increase the allowable wall heights for a total height of 8 feet along the side yards of Lots 1 and 5 in connection with the proposed development; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the lands uses within the vicinity where it is located and is consistent with the expectations of the community. The zoning of this site as well as the properties to the north, west and south are within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. . 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: D,E - 61 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-58 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 — PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 4 a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139. 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 Design Review DRC2015-00111 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00580, 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 Negative Declaration. The project involves the development of 5 lots for single-family residential purposes, which is consistent with the previous approvals for this site. The size (dimensions and area) of the 5 lots will remain the same as they were previously approved. 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. The project does not involve an increase in the number of lots to be developed. Furthermore, the project complies with the same development standards that were required for this site at the time Tentative Tract Map 14139 was reviewed and approved. 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 DRC2015-00111. 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 in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary D,E - 62 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-58 DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111 — PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 5 I, Candyce Burnett, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: D,E — 63 D,E _ 64 Conditions of Approval C � ,gISR AN :NION rA Community Development ent Department Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception . ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Deyartment Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Per Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 33, driveway treatments shall vary with the use of brick or other masonry bands and varying concrete colors and textures. 2. The east tract boundary combination block wall (retaining/garden wall) shall match the subject tract's existing perimeter boundary wall along Etiwanda Avenue. 3. The minimum interior garage dimensions per dwelling unit is 20 feet by 20 feet. 4. Per Chapter 11 (Design Guidelines) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan driveways shall not exceed 16 feet in width through public parkway frontages. 5. Exterior decorative lighting fixtures should be provided and not optional. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. •6. The shed roof awning above the first floor window on the Plan 2 San Juan front elevation shall have exposed rafter tales to match the eave design along the rest of the house. 7. The battered columns along the front and rear elevations of the Plan 3 Bungalow shall incorporate a different material, such as wood, that is more complimentary to this architectural style. 8. Provide double hung windows along the second-story of the Plan 3 Bungalow front elevation. 9. The siding on the Plan 1 Ranch entrance porch shall be wrapped along the side elevations. 10. All decorative shutters shall be made of a high density wood grain foam. 11. All window trim as well as door headers shall be designed to be trowel-smoothed stucco. 12. Per the State of California Water Board's Executive Order B-29-15, irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes that is not delivered by drip or micro spray systems is prohibited. 13. The applicant shall incorporate cobble stone In place of the ledgestone on the Bungalow elevation to be constructed on Lot 4. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a sample of this material to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. 14. Rockscape (native gray cobble rock) shall be used throughout 990 square feet of the new Landscape Maintenance District area as well as within 910 square feet of the existing Landscape Maintenance District area, per the approved conceptual landscape pian. Standard Conditions of Approval Printed:7/21/2015 www.DtyofRC.us D,E - 65 Project#: DRC2015-00111. DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 15. 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. 16. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval and all Conditions of Approval 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. 17. 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. 18. 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, including the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 19. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather the wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 20. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director 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. 21. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, wall and fence plan and grading plan on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 22. 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. 23. 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 Director 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 Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 10 Printed.7/2112015 D,E — 66 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 •Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. Six-foot decorative walls, consistent with the approved plans, shall be constructed along the project perimeter, with the exception of Lots 1 and 5. The corner (east) side yard of Lot 1 and the interior (west) side yard of Lot 5 are permitted with a maximum allowable height of 8 feet measured from the finish grade at the base of the fence or wall to the uppermost part of the fence or Wall. 29. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 30. Where rock cobble is used: it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. 31. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. 32. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the issuance of permits. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects. 33. 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. 34. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. Printed:7/21/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 10 D,E - 67 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 35. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance .of Building Permits for the development. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 36. Landscaping and irrigation systems within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer and/or property owner. 37. 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. 38. 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 cluster- to lusterto soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permane, irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 39. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Complete the LMD improvement plans and provide an Improvement Agreement, with securities, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Public improvements shall be accepted by the City, including the 180-day maintenance period, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. This project is connected to or will disrupt an existing City-maintained landscape and irrigation area. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing area's condition shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 3. Removal of Interim Basin Appurtenances in Tract 14139, per the improvement agreement approved by City Council on May 2, 2012, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall pay the Release of Lien Agreement processing fee ($896.00) for O.R. 91-449558, the agreement regarding temporary drainage detention facilities in lots 1-5, prior to City Coun acceptance of construction permit ROW2012-00067. www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 10 Printed:7/21/2015 D,E — 68 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 •Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering ROJECT:Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 4. Etiwanda Avenue frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Collector Street' standards as required and including: a. Protect existing curb, gutter and sidewalk or repair as necessary. b. Protect existing traffic signing and striping or repair as required. c. Protect existing R26(s) signs or replace as required. d. Protect existing 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlight. e. No driveways to Etiwanda Avenue. f. Plug and replace the existing curbside drain outlet on Etiwanda Avenue per Revision 1 to Drawing 1488. 5. Golden Prairie Drive frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Local Street' standards as required and including: a. Protect existing curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees or repair as necessary (replace street trees if damaged). b. Remove and replace existing drive approaches, replacing with curb and gutter as needed. c. Protect existing traffic signing and striping or repair as required. d. Protect existing 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights. �6. Revise Drawing 1488 to show new drive approach locations, add curb cores and revise street tree locations on Golden Prairie Drive. Maintain the existing street tree species. Replace in kind any street trees removed due to the relocation of the driveways. 7. Revise Drawing 1488-L to show the approved Etiwanda Avenue changes. a. Do not add any additional plant materials to the Landscape Maintenance District along Etiwanda Avenue; use cobble instead. Any existing landscape materials that are damaged shall be replaced with existing plant species. b. Landscape Maintenance District (LIVID) plans shall incorporate attractive, low maintenance designs, compatible with or transitioning to adjacent landscape areas, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 2-foot flat area shall be provided behind the sidewalk and a 2-foot bench shall be provided at the top, along the base of wall. Slope widths should be minimized through the use of 30-inch maximum height freestanding retaining walls and up to 4 feet of retaining beneath perimeter walls. Low maintenance wall treatments should be used. Planting areas for shrubs should have a minimum width of 3 feet, clear of wall footings. Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the City Engineer. 8. Additional landscape easement dedication shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Drainage impact fees where paid when Tract 14139 recorded. They will not be required at building permit issuance. Other City impact fees are required for this development. •Standard Conditions of Approval Printed 7/21/2015 WWW.CItyofRC.us Page 5 of 10 D,E - 69 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: En-gineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval.. 11. 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. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited. Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a depc reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site, www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs. www.CityofRC.us Printed:7/21/2015 Page 6 of 10 D,E —70 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 ®Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. Access ramps for the disabled 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 Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The architectural and landscape plans for the for the development of this site must be in accordance with the current editions of the CRC Section 327, the RCFPD Ordinance, the applicable standards and policies for projects located in the fire Area designated as VHFHSZ. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. NOTE: Construction of the home must be in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan and/or the California Building Code Chapter 7A. This home is located in the VHFHSZ. Printed 7/21/2015 www.QtyofRC.us Page 7 of 10 D,E - 71 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The house, garage and any other structures as required must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 3. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive requirements. 4. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 5. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 6. 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. 7. 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 was, diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and. air conditioning: and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., TT, CUP, DR, etc.) clearly identified on the outside, of all plans. 8. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 9. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". www.CityofRC.us Printed:7/21/2015 Page 8 of 10 D,E — 72 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading ROJECT:Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 3. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit. may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavationi ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. 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. •5. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 6. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 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. 7. 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. 8. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number(WDID). 9. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). 10. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 11. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 12. 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. 13. 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. Printed:7/21/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 10 D,E - 73 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or. more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 17. 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. 18. 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 Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 19. 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. 20. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easement., prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 21. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 22. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 23. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall complete the rough grading plan -(City reference PMT2014-02781) and have the building pads certified by. both the civil engineer of record and the soils engineer of record, with the certifications approved by the Building Official, or his designee. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall have precise grading plans 90% complete per the Building Official, or his designee. www.QtyofRC.us Page;10 of 10 Printed 7/21/2015 D,E —74 RESOLUTION NO. 15-59 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580, A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE WALL HEIGHTS FOR A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 8 FEET ALONG THE SIDE YARDS OF LOTS 1 AND 5 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00111) OF 5 RESIDENTIAL HOMES LOCATED IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND GOLDEN PRAIRIE DRIVE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APNs: 1087-281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05. A. Recitals. 1. Pulte Homes filed an application for Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 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 12th day of August 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on August 12, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive (APNs: 1087-281-01, 02, 03, 04 and 05)with approximately 475 feet of street frontage along Golden Prairie Drive and approximately 130 feet of street frontage along Etiwanda Avenue. The street frontage of the site is currently fully improved, including sidewalk, parkway landscaping, curb and gutter; and b. The subject property is located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and is currently semi-rough graded. The properties to the north, south and west of the subject site are also located within the Low Residential (L) District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and consists of developed single-family residences. The property to the east, across Etiwanda Avenue, is located within the Very Low Residential (VL) District and is currently vacant; and C. On July 12, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a 119-lot single-family residential subdivision (Tract 14139), which included the subdivision of the subject 5 lots. On D,E —75 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-59 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 2 March 22, 1995, the Planning Commission approved a Design Review (DR 14139) to construct homes within the tract. Because the site lacked permanent drainage improvements, an on-site storm water detention basin was required to be constructed within Lots 1 through 5 as an interim drainage solution. As.a result of having to construct the detention basin, Lots 1 through 5 were unable to be developed along with the remaining lots in this tract. The temporary detention basin remained until 2012, at which time the Planning Director approved a Minor Design Review (DRC2012-00196) to allow for the demolition of the detention basin and the grading of Lots 1 through 5.The basin has since been filled and the lots are currently semi-rough graded and vacant with all necessary street improvements already in place; and d. This application is in conjunction with Design Review DRC2015-00111, which involves the development of 5 single-family residential lots; and 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 street side yard and interior side yard property lines of 2 lots within the projects boundaries (Lots 1 and 5); 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 or any applicable specific plan or development agreement. The General Plan encourages development of this site for single-family residences with an allowable density range between 2.0 to 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre, which is compliant with this requirement. Furthermore, the Minor Exception does not affect the General Plan designation, zoning designation, or the residential purpose of the project site; and 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; and 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 8-foot tall walls will be located generally where there are grade differences that warrant retaining walls. By utilizing a retaining wall along the east end of Lot 1 and along a portion of the west end of Lot'5, the applicant is able to eliminate unusable sloped areas and create additional usable space within the rear and side yard areas of these lots; and 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 D,E — 76 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-59 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580— PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 3 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 Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139. 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 Design Review DRC2015-00111 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00580, 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 Negative Declaration. The project involves the development of 5 lots.for single-family residential purposes, which is consistent with the previous approvals for this site. The size (dimensions and area) of the 5 lots will remain the same as they were previously approved. 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. The project does not involve an increase in the number of lots to be developed. Furthermore, the project complies with the same development standards that were required for this site at the time Tentative Tract Map 14139 was reviewed and approved. 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 Minor Exception DRC2015-00580. 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 in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. D,E — 77 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-59 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00580= PULTE HOMES August 12, 2015 Page 4 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit:- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: I' D,E —78 Conditions of Approval 0 CkNCH < N ct Community Development Department Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Per Etiwanda North Specific Plan Exhibit 33, driveway treatments shall vary with the use of brick or other masonry bands and varying concrete colors and textures. 2. The east tract boundary combination block wall (retaining/garden wall) shall match the subject tract's existing perimeter boundary wall along Etiwanda Avenue. 3. The minimum interior garage dimensions per dwelling unit is 20 feet by 20 feet. 4. Per Chapter 11 (Design Guidelines) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan driveways shall not exceed 16 feet in width through public parkway frontages. 5. Exterior decorative lighting fixtures should be provided and not optional. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. The shed roof awning above the first floor window on the Plan 2 San Juan front elevation shall have exposed rafter tales to match the eave design along the rest of the house. 7. The battered columns along the front and rear elevations of the Plan 3 Bungalow shall incorporate a different material, such as wood. that is more complimentary to this architectural style. 8. Provide double hung windows along the second-story of the Plan 3 Bungalow front elevation. 9. The siding on the Plan 1 Ranch entrance porch shall be wrapped along the side elevations. 10. All decorative shutters shall be made of a high density wood grain foam. 11. All window trim as well as door headers shall be designed to be trowel-smoothed stucco. 12. Per the State of California Water Board's Executive Order B-29-15, irrigation with potable water outside of newly constructed homes that is not delivered by drip or micro spray systems is prohibited. 13. Rockscape (native gray cobble rock) shall be used throughout 990 square feet of the new Landscape Maintenance District area as well as within 910 square feet of the existing Landscape Maintenance District area, per the approved conceptual landscape plan. Standard Conditions of Approval 14. 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. Printed.7121/2015 www.CityofRC.us D,E — 79 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 % Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 15. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval and all Conditions of Approval 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. 16. 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. 17. 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, including the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 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. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director 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. 20. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, wall. and fence plF and grading plan on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, the Development Code regulations, and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. 21. 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. 22. 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 i the required street trees. Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Director 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 Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 23. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 24. 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 fins' acceptance granted prior to occupancy. www.CityofRC.us Printed:7/21/2015 Page 2 of 10 D,E —80 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 • Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. Six-foot decorative walls, consistent with the approved plans, shall be constructed along the project perimeter, with the exception of Lots 1 and 5. The corner (east) side yard of Lot 1 and the interior (west) side yard of Lot 5 are permitted with a maximum allowable height of 8 feet measured from the finish grade at the base of the fence or wall to the uppermost part of the fence or wall. 28. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 29. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. 30. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to maintain an open feeling and enhance views. ®31. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the issuance of permits. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects. 32. 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. 33. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code and/or the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 34. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 35. Landscaping and irrigation systems within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer and/or property owner. 36. 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. Printed:7/21!2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 10 D,E - 81 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 37. 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. 38. Landscaping and irrigation shall .be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Complete the LIVID improvement plans and provide an Improvement Agreement, with securities, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Public improvements shall be accepted by the City, including the 180-day maintenance period, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. This project is connected to or will disrupt an existing City-maintained landscape and irrigation are Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing area's condition sham occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 3. Removal of Interim Basin Appurtenances in Tract 14139, per the improvement agreement approved by City Council on May 2, 2012, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer shall pay the Release of Lien Agreement processing fee ($896.00) for O.R. 91-449558, the agreement regarding temporary drainage detention facilities in lots 1-5, prior to City Council acceptance of construction permit ROW2012-00067. 4. Etiwanda Avenue frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Collector Street" standards as required and including: a. Protect existing curb, gutter and sidewalk or repair as necessary. b. Protect existing traffic signing and striping or repair as required. c. Protect existing R26(s) signs or replace as required. d. Protect existing 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlight. e. No driveways to Etiwanda Avenue. f. Plug and replace the existing curbside drain outlet on Etiwanda Avenue per Revision 1 to Drawing 1488. www.CityofRC.us Printed:7/21/2015 Page 4 of 10 D,E —82 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception • ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 5. Golden Prairie Drive frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Local Street' standards as required and including: a. Protect existing curb and gutter, sidewalk and street trees or repair as necessary (replace street trees if damaged). b. Remove and replace existing drive approaches, replacing with curb and gutter as needed. c. Protect existing traffic signing and striping or repair as required. d. Protect existing 5800 Lumen HPSV streetlights. 6. Revise Drawing 1488 to show new drive approach locations, add curb cores and revise street tree locations on Golden Prairie Drive. Maintain the existing street tree species. Replace in kind any street trees removed due to the relocation of the driveways. 7. Revise Drawing 1488-L to show the approved Etiwanda Avenue changes. a. Do not add any additional plant materials to the Landscape Maintenance District along Etiwanda Avenue; use cobble instead. Any existing landscape materials that are damaged shall be replaced with existing plant species. b. Landscape Maintenance District (LID) plans shall incorporate attractive, low maintenance designs, compatible with or transitioning to adjacent landscape areas, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 2-foot flat area shall be provided behind the sidewalk and a 2-foot bench shall be provided at the top, along the base of wall. Slope widths should be minimized through the use of 30-inch maximum height freestanding retaining walls and up to 4 feet of retaining beneath perimeter walls. Low maintenance wall treatments should be used. Planting areas for shrubs should have a minimum width of 3 feet, clear of wall footings. Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the City Engineer. 8. Additional landscape easement dedication shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 9. Drainage impact fees where paid when Tract 14139 recorded. They will not be required at building permit issuance. Other City impact fees are required for this development. Standard Conditions of Approval Printed.7121/2015 www.CItyofRC.us Page 5 of 10 D,E —83 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to. the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 11. 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. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited. Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a depo, reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the depos,. amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site, www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs. www.CityofRC.us Printed:7/21/2015 Page 6 of 10 D,E —84 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception • ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering ROJECT:Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 12. 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 Engineering Services Department 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 1-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Access ramps for the disabled 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 Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The architectural and landscape plans for the for the development of this site must be in accordance with the current editions of the CRC Section 327, the RCFPD Ordinance, the applicable standards and policies for projects located in the fire Area designated as VHFHSZ. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. NOTE: Construction of the home must be in accordance with the approved Fire Protection Plan and/or the California Building Code Chapter 7A. This home is located in the VHFHSZ. Printed:7/21/2015 www-CityofRC.us Page 7 of 10 D,E — 85 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The house, garage and any other structures as required must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 3. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive requirements. 4. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 5. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 6. 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. 7. 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 was diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., TT, CUP, DR, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 8. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 9. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 10 Printed:7/21/2015 D,E —86 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: --- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception • ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 3. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record: iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. 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. �5. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 6. The Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) 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. 7. 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. 8. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number(WDID). 9. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). 10. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 11. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 12. 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. 13. 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. Printed:7/21/2015 www.CityafRC.us Page 9 of 10 D,E — 87 Project#: DRC2015-00111 DRC2015-00580 Project Name: Ridge View 5 Location: —- 108728103-0000 Project Type: Design Review Minor Exception ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 17. 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. 18. 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 Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 19. 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. 20. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easemer, prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 21. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 22. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 23. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall complete the rough grading plan (City reference PMT2014-02781) and have the building pads certified by both the civil engineer of record and the soils engineer of record, with the certifications approved by. the Building Official, or his designee. In addition, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall have precise grading plans 90% complete per the Building Official, or his designee. www.CityofRC.us Printed.7/21/2015 Page 10 of 10 D,E —88 STAFF REPORT / P[AN_,7,xvGDEPAmiE T -' L , RANCHO DATE: August 12, 2015 UCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961 — STORM WESTERN, INC. - A request to change the General Plan land use designation for an 8.32 acre parcel of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Files: Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013- 00962 — STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC. - A request to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation for an 8.32 acre parcel of land within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda• Avenue; APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2014-00560, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18508, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-001-13. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC. — A request to subdivide 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots (Lots #1-16 for residential purposes and Lot #17 for an existing church) for a site located within the Very Low (VL) Zoning District (.1 - 2 units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue - APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 — STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC. - A request to increase the maximum permitted property line wall heights from 6 feet to up to 11 feet related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for a site located within the Very Low (VL) Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue: APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-00113 — STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC. - A request to remove up to 50 trees related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for a site located within the Very Low (VL) Residential District.(.1-2 dwelling units per • acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 and Variance DRC2014-00219. FtoJ -1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1) approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 through adoption of the attached Resolutions; and 2) recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2014- 00962 through adoption of the attached Resolutions and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Proiect Density: 2.43 Dwelling Units per Acre (based on 6.59 acres being developed, not including the existing church) North - Single-Family Residences; Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) South - Church; Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) East - Single-Family Residences; Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Single-Family Residences and Church; Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low (VL) Residential (Existing.Zoning) North - Very Low (VL) Residential South - Very Low (VL) Residential East - Low (L) Residential West - Very Low (VL) Residential ANALYSIS: A. Project Proposal: Storm Western Development, Inc. submitted an application for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots will be for residential purposes, and Lot#17 will the new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran church, which is located on a portion of the project site. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, which is located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Carnesi Drive, is selling a portion of their property to the applicant, which was originally master- planned for expansion of the church educational program. The church will comply with the development criteria of the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan including front, side and rear setbacks and lot coverage. The number of parking spaces currently provided by the church will not be negatively impacted by the new parcel lines. The application includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 DU per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 DU per acre) for the 16 residential lots (Lots 1-16). The new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran Church (Lot 17) will remain in the Very Low (VL) General Plan land use district and Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning district. The project also includes applications for a Variance (DRC2014-00219) for property line walls that range in height from 6 feet to up to 11 feet along the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots and a Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014-00113) to remove up to 50 onsite trees. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date. The project site is vacant with the exception of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, a perimeter wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and 50 onsite trees. Staff has determined that the existing wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive was voluntarily constructed by the home developer Toll FtoJ -2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 3 Brothers during the development of the residential subdivision to the north to screen views of the existing subdivision to the east and the vacant project site. The wall straddles the property line between the project site and the public right-of-way. The wall was not required as part of the original approval of the Toll Brothers development (SUBTT16972) or a Condition of Approval of that project. There is no documentation available showing that there is an easement or other legal agreement that would restrict removal of the wall. The site is currently zoned Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The narrowness of the site precludes developing a double-loaded street with lots that meet the 200-foot lot depth requirement. The applicant has requested to change the zoning designation to Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), which requires 100-foot lot depths. The existing single-family residences to the east were developed prior to City's incorporation and are within the Low (L) Zoning District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. These lots average approximately 7,500 square feet in size, below the 15,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing single-family residences to the north are within the Very Low (VL) Zoning District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 25,000 square feet in size, in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the west, which were subdivided prior to the City's incorporation, are within the Very Low (VL) Zoning District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 16,000 square feet in size, below the 25,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific plan. • ; Comparison Between Very Low (VL) and Low (L) Etiwanda Specific Plan Development Standards Lot Lot Width Side Front Rear Average Maximum Lot _ Depth I Setbacks I Setback Setback1--- LotSize- I Coverage Low (L) 100 80 Feet i Total 20 25 Feet . 25 Feet i 15,000 SF 30% Feet Feet j Very Low 200 90 Feet 10/20 Feet 1 30 Feet 60 Feet 25,000 SF 25% (VL) Feet The proposed lots comply with the 80-foot lot width and 100-foot lot depth requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the Low (L) Zoning District and range in size from 11,597 to 19,938 square feet, with an average lot size of 15,010 square feet. The proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan amendments will permit the creation of a double-loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot (7,500 square foot lots) development to the east and the existing larger lot (25,000 square foot lots) development to the north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which average approximately 16,000 square feet in size. Access to the project will be from a new cul-de-sac off of Carnesi Drive which terminates with an emergency vehicle access (EVA) gate at Pinon Street. The EVA gate is necessary to provide two points of access to the project site and to the existing residential development to the east, which currently has only one point of access at Victoria Street. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Evaluation (Trames Solutions, Inc., August, 2014) which concludes that based on the project trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment, the project is anticipated to have a nominal impact • on the surrounding roadway network. The Etiwanda Avenue/Carnesi Drive intersection is anticipated 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 Carnesi Drive. The F to J —3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 4 City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the submitted traffic evaluation and concurs with the study conclusions that the project contribution to the number of vehicle trips along Carnesi Drive will have a minimal impact on the nearest intersections. The proposed site layout is the culmination of input provided to the applicant during staff review, two neighborhood meetings, two Design Review Committee meetings and a Planning Commission workshop. During the review process the applicant developed four potential layouts of the project site, each of which was presented at the Planning Commission workshop on August 27, 2014 (Exhibits E through H). The four potential layouts are summarized below, with discussion on how each layout conforms to thedevelopment requirements outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and with the concerns raised by the residents living adjacent to the project site: Layout #1 (16 Lots) (Exhibit E): This was the original project submitted which reflects a double- loaded street which connects Carnesi Drive to Pinon Street. This layout conforms to the Low (L) development standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The positive aspects of this layout is that it provides for doubled loaded streets with residences facing both Carnesi Drive and a new public street, provides full vehicle and pedestrian access to Pinon Street (including emergency vehicles) and provides a transition in density between the smaller lots to the east and the larger lots to the north. Although this layout creates a more compatible neighborhood street character along Carnesi Drive and two points of access, this layout was not favored by either the existing residents to the east, as it would increase traffic on Pinon Street, or by the residents to the north, as it would plot smaller lot residences across the street from their larger lot residences. The residents to the north were also opposed to this layout due to the proposed removal of 642 linear feet of wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and additional traffic along Carnesi Drive. Layout #2 (16 Lots) (Layout. Being Proposed) (Exhibit F): Double-loaded cul-de-sac taking access from Carnesi Drive with no lots facing Carnesi Drive. This layout conforms to the Low (L) development standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and addresses several concerns raised by the residents living adjacent to the project site including eliminating the direct connection to Pinon Street, relocating the lots facing Carnesi Drive and reducing the linear feet of wall to be removed along Carnesi Drive from 642 feet to 60 feet. This layout also provides for emergency vehicle and pedestrian access to Pinon Street via an EVA gate. The residents to the north remained in opposition to this layout as it included a removal of a portion of the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and would increase traffic along Carnesi Drive. Layout #3 (7 Lots) (Exhibit G): Single-loaded cul-de-sac taking access from Carnesi Drive. This layout conforms to the current zoning designation Very Low (VL) Residential and addresses concerns raised by the residents living adjacent to the project site including eliminating the direct connection to Pinon Street and meeting the current zoning requirements. The layout would create lots that are approximately 50 percent deeper than required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and would plot the new street adjacent to the existing residences to the east. Further the front yards of the new residences would face the side yards of the existing residences to the east and would not provide an adequate turning radius for an EVA gate to Pinion Street. This layout would also require the removal of a minimum 75 linear feet of wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive for access to the new project street and for the required equestrian trail. Layout #4 (15 Lots) (Exhibit H): Double cul-de-sac that takes access through the Cross and Crown Lutheran Church parking lot from Etiwanda Avenue. This layout conforms to the Low (L) F to J —4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 5 development standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and addresses the concerns raised by the residents living adjacent to the project site including eliminating the direct connection to Pinon Street and Carnesi Drive and eliminating the necessity of removing any of the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive. However, this layout creates an awkward site layout with two cul-de-sacs and 6 flag lots, eliminates the ability to create an emergency vehicle access (EVA) to the project to the east, greatly restricts the church future growth potential and potentially makes the church property nonconforming to the current development standards. The street would be plotted along the side yard of the existing residences to the south of the church that face Etiwanda Avenue and does not comply with the Engineering Department requirement that there be a minimum 660 feet between intersections (the new street being approximately 300 feet south of Carnesi Drive). Layout Analysis Summary: Layout #2 (Exhibit F), of the four potential layouts presented, this layout provides the best compromise between good site planning, density transition, emergency vehicle access, resident concerns about increased traffic and the removal of the existing wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive. The project layout also provides a street scene nearly identical to the project to the north, except for the lots being approximately 10 feet narrower in width. The residents to the north, remain opposed to street access to Carnesi Drive and the removal of any portion of the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive. A few have stated that Layout #4 is the best layout as it will address all of their concerns regarding increased traffic and removal of the wall on the south side of • Carnesi Drive. This layout, as stated previously, creates an awkward double cul-de-sac with 6 flag lots, places a new intersection of Etiwanda Avenue in close proximity to the existing intersection at Etiwanda Avenue and .Carnesi.Drive_.and..limits the ability_for the church_to_e__x_pand..in_the.future by elimination a portion of their parking lot. B. Variance (DRC2014-00219): The applicant is requesting a Variance to increase the maximum permitted measured wall height from 6 feet to 11 feet along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots. The additional height is necessary to raise the rear yard portions of each lot in order for the lots to drain to the public street. The applicant was unable to obtain an offsite drainage easement from the Mormon Church to the south. The Mormon Church submitted a letter (Exhibit Q) stating they would rather face an (up to) 11-foot tall wall than disrupt their site to install the drainage facility. The applicant has also contacted homeowners to the east and west who will face 7 to 10- foot tall walls along the project perimeter and have obtained letters of acceptance (Exhibit Q) for the additional wall heights. The findings of facts below support the necessary findings, which are required by the City's Development Code: Finding: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. Fact: The increase in property line wall height is necessary for the proposed lots to drain to the public street and is consistent with the residential nature of the zoning district in which the site is located. The proposed walls consists of an up to a 5-foot high retaining wall topped by a 6-foot tall free standing wall. The additional wall height will permit the rear yards of each lot to be raised in order for the lots to drain to the public street. Without the additional wall height, the lots would not • be able to drain to the public street, which would place an unnecessary physical hardship on the applicant that is inconsistent with the objectives of this code. The additional wall height will also FtoJ -5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 6 permit the applicant to screen the rear yards of each lot with a 6-foot wall for privacy purposes, as required by the Development Code. Finding: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Fact: The site configuration, grades and existing street alignments dictate the layout of the proposed lots and how the site will be drained. The site layout and the existing development surrounding the project site necessitates that each lot be drained to the public street, which requires the construction of retaining walls to raise the existing grades in the rear yards of each lot. Finding: 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: Without an increase in the permitted wall heights from 6 feet to up to 11 feet, the lots would be unable to drain to the public street and provide security and screen walls as is common for lots in the surrounding area and the same zoning district. Finding: 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: It is common practice to .grant a Variance for an increase in property line wall height where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria. The natural flow of storm water runoff on the project site is from north to south. In order for the lot to drain to the public street, it is necessary to raise the rear yard area of each lot, which necessitates the construction of an up to 5- foot high retaining wall. The freestanding wall on top of the retaining wall is necessary to provide security and privacy for the adjacent properties. Finding: 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. Fact: The increased wall"heights will not negatively impact the surrounding property owners as the additional wall height will permit each of the new lot to drain away from the adjacent lots and to provide a 6-foot high privacy wall between adjacent lots. C. Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014-00113): The project site contains 50 heritage trees. The Development Code defines heritage trees as all eucalyptus windrows, any tree in excess of 30 feet in height and having a single trunk with a diameter of 20 inches or more or having,a multi-trunk with a diameter of 30 inches or more. An Arborist Report was prepared by Jim Borer (December 5, 2014) for the project that recommends removal of 41 of the on-site trees and the relocation of the 9 remaining on site trees. The trees observed or! the project site were 33 blue gum eucalyptus trees, 11 California fan palms, 2 Brazilian pepper trees 1 elderberry tree, 1 American sweet gum tree, 1 Catalina cherry tree and 1 European olive tree. The 33 eucalyptus trees have been repeatedly topped leading to a poor structural integrity and are recommended for removal. Two of the 11 California fan palms have physical defects which make them poor candidates for preservation. The remaining 9 California fan palms are in good condition. and are given a fifty percent chance for surviving transplantation. A mitigation measure is included FtoJ -6 r� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 7 in the Initial Study Part II which requires that the 9 healthy California fan palms be preserved on site. The 6 remaining trees have poor form and character and are recommended for removal. The project site is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area which requires that eucalyptus trees that are part of a windrow be replaced with 5-gallon sized eucalyptus trees planted 8 feet on center. The project will be required to plant eucalyptus trees at the required spacing of 8 feet on center along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots. The impact from the removal of the trees will be further mitigated by the Development Code requirement that new residential projects plant a minimum of two trees in the front yard area of each lot. D. Meetinq History: The project was originally deemed complete for Design and Technical Committee review on April 1, 2014. Since that date, the project has been reviewed by the public at two neighborhood meetings on April 14, 2014 and June 19, 2014, by the Design Review Committee on May 6, 2014 and March 31, 2015 and at a Planning Commission Workshop on August 27, 2014. E. Neighborhood Meeting #1: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on April 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at the Four Points Sheraton, with approximately 80 persons in attendance. Three main issues were raised at the meeting: • Property owners to the east were in opposition to the previously proposed street connection to Pinon Street. These property owners stated that opening up Pinon Street, which currently dead ends into the project site, would greatly increase traffic from vehicles looking for a shorter route to Etiwanda Avenue. • 0 Property owners to the north (along Carnesi Drive) were in opposition to the demolition of the wall along the-south-side-of Garnesi Drive to develop-a-public street to access-the-project-site. • Property owners to the north were also in opposition to the proposed land use change from Very Low (VL) (25,000 square foot average lots) to Low (L) (15,000 square foot lots). The residents felt that it would increase traffic and decrease their property values. They also indicated that they did not want smaller lot homes facing their larger lot homes to the north. F. Desiqn Review Committee Meeting #1: The project (Exhibit E) was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. The Committee recommended that the project be redesigned taking the community's concerns into consideration. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 residents from the Toll Brothers neighborhood, which is north of the project site. The Toll Brothers residents were in opposition to the project taking access from Carnesi Drive and the proposed General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan amendments. The residents stated that the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive defined their community and removing it would negatively impact the aesthetics of the neighborhood and that changing the land use would lower their property values. The residents felt that the project should take access through the church property from Etiwanda Avenue. G. Neighborhood Meeting #2: The applicant held a second neighborhood meeting on June 19, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at Etiwanda Gardens, with approximately 100 persons in attendance. The developer • presented an updated layout (Exhibit F) which reduced the amount of wall to be removed along Carnesi Drive from 642 to 60 linear feet. The new layout created a cul-de-sac off of Carnesi Drive with an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) gate instead of a through connection to Pinon Street and relocated the 4 lots facing Carnesi Drive to facing the new interior street. The Toll Brothers F to J —7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 8 residents remained in opposition to the new layout, not wanting any portion of the wall removed in order to provide access to Carnesi Drive. The residents insisted that 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 future expansion plans. H. Planning Commission Workshop: The applicant held a Planning Commission Workshop in the Tri- Communities Room of City Hall on August 27, 2014 at 8:20 p.m. At the Workshop, the applicant outlined the advantages and disadvantages of 4 potential layouts of the project site (Exhibits E — H) and how they arrived at their decision to move forward with Layout #2 (Exhibit F), which takes access from Carnesi Drive with a cul-de-sac. The applicant stated that Layout #2 addressed the concerns of the property owners to the east, who were opposed to the project directly connecting to Pinion Street, and the property owners to the north, who were opposed to the project removing the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and having smaller size lot homes facing their larger lot .homes. Layout#2 provides a cul-de-sac with an emergency vehicle access (EVA) gate, rather than a direct connection to Pinon Street, reduces the linear feet of wall removed along Carnesi Drive from 642 to 60 feet, and reorients the lots facing Carnesi Drive to face the new project street. The Commissioners commented that while the original layout (Layout #1 — Exhibit E) had many positive features, Layout #2 (Exhibit F) addressed many of the concerns raised by the neighboring property owners. The Commission observed that Layout #3 (Exhibit G), which was designed to meet the current Very Low (VL) zoning requirements, required the removal of more linear feet of wall along Carnesi Drive, created lots that were approximately 30 percent larger and 50 percent deeper than the lots to the north and eliminated the opportunity for an emergency vehicle access gate to provide a secondary access point to the existing development to the east. The Commissioners commented that Layout #4 (Exhibit H), which takes access from Etiwanda Avenue through the church parking lot with a double cul-de-sac, created an awkward street layout with multiple flag lots and greatly encumbered any future expansion of the church. The Commissioners concluded the meeting outlining that the applicant's next step would be to submit the layout they wished to move forward with for staff review. I. Desiqn Review Committee Meeting #2: The updated site plan (Exhibit F) was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on March 31, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 community members from Cross and Crown Lutheran Church and residents from the surrounding neighborhood. The church members were generally in favor of the modified project layout presented by the applicant. Residents living north of the project site expressed opposition to the project layout and submitted a petition signed by 86 residents. Their concerns included removal of a portion of a wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive, vehicle traffic and a perceived loss of property value due to the proposed smaller lot sizes. The residents felt the applicant should be required to redesign the project with access from Etiwanda Avenue through the Cross and Crown Church parking lot. The Design Review Committee informed the attendees that the proposed layout was a good compromise from the applicant's initial submittal and the neighborhood concerns. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for their review. J. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Committee on May 6, 2014 and March 31, 2015. The Committee approved the project as presented at both meetings. K. Correspondence: Staff has received letters in opposition to the project from the property owners to the north of the project site. The letters outline the residents' objections to removal of the wall along F to J —8 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936. DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 9 the south side of Carnesi Drive, stating that the wall was constructed by the developer of their homes, Toll Brothers, and that removal of the wall will negatively impact their property values and diminish the cohesiveness of their neighborhood. The residents are also opposed to the proposed zone change, stating that the reduced lot sizes would increase traffic and lower their property values. Letters of support were received from members of the Cross and Crown Lutheran Church outlining why they are selling the property and that the developer has modified the project design to address the residents' concerns. L. SB18 Tribal Consultation: California State Bill 18 requires that the City send project notification to California tribal communities when a project proposes a General Plan or Specific Plan Amendment. Tribal Notification was sent on November 21, 2013. To date, Staff has not received a response from any of the tribal contacts. Staff also requested a Historical Resources Review from the San Bernardino County Museum on February 25, 2014. The review found that there was a high probability for the potential of finding archaeological resources on the project site. A Cultural Resources Assessment was performed on the project site (LSA: December 2014) that concluded that although potential historic-period remnant agricultural features were noted within the project area during their survey, they lacked integrity and do not warrant documentation or future consideration in the CEQA process. A standard mitigation measure is included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program requiring that grading stop and an archeologist be consulted if historic resources are found on the project site. M. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and • the City's local CEQA Guidelines; 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_azsthetics, cultural resou.rce.s,. hydrology and water quality, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and geology and soils. 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; 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. Staff has not received any comments to date. 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 an area expanded beyond the required minimum 660-foot radius of the project site. Respectfully submitted. � tom ' Candyc4Bu tt Planning Director • CB-TV/Is F to J —9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00961. DRC2013-00962, SUBTT18936, DRC2014-00219 & DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 10 Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Plan Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 Exhibit C - Site Plan Exhibit D - Grading Plan Exhibit E - Proposed Layout#1 Exhibit F - Proposed Layout#2 Exhibit G - Proposed Layout#3 Exhibit H - Proposed Layout#4 Exhibit I - Design Review Committee Action Agenda for May 6, 2014 and March 31, 2015 Exhibit J - Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit K - Existing and Proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan Map Exhibit L - Resident Petition Dated April 14, 2014 Exhibit M - Resident Petition Received May 12, 2014 Exhibit N - Letters from members of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church Exhibit O - Resident Letter Received June 10, 2014 Exhibit P - Resident Petition Date June 30, 2014 Exhibit Q - Wall Acceptance Letters from the Adjacent Property Owners Exhibit R - Resident Petition Received March 31, 2015 Exhibit S - Initial Study Parts I, II, and III Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment DkC2013-00961 Resolution Recommending Approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan DRC2013-00962 Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2014-00219 Resolution of Approval for Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 FtoJ —10 m XSITE UTILIZATION MAP TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18936 IN rHE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA i APP REA.NVDEYFLQPER: / I 51TE ADDRESS: .u. I TAX AS$E559R'5-PARCEL-N4, i IEGALDESQAIPIIpN5 OA515 Q( QEARINGS ----- '--.— -- I I " I SUAAFrvT ZONING PER p11Y OF RAHCHp-C4QAN4NGA — LAND ARTA _J�� __ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ IIIWd1 ——— ————- TRACT 18936 SEC ETRVANIA and CARNESI DRIVE ERIC 1013-00961 & 7013-00962 SNEUIFILANON MAP I I11.1 N.- _ Vwo—I 1 ALLIANCE S_::•_•: m TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18936 IN I HI CITY GI RANCHO(In.AA1u N1;A.Ct1UN FV OF SAN BFRNARDINU 2 91A11 UI CAI II i 1RNIA it ... w I � .� •, y � 11 � .•. I VIIIA 1f<I,I,i .. G A 1 N 4 . rv. T7 a J +__ —11 . 1 .` 1 Ills II v r 1 �-- - .. L, _ l ANt4 'I it xA .. y]]1 . Y4 H W IAM ^ 1 1 AL iT � •. - .A� I 1'1� I ..•�r i' � <u Al vl H I I .r unu no ll. if Au ww. 46 rf 1 •_ '^• 1 I � x IVIIl 11 IIpA A 1A IN:vIv111.IMt11i- • 1 1 s zw •. ��.,eat. • 1�:1.11. m 1111 A ecM1 .. 1,1 r1.o X14.1 1 IfNFAIIVF FRA[IF MAF NI I. 181pL 1:11 1 ALLIANCE I:ARNI S1 ORM: IN NO L:IIY Of RANCHUCUCANIONGA XCARNESI DRIVE I q \ - 15 II 1 — Mao est u AMu X a I LOI PX[P-IS,II}5F I WP=l/,Y/!1 I I w.0 l 15 \ I I II"tl4I LOT� 'P 17 m1Z- tlil i:' axeA-1X.ulsr ./..I VISTA,STREET 1 I 14 3 1 I-- - ' - 1.1 1a=n.uls Mau Xlx .� lwr axln nsltsX I _ I _ i 13 _ 1 mlµu.oats a� 4 wrnXflca-1irXsr T W L O j \ 12 �� 1 a .A. IQ I'•. lal AX1A-�1.YX sl 5 Lq LOT rAunt/11.11 .I 1 � I i I I w - IPA.-.1a.11-lq.] I PINDN'STREET 1 10 'Pu.Xusl I - — PnarX. r.;:'1 AflLa-u,stif MAu1 6 s1 LEGEND -.. ....-. 9 ylry_ LOT axsa-1_ / Mau= Y u-!X./ 1 l.IA- nvly 1 -1a.H,Y11 I I � I I _ I I I CARNES DRIVE aJJ!,NCE {• I —f \ ..- - '_ _ 9IE RxiaAExr rtwN m p pLl LNVU `""° `""`"""°""`"""°` PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR X m 67R ECT NO. 18EDA AVENUEVNEt c[n[ L nwu = CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i I v I i l , I � „ A . "RIIIWOPµSVMN%XY•., . w LCULNU rFxIN V x u ' . , "'.a, LOCA11UN MAP .. , .xr x,n CIVIL 1n41nLLfl'] NYII[L IV CpNINACIVX 7.1 11 IN VM BNP A5—SplLi CLSTIFICATL „ uwNL x/uLali EPr N-. CITY OF RANCHO COCAMONGA ,... •. TRACT 18936 IAP 15SL55pR'S PARCEL NO, SLC❑I013— 61 CARNF51 41 a„•,- PR LIMIN00961 !t011-009N NVE% OF SHUTS: PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 917LE SfICEi uedvo.es AXrcI ,Nan - Fin. . i 1 i C c slcoax o-c c A= T .. . ... SLCI1px{—,, rF 00 b ,elks'^"` - a }"y S^ r �V'L A �T Sff.IIDN N-N IVPMAI.$IpI,YANp OV41I SECIIFW R-N Y1 C11VN l'I STG�1ON Y-x 36' INTERIOR STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA M.". TRACT 18936 I s¢MIRANDA and CARKS1 DRIVF 1 URC 2013-00961 6 1013-00962 i CARNLSI DRIVE lM<J h� IlJ•u ! . . NY4r4E MIES CPKIfik110N ..Y a:. r 4XMW4 i[ I : 1 r r 17 T 7 _ _. LrL 1 I ' viv4 slFco M ... N. _ L r � 'P1FQVEMEHL_N41ES- 'V 13 11 • k K E 12 r NOT A PART A .. - r K Rn I , !'ll h FAP` + I HOT A I-All; - �, E �. E - — c — H, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .. .� _ — a A IIA14T TRACT T118936 U.,TTAr �4 I r+ul n I•nla sR FRWMRDA una EARNEST DRIVE OPC IDM}CR961 k NNG PLAN? „..r. ... AP' a F C N 1H I PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN � I WY CEVPPS AVENUEOva F5 I - x rw 1 v TM NO. 18936 _ PRELIMINARY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA o I _ I -1 'CARNE&OHNE 1I CMA d Y I ^ < ,tlei 1 r 'ad - - ------- .a __--__ YI .. ego V,.) re�ev,� IO6—' CCVw .. r •I q ` lPPLCANIlPEYLLPPER LVWLZ Nflg_ owo-amtl #It rn•w•nua Ndd e. SEPLXP. j0 _ rN<rt iw N NANICIINICE eaeoue av �a NRR— � �: I � ow,. MP PNAL P.NP EL T \,,,,.,,,,,,,ted d •---. I { •.r PAIWIKI.L) TYNE&IAN051APL-0N6H ORAPE DOAK .�. - 4MA , 13 INS.B.ilc IY � ttPIO-AL.LQi DRAINAGE PErgll cM. uA CITY OF•R JZH ..,,...,..- RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,.. vrav I __ la+C7.i TRACT 18936 asuyriu 5[[OMANM and EARNEST - J �"V" � µ"'•' ...'.. • w.u.r�o - OAC]0 61 GRX1ORN[ ]Oi3-W961 j[LTflAI ON TRENCH pAI PRELIMINARY WATER WALaY MANAGEMENT l ALAN + a s4M1�V yra yaws p I 16 .. 1 f 15 VISTA SEFEFi I I 1 e 14 LE 3 f 1 I I P•O.e 13 NOT A PART I 1 I vo-su 4 I T I I I 1 I I P'1II � 12 r I �F Iao-su S ■. 1_ N.: I.0.10.e .. r I r Ali ll.,rr. a I NOT A PART I 1t PARI , —4 SEE SOUTHWEST VIEW PmN...- srxEEr tr AT RIGHT >,. I / 1 l I • 1FEEIi - I 10 mo-na _ AR ;,w[M LVNS flKI Vx KltG �r OTHW%'sT VIPW NOT A PART PaM1X1 7 r•o.rze 6 9 ! ro-ns ' NOB A F'Alfl P.18.2 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA une•F•rzx wx snr ANDA* 18936 _ SEC R 0a.a 0Esl DRIVE I NOT A PART oar.o013au-0 2 oeel F ms-wesa . ..._ .. . ..._. - .-,. .. NOT A PARI l LOS LEOF9S AVENUE aI� L + wance � i a _ • - � •-- EARIHWOPN SI YYIPY ` 2 ESG[Ho �• � I �I I I 17 � - 1� r � '. • I r I I r I 1 j 14 3 ... 1 I I r f • I • h � 1] 4 • 12 I r v I 1 10 7 G y I -� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. _ - - -- - - - -- 11' iRACI 18936 l i am nlWeHo.1 une A 2015 oNM 1 oNc 2013-00nsl a tors-00964 FANTHWQPR EXHIBIT Y CARNESI DRIVE ---------------T---------------------------+ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I SNOT A PART 1 i I i 1 VISTA STREET 1 I 1 n 1 1 1 s 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 J 1 1 ; 1 1 T I 1 0 1 1 O 1 1 1' N 1 1 IN I 1 j PINON STREET I � 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I i 1 1 I LOS CEDROS AVENUE JCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IMx&1 iRACi 1WNF srr r2013-I. hl 2013 0W pP[ ]01.1-OMRI !301}-pivr p96f PRE-DEVELOPED HYDROLOGY MAP CARNESI_ DRIVE f j '• I ' NOTA PART 1 I 1 r VISTA STREET 1i - ff I- Q I I w I 3 I � f .. v, .._.__..._. I .. N �- - ��"<j- '- - -01'-}'?<- � � PINON STREET :1 L, I v i LOS CEDROS AVENUE CITY OF~RANCHO CUCAMONGA "ACi 18936 r nre.xo.�m uxxcsl owrv[ n�L -oleo, a lou i'1)`.I-11rv1[OP(p HYDROLOGY MAP m Original Site Plan 141 IF 4� ` m WTf T• Y ~ I .urn .. '_ m Current Site Plan 4PflNE511W1'iE 1 4At1 ..:b / i DSB i TS F s wrw S LOT 1 r IM7i! I N wT. P V r+l v -Alm LOT ra LOT 5 Loin s , 4 LOT q LD1 ._ �5y LLir i y � F to J -28 m VL Zoning Site Plan CAMIMDRM ;p i now I I � I i ` ALL--] i J 'f LL .]LO N s wrr L__.J 1 s Mir { — Jr swr ,, � van ,'1 I F to 1 -30 m Etiwanda Entry Site Plan ,WZ- TT 14,7985E 17X8SF AC 14 13,40 SF 2 AM SF *SF L ...i AGMSFi- 16,736SF 14,71CSF 14,681 SF ri 10 14 ISI 14,7 IF 15ANSF 7 6 22.063 SF 9 JU2,736 SF 15,559SF KUM - ---------- F to J -32 i THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA f I DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE j AGENDA RANCHO C;UCAMONGA MAY 6, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. j I Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center j Rains Room i 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER ACTION Roll Call 7:00 p.m. Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca X Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger X • Alternates: Ray Wimberly_ Frances Howdyshell_ Lou Munoz ' II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. I i A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW A. Approved as DRC2013-00833-JERRY LIN FOR ALLSTATE RECYCLING-A request to presented. construct a 10,224 square foot concrete tilt-up office building and a 10,500 square foot concrete tilt-up warehouse building on a 2.44-acre site within the Heavy Industrial (HI) Development District, located on the south side of Whittram Avenue and east of Pecan Avenue at 13113 Whittram Avenue - APN: 0229-192-10. Related files: Conditional Use Permits DRC2011-00254 and DRC2013-00834. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. 1 of 2 EXHIBIT I F to J —33 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY 612014 RM.Ncxo C CAMONGA B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP B. The applicant was SUBTT18936 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC - Site plan directed by the review of a 17-lot subdivision totaling 8.32 acres (16 lots for residential Committee to redesign purposes and 1 lot for existing church) currently located within the Very the project to address concerns of the Low (VL) Development District with a request for a General Plan residents and come Amendment (DRC2013-00961) and an Etiwanda Specific Plan back to DRC. 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. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of the environmental impacts for consideration. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS hone. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. IV. ADJOURNMENT 8:23 p.m. The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. if items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. 11 2 of 2 F to J —34 • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA MARCH 31 , 2015 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center j Tri-Communities Conference Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER ACTION Roll Call 7:00 P.M. Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca X Candyce Burnett— Donald Granger X Alternates: Ray Wimberly— Frances Howdyshell I Lou Munoz— IL II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP A. The Committee SUBTT18936 - STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT INC–A request to recommended the subdivide 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots(Lots 1-16 for residential purposes project move forward and Lot 17 for an existing church) for a site located within the Very Low to the Planning (VL)Zoning District(.1 -2 units per acre)of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for Commission for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda review. Avenue - APN: 0227-061-03 and 82. Related cases: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment I i DRC2013-00962, and Variance DRC2014-00219. i • 1 of 2 F to J –35 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MARCH 31 , 2014 RONCHO CUCAMONGA I III. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual.. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 community members from Cross and CrOwn Lutheran CrUrcn and residents from the surrOUnding neighborhood. The church members were generally in favor of the modified project layout presented by the applicant. Resident's to the north expressed opposition and submitted a petition signed by 36 reside.nt.s. Their concerns included: I • remcval of a porton of a viall a!org the south side of Car nese Drive: • a ,perceived reduction of reighborhood cohesion: I • an increase in traffic; and • a perceived loss of property'value dire to smaller lot size. I T.,?e residents felt the applicant should be required to redesign t%,e project with access trim Eti'rlanda Avenue through t!-,e Cross and Crovm Church parking lot. j IV. ADJOURNMENT 7:52 P.M. The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. I � I � I �I I i I 2 of 2 F to J —36 General Plan Designations (Existing ) ¢'1 o � I Z Very Low Residential _W H W CARNESI DR VISTA ST Project Site Very Low ResidentialVery Low Residential Low Residential PINON ST j LOS CEDROS ST Very Low Residential EXHIBIT J F to J -37 General Plan Designations (Proposed) LU E. Z Very Low Residential ` W Q R LU CARNESI DR i Project VISTA ST Site Very Low Residential Low Residential Low Residential PINON ST LOS CEDROS ST Very Low Residential i F to J -38 Zoning Map Designations (Existing) ua F- Q' � Very Low Residential C (1-2 (Iu/acre) QEtiwanda,SP W W — — -- CARNESI DR 1 VISTA ST Project Very Low Residential Site Low Residential (1-2 du/acre) (2-4 (Iu/acre) Etiwanda SP Very Low Residential Etiwanda SP (1-2 ft/acre) Etiwanda SP PINON ST I i Very Low Residential LOS CEDROS ST (1-2 dulacre) Etiwanda SP EXHIBIT K F to J -39 Zoning [dap Designations (Proposed) y II l ui 1 Q Very Low Residential Q (1-2 du/acre) ~ ' Z Etiwanda SP W i I' LU -- - - — CARN ES I DR VISTA ST Project Very Low Residential Site Low Residential (1-2 (W/acre) (2-4 du/acre) Etiwanda SP Low Residential Etiwanda SP (2-4 dulacre) Etiwanda SP PINON ST Very Low Residential LOS CEDROS ST (1-2 dulacre) Etiwanda SP F to J -40 General Plea Designations (Existing) 1 •1 i 1 W Very Low Residential UJ j W1 CARNESI DR F 1 VISTA ST rojec Site Very Low Residential Very Low Residential Low Residential PINON ST r I . LOS GEDROS ST Very Low Residential i EXHIBIT J J� F to J -37 l General Plan Designations (Proposed) W Lui Very Low Residential LU ------- CARNESI DR ST Project Site Very Low R6isidential Low Residential Low Residential PINON ST LOS CEDROS ST Very Low Residential F to J -38 Zoning Map Designations (Existing) i ' I UJ 1 it i i Very Low Residential C (1-2 du/acre) z I Etiwanda.SP LEJ i LI CARN ESI DR } _ - VISTA ST ro e c Very Low Residential Site Low Residential (1-2 du/acre) (2-4 du/acre) Etiwanda SP Very Low Residential Etiwanda SP j (1-2 du/acre) Etiwanda SP PIIVQIV ST Very Low Residential LOS GEaFOS-ST ' --- (1-2 du/acre) -- -- _— --- - - Etiwanda SP EXHIBIT K F to J -39 '-- Zoning Map Designations, (Proposed) LU Very Low Residential (1-2 dulacre) LU Etiwanda SP I J. LLJ ....... CARNESI DR VISTA ST Project Very Low Residential Site Low Residential (1-2 du/acre) (2-4 du/acre) I Low Residential Etiwanda SP Etiwanda SP (2-4 du/acre) Etiwanda SP PINON ST Very Low Residential LOS CEDROS ST (1-2 du/acre) Etiwanda SP F to J -40 JOHN J. CURTIS ATTORNEY AT L A«' 6786 DI CARLO PLACE RANCHO CU C:U.NIO N CrA.CALIFORNIA 91739 90980:3 8166 909 803 8.167 FAX 949 2:30 2037 MOBILE jcu:tis5!)5:'ti'anl.crnn April 14, 2014 Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT 18936 General Plan Amendment DRC20013-00961 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 Dear Planning Department: As a resident potentially affected negatively by the above changes proposed • by Storm Western Development, Inc., seeking to rip out a sizable portion of the wall built on the south side of Carnesi Drive east of Etiwanda Avenue (APN: 0227-061-03 and 027-61-62) 1 am writing to object to the planned destruction of the wall. _ Storm Western Development, Inc. seeks to take out a large portion of this wall in order to build a road going through their planned development and to squeeze two additional building lots out of their acreage with four of the planned houses facing north on Carnesi. I and other homeowners of Toll Brother's homes built in this neighborhood strongly object to removal of this wall which was built by Toll Bothers for a very good reason. Our objections, among others, are as follows: 1. The subject wall was built to isolate the Toll Brothers homes, which are roughly 5,000 to 6,000 square feet on half acres lots, from the smaller, less valuable homes in the neighborhood south of Carnesi_ Drive and west of Di Carlo Place. It is a well known fact that neighborhood cohesiveness or lack of cohesiveness has a direct bearing on property values. Luxury homes of 6,000 square feet, worth more than a million dollars do not hold the same high value when facing across the street homes half that size worth half that value. The developer's proposal to open this wall and face two houses on Carnesi will directly diminish the property value of existing homes on Carnesi, and the developer offers the affected homes no compensation for this reduction of value. EXHIBIT L F to J –41 2. A new street running from Carnesi south will cause more people to drive though this neighborhood as a short cut to reach the neighborhoods to the south of this wall. This too will affect the value of homes affected by this increase in traffic. 3. Separation of these communities by this wall was accepted and approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The subject wall was built for obvious reasons. Every home on Carnisi was purchased by their owners and the price determined based on this neighborhood cohesiveness. The planned removal of a portion of this wall, the intrusive road intended and the facing of smaller, lesser valueable homes on Carnesi violates the trust placed in the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department when this neighborhood was configured and when the Toll Brother's Carnisi homes were purchased. For the above reasons as well as other reasons not articulated in this letter, on behalf of myself and other residents of this Toll Brother's development, I object to the planned opening of the wall on Carnesi and respectfully ask the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department to reject this plan unless modified to avoid opening of the wall on Carnesi. Respectfully, J61rn 1. Curtis CC: Steven A. Chaparro Senior Project Manager Storm Western Development, Inc. F to J —42 Kareem Aimed 6616 Murietta Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Luis Garcia 6609 Murietta Court Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 Cassandra Simmons 6627 Murietta Court Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 Patrik Shaft 6656 Murrietta Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Raybir Husson 6640 Murietta Court Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Furn Reddix 6626 Murietta Court • Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 Xiao Long Guo 13133 Carnesi Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 Art Medina 13147 Carnesi Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Jeff Widdison 6758 Di Carlo Place Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 Tariq Awan 6772 Di Carlo Place Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739 Ronald &Valerie Whitenhill • 12918 Carnesi Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 F to J —43 F to J -44 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 12, 2014 MAY 12 2014 Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga RECEIVED - PLANNING 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730 RE: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT 18936 General Plan Amendment DRC20013-00961 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 As Toll Brother residents and by request of our neighbors (name list attached), we are reiterating our strong objection to tearing down a portion of the wall at Camesi Drive planned by Storm Western International. Inc. in the above referenced case. The reasons for our objection to the wall modification are the following: 1. The long standing wall is authorized. Toll Brothers specifically built the community perimeter wall for their Estates of Rancho Cucamonga project. The cost of this wall was included in our home purchase prices and therefore shouldered by the residents of the Estates.All subsequent homeowners have also therefore contributed financially to the cost to construct the wall. Even if the wall sits on land owned by Cross & Crown Lutheran Church, it has been part of the community for 10 years. Our city has construction project inspection rules. Toll Brothers' project should have been approved and the wall examined by the city officials. The wall must have been authorized by the city with the Church's agreement. 2. Toll Brothers are very well known and reputable builders. They are a publicly traded company on the stock market. Their building quality, standards, and practices has secured them a solid reputation among consumers as a builder of high quality luxury homes and communities. In comparison, Storm Western Development, Inc., does not share the same reputation in the industry and is not known for the quality of their home developments. We strongly object to the modifications they propose on our Toll Brothers planned community. 3. What are the factors in addition to the market fluctuation that determine the house value and price? Home value is an important contributor to the economic welfare of a city. Factors influencing home value include house square footage, location, design, quality, community environment, companylbuilder, lot size, etc. Most importantly, the value and selling price are influenced by a buyer's impression and image of the builder. Although there are many external factors contributing to fluctuations in the housing market, the value of homes in our Toll Brothers developed community can be controlled and protected by preserving the unique privacy conferred on our community by the presence of the privacy wall. Our perimeter wall defines and identifies the Toll Brother community. We are proud to be homeowners in this distinguished development planned and built by Toll Brothers, a first rate builder. 4. Tear down portion of the wall= tear down the value, price and howeowners' esteem. Tearing down even a portion of the wall will decrease the value of the homes in our community. The wall was a factor in the purchase price of our homes and will therefore logically be factor in the sell EXHIBIT M FtoJ - 45 price of our homes. The Storm builder's aggressive and intrusive plan is onesided and does not benefit our community. Their ability to profit will directly cause a decrease in value to our homes without any compensation to the existing homeowners. Their plan to tear down the wall and place four of their homes not belonging to our Toll Brothers community is completely unacceptable. There is a proposed street in the middle of the four homes which will intrude inout our community by connect ing to Carnesi Drive. The builer is claiming `'Homes facing Carnesi Dr. to match homes on North side street....City staff in support of commnity design citing,....good street design, livability, and transition in density". It is in no way possible for this unknown builder to "match" the homes in quality and reputation and furthermore, one can and will guarantee that their attempt to "match" will not lower our property value. The plan to blend the new homes, street, and planned community with our existing one demonstrates the builder's intention to take advantage of Toll Brothers' brand image and our community to their own benefit. We heard, but have not confirmed, that the Storm company has a track record of similar practices cutting through other estate communities in the area. These practices are reprehensible and we are horrified by the consequences of the planned changes to our community. We urge the city to oppose such irreputable practices by developers that strip value and community privacy from vulnerable homeowners and city residents. 5. Reasonable alternatives to tearing down the wall should evaluated with input from the existing residents. In the Infill meeting held by this builder, we met a large number of very upset residents from the east side of the proposed 16 houses. One of their major concerns is that if the wall is down, the planned street will bring more traffic to them. Toll Brothers' residents will have exactly the same issue and we strongly object this plan. After having a couple meetings with the builder, city officials, and a large number of upset residents, we are still very shocked and stunned by the ineffective and unfair city processes. The meeting presentation and report summary were prepared by the builder. City officials appeared to have already agreed to the builder's plan and went along. The participation of the residents seemed to be only a formality and our complaints were ignored. We are shocked at the lack of process and the way to city ignores its residents in support of new developers. If planned houses have no other way/street out and must intrude into our community by demolishing our wall, then this is an 'ill-advised project to begin with. We feel the city has not been transparent with us and do not understand the supposed reasoning for city support of the development at the expense of current residents. Where is the fair process, the checks and balances, or the quality control? We, the city residents, are trying to protect our property value and exsiting community . We seek a balanced and fair process with the city to resolve these issues. We thank you for your consideration and assistance. Respectly, Alexander and Lorraine Meng 13034 Carnesi Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91739 cc: all named neighbors in attached list, L. Dennis Michael, Marc Steinorth F to J —46 • Neighbor List ., 1. Li Zhou C. lit 13060 Carnesi Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 2. Ling Lam Chang 13 13 4 Carnesi Dr., Rancho ucanYog ,n a, CA 94739 _ 3. Xiao Ling Guo ��j, 13133 Carnesi Dr., Rancho E Camonga, CA 91739 4. Xuan Gao 13090 Carnesi Dr., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 • F to 1 —47 F to J -48 Date: 3, Dear ` `'� ` I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church, meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mortgage deb' and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project, we ask that you keep in mind that the developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most of the concerns regarding through traffic. The developer is also assessing other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Carnesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothilis. Thank you, • EXHIBIT N F to J -49 U.G Date: Dear I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church, meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. Neighbors to.the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project; we ask that you keep in mind that the developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most of the concerns regarding through traffic. The developer is also assessing other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Carnesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. in closing; Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, F to J -.50 Dear City Council 1(ember, Imeeting at azn a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church 723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga Cucamonga. o . I am also a resident f Rancho Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximat of vacant land (east of our sant ely 3.3 acres allow us topay a off our ') to Storm Western Development. Thus sale will F r entire existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for Yeazs to come. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections t o the proposed development, The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion removal of an existing site wall located on Ca-mesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). and the p perty As you consider this development project, we ask that you keepin developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likelytoco d that the • traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a throughY contribute to alleviate most of the concerns regardingthroe street to a tui-de-sac_.will� .---- -other options to reduce the amount of all re mo ed on CTh edevel oris also assessing We res ec the project. P tfulIy request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. I In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard will continue to be a good nein hbor neighbors, not just to resolve this maga but o°Conorward to working with thChurch ht and as and the Foothills. o make our city the diamond of r Thank you, FtoJ -51 r��at t71 C hael l�Iav lbright AveCA 91784 Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran ChurchNi eighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave.,Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vaeaat land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our enure existing mortgage debt and vdU ensure our viability in the community for years to come. ]Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project,we ask that you keep in mind that the developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition,the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most of the concerns regarding through traffic. The developer is also assessing other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Camesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and.increase city revenue. In closing,Cross and Crown Lutheran Churcb/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to cvorkang with the city and our neighbors,not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, F to J —52 !'Irs. Linda Kastelic 9072 Culpepper Street • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 989-2604 Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga. I am also a resident of Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property. line of the church). As you consider this development project, we ask that you keep in mind that the • developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most of the-concerns regazding through traffic The developer is alsoassessing _ other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Carnesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, e rt' ( • CiTy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUN 0 3 2014 F to 1 -53 RECEIVE® o PLANNINE Richard P.Kastelic 9072 Culpepper Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909)989-2604 Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga. I am also a resident of Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm. Western.Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Camesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project, we ask that you keep in mind that the developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most of the concerns regarding through traffic. The developer is also assessing other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Carnesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, F to J —54 Amberly S. Kastelic 9072 Culpepper Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • (909) 989-2604 Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave.. Rancho Cucamonga. I am also a resident of Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project, we ask that you keep in mind that the • developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most-of the concerns regarding through traffic.c. The developer.-is,alse--as sing- other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Carnesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to ma- ke our city the dim and of the Foothills. Thank you, W& • F to J -55 Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave, Rancho Cucamonga. My husband and I have been residents of Rancho Cucamonga for two years. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of dusty, desert vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our ENTIRE existing mortgage debt to ensure our viability in the community for years to come. We are striving to be a part of a rapidly growing neighborhood and with the mortgage paid off we will be able to support and encourage a developing city. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development.The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). A little about me, I for one, hate change. I dread things around me to change, but I also know that in order to grow a city, things we are used to will change, even after ten years or more. Both parties (to the north and the east) are scared of the change in their neighborhood such as a through street from Carnesi to Pinion. Currently there is only one way in and out of the Pinion neighborhood. I think it would be in the city's best interest to make it a through street to the public as a secondary exit plan in case of a wild fire or any other evacuation. The neighbors to the north on Carnesi are and have expressed their fear of a large amount of traffic and concerns of a wall being taken down. In my opinion I view the wall as an eyesore and a visual site line stopping the connection of these two neighborhoods. This development will help connect both neighborhoods to make an even tighter close knit family atmosphere that Cross and Crown would like to help in building. We as a congregation would like for all of us to come together as one to unite both neighborhoods, but with out this development,this vacant lot and lack of money are preventing us from doing so. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase the city's revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city, that I have grown to love so much in the two years of residing here, the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, �1E�z►ss� U�NCE F to J —56 REC�E�,ED R��(�H{) �U�4�()N�� ` , Mayor LDennis Michael 1D5OOCivic Center Drive P.[). Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CAS1730 Dear Mayor. K8ywife and | have been a | idenhsofRanchoCucamongoninceAugust20. 1985Shortly after we moved here, 'we began attending Cross & Crown Lutheran Church. which was renting space inthe Stater Bros. parking lot on Archibald & 19th. Cross & Crown acquired property at 6723 Etiwanda Ave.. Rancho Cucamonga and began construction ofour church building in19SO. Since the construction was completed, Cross &Crown and its members have been very active in the community. For years we operated a daycare and preschool, provided a meeting place for boy scout troops, held vacation bible school open to all. hosted youth and adult concerts for the oommunity, had and sheltered some of the homeless in our community and:worked diligently to promote the Rancho Cucamonga to those who visit our church. Cross &Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres oyvacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm VVeoteeh Development. This sale will oUovv us to pay off our existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years bo come. | believe this also provides the opportunity for us to be good stewards of what God has given us to manage. By developing the land, the city and community will benefit from increased revenues and have a positive effect on many ofthe home values tothe east and south ofthe development. Some in residents to the north and a few to the east have voiced concerns about the development. The main concerns have been related botraffic oongesU ~ un and the removal of existing on ' Caf�6hiAvenueo6i�centtothe-no�hp�p ' |i�---'�- -- c .-- -�------� | believe both the church and developers have made every effort to listen to and address the concerns of the nearby residents. Regarding the issue oftraffic congestion, the developer changed the original design. eliminating a road on the east side of the development and creating a cul-de-sac there instead. This removes the possibility flow through traffic from Etiwanda to East Street. The developer has recommended a change from the original plan that would have removed 670 feet of wall on the south side of Carnesi Avenue. and instead, creating an opening of about 60-70 feet in the wall that would provide access bothe development from the north. | believe that this proposal respects and honors both the neighbors to the north and east, as well as the integrity and reputation of our great city. Therefore. I respectfully ask for your support of this development project. --1Ra -nor Kolarik 2?4'8 Moring Glory Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CAB1738 Fto] -57 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUL 17 2014 RECEIVED - PLANNING Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga. I am also a resident of Rancho Cucamonga_ Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project, we ask that you keep in mind that the developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most of the concerns regarding through traffic. The developer is also assessing other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Carnesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, F to J —58 Wa/jal 64 113 C7 Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran ChurchfNeighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga. I am also a resident of Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mort;=aQe debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. y Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing site wall located on Carnesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project, we ask that you keep in mind that the • developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate mo.st..of_the concerns regarding:through.traffic._T;he.developzr-is-also assessing other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Carnesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church has and will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city-and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, • F to J -59 RECEIVED Ci IYOF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ,i .:J JI 2014 MCI N 11 STRAM ON Dear City Council Member, I am a member of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church/Neighborhood Vineyard Church meeting at 6723 Etiwanda Ave., Rancho Cucamonga. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church is currently in escrow to sell approximately 3.3 acres of vacant land (east of our sanctuary) to Storm Western Development. This sale will allow us to pay off our entire existing mortgage debt and will ensure our viability in the community for years to come. Neighbors to the east and north of the project have voiced their objections to the proposed development. The main concerns expressed relate to traffic congestion and the removal of an existing,site wall located on.Camesi Ave. (adjacent to the north property line of the church). As you consider this development project, we ask that you keep in mind that the developer is only proposing to add sixteen homes, a number not likely to contribute to traffic congestion. In addition, the redesign from a through street to a cul-de-sac will alleviate most of the concerns regarding through traffic. The developer is also assessing .other options to reduce the amount of wall removed on Camesi Ave. for the project. We respectfully request that you would support this development project, which will improve adjacent property values and increase city revenue. In closing, Cross and Crown Lutheran ChurchliNeighborhood Vineyard Church has and I= will continue to be a good neighbor and we look forward to working with the city and our neighbors, not just to resolve this matter but to continue to make our city the diamond of the Foothills. Thank you, F to J —60 JOHN J. CURTIS ATT ORI\"FI AT L l«" • 6786 DI C_4RI.0 PLACE RA\CH0 CZ.CAti10NGA.C_kLIF0R- L-.91739 909 803 8166 909 803 8167 FAX 949 230 2037 MOBILE jcurtis395( aol.com June 9, 2014 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga City Council 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Tentative Tract Map 18936/Removal of Wall on Carnisi Dear Commissioners &Council Members: J. T. Storm has filed a tentative tract map with the City seeking to develop a parcel of land that it has in escrow at present. It is being purchased from the Cross & Crown Lutheran Church on Etiwanda at Carnisi. The development seeks to knock down a portion of the wall on the south side of Carnisi running from Etiwanda east, • and then to construct a south bound street off of Carnisi to serve sixteen homes. The homeowners on Carnisi and elsewhere in this development by Toll Brothers strongly object to opening the wall to accommodate this developer Who neglected to obtain from the Church an easement eastward off of Etiwanda into the property behind the Church. Absent the City's use of eminent domain for a public purpose (this commercial development would not qualify as a public purpose) this wall cannot be demolished in whole or in part. As a clear matter of California law, neither the City nor the Church (or the developer, J.T. Storm, as a purchaser from the Church) have a legal right to remove any portion of this wall. The developer, Toll Brothers Construction, and the homeowners in Toll Brothers houses on Carnisi, as the successors in interest to Toll Brothers, have obtained either a physical easement or a prescriptive easement for this wall. As does all the walls built by Toll Brothers in connection with its development entitled Rancho Cucamonga Estates, this wall isolates the Toll Brothers development from the surrounding community and has been there for more than twelve years. The facts are as follows: 1. On March 21, 2002, Toll Brothers Construction was issued Permit No. PMT2003-02109 to construct 14,100 lineal feet of Garden Wall, 2,250 feet EXHIBIT O FtoJ -61 of retaining wall and 28 Pilasters along these walls. It is very important to note that the Project Description for this permit stated: "TRACT SITE PERIMETER GARDEN & RETAINING WALLS& PILASTERS FOR LOTS 28-32, 40-49 &SOUTH SIDE OF CARNESI DRIVE ADJACENT TO EXISTING DWELLINGS per City Stds and Structural calcs. Of particular importance is the fact that the wall on the south side of Carnisi was "TRACT SITE . . . PERIMETER WALL." The wall was to demarcate the boundary of the Toll Brothers development and separate it from the remaining properties south of Carnisi. 2. The subject wall was constructed by Toll Brothers as a part of their overall Rancho Cucamonga Estates development in that area. The wall was constructed during and as part of the development of this Toll Brothers tract, including constructing the wall as a visual and physical barrier separating the Toll Brothers development from the Lutheran Church property as well as from the smaller houses south of Carnisi. The Toll Brothers homes and lots were considerably larger and more valuable than the houses south of Carnisi. In order to isolate the new development from the Church and the smaller houses visually and physically, the wall became a barrier creating homogeneity for the Toll Brothers development. This wall is identical to and a part of thousands of feet of wall constructed by Toll Brothers around its entire Rancho Cucamonga Estates development. 3. Since the wall's construction,Toll Brothers built the street and sidewalk along Carnisi, the building pads, utilities and constructed the homes on Carnisi selling them to homeowners who relied upon the homogeneity of their neighborhood and the visual and physical barrier isolating their homes and lots from the less valuable homes and smaller lots as well as the Church south of Carnisi. 4. The wall has remained undisturbed for roughly twelve years with the homeowners on Carnisi enjoying and relying on this wall as a physical and visual barrier,just as every Toll Brothers homeowner in this development relied on the walls protecting their property. Buyers on Carnisi made their decision to buy their home and pay the price asked by Toll Brothers in important and significant reliance (among other factors) on the wall's presence and its isolating effect. S. The period necessary to obtain a prescriptive easement or adverse possession has long since run. Toll Brothers obtained express permission from the land owners on the subject land to construct the walls as a permanent barrier. Absent a written express reservation obtained in 2003 by the Church or any other land owner adjacent to the wall to F to J -62 remove the wall in the future, no one has a right to permanently remove tthe wall or any portion of the wall. Also,Toll Brothers, the builder, and the purchasing homeowners were and are the principal beneficiaries of the benefits of the wall. If Toll Brothers did not obtain an actual easement from the Church and homeowner's South of Carnisi, an implied easement under California law was obtained when the wall was constructed with their permission or without their objection. Without a survey it is unknown whether the wall was actually constructed on Toll Brother's property or not. However, at this point, thirteen years after its construction, that fact is irrelevant. As a matter of law, in order to demolish any part of this wall the written permission to do so would have to be obtained and recorded from each and every homeowner on Carnisi affected by the wall's removal. They have an actual or proscriptive easement in the wall. Connelly v. Trabue (2012) 204 Cal.App. 41h 1154; Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitus Sec. 2.17 (200); Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 564; Twin Peaks Land Co. v. Briggs (1982) 130 CalApp3d 587. 6. It is clear from California case law that in this case, if the City and J. T. Storm were to go forward and attempt to remove any part of the subject wall a California court would grant an injunction to prohibit disturbing the wall. As a result, on behalf of the Carnisi and Toll Brothers homeowers, I T_ respectfully demand that the City Planning Commission and the City Council _ _ _ — . reject the-J. heJ:T. Storm Tentative Tract Map outright as legally undoable. This will avoid any further action by the Carnisi homeowners. If the City Attorney requires a full legal brief setting forth the statutory and case law relied upon to reach this legal conclusion, please advise me,and one will be prepared and sent to the City Attorney. Respectfully, Joh�i ,C ti v • F to J -63 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor& City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development;Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents Rhe dest uction og any part of thehomes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga and paid from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchasedproperties the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact imntal ct tis z6nin- riance anthe Report to determine the extensivedetr1Nalle CEQAfrequhres a EIR in such caseswhere plan to destroy part of the Perimeter surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. Ciry�Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall.. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER F to J —64 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon.Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development;Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the.undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south*of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from_the.surrounding.,properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will _ undo the cohesiveness of the TollBrother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER FtoJ -65 t Imo + HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth,Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive.to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME 1� ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 41 F to J -66 • HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the sur-rounding-properties. -Opening--this wall-now after-eleven-years:-will— undo ftereleven-years_will..--. .- undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER f vj � s�s , cr�� t� �. ��Z.6� 523_ Z . q F to J -67 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Iric. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land fora development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER N�u Nti�� 01 D►�l wDG PF- (90 9)-49-q k6 4 C� C bqi 71L? -Z�4�', G-a,� 6�ri i t )Vit, F to J =68 • HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor , Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Iric. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now-after eleven years-will-- undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this'perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER F to J —69 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,"Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER r G f 7'1 :�� . .' ice . .. . HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL ® TO: The Honorable City Mayor&Ci Council, Y Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the TollBrother's development and'unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning varian-ce to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER VA N Al l 14 • Lim' 31 N ; r�' fir' 6 vt M I Aj Ll A, 9 ,- 1 S � Ah I. 9 Lr N FtoJ -71 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor , Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc..("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from-the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME J ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER j �7 I J O�CA 6 fl� �e n ( N�t aQU_9 Gl Gb(\ F to J -72 • HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall-now after-eleven-:_yea,rs•will,_ undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be.negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER l � �5 U I F to J —73 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variarice to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER � ia iC�nctcl V�GC� 0�Qr(QA�ct1 C, 1P`c;_c F to J -74 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development;Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi'drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll-Brother's development and unavoiclay "- negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variaace to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAM ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER ?c3ZGC � (��� • Z,4k- AC-) T to 4+ L , CCS G 17 F to J -75 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The.below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME , J ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER D&4z,re- G-00 7 G F to J —76 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the-surrounding properties:Opening this wall 7now after-eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. AIternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning-varian'ce to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Syev P-ASRnr 13��; �,�j � o?Cid q0 °�' — � S6 K i -73�/ F to J —77 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,'-Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We,the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter.Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to'separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variame to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER /n glo 1� 90� 151 t3 �;olLci 90�y�- J99 3-773 go -51e F to J -78 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable City Mayor&Ci Co ncil y u , Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to.separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid • the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variaUe to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER T 0 Vn Cly l3 l 3!� .o,,�;.3 o �E:i F to J -79 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,lnc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform'an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning varian.Ce to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER AJ F to J —80 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL ® TO: The Honorable City Mayor & Ci Council Y Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,`Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER v,)6 3 �� z 14v,�f�z) G- r 1113 �e 2-- 9 F to J -81 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,,Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother'.s development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER kc /'' /� F to 1-82 %` HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO:. The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,"[nc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the.sur.rounding.properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and-unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER F to J —83 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent eri nR' lbtthe to Storm ulition of the nder any plantll hat on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant g var�ne includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. ADDRESS �SsL r�-C����c L PHONE NUMBER NAME F to J —84 June 30, 2014 Jeffrey A. Bloom, Deputy City Manager Economic & Community Development CITY OF RANCHO C�lCAiUOf�GA City of Rancho Cucamonga 1000 Civic Center Drive JUN 3 0 2014 Rancho.Cucamonga, CA 91739 RECEIVED - PLANNING RE: Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map SUBIT 18936 General Plan Amendment DR20013-00961 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 Dear Mr. Bloom, In a simple way, we see a flow chart of the above project like this:` Cross and Crown Lutheran Church in debt (the root cause) 3 Church's sale of a piece of land (result and cause) —> Buyer(Storm Western International, Inc.) project proposal (primary goal is profit) —>City planning project plan review (zoning change of original city plan and proposal approval) To the best of our knowledge, we know the following facts: This wall, a perimeter wall, was built by Toll Brothers and approved by the city. This wall is not a barrier for the public and has been the perimeter wall for at least 10 years. • No matter how many inches the wall is setting on the church's land, or if it is, it is irrelevant. The statutory time ran out on this issue. a Carnesi Drive is not the only possible in/out street for this-project.--- --- 77777= ., Etiwanda Street is the biggest street among the existing possible access streets. The church rejected it. The excuse is they do not want to loose their parking spaces. Their real intention is to sell more land for enough money to pay their debt and probably for other uses. The builder is willing to buy more land to build more houses for more profits. A previous version of the project had only 12 planned houses. Their mutual interest is to block the most accessible street (Etiwanda) but to use the most money making way (Carnesi Drive) for their own benefits by a forced entry to Carnesi Drive, knocking down the wall. y The builder plans to design a cul-de-sac at east side of the project site. Blocking only 16 houses' through traffic will not change the cul-de-sac current traffic status or provide benefit to the public. The builder's real intention is to eliminate all other accesses so that they can claim Carnesi Drive (the most money making access) is the only possible access. The revised project will benefit the church (one organization) to pay their debt. There is no apparent benefit for the public. Our outstanding living evironment at Rancho Cucamonga Estates can be used by the Storm company as an excellent sales pitch. Cutting through this wall, connecting the 16 houses to Carnesi Drive, and making them a look like extension, subsidiary, or part of our community can guarantee the builder's sales and profits. The project interface format with impacted citizens has been primarily meetings held and • dominated by the Storm company (a buyer and a builder). In a city's meeting dated May 6, 2014, one city commissioner requested us to sacrifice. His reason is EXHIBIT P F to J —85 the project, in the late stage of the overall city development plan, is difficult to plan. In the Storm company's meeting dated June 19, 2014, a church member also asked us to sacrifice. Rarely people would ask other people to sacrifice like the President asks soldiers to sacrifice for their country. Apparently they understand our sacrifices will be substantial and huge. We strongly object to this revised proposal. Are there any other reasons or facts we missed that can warrant potential city's approval on this case? We would like you to know the June 19th meeting notice time was less than two weeks. The builder's meeting request letter was dated June 9, 2014 for a meeting to be held on June 19, 2014, 6:30 pm. The envelope displays their Pitney Bow•e's post mark, June 10, 2014 and another post office mark"LOS ANGELES CA 900 11 JUN '14 PM 14 L". Quite a few neighbors were unable to make arrangements to attend the meeting. What is the city's notice standard on this type meeting? This June 19th meeting looked like a very well orchestrated meeting and continued to be one sided. The builder bragged the proposal. Church members glorified the builder. A church member even asked us to sacrifice. Other residents also praised the builder because they do not have to deal with this matter any more. Our opinions and feedback seemed very annoying to all other participants and were again ignored. By design, this meeting created a phenomenon in which all the impacted parties fought among themselves to enable the builder's business advancement for profits. Clearly this meeting has been misused. If a person or city official conducts the meeting and collects feedback neutrally, that will tremendously improve the meeting efficiency and ensure fair treatment to all parties. What is the meeting purpose? Why it is conducted by the builder before the project approval? Please inform us normally how many meetings citizens have to go through before the city makes a decision? Citizens should not be the builder's test ground for their business ventures. Citizens should not have to tight among themselves for an ill-advised project.. It should be identified early. In short, a church's debt problem, a builder's project for profit plan, and the city's election of an easy but unreasonable way servicing citizens can not justify our sacrifices. We object to this revised proposal. Please let the wall stand as it is. Please release us from these tedious, unfair, one-sided processes. They waste citizens' energy, time, and money. We simply want to protect our property value and existing community. We deserve this pleasant and quiet reside environment in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. We thank you for your consideration and appreciate your early reply. Respectfully, Lorraine Meng— 13034 Carnesi De, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 and Neighbors— See attached signed names and addresses cc: L. Dennis Michael, Mayer, Marc Steinorth, Councilman , Candyce Burnett, Planning Manner, Tobe Van der Zwaag.,Associate Planner Attachment F to J —86 Neighbors' List Print Name Signature Address A I C7 7rv, A Lti2--� T c)aAfu,,,6 If)I? r c L -CL-;� -LVei' —C�IAO A I�i 7(2-iA L�IL VLf, L( �vr Vvt S, L 1-i. L/ C51 J 3 zf c A: • F to J —87 Neighbors' List Print Name Signature Address Ci'_ L IFCiVe. CL ho v--, CI-kc 19c, L :� C�fniz Jri L ' r / i 7cl7 C.i h Q CLVG ti i _ _ r F to J —88 Neighbors' List Print Signature dress � 1 r��Si • F to J —89 Neighbors' List Print Name Signature Address � cK Sl C _ ,.. � � to CCi�•L c �i�i r T ifi �' l 7j i 1. -- L. 1 G \ `t) 7 i �� ,�12 i r A �:f1 l ' 1rL c C (Z A 91 M. , Hr/i,�I) ` F to J —90 Neighbors' List Print Dame Signature Address rim Se src- bhlT, We rn% iej tkL YnESzIILC LIkiw- rzCQ:.yje tl..,. yw Z mcba `6- tc,j�-z c'we So 6 3,--2® vWt wst bLz 7 p1' WW2. . 9„'1 K,&I V� J,-Mt -f o k e,l p owr i;Gnyyl.c.�bl its -�i'bvh b inti I YPa14 v-LT, JI& iti At-J;c, o' tCal fin, • t'LI L.") ul >rA cur (� f�cnn�;unri•;�--- .► �i ..vt! ( �� 1 J n Y.-,Nnt &r& a v*- grs ;,,;,, I. Ji cw _;�� S� upA►n-c i�:�.r c--r�,r i� ,( P�,Tti�,t' �ct�� �,�-i�( ,c�/e 1�,ke. �6 ri��n�A P�wlz' T' hel,i,evr� -u� adi t,—)w rvwre o .A i� iAAk (A,) E.wv rk_L V,-Lkm, -� i�r vent I+. y 2 i..o - , o��1✓ �. ill !I,IQa i 1vP a� in& /l0 rN2 ilklCt f o-m;t/U ml wyk l 1 i r WIV4 1 Vf QeXA WOU -PC ',VqAA4i Ctrl W C%w� 'W W_W M4.,tic,4j v U.1, CaA . P1 erg e `Do N tT 3 V',EA t� OWk C44 Mu 017� F to J —91 • Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of Camesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN-. 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. vara der Zwaag_ On January 29, 2014, l met with representatives of Storm Western Development, -Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outco,, a of the discussion and support the proposed • site plan and retaining wall design (at;:ached as Exhibit A). Please accept this letter as a dernonstrttiorf of our support for the project. Best regards, A ', i / Printed Name // �!._ /" � r. r , ;�' Date: Signature: fi EXHIBIT 0 F to J -93 THE. CHURCH OF JESUS .CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SPECIAL PROJECTS DEPARTMENT Real Estate Services Division 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84150-001 Phone: 1-3;11-240-2915 Facsimile: 1-801-2410-3907 February 3, 2014 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061=03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On January 16, 2014, P spoke with representatives of Storm Western Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We do not approve of the proposed solution to accept any drainage onto our property. We would prefer a larger retaining wall solution. Best regards, Printed Name: ge-IL700 Date. Si natu F to J -94 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On March 14, 2014, 1 met with a representative of Storm Western Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. • We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed site plan and wall design. Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Name: Mr. Hakan Ozsomer Date: Signature-- ' ' Y- Address: 13010 Pinion Street Rancho Cucamonga CA 91739 F to J -95 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 — Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On March 13, 2014, 1 met with a representative of Storm Western Development, Inc. in _regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed site plan and wall design. Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Name: Mr. David Lona Date: Signature.: ` J Address: 13021 Vista Street Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91739 F to J -96 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located or, the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On I met witch a representative of Storm Westem Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed • site plan and wall design. Please accept fhis letter as a demc-n trazio:r- Odo'u'r support for the project. Best regards, rinted N Date: --! Si nat ! Address: S �- F to J -97 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 — Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On _ y I met with a representative of Storm Western Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed site plan and wall design. Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Name:500-� 69 DL A u Date: G --`-f — ) 14 Address: 11�)cnq-o Q ti n N S i AJAN_tZA � CAL.1 • 0 '39 F to J -98 • Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On "i.Ci t L/I i /C l , I met with a representative of Storm Western Development, Inc" in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed • site plan and waft design. Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Name: J '(a.(� 71e I`�%�'-') Date: .�C� - 1 Signature: ]/� i.r_.. Address: 4;-L1 t r > > 2 r' F to J -99 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of Camesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On I met with a representative of Storm Western Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed site plan and wall design. Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Name: f�D�/�LO L ' �.Qi Date: wl - r Ssonature,4� Address: IM12yl l,5T„” S �• F to J -100 • Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On I met with a representative of Storm Westem Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed • site plan and wall design. Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Name: M G,Q GL_ Ac A-) Date: _. Si nature: ",'z . Address: v F to J -101 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 — Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue- APN: 0227- 061-03 &0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On I met with a representative of Storrs Western Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed site plan and wall design. Please accept this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Na e:_L r1'q/q Date /Y Si natur Address. F to J -.102 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag.. On met wits. a representative of Storm Western Development. Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed site plan and wali design. ease accept tris letter as a demonstration of-our-suppdrt for tale Best regards. Printed Na r/ Date: G l 3 Si nater Address: T F to J -103 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 - Site located on the south side of-Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. var, der Zwaag, On o /y I met with a representative of Storm Western Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We were very satisfied with the outcome of the discussion and support the proposed site plan and wall design. Please acce,it this letter as a demonstration of our support for the project. Best regards, Printed Name: �r,� f��,�c Date: `.y Signature: l Address: `° rte /� Q • f�a v F to J -104 TPIF. CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST ® OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SPECIAL PROJECTS DEPARTI NIENT Rea;Estate Ser;c=s D visicr, 0 East Ncrth Ternple S,reet 30 Lake C;v. U:ah 84150-0012 �'hCn-a: -140.2915 .�arsimi!e: 1-80'1-240-3907 February 3, 2014 Mr. Tabe van der.Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Letter of Support - Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT18936 — Site located • on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue -- APN: 0227- 061-03 & 0227-061-62 Mr. van der Zwaag, On January 16, 2014, 1 spoke with representatives of Storm Western Development, Inc. in regards to the above-mentioned project. We do not approve of the proposed solution to accept any drainage onto our property. We would prefer a larger retaining wall solution. Best regards, Printed Name: Date: Signatuw.—, Fto1 —105 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high'prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding prapertie.s..Qpening this_yvall.now.after eleven years will,_.-.. undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER EXHIBIT F to J -107 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael,Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance e church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the _ plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted.. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER ori ��� c��� �Z� �� GAJ'• C94� h �gz 3 �� L v F to J —108 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding pro.perdes._Opening-this.wall_npv%,,after.pleven_years will.— undo undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact, Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER f; F to J —109 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access.to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi: Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER %Z 5 6 CAS-1 X (�T,6) - 313 ' FtoJ -110 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from-the surrounding properties. Opening this-wall now-after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER .5 - uCiL ! 1 Clo F t o J —111 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents,of Rancho.Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the detruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted.. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER L 1 C,4- 71 FtoJ -112 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL ® TO: The Honorable Mayor & Cit Council, Y Y Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the sur.:Dunning propgrties. Opgning_this wall now after eleven years_ will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen.homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit-the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Ell • i r.� G. F to J —113 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor& City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONENUMBER C. FtoJ -114 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates . from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from.the surrounding properties. Opening ibis wall now after eleven,years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary lit' at' n of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME �( ADDRESS of PHONE NUMBERi� a FtoJ -115 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor& City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the .plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the.Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER FtoJ -116 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor & y City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid. the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from,the.Burr_ou.nding.,properties.�Opening this wall.now after eleven years will —-.... _ - ...-__.p - - _. _.,..._.�...w_.._ . undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS � PHONE NUMBER( L � 41C &tCCtn l�� ��(`-/7� / FtoJ -117 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land n Environmenpment of tal al Impact sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform a Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall n South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that o includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now 4vill avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER <<1c`lS7 -c �1 � �5 Dr. l3 P71 ii r1 ' Iii ri CC��?'� %/1l ft �' A FtoJ -118 ' HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western.Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undc-the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably ---- negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME+V!; ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER • FtoJ -119 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J.Alexander; Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We,the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance.. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER J� t F to J -120 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development-and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigatio of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAM DDRESS I?i �.� PHONE NUMBER�- - FtoJ -121 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga. Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER VV Jif F to J —122 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will_ undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Elly F to J —123 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council,- Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS e PHONE NUMBER / FtoJ -124 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties., Opening this wall now after eleven years will T_ undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's devel'opment'and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER FtoJ -125 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER FtoJ -126 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from.the surrounding pr-- ties -Opening this-wall raw-after eleven-years-wiff- -� undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent E[R; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 6� CVc clYfOld ?I 7V F to J —127 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Af u 11 1 �� � i�1 kC F to J -128 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL • TO: The Honorable Mayor y r&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounoud. ng..properties. Qpening_thi.s.wall..nov—v after..ele_ven__yea.rs_w . ill—._.. .......... . - undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER v l' I� �• `�� cC!%^ 4� � �� ii�l1Gl � �.i. �_C_ . =� T j�l � VI (v�c. �� � 1✓i • F to J -129 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael,Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We,the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners'easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS / PHONE NUMBER �-JeX:c F to J -130 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City ry Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon.Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We,the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties: Opening this wall now after eleven years will . undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME i . A DD_RES � —7_ PHONE NUMBER F t o J —131 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon.-Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tern Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of.Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carn.isi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. ,. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER v r el L F to J —132 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development _ from the surrounding properties. .Opening this wall.now after:eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a E[R in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Com' F to J —133 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of.Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid,. unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER .3� 6) 7�? C::;i , -3Z4 &c,0,MC;y11Lq ) 6)i 0-.f- a l -� 31 F to J -134 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable City Mayor &Ci Council, Y Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER �Us71 ti' , 6 - C f gO 7J sly'- 3 776 FtoJ -135 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon.Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development;Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER F to 1 -136 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development,-Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development fro.m.the surrounding-properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development grid unavoidably- negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER '1R�Ylk SN> I 6E �b MU ietfn CIS 9c�. • (�c��c�,cCLtcc titi1���'� c—�—.`!17 y, F to J -137 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor &City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J.Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development;Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESSL PHONE NUMBER F to J —138 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL ® TO: The Honorable Mayor & City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon. Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tern Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams, Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE: Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates • from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's developmerit grid unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also,the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS ' P ONE NUMBER I L L✓ V L�,� �l�l. A . lL� q1 �3; � F to J -139 HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: The Honorable Mayor&City Council, Rancho Cucamonga, California Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Hon.Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Hon.William J. Alexander, Council Member Hon. Marc Steinorth, Council Member Hon. Diane Williams; Council Members FROM: Homeowners of Rancho Cucamonga Estates RE! Opposition to Storm Western Development, Inc. ("Storm") Project's Proposed Destruction of Toll Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Estates Perimeter Wall Along South Side Of Carnisi We, the undersigned homeowners/residents of Rancho Cucamonga owning homes in Rancho Cucamonga Estates strongly object to the destruction of any part of the Perimeter Wall along the south side of Carnisi drive to give access to Storm to build a road off of Carnisi into property owned by Lutheran Church on Etiwanda. This wall was built in 2003 by Toll Brothers to separate Rancho Cucamonga Estates from properties south of Carnisi. Homeowners purchased their properties and paid the high prices for their homes in reliance on the separation of their development from the surrounding properties. Opening this wall now after eleven years will undo the cohesiveness of the Toll Brother's development and unavoidably negatively affect the value of the Toll Brother's homes. Storm is asking for a zoning variance to use the church land for a development of sixteen homes. Also, the City has to date failed to perform an Environmental Impact Report to determine the extensive detrimental effect this zoning variance and the plan to destroy part of the Perimeter Wall. CEQA requires a EIR in such cases where surrounding properties are likely to be negatively impacted. Alternatives are available to develop the Church property without opening the wall and without City Council granting a zoning variance. The below signed homeowner constituents in Rancho Cucamonga Estates respectfully request that the City Council order staff to commission an independent EIR; prohibit the demolition of the wall on South Carnisi; and refuse to grant a zoning variance to Storm under any plan that includes opening this established perimeter wall. City Council action now will avoid unnecessary litigation of the homeowners' easement.rights in this perimeter wall. NAME ADDRESS ONE NUMBBE0 F to J —140 Print Form ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I m Initial Study) RANCH0 (Please type or print clearly using ink. Use the tab key to move from one line to the next line.) CUCAMONGA Planning Department (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 pursuant to 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. Upon review of the completed Initial Study Part I and the development application, additional information such as,but not limited to,traffic, noise,biological,drainage,and geological reports may be required. The project application will not be deemed complete unless the identified special studies/reports are submitted for review and accepted as complete and adequate. The project application will not be scheduled for Committees' review unless all required reports are submitted and deemed complete for staff to prepare the Initial Study Part II as required by CEQA. In addition to the fling fee, the applicant will be responsible to pay or reimburse the City, its agents, officers, and/or consultants for all costs for the preparation, review, analysis, recommendations, mitigations, etc., of any special studies or reports. OGENERAL INFORMATION: INCOMPLETE APPLICA TIONS 1MLL NOTBEPROCESSED: Please note thatitis theresponsibirtyofihe'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. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: TRACT NO. 18936 Project Title: RANCHO ETIWANDA CARNESI Name&Address of project owner(s): (1)MR. GARRETT CALL, 8028 DOUGLAS RANCH DR., GRANITE BAY, 95746-6157 (2)CROSS AND CROWN LUTHEREN CHURCH, 6723 ETIWANDA AVE., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 Name&Address of developer or project sponsor: STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. 23223 NORMANDIE AVE., TORRANCE, CA 90501 • Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT S F to J -141 Contact Person&Address: STEVEN A. CHAPARRO, SR. PROJECT MANAGER 23223 NORMANDIE AVE.,TORRANCE, CA 90501 Name&Address of person preparing this form(if different from above): SAME AS ABOVE Telephone Number: 310-347-8210 PROJECT INFORMATION & DESCRIPTION: Information indicated by an asterisk(*)is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. *i) 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): CARNESI DRIVE NEAR ETIWANDA AVENUE 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers(attach additional sheet if necessary): 0227-061-03&0227-061-82 `5) Gross Site Area(ac/sq. ft.): 8.32 ACRES *6) Net Site Area(total site size minus area of public streets&proposed 7.79 ACRES dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary): THE PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY IN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-E)WITH A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF"VERY LOW"(VL). THE PROJECT IS BEING PROPOSED TO REZONE THE PARCELS TO A"LOW"(L)ZONING. Updated 4/1112013 Page 2 of 10 F to J -142 • 8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to fully implement the project: FOR THE ENTITLEMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT, WE WILL NEED TO PROCESS THE FOLLOWING: (1)INITIAL STUDY, (2)TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, (3)ZONE CHANGE, (4)GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, AND (5)A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT. 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): APN 0227-061-03: A PORTION OF THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS A CHURCH FACILITY WHICH INCLUDES OFFICES, CLASSROOMS, AND AN ASSEMBLY SPACE. THERE IS A TEMPORARY CLASSROOM STRUCTURE WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS STORAGE. AROUND THE CHURCH FACILITY IS AN ASPHALT CONCRETE PARKING LOT, CONCRETE WALKWAYS, LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE, • A PLAYGROUND, AND A BASKETBALL COURT. THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT IS VACANT AND AND UNDEVELOPED. AT THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE ARE EXISTING TREES. APN 0227-061-82: THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY BEING USED AS AN ENCLOSED AREA IN WHICH SEVERAL HORSES ARE KEPT. THERE IS A SMALL OUTHOUSE IN WHICH HAY IS STORED. THE SITE IS UNDEVELOPED WITH FENCES, GATES, AND TREES ON ITS PERIMETER. r Updated 4/11/2013 Page 3 of 10 F to J -143 10) Describe the known cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information(books,published reports and oral history): NO KNOWN CULTURAL OR HISTORICAL INFORMATION IS KNOWN. 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site(aircraft,roadway noise,etc.)and how they will affect proposed uses: THE SITES ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO NEIGHBORHOOD NOISE SUCH AS VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, VOICES OF NEIGHBORS, AND SOUNDS FROM THE HORSES. THE HORSES WILL NOT BE PRESENT IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE OTHER NOISES WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT. 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. BOTH PARCELS WILL BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 17 LOTS; SIXTEEN (16) RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONE(1) LOT FOR THE EXISTING CHURCH. THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS WILL RANGE FROM 10,120 SF TO 28,150 SF WITH AN AVERAGE OF 15,039. THESE MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE(L)ZONING. THE REMAINING LOT ON WHICH THE CHURCH WILL RESIDE WILL END UP WITH AN AREA OF 77,685 SF OR 1.78 ACRES. AN INTERNAL STREET IS PROPOSED WHICH WILL ENTER OFF OF CARNES[ FROM THE NORTH AND LINK TO PINON STREET FROM THE SOUTHEAST. THERE IS NO PHASING PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT. ANTICIPATED COMPLETION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS 2015. 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: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN WITH VERY LOW(VL)DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIST., SFR EAST: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN WITH LOW(L) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIST., SFR. THE EXISTING HOMES WERE DEVELOPED PRIOR TO THE SP-E ADOPTION&UNDER THE COUNTY JURISDICTION. SOUTH: ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN WITH VERY LOW(VL)DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DIST., CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AS A CHURCH. WEST: SP-E WITH VERY LOW(VL)DENSITY RES. DIST., SFR. Updated 4/11/2013 Page 4 of 10 FtoJ -144 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? • THE RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH ARE 1/2 ACRE LOTS. THE RESIDENCES TO THE EAST HAVE LOTS AROUND 7500 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL ACT AS A TRANSITION ZONE WITH 1/3 ACRE LOTS. IT WILL KEEP WITH THE RESIDNTIAL NATURE AND INTENT FOR THIS AREA OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN. 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-term noise to be generated,including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect adjacent properties and on-site uses? What methods of soundproofing are proposed? SHORT TERM NOISE WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS. LONG TERM NOISE WILL COME FROM INCREASED TRAFFIC AND INCREASED NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. '16) indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: ALL THE EXISTING TREES ON THE SITE WILL BE REMOVED. 17) Indicate any bodies of water(including domestic water supplies)into which the site drains: 40 THERE ARE NO BODIES OF WATER ON EITHER OF THE TWO SITES. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at(909)987-2591. a. Residential(gal/day) 705 Peak use(ga!/Day) 705`16=11280 b. Commercial/Ind. al/da /ac N/A N/A (9 Y ) Peak use(gal/min/ac) 19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. ❑ Septic Tank x❑ 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 Valley Water District at(909)987-2591. a. Residential(gal/day) 270 b. Commercial/industrial(gal/day/ac) N/A • Updated 4/11/2013 Page 5 of 10 F to J -145 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units:16 Detached(indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: REQUIREMENTS; MIN. LOT SIZE = 10,000 SF, MIN.AVG. LOT SIZE = 15,000 SF. RESIDENTIAL LOTS: RANGE OF SIZES = 10,014-28,150 SF. AVG SIZE = 15,039 SF. Attached(indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): N/A 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: 750,000 900,000 Sale Price(s) $ to $ Rent(per month) $N/A to $N/A 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: PRODUCT AND FLOOR PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED, BUT WE ANTICIPATE AN AVERAGE OF FOUR(4)BEDROOMS PER UNIT. 23) indicate anticipated household size by unit type: PRODUCT AND FLOOR PLANS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED, BUT WE ANTICIPATE AN AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE OF FOUR(4)PERSONS. 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: 7.17 a. Elementary. 3.59 b. Junior High: 3.2 c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s)and major function(s)of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: N/A Updated 4/11/2013 Page 6 of 10 F to J -146 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: N/A 27) Indicate hours of operation: N/A 28) Number of employees: N/A Total: Maximum Shift: N/A Time of Maximum Shift: N/A 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): N/A 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City: NIA • '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): N/A _ . .. . -.-. -_........ 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 HAVE BEEN CONTACTED AND HAVE AFFIRMED THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SERVICE. Updated 4/11/2013 Page 7 of 10 FtoJ -147 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, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use, if known. THERE IS NO KNOWN HISTORY OF ANY USE, STORAGE, OR DISCHARGE OF HAZERDOUS AND/OR TOXIS MATERIALS. 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. 35) The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fee. 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/Planning Director hearing: I hereby certify that the statements furnished 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. I further understand that additional information may be require be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. / Date: 10/31/2013 Signature: Title: SR. PROJECT MANAGER Updated 4/1112013 Page 8 of 10 FtoJ -148 ATTACHMENT "A" ® CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTIMATED WATER USE AND SEWER FLOWS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT (Data Provided by Cucamonga Valley Water District February 2003) Water Usage Single-Family 705 gallons per EDU per day Multi-Family 256 gallons per EDU per day Neighborhood Commercial 1000 gal/day/unit (tenant) General Commercial 4082 gal/day/unit(tenant) Office Professional 973 gal/day/unit(tenant) Institutional/Government 6412 gal/day/unit (tenant) Industrial Park 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/unit(tenant) Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/unit(tenant) Sewer Flows Single-Family 270 gallons per EDU per day • Multi-Family 190 gallons per EDU per day _ General Commercial- 1900 gal/day/acre Office Professional Professional 1900 gal/day/acre Institutional/Government Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/acre Large General Industrial 2020 gal/day/acre Heavy Industrial (distribution) 1863 gal/day/acre Source: Cucamonga Valley Water District Engineering & Water Resources Departments, Urban Water Management Plan 2000 Updated 4/11/2013 Page 9 of 10 FtoJ —149 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 6061 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 Updated 4/11/2013 Page 10 of 10 F to J -150 rg UM L.5.O MMENT OF TIW Mi OR RCA N�MWA RVNU E Ilf,r It 4 t7 "a'LOM Project Site Fto J -151 • "restern Development, MOAK Tract 'b e �.�•� fid` ` t4 rn `.. - • � . I ' •- ^� Ike_ � _ n. 4 r 18936Existing Conditions • • . Y Tract • Y, y t� • 9 " /L r 18936 Existing Conditions ,..caea�,�rn.rc+.rr^'M�°nX^.v?!°oc�mx, .°ww.w•',�A"�!ryr:.:..-�-..,y.-.,_ �. Storm Western Development, Inc. w.. y 9 10 T e-F 11 12 Tract 18936 Existing Conditions Storm Western evelopment, Inc. r 13 14 T 0 l.n 1 r II � i, Y ti 15 Tract 18936 Existing Conditions Storm Wester-7 Development, Inc. ��.!i!,� .. fr •�wr . 43 i 10 'T"1'ks -- � , x 4 r x .�Jy1�1 i f ir Photo View Legend) City of Rancho Cucamonga • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113. and Variance DRC2014-00219 2. Related Files: N/A 3. Description of Project: The applicant proposes subdividing 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots are for residential purposes, with Lot 17 as the new boundaries for the existing church (Cross and Crown Lutheran church), which is located on the northwest corner of the project site. The application includes amendments to the General Plan (DRC2013-00961) and Etiwanda Specific Plan (DRC2013-00962) to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 DU per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 DU per acre), a Variance (DRC2014-00219) for property line walls ranging in height from 7 to 11 feet on the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots along with a Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014-00113)for the removal of 50 trees. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: • Storm Western Development, Inc. 23223 Normandie Avenue Torrance, CA 90501 5. General Plan Designation: Very Low (VL) Residential 6. Zoning: Very Low(VL) Residential 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is made up of two parcels of land totaling 8.32 acres. The northern 5-acre parcel of land includes an existing church, parking lot and playground, along with a portion of undeveloped land. The southern 3.32-2cre parcel of land includes a horse corral, along with a large portion of undeveloped land. The existing church and parking lot will remain and become Lot 17 of the 17-lot tentative tract map. The undeveloped portion of the project site contains 50 trees, including 33 eucalyptus trees. The site drains roughly from north to south and ranges in elevation from approximately 1,380 to 1,390 feet. Vegetation on the undeveloped portion of the site is made up mostly of ruderal and ornamental grasses which has been regularly cleared during annual discing for weed abatement. Two public streets .terminate into the eastern property line of the project site, Vista Street and Pinon Street. The lots to the north of the project site are developed with single-family residences and zoned Very Low (VL) Residential; the lot to the south is developed with a church along with related sports fields and is zoned Very Low (VL) Residential, the parcels to the east are developed with single-family residences and are zoned Low (L) Residential; and, the lots to the west are developed with single-family residences and are zoned Very Low(VL) Residential. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga • Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 F to J —157 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 2 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner (909)477-2750 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: CVWD—Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR— Environmental Impact Report FEIR— Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR- Final Program 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 SWPPP—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 (✓) Greenhouse Gas Emissions ( ) Hazards &Waste Materials (✓) Hydrology&Water Quality (✓) Land Use & Planning ( ) Mineral Resources (✓) Noise ( ) Population & Housing ( ) Public Services ( ) Recreation ( )Transportation/Traffic ( ) Utilities & Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: (X) 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 becau,,pe"revisions in the project have been made by, or agreed to, by the project proponent. A MITIG ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Prepared By: Date: Reviewed Date: Rev 4-7-15 F to J -158 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 3 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation, Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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 scenic vistas within or adjacent to the project site. The City does not have any ordinances protecting scenic views within the City. The site is not within a view corridor according to General Plan Figure LU-6. 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 south of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue and is surrounded by residential development to the north, east and west and by two separate churches to the south and west. The project includes the removal of 60 linear feet of the existing 660 linear feet of property line wall adjacent to project site and the church property along the south side of Carnesi Drive. Removal of the wall is necessary in order to develop a new City street to provide access to the proposed residential lots. The wall was originally constructed to screen views of the project site from the then new subdivision on the north side of Carnesi Drive. The wall is not a City required theme wall and the wall is not part of an easement that requires preservation of the wall. The project will also require the construction of a sidewalk along the south side of Carnesi Drive from the proposed new public street to Etiwanda Avenue. Along the south side of Carnesi Drive, construction of the sidewalk will necessitate partial removal of the existing cobblestone and landscaping material. The project site is adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue which is a Special Boulevard within the City. The project will not change the visual quality of Etiwanda Avenue. The applicant is requesting General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential. The lots will provide a transition in density from the smaller lots to the east to the larger lots to the north. The visual quality of the area will not degrade as a result of the project as the future homes on the proposed lots will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee for compatibly with the surrounding area. City standards require the subdivider to underground the existing and new utility lines and facilities to minimize the unsightly appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 87-96, unless exempted by said Resolution. The change to • the visual environment due to the project is a less-than-significant impact. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —159 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 4 Less Than Sio_nificant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) The project would increase the number of street lights and security lighting used in the immediate vicinity. The design and placement of light fixtures will be shown on the site plans which require review for consistency with City standards including adding 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, no mitigation required. 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re-zoning of, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓ } forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓} land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: a) The site is not designated as Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The site is located south of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue and is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, and west and by two separate churches to the south and west. There are approximately 209 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga according to the General Plan and the California Department of Conservation Farmland Map 2010. Concentrations of Important Farmland are sparsely located in the southern and eastern parts of the City and is characterized by existing and planned development. Farmland in the southern portion of the City is characterized by industrial, residential, and commercial land uses and Farmland in the eastern portion of the City is within the Etiwanda area and planned for development. Further, a large number of the designated farmland 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 FPEIR 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 includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential. Impacts on Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the City due to the proposed Rev 4-7-15 F to J —160 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 5 • Less Thanec Signiani Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Poten;:ally with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporates Imoact Imoact land use change and subdivision are no greater than the impacts reviewed in the General Plan FPEIR. No mitigation is required. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. No mitigation is required. C) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. d) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related of the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. No mitigation is required. e) The site is located south of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue and is surrounded by residential development to the north, east and west and by two separate churches to the south and west. The nearest agricultural use is a vineyard that is located approximately .5 mile to the southeast from the project site. Furthermore, there are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land. Therefore, there is • no potential for conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ( j ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 discussed in subsection b, the project would not exceed any air quality standards and would not interfere with the region's ability to comply with Federal and State air quality • standards for Criterion 1 (increase in the frequency or severity of violations of local air quality) or Criterion 2 (exceed assumptions in the AQMP consistency with the 2003 AQMP). Therefore the project is consistent with the 2003 AQMP. Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -161 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 6 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially Wit Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Both the State of California and the Federal government have established health-based ambient air quality standards (AAQS) for seven air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PM,o), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2.5) microns in diameter and lead. Among these pollutants, ozone and particulate matter (PM,o and PM2.5) are considered regional pollutants while the others have more localized effects. In addition, the State of California has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (1-12S), vinyl chloride and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety: The City of Rancho Cucamonga area is within the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) provides the SCAQMD with the authority to manage transportation activities at indirect sources. Indirect sources of pollution are generated when minor sources collectively emit a substantial amount of pollution. Examples of this include motor vehicles at an intersection, a mall and on highways. SCAQMD also regulates stationary sources of pollution within a jurisdictional area. Direct emissions from motor vehicles are regulated by the Air Resources Board (ARB). The combination of topography, low mixing height, abundant sunshine, and emissions from the second largest urban area in the United States gives the Basin the worst air pollution problem in the nation. The Basin experiences a persistent temperature inversion (increasing temperature with increasing altitude); this inversion (coupled with low wind speeds) limits the vertical dispersion of air contaminants, holding them relatively near the ground. Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) of 1970, the EPA established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six major pollutants, termed criteria pollutants: ozone (03), coarse particulate matter with a diameter or 10 microns or less (PM,o), fine particulate matter less than 2.5 (PM2.5) microns in diameter, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (S02), and lead. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the Federal and State governments have established AAQS, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health. Data collected at permanent monitoring stations are used by the EPA to classify regions as "attainment" or "non-attainment" depending on whether the regions met the requirements stated in the primary NAAQS. Non-attainment areas have additional restrictions as required by the EPA. The EPA has designated the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as the Metropolitan Planning.Organization (MPO) responsible for ensuring the Basin's compliance with the FCAA. The South Coast Air Basin is in Non-Attainment Status for Ozone, PM,o and PM2.5. Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts.of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The criteria include daily emissions thresholds, compliance with State and national air quality standards, and consistency with the current AQMP. As prescribed by SCAQMD, an air impact study was prepared by LSA (February 2015; Technical Appendices B) that utilizes the California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2013.2.2 to evaluate short-term construction emissions for localized significant thresholds, long-term Rev 4-7-15 F to J —162 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 7 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potennal!Y With Ttan S grif:ant Miugat:or. Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact operational emissions, operation emissions for localized significant thresholds, and Green House Gas Emissions. Short Term (Construction): Project Emissions and Impacts The project proposes the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots are for residential purposes, with Lot 17 as the new boundaries for the existing church (Cross and Crown Lutheran Church), which is located on the northwest corner of the project site. The project site is vacant land except for the portion developed with the existing church, which will remain. The potential emissions associated with the project are described in the following sections. 7 oral Regional Pollutant I•:miss_ions.Ihs.dat a Construction - .e L•'shaust Funitite -- Exhaust Phase ROG \Ox CO SO, I'NP\I:.� P�1•.� CU.c 3_Preparation 4-! 0.(1-12 7.2 i _ �-�- :.9 ?. — i - - -4.400 Gradin; 6.i 81 :- 0.12 4.9 _. 2 0 2.8I ,Oi(i BUiidirt_� - ! Construction —4.2 _ - _ �;__�!J 1 U. 0 �1 �.0 ;.100 Architectural -- _= -- - - ("uatir.2 I's ?.r, ?.7 0.()()•4j G.l_ 0_.22 0.0;; 0._= 420 • Patin_ 22 ? _fi ().024 ;.I- 1.3 (1.04� - 1.2 2.;00 Peak Dail% ,2 81 - = - 6.7 11,000 SC aQJ1D 150 �� - -- - I hresholds 75 100 550 150 Significant - -- -- I hreshold \o \u No \o `q \p Emissions? So u, I S A \:.,,.:r. .. Irc I:hruar 201 i. \„tc.Peak dai\ ernk;ion; ,.,_ irmsed, ,_c•or;t:a;c a"umr t:-:n:ha!tits F�u:idi C •' •; _. ,nstnt�u��a..1:c'r.u:.�t-,ral Patin!^...;cr ,E;aI ,,cri P. CO carh;,., UO _raJ1'in',id PM ^.ar(icufate nna__-ie„than 10'I'!L c—,+ir -ve (() carher..,iio:,i 1c eyui.uiet:, RO)O rcaclic or-,Lnic corn Pouni; un s;ere:,, a AQ%1l) C,,u:: C \(}+ n,tr tset'.u\idc; C(), ;u'h:r oeidee Construction activities associated with the project will result in emissions of CO, VOCs, NOX, SO, PMio and PM2.5 and are expected from the following construction activities: demolition, grading (including soil import), building construction, painting (architectural coatings) paving (curb, gutter, flatwork, and parking lot), and construction worker commuting. Localized_ Significance Summery (Construction Emissions with Best Available Control Measures • Rev 4-7-15 F to J —163 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 8 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources. Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact impact Emissions Sources NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Ort-site ernissions 57 ' 4; 10.1 6.7 LST thresholds197 1.711 14.0 9.0 -.- - -1 ---- - - - -+--- Si,nificant emissions? T �'o ; No T No No Source: LSA Associates. Inc.. February 2015. SR.A: Central San Bernardino Vallee. 5 ac. 82 ft (25 rn) di;tancL CO=carbon monoxide NOx = nitrogen oxides Ib -day = pound; per da} PM,: = Farticulat� matter less than 2.5 microns in size LS I'= Ideal significance' I'll =particulate ntatter less than 10 rnicrurrs in size thresi old Equipment Exhausts and Related Construction Activities Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities envisioned on-site would vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on-site would result in localized exhaust emissions. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally emissions associated with land clearing and exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a,project-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operation and weather conditions at the time of construction. Construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions and other factors. The proposed project will be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 to control fugitive dust. Architectural Coatings Architectural coatings contain VOCs that are similar to ROCs and are part of the Os precursors. The project proposes subdividing 8.32 acres in order to develop 16 single-family residential lots and 1 lot for an existing church. Based on the project, it is estimated that the construction of 16 single-family residences on the proposed lots will result in the release of approximately 25 lbs. of VOC per day during the coating phase. The emissions would occur after grading activities, near the end of the construction period. Therefore, this VOC emission is the principal air emission and is less than the SCAQMD VOC threshold of 75 lbs./day. Odors Heavy-duty equipment in the project area during construction would emit odors. However, the construction activity would cease to occur after individual construction is completed. No other sources of objectionable odors have been identified for the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. In compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 the proposed uses are not- anticipated to emit any objectionable odors. Therefore, Rev 4-7-15 F to J —164 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 9 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact objectionable odors posing a health risk to potential on-site and existing off-site uses would not occur as a result of the proposed project. Naturally Occurring Asbestos The proposed project is located in San Bernardino County, which is not among the counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their soils. In addition, there has been no serpentine or ultramafic rock found in the project area. Therefore. the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) during project construction is small and less-than-significant. Based on the discussion above and with implementation of the following Best Available Control Measures (BACM) identified in the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by LSA (February 2015; Technical Appendices B) as mitigation measures, short-term, construction impacts will be less-than-significant.- 1) ess-than-significant:1) Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (i.e., previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 2) Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving). • 3) Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials or maintain at least 0:6-meter of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirement of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. 4) Reduce Traffic Speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. 5) Divert at .least 50 percent of the construction material (including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal and cardboard). 6) Use "Green Building Materials," such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, as defined on the CalRecycle website. Cumulative Impacts: Short-Term Construction Emissions Continued development will contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. 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. Nevertheless, fugitive dust and equipment emissions are required to be assessed. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Air Quality based on the Rev 4-7-15 F to J —165 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 10 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact_ .Incor orated Impact .Impact future build out of the City. Based upon on the Urban Emissions Model (URBEMIS7G) estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan (FPEIR), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (03), and Particulate Matter (PMz.s and PM,o) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for significance; therefore, they would all be cumulatively considerable if they cannot be mitigated on a project basis to a level less-than-significant. This city-wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section 4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. The project includes amending the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential to support the construction of 16 single-family residences. Based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by LSA (February 2015; Technical Appendices B), short-term construction impacts as a result of the project will be less than the related SCAQMD threshold. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed any thresholds of significance, the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. With implementation of the following best practices and mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize short-term air quality impacts, the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts will be less-than-significant: 7) 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. 8) 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. 9) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 10) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 11) 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. 12.) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 13) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: Rev 4-7-15 F to J —166 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 11 • Less Than Sign.`cant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Thar Signincart Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incoroorated Impa= Impact • 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. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. • 14) 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 Pil110 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 15) 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. Proiect Lona Term (Operational) Emissions and Impacts Long-term air pollutant emissions are those associated with stationary sources and mobile sources involving any project-related changes. The proposed project would result in a net increase in the amount of development in the area; therefore, the proposed project would result in net increases in both stationary and mobile source emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from additional natural gas consumption for the future residences on the proposed lots and electricity for the lighting in these residences. As shown in the following tables, project implementation will not exceed any significance thresholds. No long-term, operational impacts will occur as a result of the project. • Rev 4-7-15 F to J —167 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 12 Less Than. Significant Less Pitially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation SignificantNo Impact Incorporated Impact Significant : act Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Pollutant Emissions,lbs/dav Source RUG ti0x —_CU SO, PJi,;, P.N11.1 :area — — - i.9 0.016 l., 1 0.00007 0.0'9 0.028 — _Enerzv_ 0.016 0.14 0.018 0.00087 0.011 —. . ..------— 0.011 Mobile 0.64 1.9 7. -...-0.017 -- - ----U._�4 Total Project i Emissions 4.6 2.1 8.7 0.018 1.2 0.38 SCA11D Thresholds 55 550 1S0 150 SS Significant'' \o \o \o \o \o \o Source: LSA Associates. fnc..Fca+ruar 3011.-7. (U=c3roon monoxide Pit.;:=particutatc matter Ic,�than 10 micron;in site M =cannon dioxide iwcs : reacti%e organic compounds 1r>..day _=hounds her da. SCAQN1D =-South Coast:fir(hctlit} N1a!11,IUe1I1Cn4 V nitrogen oxides t)ictrict P.M,: particuiate matter k.:ss than 2.5 microns 5l.), =- ultlu oxides itt :iii? Long Term Operational Localized Impacts (lbs/day) Emissions sources _\Ox _ ! CO Onsite emissions0.1? % 1.7 0.089 0.045 i LST Thresholds 197 1.,711 4.0 2.0 i Significant Emissions'. No No No i \o Source: I.SA Associates. Inc.. Februarti 201�. SRA: Central San Bemardino Valle%. 5 ac. 82 tt distance. ole-site traffic 5 per;:ent of total CO =carbon inonoxide 1.'MI i partict.late matter 1;,Ns than 2.5 micron.; to iize lb 'dx, —puunds per d1N P,%9i„= Particulate matter Itis than 10 nlicnm; in size NO\ =nitro en oxides Cumulative Impacts (Long Term/Operational Emissions) The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the potential impacts to air quality based on the future build out of the City. In the long-term, continued development would result in significant operational vehicle emissions based upon on the URBEMIS7G model estimates in Table 4.3-3 of the General Plan FPEIR,- therefore, PEIR;therefore, all developments would be cumulatively significant if they cannot be mitigated . on a project basis to a less-than-significant level. This City-wide increase in emissions was identified as a significant unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council as noted in the Section 4.3 of the General Plan FPEIR. This project would amend the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use and zoning designations for the project site from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential to support the construction of 16 single-family residences. Based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by LSA (February 2015; Technical Appendices B), long- term operational impacts will be less than SCAQMD thresholds as a result of the project. Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -168 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 13 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed any thresholds of significance, the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. With implementation of the following mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize long-term, operational air quality impacts, the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts will be less-than-significant: 16) Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 17) All residential structures shall be required to incorporate high-efficiency/low- polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 18) All residential structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. C) As noted in the General Plan FEIR (Section 4.3), continued development would contribute to the pollutant levels in the Rancho Cucamonga area, which already exceed Federal and State standards. The General Plan FPEIR 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. • As noted in subsection b above, the project would amend the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use and zoning designations from Very Low(VL) Residential to Low(L) Residential to support the construction of 16 single-family residences. Based on the Air Quality Impact Analysis prepared by LSA (February 2015; Technical Appendices B), short-term construction and long-term operational impacts to air quality will be less than SCAQMD thresholds as a result of the project. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed any thresholds of significance, the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. 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 within 1/4 mile of sensitive receptors, Etiwanda Intermediate School and Etiwanda High School. Potential impacts to air quality are consistent with the Public Health and Safety Super-Element within the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. During construction, there is the possibility of fugitive dust to be generated from grading the site. The mitigation measures listed under b), above and the following mitigation measure will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels. 19) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 Rev 4-7-15 F to J —169 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 14 Less Thar. Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources. Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. e) Construction Odors (Short-term) may include odors associated with equipment use including diesel exhaust and the installation of roofing material, painting and paving. These odors are temporary and dissipate rapidly. Operation Odors (Long-term) are typically associated with residential uses such as cooking and gardening. Typically, the proposed residential uses do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts anticipated. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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? i 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} 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 project site is not within an area covered by any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The site is located south of Camesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue and is surrounded by residential development to the north, east, and west and by two separate churches to the south and west. The site has been previously disrupted during annual discing for weed abatement. According to the General Plan Figure RC-4, and Section 4.4 of the General Plan FPEIR, the project site is not within an area of sensitive biological resources; therefore, development is not anticipated to adversely affect rare or Rev 4-7-15 F to J —170 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 15 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiaiiy Wth Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. A General Biological Resources Assessment was performed on the project site by LSA (December 16, 2014; Technical Appendices D) which concluded that the proposed project is not anticipated to affect threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat. The study finds that the site does not provide habitat for threatened or endangered species and that the wildlife species observed on the project site are common to urban or disturbed environments. The contribution of the project to cumulative biological impacts is not expected to be cumulatively considerable as the project site is within an urban area. is relatively small, and is isolated from areas of better habitat. The General Biological Resources Assessment finds that the site does not have the habitat needed to support burrowing owls as the on-site soils are too compacted and the site is too small, isolated and lacks the necessary vegetative cover for prey. The site does contain a large number of mature trees which have the potential to provide nesting areas for migrating birds. To avoid any impact on nesting birds: it is recommended that a pre-construction nesting bird survey be conducted a maximum 3 days prior to ground breaking activity to avoid impact to birds protected under the Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Act. 1) Prior to approval of a Grading Permit, a breeding bird survey that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is occurring. Submit the written report outlining the findings to the • Planning Department within 3 days of groundbreaking activity. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either(a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation; or (b) the juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If the biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of non-raptor nests, and within 5,000 feet of raptor nests, during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of the young. b) The project site is located in an urban area with no natural communities. The project site does not contain drainage features, ponded areas or riparian habitat subject to jurisdiction by CDFW, USACE and or REQCB. 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 City is primarily located in an urban area that does not contain large, contiguous natural open space areas. Wildlife potentially may move through the north/south trending tributaries in the northern portion of the City and within the Sphere of Influence. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. e) The project site contains 50 heritage trees. The Development Code defines heritage trees as all eucalyptus windrows, any tree in excess of thirty feet in height and having a single trunk with a diameter of 20 inches or more or having a multi-trunk with a diameter of 30 inches or more. An Arborist Report was prepared by Jim Borer (December 5, 2014; • Technical Appendices A) for the project that recommends the removal of 41 of the on-site trees and the relocation of the 9 remaining on-site trees. The trees observed on the project site were 33 blue gum eucalyptus trees, 11 California fan palms, 2 Brazilian Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -171 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 16 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than pp 9 Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Incorporated Impact Impact pepper trees 1 elderberry tree, 1 American sweet gum tree, 1 Catalina cherry tree and 1 European olive tree. The 33 eucalyptus trees have been repeatedly topped leading to a poor structural integrity and are recommended for removal. Two of the 11 California fan palms have physical defects which make them poor candidates for preservation. The remaining 9 California fan palms are in good condition and are given a fifty percent chance for surviving transplantation. The 8 remaining trees have poor form and character and are recommended for removal. The project site is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area which requires that eucalyptus trees that are part of a windrow be replaced with 5-gallon sized trees planted 8 feet on center. The project will be required to plant eucalyptus trees at the required spacing along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots. The impact of the removal of the trees will be further mitigated by the Development Code requirement that new residential projects plant a minimum of two trees in the front yard area of each lot. The following mitigation measures will reduce impact to less-than-significant levels: 2) Plant 5-gallon size eucalyptus trees in the rear yard off all 16 residential lots in a windrow along the rear property line at 8 feet on center. Adequate provisions for deep irrigation of the trees shall be shown on the Landscape Plans submitted with the Design Review application for the future residences on the lots. 3) The 9 healthy California fan palms outlined in the Arborist Report (Jim Borer - December 5, 2014; Technical Appendices A) shall be protected in place and be integrated into the final landscape plan when house product is submitted. f) Neither the City nor the SOI are within an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved State Habitat Conservation Plan area. The project site is not located within a local conservation area according to the General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Plan, Figure RC-1. No conflicts with habitat conservation plans will occur. Therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated. 5. 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). As required by California Assembly Bill AB52 and California State Bill SB18, tribal notification of the project was sent to a list 7 tribal communities that was provided by the Native American Heritage Commission on November 21, 2013. The City has not receive a request for Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -172 Initial Study for . City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 17 • Less Thar. Significant cLess Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentia!Iy with. Than S,gniF.cant Mitigation SigniF.can: No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact consultation from any of the tribal communities contacted within the 90 day comment period provided under SB18 or the 30 day comment period provided under AB52. Staff also sent an information request related to the project to the San Bernardino County Museum on February 25, 2014. Robin Laska of the San Bernardino County Museum provided a Historical Resources Review for the project site dated March 4, 2014. The report recommended that an archeological survey be completed for the project site. A Cultural Resources Assessment was completed for the project site by LSA (December 2014: Technical Appendices C) that included a document search and a physical survey for historical resources on the project site. The report found that there were no historic resources documented within .5 mile of the project site and the project area has sustained severe disturbance over the decades since the 1930s. The survey could not find any character defining features associated with historic period farming. An intensive pedestrian survey was completed on the project site on December 13, 2013. All portions of the project area were surveyed in a systematic parallel transect spaced approximately 15 meters apart. The pedestrian survey found only remnant historic period concrete irrigation features which are indicative of a possible water trough near the center of the project site. This feature was considered an unremarkable example of a common resource type. No other previously undocumented cultural resources were identified within the project area. The report concluded that the potential for subsurface historic resources is low and does not warrant further consideration. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. b) There are no known archaeological sites or resources recorded on the project: however, the Rancho Cucamonga area is known to have been inhabited by Native Americans according to the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.6). Construction activity, particularly grading, soil excavation, and compaction, could adversely affect or eliminate existing and potential archaeological resources. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of Cultural Resources based on the future build out of the City. The following mitigation measures as identified in the FPEIR 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. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological • resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, Rev 4-7-15 F to J —173 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 18 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: SignifiPgnifi ally with Than cant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact planning the site as a park or green space or paying a in-kind mitigation fee. • 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 FPEIR (Section 4.6) indicates that the Rancho Cucamonga area is on an alluvial fan. According to the research performed at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and 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 to 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 significant vertebrate fossils. The project site is underlain by Quaternary alluvium per the Public Safety Element of the General Plan; 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: • 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 summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to 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 including 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 Rev 4-7-15 F to J —174 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 19 ® Less Than Sicnifica.nt Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Po:entjaliy with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ori 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 Figure PS-2, and Section 4.7 of the General Plan FPEIR. The Red Hill Fault, passes within 1.5 miles north-west of the site, and the Cucamonga Fault Zone lies approximately 2.5 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 12 miles northeasterly of the site and the San Andreas, capable of up to Mw 8.2 earthquakes, is 14 miles northeasterly of the site. Each of these faults can produce strong ground shaking. Adhering to the Uniform Building Code and Standard Conditions will ensure that geologic • impacts are less-than-significant. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —175 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 20 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially Significant with Tnan nt Mitigation Significant No Impa:t Incorporated Impact Impact b) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is within a designated Soil Erosion Control Area per Exhibit 4.7-4 of the General Plan FPEIR. 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 site 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) 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 PM,o 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 PIVI,o 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 PM,o emissions. C) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.7) indicates that there is a potential for the hillside areas at the northern end of the City and in the SOI for slope failure, landslides, and/or erosion. Areas subject to slope instability contain slopes of 30 percent or greater. Landslides may be induced by seismic activity, rain, or construction. The City Hillside Development Regulations prohibits the development within slopes of 30 percent or greater and limit the number of units that could be constructed within the Hillside Residential and Very Low Density Residential designations in the Hillside areas. The site is not within an Earthquake hazard zone or other unstable geologic unit or soil type according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-2. The site also does not contain slopes over 10 percent as identified by General Plan Figure PS-4. Soil types on-site consist of Tujunga Loamy Sand (TuB) soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 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 Tujunga Loamy Sand (TuB) soil association according to General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.7-3. These soils are typically stable. 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. No adverse impacts are anticipated. 1 Rev 4-7-15 F to J —176 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 21 • Less T^ar Si3nit;cant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially war, rnan Significant M;tigation Significant Nc Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project.- a) roject.a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ( ) (✓) ( ) 0indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) Comments: a) Regulations and Significance—The Federal government began studying the phenomenon of global warming as early as 1979 with the National Climate Protection Act (92 Stat. 601). In June of 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's Green House Gas (GHG) emissions reduction target in Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. The EO created goals to reduce GHG emissions for the State of California to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Additionally, on December 7, 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued findings regarding GHGs under rule 202(x) of the Clean Air Act: (1) that GHGs endanger human health; and (2) that this will be the first steps to regulating GHGs through the Federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA defines 6 key GHGs (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons • (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)). The combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to GHG pollution. The western states, including Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington, already experience hotter, drier climates. California is a substantial contributor of GHGs and is expected to see an increase of 3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit (F) over the next century. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 requires that the California Air Resources Board (ARB), the lead agency for implementing AB 32, determine what the statewide GHG emission level was in 1990 and approve a statewide GHG emissions limit (427 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent) to be achieved by 2020 and prepare a Scoping Plan to outline the main strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline. Significant progress can be made toward the 2020 goal through existing technologies and improving the efficiency of energy use. Other solutions would include improving the State's infrastructure, and transitioning to cleaner and more efficient sources of energy. The ARB estimates that 38 percent of the State's GHG emissions in 2004 was from transportation sources followed by electricity generation (both in-State and out-of-State) at 28 percent and industrial at 20 percent. Residential and commercial activities account for 9 percent, agricultural uses at 6 percent, high global warming potential gases at 3 percent, and recycling and waste at 1 percent. It is not anticipated that any single development project would have a substantial effect on global climate change but that GHG emissions from the project would combine with • emissions across California, the United States, and the world to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. Therefore, consistent with the ARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan, the proposed project was evaluated for consistency with the Early Action Measures Rev 4-7-15 F to J —177 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 22 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact_. Impact (Scoping Plan is a recommendation until adopted through normal rulemaking). The proposed project is assessed by determining its consistency with the 37 Recommended Actions identified by ARB. In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 97 and CEQA, the project has been analyzed based on a qualitative analysis (CEQA 15064.4). Additionally, the ARB was directed through SB 375 to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved within the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. SCAQMD and ARB maintain ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Basin. The stations closest to the project site are the Upland station and the Fontana-Arrow Highway station. The Upland station monitors all criteria pollutant except PM,o, PM2.5, and SO2 which are monitored at the Fontana-Arrow Highway station. The ambient air quality in the project area for CO, NO2, and SO2 are consistently below the relevant State and Federal standards (based on ARB and EPA from 2007, 2008, and 2009 readings). Ozone, PM,o, and PM2.5 levels all exceed State and Federal standards regularly. Project Related Sources of GHG's — Based on the Guidelines for the Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G, a project would normally be considered to have a significant effect on air quality if the project would violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community. However, neither the CEQA statutes, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidelines, nor the draft proposed changes to the CEQA Guidelines prescribe thresholds of.significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis. Significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the Lead Agency. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has not adopted a threshold of significance for GHG emissions. However, a screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is based upon South Coast Air Quality Management District staff's proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary sources emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD's Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans. Project related GHG's would include emissions from direct and indirect sources. Based on the Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by LSA (February, 2015; Technical Appendix B), total project related emissions would be 310 MTCO2eq/year, as shown in the following table: Short-Term Regional Green House Gas Emissions from Construction Activities Rev 4-7-15 F to J —178 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 23 • Less Than S.gnirica^t Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact Total Regional Pollutant Emissions, mt/yr Construction Phase CO: 1 CHS \.O Me Site Preparatiotl 20 0.0056 0 -)0 Gradin; 120 0.0092 i 0 120 j Bui}ding Coilstructiotl -220 0.041 p- _...?20._— �_ Architectural Coating 24 0.0023 i 024 Paving. _ 23 0.0064 023 Sourc,: I.S:1 :1S nciatc;.. Inc.. Febroarx 2015. CH, - meh:cn r:it.N=metric tuns per ear C'0_C=C r`on-clioei,ie equi,,alcni Lona Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pollutant Emissions,31Tf ear i Bio- NBio- Total I Source CO_ CO, CO- C:F1; \•O CO e i Construction eniksion_ 2 amortized o�er 30 •ear; ; -0 0 t''0`' -i) 0 '0 0 - ._. ..._. ..... ---...- --._..._'._... () erationa! Emi,sic-ms ; - • -ea Sc•ttrce> ! 0 4.1 4.l 0.00036 0.00013? - .1 Ener,% SOurCeS 06�; 61 0.00_'2 0.00036 64 Nlohile Source, a .. _3 _ .._ 230 .. - .01 ------- -23,0 11 astC SOUr:es -- 8.6 �.. _. —..----.—...... : . ..__s. _ . p _._..._... ... ..._ . .� ... _ C� -- — 14 a,.r 1_saee_ _ ti.� _ 6.0 6. 0.0"4 1.0003( i 7.3 l Total Project Emissions 4.1 300 310 0.28 0.0018 310 •� I ebniar-, 2-1)1 ,. ..,...t:_.,:. .... ...... .:: .:..::. .. .. .:,. ..;r•.•;t:-, d.:c:;.;"unit:^._ .. :!i :unt'�:-;. t:.:, n:etr.: - diio \tili"CC!, .:`il'-h:rJ i..'g1:'.']i'". C O_c carbon dioxide?•,u:,tile:;; As shown in the table above, direct and indirect operational emissions associated with the project as compared to the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance of 3,000 MTCO2e per year would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. Cumulative Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions - The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.5) indicates that GHG emissions result from construction activities associated with diesel-powered construction equipment and other combustion sources (i.e. Generators; workers vehicles, material delivery, etc.). The GHG emitted by construction equipment is primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). The highest levels of construction related GHG's occur during site preparation including demolition, grading and excavation. Construction related GHG's are also emitted from off-site haul trucks and construction workers traveling to the job site. Exhaust emissions from construction activities would vary each day with the changes in construction activity on site. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHG's such as CO2, Ch.4, and N20. CH4 is emitted during the • fueling of heavy equipment. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —179 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC201 M0962 Page 24 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Based on the Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by LSA (February, 2015; Technical Appendix B), no significant impacts to GHGs from short-term construction impacts would occur as a result of the project as shown in the table above. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. The proposed project would have less than a significant short-term cumulative impact with implementation of the following enforceable actions, which are included as mitigation measures in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the 2010 General Plan Update FPEIR: 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low-emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. t 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for the construction crew. Cumulative Lona Term (Operational) GHG's Emissions —The primary source of GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would be from motor vehicles, combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, as well as off-site GHG emissions from generation of electricity consumed by the proposed land use development over a long term. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to review the project for"adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure," to determine potential impacts of GHGs. Therefore the project has_ been analyzed based on methodologies and information available to the City at the time this document was prepared. Estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is a worst case with the understanding that technology changes may reduce GHG emissions in the future. To date, there is no established quantified GHG emission threshold. The project involves the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land for the future development of 16 single-family residences and therefore would result in the net increase of both stationary and mobile source emissions. The majority of energy consumption typically occurs during project operation (more than 80 percent and less than 20 percent during construction activities). The proposed project will incorporate several design features that are consistent with the California Office of the Attorney General's recommended measures to reduce GHG emission including: water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —180 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 25 • Less Than Sigrificant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant aly with Than ant Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incorooraten Impact Imoact The project is consistent with the California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team proposed early action measures to mitigate climate change included in the CARB Scoping Plan mandated under AB 32. The proposed project will incorporate several design features including: water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks. Additionally, the City is participating in the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) with SANBAG for the San Bernardino County area pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 375. Based on the Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by LSA (February, 2015; Technical Appendix B), no significant impacts to GHGs from long-term operational impacts would occur as a result of the project as shown in the tables above. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. The proposed project would have less than a significant long-term operational impact with implementation of the following enforceable actions, which are included as mitigation measures in the Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by LSA (February, 2015; Technical Appendix B) and in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the 2010 General Plan Update FPEIR: 7) Use "Green Building Materials," such as those materials that are resource-efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project. • 8) Divert at least 50 percent of the demolished and/or grubbed construction materials (including, but -not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal and cardboard). 9) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of; • Increased insulation, • Limit air leakage through the structure, • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances, • Landscape and develop site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping, • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems, • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements, • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's)for outdoor lighting. 10) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the • project and include the following; Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -181 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 26 Less Than Signi5cant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact. • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. 11) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. b) The project proposes to amend the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential to allow for the future development of 16 single-family residences. The General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments will increase the potential maximum density of the project site by up to 2 dwelling units per acre, for a maximum 4 dwelling units per acre. This change is considered minimal due to the relatively small size of the project site (8.32 acres of land) and will not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases No other applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emission apply to the project. The 2010 General Plan Update includes adopted policies and Standard Conditions that respond to the Attorney General and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). The General Plan policies and Standard Conditions guide infill and sustainable development reliant on pedestrian connections, re-use and rehabilitation of existing structures, link transportation opportunities, promote development that is sensitive to natural resources and incentivizes denser mixed use projects that maximizes diverse opportunities. The proposed project includes water efficient landscaping, shade trees, and walkways that provide accessibility to public sidewalks and therefore is consistent with the sustainability and climate change policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) analyzed the impacts of GHG's and determined that GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable, which would be a significant, unavoidable adverse cumulative impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was ultimately adopted by the City Council. Based on the Greenhouse Gas Analysis prepared by LSA (February, 2015; Technical Appendix B), no significant impacts to GHGs from short-term construction impacts or long-term operational impacts would occur as a result of the project. Because the project would result in minimal emissions that do not exceed the SCAQMD's interim threshold of significance, the contribution of the project to GHGs from short-term construction and long-term operational cumulative impacts is also considered minimal. With implementation of the mitigation measures listed in subsection a), less-than- significant impacts would occur as a result of the project. In addition, the proposed project would not hinder the State's GHG reduction goals established by Assembly (AB) 32 and, therefore, would be less than a significant impact. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —182 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 27 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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, ( ) (.) ( ) (✓) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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) Development within the City may utilize or generate hazardous materials or wastes. This is usually associated with individual households, small business operations, and maintenance activities like paints, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, and motor oil or through construction activities that would use paints, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, and oils. These materials would be stored and used at individual sites. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the State. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and/or waste will reduce the potential for significant • impacts to a level less-than-significant. No adverse impacts are expected. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —183 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 28 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im act Inco-------- m act Impact b) The proposed project does not include the use of hazardous materials or volatile fuels. The City participates in a countywide interagency coalition, which is considered a full service Hazardous Materials Division that is more comprehensive than any other in the State. The City has an Emergency Operations Plan that meets State and Federal requirements and is in the process of updating the approved 2005 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 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. No adverse impacts are anticipated. C) Etiwanda Intermediate School (6925 Etiwanda Ave.) is located approximately .25 mile to the south of the project site, Grapeland Elementary School (7171 Etiwanda Ave.) is located approximately .5 mile to the south of the project site and Etiwanda High School (13500 Victoria St.) is located approximately .5 mile to the east of the project site. The project will be required to comply with existing State and Federal standards on the use and transport of hazardous materials. Typically, the uses proposed do not create objectionable odors. No adverse impacts are anticipated. d) The proposed project is not listed as a hazardous waste or substance materials site. Recent site inspections 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 according to the General Plan Figure PS-7 and General Plan FPEIR Exhibit 4.8-1 and is not within 2 miles of a public airport. The project site is located approximately 6 miles northerly of the Ontario Airport and is off-set north of the flight path. No impact is anticipated. f) There are no private airstrips within the City. 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 has a developed roadway network that provides emergency access and evacuation routes to existing development. New development will be located on a site that has access to existing roadways. The City's Emergency Operation Plan, which is updated every three years, includes policies and procedures to be administered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in the event of a disaster. Because the project includes public street access and an emergency vehicle access gate to the neighboring development 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 wind-driven fires in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone found in the northern part of the City; however, the proposed project site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone according to General Plan Figure PS-1. No impact is anticipated. Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -184 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 29 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. 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 pattern 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) th'e capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, administers these permits. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —185 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 30 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant 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 Permit. The General 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) to prevent construction pollutants from contacting storm water and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off-site into receiving waters. O Eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. o 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 an SWPPP. To comply with the NPDES, the project's construction contractor will be required to prepare an 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 Preliminary WQMP Exhibit, prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering Inc., which 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 are 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, 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 Rev 4-7-15 F to J —186 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 31 • Less Than anl SigniflcLess Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potental; with Than Sipifcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inco orateo Impact Impact 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) 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. Post- Construction Operational.- 6) perational:6) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (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. 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. b) According to CVWD, approximately 35 percent of the City's water is currently provided from water supplies coming from the underlying Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins. CVWD complies with its prescriptive water rights as managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster and will not deplete the local groundwater resource. 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 Figure RC-3. Development of the site will require grading and excavation, but would not affect the existing aquifer, estimated to be about 300 to 470 feet below the ground surface. The project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments changing the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) • Residential. This change will increase the potential density on the project site from up to 2 dwelling units per acre to up to 4 dwelling units per acre. The CVWD has adequate water supplies to meet the proposed increase in demand. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR Rev 4-7-15 F to J —187 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 32 Less Than Significant Less PoteIssues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant with. than Si3nificant Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impact (Section 4.9), continued development citywide will increase water needs but will not be a significant impact. CVWD has plans to meet this increased need to the year 2030. No impacts are anticipated. 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 the site; however, the project will not alter the course of any stream or river. Each lot is graded to drain to new catch basins in a proposed new public street. Runoff will be conveyed from the new catch basins through an underground drainage facility to the existing storm drain system that runs adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue. The existing storm drain system has adequate capacity to except the additional 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. Each lot is graded to drain to new catch basins in a proposed new public street. Runoff will be conveyed from the new catch basins through an underground drainage facility to the existing storm drain system that runs adjacent to Etiwanda Avenue. The existing storm drain system has adequate capacity to except the additional 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. 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 offsite 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; therefore, it is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to minimize water pollution. With the implementation of the following mitigation measures specified under subsection a) and the following mitigation measure, the impact is less-than-significant: 8) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Preliminary Water Quality Management Exhibit prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering Inc. to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. g) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —188 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 33 • Less Tran Signifcan; Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Si;nifcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-5. No adverse impacts are expected. i) The Rancho Cucamonga area is flood protected by an extensive storm drain system designed to adequately convey floodwaters from 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 Figure PS-6. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area according to General Plan Figure PS-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. No adverse impacts are expected. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project.- a) roject:a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) ( ) (✓) () 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 south of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue and is surrounded by residential development to the north, east and west and by two separate churches to the south and west. The proposed lots will average 15:000 square feet in size and will provide a transition in density between the existing smaller lot homes to the east (approximately 7,500 square feet) and the existing larger lot homes to the north (approximately 25,000 square feet). The project design includes a new public street that will take access from Carnesi Drive and will provide a pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to an existing public street to the east. The project will not physically divide an established community, as it will increase vehicle and pedestrian connectivity between the existing residential development to the east and the existing residential development to the north. The project will become a part of the larger community. No adverse impacts are anticipated. b) The project site land use designation is Very Low (VL) Residential (.1 — 2 dwelling units per acre). As part of the project the applicant is requesting General Plan and Etiwanda • Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations to Low (L) Residential (2 — 4 dwelling units per acre). The proposal is for 16 lots which will be developed with single-family residences. With the proposed amendments, the Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -189 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 34 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiallyignifnt with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact development of the site will be consistent with the land use designations as described in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the General Plan, including density, subdivision layout, lot size and dimensions. The proposed increase in density will have an insignificant impact on the environment and on existing land use plans due to the relatively small size of the proposed development (8.32 acres of land). The proposed project will not interfere with any policies for environmental protection, SCAG's Compass Blueprint, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The project site is not located within any habitat conservation or natural community plan area. According to General Plan Figure RC-4 and Section 4.10 of the General Plan FPEIR, 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. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project.- a) roject.a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 RC-2 and Table RC-1; therefore, there is no impact. b) . The site is not designated by the General Plan, Figure RC-2 and Table RC-1, as a valuable mineral resource recovery site; therefore, there.is no impact. 12. 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? Rev 4-7-15 F to J —190 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 35 • Less Thar. Signiiicar; Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Pignifi aly with Than Significant Mi[igation Sig rificant No Impact Incorporate: Impact I Impact 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 Figure PS-9 at build-out. The project, though, is within 1 mile of the SR-210 Freeway. The following mitigation measure will verify that future residential structures on the lots will be in compliance with in the City's indoor residential noise limits: Interior.- 1) When houses are submitted for plan check, submit a report by a licensed acoustical engineer verifying that the interior noise levels comply with the City's residential noise limits. • b) The uses associated with this type of project normally do not induce ground borne vibrations. There may be short term construction related vibration. However, the applicant will be required to follow all City requirements regarding construction activities. As such, no impacts are anticipated. c) The primary source of ambient noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga is traffic. The project is for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land for the future development of 16 single-family residences. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation model estimates that each detached residence will generate 10.87 trips daily. The ITE trip generation model also estimates that each detached residence will generate .75 two-way peak hour trips daily. The project also includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1 — 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low(L) Residential (2—4 dwelling units per acre). The increase in density is considered minor and will not significantly increase the noise levels created by the project. The proposed activities will not significantly increase traffic as analyzed in Section 16 — Transportation/Traffic and therefore will not likely increase ambient noise levels within the vicinity of the project. d) The General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.12) 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: 2) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. • 3) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -191 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 36 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigattion Than No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. 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. 4) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase. The preceding mitigation measures will reduce the disturbance created by on-site construction equipment but do not address the potential impacts because of the transport of construction materials and debris. The following mitigation measure shall then be required: 5) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 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 and include appropriate noise mitigation measures. 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. The Project is located approximately 6 miles northerly 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. 13. 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The project proposes the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 16 lots for the future development of single-family residences. The project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential. The amendments have the potential for Rev 4-7-15 FtoJ -192 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 37 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially w h Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incoroorated Impact Impact increasing density by up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The project is located in a predominantly developed area. Because of the relatively small size of the project site (8.32 acres of land) the project will not induce substantial population growth that would negatively impact the surrounding community. According to the United States Census Bureau (2009-2013 American Community Survey), the average household size is 3.19 for owner occupied and 2.72 for renter occupied housing units. It is estimated that a 16-lot single-family subdivision will generate a population growth of approximately 51 persons. The project site is surrounded by developed infrastructure including roads, utility facilities and schools to serve the new residences. Staff has contacted the Etiwanda and Chaffey Joint Union School Districts and have been informed that each school district has adequate capacity for the increased number of students. Additionally, construction activities at the site will be short-term and will not attract new employees to the area. The impact is considered less-than-significant. b) Because the property is vacant there will be no displacement of housing or people. Therefore no adverse impact is expected. C) Because the property is vacant there will be no displacement of housing or people. Therefore no adverse impact is expected 14. 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (1) d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Comments: a) The site, located south of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue, will be served by Fire Station No. 176 (5840 East Avenue), located approximately 1.6 mile northerly 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 to lessen the future demand and impacts to fire services. No impacts are anticipated. b) The increase in residential units may lead to an increase in calls for service. Although there may be an increase in calls, 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. No impacts are anticipated. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —193 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 38 Less Than SigniScant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigatwn Significart No Impact Incorporated Impact. Impact C) The Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint Union High School District serve the project area. Staff has contacted both school districts and have been informed that each school district has adequate capacity for the increased number of students. .A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay the school impact fees. With this standard mitigation, impacts to the school districts are not considered significant. No impacts are anticipated. d) The site is in a developed area, currently served by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest park, Windrows Park (6849 Victoria Park Lane), is located approximately 1 mile west of 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 FPEIR (Section 4.14), there will be a projected increase in library space demand but with the implementation of development impact fees the increase in Library Services would be mitigated to less-than-significant impact. Additionally, the Paul A. Biane Library has an'additional 14,000 square foot shell of vacant library space which is in the process of being developed for future Library use. The proposed, project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan amendments to change the land use and zoning designations for the project site from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1 — 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2 — 4 dwelling units per acre). Due to the relatively small size of the project site (8.32 acres of land), the increase in demand for public services will be minimal and will be significantly in conformance with the General Plan FPEIR that was prepared and for which impacts on public services were evaluated. Therefore no adverse impact is expected. 15. 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, Windrows Park, is located 1 mile from the project site. The project proposes the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land for the development of 16 single-family residences which will increase the use of parks and other recreational facilities within the City. The project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan amendments to change the land use and zoning designations for the project site from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1 — 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2 — 4 dwelling units per acre). Because Rev 4-7-15 F to J —194 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 39 • Less Thar Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially W:"h Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact of the relatively small size of the project site (8.32 acres of land), the minor increase in density will not overburden the existing and proposed recreational facilities within the City. A standard condition of approval will require the developer to pay Park Development Fees. No impacts are anticipated. b) The project does not include the development of new or the expansion of existing recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated. 16. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other • standards 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 traffic levels or a change in location that result 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Comments: a) Implementation of the proposed project will generate 174 vehicle trips daily based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation model. The proposed project includes the future development of 16 detached single-family residences. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation model estimates that each detached residence will generate 10.87 trips daily. The ITE trip generation model also estimates that each detached residence will generate .75 two-way peak hour trips daily. Projects that generate more than 100 two-way peak hour trips are considered by the City to have a significant impact on the environment. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.16), • continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —195 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 40 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact. Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan for which the FPEIR was prepared and impacts evaluated. The project is estimated to create 12 two-way peak hour trips, and will thus not create a significant impact on the environment. Additionally, the applicant submitted a Traffic Evaluation by Trames, Solutions, Inc. (August. 2014; Technical Appendices E) which concluded that any delays due to the project will be very minimal and are not anticipated to result in a significant traffic impact. As noted in the General Plan FPEIR (Section 4.16), continued development will contribute to the traffic load in the Rancho Cucamonga area. The proposed project includes Etiwanda Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments to change the land use designation from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential, which will only minimally increase the traffic impact. The project site is in an area in which.the majority of street improvements are existing or will be constructed as part of future development projects. The project includes the construction of a new public street to access the 16 proposed residential lots. The project also includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan amendments to change the land use and zoning designations for the project site from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1 — 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2 — 4 dwelling units per acre). Due to the relatively small size of the project site (8.32 acres of land), the minor increase in density will not overburden the existing roadway system or the adjacent intersections. 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. Less- than-significant impacts are anticipated. b) In November 2004, San Bernardino County voters passed an extension to Measure I 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. With adherence to these programs, no impacts are anticipated. c) Located approximately 6 miles northerly 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 street improvements (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) along the street frontage of the site. 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 includes a new street which ends in a cul-de-sac. The street design includes an emergency vehicle access gate at the end of the cul-de-sac to provide access for all emergency vehicles during construction and upon completion of the project and will therefore not create an inadequate emergency access. No impacts are anticipated. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —196 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 41 • Less Thar Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact tncorporatea Impact Impact f) The project site is not adjacent to an existing or proposed public transportation route or bike route that would be negatively impacted by the proposed project. The project will construct a new sidewalk between a proposed project street and the nearest intersection to provide a pedestrian connection to the nearby public schools. No impacts are anticipated. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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-1 and RP-4 treatment plants. The RP-1 capacity is sufficient to exceed the additional development within the western and southern areas of the City. The RP-4 treatment plant has a potential ultimate capacity of 28 mgd which is considered more than adequate to capacity to treat all increases in wastewater generation for build out of the General Plan. 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. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —197 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 42 Less T'nan Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Tran Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. The project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations for the project site for Very Lot (VL.) Residential (.1 — 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2 — 4 dwelling units per acre). There is currently a sufficient water supply available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to serve this project. Due to'the relatively small size of the project site (8.32 acres of land) the increase in density will not require the submittal of a Water Supply Assessment. 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) 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. No impacts are anticipated. 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. 18. 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)? G) Does the project have environmental effects that will ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Rev 4-7-15 F to J -198 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 43 • Less Thar: Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Sianificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Comments: a) The project site is located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue. The project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to amend the General Plan land use map and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land for the future development of 16 single-family residences. The site is not located in an area of sensitive biological resources as identified on the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Figure RC-4. Additionally, the area surrounding the site is developed with single-family residences. A General Biological Resources Assessment (LSA, December 16, 2014; Technical Appendices D) was performed on the project site that concluded that the proposed project is not anticipated to affect threatened or endangered species, or their critical habitat. The General Biological Resources Assessment found that the site does not have the habitat needed to support burrowing owls as the on-site soils are too compacted and the site is too small, isolated and lacks the necessary vegetative cover for prey. The site does contain 50 mature trees, 41 of which have been determined by the Arborist Report (Jim Borer - December 5, 2014; Technical Appendices A) to be in poor condition and not good candidates for preservation. The trees do provide potential bird nesting sites. To avoid any impact on nesting birds, a mitigation measure has been included requiring a pre-construction nesting bird survey be • conducted within 3 day prior to commencement of ground breaking activity to avoid impact to birds protected under the Fish and Game Code and Migratory Bird Act. b) The project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to amend the General Plan land use map and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low (VL) Residential to ,Low (L) Residential for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land for the future development of 16 single-family residences. With implementation of best practices that have been incorporated into the project and mitigation measures from the City's 2010 General Plan FPEIR that are designed to minimize short-term and long-term air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative impacts will be fess-than-significant. The 2010 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 Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change and Mineral 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 against the significant unavoidable adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15092 and 15096(h)). C) The project includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to amend the General Plan land use map and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land for the future development of 16 single-family residences. 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 finds that all categories of potential impacts, including those that have the potential to directly or indirectly affect humans such as air • quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise, will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level in all categories. Rev 4-7-15 F to J —199 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 44 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 PEIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (T) General Plan FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (T) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (T) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH#88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (T) Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR (SCH #82061801, certified July 6, 1983) Technical Appendences (see disc) (A) Arborist Report(Jim Borer, December 2014) (B) Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Analysis (LSA, February 2015) (C) Cultural Resources Assessment(LSA, December 2014) (D) General Biological Resources Assessment(LSA, December 2014) (E) Traffic Evaluation (Trames Solutions, August 2014) Rev 4-7-15 F to J —200 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT18936, DRC2013-00961, AND DRC2013-00962 Page 45 Less Than 40Significant Lass Issues and Supporting Information Sources: PotentSgnifcially With than a^t Mitigation Significant No Imoact Incorporated Impact Impact 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: • • Rev 4-7-15 F to J —201 City of Rancho Cucamonga MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Project File No.: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 This Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP)has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 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 to J —203 Mitigation Monitoring Program SUBTT18936 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. 8. 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 to J —204 • 0 1 • MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III) Project File No.: SUBTT18936 Applicant: Storm Western Development Inc. Initial Study Prepared by: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Date: June 4, 2015 Mitigation Measures No. / Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action--------- for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance Section 3—Air Quality --- — Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers BO C During construction __A/-C__________------2/- according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (i.e., previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 2) Water active sites at least twice daily BO C During construction A/C 2/4- -- - (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving). -n 3) Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other BO C During construction A/C -2/4 ---— o loose materials or maintain at least 0.6 meter of freeboard (vertical space between the top N of the load and top of the trailer) in Ln accordance with the requirement of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. 4) Reduce Traffic Speeds on all unpaved roads BO C During construction A/C 2/4 --------- to 15 mph or less. 5) Divert at least 50 percent of the construction BO C During construction A/C 2/4 - — material (including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal and cardboard). 6) Use "Green Building Materials," such as those BO C During construction A/C __2__/4_____ - materials that are rapidly renewable or resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, as defined on the CalRecycle website. .---------...-------n-- -—— ---...------— --- --- 7) All construction equipment shall be BO C During construction A/C 2/4 ----- maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all construction Page 1 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of . Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitorin FT uency Verification_ Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance equipment is being. properly serviced and — maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 8) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, PD/BO C Review plans prior C 2 the developer shall submit Construction Plans to issuance of to the City denoting the proposed schedule grading permits 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. i 0 9) The construction contractor shall utilize PD/BO C Review plans prior C 2 electric or clean alternative fuel powered to issuance of i equipment where feasible. grading permits Q 10) The construction contractor shall ensure that PD/BO C Review plans prior C 2 rn construction-grading plans include a to issuance of statement that work crews will shut off grading permits equipment when not in use. 11) 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. 12) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance BO B Review of plans A/C 2 standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 13) All construction equipment shall comply with BO C Review of plans A/C 214 SCAQMD .Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: • Reestablish ground cover on the BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 construction site .through seeding and watering. _ Page 2 of 13 Mitigation Measures No-.-/- Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing AAction for Monitoring I •Frequenc Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-CompHan_ce__ -- fi - — -- ----.._—....- -- —-- --•—Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul BO -- I C I Review of plans A/C 214 roads. • Phase grading to prevent the BO C - Review of plans A/C 2/4 susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended eriods of time. • Schedule activities to minimize the BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4 amounts of exposed excavated soil -- duringand after the end of work periods_ • Dispose of surplus excavated material in BO ------ -- — - ---- -- � C Review of plans A 4 accordance with local ordinances and I use sound enclineering practices. • Sweep streets according to a schedule BO C During construction A 4 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 ear of construction. _ T, Suspend grading operations during high BO C During construction A 4 o winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. _ oV Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard BO C During Construction A 4 - ratio on soils haul trucks or cover I i payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 14) The site shall be treated with water or otherC -- — ---- — ---I D soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD BO uring construction A 4 and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB)) daily to reduce Particulate Matter (PMio) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 15) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by BO C During construction A 4 SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Long Term Emissions —_ - II - - ----- - - 1) Landscape with native and/or drought- PD i B Review of plans C 2 — resistant species to reduce water Page 3 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible I Monitoring j Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitrequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance consumption and to provide passive solar - benefits, 2) All residential structures shall be required tc PD& BD C Review of plans A 4 incorporate high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 3) All residential structures shall be required to PD& BD C Review of plans A 4 incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. 4) All new development in the City of Rancho . PD& BD C Review of plans A 4 Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast' Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions Of PM2 s and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. . fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or o after March 9, 2009. i Section 4-Biological Resources 01) Prior to approval of a Grading Permit, a PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 00 breeding bird survey that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is occurring. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through -non- invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation; or (b) the juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If the biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur•within 300 feet of non-raptor nests, and within 5,000 feet of raptor nests, during the . breeding season to avoid abandonment of the young. 2) Plant 5-gallon size eucalyptus trees in the . PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 rear yard off all 16 residential lots in a windrow along the rear property line at 8 feet Page 4 of 13 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible MonitoringTiming of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action —--—__ _ for Monito Ong Frequencv Verification __-Verification Date/Initials Non-Coliance on center. Adequate provisions for deep — - — -- mp irrigation of the trees shall be shown on the Landscape Plans submitted with the Design Review application for the future residences on the lots. 3) The 9 healthy California fan palms outlined in PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 the Arborist Report (Jim Borer - December 5, 2014; Technical Appendices A) shall be protected in place and be integrated into the final landscape plan when house product is submitted. Section 5-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 o archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will.- C3 ill.- C Enact interim measures to protect PD/BO C ---- -q/p Review of report 3/4 undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological.value. --- - — • Consider establishing provisions to PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal oint. • Pursue educating the public about the PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4 archaeological heritage of the area. _ • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with P/D B/C Review of A/D Section 21083.2 Archeological Plans/Report During resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse Construction project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archeological sites, cap ip.ng or covering _ Page 5 of 13 Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance site with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind., mitigation fee. Prepare a technical resources PD C Review of report A/D 3/4 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 PD B Review of report A/D 4 animal fossils) are encountered. before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor -n construction activities, to take appropriate o measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a ti report of findings that will also provide specific c 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 PD B Review of report A/D 4 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 BO BitReview of report A/D 4 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. Page 6 of 13 Mitigation Measures No./ Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action _ _ _ for Monitoring_ Frequency Verification __ Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance • Prepare, identify, and curate all PD D Review of report D 3 - recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of PD D Review of report D 3 Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Section 6-Geology and Soils --- 1) The site shall be treated with water or other BO C soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD During construction A 4 and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as soon as possible. T 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept BO C During construction A 4- -- o according to a schedule established by the City ,o reduce PM10 emissions associated with i vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when BO C During construction A 4 wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by BO C During construction A 4 SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions. Section 7-Greenhouse Gas Emissions - --- — i Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that BO C During construction A 4 assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing Page 7 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for m lementing Action _ _ _ _ for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contactor shall select BO C During construction A 4 construction equipment based on low- emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures' specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more BO C During construction A 4 than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be BO C During construction A 4 utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to BO C During construction A 4 interfere with peak-hour traffic. r+ 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be BO C During construction A 4 supported and encouraged for construction i crew. N -- ----h Long Term,(Operational) GHG Emissions 1) Use "Green Building Materials," such as BO A During Construction C 2 those materials that are resource-efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project. 2) Divert at least 50 percent of the demolished BO A During Construction C 2 and/or grubbed construction materials (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal and cardboard). 3) Design all buildings to exceed California BO A During Construction C 2 Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of: • Increased insulation • Limit air leakage through the structure Page 8 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action — for Monitoring Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated --- -- — — windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances • Landscape and developed site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting. 4) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation BO A During Construction C 2 strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: • Install water efficient landscapes and O irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape UJ Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. 5) Reuse and recycle construction and CE A Review of plans C 2 demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Page 9 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action _ for Monitoring Fre uenc Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance Section 9—Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activities 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the BO BIC/D Review of plans AIC 2/4 permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, 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, BO BIC/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 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 oground• 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 BO BIC/D Review of plans AIC 2/4 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, BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 214 street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order torevent Page 10 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. ! , Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action _ for Monitorin Frequency Verification -Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance discharge of debris or sediment from the q_ — site. I 5) Prior to issuance of grading or paving BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 - ----- 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. Grading Activities ---- — -- ----- --_ — —_ _. _ 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the BO_n applicant applicant shall submit to the Building Official Review of plans A/C 2/4 o for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description r1, and identifying Best Management Practices Ln (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. 2) 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. Page 11 of 13 Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance 3) The developer shall implement the BMPs BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4 identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Modole and Associates (September 14, 2014) to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical.. Section 12—Noise 1) When houses are submitted for plan check, PD C During construction A A submit a report by a licensed acoustical engineer verifying that the interior noise levels comply with the City's residential noise limits. 2) Construction or grading shall not take place BO C During construction A 4 between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 3) Construction or grading noise levels shall not PD C During construction A A h exceed the standards specified in 0 Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. Developer ^' shall hire a consultant to perform weekly rn noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. 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. 4) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed PD C During construction A A as early as possible in the first phase. 5) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place PO/BO C During construction A 4/7 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. Page 12 of 13 Mitigation Measures No./ ---- Responsible T Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Implementing Action ___ for_Monit_orin Frequenc Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling I -— — - ---- ---- — - would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to i and from the construction site), then the i I developer shall p prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul i 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 Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions 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 T PO- Police Captain or designee E-Operating 5-Retain Deposit or Bonds O1+ FC- Fire Chief or designee 6- Revoke CUP I 7-Citation N V Page 13 of 13 _ 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.: General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113, and Variance DRC2014-00219 Public Review Period Closes: August 12, 2015 Project Name: Project Applicant: Storm Western Development, Inc. Project Location (also see attached map): The south side of Carnesi Drive, east of Etiwanda Avenue. Project Description: The applicant proposes subdividing 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots are for residential purposes, with Lot 17 as the new boundaries for the existing church (Cross and Crown Lutheran church), which is located on the northwest corner of the project site. The application includes amendments to the General Plan (DRC2013-00961) and Etiwanda Specific Plan (DRC2013-00962) to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 DU per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 DU per acre), a Variance (DRC2014-00219) for property line walls ranging in height from 7 to 11 feet on the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots along with a Tree Removal Permit(DRC2014-00113)for the removal of up to 50 trees. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date. 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. August 12, 2015 Date of Determination Adopted By F to J —218 RESOLUTION NO. 15-60 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR AN 8.32 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FROM VERY LOW(VL) RESIDENTIAL(.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARNESI DRIVE AND EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 0227-061-03 AND 82. A. Recitals. 1. Storm Western Development, Inc. filed an application for the approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of August 2015, * the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 12, 2015, 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 on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and b. To the north are single-family residences within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the south is an existing church within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the west is an existing church and single-family residences within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and to the east are single-family residences within the Low (L) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. C. The General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation for the project site is Very Low (VL) Residential; and . • d. Storm Western Development, Inc. submitted an application for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots are for residential purposes, with Lot#17 as the new F to J —219 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-60 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 2 boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran church, which,is located on a portion of the project site; and e. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, which is located at the southeast comer of Etiwanda Avenue and Carnesi Drive, is selling a portion of their property to the applicant,which was originally master-planned for expansion of the church's educational program; and f. The project site is vacant with the exception of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, a perimeter wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and 50 onsite trees.Staff has determined that the existing wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive was voluntarily constructed by Toll Brothers during the development of the residential subdivision on the north side of Carnesi Drive (SUBTT16279). The wall straddles the property line between the project site(Tentative Tract 18936) and the public right-of-way. There is no documentation available showing that there is an easement or other legal agreement that would restrict removal of the wall; and g. The application includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low(VL) Residential (.1-2 DU per acre)to Low(L) Residential(2-4 DU per acre)for the 16 residential lots(Lots 1-16). The new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran Church (Lot 17)will remain in the Very Low(VL) General Plan land use district and Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning district. The project also includes applications for a Variance (DRC2014-00219)for property line walls that range in he from 6 to up to 11 feet along the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots and a Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014-00113) to remove up to 50 onsite trees. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date; and h. The site is currently zoned Very Low (VL) Residential and is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area.The narrowness of the site precludes developing a double-loaded street with lots that meet the 200 foot lot depth requirement. 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 City's incorporation and are within the Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the east average approximately 7,500 square feet in size, below the 15,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing single-family residences to the north are with the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 25,000 square feet in size, in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the west.were developed prior to City's incorporation and are within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 16,000 square feet in size, below the 25,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific plan; and i. The proposed lots comply with the 80-foot lot width and 100-foot lot depth requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the Low (L) zoning district. The lots range in size from 11,597 to 19,938 square feet with an average lot size of 15,010 square feet,which exceeds the required 15,000 square foot average lot size.These lot sizes will permit for the creation of a double- loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot(7,500 square foot lots)development to the east and the existing larger lot(25,000 square foot lots)development to the north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which average approximately 16,000 square feet in size; and j. The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units F to J —220 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-60 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 3 per acre)to Low(L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The lot sizes will allow for the creation of a double-loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot (7,500 square foot lots) development to the east and the existing larger lot (25,000 square foot lots) development to the north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which range in size from 15,000 and 16,000 square feet; and k. The project is designed to conform to all related development criteria for the Low (L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, except for the necessity of up to 11-foot tall walls. In conjunction the application, the applicant has submitted a Variance application (DRC2014-00219) requesting to increase the maximum wall heights along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots from the permitted 6 feet to up to 11 feet in height for drainage purposes; and I. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. The proposed General Plan Amendment will change the Land Use Designation of the project site from Very Low(VL)to Low(L) Residential. The project site will act as a transition in density between the existing pre-incorporation non-conforming lot to the east(7,500 square foot lots) and the larger conforming lots to the north (25,000 square foot lots). The new lots will be of similar size to the pre-incorporation non-conforming lots to the west(16,000 square foot lots). The General Plan has a stated policy (Policy LU-2.4) of encouraging the development of vacant residential lots that are largely surrounded by other residential development to maximize the efficient use of the existing infrastructure to meet the City's housing demand; and m. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element. General Plan Land Use Policy LU-2.5 encourages the development of land constrained by challenging parcel sizes and dimensions. If the project site were developed in adherence to the current land use designation (Very Low Residential - 25,00 square foot lots), the lot configuration dictates the creation of lots that are approximately 50 percent deeper and 30 percent larger in size than that required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit a transition in density between the smaller pre-incorporation non-conforming lots to the east (7,500 square foot lots) and the larger conforming lots (25,000 square foot lots) to the north. The new lots will be of similar size to the pre-incorporation non-conforming lots to the west (16,000 square foot lots); and n. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. The proposed General Plan Amendment will permit for the development of single-family residential lots that will act as a transition in density between the smaller lots(7,500 square foot lots) to the east and the larger lot (25,000 square foot lots) to the north. The project will connect to the existing roadway network and become a part of the larger community. The main environmental impact created by the project will be a minor increase in traffic. The increased traffic due to the General Plan Amendment is expected to add less than 100 trips per day to Carnesi Drive. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the traffic evaluation submitted for the project(Trames Solutions, Inc., August, 2104) and concurs with the study's conclusions that the project's contribution to the number of vehicle trips along Carnesi Drive will have a minimal impact on the nearest intersections. 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: F to J —221 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-60 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 4 a. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size and compatibility with the existing land uses in the surrounding area. The project site will be developed with single=family lots and is surrounded by residential development to the north, east and west and will be accessed by an adjacent public street and will connect to existing utility services. The proposed change in land use and zoning designation from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential will create a transition in density between the smaller lot residential development to the east(7,500 square foot lots)to the larger lot residential development to the north (25,000 square foot lots). Under the current Very Low(VL)zoning classification(25,000 square foot lots),the narrowness of the project site dictates that the lots can only be plotted on one side of the new street. These lots would be approximately 50 percent deeper and 30 percent larger than required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the Very Low(VL)zoning designation and more than twice as large as the existing lots to the east,within the Low(L)zoning designation. For this reason, the proposed land use and zoning change to Low (L) Residential is appropriate. b. The proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties. The proposed General Plan Amendment will change in the land use designation of the project site from Very Low(VL) Residential to Low(L) Residential and will act as a transition in density between the smaller lot homes to the east (7,500 square foot lots) and the larger lot homes to the north (15,000 square foot lots). The project site will connect to the existing roadway system and utility infrastructure. House product for the proposed lots was not submitted for review at this time. When house product is submitted, it will be reviewed for compliance with the design criteria outlined in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Development Code and will require Design Review Committee review and Planning Commission approval.Staff has prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental impacts -related to the project and determined that with the implementation of mitigation measures the project will not have a significant impact on the environment. C. The proposed amendment meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. The project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, east and west and will act as a transition in density between the smaller lot homes to the east(7,500 square foot lots)and the larger lot homes to the north (25,000 square foot lots). To the east are single-family residences developed on approximately 16,000 square foot lots. The proposed subdivision will be developed in conformance with the Low (L) development criteria of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, except for wall heights in excess of 6 feet necessary for drainage purposes. The project site will connect to an existing public street and will become part of the larger community. 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 significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 to J —222 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-60 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 5 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 furtherfinds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the requested General Plan Amendment. 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation 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 recommends that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment application as shown in Attachment"A" subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Department 1) Approval is for General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 for the change in General Plan land use designation from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for Lots 1-16 of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT18936 for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APNs: 0227-061-03 and 82. 2) Approval is contingent upon City Council approval and enactment of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962. 3) Approval is contingent upon City Council adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all mitigations contained therein. 4) 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. 5) 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 F to J —223 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-60 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00961 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 6 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 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: F to J —224 General Plan Designations, (Existing) uj . z Very Low Residential L Lu CARNESIDR VISTA S.-T Project Site Very Low Residential Very Low Residential Low Residential PINON ST LOS CEDROS ST • Very Low Residential N . EXHIBIT A F to J -225 General Plan Designations (Proposed) i i UJ t > I I F �I Very Low Residential L CARNESI OR J r )' :ct. VISTA S T Site; . S Very;. Low Residential Low Residential Low' Re.sntial j PINON ST _-- LOS CEDROS ST Very Low Residential f F to J -226 `---... -------- ----- ---- RESOLUTION NO. 15-61 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00962, A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING DESIGNATION FOR AN 8.32 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FROM VERY LOW(VL)RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARNESI DRIVE AND EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNS: 0227-061-03 AND 82. A. Recitals. 1. Storm Western Development, Inc. filed an application for the approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of August 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 12, 2015, 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 on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and b. To the north are single-family residences within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the south is an existing church within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the west is an existing church and single-family residences within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and to the east are single-family residences within the Low (L) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. C. The General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning • designation for the project site is Very Low (VL) Residential; and F to J —227 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-61 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00962 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 2 d. Storm Western Development, Inc. submitted an application for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots are for residential purposes, with Lot#17 as the new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran church, which is located on a portion of the project site; and e. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, which is located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Carnesi Drive, is selling a portion of their property to the applicant,which was originally master-planned for expansion of the church's educational program; and f. The project site is vacant with the exception of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, a perimeter wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and 50 onsite trees. Staff has determined that the existing wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive was voluntarily constructed by Toll Brothers during the development of the residential subdivision on the north side of Carnesi Drive (SUBTT16279).The wall straddles the property line between the project site(Tentative Tract 18936) and the public right-of-way. There is no documentation available showing that there is an easement or other legal agreement that would restrict removal of the wall; and g. The application includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low(VL) residential (.1-2 DU per acre)to Low(L) Residential(2-4 DU per acre)for the 16 residential lots(Lots 1-16).The new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran Church (Lot 17)will remain in the Very Low(VL) General Plan land use district and Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning district. The project also includes applications for a Variance (DRC2014-00219)for property line walls that range in height from 6 to up to 11 feet along the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots and a Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014-00113) to remove up to 50 onsite trees. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date; and h. The site is currently zoned Very Low (VL) Residential and is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The narrowness of the site precludes developing a double-loaded street with lots that meet the 200-foot lot depth requirement. 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 City's incorporation and are within the Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the east average approximately 7,500 square feet in size, below the 15,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan.The existing single-family residences to the north are with the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 25,000 square feet in size, in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the west were developed prior to City's incorporation and are within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 16,000 square feet in size, below the 25,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific plan; and i. The proposed lots comply with the 80-foot lot width and 100-foot lot depth requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the Low (L) zoning district. The lots range in size from 11,597 to 19,938 square feet with an average lot size of 15,010 square feet,which exceeds the required 15,000 square foot average lot size.These lot sizes will permit for the creation of a double- loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot(7,500 square foot lots)development to the east and the existing larger lot(25,000 square foot lots)development to the north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which average approximately 16,000 square feet in size; and F to J —228 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-61 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00962 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 3 j. The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low(VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre)to Low(L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The lots will allow for the creation of a double-loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot (7,500 square foot lots) development to the east and the existing larger lot (25,000 square foot lots) development to the north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which range in size from 15,000 and 16,000 square feet; and k. The project is designed to conform to all related development criteria for the Low (L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, except for the necessity of up to 11-foot tall walls. In conjunction the application, the applicant has submitted a Variance application (DRC2014-00219) requesting to increase the maximum wall heights along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots from the permitted 6 feet to up to 11 feet in height for drainage purposes. 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 Etiwanda Specific Plan amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for the development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. As a Land Use Policy, the General Plan states that new development should be accommodated in a manner that integrates it • into the physical structure of the City, is a logical extension of existing infrastructure improvements and there are adequate public services available to serve the development. The proposed zoning amendment will implement the Land Use Policies outlined above and will not be inconsistent with the density or quality of existing development within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area and the City. b. The proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which in turn are consistent with and implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan. These goals include promoting the economical and efficient use of land, promoting design and construction techniques that are responsive to the environment, and promoting development compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed zoning amendment will result in development that is consistent with these goals and objectives and will be indistinguishable in overall quality and design from existing development in the surrounding area. c. The proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed zoning amendment will act as a transition in density between the smaller lot homes to the east(7,500 square foot lots) and the larger lot homes to the north (25,000 square foot lots).The lots will be of similar size to the existing residential lots to the east. The minor increase in density will not increase traffic in a manner that is beyond what the roads were designed to accommodate or overwhelm the existing public facilities in the surrounding area; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. The General Plan states that the Low(L) land use designation is characterized by detached, low density single- family residential units on individual lots forming a cohesive neighborhood, with private yards and • private parking with a density range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. The related subdivision (SUBTT18936) of the project site has a proposed density of 2.43 units per acre. The proposed zoning amendment will be fully compliant with the General Plan; and F to J —229 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-61 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00962 STORM.WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 4 e. In conjunction with the approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961,the proposed Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment will be consistent with the objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The project site is being subdivided for the development of single-family residences with a density of 2.43 dwelling units per acre and an average lot size of 15,010, in excess of the required 15,000 square foot average lot size. The project site will act as a transition in density between the smaller lot homes to the east (7,500 square foot lots) and the larger lot homes to the north (25,000 square foot lots). The lots will be of similar size to the existing residential lots to the east and will become an integral part of the surrounding area. 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 significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 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. 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the requested General Plan Amendment. 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation 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 recommends that the City Council approve the Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment application as shown in Attachment"A" subject to each and every condition set forth below. F to J —230 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-61 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00962 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 5 Planning Department 1) Approval is for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 to change the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre)to Low(L) Residential (2- 4 dwelling units per acre) for Lots 1-16 of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT18936 for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APN: 0227-061-03 and 82. 2) Approval is contingent upon City Council approval and enactment of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961. 3) Approval is contingent upon City Council adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all mitigations contained therein. 4) 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. 5) 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 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary • I, Cand ce Burnett, Secreta of the Planning Commission f h Y Secretary g o the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do F to J —231 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-61 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2013-00962 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 6 I, Candyce Burnett, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN:. COMMISSIONERS: F to J —232 Zoning Map Designations (Existing) 1 II LU Very Low Residential (1-2 du/acre) Z. UJ Etiwanda SP i ? moi LU, CARNESI DR VISTA ST Pria att Very Low R6sidential Site Low Residential (1-2 du/acre) Etiwanda SP Very Low Residential (2-4 du/acre) Etiwanda SP (1-2 du/acre) Etiwanda SP -P.1-NO.N -ST Very Low Residential LOS CEDROS ST (1-2 du/acre) Etiwanda SP . EXHIBIT A F to J -233 Zoning Map Designations (Proposed ) 1 � uj > `, Very Low Residential (1-2 dulacre) z Etiwanda SPslam i Lt.l LU CARNESI DR — ------ ... VISTA ST Very Low Residential site Low Residential 1 2 du/Acre) 2-4 du/.acre Etiwanda SP Low. Residential. Etii�anda SP i (2=4 du/ac(e) Etiwanda:SP PINON ST i i Very Low Residential + Los CE®ROS ST (1-2 du/acre) -------- -- -- i Etiwanda SP N t F to J -234 -- RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 8.32 ACRES OF LAND INTO 17 LOTS (LOTS #1-16 FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND LOT #17 FOR AN EXISTING CHURCH) FOR A SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) ZONING DISTRICT (.1 - 2 UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARNESI DRIVE AND EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APNs: 0227-061-03 AND 82. A. Recitals. 1. Storm Western Development, Inc. filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of August 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 12, 2015, 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 on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and b. To the north are single-family residences within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the south is an existing church within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the west is an existing church and single-family residences within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and to the east are single-family residences within the Low (L) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. C. The General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation for the project site is Very Low (VL) Residential; and • d. Storm Western Development, Inc. submitted an application for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots for residential purposes, with Lot #17 as the new F to J —235 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 2 boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran church, which is located on a portion of the project site; and e. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, which is located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Carnesi Drive, is selling a portion of their property to the applicant,which was originally master-planned for expansion of the church's educational program; and f. The project site is vacant with the exception of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, a perimeter wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and 50 onsite trees.Staff has determined that the existing wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive was voluntarily constructed by Toll Brothers during the development of the residential subdivision on the north side of Carnesi Drive (SUBTT16279). The wall straddles the property line between the project site (Tentative Tract Map 18936) and the public right-of-way. There is no documentation available showing that there is an easement or other legal agreement that would restrict removal of the wall; and g. The application includes General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendments to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low(VL) Residential (.1-2 DU per acre)to Low(L) Residential (2-4 DU per acre)for the 16 residential lots(Lots 1-16).The new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran Church (Lot 17)will remain in the Very Low(VL)General Plan land use district and Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning district. The project also includes applications for a Variance(DRC2014-00219)for property line walls that range in height from 6 to up to 11 feet along the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots and a Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014-00113) to remove up to 50 onsite trees. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date; and h. The site is currently zoned Very Low (VL) Residential and is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The narrowness of the site precludes developing a double-loaded street with lots that meet the 200-foot lot depth requirement. 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 City's incorporation and are within the Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the east average approximately 7,500 square feet in size, below the 15,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan.The existing single-family residences to the north are with the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 25,000 square feet in size, in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the west were developed prior to City's incorporation and are within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 16,000 square feet in size, below the 25,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific plan; and i. The proposed lots comply with the 80-foot lot width and 100 foot lot depth requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the Low (L) zoning district. The lots range in size from 11,597 to 19,938 square feet with an average lot size of 15,010 square feet,which exceeds the required 15,000 square foot average lot size. The lot sizes will permit for the creation of a double- loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot(7,500 square foot lots)development to the east and the existing larger lot(25,000 square foot lots)development to the north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which average approximately 16,000 square feet in size; and j. The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low(VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units F to J —236 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 3 per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). These lot sizes will allow for the creation of a double-loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot (7,500 square foot lots)development to the east and the existing larger lot(25,000 square foot lots) development to the. north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which range in size from 15,000 and 16,000 square feet; and k. The project is designed to conform to all related development criteria for the Low (L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, except for the necessity of up to 11 foot tall property line walls. In conjunction with Tentative Tract SUBTT18936,the applicant has submitted a Variance application (DRC2014-00219) requesting to increase the maximum wall heights along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots from the permitted 6 feet to up to 11 feet in height for drainage purposes. 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 tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposed residential subdivision includes a related General Plan Amendment (DRC2013-00961) and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2013-00962) to change the land use and zoning designations of the General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan to Low (L) Residential. The project is designed to comply with all of the development criteria for the • Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan,except for wall heights of all 16 residential lots. A Variance application (DRC2014-00219) to increase the maximum permitted wall heights from 6 feet to up to 11 feet is included as part of the requested entitlements. The project will.have a density of 2.43 dwelling units per acre, within the permitted density range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre. b. With approval of the related General Plan Amendment (DRC2014-00961), Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment(DRC2014-00962)and Variance(DRC2014-00219),the design and layout of the subject tentative tract will be consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The project site is being subdivided for residential purposes and will act as a transition in density between the smaller lot residential residences to the east (7,500 square foot lots) and the larger lot residences to the north (25,000 square foot lots). The proposed subdivision will have similar lot sizes to the existing residential lots to the east,which are within the Very Low (VL) zoning district. C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The project includes a request to change the land use and zoning designations of the project site from Very Low (VL) Residential (25,000 square foot average lot size) to Low (L) Residential (15,000 square foot average lot size). The project is designed to conform to all of the related development criteria of the Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, except for property line wall heights along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots for which the applicant has submitted a Variance application (DRC2014-00219) for wall height. The project site is surrounded by residential development to the north, east and west and will be accessed by an adjacent public street and will connect to existing utility services. The change in land use and zoning designation from Very Low (VL) Residential to Low (L) Residential will create a transition in density between the smaller lot • residential development to the east(7,500 square foot lots)to the larger lot residential development to the north (25,000 square foot lots). Under the current Very Low(VL)zoning classification(25,000 square foot lots), the narrowness of the project site dictates that the lots can only be plotted on one side of the new street. These lots would be approximately 50 percent deeper and 30 percent larger F to J —237 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 4 than required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the Very Low(VL)zoning designation and more than twice as large as the existing lots to the east, within the Low (L) zoning designation. Staff has determined, for reasons outlined above, that the proposed General Plan land use and Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning change for Very Low (VL) to Low (L) residential is appropriate. d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared . for the project that includes mitigation measures to reduce any potential impacts to humans or wildlife to less than significant; e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The lots are being subdivided for residential purposes and will not include the use of hazardous materials that would cause public health problems; f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. Access to the property will be from an existing public street which will require modifying the existing public right-of-way.There is no easement owned or controlled by private person or entity that would limit accessing the project site. 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 significant effect upon the environment and recommends the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration 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. 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 recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the requested Tentative Tract entitlement. 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 recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. F to J —238 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 5 d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation 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 attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots(Lots#1-16 for residential purposes and Lot #17 as the new boundaries for an existing church)for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue;APN: 0227-061- 03 and 82. 2) Approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 and City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2014-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment • DRC2014-00962 and their adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all mitigations contained therein for all project components. 3) 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. 4) 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 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. Air Quality Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (i.e., previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 2) Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving). F to J —239 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 6 3) Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials or maintain at least 0.6 meter of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirement of California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. 4) Reduce Traffic Speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. 5) Divert at least 50 percent of the construction material (including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal and cardboard). 6) Use "Green Building Materials," such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, as defined on the CalRecycle website.. 7) 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. 8) 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. 9) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 10) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 11) 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. 12) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 13) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions- IF to J —240 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 7 • 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 SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. • 14) 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 Particulate Matter(PM,o) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 15) 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. Long Term Emissions 1) Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 2) All residential structures shall be required to incorporate high- efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 3) All residential structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping.. 4) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning • devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. F to J —241 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. ` AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 8 Biological Resources 1) Prior to approval of a Grading Permit, a breeding bird survey that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is occurring.Submit the written report outlining the findings to the Planning Department within 3 days of groundbreaking activity. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation; or (b) the juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If the biologist is unable to verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of non-raptor nests, and within 5,000 feet of raptor nests, during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of the young. 2) Plant 5-gallon size eucalyptus trees in the rear yard off all 16 residential lots in a windrow along the rear property line at 8 feet on center.Adequate provisions for deep irrigation of the trees shall be shown on the Landscape Plans submitted with the Design Review application for the future residences on the lots. 3) The 9 healthy California fan palms outlined in the Arborist Report (Jim Borer-December 5, 2014; Technical Appendices A) shall be protected in place and be integrated into the final landscape plan when house product is submitted. 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. Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping F to J —242 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 9 or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. • 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 summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to 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 PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. • F to J —243 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 10 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 PM,o emissions. Greenhouse Gasses Short Term (Construction) GHG"Emissions 1) The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 403 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low-emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions 1) Use"Green Building Materials,"such as those materials that are resource- efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project. 2) Use"Green Building Materials,"such as those materials that are resource- efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project. 3) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of: • Increased insulation Limit air leakage through the structure • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances F to J —244 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 ® Page 11 • Landscape and developed site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's) for outdoor lighting. 4) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non- vegetated surfaces. 5) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green .waste in public areas. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activity 1) Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, 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 to 1 -245 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 12 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) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage underthe 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. Gradinq Activities 1} Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (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. 2) 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. 3) The developer shall implement.the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, Inc. (December 18, 2014) to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Noise 1) When houses are submitted for plan check, submit a report by a licensed acoustical engineer verifying that the interior noise levels comply with the City's residential noise limits 2) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:09a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. F to J —246 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 13 3) Construction or grading noise levels shall. not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. 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. 4) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in the first phase. 5) 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. • 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: • F to J —247 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 14 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: F to J =248 Conditions of Approval R;Ni wo Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE - 022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. Approval of Tentative Tract No. SUBTT18936 is granted subject to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of • Approval, 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. 4. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2;260.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 5. 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. 6. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction; including measurements of interior and exterior noise .levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department and the Planning Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. 7. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 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. 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. www.CityofRC.us ?rimed:7 212^'S F to J —249 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 12. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Revise City Dwg. 1897 and 1897-L to reflect improvements on Carnesi Drive that will be affected by the construction of Street'A' and installation of sidewalk and access ramps. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards, including at the southeast corner of Carnesi Drive and Etiwanda Avenue. 3. Carnesi Drive frontage improvements to be in accordance with the City "Local Street" and the. Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. Remove existing curb and gutter and replace with cross gutter at new Street"A" intersection. b. Protect or relocate 5800 Lumen HPSV street light, as required. c. Construct 4-foot wide property line sidewalk from east of Street"A" to Etiwanda Avenue. c. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. 4. Pinon Street improvements to be in accordance with the City 'Local Street" and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. The cu-de-sac shall be per City Standard 111. b. Provide emergency vehicle access and a gate at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac, to the satisfaction of Fire District Division. The design of the pedestrian access will be determined at time of plan check. c. Provide curb, gutter, a.c. pavement, sidewalk, curbside drain outlets, street trees and drive approaches as required, d. Provide LED street lights that comply with SCE's lighting standards, as required. e. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. www.QtyofRC.us Primed.712112015 Page 2 of 11 F to J -250 Project#-. SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 ® Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 5. This project is connected to or will disrupt an existing City-maintained landscape and irrigation area. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing area's condition shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 6. Street "A" improvements to be in accordance with the City "Local Street" and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. Provide curb, gutter, a.c. pavement. sidewalk. access ramps, curbside drain outlets, street trees and drive approaches, as required. b. Provide LED street lights that comply with SCE's lighting standards, as required. c. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. • 7. Shift the EVA drive approach south a sufficient distance to provide open channel drainage to Pinon Street on both sides, splitting street flows between the north and south gutters. Provide cobblestones per City Standard Drawing 542, Case 1. in lieu of sidewalk and street trees around and between the EVA drive approach and drainage channels. a. Gating and pedestrian access to EVA to be determined during plan check. b. Provide Q100 drainage calculations and exhibits to support the open channel designs. Label TC/FL elevations and flow line grades both upstream and downstream. Include a street section for the worst case scenario to demonstrate that Q100 will stay in the right-of-way. Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. ?rented.?'21:2015 www.cityofRC.us ?age 3 of 11 F to J -251 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited. Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a deposit reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site, www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs. 11. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 12. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to. Carnesi Drive Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk 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. 13. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be. quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. www.0tyofRC.us Printed 7'21;2015 Page 4 of 11 F to J -252 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, ORC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE - 022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: En-gineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. Access ramps for the disabled 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 Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 15. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street"A" Curb & Gutter A.C. Pavement Sidewalk Drive Approach Street Lights Street Trees • ?rn;ed 7-21:2715 ✓Nvw.CityofRC us ?age 5 of 11 F to J —253 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE 022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 16. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Pinon Street Curb & Gutter A.C. Pavement Sidewalk Drive Approach Street Lights Street Trees 17. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 18. 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. Pinon Street- Select appropriate tree from the approved Street Tree List for Rancho Cucamonga. 19. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. www.CityofRC.us Printed.7:2!!2015 Page o of?? F to J —254 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. Carnesi Drive Botanical Name - Pistacia chinensis Common Name - Chinese Pistache Min. Grow Space 5' Spacing 50' 0.C. Size- 15 Gallon Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the • City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 21. 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. 22. 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. Street "A" Select appropriate tree from the approved Street Tree List for Rancho Cucamonga. 23. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. • www.CityofRC.us ?rir.;ed'.7:21/2015 ?age 7 of 11 F to J -255 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE-022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Engineering ROJECT:Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from 'the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to, final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 25. 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 may be received from them. Fire Prevention I New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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 U iagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and 'heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., TT, CUP, DR, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 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. 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. 6. Provide compliance with the California Residential/Code Building Code (CBC/CRC) for property line clearances considering use, area. and fire-resistive construction. Printed:7/2112015 www.CityofRC.us Page 8 of 11 F to J -256 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment. Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 8. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 9. Construction activity shall occur in accordance with the standards as stated in Chapter 17.66.050 D-4 of the Development Code. 10. Prior to the 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 Fee, Permit and Plan Check 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. 11. The Building and Safety Official shall provide street addresses after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of Building Permits. 12. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC. etc.). 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. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 2. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 3. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension' by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Printed:7.121;2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11 F to J -257 .Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading ROJECT:Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 4. 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. 5. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). 9. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 15. 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. 16. 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 Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit.. 17. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant. to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 18. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. Printed:7:2112015 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11 F to J —258 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE - 022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 20. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. • i ?rented 7!2112015 www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11 F to J -259 F to J -260 RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2014- 00219,A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROPERTY LINE WALL HEIGHT FROM 6 FEET TO UP TO 11 FEET RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 FOR A SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARNESI DRIVE AND EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0227-061-03 AND 82. A. Recitals. 1. Storm Western Development, Inc. filed an application for the approval of Variance DRC2014-00219 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 12th day of August 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 12, 2015, 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 on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and b. To the north are single-family residences within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the south is an existing church within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan;to the west is an existing church and single-family residences within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and to the east are single-family residences within the Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and C. The General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation for the project site is Very Low(VL) residential; and d. Storm Western Development, Inc. submitted an application for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots for residential purposes,with Lot#17 as the new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran church, which is located on a portion of the project site; and F to J —261 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 2 e. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, which is located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Carnesi Drive, is selling a portion of their property to the applicant, which was originally master-planned for expansion of the church's educational program; and f. The project site is vacant with the exception of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, a perimeter wall along the south side of Camesi Drive and 50 onsite trees. Staff has determined that the existing wall along the south side of Camesi Drive was voluntarily constructed by Toll Brothers during the development of the residential subdivision on the north side of Carnesi Drive(SUBTT16279). The wall straddles the property line between the project site (Tentative Tract Map 18936) and the public right-of-way. There is no documentation available showing that there is an easement or other legal agreement that would restrict removal of the wall; and g. The application is for a Variance for property line walls that range in height from 6 to up to 11 feet along the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots. The project is related to a proposed 17 lot Tentative Tract Map(SUBTT18936),a General Plan Amendment(DRC2013-0961),an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment(DRC2013-0.0962)and a Tree Removal Permit(DRC2014-00113)to remove up to 50 onsite trees. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date; and h. The site is currently zoned Very Low (VL) residential and is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. The narrowness of the site precludes developing a double-loaded street with lots that meet the 200 foot lot depth requirement. 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 City's incorporation and are within the Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the east average approximately 7,500 square feet in size, below the 15,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan.The existing single-family residences to the north are with the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 25,000 square feet in size, in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The existing lots to the west were developed prior to City's incorporation and are within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan and average approximately 16,000 square feet in size, below the 25,000 square foot average lot size required by the Etiwanda.Specific plan; and i. The proposed lots comply with the 80 foot lot width and 100 foot lot depth requirements of the Etiwanda Specific Plan for the Low(L)zoning district. The lots range in size from 11,597 to 19,938 square feet with an average lot size of 15,010 square feet, which exceeds the required 15,000 square foot average lot size. These lots sizes will permit for the creation of a double- loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot(7,500 square foot lots) development to the east and the existing larger lot(25,000 square foot lots)development to the north. The-proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which average approximately 16,000 square feet in size; and j. The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation from Very Low(VL)residential(.1-2 dwelling units per acre) to Low(L) residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). The lot sizes will allow for the creation of a double- loaded new street that provides a density transition from the existing smaller lot (7,500 square foot lots) development to the east and the existing larger lot(25,000 square foot lots)development to the north. The proposed lots will also be compatible with the existing lots to the west, along Etiwanda Avenue, which range in size from 15,000 and 16,000 square feet; and F to J —262 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 3 k. The project is designed to conform to all related development criteria for the Low(L) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, except for the necessity of up to 11 foot tall walls. The additional wall height is necessary to raise the rear yard areas of all 16 residential lots in order for each lot to drain to public street. 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 strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. The increase in property line wall height is necessary for the proposed lots to drain to the public street and is consistent with the residential nature of the zoning district in which the site is located. The proposed wall consists of an up to a 5-foot high retaining wall topped by a 6-foot tall free standing wall. The additional wall height will permit the rear yards of each lot to be raised in order for the lots to drain to the public street. Without the additional wall height, the lots would not be able to drain to the public street, which would place an unnecessary physical hardship on the applicant that is inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.. The additional wall height will also permit the applicant to screen the rear yards of each lot with a 6-foot wall for privacy purposes, as required by the Development Code. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The site configuration, grades and existing street alignments dictate the layout of the • proposed lots and how the site will be drained. The site layout and the existing development surrounding the project site necessitates that each lot be drained to the public street, which necessitates the construction of retaining walls to raise the existing grades in the rearyards of each lot. C. The 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.Without an increase in the permitted wall heights from 6 feet to up to 11 feet, the lots would be unable to drain to the public street, as is common for lots in the surrounding area and the same zoning district. d. 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. It is common practice to grant a Variance for an increase in property line wall height where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria. The natural flow of storm water runoff on the project site is from north to south. In order for the lot to drain to the public street, it is necessary to raise the rear yard area of each lot, which necessitates the construction of an up to 5-foot high retaining wall. e. 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 increased wall heights will not negatively impact the surrounding property owners as the additional wall height will permit each of the new lot to drain away from the adjacent lots and to provide a 6 foot high privacy wall between adjacent lots. 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 significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: F to J —263 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 4 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. 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the requested General Plan Amendment. 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation 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 Variance application subject to each and every condition set forth. below and in the attached conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for Variance DRC2014-00219 to construct walls up to 11 feet in height along the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APN: 0227-061-03 and 82. 2) Approval for Variance DRC2014-00219 is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT 18936 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 and City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 2013-00962. F to J —264 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 5 3) 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. 4) 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 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. Air Qualitv Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (i.e., previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). 2) Water active sites at least twice daily(locations where grading is to occur will • be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving). 3) Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials or maintain at least 0.6 meter of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirement of.California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114. 4) Reduce Traffic Speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. 5) Divert at least 50 percent of the construction material (including, but not limited to, soil, mulch, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal and cardboard). 6) Use "Green Building Materials," such as those materials that are rapidly renewable or resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project, as defined on the CalRecycle website. 7) 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. 8) 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 F to J —265 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 6 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. 9) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. 10) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 11) 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. 12) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 13) 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 SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 14) 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 Particulate Matter (PM,o) emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 15) 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. F to J —266 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 7 Long Term Emissions 1) Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. 2) All residential structures shall be required to incorporate high-efficiency/low- polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 3) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. 4) All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. Biological Resources 1) Prior to approval of a Grading Permit, a breeding bird survey that is in conformance with the Migratory Bird Act shall be required to determine whether nesting is occurring. Occupied nests shall not be disturbed unless a qualified biologist verifies through non-invasive methods that either (a) the adult birds have not begun egg-laying or incubation; or(b)the juveniles from the occupied nests are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. If the biologist is unable to'verify one of the above conditions, then no disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of non-raptor nests, and within 5,000 feet of raptor nests, during the breeding season to avoid abandonment of the young. 2) Plant 5-gallon size eucalyptus trees in the rear yard off all 16 residential lots in a windrow along the rear property line at 8 feet on center.Adequate provisions for deep irrigation of the trees shall be shown on the Landscape Plans submitted with the Design Review application for the future residences on the lots. 3) The 9 healthy California fan palms outlined in the Arborist Report(Jim Borer- December 5, 2014: Technical Appendices A)shall be protected in place and be integrated into the final landscape plan when house product is submitted. 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: F to J —267 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 8 • 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. • Prepare a mitigation plan consistent with. Section 21083.2 Archaeological resources of CEQA to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, including but not limited to, avoiding archaeological sites, capping or covering sites with soil, planning the site as a park or green space or paying an in-kind mitigation fee. • 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 summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County Museum. F to J —268 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 9 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 PM,o emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM,o 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 PM,o emissions. Greenhouse Gasses Short Term (Construction) GHG Emissions 1} The project must comply with all rules that assist in reducing short-term air • pollutant emission in compliance with SCAWMD Rule 4.03 regarding fugitive dust including treating the site with water or other soil-stabilizing agent twice daily or replanting disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 2) The construction contractor shall select construction equipment based on low- emission factors and high energy efficiency and submit a statement on the grading plan that ensures all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufactures specification. 3) Trucks shall not idle continuously for more than 5 minutes. 4) Alternative fuel powered equipment shall be utilized in lieu of gasoline- or diesel-powered engines where feasible. 5) Construction should be timed so as not to interfere with peak-hour traffic. 6) Ridesharing and transit incentives shall be supported and encouraged for construction crew. Long Term (Operational) GHG Emissions 1) Use "Green Building Materials," such as those materials that are resource- efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project. • F to J —269 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 10 2) Use "Green Building Materials," such as those materials that are resource- efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, for at least 10 percent of the project. 3) Design all buildings to exceed California Building Code Title 24 energy standard including but not limited to any combination of: • Increased insulation • Limit air leakage through the structure • Incorporate Energy Star or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, and appliances • Landscape and developed site utilizing shade, prevailing winds and landscaping • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems • Install light colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LED's)for outdoor lighting. 4) Prepare a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and include the following: • Install water efficient landscapes and irrigation systems and devices in compliance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. • Use reclaimed water for landscaping within the project if available and/or install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. • Design building to be water efficient by installing water efficient fixtures and appliances including low flow faucets, dual flush'toilets and waterless urinals/water heaters. • Design irrigation to control runoff and to remove water to non-vegetated surfaces. 5) Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste. Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste in public areas. Hydrology and Water Quality Construction Activity 1) Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the permit applicant shall submit to the Building Official for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that F to J —210 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 11 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. 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) 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. Grading Activities 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Building Official for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (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. 2) 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. • 3) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Alliance Land Planning and Engineering, Inc. F to J —271 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015. Page 12 (December 18, 2014) to reduce construction pollutants from entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Noise 1) When houses are submitted for plan check, submit a report by a licensed acoustical engineer verifying that the interior noise levels comply with the City's residential noise limits 2) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday,or at-any time on Sunday or a national holiday. 3) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.66.050. 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. 4) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in the first phase. 5). 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: i Candyce Burnett, Secretary F to J —272 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-63 VARIANCE DRC2014-00219 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 13 I, Candyce Burnett, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • F to J —273 Conditions of Approval i� ��Rt1\l:,Fio ty Development Communi p p ent De artment Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. Approval of Tentative Tract No. SUBTT18936 is granted subject to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of ® Approval, 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. 4. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2,260.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 5. 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. 6. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department and the Planning Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. 7. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 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. 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. Printed:7,,21/2015 www.CityofRC.us F to J -275 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 12. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Revise City Dwg. 1897 and 1897-L to reflect improvements on Carnesi Drive that will be affected by the construction of Street'A' and installation of sidewalk and access ramps. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards, including at the southeast corner of Carnesi Drive and Etiwanda Avenue. 3. Carnesi Drive frontage improvements to be in accordance with the City "Local Street" and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. Remove existing curb and gutter and replace with cross gutter at new Street"A" intersection. b. Protect or relocate 5800 Lumen HPSV street light, as required. c. Construct 4-foot wide property line sidewalk.from east of Street"A"to Etiwanda Avenue. c. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. 4. Pinon Street improvements to be in accordance with the City "Local Street' and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. The cu-de-sac shall be per City Standard 111. b. Provide emergency vehicle access and a gate at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac, to the satisfaction of Fire District Division. The design of the pedestrian access will be determined at time of plan check. c. Provide curb, gutter, a.c. pavement, sidewalk, curbside drain outlets, street trees and drive approaches as required, d. Provide LED street lights that comply with SCE's lighting standards, as required. e. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. vwvw.GtyofRc.us Printed:7/21/2015 Page 2 of 11 F to J —276 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: En-gineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 5. This project is connected to or will disrupt an existing City-maintained landscape and irrigation area. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing area's condition shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 6. Street "A" improvements to be in accordance with the City "Local Street" and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. Provide curb, gutter, a.c. pavement, sidewalk, access ramps, curbside drain outlets, street trees and drive approaches,.as required. b. Provide LED street lights that comply with SCE's lighting standards, as required. 0c. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. 7. Shift the EVA drive approach south a sufficient distance to provide open channel drainage to Pinon Street on both sides, splitting street flows between the north and south gutters. Provide cobblestones per City Standard Drawing 542, Case 1, in lieu of sidewalk and street trees around and between the EVA drive approach and drainage channels. a. Gating and pedestrian access to EVA to be determined during plan check. b. Provide Q100 drainage calculations and exhibits to support the open channel designs. Label TC/FL elevations and flow line grades both upstream and downstream. Include a street section for the worst case scenario to demonstrate that Q100 will stay in the right-of-way. Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. . • Printed 7/21/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11 F to J —277 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Encaineerina Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited. Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a deposit reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site, www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs. 11. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 12. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Camesi Drive Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk 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. 13. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the final map. I www.CityofRc.us Printed:7!2112015 Page 4 of 11 F to J —278 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision ® Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project'Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. Access ramps for the disabled 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 Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 15. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street"A" Curb&Gutter A.C. Pavement Sidewalk Drive Approach Street Lights Street Trees • Printed:7/21/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 11 F to J -279 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Degartment Standard Conditions of Approval 16. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Pinon Street Curb &Gutter A.C. Pavement Sidewalk Drive Approach Street Lights Street Trees 17. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 18. 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. Pinon Street-Select appropriate tree from the approved Street Tree List for Rancho Cucamonga. 19. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. www.CityofRC.us Printed:7/21;2015 Page 5 of 11 F to J -280 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 ® Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. Carnesi Drive Botanical Name - Pistacia chinensis Common Name -Chinese Pistache Min. Grow Space 5' Spacing 50' 0.C. Size- 15 Gallon Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 21. 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. 22. 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. Street "A" Select appropriate tree from the approved Street Tree List for Rancho Cucamonga. 23. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. Printed:721/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 11 F to J —281 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment,Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 25. 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 may be received from them. Fire Prevention I New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. r Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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., TT, CUP, DR, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 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. 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. 6. Provide compliance with the California Residential/Code Building Code (CBC/CRC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive construction. www.QtyofRC.us Printed:7/21/2015 Page 8 of 11 F to J -282 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision • Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 8. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's"high wind" instructions. 9. Construction activity shall occur in accordance with the standards as stated in Chapter 17.66.050 D-4 of the Development Code. 10. Prior to the 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 Fee, Permit and Plan Check 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. 11. The Building and Safety Official shall provide street addresses after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of Building Permits. 12. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.). 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. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 2. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 3. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a • designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Printed:7/21!2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11 F to 1 -283 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 4. 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. 5. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property(i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). 9. Prior to issuance. of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 15. 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. 16. 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 Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 17. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant. to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 18. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the.property line. Printed:7/21/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11 F to J -284 Project#: SUBTT18936DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 ® Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 20. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. • Printed:7r21i2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 11 of 11 F to J -285 RESOLUTION NO. 15-64 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-00113, A REQUEST TO REMOVE UP TO 50 TREES RELATED TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 FORA SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE VERY LOW (VL) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CARNESI DRIVE AND EAST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN: 0227-061-03 AND 82. A. Recitals. 1. Storm Western Development, Inc. filed an application for the approval of Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tree Removal Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 12th day of August 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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'Commissibn 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 12, 2015, 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 on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue in the Very Low(VL)Zoning District; and b. To the north are single-family residences within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan;to the south is an existing church within the Very Low(VL)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; to the west is an existing church and single-family residences within the Very Low (VL) zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and to the east are single-family residences within the Low(L)zoning district of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and. C. The General Plan land use designation and the Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designation for the project site is Very Low (VL) residential of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. Storm Western Development, Inc. submitted an application for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots for residential purposes, with Lot#17 as the new boundaries for Cross and Crown Lutheran church, which is located on a portion of the project site; and F to J —287 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-64 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 2 e. Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, which is located at the southeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Carnesi Drive, is selling a portion of their property to the applicant, which was originally master-planned for expansion of the church's educational program; and f. The project site is vacant with the exception of Cross and Crown Lutheran Church, a perimeter wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and 50 onsite trees; and g. The application is for a Tree Removal Permit to remove up to 50 on site trees. The project is related to a proposed 17 lot Tentative Tract Map, a General Plan Amendment, an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment and Variance for an increase in wall height. House product for the lots is not a part of the project scope and will be submitted at a later date; and h. The project site contains 50 heritage trees.The Development Code defines heritage trees as all eucalyptus windrows, any tree in excess of thirty feet in height and having a single trunk with a diameter of 20 inches or more or having a multi-trunk with a diameter of 30 inches or more. An Arborist Report was prepared by Jim Borer (December 5, 2014) for the project that recommends removal of 41 of the on-site trees and the relocation of the 9 remaining on site trees. The trees observed on the project site were 33 blue gum eucalyptus trees, 11 California fan palms, 2 Brazilian peppers trees 1 elderberry tree, 1 American sweet gum tree, 1 Catalina cherry tree and 1 European olive tree; and i. The 33 eucalyptus trees have been repeatedly topped leading to a poor structural integrity and are recommend for removal. Two of the 11 California fan palms have physical defects which make them poor candidates for preservations.The remaining 9 California fan palms are in good condition and are given a fifty percent chance for surviving transplantation. A mitigation measure is included in the Initial Study Part II which requires that the 9 California fan palms be preserved on site. The 6 remaining trees have poor form and character and are recommended for removal. The project site is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area which requires that eucalyptus trees that are part of a windrow be replaced with 5-gallon sized trees planted 8 feet on center. The project will be required to plant eucalyptus trees at the required spacing along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots. The impact from the removal of the trees will be further mitigated by the Development Code requirement that new residential projects plant a minimum of two trees in the front yard area of each lot. 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 removal of the trees is necessary due to the condition of the trees related to disease, danger of collapse, proximity to an existing structure, or interference with utility services. The Arborist Report prepared for the project by Jim Borer (December 5, 2014) concluded that 41 of the onsite trees are in poor condition and should be removed.The remaining 9 healthy trees are given a 50 percent chance of surviving being transplanted onsite. b. The removal of the trees is necessary in order to construct improvements which will allow economic enjoyment of the property. The project related to the Tree Removal Permit is for the subdivision of project site into 17 lots(16 lots for residential purposes). The exact plotting of the future homes on the lots is not available at this time. The majority of the trees are located along the property line of the project site and will conflict with the construction of onsite improvements including the proposed property line retaining walls and the public street. F to J —288 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-64 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 • Page 3 C. The removal of the trees will not negatively impact the neighborhood, the established character of the area and property values. There are a large number of mature trees in the surrounding area. The removal of the onsite trees will have a minimal impact on the surrounding area as the 41 trees slated for removal will be mitigated by the number of trees that will be planted as part of the project. The project site is within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area which requires that eucalyptus trees that are part of a windrow be replaced with 5-gallon sized trees planted 8 feet on center. The project will be required to plant eucalyptus trees at the required spacing along the rear property line of all 16 residential lots. The impact from the removal of the trees will be further mitigated by the Development Code requirement that new residential projects plant a minimum of two trees in the front yard area of each lot. d. The removal of the trees is necessary to construct required improvements within the public street right-of-way or within a flood control or utility right-of-way. A yet to be determined number of the existing street trees will need to be removed along Carnesi Drive to construct a new public street and sidewalk. The existing trees will either be relocated within the public right-of-way or be replaced with large specimen trees. e. The trees cannot be preserved through pruning and proper maintenance or relocation. Forty-one of the trees slated for removal have been determined by the arborist report prepared by Jim Borer(December 5, 2014) to be in poor condition. The 9 healthy trees are required to be preserved onsite. f. The trees do not constitute a significant natural resource in the city. All but 9 of the • trees are in poor condition. The healthy trees will be preserved onsite and the remainder will be replaced as part of the project. g. Removal of the trees in not restricted by a Specific Plan, Community Plan, condition of approval, or designation as a Historic Landmark. The Etiwanda Specific Plans requires that eucalyptus trees that are part of a windrow be replaced with 5-gallon sized trees planted 8 feet on center. A mitigation measure is included in the related Mitigation Monitoring Plan and as a condition of approval in this resolution that requires that the subject eucalyptus windrow be replaced in the quantity and spacing required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan. h. Every effort has been made to incorporate the trees into the design of the project and the only appropriate alternative is the removal of the trees. The 9 healthy trees are conditioned to be retained on site. i. The removal of the trees will not have a negative impact on the health, safety, or viability of surrounding trees, nor will it negatively impact the aesthetics or general welfare of the surrounding area. The project site is in an area with a large number of mature trees. The impact on the surrounding trees will be minimal with the required planting of a replacement eucalyptus windrow and the preservation of the 9 healthy onsite trees. 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 significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Mitigated • Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: F to J —289 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-64 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 4 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 thatthe projectwould 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. 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to approving the requested General Plan Amendment. 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 recommends that the City Council adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation 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 Tree Removal Permit application subject to each and every condition set forth below and the attached Standard Conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 for the removal of up to 50 onsite trees related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for a site located on the south side of Camesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue; APN: 0227-061-03 and 82. 2) Approval is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract SUBTT18936 and Variance DRC2014-00219 and City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962. 3) Plant 5-gallon size eucalyptus trees in the rear yard off all 16 residential lots in a windrow along the rear property line at 8 feet on center.Adequate provisions for deep irrigation of the trees shall be shown on the F to J —290 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-64 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-00113 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 5 • Landscape Plans submitted with the Design pReview application for the future residences on the lots. 4) The 9 healthy California fan palms outlined in the Arborist Report (Jim Borer- December 5, 2014) shall be replanted on the project site and be integrated into the final landscape plan when house product is submitted. 5) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6) The 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 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. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: F to J —291 Conditions of Approval R -�NC__o Community Development Department Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 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. Approval of Tentative Tract No. SUBTT18936 is granted subject to City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962. 3. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of • Approval. 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. 4. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption and Mitigated Negative Declaration fee in the amount of $2.260.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. 5. 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. 6. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction. including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Services Department and the Planning Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. 7. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence. durability, and design consistency. 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. 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. � .Ci C.us rnted:%:2�27t5 wwwtyofR F to J —293 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-001 1 3, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan.Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard.Conditions of Approval 10. 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. 11. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 12. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Revise City Dwg. 1897 and 1897=L to reflect improvements on Carnesi Drive that. will be affected by the construction of Street 'A' and installation of sidewalk and access ramps. 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards, including at the southeast corner of Carnesi Drive and Etiwanda Avenue. 3. Carnesi Drive frontage improvements to be in accordance with the City "Local Street" and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. Remove existing curb and gutter and replace with cross gutter at new Street"A" intersection. b. Protect or relocate 5800 Lumen HPSV street light, as required. c. Construct 4-foot wide property line sidewalk from east of Street"A" to Etiwanda Avenue. c. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. 4. Pinon Street improvements to be in accordance with the City 'Local Street" and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including: a. The cu-de-sac shall be per City Standard 111. b. Provide emergency vehicle access and a gate at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac, to the satisfaction of Fire District Division. The design of the pedestrian access will be determined at time of plan check. c. Provide curb, gutter, a.c. pavement, sidewalk, curbside drain outlets, street trees and drive approaches as required, d. Provide LED street lights that comply with SCE's lighting standards, as required. e. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. www.cityof`RC.us Printed:7x21:20?5 Page 2 of 1'. F to J -294 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113. DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 ® Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 5. This project is connected to or will disrupt an existing City-maintained landscape and irrigation area. Prior to new construction, a joint inspection and documentation of the existing area's condition shall occur with both the new contractor and the City inspector. The existing irrigation system shall be relocated as needed and any damaged landscaping replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. At this point, the new construction contractor shall be responsible for maintenance of both the new and existing areas. The developer shall assume maintenance responsibility for the altered landscape area for a minimum of 90 days after reconstruction. A follow-up inspection of both areas is required prior to the City's acceptance of the new area. 6. Street 'A" improvements to be in accordance with the City "Local Street" and the Etiwanda Specific Plan standards as required and including.- a. ncluding:a. Provide curb, gutter, a.c. pavement. sidewalk, access ramps, curbside drain outlets, street trees and drive approaches, as required. b. Provide LED street lights that comply with SCE's lighting standards, as required. c. Provide traffic striping and signage, as required. 7. Shift the EVA drive approach south a sufficient distance to provide open channel drainage to Pinon Street on both sides, splitting street flows between the north and south gutters. Provide cobblestones per City Standard Drawing - 542, Case 1, in lieu of sidewalk and street trees around and between the EVA drive approach and drainage channels. a. Gating and pedestrian access to EVA to be determined during plan check. b. Provide 0100 drainage calculations and exhibits to support the open channel designs. Label TC/FL elevations and flow line grades both upstream and downstream. Include a street section for the worst case scenario to demonstrate that Q100 will stay in the right-of-way. Standard Conditions of Approvai 8. 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. 9. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. ?rirted i'21;20'•5 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 11 F to J —295 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961', DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 10. 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. Permits issued on or after June 2, 2014, must complete the reimbursement process through the City's Accelerate online portal within . 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project or the deposit will be forfeited. Permits issued before June 2, 2014, require the following when applying for a deposit reimbursement: a completed CD-2 form, a copy of the cashier's receipt showing the deposit amount, and all weight tickets. Instructions and forms are available at the City's web site, www.CityofRC.us, under City Hall; Engineering; Environmental Programs. 11. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010, no person shall make connections from a source of energy, fuel or power to any building or structure which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except: that in developments containing more than one building, structure or unit, the development may have energy connections made in equal proportion to the percentage of completion of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval, . as determined by the City Engineer, provided that reasonable, safe and maintainable access to the property exists. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings, structures or units be connected to energy sources prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of development approval. 12. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Carnesi Drive Curb& Gutter A.C. Pvmt Sidewalk 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. 13. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed. or -delineated on the final map. www.CityofRC.us Pfintetl 72112015 Page 4 of 11 F to J -296 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineerin-g Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 14. 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 Engineering Services Department 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. Access ramps for the disabled 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 Manager prior to submittal for first plan check. 15. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Street"A" Curb & Gutter A.C. Pavement Sidewalk Drive Approach Street Lights Street Trees • Printed:7.121;20'5 `NV^N.QtyofRC.us Page 5 of 11 F to J -297 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineerin-g Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 16. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Pinon Street Curb & Gutter A.C. Pavement Sidewalk Drive Approach Street Lights Street Trees 17. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or 'larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 18. 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. Pinon Street-Select appropriate tree from the approved Street Tree List for Rancho Cucamonga.. 19. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. www.CityofRC.us Pr?nted:7!21!X15 Page o of 11 F to J -298 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113. DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 20. 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. Carnesi Drive Botanical Name - Pistacia chinensis Common Name - Chinese Pistache Min. Grow Space 5' Spacing 50' 0.C. Size- 15 Gallon Construction Notes for Street Trees: 1)All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments. as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 21. 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. 22. 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. Street "A" Select appropriate tree from the approved Street Tree List for Rancho Cucamonga. 23. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water. gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. Pri^ted:i 21,20,5 WWW.CityofRC.us Page 7 of 11 F to 1 -299 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 24. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the ease of all other residential projects. 25. 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 may be received from them. Fire Prevention / New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. 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. 2. 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., TT, CUP,. DR, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 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. 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. 6. Provide compliance with the California Residential/Code Building Code (CBC/CRC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive construction. www.CityofRC.us Printed:7:21.;2015 Page d of 11 F to J —300 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE - 022706103-0000 • Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 7. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 8. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 9. Construction activity shall occur in accordance with the standards as stated in Chapter 17.66.050 D-4 of the Development Code. 10. Prior to the 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 Fee, Permit and Plan Check 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. 11. The Building and Safety Official shall provide street addresses after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of Building Permits. 12. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC. etc.). 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. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 2. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 3. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures. etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading. prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Printed 7212015 www CityofRC.us Page 9 of 11 F to J -301 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 4. 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. 5. The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall include a copy of the project Conditions of Approval. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural .calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). 9. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 15. 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. 16. 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 Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 17. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 18. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. Printed:7,21i2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 10 of 11 F to J —302 Project#: SUBTT18936 DRC2013-00961, DRC2013-00962, DRC2014-00113, DRC2014-00219 Project Name: Storm Western Inc. Subdivision Location: 6723 ETIWANDA AVE -022706103-0000 ® Project Type: Tentative Tract Map General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Tree Removal Permit, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 19. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 20. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. • • Parted 7 2112015 w vw.CityofRC us Page 11 of 11 F to J -303 F to J -304 STAFF REPORT ?� J PLA\\I\G DEPARTMENT DATE: August 12, 2015 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tom Grahn, Acting Senior Planner Mike Smith, Associate Planner . Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use Development District, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. Related Files: CEQA Review CEQA2015-00018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the City Council: 1. Adopt Negative Declaration for Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421; and • 2. Approve Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES: Staff recommends the changes to the Development Code summarized below. Attachment 1 of the Resolution prepared for the Commission's consideration includes the actual text changes to the Development Code. Typographic errors are not included in the summary of proposed changes, but are included in the body of Attachment 1. Article III —Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards 1. Allowed Uses. Amend allowed use regulations in Table 17.30.030-1 to add two new use types: Commercial (Secondary/Accessory) Industrial and Commercial (Re-purposing) Industrial. These uses will be permitted/conditionally permitted within the Industrial Park (IP) District and General Industrial (GI) District only. Also, a new table note (Table Note #13) is included to permit various uses when proposed in conjunction with "Commercial (Re- purposing) — Industrial" uses. These new use types will allow various commercial and retail operations to be conducted within.industrial areas. 2. Allowed Use Descriptions. Amend allowed use descriptions in Section 17.32.020 to create descriptions for Accessory Retail, Commercial (Secondary/Accessory) Industrial and Commercial (Re-purposing) Industrial as well as the addition of other clarifying text. These description are necessary to determine whether a use type is permitted. 3. Optional Residential Development Standards. Amend Table 17.36.010-2 to relabel the zoning • districts listed in the table. This also corrects a reference to an incorrect section regarding recreation facilities. The table was unintentionally changed during the 2012 Development Code update. This change will correct the error. Item K —1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 August 12, 2015 Page 2 4. Setbacks. Amend residential streetscape standards in Table 17.36.010-3 to add.a table note (Table Note #3) indicating that only the primary residence and room additions for detached single-family residences are required to comply with the required building streetscape setback. This setback does not apply to accessory structures. This is a clarifying amendment reflective of a previous policy. 5. Mixed Use Development Standards. Delete in its entirety Section 17.36.020(C) and add Table 17.36.020-2 including development standards for the Mixed Use Development District. The standards in the table will include, but are not limited to, density, floor area ratio (FAR), building height, parking, community and private open space, landscaping, and setback requirements. These standards previously did not exist. 6. Haven Avenue Overlay Land Use. Amend allowed use regulations in Table 17.38.040-1 to add "Retail, Accessory" as a permitted use within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. This use type was previously not a permitted use in this overlay district. 7. Industrial Commercial Overlay Land Use. Amend allowed use regulations in Table 17.38.050- 1 to add "Commercial (Re-purposing) — Industrial" as a conditionally permitted use within the Industrial Commercial Overlay District. This use type was previously not a conditionally permitted use in this overlay district. 8. Foothill Boulevard (Subarea 4) Development Standards. Remove Section 17.38.060(H)(8), which requires a certain percentage of a grove be preserved as well as a 20-foot greenway connection. An arborist report submitted to the City indicates that none of the trees could be preserved because of their age and unlikely viability. All heritage trees still would need to comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance and be replaced at a ratio of one to one in a manner that gives the appearance of a grove of trees or windrows. Secondly, the next sentence of this Code section discusses a future connection to the Community Trail system and Miller Park, now named Garcia Park. Access to the trail system can still be obtained by traveling approximately 350 feet west and 1,000 feet north of the corner at Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue. Article IV— Site Development Provisions 9. Fences Walls and Screening. Amend Sections 17.48.050(E)(1)(e) and 17.48.050(E)(2)(c) to include additional text to clarify storage area screening requirements and to clarify acceptable wall and fence materials within industrial areas. 10. Parking. Amend Section 17.64.060 to include text regarding possible options for requesting a parking reduction for mixed use projects. This section also indicates the need for a parking study for all mixed use projects. These requirements previously did not exist. Article V—Specific Use Requirements 11. Animal Regulations. Amend Table 17.88.020-1 to revise the number of domestic cats and dogs to allow for up to four (4) of each animal as well as other minor additions for clarification purposes. Item K—2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 August 12, 2015 Page 3 Article VII — Design Standards 12. Industrial Design Standards. Amend Section 17.122.030(A)(1)(a) to add text regarding the requirement to provide employee break areas for office and industrial developments. The addition clarifies when an employee break area is required. Article VIII —Glossary 13. Universal Definitions. Amend Section 17.126 as follows: • Add definitions for Barn and Garage structures. • Add definitions for Mixed Use Development. In addition, any spelling, grammatical, and formatting errors that have been discovered since the publishing of the Development Code will be corrected. MIXED USE BACKGROUND: On May 19, 2010, the City Council, on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, adopted the City's updated General Plan, which re-designated various sites (mostly along Foothill Boulevard) with a Mixed Use land use designation. A total of thirteen (13) Mixed Use areas were identified throughout the City. In conjunction, the City's Zoning Map was amended to reflect Mixed Use zoning in the applicable areas. Since then, the City Council has created mixed use related goals. One of the City Council goals (Objective #A24) for 2015 is to establish mixed use development standards in order to start implementing the vision laid out in the 2010 General Plan. On July 18, 2012, the City Council, also on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, adopted the City's updated Development Code. Although this update included a mixed use development standards section, general development standards were not provided, including, but not limited to, density, building setbacks, building height and open space requirements. As a result, the Planning Department has pursued strategies to develop these standards, which include: researching other cities, interviewing other planners, architects, and developers from other cities and re-drafting sections of the Development Code that pertain to mixed use development. With respect to item (1) listed above; the City has been involved in multiple projects that have helped create the foundation for establishing mixed use development: • The Compass Blueprint Project - The Compass Blueprint Project (Foothill Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Study) evaluated where transit oriented development could occur that would support Bus Rapid Transit along Foothill Boulevard. This document was received and filed on June 19, 2013, by the City Council. • Design and Sign Tour - On October 30, 2013, Planning staff conducted a tour with the City Council and the Planning Commission during a joint public meeting. The tour was organized to show how higher density development projects that usually entail a form of mixed land use can work harmoniously with other types of land uses such as lower density single-family residential. The tour included visiting three different cities: Santa Clarita, Pasadena and Monrovia. Each city had various types of developments at different densities, architectural Item K —3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 August 12, 2015 Page 4 styles and mixed land use types, but have all managed to incorporate a successful project within the existing built environment. • Economic Development Strategic Plan — The City adopted its Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) in February 2015. The EDSP is a policy document that is meant to guide the City's economic development priorities and activities over the next three to five years. The plan identifies a goal, which is to create an environment that is attractive to the younger population. In order to attract.office-based businesses that cater to the "Millennial" workforce, it will be critical for the City to facilitate development of walkable and bike-friendly mixed-use places that are appealing to this demographic group. These types of mixed-use places are also consistent with the City's goal to encourage a healthy and sustainability lifestyle for residents and visitors, as envisioned in the Healthy RC initiative, and can contribute to the revitalization of underperforming retail centers. On July 8th, 2015, a Planning Commission workshop was conducted to discuss the draft standards for Mixed Use Districts (Attachment A) with the intent to receive input from the Commission. During the workshop, staff presented an overview of the draft standards, including density, floor area ratio (FAR), building height, parking, community and private open space, landscaping, and setback requirements. The Commissioners were overall in favor of the concepts and draft standards that staff presented. During the workshop, one key question raised by the Commission was the following: how do we better connect Mixed Use sites along Foothill Boulevard? In response, staff noted that the City has been involved with and will continue to work with organizations such as Omnitrans to study ways to make public transportation a more efficient system that can better connect destinations throughout the City. Other comments included looking at mimicking aspects of Victoria Gardens, which is a successful mixed use development. Staff is proposing elements from Victoria Gardens such as reduced setbacks to bring buildings closer to the street to enhance the pedestrian experience and create "life on the street." A minimum of at least two types of land use mixes are being proposed-in the new standards. The mixed use component of projects will depend largely on the market, as demand will dictate which land use type will be most efficiently utilized for the specific area. This requirement will not limit developers, but will provide flexibility if they wish to provide a range of mixes such as commercial, office, residential, etc. It is important to note that development and technical requirements are not being diminished, and the proposed standards will result in a higher level of quality and creativity through innovative designs and placemaking. The proposed changes set the groundwork of the City's goals to implement mixed use by creating general development standards. The next phase of this effort will be to review the City's zoning districts and investigate the creation of overlay districts to provide additional development standards and design guidelines to achieve the desired vision for each neighborhood character area. Each district will be analyzed individually to ensure compatibility with the surrounding land uses and neighborhood. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. This Development Code Amendment affects the City as a whole and does not impact any single development. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. Item K—4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 • August 12, 2015 Page 5 On July 7, 2015, the City received a comment from the Public Utilities Commission in regards to the proposed Development Code Amendment. The Rail Crossings Engineering Branch recommended that the City add language to the Development Code Amendment so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad/light right-of-way is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. The proposed amendments to the Development Code are not project specific and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All projects will be required to meet all current Development Code requirements. Furthermore, a section of the Code was updated previously to reflect rail service needs. PUBLIC NOTICE AND CORRESPONDENCE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65090, this item was advertised a minimum of 30 days in advance as a public hearing (1/8 page ad) in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. No correspondence has been received in response to the large legal notice or environmental assessment. No individual notice to property owners was provided. GENERAL CONCLUSION: The changes proposed in this amendment (Attachment 1 of the Resolution) will: (1) establish development standards for the Mixed Use zoning districts; (2) add new and revise existing text within various sections; (3) correct technical errors and (4) clarify existing regulations. The changes are summarized in the tables shown in Attachment 1 of the Draft Resolution of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB:DP:MN/Is Exhibit A: - July 8, 2015 Planning Commission Workshop Staff Report (with Exhibits) and minutes Exhibit B: - Initial Study Part II Exhibit C: - Draft Negative Declaration Draft Resolution with Attachment 1 • Item K —5 Item K-6 i STAFF REPORT n PI_-�NNING DEPART\LENT DATE: July 8, 2015RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner Mike Smith, Associate Planner Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT. DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — A workshop to discuss a supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use Development District, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. Related Files: CEQA Review CEQA2015-00018. RECOMMENDATION: Following the PowerPoint presentation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the draft development standards proposed for Mixed Use / Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas and provide comment and direction relevant to the presentation. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: The 2010 General Plan update designated additional sites (mostly along Foothill Boulevard) with a Mixed Use land use designation. The zoning map was also updated to reflect Mixed Use zoning in the applicable areas. This set the foundation for what the City envisions along this major commercial corridor and the selected areas to the south. (See attachment A). The Compass Blueprint Project (Foothill Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Study) went a step further and evaluated where TOD could occur that would support Bus Rapid Transit along Foothill Boulevard. This document was received and filed on June 19, 2013. On October 30, 2013, Planning staff conducted a tour with the City Council and the Planning Commission during a joint public meeting. The tour was organized to show how higher density development projects that usually entail a form of mixed land use, can work harmoniously with other types of land uses such as lower density single-family residential. The tour included visiting three different cities: Santa Clarita, Pasadena and Monrovia. Each city had various types of development at different densities, architectural styles, mixed land use types, but have all managed to incorporate a successful project within the existing environment. One of the City Council goals (Objective#A24) for 2015 is to develop Mixed Use/TOD development standards in order to start implementing the vision laid out in the General Plan. The Development Code currently does not have specific development standards for more urban Mixed Use/TOD development. As a result, Planning Department staff has been working on developing these standards, which have included researching other cities, interviewing other cities' planners, architects, developers and re-drafting sections of the Development Code that pertain. Attachment B contains Section 17.36.020 from the Development Code, which are the current development standards for Mixed Use zoning districts. The proposed standards are also attached (Attachment C). The industrial standards and other areas of the Development Code that require clean-up or updating will be part of this Development Code Amendment and will be discussed in further detail in the staff report for the public hearing. EXHIBIT A Item K -7 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 July 8, 2015 Page 2 Since the draft standards for Mixed Use will apply to a relatively new development type within the City, staff is seeking input in a workshop setting. This workshop will allow staff to present the draft standards to the Commission for discussion and determine whether additional analysis of, and/or refinement to, the proposed standards is necessary: Items for.discussion will include, but are not limited to: density, floor area ratio (FAR), building height, parking, community and private open space, landscaping, and setback requirements. Following the workshop, the standards will be refined and presented to the Planning Commission on August 12, 2015 and City Council on September 16, 2015 for consideration of adoption. This phase sets the initial groundwork of the City's goals to implement mixed use / TOD by creating general development standards. The next phase of this effort will be to review the City's zoning districts and investigate the creation of overlay districts to provide even further details to the development standards and design guidelines to achieve the desired vision for each neighborhood character area. This is included under City Council Goal Objective #A25. Each district will be analyzed individually to ensure compatibility with the surrounding land uses and neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Candyce rnett Planning D ector CB:MN/Is Exhibit A: Mixed Use areas in the General Plan Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Exhibit B: Current development standards for Mixed Use (Section 17.36.020) Exhibit C: Draft development standards for Mixed Use /TOD areas Item K —8 m x `" W 2010 General Plan Mixed Use Areas .-_ . . _.- F r — t T r Lj Rd vI f- I Ch Foothi 11 B1,4 _ 1 h 66 __�1 66 6 ~� i0 l�' fit '' a : I �`' fi ___ - 't The, wH EGlIcer♦ter 0 —.. BI 17� 3f,atln(r 1 ~ LL_ � fin. � - 1�.1�m�.___�_._��m m �� '� _.__� — •' Mixed Use 2012 Zoning Map ® Mixed Use(MU.) NORM Ilei! , I"7i Ill_ (Pc•�f un" JJ' .J.._ i III i •(. LI e e � 1 -I - I .. I I rVe ( �� 1� J - fit v�,kre ,y h: - _- ' ' —r6rra7/istaPJanneG=Co"mmunity- J 3 F - YY •` .vno6 iiT D Aj I I .. 1 anS — M e' I/J j� _'ii�J :3 a • �I s 31-_ (SP-EI_ r i 6npire 4L�kc i Spsciiic Plan - Article III, Chapter 17.36 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.36.020 Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the City's Mixed Use Zoning District. The General Plan establishes thirteen (13) mixed use sites throughout the city with the intent to create special urban places with horizontal and/or vertical integration of uses. In the General Plan, each mixed use site includes intent statements, land use ranges, and corresponding development assumptions. Development standards in this Section apply to all land designated on the Zoning Map within a Mixed Use District and are intended to be consistent with and implement the General Plan. See Figure 17.36.020-1 (Mixed Use Sites). FIGURE 17.36.020-1 MIXED USE SITES '��///%/_ N - /Legend' .J wPsexT._ . I atW1l+Aar r..ra . r w+ea n asu iHgln�zlprua i . - 7J rtyera nnaeecm*.c a's, ___.i♦ _ F.- -.-_ _ Z3ycmaerza. mweoucxrtv, rucma nrt-w, ! - ecce.vawai V I _ �Nrrvrv'RZR r�.Y'r•.una i._: -- a.e3lY vnsa w W Lk;KY _. � A rJ amod�i lnx.�ae:crnvin«, r 00964St40C 7 EXHIBIT B 17.36-12 Item K —11 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Article III, Chapter 17.36 B. Mixed Use Sites. The thirteen (13) mixed use sites with Mixed Use Zoning District designations are listed below. 1. Victoria Gardens/Victoria Arbors 2. Town Center(Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue) 3. Terra Vista 4. Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue 5. Foothill Boulevard between Archibald Avenue and Hellman Avenue 6. Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street 7. Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 8. Industrial Area Specific Plan (Sub-Area 18) 9. Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek Channel 10. Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 11. Western Gateway (Bear Gulch Area) 12. Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga Channel Site 13. Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) C. Mixed Use Site Development Standards. The General Plan establishes basic development parameters for each of the city's thirteen (13) mixed use sites. Those parameters are summarized in Table 17.36.020-1 (Development Standards for Mixed Use Sites) below. Because mixed use sites are intended to be unique urban places, this Code does not establish traditional development standards for mixed use sites. Rather, Design Review is required for all development within the mixed use sites and development and design merits will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of Design Review. However, general development standards listed in Article IV (Site Development Provisions) apply to all mixed use sites (e.g., parking, signs, landscaping, lighting). . 17.36-13 Item K—12 Article III,.Chapter 17.36 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code TABLE 17.36.020-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE SITES • Land Use Mix .r Mixed Use Sites £ co CY m trz 2 3 R� ° 3a > Q a > Victoria Gardens/Victoria Arbors 21-36% 20-41% 5-12% 4-14 Town Center(Foothill Boulevard and 25-35% 10-15% 30-50% 0-10% 14 du/ac Haven Avenue) Terra Vista 12-15% 85-87% 30 du/ac Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa 0-62% 0-100% 20 du/ac Avenue and Center Avenue Foothill Boulevard between Archibald 67-70% 30-33% 15-30 Avenue and Hellman Avenue du/ac Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and 30-40% 60-70% Hampshire Street 30 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 26-50% 40-60% 6-10% 4% 24-30 du/ac • Industrial Area Specific Plan 11-22% 15-25% 40-60% 7.5% 28 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek Channel 70-75% 25-30% 14 du/ac Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 0-100% 0-100% 8-14 du/ac Western Gateway(Bear Gulch Area) 30-50% 50-70% 14 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga ° 8-14 Channel Site 0-100/0 0-100% du/ac Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) 0-100% 0-100% 14-24 du/ac Section 17.36.030 Development Standards for Commercial and Office Zoning Districts A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. Development standards in this Section apply to all land designated on the Zoning Map within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. B. Commercial and Office Districts Described. As identified in Chapter 17.26 (Establishment of Zoning Districts), the city includes six (6) Commercial and Office Zoning Districts: 17.36-14 Item K —13 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP MINUTES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 8, 2015 - 4:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ***TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM*** 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga., California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 4:03 PM Roll Call Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Howdyshell X Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Betty Miller, Associate Engineer; Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner; Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner, Lois Schrader, .Planning Commission Secretary; Mike Smith, Associate Planner, Mike Frasure, Building Inspections Supervisor,Jason Welday, Traffic Engineer, Rob Ball, Fire Marshall. IF- 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, orengaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None Item K—14 i PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO JULY 812015 CUCAMONcn Page 2 III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use Development District, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. I Presentations by staff members including a PowerPoint presentation(copy on file) were I given by Mike Smith, Associate Planner;Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner;Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner,- and Tom Grahn, Associate Planner. I A presentation by Neil Payton, FAIR, Principal of Torti Gallas and Partners. Inc. followed • (copy on file). He noted that TOD/MOD development can take on many forms—there are principles but not stringent characteristics of high performing districts. He said higher density is not always the best for the developer and that what is typical in early forms of a TOD-market is not always in line with that. He said the developer has to i make it pencil out and in the early stages a lower density may work better than a higher density. He said in later stages a higher density may be more successful. He said a goal is to create a culture of walking rather than driving and that is a long term process. Commissioner Fletcher noted a memo regarding the Metrolink Station. He asked to hear more about that topic. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director, pointed out that the agenda item today is to discuss development standards for Mixed Use Districts, and to clarify definitions, density, and to put standards in place to support this type of development. She said the memo is preliminary/embryonic and not for discussion at this meeting. She said it was just an informational memo regarding the RFQ and to see if there is interest/opportunity for a i future buildout of the station. Commissioner Fletcher asked why the City wants to change open space to Mixed Use. Ms. Burnett said there is no suggestion to change the underlying zoning as it is already identified for these types of development in the General Plan. She said the City could consider sites along Foothill Boulevard and other areas but there are no proposals to change or amend zoning at this point-it is the development standards for those areas • that is needed. Commissioner Fletcher said he believes all Mixed Use areas are appropriate to look at even around the Metrolink station. He said he is in support of building these Item K —15 0 PLANNING COMMISSION. WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO JULY 812015 CUCAMONGA Page 3 neighborhoods but he wants high quality. He said the standards should be tough and staff should seek the very best. With respect to Density, Design, Diversity (DDD) he said he has a concern about building residential units. He said the City should be promoting jobs and commerce and asked that these areas not be converted to residential. He said the TODs work in Pasadena because of the jobs they provide. He commented that since we lost the RDA it seems we are not "selling RC". He said we need to keep up that effort and then make sure jobs are there, not just retail. Ms. Burnett clarified that the proposal is not to cut commercial development but it is to use properties in a better way. She said commerce will continue to change but underutilized areas need to change. She said we need to blend but also need to create the space. She said the 2nd phase of the Council Goal looks is to look at neighborhoods and to look at what character to create. Commissioner Fletcher said development standards will encourage developers to look at old strip centers. Chairman Wimberly asked if the amendment will create new overlays. Ms. Burnett said the creation of new overlays is part of the 2nd phase of the goal. Commissioner Howdyshell said she has looked for elements of these concepts in her new community. She said to incorporate these elements will be a key economic factor. She referenced Victoria Gardens'success in creating a walking, browsing, community feeling. She said we need focus on job creation but employees may also want to live where they work or nearby. She said she enjoyed the tour; it was a paradigm shift in housing. She said she would like to see a vibrant living environment and an exciting community. She said density should be smart. She said parking is a current struggle. She said with respect to conserving water, she was pleased with the suggested setbacks discussed. She said the information presented was brilliant and forward thinking. Vice Chairman Oaxaca thanked staff for the excellent presentation. He clarified the goal is to have a specific focus on transit or more mobility friendly development. He said the transit mode may take a long time before that could be in place. He said the standards should maximize mobility. He said it is still a small system and only a certain segment that uses it. He was unsure if it could create a real magnet. He said the identified parcels identified look disconnected geographically. He said he would like the new standards help them connect. He said if the City is interested in connecting them, then create a visual connection. He said there are differences in sites; some are out of date strip malls. He said we may miss opportunities if we do not connect also between the north and south as well as east to west. He said the timing of the Empire Lakes project could be used to test out some of these new standards. He wondered if the property owner(Lewis) would think these ideas are realistic. He agreed there are many great Item K—16 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO JULY 89 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 4 things at Victoria Gardens and suggested we reproduce some of the characteristics of what works. He said he had a hard time seeing how making the concept of higher intersection density would work. He said it was interesting to think how that could create a different behavior. I Commissioner Munoz mentioned parking as a concern and that should be considered in the draft standards. He said to this point he believes we've been proactive. He agreed that density, setbacks and the standards presented would be good to consider. He said the current projects may lay the groundwork for TODs with density and Mixed Use. He said he likes what he sees and is in support. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said he wants the proposed standards for Mixed Use areas to i be 2 or more uses. He said we should require even more uses for larger project sites. Commissioner Fletcher said for Mixed Use areas we should consider several uses not just 2. He asked for some data indicating the costs for the City with respect to the • different types of development. He said we should encourage developers with examples of what we want. Ms. Burnett noted that staff photographed all the different project types and have put together a design book just for that purpose. She said with respect to the number of uses required in Mixed Use developments that we have to look at the lot sizes as that is a factor. Mike Smith, Associate Planner; said with respect to quality of design that the buildings are closer to the street and therefore more visible and with that is the demand for buildings of better design and materials. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said there is a sense of human scale with the structures;almost like a Disneyland sense of scale. Mr. Smith said the form and massing of the buildings must be varied. Chairman Wimberly said the presentations were enlightening. He asked how it is decided as to what target project is viable for a particular location. He said Victoria Gardens works and he recognizes the mobility component of that in that many walk to that location and there are Mixed Use opportunities there. Ms. Burnett stated that one lesson learned from Victoria Gardens is that you never stop creating something new there; case in point; the remodel/facelift of Monet. Item K —17 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO JULY 87 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 5 Commissioner Fletcher asked what the maximum population is envisioned for Rancho Cucamonga. He asked if it would be substantially higher with this new vision and is that what residents want. Ms. Burnett stated that the more recent forecasts contemplate 200-220 thousand based upon utilizing Mixed Use development and other opportunity sites. Commissioner Munoz noted a published resource by Chuck Marin called Strong Towns. He said he would get copy of the information for staff and the Commission. IV.- ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned at 5.40 PM and reconvened following a dinner break at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers for their regular meetings. 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 July 1, 2015, 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. Item K—18 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES G'RANCHO JULY 812015 � Page 6 I 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, 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 i 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 I I i Item K —19 Item K—20 City of Rancho Cucamonga ►� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART 11 BACKGROUND 1. Project File: Development Code Amendment DRC2015-000421 2. Related Files: 3. Description of Project: A supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use development district, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. The proposed project will apply to several development (zoning) districts located throughout the City. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 5. General Plan Designation: Industrial Park, General Industrial, Mixed Use 6. Zoning: Industrial Park (IP) District, General Industrial (GI) District, Minimum Impact/Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) District, Mixed Use (MU) District 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Regional Description The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in San Bernardino County. The City encompasses a total planning area of about 50 square miles of which 38 square miles constitute the incorporated area while the remaining 12 square miles are within the Sphere of Influence (SOI). Located 37 miles east of downtown Los Angeles, direct freeway access to the City is via the Foothill Freeway (SR-210) and Ontario Freeway (1-15). The City is bound on the east by unincorporated areas of the San Bernardino County and the City of Fontana, on the west by the City of Upland, and on the south by the City of Ontario. To the north of the City are additional unincorporated areas of San Bernardino County— these unincorporated areas are within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). Beyond the City's SOI is the San Bernardino National Forest within the San Gabriel Mountains. The predominant development pattern of the City is characterized by residential development within the northern two-thirds of the City with the southern one-third of the City dominated by industrial development - Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route serve as the approximate "dividing line" between these two general areas of activity. Commercial activity within the City is located along east-west streets such as 19th Street, Base Line Road, and Foothill Boulevard with large nodes of commercial activity at the intersections of these streets with major north-south streets such as Vineyard Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Haven Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Day Creek Boulevard. The north edge of the SOI is dominated primarily by open spaces of various types — a transition from the San Bernardino National Forest to the San Gabriel Mountains that frame this part of the West Valley area of San Bernardino County. EXHIBIT B Item K -21 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 2 Several land use districts are subject to this Development Code Amendment. The Industrial Park (IP) and General Industrial (GI) Districts are generally located south of Foothill Boulevard (when located east of Haven Avenue) and south of Arrow Route (when located west of Haven Avenue). The Mixed Use (MU) District is discontinuous, i.e., separated into several sections, and is generally located along Foothill Boulevard. The largest Mixed Use (MU) District that is not along Foothill Boulevard is within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan located north of 4th Street, west of .Milliken Avenue, east of.Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8th Street and the Metrolink rail line. 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 x4317 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: CALEEMOD—California Emissions Estimator Model CVWD—Cucamonga Valley Water District EIR—Environmental Impact Report FEIR— Final Environmental Impact Report FPEIR- Final Program 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 SWPPP—Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 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 ( ) Greenhouse Gas Emissions ( ) Hazards &Waste Materials ( ) Hydrology&Water.Quality ( ) Land Use& Planning ( ) Mineral Resources ( ) Noise ( ) Population & Housing ( ) Public Services ( ) Recreation ( )Trans portation/Traffic ( ) Utilities &Service Systems ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: Rev 4-7-15 Item K—22 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 3 (x) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because 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. ( ) 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 EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier IR _or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impo pon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Prepared By: Date: Reviewed By: Date: /Ic • Rev 4-7-15 Item K -23 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 4 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially with Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on 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 various significant vistas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga according to General Plan Figure LU-6. Several land use districts are subject to this Development Code Amendment. The Industrial Park (IP) and General Industrial (GI) Districts are generally located south of Foothill Boulevard (when located east of Haven Avenue) and south of Arrow Route (when located west of Haven Avenue). The Mixed Use (MU) District is discontinuous, i.e., separated into several sections, and is generally located along Foothill Boulevard. The largest Mixed Use (MU) District that is not along Foothill Boulevard is within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan located north of 4th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8th Street and the Metrolink rail line. The subject Development Code Amendment is a supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use development district, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project located within the City. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to a scenic vista caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) There are no State Scenic Highways within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. C) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to the visual character or quality of a site and its surroundings caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. d) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact(if any)of light and glare caused by the project Rev 4-7-15 Item K—24 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 5 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. 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) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause re-zoning of, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220 (g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland.zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Comments: a) The project is the adoption of a Development Code Amendment and will not directly or indirectly affect Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. There are approximately 209 acres.of Farmland of Local Importance, Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the City of Rancho Cucamonga according to the General Plan and the California Department of Conservation Farmland Map 2010. Concentrations of Important Farmland are sparsely located in the southern and eastern parts of the City that is characterized by existing and planned development. Farmland in the southern portion of the City is characterized by industrial, residential, and commercial land uses and Farmland in the eastern portion of the City is within the Etiwanda area and planned for development. Further, a large number of the designated farmland 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 FPEIR 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. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) There is no agriculturally zoned land within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the City. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. C) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that is zoned as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related to the conversion of forest land to Rev 4-7-15 Item K —25 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 6 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Pally With Than PP g Signiflgnificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. d) There are no lands within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore no impacts would occur related of the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are zoned as forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. e) Refer to 2a and 2c above. 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) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to the implementation of any applicable air quality plan caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to air quality standard and/or contribution to an existing/project air quality violation by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will .be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. Rev 4-7-15 Item K-26 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 7 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the increase (if any) of any criteria pollutant caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. d) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact (if any) to sensitive receptors caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. e) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the creation (if any) of objectionable odors by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. • 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) through habitat modifications, on any species I 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? j 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 i 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? • Rev 4-7-15 Item K —27 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 8 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiallyignifwith Than PP 9 Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact(s) (if any) to biological resources including any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; and federally protected wetlands caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) Refer to 4a above. C) Refer to 4a above. d) The project is the. adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact(s) (if any) to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. e) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the conflicts(s) (if any) any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary,. the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. f) Neither the City nor the SOI are within an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved State Habitat Conservation Plan area. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. 5. 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? Rev 4-7-15 Item K—28 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 9 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact(s) (if any) to historical, archaeological, and/or paleontological resources caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) Refer to 5a above. C) Refer to 5a above. d) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact(s) (if any) to human remains caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. • 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Rev 4-7-15 Item K —29 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 10 Less Than Significant Less Potentially With ThanIssues and Supporting Information Sources. Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact(s) (if any) of the exposure of people and/or structures to earthquakes, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, and/or landslides will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the. City, the impact(s) (if any) to soil and the loss of topsoil caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. C) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impact(s) (if any) caused by unstable geologic units or soil, and of expansive soil and the risks to life or property, will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. d) Refer to.6c above. e) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site:specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict .with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Rev 4-7-15 Item K—30 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 11 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Comments: a) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the generation (if any) greenhouse gas emissions and the conflicts (if any) to applicable greenhouse house gas reduction plans, policies, or regulations caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) Refer to 7a above. 8. HAZARDS AND WASTE MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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, ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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? Rev 4-7-15 Item K —31 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 12 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su PP g ortin Information Sources: Pcany with Than Sigengnificant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Comments: a) The project is the adoption of,a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) Refer to 8a above. C) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, potential for hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. d) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project site is on a list of hazardous materials sites that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. e) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project site is within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. f) There are no private airstrips within the City. The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. g) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the reviewby the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project impairs implementation of or physically interferes with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan in a manner that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. h) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment.- When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project exposes people or Rev 4-7-15 Item K—32 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 13 Less Than Significant L=-ss Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires in a manner that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. 9. 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 pattern 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the Rev 4-7-15 Item K —33 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 14 Less Than Significant Less Issues and SU ortin Information Sources. Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude.the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharging caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore,. the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. C) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to drainage that would affect erosion, siltation, or flooding on/off-site caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. d) Refer to 9c above. e) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for,a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to existing or planned stormwater drainage systems caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. f) Refer to 9a above. g) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project is within a 100-year flood hazard area and/or would impede or redirect flood flows that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. h) Refer to 9g above. i) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project would expose people or structures to loss, injury or death involving flooding, seiche, and/or tsunami that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. D Refer to 9i above. _ Rev 4-7-15 Item K—34 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 15 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially wi;n Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the compatibility of the project with neighboring, established development will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of , any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the compliance of the project with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, and any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. C) Refer to 10b above. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project.- a) roject.a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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 project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to mineral resources or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. Rev 4-7-15 Item K —35 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 16 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Su ortin Information Sources: Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Refer to 11 a above. 12. 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 is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the exposure of people to noise impacts caused by the project being in an area where there are noise levels in excess of standards will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) due to the exposure of people to ground borne vibration and/or noise caused by the project being during construction and/or operations will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. C) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) due to an increase in ambient noise caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. Rev 4-7-15 Item K—36 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 17 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with than Signifcant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Refer to 12c above e) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project site is within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. f) The nearest private airstrip, Cable Airport, is located approximately 2.5 miles to the west of the City's westerly limits. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. 13. 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 ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project induces population growth in the area that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project displace housing and/or people that would require mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. C) Refer to 13b above. • Rev 4-7-15 Item K —37 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 18 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentiallyignifwith Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 14. 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 project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) Refer to 14a above. c) Refer to 14a above. d) Refer to 14a above. e) Refer to 14a above. 15. 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 project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any,project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to regional parks and other recreational facilities caused by the project, or include recreational facilities or require the Rev 4-7-15 Item K -38 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 19 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially with Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact construction or expansion of recreational facilities, will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) Refer to 15a above. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project.- a) roject.a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) program, including, but not limited to a level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards 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 traffic levels or a change in location that result 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) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Comments: a) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the compliance of the project with any applicable plan, ordinance, policy, and congestion management program or standards relating to traffic will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) Refer to 16a above. C) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. However, as the City is located north of the Ontario Airport and is offset north of Rev 4-7-15 Item K -39 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 20 Less Than Significant Less Potentially with Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact the flight path, there will be no change air traffic patterns. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. d) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the project will be subject to the City's technical standards for streets and intersection and reviewed to ensure that they do not increase hazards. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. e) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the project will be required to provide access for all emergency vehicles during construction and upon completion of the project in order to ensure adequate emergency access. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. No impacts are anticipated. f) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is. submitted for review by the City, the project will be required to include, or conditioned to provide, features supporting transportation and vehicle trip reduction (e.g., bus bays, bicycle racks, carpool parking, etc.). Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ( ) ( ) ( ) (✓) 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? Rev 4-7-15 Item K—40 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 21 • Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than PP g Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and ( ) ( ) ( ) T✓) regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project exceeds wastewater treatment requirements and, if it does, requires mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the project requires the construction of new water, wastewater treatment, stormwater facilities or expansion of existing facilities and, if it does, requires mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. c) Refer to 17b above. d) The project is the 'adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the there is sufficient water supplies and wasterwater treatment capacity available to service the project and, if it does not, requires mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. e) Refer to 17d above. f) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, it will be determined if the there is sufficient landfill capacity and if the project complies Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and, if it does not, requires mitigation measures to be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. g) Refer to 17f above. Rev 4-7-15 Item K —41 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 22 Less Than Significant Less Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significant No .Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 18. 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 project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to biological resources caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. b) If the proposed project were approved, then the applicants for project that result from the code amendment would be required to develop their respective sites in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The 2010 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 Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change and Mineral 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. C) The project is the adoption of a code amendment and does not involve a site-specific project. The adoption of the code amendment does not preclude the review by the City of any project that results from this code amendment. When an application for a project is Rev 4-7-15 Item K—42 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 23 submitted for review by the City, the impacts (if any) to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, water quality, etc. caused by the project will be evaluated and, if necessary, the applicable mitigation measures will be implemented. Therefore, the proposed code amendment will not have an impact. 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 PEIR 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: (T) General Plan FPEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified May 19, 2010) (T) General Plan FEIR (SCH#2000061027, Certified October 17, 2001) (T) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH#88020115, certified January 4, 1989) • Rev 4-7-15 Item K —43 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 Page 24 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: Rev 4-1-15 Item K—44 City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code. Project File No.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 Public Review Period Closes: August 12, 2015 Project Name: Project Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Project Location (also see attached map): No specific project site; the amendment applies to various City locations. Project Description: A supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use development district, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. The proposed project will apply to several development (zoning) districts located throughout the City. Related Files: CEQA Review CEQA2015-00018. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga,acting as the lead agency,has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: The Initial Study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If adopted, the 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 Negative Declaration during the review period. August 12, 2015 Date of Determination Adopted By EXHIBIT C Item K—45 Item K—46 RESOLUTION NO.15-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421, A SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE DRC2010-00571 AMENDING TITLE 17 (DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO : PROVIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE STANDARDS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS, AND TO CLARIFY DEFINITIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES, AND CORRECT PRIOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS. A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development.Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On August 12, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a 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 the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on August 12, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located within the City; and b. On July 8, 2015, a Planning Commission workshop was conducted to discuss the draft standards for Mixed Use Districts with the intent to receive input from the Commission; and C. Based on feedback received since the effective date of the Development Code, the City prepared a set of amendments (the "Amendments"), which is included as Attachment 1 to this Resolution and is hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full; and d. Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 conforms to and does not conflict with the General Plan, including without limitation, the Land Use Element thereof, and will provide for development in a manner consistent with the General Plan; and Item K —47 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.15-65 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 2015 Page 2 e. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment since this amendment does not propose development. New development is required to be reviewed by the Planning Department on a case-by-case. This will include a review of any potential impacts each individual project may have on the environment. 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. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. This update complies with Policy LU-4.1 in the General Plan, in that the amendment promotes the establishment of Mixed Use development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code. The proposed Mixed Use standards, including, but not limited to, setbacks, building height, parking, landscaping and open space, will provide further direction for the development of Mixed Use sites; and C. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This amendment does not propose development. New development is required to be reviewed by the Planning Department on a case-by-case basis and is required to be not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, which encourages Mixed Use development within the City's designated Mixed Use areas. The amendment involves the addition of Mixed Use development standards, which will facilitate in the creation of these designated Mixed Use areas. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. This Development Code Amendment affects the City as a whole and does not impact any single development. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. On July 7, 2015, the City received comments from the Public Utilities Commission in regard to the proposed Development Code Amendment. The Rail Crossings Engineering Branch recommended that the City add language to the Development Code Amendment so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad/light right-of-way is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. The proposed amendments to the Development Code are not project specific and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All projects will be Item K—48 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.15-65 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 2015 Page 3 required to meet all current Development Code requirements. Furthermore, a section of the Code was updated previously to reflect rail service needs. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration 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. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 with Attachment 1. • 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: • Item K —49 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.15-65 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 2015 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item K—50 Attachment 1 Text Amendments to the Development Code Article III —Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards Section 17.32.020 (E)(47) of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 47. Retail, Accessory. The retail sales of various products and services (including food service) in a subtenant store, space, or other clearly defined/dedicated area that is located within a building occupied by a primary tenant such as a health care facility, hotel office building, or department store, supermarket, or warehouse store. These uses include but are not limited to: a. pharmacies, gift shops, and food services within a health care facility; b. travel services, convenience stores, and food services within a hotel; and c. food services within an office building; d. food services and banking within a department store supermarket or warehouse store. The floor area of the subtenant store/unit, space, or other clearly defined/dedicated area occupied by the Retail. Accessory use shall not exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area of the primary tenant. Section 17.32.020 (G) of the Development Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions: 1. Commercial (Secondary/Accessory) — Industrial. On-site retail sales of products within an industrial building (the subject building) for walk-in customers and/or will call customers who order products via the internet/telephone or at a separate location such as a retail store. This use is secondary/accessory to the primary industrial use(s) that occur on-site and/or within the subiect building such as manufacturing wholesale storage and distribution. The products available for retail sale shall be limited to products that are manufactured on-site or within the subiect building that are primarily sold on a wholesale basis, and/or are stored in, and/or distributed from the subiect building Such products include, but are not limited to: a. personal/home electronic equipment and accessories: b. home improvement materials (tile flooring carpet wall covering etc.); c. automotive accessories (wheels tires engine components etc.). This classification allows but does not require physical retail and/or display/showroom space within the subiect building. If such space is proposed/required then the floor area used for that purpose shall only occupy the floor area that was originally designated for the office of the subiect building or 25 percent of the gross floor area of the subiect building, whichever is less, and shall be subiect to the parking requirements for retail uses as described in Table 17.64.050-1 — Parking Requirements by Land Use Use of and/or expansion into, areas of the building previously designated for storage warehousing or manufacturing is only permitted if it is demonstrated that the number of parking stalls that Attachment 1 Item K —51 are exist on-site for the overall subject building complies with the parking requirements described in Table 17.64.050-1. A use not permitted to operate as a principal use, such as a mariivana dispensary, is not permitted within this land use classification. A use that requires a Conditional Use Permit, Entertainment Permit,.or Adult Entertainment Permit in order to operate as a principal use is subiect to the same permitting requirements within this land use classification. 2. Commercial (Re-purposing) - Industrial. A set of multiple commercial uses operating together as subtenants in a building that was originally designed for a single industrial tenant. such as a warehouse, or a single commercial tenant such .as a department store. This land use classification applies only to commercial uses that, individually, could not utilize the entire floor space of.the subiect building and, therefore, would not operate as the sole, primary tenant of the building. This classification does not apply to single tenants/uses that could utilize the entire floor space of the subject building. Characteristics of this land use classification include, but are not limited to: a. an open floor plan with tenant demising walls that do not extend to the ceiling; b. exterior wall signs that only provide identification of the subiect building; c. common, non-exclusive floor area within the interior of the building, and the exterior in the vicinity of the building, for use by the customers of all tenants; d. tenant spaces with no direct access to the exterior of the building; e. shared parking. All proposals for re-purposing buildings shall require the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit for review and approval by the Planning Director, and the submittal of a parking study prepared by a qualified traffic/parking engineer for review and acceptance by the Planning Director and Traffic Engineer. With the exception of specific uses identified in Table 17.30.030-1 a use that is not permitted to operate as a principal use, such as a mariivana dispensary, is not permitted within this land use classification.. A use that requires a Conditional Use Permit, Entertainment Permit, or Adult Entertainment Permit in order to operate as a principal use is subject to the same.permitting requirements within this land use classification. Table 17.30.030-1 of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Land Use/Zoning -j _ M a v v v v v O a = m W v 0 District > J -� _ 2 O z O 0 m � v - O � = O z LL � Residential Uses Adult Day Care P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N Home Caretaker Housing C C C C C C C P P P N N N N C C C C P C P P Dwelling, Multi- N N P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Family Item K-52 Land Use/ZoningJ M a V v v V W O a = v v District > -j 2 2 O z 0 0 0 � 0 — O g = O Z u- n Dwelling, Second ' Unit.0) P P P P P P N N i N N N N NJ N N N N P P N N Dwelling, Single- ' Family P P P P NIN N N N N N N N N, N N N P P N N i I I Dwelling, Two-Family N N P P P I P P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Emergency Shelter N N N N I N i N N N N P N N N N N C N N N N N N Family Day Care Home, Large(") C C C C C I C C N N N N N I N I N N i N N N N C N N Family Day Care PIP P P PIP P N N N I N j N NIN N ; N j N N N P N N Home, Small + i I Guest House P P P N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N Group Residential C C C C C C C C C C C i N C N N N I N N N C N N Home Occupation (2) P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N Live-Work Facility N N N i N N N P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Manufactured Home (3) P P PIP N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N P N N i Mobile Home Park (3) C C j C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Residential Care N N I N C C C C N I N N NN N I N N N N N N N N N Facility I Residential Care P P I P P P P N N I N N N N N N N N N N NIP N N Home Single-Room Occupancy Facility N N N P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N N ! N N N Transitional Housing P P P P PIP I P I N N NIN N N N N N N N N P N N Agriculture and Animal-Related Uses Agricultural Uses N N N N N N N N N N I N I N N N N I N NINIP N P P Animal Keeping, Domestic Pets (4) P P P P P P P IN N N N N i N N N N N N N P N N Animal Keeping, C C C C C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N CIN N Exotic Animals(4) Animal Keeping, Insects (4) P N N ' N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N � Animal Keeping, I I Livestock Animals (4) P P I N N N N NJ N I N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N Animal Keeping, Poultry (4) P N N N , N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I I i Equestrian Facility, C N N N j N I N N N N N N N NIN N N N N C N C C Commercial i • Item K —53 Land Use2oning J _ _ Q, v v v v O a - _ N o: c� v District > � g O z O v w v — t7 = O = U. Equestrian Facility, P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Hobby Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, Education, and Public Assembly Uses Assembly Use C C C C C C CIC C C C C C C C C N N I N N N N Cemetery/ N N N N NIN N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N Mausoleum Community C C C C C C C C C C C C C N P P N N N C N N Center/Civic Use Community Garden C C C C j C CIN N IN N N N N N N N N N P N P P Convention Center N N N N N N C CIC C C C C C C C C C N N N N Golf Course/ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N C C Clubhouse i Indoor Amusement/ Entertainment N N N N IN N C N IC C P P P N N INN N N N N N Facility Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility— N N N N N N IC C C C C C C C C N N N N N Large Indoor Fitness and I Sports Facility— N N N N N N P P P P P C P P C C I N N N i N N N Small Library and Museum C C C C C C P P P P N P N P C N N N C C C C Outdoor Commercial N N N N N N C C C C N N C C C C N N N N N N Recreation Park and Public P P P P P P P N N N N NN N N I N N N P P P P Plaza Public Safety Facility C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N C N N Resource-Related P P P P P P P N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P Recreation School, Academic C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N . N N C N N (Private) School, Academic P P P I P P P P P P P P P P P P P N N N P N N School, College/ C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N N NC N N University(Private) School, College/ C University(Public) C C I C C C C C C C C C CIC C C N N N C N N Schools, Specialized Education and N N N N N ' N C C C C C C C C C C N N N N N N Training/Studio Item K—54 Land Use/Zoning J g _ _ a v v v V 0 a = v v District > 2 2 O z O U vi v — O = O z LL n Theaters and N N N N N N C N N C N N P N N 1N N N N N N N Auditoriums Tutoring Center— I Large N N N N N N C C C C C C C C N N N N N N N N I � I Tutoring Center— Small N N N N N N P PFP P P P P P N N N N N N N N Utility,Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses Broadcasting and Recording Studios N N N NIN N N P N P N N N P P P N N N N N N Park and Ride Facility N N N N N N N C C C N N N N P P N N N N N I N I Parking Facility N N N N N N P P N P C N I C P C C C C N i N C C Transit Facility N N N N N N N N N N N N I N N C C C i C N N N N Utility Facility and j Infrastructure—Fixed N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C C C N C C Based Structures (5) Utility Facility and Infrastructure— P I P I P PI P I P P P P PIP P P P P P P P P P P P Pipelines (5) I • Wind Energy System P N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NIC C N N N N —Small(10) I Retail, Service, and Office Uses Adult Day Care N N N N I N N C C C C N N N C C C N N N N N N Facility Adult-Oriented Business (6) N N NN I N N N N N N N N i N N A A A i A N N N N Alcoholic Beverage N NIN Sales N N I N C N i C C ' C C C C C C N N N N N I N Ambulance Service N N tNNIN N N N C C C N N N N N C P P N N N N Animal Sales and I Grooming N N N P N I P P P P N N N N N N N N N N Art, Antique, Collectable Shop (1-3) N N N N N N P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N N I Artisan Shop (13) NIN NIN N " N P N P P PIP P N N N N N N N I N N Bail Bonds N N NIN I N N N N I N I N N N I N N N N N I CIN N N N Banks and Financial N N N N N N C CIC P P P P P P P N N N N N N Services Bar/Nightclub N N N N i N N C C N C C C C C N C N N N N N N Bed and Breakfast I I Inn C C C N I N N N N N N C I C N N N N N N N' N N N Item K -55 Land Use/Zonin v 9 .j _j 2 z = M o. w 0 ti v � O a District > —+ 2 2 O z 0 a 0 � L) — O � _ O. z w D Building Materials N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C P P N N N N Store and Yard Business Support N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N Services Call Center N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C N N N N N N Card Room N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Check Cashing Business (') N N N N N N P N P P N N N N P N N N N N N N Child Day Care N j N N N N N C C C C C N C C C C I N N N N N N Facility/Center Consignment Store N N N N N N C N C C N C N N N N I N N N N N I N Convenience Store N N N N N N P N P P N C N N C C N N N N N N Crematory Services N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N N Drive-In and Drive- Through Sales and N N N N N N C C C C C N C C C C N N N N N N Service(8) j Equipment Sales and Rental N N N N N N N N N C N N N N N C P I P N N N N Feed and Tack Store N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N N N N N N N Furniture, Furnishing, N N N N N N P N P P P P P N N N N N N N N N and Appliance Store Garden Center/Plant Nursery N N N N ' N N P N P P P N P N N P N P P � N P P Grocery Store/ N N N N N N P N P P P N P N N N N N N N N N Supermarket Gun Sales N I N ! N N N N N N N C N N N N I N N N N N N N I N Hookah Shop N N N N N N C N N C N N N N N N N N N N N N Supply Improvement N N N N N N P N P P P N P N C i P N I N N N N N PP Y Hotel and Motel N N N N N N P C N I P N I N C C P N N N N N N N Internet Cafe N N N N N N P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N N Kennel, Commercial N N N N i N N N N N C C N C N C C N N N N N . N Liquor Store N N N N N N C N C. C C C C N C C N N N N N N Maintenance and Repair, Small N N N N N N P N P P P N P P N P P C N N N N Equipment Massage N N N N N N P PP P P P P P P P N N N N N N Establishment Item K—56 Land Use/Zoning � _ _ M a. v v v v O a _ _ v v District > 2 O z O t) v) v — O = O = u. O Medical Marijuana ' I Dispensary N N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N N N N N N Medical Services, Extended Care N C C C i C C C P N i P i P N N i P P P N N N i NN N Medical Services, General N N N N N N P P P P P PP , P P P N N N N N N Medical Services, N N C C C C C CIN C N I N I N N P P I N N N N N N Hospitals Mobile Hot Food N N N i N N ' N N N i N N I N ; N N N N N N N N N N N Mortuary/Funeral Home N N N N N N N C C C N N N N N N N N N N N N li Office,.Business and Professional N N N N N N P P P I P I P ' P PIP P PIN N N I N N N Office, Accessory N N N N N I N P P P P P P P P P P N N N N N N Pawnshop (7) N N N N N N N N N C N i N N N N N N N N N I N N Personal Services N j N N N N N P P I P P P P I P P P P N N N N N I N Restaurant, No Liquor Service N N N N N N P P . P P P P P P P P N N N N N N Restaurant, Beer and Wine N I N N N N N P P P P P P i P I P P P N N N N N N I Restaurant, Full N N N N N i N C C C C C C C C C C N N N N N N Liquor Service Retail, Accessory N NN N N P PIP � P P ' NiP P C N N NDN N N Retail, General N N N N N , N P N P P P P P N C C N N N N N N Retail, Warehouse Club N N ' N N N N P N N ' P P N P N P N I N N N N N N i Secondhand Dealer N N N N N N P N P P N N N N N N N N N N N N Shooting Range N N N N N ; N N N I N I N N I N ; N N N C N N N N N N Smoke Shop (') N N N N N ' N N NiN C C NIC N N N N N N , NjN N Specialty Food Store (13) N N N N N N P. 'N P P P P P N N i N N N N N N N Tattoo Shop(71 N N N NDN N N NINN CiN N N NiNNN N N N N Thrift Store (') N N N N N N C N CIC C N C , N N N I N N N N N N Veterinary Facility C N N N N N C N ' P P C C C N N P P P N i N N N Automobile and Vehicle Uses Auto Vehicle i Dismantling N N N N N N N N N 7NN N N N N N CN J N i N N Item K —57 Land Use/Zoning v y 2 _ _ n a 0 0 0 0 � o a 0 w 0 0 District > _j 2 2 O z a 0 co � 0 — O � _ O z w n Auto and Vehicle N N N N N N N C N C N N P N C C N N N N N N Sales and Rental Auto and Vehicle N N N N . N N N P P P P N P P P N N N N N N N Sales, Autobroker Auto and Vehicle N N N N N N N P P P P N P P P P N N N N N N Sales, Wholesale Auto and Vehicle N N N N N N N N N I N N N N N N C P P N N N N Storage Auto Parts Sales N N N N N N N N P P N N P N N N N N N N N N Car Washing and Detailing N N N N ' N N N C C C C N C N N N N N N N N N Recreational Vehicle N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C N N N N Storage Service Stations N I N N NrN N C C C P C N C C C C N N N N N N Vehicle Services, Major N N N N N N N N C N N N N N P P P N I N INN Vehicle Services,Minor N N N N N N :Nt� C PIN N C N P P N N N N Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses Commercial (Secondary/Accessor N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N Y)—Industrial Commercial (Re- purposing)— N N N N N N N N N N I N N N N C C N N N N N N Industrial Fuel Storage and N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C N N N Distribution I Manufacturing, Custom N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N Manufacturing. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N N N N Heavy Manufacturing, i Heavy-Minimum N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P N N N N Impact I Manufacturing, Light N N I N N N N N N I N N I N N N I N P P N N N N N N Manufacturing, N i N N N N N N N N N N N N N P P P P N N N N Medium (9) Microbrewery N N I N N . N N I N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N N Printing and N N N N N N I N I N N P N N N N P P N N N N N N Publishing Item K—58 . Land Use/Zoning .� J g _ _ M a U U U o 0 a = N U V > -� District O z C7 V v) V — C7 = O Z U. M Recycling Facility, N N N N N N N N P P N N N N N P P P N N I N N Collection I RecyclingFacility,acility, N N N i N N N N N I NIN N N I N N N C I C C N N N N ProcessingI Recycling Facility, Scrap and N N I N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C N N N N Dismantling Facility Research and N N N N N I N N N N N N 1N I NJ Development N P P N I N N . N N N i i Storage, Personal N N N N I N N N N I N N I N N I N N N C C j C N N N N Storage Facility Storage Warehouse N N I N N i N N N N N C N N N I N N C C C N ' N N N Storage Yard N N I N N N N N N j N N N N N N N C P P N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution— N N N N N N N N j N N N N N N N I C P P N N N j N Heavy Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution — N N N N N j N N N N N N N I N NP P P P N j N ' N N Light I i Wholesale, Storage, j i and Distribution— N N I N N N I N N N N N j N N I N N N ; PIP P NEL N Medium (9) Table Notes: (1) See additional regulations for second dwelling units in Chapter 17.100. (2) See additional regulations for home occupations in Chapter 17.92. (3) See additional regulations for mobile homes in Chapter 17.96. (4) See Additional regulations for animal keeping in Chapter 17.88. (5) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (6) See additional regulations for adult entertainment businesses in Chapter 17.86.Adult-oriented businesses are not permitted west of Haven Avenue. (7) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in Chapter 17.102. (8) See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in Chapter 17.90. (9) Not permitted within 300 feet of residentially zoned property. (10) See additional regulations for wind energy systems in Chapter 17.76. (11) Family Day Care Home-Large requires approval of a Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. LL2 'Wholesale. Storage and Distribution-Medium"is not permitted on any parcel that is located within or partly within 500 feet of the Foothill Boulevard nght-of--way. CL31 Permitted in Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts when proposed in coniunction with "Commercial(Re purposing)-Industrial Section 17.32.030 of the Development Code is hereby added to read as follows: Prior to development the following agricultural uses are either permitted or conditionally Permitted on lots of 2.5 acres or more: 1. Permitted Uses: a. Farms for orchards, trees field crops truck gardening flowering gardening and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture Item K —59 b. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals: except concentrated lot feeding and .commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, subject to the following: i. Cats and dogs shall be limited to the keeping of no more than four cats and/or four dogs, over four months of age. ii. Small livestock are allowed with the number of goats, sheep, and similar animals limited to 12 per acre of total gross area, with no more than one male goat. iii. Cattle and horses, including calves and colts over six months of age, with a maximum number of four animals per acre of total gross area. iv. Combinations of the above animals provided the total. density on any given parcel shall not exceed that herein specified. v. In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per .acre,' where such' grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose. of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble volunteer, or wild growth and further, where such. grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. C. Aviary shall be limited to 50 birds per acre. d. An apiary is permitted provided that.all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least400 feet from any street road highway, public school, park, property boundaryand from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. e. Retail sale of products raised on the property excluding retail nurseries and sale of animals for commercial purposes. 2. Conditional Use Permit required: a. Wholesale distributor and processor of nursery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display is prohibited except for nursery-plant stock. b. Doa kennels dog training schools small animal shelters, and dog breeding establishments with outside runs. C. The raising of chinchilla nutria hamsters guinea pigs caw and similar small animals. d. Frog farms. Item K—60 e. Worm farms. is Section 17.34.040 (F) of the Development Code is hereby added to read as follows: F. Additions. For additions, the minimum side yard setback of the base district or that of the existing house shall apply, whichever is less, but shall not encroach further into the side yard setback than the existing house. Table 17.36.010-2 of the Development Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Zoning District LM M MH H Minimum Site Area (Gross) n/a n/a n/a n/a Dwelling Units per Acre Up to 8 Up to 14 Up to 24 Up to 30 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size i Single-Family and Multi-Family See Table 17.36.010-1 42 ft avg 42 ft avg 42 ft avg 47 ft avg Public Street Setback Vary±5 ft Vary±5 ft Vary±5 ft Vary±5 ft Private Street or Driveway Setback ; 15 ft avg 5 ft 5 ftI 5 ft Vary±5 ft I I i Corner Side Yard loft 5 ft — — interior Side Yard — 10 ft(')(Z) I — — • I Interior Site Boundary 1515 ft 2015 ft Mj 20/5 ft(') 2015 ft (Dwelling Unit/Accessory Building) Residential Building Separations See Table 17.36.010-1 Height Limitations 35 ft(3) 35 ft(3) 40 ft(3) 50 ft(3) Private Open Space ! 300/150 sf 225/150 sf j 150/100 sf I 150/100 sf (Ground Floor/Upper Story) i I Open Space (Private and Common) 45% 40% 40% 40% Minimum Patio/Porch Depth 6 ft(4) 6 ft(4) 6 ft f4j 6 ft l4> L Recreation Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) i Table Notes: (1) Add 10 feet if adjacent to VL, L, or LM district. (2) Zero lot line dwellings permitted pursuant to Subsection 17.36.010.D. (3) Limit one story within 100 feet of VL or L district for multi-family dwelling units. (4) Fee and clear of obstructions. Table 17.36.010-3 of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: Item K —61 TABLE 17.36.010-3 RESIDENTIAL STREETSCAPE SETBACK STANDARDS Land Use and Street Classification Building Parking Landscape and Setback Setback Wall Setback Detached Single-Family Residential Major/Special Boulevard 45 ft u 18 ft 20 ft average 18 ft minimum . Secondary/Collector 35 ft u 15 ft 18 ft average 15 ft minimum Attached Single-Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential Major/Special Boulevard (2) 45 ft 30 ft 45 ft average 30 ft minimum z Secondary/Collector(2) 35 ft 25 ft 35 ft average 25 ft minimum c2� Table Notes: (1) On existing lots of record,parcels less than 175 feet in depth need not provide a setback of landscaping greater than 20% of the depth of the property(excluding right-of-way). (2) Add 10 feet to the setback when located within the M,MH, and H districts. (3) These setbacks shall not apply to accessory structures and shall only apply to the primary residence and room additions. Section.17.36.020(C) and Table 17.36.020-1 of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: C. Mixed Use Site Development Standards.General site development standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts are listed in Table 17.36.020-2 (Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoninq Districts). These development .standards supplement the development standards in Article IV(Site Development Provisions) that apply to all zoning districts (e.g., parking, signs, landscaping, lighting). TABLE 17.36.020-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE SITES Land Use Mix y R la •� O m Mixed Use Sites V E J=2 R� a 0 CL 'Q Victoria GardensNictoria Arbors 21-36% 20-41% 5-12% 4-14 du/ac Town Center(Foothill Boulevard and j ° ° ° ° 25-35% 10-15% 30-50% 0-10% 14 du/ac Haven Avenue) Terra Vista 12-15% 85-87% 30 du/ac Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa 0-62% 0-100% 20 du/ac Avenue and Center Avenue Item K -62 Land Use Mix a, Mixed Use Sites ;a E 2 R H c o � a �, IL a' v Foothill Boulevard between Archibald 15-30 Avenue and Hellman Avenue i 67-70% 30-33% i I du/ac Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street 30-40% 60-70% 30 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 26-50% 40-60% 6-10% 4% 1 24-30 du/ac Industrial Area Specific Plan 11-22% 15-25% 40-60% 7.5% 28 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek ° ° j 70-75% 25-30% 14 du/ac Channel8-14 Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 0-100% 10-100% duu/a/a � I c Western Gateway(Bear Gulch Area) 30-50% 50-70% 14 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga 0-100% 0-100% 8-14 Channel Site du/ac 14-24 ' Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) 0-100% 0-100% du/ac Table Notes: (1) This table only applies to existing Mixed Use sites. Table 17.36.020-2 of the Development Code is hereby added to read as follows: Item K —63 TABLE 17.36.020-2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS Development Standard MU Site/Lot Area (minimum)(') n/a Lot Width/Depth (minimum) n/a Allowed Density(dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a Maximum Density 50 units/acre Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following Land Use Mix (2) types of land uses: Commercial, Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setbacks(3)(4) Street Yard (Major/Special Boulevard) Vary between 50% - 75% reduction of streetscape requirements Street Yard (Secondary/Collector) Vary between 50% -75% reduction of streetscape requirements Street Yard (Local Streets) Vary between 75% - 100% reduction of streetscape requirements Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or 0 feet cs� industrial) Interior Side (adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side (adjacent to commercial 5 feet or industrial) Distance Between Buildings Primary Buildings Accessory Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Building Height(maximum in feet)(S) Primary Buildings 75 feet maximum Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Floor Area Ratio(maximum ratio of building to lot square footage) Floor Area Ratio 1.0 max Open Space Requirement(minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Landscape Area (overall net area) 10% minimum Open Space Requirements Minimum of 150 square feet/unit See Section 17.36.020 (D)for additional requirements Recreation Area/Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Parking Requirement Parking Spaces Per Table 17.64.050-1 A parking study is required for all Mixed Use projects Table Notes: Item K—64 (1) On existing lots of record,parcels less than 3 acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. (2) Lot sizes less than one-half acre are not subject to land use mix requirement (3) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards (4) Shall apply to buildings,parking and landscaping. (5) Must meet minimum Building Codes. (6) All buildings within 100 feet of LM. L. or VL Districts shall not exceed 25 feet; however, there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum and shall be determined on a case by case basis. Section 17.36.020(D) of the Development Code is hereby added to read as follows: D. Open Space Mixed Use Development Standards 1. Front and/or street yard setbacks do not count towards meeting the usable open space requirements. 2. Required perimeter and parking landscape area per Section 17.56.060(N), shall not be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement but is counted towards the overall landscape requirement. 3. A maximum of 30 percent of the total requirement for private open space shall be counted toward required open space area. Additional private open space area will not count towards the total requirement for open space This maximum 30 percent requirement may be modified by not more than 5 percent if determined to be necessary during Design Review. 4. Each private open space shall have a minimum width and depth of 6 feet 5. Each common open space shall have at least one minimum dimension of 15 feet and the other dimensions shall be at least 6 feet except for private open space (e.g., balconies or patios). i. Open space shall include both indoor/interior space and outdoor open space. ii. Open space can be in the form of private open space (e.g., balconies) or common open space (e.g., pool or side or rear setback areas.) iii. An indoor recreational room of up to 600 square feet may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement. iv. A landscaped and usable utility easement may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement if it is properly landscaped in compliance with Chapter 17.56 (Landscaping). Table 17.38.040-1 of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: TABLE 17.38.040-1 ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVEN AVENUE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT Land Use/Zoning District HA Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, Education,and Public Assembly Uses Assembly Use C Community Center/Civic Use P Item K —65 Land Use/Zoning District HA Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility- Large C Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility-Small C Park and Public Plaza C Public Safety Facility C School, Academic(Private) C School, Academic(Public) C School, College/ University(Private) C School, College/ University(Public) C Schools, Specialized Education and Training/Studio C Utility, Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses Broadcasting and Recording Studios P Park and Ride Facility P Parking Facility C Transit Facility C Utility Facility and Infrastructure— Pipelines P Retail, Service, and Office Uses Alcoholic Beverage Sales C Banks and Financial Services P Business Support Services P Call Centers C Child Day Care Facility/Center C Convenience Store C Furniture, Furnishing, and Appliance Store C Hotel and Motel P Massage Establishment P Medical Services, General P Office, Business and Professional P Office, Accessory P Restaurant, No Liquor Service P Restaurant, Beer and Wine P Restaurant, Full Liquor Service C Retail, Accessory P Automobile and Vehicle Uses Car Washing and Detailing(z).(3),(a) C Item K—66 Land Use/Zoning District HA • Service Stations (2).(3) C Table Notes: (1) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (2) Service stations and car washing and detailing establishments are prohibited within Yi mile of the Foothill Boulevard/Haven Avenue and the 4th Street/Haven Avenue intersections.No service station or car washing and detailing establishment shall be closer than%mile of another service station or car washing and detailing establishment as measured from the nearest property line. (3) Service stations shall be designed to reflect the architectural standards and guidelines within the Haven Avenue Overlay District. No corporate 'prototype"architecture design will be permitted. Service stations are only permitted when designed as part of, and designed consistent with,profession office complexes. (4) Full service attended car washing and detailing establishments are permitted to operate a quick lube oil changes facility. Quick lube facilities that are part of an attended car wash shall be fully screened from the Haven Avenue right-of-way. Table 17.38.050-1 of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: TABLE 17.38.050-1 ALLOWED LAND USES AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT Land Use/Zoning District IC Residential Uses Caretaker Housing C Emergency Shelter C Group Residential C Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, Education, and Public Assembly Uses Assembly Use C Community Center/Civic Use P Indoor Amusement/Entertainment Facility C Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility— Large C Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility—Small C Library and Museum C Outdoor Commercial Recreation C Public Safety Facility C School, Academic (Private) C School, Academic (Public) P School, College/ University (Private) C School, College/University(Public) C Schools, Specialized Education and Training/Studio C Theaters and Auditoriums C Tutoring Center—Large C Tutoring Center—Small P Utility, Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Uses • Broadcasting and Recording Studios P Item K —67 Land Use/Zoning District IC Park and Ride Facility C Parking Facility P Utility Facility and Infrastructure—Pipelines (i) P Retail, Service, and Office Uses Adult Day Care Facility C Alcoholic Beverage Sales C Ambulance Service C Animal Sales and Grooming P Art, Antique, Collectable Shop P Artisan Shop P Banks and Financial Services P Bar/Nightclub C Business Support Services P Call Centers C Check Cashing Business (Z) P Child Day Care Facility/Center C Commercial (Re-purposing)- Industrial C Consignment Store C Convenience Store C Drive-In and Drive-Through Sales and Service(3) C Equipment Sales and Rental C Furniture, Furnishing, and Appliance Store P Garden Center/Plant Nursery P Grocery Store/ Supermarket P Gun Sales C Hookah Shop C Home Improvement Supply Store C Hotel and Motel P Internet Cafe P Kennel, Commercial C Liquor Store C Maintenance and Repair, Small Equipment P Massage Establishment P Medical Services, General P Medical Services, Hospitals C Mortuary/Funeral Home . C Office, Business and Professional P Office, Accessory P Pawnshop(Z) C Item K—68 Land Use/Zoning District IC iPersonal Services P Restaurant, No Liquor Service P Restaurant, Beer and Wine P Restaurant, Full Liquor Service C Retail, Accessory P Retail, General P Retail, Warehouse Club P Secondhand Dealer P Smoke Shop l2' C Tattoo Shop (2) C Thrift Store(2) C Veterinary Facility P Automobile and Vehicle Uses Auto and Vehicle Sales and Rental C Auto and Vehicle Sales, Autobroker P Auto and Vehicle Sales, Wholesale P Auto Parts Sales P Car Washing and Detailing C Service Stations C Vehicle Services, Major C Vehicle Services, Minor P Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses Printing and Publishing P Recycling Facility, Collection P Storage Warehouse C Table Notes: (1) Utility facilities and infrastructure involving hazardous or volatile gas and/or liquid pipeline development require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (2) See additional regulations for special regulated uses in Chapter 17.102. (3) See additional regulations for drive-in and drive-through facilities in Chapter 17.90. Section 17.38.060(H)(8) of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. 8. NoFthwest G9FReF ef Feethill gewlevaFd -and- [-=7-;;,-;t AveRwe. This r'ite has been shall ORGGFPeFate as FAaRY eX*StiF;g tFee6 as possible, but Re less thaR Sixty o Article IV-Site Development Provisions Item K -69 Section 17.48.050(E)(1)(e) of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: e. Within all land use categories, all storage area screening shall be architecturally integrated with surrounding buildings by the use of concrete, masonry, or other similar materials not to exceed a height of eight feet (8') measured from finished grade. For walls comprised of the combination of a screen wall on top of a retaining wall, the overall height of.the combined wall may exceed 8 feet provided that the part of the wall that faces the public right-of-way (street, sidewalk, etc.), does not exceed 8 feet in height(measured from the finished grade immediately adiacent to the wall and the top of the wall). Section 17.48.050(E)(2)(c) of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and .replaced with the following: c. Within all land use categories except Heavy Industrial, all. fencing or walls shall be wrought iron, concrete, masonry, or other similar materials not to exceed a height of eight feet (8')from highest finished grade as described in Section 17.48.050(E)(1)(e). The use of barbed wire or similar materials is prohibited from these land use categories. Chain-link fencing is not permitted in the area(s) of a property that is/are located between the public right-of-way (street, sidewalk, etc.), and the building wall Plane(s) of the building(s) on the property, that faces)the public right-of-way. Chain- link fencing may only be used along the side and rear property lines, and within the interior of the property, if the fencing will not be visible from any portion of the public right-of-way that is adiacent to the property. Section 17.64.060(D) of the Development Code is hereby added to read as follows: D. Mixed Use Parking Reductions. All proiects shall provide a parking study Prepared by a qualified traffic/parking consultant that demonstrates how proposed land uses efficiently utilize parking spaces. Parking studies are subject to review and acceptance by the City Engineer and Planning Director, and an independent peer review consultant. The parking study shall consider the following options for reduced parking including, but not limited to: 1. Shared Parking may be provided per Section 17.64.060(B). 2. State Density Bonus may be provided per Chapter 17.46. 3. Tandem parking may be counted towards the required parking calculation. 4. Implement a Parking Management Strategy that may contain the following provisions but not limited to: a. Monitored with periodic inspections b. Storage within the unit and not within garage (view windows on garages) c. HOA to enforce limitation of number of vehicles per unit d. Time restriction on quest parking e. Shuttles that cater to users within the development 5. Implement a Car/Bicycle Share Program in which vehicles/bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a short term basis: Article V—Specific Use Requirements Item K—70 Section 17.88.020 (F) of the Development Code is hereby added to read as follows: • F. Pot Bellied Pias. The keeping of pot bellied pias defined as a domesticated miniature Vietnamese Chinese or Asian pot bellied pig not exceeding 90 pounds in weight and 18 inches in height (measured at the shoulder) and characterized by a swayed back and straight tail, as domestic pets shall be permitted on residential property in the City subiect to the following restrictions: a. Pot bellied pigs shall only be permitted in Very Low (VL) and Low (L) Residential Districts, and only in coniunction with a detached single family residence b. Pot bellied pigs shall be provided with a fenced yard designed to ensure confinement of the animal when outside of the house. Such vard areas must be kept in a clean safe, and odor-free condition. c. Only one pot bellied pig is permitted per lot or parcel. d. The breeding of pot bellied pias shall not be permitted. All pot bellied pigs must be spayed or neutered. e. A pot bellied pig shall have veterinary certification stating: 1. the pig is spayed or neutered; 2. the pip is in good health and has received all necessary vaccinations; and 3. the height and weight of the pig. f. All male pot bellied pips two (2) years of age or older shall have their tusks removed g. All pot bellied pigs shall be restrained by a harness and leash or other similar restraint not to exceed six (6)feet in length while outside the owner's premises or property. Table 17.88.020-1 of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced • with the following: Table 17.88.020-1 Limits on Animals within^ Residential Areas Minimum Property Area Maximum Allowable Type of Animal (Square Feet per Number(',') Residential Animal) District Domestic Pets • Cat(s) No Minimum Required 3 (9) All • Dog(s) No Minimum Required 3(8) All • Rodents (2)and Small Birds (2) 5,000SF (2) 1 25 (2) All • Other Domestic Pets No Minimum Required No Maximum All Exotic Animals ) See Table Note#3 All(3) Insects M See Table Note#3 -VL only Livestock Animals • Horse (4), Mule(4) Donkey(4), Pony(4,5)or Pot Bellied Pig (6) 10,000SF 6 VL and L • Cattle, Swine, Llama, or similarly 20,000SF 3 VL and L sized Livestock Animal • Sheep and Goats or similarly 5,000SF sized livestock Animal 6 VL and L Poultry 5,000SF 6 VL only Item K —71 Table Notes: (1) Refer to Section 17.88.020(E)for additional allowances. (2) More than 5 birds or rodents per each 5,000 square feet of property area may be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (3) With a Conditional Use Permit as required by Table 17.30.030-1. Additional findings in Section 17.88.020 shall be met. (4) A property must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet in area to maintain these animals. (5) A pony, which is defined as any horse measuring 14 hands and 2 inches or less in height at the withers, may be kept in addition to the keeping of two horses,or in lieu of two horses, three ponies may be kept on a 20,000-square-foot lot. (6) Pot Belly Pigs are subject to the conditionVrequirements described in Section 17.88.020(F) (7) The overall maximum number of animals that can be kept on a property can be a combination of the permitted different animal types provided that: a. the property complies with the minimum lot size requirement for each individual type of animal;and b. the number of each individual type of animal does not exceed the maximum number of each individual type of animal permitted on the property. (8) For lots with a minimum area of 10,000 square feet, one additional dog and/or cat may be allowed. Article VII — Design Standards Section 17.122.030(A)(1)(a) of the Development Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: a. Provide employee break areas for office and industrial projects, and provide plazas where employees can rest and eat lunch,.preferably away from public entrances to buildings, loading areas, or other high- traffic areas. Provide tables and/or benches, and shade trees and/or shade structures. Break.areas shall be designed and sized to comfortably accommodate furniture and amenities, should have a minimum size of five hundred (500) square feet and have seating for at least ten percent (10%) of the anticipated workforce. Break areas shall be provided at a rate of one per building within an office or industrial complex comprised of multiple buildings,,or one per office area within a multi-tenant industrial building, whichever is greater. Article VIII — Glossary Section 17.126.020 of the Development Code is hereby amended to add the following definitions: Barn. Any building that is built and used for the purpose of animal-keeping,. sheltering/housing of animals; storage of.equipment, materials, and food used associated with the care of animals; and storage/parking of trailers used for the transportation of animals and that will not be built and used for the purpose of storing/parking of automobiles recreational vehicles (RVs), and/or off-road vehicles that are unrelated to the transportation of animals. Garage Any building with a permanent roof, enclosed on three (3) sides with a garage door on the fourth side that is built and used for the purpose of storage/parking of automobiles recreational vehicles (RVs), or off-road vehicles. Development, Mixed-Use.The combination of a mix of land uses, such as, but not limited to commercial and residential uses in the same structure, parcel or.proiect site, where the residential component is located either above (vertical mixed-use) or adjacent to (horizontal mixed-use) the nonresidential component. Item K—72 Planning Commission Meeting of August 12, 2015 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-IN SHEET Please print your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS CITY ITEM 1. ly 3. 4. , 1 eisw 611 ( D; re.r to P,C —�— 441k'r'rdA P(tP16T (�r k 7 A-1. bLW. -. 7 .t L((f, 6 j�f b D' Carlo P14LQ_ 12 C 9. 10. ! /�✓ 11. �� 3� t�V 1304o ?ix) ow 57 14. 15. , • � 11L 16. , 17. J le(C 12 /6,J VOC ow� r 19. s ���C7 ��VhPiSf br- am S� 20. C.� Fi 1 r A L�-��o�n L3 07b nes' L�-+�r �V CJ A(n rr alLf� &0 16 roa.AlAS 22. 1,3107,6 23. 24. n y 25. 1� yi,/ 1J 3 7,5- 26. afq�N - 27. 28. C_ 29. 30. ew cla q )ee� 3 . 3 33. 34. (D (D IVY[� ` Q 35. it fe co � State of California-Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G BROWN Jr Governor . .� • DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H.BONHAM,Director Inland Deserts Re ion {, i 3602 Inland Empire Blvd., Suite C-220 Ontario, CA.91764 (909)484-0459 www.wildiife.ca.dov August 12, 2015 Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag Associate Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 105nn rivic r-�ndye Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Initial Study. and Mitigated Negative Declaration Rancho Etiwanda Camesi Project .State Clearinghouse No. 2015061100 Dear Mr. Van der Zwaag: The Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study(IS) and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rancho Etiwanda Carnesi Project(Project) [State Clearinghouse No. 2015061100]:.The Department is responding to the IS and proposed MND as a Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources(California Fish and Game Code Sections 711.7 and 1802, and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines Section 15386) , and as a Responsible Agency regarding any discretionary actions (CEQA Guidelines Section 15381), such as the issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 et seq.) and/or a California Endangered Species Act(CESA) Permit for Incidental Take of Endangered, Threatened, and/or Candidate species (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2080 and 2080.1). Proiect Description The proposed project site is located south of Camesi Drive, east of Etiwanda Avenue, west of thetermination points of Vista Street and Pinon Street,and north.of Victoria Street;within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California; Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0227-061-03 and 0227-061-82.. The applicant proposes to subdivide 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots would .be used for residential purpose's;with Lot 17 as the new boundaries for the existing church (Cross and Crown Lutheran Church), which is located on the northwest corner of the project site. The application includes amendments to the General Plan (DRC2013- 00961) and Etiwanda Specific Plan (DRC2013-00962)to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low Residential. to Low Residential, a.Variance Conserving Caffornia's Wildlife Since 1870 - 7 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Rancho Etiwanda Camesi Project SCH No. 2015061100 Page 2 of 4 (DRC2014-00219)for property line:walls ranging in height from 7 to 11 feet on the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots along with a Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014- 00113)for the removal of up to 50 trees. Biological Resources and Impacts The Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and.the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources); and administers the Natural. Communes Conservation Plannina p oaram(NCCP Pmaram)- Thp-ne-partmPint nffarc the comments andrecommendations presented below to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City; the CEC+A lead agency) in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the project's significant; or potentially significant, impacts on biological resources. Following review of the Biological Resources section of the IS,.the. Department is concernedwith the-City's conclusion that the projeet.will have "no impact'', either directly or 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 Wildlife o.r U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on a review of the General Biological Resources Assessment a review of aerial photography of the site,.and the Department's biological expertise, the Department is concerned that the project has the potential to impact burrowing owl and western yellow bat, both of which are species of special concem. As such, the.Department recommends that the following.comments and recommendations be addressed prior to adoption of the MND: 1. Burrowing.Owl. Page B.-6 of the General Biological Resources Assessment states that burrowing.owls are absent from the site, citing the site's relatively small size, isolation, soil compaction, and tree cover. However, the General Biological Resources Report identifies the presence of ground squirrels. Burrowing owls typically use burrows dug by fossorial mammals such as ground squirrels; and they often also nest.in manmade structures, including wood or debris piles, culverts, or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement(Gervais et al. 2008), which may exist regardless of soil compaction.. Because the project has the potential to impactburrowing owl, the Department recommends that Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 1 be revised to include the following.language: The breeding bird.survey shall include a:habitat assessment and burrow survey for burrowing owls. If owls are found to be present onsite, the applicant shall notify and develop a conservation strategy in cooperation with the Department prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities. -r 00 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Rancho Etiwanda Camesi Project SCH No. 2015061100 Page 3 of 4 The Department recommends that the City follow the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012); available for download from the Department's website: hfps://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nonaame/survey monitor html. The Department expects that the City will follow the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, which. specifies that the steps for project impact evaluations include: a'. A habitat assessment; b. Surveys; and c. An impact assessment Please note that it is the project proponent's responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Migratory non-game native.bird species are protected by international treaty under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBIA)of 1918,.as amended (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC)also afford protective measures as follows: Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess,or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation made pursuant thereto; Section 35.03.5 states that is it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds.in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey)or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by FGC or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto; and Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the. META.or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretaryof the Interior under provisions of the MBTA.. 2. Western Yellow Bat Protection. Page B-Tof the General Biological Resources. Report states that the site contains California fan palms, which are suitable roosting trees for the western yellow bat. Two of the palms are identified as poor candidates for preservation, while the remaining nine will be protected in place and integrated into the final landscape plan. Because the CEQA document does not specify the fate of the two palms not scheduled for preservation, the Department recommends that the MND be conditioned to include the following new mitigation measure: Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4: If impacts to suitable roosting habitat are proposed, prior to construction, the applicant.will retain a qualified bat biologist to perform appropriate, species-specific surveys to determine if bats are occupying the trees slated for removal. If bats are found to be roosting in the N Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Rancho Etiwanda Camesi Project SCH No..2015061100 Page.4 of 4 trees, tree removaf will be limited to between October 15and February28 to avoid the bat maternity season. If removal is proposed outside of this date range the applicant will work closely with the qualified bat biologist.to implement additional avoidance and minimization measures (for example,.removal of the tree skirt between October 15 and February 28, followed by removal of the tree ata later date). The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the.Rancho Etiwanda Carnesi Project ISCH n 901-5061100) anti rep is-sts that theCity ol Rapcha Q address the Department's comments and concerns prior to adoption of the MND. If you should have any questions pertaining to these comments;.please contact Gabriele Quillman at(909) . 980-3818 or at gabriele.quillman@wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, f Leslie MacNair Regional Manager cc: State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Literature Cited Gervais, J. A.., D. K. Rosenberg, and L. A. Comrack. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) in Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008..Califomia Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birdsof immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1.Western Field Ornithologists,.Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California, USA. I?e '-'Vf-d 60117, August 12, 2015 Planning Commission, City Council of City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear City Planning Committee and Council Members: Below are my reasons to oppose the proposed development plans (DRC2013-00962 and related plans): 1) Zone changes VL to L(it means smaller lot, dense population, more homes at lower value): it increases burden of infrastructures (utility, sewage line, school,traffic, etc.) 2) Break-down of wall at Carnes Dr will make the smaller and lower value homes exclusively become part of community and it devalues our properties. The loss for each home for our existing 77 home and properties within our community could be about$200K on average and so do the property tax income for the city and county. 3) The developer and church should be responsible for their own solution of the road when they made the land transaction deal. They cannot make such profit at cost of my property value and also our community. All of our community members are opposing the development plans as evidenced by signed documents. We appreciate your careful and rational decision. Best Regards, /&. Hai Lin 6790 Di Carlo Place Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 Phone: (909) 908-3161 Email: hlin@haltechnologies.com Re-6ol2J Ocva� 12 August 2015 Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga Comments regarding: Strom Western Development Inc development proposals present to the planning Commission Environmental assessment and general plan amendment DRC2013-00961 Etiwanda specific plan amendment DRC2013-00962 Tentative Tract Map subtt 18936 Variance DRC 2014-00219 Tree Removal permit DRC2014---113 My name is Chris Nielsen, my wife and I live in the Carnesi community, which is the street the developer is proposing to use for access to the site. While we support development on the subject site see attachment 1, we are strongly opposed to the site plan being proposed. I want to be clear: We're not here to oppose all development. We're here to suggest that a superior plan be adopted—one that does not require a general plan and Etiwanda Specific plan amendment, one that is a true compromise with our neighborhood. The applicant's request for an amendment to the General Plan cannot be justified. The general plan is neither old nor outdated; in fact, it was just updated in 2010. Moreover, the General Plan isn't out of touch with the issues in this case; indeed, it was completed in 2010 with a special focus on infill challenges just like this. Given these two facts, a general plan amendment is simply inappropriate here. If a viable plan exists that avoids a general plan amendment, it should be followed. If we don't hold to that rule, then the general plan means nothing. It becomes a blank canvas, and fails to offer the "guidance" it was intended to provide. A prior plan proposed by the developer would avoid a general plan amendment, and it should be adopted; not the developer's preferred plan presented tonight. On page two of attachments, you will see a proposed site plan known as "layout 3." This plan is a reasonable compromise we can live with. We would prefer to not have a connection onto Carnesi. However, we are willing to concede that connection in exchange for this layout 3 because the lot sizes have been increased to match the lot sizes of our community, which this new plan will become an extension of. This plan is a reasonable compromise. Both sides give something up, but both get something in return. In the current plan, we're giving something up, but we're not getting anything in return. In fact, since this plan doesn't connect to the east, I believe those neighbors would support this layout #3 as well. Thus, greater consensus is possible. Staff raised concerns about this plan, which I would like to quickly address. 1) Staff notes the lot sizes for layout #3 would be 30,000 square feet, which it says is 50% more than the minimum required under the zoning category. This is true, but it is misleading. What staff has failed to do is compare the layout 3 lot sizes to the actual lot sizes off of Carnesi. Since the subject proposal would be adding a court to Carnesi. Let us compare it to the court, within 500 feet of the recommended layout, to the north of Carnesi, called Murietta Court. Please turn to page 3 of the attachments. If you look at Murietta Court, the average lot size is 29,500 square feet. The average lot size in layout 3 is 30,000. Thus, layout 3's lot sizes may be greater than what the zoning requires, but these larger lot sizes are consistent with what has actually been built off of Carnesi. And if the developer wants to connect to our community, and thus be a part of it, it needs to match our lot sizes. 2) Next, please turn to page 4 of the attachments. The Planning staff is concerned the homes in layout 3 would face east into the side yards of the homes to the east. There is a simple solution here. Homes on Carnesi had this same problem 10 years ago. The solution? Build a wall and install landscaping. This has worked well to provide a physical buffer between communities. Layout 3 could do the same thing. Just extend the Carnesi wall with its current landscape palate on the eastern property line. This will provide an appropriate barrier. 3) Next, please turn to page 5 of the attachments. Staff is concerned layout 3 doesn't provide a secondary access for emergency vehicles. That too is easily solved by adding emergency access onto Pinon Street. In fact, this is exactly what the developer is proposing to do in its preferred plan. So, by simply moving the turn around a few hundred feet to the north, problem solved. This also makes the new lots sizes more consistent in the development. 4) Next, please turn to page 6 of the attachments. Staff has also touted the proposed plan as a transition piece between the higher density houses to the east (shown in red) and our community (shown in green). I recognize the role that transition planning can play in some neighborhoods. But staff is improperly applying it here. First, our neighborhood is already next to the higher density housing. With only a few exceptions, the subject lot is not between them and us. So, the principle of transition simply doesn't apply here. Second, a transition here would be a solution searching for a problem. We have no problem with the existing higher density housing being adjacent to us because there is no access. In fact, if the developer wanted to match the eastern community's higher density, we wouldn't oppose it— so long as access was removed onto Carnesi. Access could be through the seller or through the existing stub street to the east. Third, the City Council was fully aware of the situation here when it passed the 2010 General Plan. It could have changed the designation of the subject site to low density residential to provide a buffer between the community to the east and our community, but it didn't. It must not have thought a transition was needed. And we agree. Finally, please turn to page 7 of the attachments. We are not asking for the developer to go away. We understand development will occur. We're asking for a compromise, a true compromise. We're willing to concede access onto Carnesi, but only if the developer concedes lot sizes and makes them consistent with our own—like in layout 3. This would not only be a better compromise, it would avoid a General Plan amendment. Because the general plan was so recently updated, if an amendment to the general plan can reasonable be avoided, it should be. Otherwise, the general plan ceases to be a true guiding document. Layout 3 avoids such an amendment, while the developer's preferred plan does not. I ask that you reject the current proposal. In my opinion it does not meet concepts and intent of the General plan; it lacks the Principles of community building, or the overarching goal of maintaining and enhancing .... our residents. I appreciate your time and consideration of my observations and opinions on this matter. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Visual Exhibits for Comments regardin. • Environmental assessment and general plan amendment DRC2013-00961 • Etiwanda specific plan amendment DRC2013-00962 • Tentative Tract Map Subtt 18936 • Variance DRC2014-00219 • Tree Removal permit DRC2014-00113 k i iJ! nw� t R+! 5 r rl M'Ya ov M ^�., lam•_ t.-_�.;, I ke � :. _ c ! rff •� _� • mss.,:,rte„` � �f� - ., z - � ' Id- Christopher and Kristina Nielsen 6711 Di Carlo Place, Rancho Cucamonga, CA _ F La out 3 � Y t a� �r J i � 1 m Murrietta Ct. PEI �66 r! JT.Np�n1 ^ ,� t ,• Murrietta Ct ` ' j •" �`; fey , € ie ,• tee ,; _ o3 14 Ll �5gg5 , i •1 i y f ti- Y �^ 4 r s Layout !� alongExtend Camesi Wall Property mall and Landscaping South of Carnesi q Secondary, Emergency Access - V fE 5 i B9fi s ._�. �` • 71 -7 •M lY11�11iiFT, . t 4,11 V " Emergency Access Preenr. Acresc Developer's Preferred Plan Layout 3 Could Add Same Emergency Access 5 +C"p - —Mf till it 4 UT Church _ J. ,- w ! I Itl .. ,�`►l-myµ. Stub Street P D ' ' ap, = Carnesi Neighborhood -71 + iK � v y 'i F ` s �6 - 1 �' fit. � jr S! M +- 7 <. r Eastern Neighborhood 6 Lay out 3 A True Compromise �.r r t r f t. • +usr O _ L7 Yom_ � IDW6 zzv�d Nar���r�� 1 , Ifee— PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 5 d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation 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 attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots(Lots#1-16 for residential purposes and Lot #17 as the new boundaries for an existing church)for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue;APN:0227-061- 03 and 82. 2) Approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 and City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 and the City Council's adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and all mitigations contained therein for all project components. 3) 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. 4) 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 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. Air Qualit Short Tenn (Construction) Emissions 1) Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (i.e., previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). ff PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-62 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18936 STORM WESTERN DEVELOPMENT, INC. AUGUST 12, 2015 Page 5 d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's recommendation 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 attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 for the subdivision of 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots (Lots#1-16 for residential purposes and Lot #17 as the new boundaries for an existing church)for a site located on the south side of Carnesi Drive and east of Etiwanda Avenue;APN:0227-061- 03 and 82. 2) Approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 and City Council approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 and the City Council's adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and the Mitigation Monitoring-Program and all mitigations contained therein-for all-project components. 3) 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. 4) 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 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. Air Qualit ' Short Term (Construction) Emissions 1) Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (i.e., previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). t� - ,T 1) Perform a Burrowing Owl Survey that is in conformance with the Department of Fish and Wildlife Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation and submit the written report outlining the findings to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Planning Department within 30 days of groundbreaking activity. The survey shall include a habitat assessment, survey and impact analysis. The Burrowing Owl Survey shall.follow the following protocol: • Burrowing Owl Survey methodology shall be based on Appendix D (Breeding and Non-breeding Season Surveys and Reports) of the CDFW Staff Report. Results of the pre-construction survey shall be provided to CDFW and the City. If the pre-construction survey does not identify burrowing owls on the project site,then no further mitigation is required. If burrowing owls are found to be utilizing the project site during the pre- construction survey, measures shall be developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW to avoid Impacting occupied burrows during the nesting period. These measures shall be based on the most current CDFW protocols and will at minimum include establishment of buffer setbacks from occupied burrows and owl monitoring. If ground- disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey,the site shall be resurveyed for owls. • During the non-breeding season from September 1 through January 31, if burrows are occupied by migratory or non-migratory resident burrowing owls during a pre-construction survey, burrow exclusion and/or closure may be used to exclude owls from those burrows. Burrow exclusion and/or closure should only be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist in coordination with CDFW using the most current CDFW guidelines. • During the avian nesting season from February 1 through August 31, if nests are discovered,they should be avoided through establishment of an appropriate buffer setback,as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. The temporary"no construction" area would have to be maintained until the nest has completed its cycle, as determined by a qualified wildlife biologist. Once the nest cycle is complete and all nestlings have fledged and have left the nest, construction in the area may resume. 2) Perform a bat survey prior to removal or relocation of the on-site palm trees. Retain a qualified bat biologist to perform appropriate,species-specific surveys to determine if bats are occupying the trees slated for removal.If bats are found to be roosting in the trees-,tree removal will be limited to between October 15 and February 28 to avoid the bat maternity season. If removal is proposed outside of this date range the applicant will work closely with the qualified bat biologist to implement additional avoidance and minimization measures (for example, removal of the tree skirt between October 15 and February 28, followed by removal of the tree at a later date). ITe cole-W, `_,�0/7 Date: August 10, 2015 10NGp, To: Honorable Mayor& City Council- Hon. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor; Hon. Sam �o, Mayor Pro Tem; Hon. William J. Alexander, Council Member; Lynne Kennedy, Coun (i Tiber; Diane Williams, Council Member O�F 0 Toll From: Homeowners of Estates at Rancho Cucamonga CIO P�6 RE: Objection to Storm Western Development, Inc. Project Plan Project File No.: General Plan Amendment DRC 2013-00961, Tentative 44ap SUBTT 17836 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962, Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113, and Variance DRC2014-00219 Public Review Period Closes: August 12, 2015 Project Applicant: Storm Western Development, Inc. (the Builder) Proiect Location: The south side of Carnesi Drive, East of Etiwanda Avenue -APNs: 0227-061-03 & 82 Project Description: The applicant proposes subdividing 8.32 acres of land into 17 lots. Sixteen lots are for residential purposes, with lot 17 as the new boundaries for the existing church (Cross and Crow Lutheran Church)(the Church), which is located on the northwest corner of the project site. The application includes amendments to the General Plan (DRC2013-00961) and Etiwanda Specific Plan (DRC2013-00962) to change the land use and zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential (I- 2 DU per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 DU per acre), a Variance (DRC2014-00219) for property line walls ranging in height from 7 to 11 feet on the rear property lines of all 16 residential lots along with a Tree Removal Permit (DRC2014-0013) for the removal of up to 50 trees. House product for the lots is not a part of project scope. Please lend us your eyes , ears and clear consciences. 1. The General Plan and Etiwanda Specific Plan are the very well designed City's master plans that have been working very well for years. All builders like Toll Brothers, Carriage Estates, Manning Homes and KB Homes, etc. have had to abide by them. These builders have built or been building bigger houses on bigger lots with horse trails and beautiful landscapes. All city residents have been relying on the master plans to provide them an enjoyable living environment in the City. 2. The above mentioned builders around our areas do not require the amendments, variances, and cutting 50 trees. We welcome and appreciate the builders' contributions on the land and environment improvements. 3. This project does not provide apparent benefits to the public and has no merits to warrant the above amendments, variances and cutting 50 trees. This project benefits only the Builder for maximizing profits and ultimately, the Church to pay the debt. These benefits should not be the reasons for the City to change the rules and then bend the changed rules for their convenience. 4. This ill-advised project has been very problematic. Most adverse impacts created by this project are on north side of residents at Estates of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition, the changing rules and then bending the changed rules are unfair treatments to all City Residents and all other builders. 5. There are other options to develop this land without adverse impacts that can satisfy both the Builder's and Church's needs, and increase the City's income from new homeowners' taxes. 6. Ignoring the adverse impacts or without addressing and mitigating the issues, using this plan simply to achieve the Builder's profit goal is unethical, therefore, ultimately benefit the Church to pay debt is immoral. The residents' losses on property value reductions alone are much higher than the City's income from tax collection of the 16 new homeowners. F� !v-z r7` 7. The mitigated negative Declaration/ Environmental information forms (over 45 pages), done by the City Staff, is not the Environmental Impact Report required by CEQA. It reports only what the City Staff want you to hear. Every thing they do not want you to hear have been omitted or categorized as "less than significant". This home made report completely inadequate and can not be used for anyone to make a sound decision on this project. 8. In most of the processing meetings, the Builder and the Church rally the Church members to represent the public necessities of this project. That is a misrepresentation. Th members represent only the necessity to pay the Church's debt. The City Staff and the Church first demanded us to sacrifice as if we were back in the Medieval Ages. Then we were told the City has "Right of Way" right to do so. Now, the City Staff, the Builder, and the Church are rushing to change the City's master plans and then bend the changed rules with variances and cutting 50 trees. 9. Ironically, this project is going backward to build on a small piece of land, 16 mixed and match houses, with smaller lots and without horse trails. This designed sub-standard zone has a better name, "Transition Zone". The project and it's zone are misfits merging intrusively into our community with swirled adverse impacts. The incomparably blending of houses is a known factor to inflate these smaller lot house values and deflates prices on our high valued houses. This is a typical marketing and sales scheme. Our local real estate market will be very much confused and totally messed up. 10. Our honorable City Council Members, basically, this project does not meet the City planning standards. It needs your approval for many exceptions. For whom the City changes the rules, then bends the changed rules to pass a sub-standard project? In spite of adverse impacts, is it fair, changing rules and then bending rules only for this Builder and this Church, the privileged group of people? How are the Builder's greedy marketing adventure and the Church's debt problems transiting to be the public necessities and the City's right to make major changes and exceptions on our master plans? Why the privileged group people can choose their best interest plan and ignore the swirled adverse impacts on others? Shall or should the City Staff request both the Church and the Builder to re-look other options to avoid adverse impacts? Please have the benefit of doubt and check into this project. This project is far from a final approval. 11. In front of this project, all of our rights are deprived to none. We are also threatened with a high fee charge, if we dare to file an appeal on this project. We are vulnerable City Residents. Protect our property values and require fair treatments are our bare necessities. We strongly object to this Project. We humbly beg you to reject this problematic and ill- advised project. Respectfully, ell Lorraine Meng and Residents of ates at Rancho Cucamonga Residents' names and signatures are attached cc: Ray Wimberly, Chairman; Francisco Oaxaca, Vice-Chair; Frances Howdyshell,Commissioner; Richard B. Fletcher, Commissioner; Lou Munoz, Commissioner; Candyce Burnett, Planning Dir.; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Residents List Print Name & Signature Address ox P113.0 F rPiz �I-uk k E— ,a L- 12 (73u i 35 AAWo In Morr,�P-471 /Z q ,7-3q M"),f CA, ck -FC . 3 'C� i (,�(�1 �l ver ,�' G of. C_ � ` 3—1 r e11 arc!-ro �a�w�o k9 4YA T o CGwl/l7,l. iS 190 roc c;'c_ lir , �'o�r•c�tti �t"t X3�amor via , CA �^173 7 draes � d� . (.. 73 LOGOY, n4,6 om. by- ev D Residents List Print Name & Signature Address Ter,42Z� -/7 LIE— Z,2 k(j C ;V-ktz,� 11A c4'e-lusn. �4&lf 6750 -7 7� -7 c e6jv" JZ 1 (r3u 2 ql� ?Y -7 0 ') C', 3 113 Residents List Print Name & Signature Address �-�Yc, i n i 8 r k.P S �'� l Zi G`� /V�'►rG l w Q Wil r- sw, G,, 73f lel ' A/ 130 19 DT PA-T( I� s ( 6Y a 4 riettace AA--r Residents List Print Name & Signature Address PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.15-65 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 2015 Page 2 e. The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment since this amendment does not propose development. New development is required to be reviewed by the Planning Department on a case-by-case. This will include a review of any potential impacts each individual project may have on the environment. 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. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development. This update complies with Policy LU-4.1 in the General Plan, in that the amendment promotes the establishment of Mixed Use development; and b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code. The proposed Mixed Use standards, including, but not limited to, setbacks, building height, parking, landscaping and open space, will provide further direction for the development of Mixed Use sites; and C. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. This amendment does not propose development. New development is required to be reviewed by the Planning Department on a case-by-case basis and is required to be not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan, which encourages Mixed Use development within the City's designated Mixed Use areas. The amendment involves the addition of Mixed Use development standards, which will facilitate in the creation of these designated Mixed Use areas. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adepts recommends the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. This Development Code Amendment affects the City as a whole and does not impact any single development. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Negative Declaration. On July 7, 2015, the City received comments from the Public Utilities Commission in regard to the proposed Development Code Amendment. The Rail Crossings Engineering Branch recommended that the City add language to the Development Code Amendment so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad/light right-of-way is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind.The proposed amendments to the Development Code are not project specific and will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. All projects will be yQ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.15-65 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA August 12, 2015 Page 3 required to meet all current Development Code requirements. Furthermore, a section of the Code was updated previously to reflect rail service needs. b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning . Commission hereby ams recommends the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. C. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Negative Declaration 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. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00421 with Attachment 1. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADQPTED THIS-I-2TH-DAY OF AUGUST•2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, 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 12th day of August 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: 1 RnNcxa Planning Commission Meeting � UcnMoNCA, August 12, 2015 �nz.WoRvu+ Applicant : Pulte Homes Project Description: 1 . Design Review DRC2015-00111 — A request .for the architectural and site design of single-family residential homes on 5 lots in the Low (L) Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Golden Prairie Drive. 2. Minor Exception. DRC2015-00580 — A request to increase the allowable wall heights for a total height of 8 feet along the side yards of Lots 1 and 5. Background r rANCHO UALIFORNIA single-familyOn July 12, 1989, 11 Not ✓ ! residential ... \� subdivision. Y OnDesign Review Tract 14139 [ I. r , L J Background w • CAMONGA PlanningIn 2012, the Department a • • • • - • Demolition of the � T detention basin. Temporary �V 1F' c • Grading of Lots 1 through 5. LL h L v ti' v s V � 1p Background RANCHO C t (AMONGA AILJFOANM • The site is semi-rough graded and vacant. r w.:..i a . iy =OMNI 1 Y Design Review r , RANCHO DRC2015-00111 `AUC:AMONGA C,ALIFORNU �HEYEN� oA, Details: -L - - Construction of 5 single- 1 _- family residential lots. =ip • Overall project area is -� 1 .38 acres. ,j l • Lots sizes range from 10,094 to 15,643 sq. ft. - ` - - • Three floor plans are provided ranging from 3,253 to 4, 168 sq. ft. IMF Plan 1 Ranch Elevation RANCHO ,UC ONGA 3,253 square feet CALIFORNM i . _° ' Vti /. �R=� Q 'r ` Y ^, A 6` ti`flx` ' NOR"Plan 2 San Juan Elevation CUING► 3 ,491 square feet tl�Y d'. � � s 3i3i3i _ _ �l • f . '»f 2 Plan 2 Ranch Elevation RANCHO J-ICAl+ ONGA 3 ,491 square feet ,ALtFORNLA am �9 .i faSON® � Q MMENL- LE t x �- . : -MO - R. Mme, Plan 3 � � a Awcxo Bungalow Elevation CUCAMONGA 4, 168 square feet CALIF RNM LO { T EMIR Plan A95F3 rcxo San Juan Elevation UCAMONGA. 4, 168 square feet CALIFORNIA S If Ar 1 7a - n �• '#'',� rte"` _ _ _ny„a" w,_r .y Development Standards Wool RANCHO CUC AMONGA -- CALIFORNIA • Primary architectural styles • Setbacks -_- • Building height _ r • Lot coverage � ! i' � � zAR • Decorative driveway • Landscape and water budget 17 V, i p g • Single-story • Meets all standards, except s `, wall height ' -- ------------ � s Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 UCAMONGA ALIFORNtA • The maximum allowable wall height is 6 feet. • Minor Exception may allow for an additional height of 2 feet. • The project incorporates walls up to 8 feet in height on: • corner side yard (east perimeter) of Lot 1 , and • interior side yard (west perimeter) of Lot 5 -..-- T \ � 0 .� III C -_�` �• C1. L� NM1'�-0 m� w5n_ d < ' � � I Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 ANCHO - - --- - , CUCAMONGA CALIFORNLA, 4 •vc�.Aw�aas�s rn I i- I n � I 3wss . . � I mn u�ae�.'� 'PI' .uc araavr.. _ 'rw'muacs=_'ll _ I I. I 14. ♦I I - � ..172 0 �. re � I I vJ• e wa „n 4 1780.3 Ot R ny HIGH �LOGK WALL 6' HI"H BLOCK WALL ON R.W. F'Ee L=r„•:��,r:a-E �L3N E- L `JDSCAPE PLAN ADDITIONAL EXISTING R W LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE R oTs EASEMENT EASEMENT t7 �PRGf'0-:EI PROPOSED 1780.3 0• TO 12' 17' TO 34' GaG',"JL' 1760.0 TRW EXISTING GRO'JNC �� uAx. ------�— 2' 17 I __ . gEf±lull FG I BACKFILL i.p` r-- 2' MAX. `� RETAINING COBBLESTONE T %► EXISTING GROUND COVER J -%--'�_, GROUND & EXISTING LANDSCAP EX S PROTECTED IN PLACE IcljyINC i Design Review 114 RANCHO Committee UC:AMONGA CALIFORMA • The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on June 30, 2015. • No major issues brought up at this meeting . • Secondary issues were discussed involving various design elements. • State of California Water Board's Executive Order B-29-15. • The Committee forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. "llNeighborhood Meeting RANCHO a n d ACMO UFORNCANU Public Notification i' W • A neighborhood meeting was held at Day Creek Intermediate School on Wednesday, May 11 , 2015 at 7:00 p.m . • No issues or concerns were expressed. • Public notification was sent out to surrounding property owners. Notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin . • No comments or concerns received . i Environmental Determination and Ra �Ho Staff Recommendation UCAMONGA ALIF'OPNLk Environmental Determination : • The City adopted a Negative Declaration on July 12, 1989 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map 14139. • Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required . Staff Recommendation : Approval of Design Review DRC2015-00111 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00580 by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Plannin Commission g Meeti n g DEVELOPMENT . . DRC2015-00421 R. CUCAMONGA Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Presentation Agenda ------ Proposed Code amendments Background of - • _ � x PC Workshop Conclusion • Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Proposed Changes • Article III o Allowed Uses Ike 1I f Commercial (Secondary / -- Accessory) Industrial Commercial (Re-purposing) - � �� - =w Industrial _ Permitted in Industrial Park ( IP) and General Industrial << p aL `J 3 (GI) Districts onlygal lot Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Proposed • ' o -- - ----- _ __ _----- . • Article IV o Fences, Walls and Screening • Article V RANCHO o Animal Regulations C°°A"°"`.A DEVELOPMENT CODE TICLE • Article VI I AGL Ss RVIII t`P2p211].,'1L IIMF.ISaI C@lurilpco' I]ILLI senwl 11,a6olo wlpxe. =1wi1 17 128 Il(IiJdial Molillal5 I?ILG-I o Industrial Design Standards NMt]1l9 d E my ell°,�„ 7= 4mIM O.tI3.010 m.pxe. . 1].Ize-1 $ 11>,L60$1 Mtlt&rsre:s Oe,inA.om ,,M- Ll1aPtt,1.190 [MSAyBMus Oe11n11w15 .t].ISI-, 3ecWl1].130010 Put(pse.. 1]I]6, atttlM 1]130 fQ0 M51n Emus lklnNon. ,1 130.1 • Article VIII 7132 :MIM 1)13]010 Hugrs :1132-1 $YCW11).1920ID W51M[FP3.Wrte D2lnllul; 1]13]-I CIIapltt,�tYl Ak0aa ntalluMa oerinrrs i1 ia,l �cuan n,a,a,o vulpo, r l:w.l 9e 'l ll,:u0'ID F. Mtnlltup lhYmn✓ns v I:H 1 o Universal Definitions ge,l),6 � $GUIpI V13fi.0I0 (-1I1W2. p l0(, W 11]1 130 136.0]0 Sgfl GtinOrns i)1311 CNglb Y1Mb Etl1fMJLdMlscag1x30e11n11um5 111361 SMp 17''0,0 WI(02 Il lh' Sttlun l]1300N Wab FJIlc�In Lai¢Jeup l➢elu>fl�na 111361 Barn gtt1]Id0 Yh i9 a pnS 1]1,0.5 exllal,,,,6010 wffa _.,]Ii05 SetlSVI l),400N1 VJ ele55L wlrrcelxu 3eln Ials Garage Mixed Use Development �ts�`11 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Mixed Use Opportunity Sites l oil Pd l L 'J Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 City Council Goals - ---- ------ 0CD _ - ------ • City Council Goal A24 ( phase 1 ) o Develop standards to address mixed use, high density, Transit Oriented Development and initiate a Development Code amendment to incorporate new development standards. • City Council Goal A25 ( phase 2 ) o Review the City's zoning districts and evaluate/investigate creating overlay districts or specific plan areas that will create villages or development districts in order to revitalize underperforming or underutilized areas and create synergy amongst the varying land uses. w ,_ Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Planning Commission Workshop _------- - (D ------------------------- --- ----- --.. Held on July 8 , 2015 * Discussion on draft Mixed Use standards Overall in favor of concepts Incorporate design elements from Victoria Gardens * Continue to require high quality design * How do we better connect mixed use sites along Foothill Boulevard? • Is a minimum of 2 types of land uses enough? Proposed Changes } o Mixed Use Development Mixed Use standards did not previously exist Adds Table 17.36.020-2 to inclu • - development . • I • • - I • - • • District T -/ 5 Includes density, FAR, building height, parking, open space, landscaping , and setback, etc. p Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 T J N N 01 T r Y y ILA ZD 14 a' .0 J O c 3 � rn � r 1 � w N ,: r� ilf ' 1 G C G1 C C , if co r �r p c O N X y O rn U = c � 'c J � to EL t a® � as ��1� � .,� 1 • � CY�� av°` ffik. a J, n ` JLA;IL r� CF_ It IL t38" AP19 AV - • a - s a ' t a- LO 'Ing oaf E■ M. w,'!!t-"� R •V •O Y L Y Ie. p �. i� O S ' �s to! J 41 .{ ►t� dt a - ._ ,w O � 3,a TY 4p d >�ik .{ \ J � ♦tf 4 k' Setbacks Street Yard (major/special blvd) Vary between 50% - 75% reduction of streetscape requirements Street Yard (secondary/collector) Vary between 50% - 75% reduction of streetscape requirements Street Yard (local) Vary between 75% - 100% reduction of streetscape requirements MW A14- y 1 �z. Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Setbacks r .y .... 4.r `f , � - y - dEhnA4 � y f Major • f1 Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 r ' ` C%l Q noun 4-J ( L� KY uj t i � • ■e �� C d it F E C R ZEE Landscaping _ _. 14 _ - - ---------------------------------- Reduction ----- ----------- Reduction of required landscape area will contribute to less water usage a �x� ♦pK��� C; Alb- � .�..:< " h Drought tolerant plants and trees Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 iii! , ,,—�• Ytt Landscaping / Open Space TV&I I: _ 0 .� �1 iGY�a - _t ,15}x✓_ 1,...s �,�.1 �j�Y:r l IAE T'. x Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 "`1 N N r Vi 7 7 Q Will""10 • i u ' u 14 , t^T ff C.0 IA 04 O , a tl •Cz i��� • O O1 C �C C a a Parking ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- (OD7 ------------- Each Mixed Use Project is • Require a parking study for all �I unique. Therefore: mixed use projects • Provide • • • • parking reduction , � Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Conclusion <<. • Next Steps o City Council Study Session (September 16 , 2015) o City Council Public Hearing (October 7 , 2015) • Recommendation ,. ., 9 l l L. Planning Commission Meeting August 12, 2015 Planninq Commission Meeting August 12 , 2015 General Plan Amendment DRC2013-00961 Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2013-00962 Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936 Variance DRC2014-00219 Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 41 CO � fu: Project Proposal ➢ A request to subdivide an 8.32 acre site for the development of 16 single- family residences (6.59 acres for residential subdivision) ➢ A request to change the General Plan land use and Etiwanda Specific Plan zoning designations from Very Low (VL) Residential (.1 -2 dwelling units per acre) to Low (L) Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) ➢ Proposed density is 2.43 dwelling units per acre ➢ A request for a Variance to construct property line walls up to 11 feet in height ➢ A request to remove up to 50 trees, 9 of which are conditioned to be relocated on site - ; C. • J IC Comparison Between Very Low (VL) and Low (L) Etiwanda Specific Plan Development Standards Lot Lot Side Front Rear Average Lot Maximum Lot Depth Width Setbacks Setback Setback Size Coverage Low (L) 100 Feet 80 Feet Total 20 25 Feet 25 Feet 15,000 SF 30% Feet Very Low (VL 200 Feet 90 Feet 10/20 Feet 30 Feet 60 Feet 25,000 SF 25% mall .� can . .. . s \$ . 4 ' q \ .f � 1 .73A e\ 4k& 6.59 , I e . 6.59A re . - \ Project Site \ � . . 2 ` . . � .� # . , � . . : 25,000 SF Lots Project Site 15,000 SF Lots 7,500 — 8,000 SF Lots lots ° . r.. i r �Pe , 13,000 SF Lots Original Layout i Layout #1 ° ° ➢ Sixteen (16) Lots �'�' �� l ➢ Complies with Low (L) zoning designation _ ➢ Full vehicle & pedestrian connection to Pinon Street X ➢ Double-loaded street ➢ Four houses facing Carnesi Drive ➢ Requires removal of 642 linear feet of existing wall for street - Y k Ile Neighborhood Meeting #1 ➢ The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on April 14, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at the Four Points Sheraton, with approximately 80 persons in attendance ➢ Property owners to the east were in opposition to the proposed street connection to Pinon Street ➢ Property owners to the north (along Carnesi Drive) were in opposition to the demolition of the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive to develop a public street to access the project site ➢ Property owners to the north were also in opposition to the proposed land use change because of the perception that it would increase traffic and decrease their property values ➢ Property owners to the north also indicated that they did not want smaller lot homes facing their larger lot homes to the north Current Carnesi Drive Street Scene Wall permitted on July 15, 2003 Wall voluntarily constructed by Toll Brothers to screen existing residences and vacant lot to the south Wall located on the property line between project site and public right-of-way ➢ No legal agreement or limitation recorded on the title preventing removal of the wall n , .F ' . . Design Review Committee Meeting #1 ➢ The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. Staff provided an overview of the project and outlined neighborhood opposition to the new street connection to Pinon Street, removal of a portion of the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive and the proposed land use amendments. ➢ The meeting was attended by approximately 30 residents from the Toll Brothers neighborhood, which is north of the project site. ➢ The residents stated that the project should take access through the church property from Etiwanda Avenue. ➢ The Committee recommended that the project be redesigned taking the community's concerns into consideration. ` a Current Layout im r. (Layout #2) ➢ Sixteen (16) lots ➢ Complies with Low (L) zoning designation ➢ Emergency vehicle & pedestrian connection to Pinon Street rme k lora ➢ Double-loaded street wre __ ➢ All houses facing new public street � . ➢ Requires removal of 60 linear feet of existing wall for street wra rare wra wrr i, 1-71 Neighborhood Meeting #2 ➢ The applicant held a second neighborhood meeting on June 19, 2014 at 6:00 p.m. at Etiwanda Gardens, with approximately 100 persons in attendance. ➢ The developer presented an updated layout which created a cul-de-sac off of Carnesi Drive with an Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) gate. ➢ The Toll Brothers residents remained in opposition to the new layout, not wanting any portion of the wall removed in order to provide access to Carnesi Drive ➢ The residents insisted that 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 their future expansion plans Zoning Conforming Layout CMER MM F (Layout #3) fL— �w / ➢ Seven (7) lots �,. _f ➢ Complies with Very Low (VL) zoning designation ➢ No emergency vehicle or pedestrian connection to Pinon i o-- F Street 1, 4 p , ,., , ,� ,;, i ➢ Single-loaded street °� ➢ Lots 50 percent deeper and 30 percent larger in size than r, required by the Etiwanda Specific Plan i ]_ ➢ All houses facing new street and side yards of houses to the east a -- n ❑ i _, .� ➢ Requires removal of 75 linear feet of existing wall along the —' � south side of Carnesi Drive for street and equestrian trail :• to Access from Etiwanda Avenue is Layout #4 ;AM SF ; 17,=$ 2 ➢ Fifteen (15) lots M L 3F • — ➢ No emergency vehicle or pedestrian connection to Pinon o Street ➢ Double-loaded street f u ➢ Cross and Crown Church (property owner) opposed to 147UsF ,,,og this layout as it limits their future growth opportunities * — — — ➢ Creates double cul-de-sac with multiple flag lots o IS SF ➢ Places new public street within 300 feet of existing ❑ a s intersection at Etiwanda Avenue and Carnesi Drive J 9 r 1L736sF isF ZMIF UA7SFJr ' n Planning Commission Workshop The applicant held a Planning Commission Workshop in the Tri-Communities Room at City Hall on August 27, 2014 The applicant outlined the advantages and disadvantages of 4 potential layouts of the project site and how they arrived at their decision to move forward with Layout #2, which takes access from Carnesi Drive with a cul-de-sac The Commissioners commented that the original layout (Layout #1 ) had many positive features but Layout #2 addressed many of the concerns raised by the neighboring property owners The Commission observed that Layout #3, which was designed to meet the current Very Low (VL) zoning requirements, required the removal of more linear feet of wall along Carnesi Drive, created lots that were approximately 30 percent larger and 50 percent deeper than the lots to the north and eliminated the opportunity for an emergency vehicle access gate to provide a secondary access point to the existing development to the east v The Commissioners commented that Layout #4, which takes access from Etiwanda Avenue through the church parking lot with a double cul-de-sac, created an awkward street layout with multiple flag lots and greatly encumbered any future expansion of the church property Design Review Committee Meeting #2 ➢ The updated project (Layout #2) was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on March 31 , 2015 at 7:00 p.m. ➢ The meeting was attended by approximately 50 community members from Cross and Crown Lutheran Church and residents from the surrounding neighborhood ➢ The church members were generally in favor of the modified project layout presented by the applicant ➢ Residents living north of the project site expressed opposition to the project layout and submitted a petition signed by 86 residents. Their concerns included removal of a portion of the wall along the south side of Carnesi Drive, vehicle traffic and a perceived loss of property value due to the proposed smaller lot sizes The Committee stated that the proposed layout was a good compromise taking the neighbors concerns into consideration. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for their review ---------- - 01V V , Q V11 C r } it aP;e I • o ' D '� t � a� •;,a c any UE�Dad and ur-)a4 Q" murictta Ct > c { - h n anN epuen'43 n r �Id euyo4ue5 17 Ile }x0 ru Id ellina5AL tQ1 0 µ .Yt I K�Rr f j o STREET IN LU t z General Plan Designations (Existing) General Plan Designations (Proposed) UJI LU U U a a a a a � 2 Very Low Residential W 2 Very Low Residential W a WW •—____ CARNESIDR CARNESIDR i VISTA ST VISTA ST Project Project � � Pro J Site Site Very Low Residential Very Low Residential Low Residential Very Low Residential Low Residential Low Residential MINION ST MINION ST I it LOS CEDROS STLOS CEDROS ST Very Low Residential Very Low Residential I Zoning Map Designations (Existing) Zoning Map Designations (Proposed) 1 W W Q U Q U Q Very Low Residential Q Very Low Residential Q p (1-2 dulacre) H p (1.2 dulacre) F' Z Etiwanda SP W Z Etiwanda SP W a a . E2 W —._ —.-- W CARNESIDR CARNESIDR VISTA ST Si e y VISTA ST Project - I �Jsidential Project Very Low Residential Low Residential Ver Low ReISite Low Residential (1-2 dulacre) (2-4 du/acre) (1-2 du/a (2-4 du/acre) Etiwanda SP Very Low Residential Etiwanda SP !1 Etiwandw Residential Etiwanda SP (1-2 du/acre) 1 (2-4 dulacre) MINION ST _ Etiwanda SP -- Etiwanda SP PINON ST Very Low Residential LOS CEDROS ST Very Low Residential LOS CEDROS ST (1-2 dulacre) _...—..--_..._.—...__. _ (1-2 dulacre) �-. .. -.. Etiwanda SP Etiwanda SP \ N A 0 R - n Recommendations Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1 ) Approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18936, Variance DRC2014-00219 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-00113 through adoption of the Resolutions 2) Recommend that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment DRC2013- 00961 and Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment DRC2014-00962 through adoption of the Resolutions and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for the project Y r � Y \.� NORTH EASTERN ANNEXATION • PLAN ' ��. �l1 ♦s n - 1/R �� ,til'" fr f' f y�.te .rr K .tea•: _ll ,.�v` dC3a11 iiN(F� VON associates \��; Michael Baker PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP • Provide a brief summary of the planning and policy background for the proposed Annexation Area • Summarize plan objectives as defined to date by City/consultant planning team. • Present a range of initial planning and design concepts and illustrations of some of the possibilities. • Response to questions and receive , input and direction from the Commission.Aft �jeu a o RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN WHAT IS THE GENERAL PLAN TRYING TO ACHIEVE? • Inspire a community culture and lifestyle that embraces health and sustainability or • Develop a balanced, integrated, multi-modal transportation system ' • Protect the character and high quality of established residential neighborhoods, shape new - : Y sustainable neighborhoods. - • Diversify the employment base and fiscal sustainability ■ •- -� • Preserve access to and views of the mountains and open spaces y y" 141 R,Rrovide high quality community parks c,,�,w"N nnri fanilitiac fnr all anac anri intaractc RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT THIS AREA? • Land use designations include ace, hillside = conservation, opens p _ . residential, and flood control/utility corridor • Area east of Deer Creek included in the adopted North Etiwanda Specific Plan - • Includes several major view corridors • Primary vehicle and non-motorized — connections from Wilson Ave, Banyan Ave, Milliken Ave, and Day Creek Blvd 2 . -••w ;I. ; �� �,�, z� _,, • Entire area within Equestrian/Rural — �r _ . " Area Overlay with regional and community trails • Multiple Regionally Significant c ,: K. # gregate Resources Present t tF I , o, HEALTHY RC STRATEGIC PLAN HOW IS IT RELEVANT TO THIS PROJECT? _ L • Healthy Eating & Active Living • Outdoor activity and recreation woven into daily life _ - • Public spaces to host farmers markets or healthy food vendors - • Community Design & Safety • Diversity of housing types • Neighborhood design to foster safety and interaction among neighbors • Clean Environment • Sustainable infrastructure and building design practices • Compelling active transportation options T • Disaster Resiliency • Sensitive neighborhood development 4 _ • Resilient building design practices Mc R,..c- WHAT WE'VE HEARD SO FAR • Preservation & Recreation • Mountain vistas should be maintained and emphasized. • Outdoor activity and recreation should be woven into daily life. • Trails should integrate with neighborhoods, equestrian paths, and open space. • Opportunities exist in utility/flood control easements for recreation and conservation. • Neighborhoods • Nearby neighborhood services and amenities would be welcomed, particularly by older residents. • Connect neighborhoods in areas where there are public and joint-use facilities. • Flexible housing options that appeal to younger families and empty nesters (strong market demand) • Health & Safety • The plan should be build on Healthy RC principles. • Future homes, parks, and other development should enhance fire protection. JrIL New development and open space plans should preserve and enhance water quality. ct".NG WHAT WE 'VE HEARD SO FAR • Access & Connectivity • Street network and street design should balance all modes and emphasize active transportation. • The network should distribute and calm traffic rather than concentrating heavy flows. • Connectivity to the existing high school and new elementary school should be prioritized. ■ Public & Private Uses • Conservation and mitigation policies should respect existing property rights. • Clearly define — and plan funding for - public and private maintenance responsibilities (public/HOA-run parks, community gardens, joint-use facilities, etc.) • Communication • All information should be on the City's website so the community can access it conveniently and track planning and development decisions. • Utilize the networks built in the Healthy RC outreach process. Qfi'ic.NC]. ., - .- -, _ _ �•!SARGENT owNENT Fi G i i MAIN;ashi'L{ S YuFh. i F" F i R R o6F9 H'Y Y� lF4Yh Fr'JF9 RF4•Gnu{�! XCPiF9V ! P. r*F Fi F i i c 3 �, i�° Ri 'S x'iy r+k-F �i'iy€� mpyyfiR Ir 9e4 F BFwhi ! }i YF! i PJ�Fi i+� y tirF� �� pwamm . �05'F8F!!!!g +3+�pip�iry �o pq 1 x s l BR�3 4'.. Be0hF 1— AIR ....�`4XMai Fi Lg °rF M:mtnl h4?�LBkry e .au�! i 61� MW R +`' • • • • • • • • fa _� ' l r�"�F' p••yea r �" ':�.- i 7. •I ,. • - - • • - ii Y,7Ly 'Ca I • • . • • . • •q�{' {�+...'�''9i i � 'rir� ; i�4�qr�*' i�'•}`i�9'!w`q�a,8'• r g4 • • • . U44�3r r , � ` 'f-'1'�tln ppp�������ei r2 • — . • • . • • • • - • �'t� _ .`moi s•`r+��'; .` �:.. ':' " - • to i C� YiY!! Yt Yf t i i ...0 It Sii i.i - YY ... '•.. .'.fYir ..�`. i,i ...W"'K -m- T. K t i K[laq. Y..... .........: ! ........ d.........5 b- 8 r?- % A dLv e. WIN • • - • • • • ' • ray, ate.-. ,{°. J • ,�lR �1 - • � �ar + r- L.. p�'yf.$ � �� _i I�'� r'"1'#-tom* j 9 .rte ,� _—=y: i Vit. _ '� ♦ ..F 11r^ i v�� Min i i F 0 i �� '9 i� X�P 1 F tl Fi h PPPP� i Fe"" N i ai PRF F �n�tlP}JP'ZiRiE �i ssxs. i.o-8 P i.s F i P4 a hrr i fir`yP P F 3 i P�.Y 9 Ph NP P 5 k ik3ffi i P s• h r.Y 11 Y P i aP -MIPOMi61 t P P a EP r SP PP Fy ➢ P Pi PP P YF PRkY V W P P P �F YP Pi PH P'R9 N�"3x, aFi � � � 9vP iJPM�yP a E'i.PP-�4y P.x i .Y gSiY isP �P =9{Pk cFeii Px EiP � wOX ALd o- s i}w • 4 i. d • • • • - • • - • • • ��'' � S a.e ice. ��g�.e. � ii`.t �! ���! • 4 { �� L.a. s, • tr s a v:. NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROJECT PROJECT OBJECTIVES .s' I . Permanent Conservation ' Permanent urban edge, preserving the sensitive natural a habitats, resources, landscapes and views. 2. Fiscal Sustainability Avoid "patchwork" of fiscally unsustainable neighborhood fragments, prone to natural hazards (wildfires, landslides..) Y 4 3. A Center for North Rancho Cucamonga - A walkable, bikeable destination with commercial -- amenities for surrounding neighborhoods, trailhead to Foothills and civic amenities for the whole community. 4. Add Missing Middle Housing Options l r Range from large lot view homes to smaller homes and attached homes targeted to a wide range of household ' sizes and types. EXISTING FOOTHILL OPEN SPACERESOURCES HIGH VALUE, CONNECTED HABITAT EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXAT�ON SPECIFIC PLAN !.SARGENT u a �cy •yyti Iw rr�y •�" �.x,. J EXISTING OPEN SPACE RESOURCES CONSERVATION WITH CONTROLLED ACCESS pop LI I W.. a: f per+ w No Q urn o NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN .20.5 SOWN PLANNING EXISTING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN ( CITY) 1.11 dv1Fcl c inTtil ��#161��Jj RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Very low density residential (tan) • Hillside residential (in North Sphere) • Hillside estate residential (in North Sphere) .. 'u • Fault zones r r • Flood control/riparian rj = - • Resource conservation (north edge of neighborhood priority area) Noon Conkol/ Low DendNNMNWe ReYd•nllol 1puN 2oM f-� 6, melon R•fWnol If (<2 DW N•l eulidod• _.. (2-4 DY/Ac) Acre) Refource Very low Residential NahMe Residentialt Con•nolfon Reddenen lol bole Op (<2Du/Ac) [ ( IDu/NN euedoDle■ Space ' g Acre) W, "-, i '.01SARGENT (L,Q.sa1 EXISTING ZONING (SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY) MIX OF CONSERVATION AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Single Residential Zone (yellow) - 1 acre MANNED .1.D(HEMT D��/� parcels , Rural Living Zone (orange) - 10 acre parcels ® Special Development Residential Zone (pink) is the planned development (surprise us) zone with few standards. • Intent of SDR is "better site plans". �EooE� MISIXNI&i WO • Not consistent with City's objective of maximum open space conservation om RerdncCR ._.. ( acreRminaYGnMd �? I Rvtbpmonl InsNluRonol IFMy / Comwvolbn :. (10-xrR mM) / � .( WC R-11:lt-• '11 RIS ___ SA RGENf k 1 1 1141 J 1 NEASP'Area i i _. i Previous Heavy Construction Utility Corridors j Existing 1 Development/Disturbance' Open Space/Conservation �. . i North Etiwanda Preserve Edge Neighborhood Creek Corridor Neigh'borh9od �R General Neighborhood i Town Center Neighborhood 1 1 1 � 1 :1 1 9 - 1 Y ' ; 1 9 1 .71. . z 1 , 1 1 �j• 1 1 a --------, ---------- ------------; Yt "a INITIAL ... _ .., �. A. ..................... POSSIBILITIES W§JPgnPAJs ke0e sSJh' Pg IN 1 1,1 IS - -5 1 ■ Preserved on-site open space network ■ Framework street network ■ Interconnected regional trail network ( .- ■ Single-family neighborhoods lining Wilson veils n Ave adjacent neighborhoods ■ Mixed-type Neighborhoods ■ Mixed-use town center (Hill Town) Ban `r J `r' - "�',� ■ Potential Elementary School sitescc Q k Fl W ;1 ' m, 1 THE PUBLIC REALM WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD ' .;f STN�� J i orR oods with 5-minute walking distance from center to edge. • Every household within a comfortable, ' safe 2-minute walk of a small park or .,, playground w Q Safe comfortable longer walk or bike t r;�- ride to school and neighborhood shops. _ aIV ® Every home within a 5 minute walk of a p � x walking/bike riding trail . �P s T ; J! SARGENT 0. Cc�i.'niuvrn ii :OwN PINNING THE PUBLIC REALM t¢ WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD 3 • �Yi540kods with 5-minute walking . � distance from center to edge. R 1 tt y » 1 • Every household within a comfortable, safe 2-minute walk of a small park or playground • Safe comfortable longer walk or bike _ • ' r ride to school and neighborhood shops. = • Every home within a 5 minute walk of a walking/bike riding trail . :° • An organized mix of housing types within each neighborhood area. f YS.i... NBC fjAICI '.4RG E�' THE PUBLIC REALM --- ........ INITIAL POSSIBILITIES Conservation Park OCa-101 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN .0..SORN LNNwNc THE PUBLIC REALM :.......................................................................... ..: INITIAL POSSIBILITIES • Conservation Pa Prospect Park t —411- NORTH a .f e tit t ei �1+ 111R�6f NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLANs�'SARGENT ®0 ]OWN PLANNING THE PUBLIC REALM --- . INITIAL POSSIBILITIES ■ Conservation Park • Prospect Park Community Amphitheate (je.r.F10 -�SARGENT GL C.+uoNe NSRT r. EA>:E=.iv $ar:eP.� ANr!Ezgin�rl SPenc=C PSP n: �, w rv�w outir, THE PUBLIC REALM INITIAL POSSIBILITIES ■ Conservation Park • Prospect Park • Community Amphitheater Creek Park a p9 c } Jf SARGENT clp-uON6f NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN Y=' n, THE PUBLIC REALM INITIAL POSSIBILITIES -"211110 s 1 • Conservation Park J ■ Prospect Parky ■ Community Amphithe • Creek Park Banyan Park r�ar� Aft t ineai w NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN .0!SARG`ENTI ryJ Be- L- � _ 2 THE PUBLIC REALM NITIAL POSSIBILITIES ■ Conservation Park • Prospect Park • Community Amphitheater • Creek Park ■ Banyan Park ■ Linear Parks Trail Network and Trailheads SARGENT THE PUBLIC REALM INITIAL POSSIBILITIES • Conservation Park • Prospect Park • Community Amphitheater ■ Creek Park • Banyan Park • Linear Parks • Trail Network and Trailheads Neighborhood Parks & Greens I'six:nnwncn No - fn -.F S,, A o 1,1:1, SGr ' - PL11 lj SARG ENT Au THE PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE CALIBRATED TO CLIMATE AND LOCAL HABITAT El THE PUBLIC R INITIAL POSSIBILITIE; ■ Conservation Park • Prospect Park • Community Amphith • Creek Park • Banyan Park • Linear Parks • Trail Network and Tr • Neighborhood Parkc Greens • Town Center Piazza A'=O.�j SARGENT NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC FLAN TOWN PLANNING �yis � "�Y" + • i �►�� + • + •.-46 • -'i Vis, H Le` �' • / Y �yis � "�Y" + • i �►�� + • + •.-46 • -'i Vis, THE PUBLIC REALM INITIAL POSSIBILITIES • Conservation Park • Prospect Park • Community Amphitheater • Creek Park • Banyan Park ■ Linear Parks • Trail Network and Trailheads • Neighborhood Parks & Greens Town Center Plaza • Wilson Main Street NK (lLQ�W �I %MWM NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN s211 RGrENN^G W z LUU z 0 z 0 J E THE PUBLIC REALM INITIAL POSSIBILITIES • Conservation Park • Prospect Park ■ Community Amphith • Creek Park i l� • Banyan Park _ r • Linear Parks, s - • Trail Network and T p .. e 7 IAAl • Neighborhood Parks Greens • Wilson Main Street ., Town Center Plaza QElementary School (�AYON¢1 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN EDGE NEIGHBORHOOD Single family detached only Range from 4 to 8 dua Houses on lots 50 to 70 feet wide Some alley -loaded some not Edges are sensitive to adjacent neighborhoods and natural habitat. F r x 3 de.1�y� pp � r mj w �If fi �_ � IC �1 �A � �i'i E ............ all ... vi ml k .�.w � %� > k .�.w HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ■ Range from I to 3 dua 0 Houses on lots 80+ feet wide • Large -lot single-family houses Neighborhood parks and greens; HOA -maintained amenities R"::^ MpSARGENT N1 l'OWN p�Niirtdl Al u .OM _ p r_ mom Nt maw 0- ': � ., .� .. _ - � .�` ���� `a•��.. ' 11 n.. `�. 1 .Fin � k ...y n i` r ,4 In i mi-h I ` n, U 2 CD D O w O m U) J J_ 2 0 O O ry O m 2 W Z U) 2 CD W 2 u a Range from 6 to 18 dua ■ Houses on lots 40' to 60 feet wide • Rowhouses, cottage courts, house -form multi -family, small courtyard housing Neighborhood parks and greens �W V ry 'w�r' W 2 V z O 73 Q U Z) U O 2 U z Q ry n O O J Q O wm = z(D ww Oz GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD WALKABLE STREETS I 5 [ Y r� ri Y ' ra.Y y A� V () S y {A>'',' } tiw�,r , 1 iT cm= SARGENT mo NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION $PECtFIC PLAN TOWN PLANNING GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD WELCOMING FRONTAGES ,;% H, SARGENT (.� %1..:[; IN FLAN Fw, A GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE -FORM MULTI FAMILY RANCI CCCAMONOA NJP' F EA 'N SF le A,:,; I , 7,, SPE_ _IFI;, PL4 �• ® N.SARGENT La �� iONN P�NPIiNG I ■ Gateways to town center, 2-3 story buildings • Rowhouses, live work, urban houses • Range of 10 to 25 dua LaK,., m„ Qa,mu.%e NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN �� � �,� is ��••,. n: �� � YI - r-.. (fig y�, �� � CF _ � '8'�--d_ � 1� ,�:� . �.. v • Commercial, civic and recreational center for North Rancho • Restaurants and shops on main street, with plaza views of valley and mountains ■ Built in existing gravel mine area Aft v:woNcn NTI 6: MSARGENT .00 1OWN PLANNING r ' �o O L— W 1 1 7st t 4 I i , n �-- Z TOWN CENTER + NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN SARGENT MTOWNPLANNING WILSON TOWN CENTER • • • Looking north and panning to west and south Floor ranges from 55' to 85' below rim Gravel pit 3,000' by 1700' (120 acres) SAYWW NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN p=SARGENT a5 TOWN PLANNING WILSON TOWN CENTER M• •. •• Looking north and panning to west and south Floor ranges from 55' to 85' below rim Gravel pit 3,000' by 1700' (120 acres) (ft.=A NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION S'. y� W Z W Z O Z 0 V J G V A i C lJ F— a W U I 0 L Q W n LL a� Q WILSON TOWN CENTER Mixed -Type Neighborhood Hilltop Pa Upper Rim Neighborhood Town Center Neighborhood Wilson Town Center Creek W z w U z O z 0 U) J M i id ^Yl W M r l/N • _ R! �9 s F, ' U M i id ^Yl W M r l/N • _ R! LL s 7 �I ' U I-° O c o Q) O Q a O U) ;a 0 0 o W U) 3 7 X 0 a s L 0 x .D L Z l.L. ^Ll W a Q Of W � Z W U Z 3: 0 � Z 0 CO J � \ 6 NNW °* $ _0�\ ! \ƒ / / � 2 � \ \ Q..call7 0) It,/ 0 } E e - / _ = N � g � . - _n \ � g 2 0 NNW • Buildings set close to street with door yards and stoops ■ Mostly multi -family, with town houses and live -work • Intensity in 20 to 40 dua range CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD : , .j. . � . . . . . CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD • • ' � • n GWOrro=N¢1 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN 0!SARGENT�.Iil TOww PLANPIIRG 0 0 ry00 rco IVF ED Z w W Z U vat . i u CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD ROWHOUSES + LIVE -WORK GC&=. NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXAT" - .V SARGENT &MI TOWN PLANNING gz U Ul WILSON TOWN CENTER ' Ucwodw NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN ..SARGrENT hC WILSON TOWN CENTER c- r:nmorvw NORTH EASTEPN SPHERE ANNEXA.,ON SPECIFIC PLAN I `{ WILSON TOWN CENTER WILSON TOWN CENTER v 4,. A �4 t 1 N !' 8 4,. WILSON TOWN CENTER MOW WILSON TOWN CENTER .r . WILSON • MALAGA COVE, RANCHO PALOS VERDES Ll jtnr+c�a �ISARGENT �� l'OWN VLANNING WILSON TOWN CENTER WILSON TOWN CENTER Ac 44 -ask. Ift:19, ,Ovkl T I PRELIMINARY MARKET POTENTIAL FOR -SALE POTENTIAL ■ Optimal For -Sale Mix • 14% Condos • 21% Townhouse/Duplex • 24% Low -range Detached • 22% Mid-range Detached • 19% High -range Detached • Market Potential • Housing types to appeal to younger, established, and and compact families • Relatively low current potential from older households households (approx. 15% of total for -sale market, evolving over 5-7 years) years) • Potential For -Sale Household Mix • 56%Traditional and Non -Traditional Families • 29% Young Singles and Couples 15% Empty -Nesters and Retirees IL ..,> a� ,4 �, � PRELIMINARY MARKET POTENTIAL RENTAL POTENTIAL • Rental potential is high • Over 42% of total potential market • Market Potential • Primarily comprised of young singles and couples • Secondary demand from older households (approx. 7% of total rental market) • Rental Development Pattern • 4-6 Unit buildings in General Neighborhood • Courtyard Buildings in Center Neighborhood and along Creek Park • Mixed -Use upper floor condos in Town Center • Potential Rental Household Mix • 60% Young Singles and Couples • 33% Traditional and Non -Traditional Families • 7% Empty -Nesters and Retirees RANCM QL :AMGNGA "SARGF N! PRELIMINARY MARKET POTENTIAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES • Place -Making • SP area lacks adjacency to established retail clusters. • Place -Making strategy to create unique destination will be critically important. • Foot -Traffic • Should establish a high level of foot -traffic to attract retail and restaurant uses. • Proximity of retail uses to medium -density housing achieve higher foot -traffic volume. • Pedestrian -Oriented Design • Locate within comfortable walking distance of significant concentration of housing to offset retailer perspective of additional risk posed by zero -setback, walkable retail. UCAMUI •g.j $ARGENT .0 rwN F_ANPONC PRELIMINARY MARKET POTENTIAL RETAIL USES • Grocery • Estimated SP area population will likely support a fresh format or limited -assortment grocery store. • Fresh Format Examples: Sprouts, Viva La Vegan, Whole Foods, Red Tomatoes Farmers Market. Store sizes vary widely. • Limited Assortment Examples: Trader Joes, Aldi. Store sizes up to 20,000 sq. ft. • Restaurants • Cluster of local or regional "transplants" • Boutique • Little space for independent, small retail operations in existing Rancho Cucamonga retail clusters. • SP may provide an opportunity for boutique retail if it can generate sufficient foot -traffic. 0� cmw . , M. �sciro cARG CNT PRELIMINARY MARKET POTENTIAL OFFICE USES • "Remote" location away from activity centers is a disadvantage • May be appropriate for small business locations (4-5 employees, 1,000 sq. ft. +- footprints) • Location in walkable town center near high-end housing may help offset remote location • School and collage uses in SP vicinity could be an economic generator that would create demand for support businesses that could locate nearby. AL Rj NCI i 1 W, Iril' 4 PRELIMINARY MARKET POTENTIAL OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL USES Outdoor Entertainment • SP Scenic setting an outdoor venue amenity • Relatively convenient freeway access • Santa Barbara Bowl or Libbey Bowl in Ojai, for example • Challenges: Neighborhood traffic, Noise • Opportunity: Intimate Scale • Tie in with trailhead and recreational access to natural open space DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL NESASP Neighborhood Development Area Potential Open Space/Preservation ±400 acres Developable Area ±800 acres Total Site Area ±1,200 acres Total Number of Dwelling Units: Up to 3,900 • All totals subject to approved zoning and regulatory plans NECK^"°"�- p. SARGENT IQSMOVW N_ _ ��',ONN PVA i I', FURTHER ANALYSIS UNDERWA Site Mitigation and Development Strategies • Conservation and Preservation Approach • Site Grading Feasibility • Infrastructure Feasibility (initial water supply positive) • Health & Safety Mitigations (Flood Control, Fire Department, etc.) Circulation and Traffic Patterns • Multi -Modal Transportation Routes/Facilities • Traffic Capacities, Design Speeds, and Streetscape Standards • Subject to approval by City Engineer • Further Financial Analysis • Continued Demographics and Market Research HAS Cost and financing mechanisms for public �'GA\lUV(:A farilitiac �� $A RGCN f NEXT STEPS • Continue to coordinate with County Flood Control fire, utilities, Metropolitan Water District, and othe applicable City and County agencies • Integrate NESASP Process with Healthy RC Steering Committee and process • Continue to speak with interested parties • Determine the appropriate structure and timing fo town hall meetings ® Continue to work with Technical Advisory Committee to define and refine Plan • Fall 2015: Analysis and refinement • Winter 2015: Refined Plan framework and SP outline • Spring 2016: Specific Plan and EIR • Summer 2016: Public Hearings K,. — 2C R -- N, ..', -.,, Ea. ®�SARGENT QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION I. How do you feel about the broad strategy of balancing conservation and development? 2. Are the objectives and principles for this plan appropriate? 3. Do you agree with the general organization of the concept plan diagram? 4. Do you agree with the range and mix of development types? 5. Are we integrating the principles of healthy neighborhood development appropriately? 6. Are the views of the mountains and valley being appropriately emphasized? 7. Do the transitions and connections to surrounding neighborhoods look generally right to you? 8. What else we should consider? What should be emphasized more or less? Alft W"Cl MollSARGENT (.Ucworvcn NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION SPECIFIC PLAN ,,, I , The Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail 7z(tPaf'k. cora The Vision ....... The Pacific Electric Trail corridor is an opportunity that comes rarely to a region or city. Imagine being able to walk, jog or ride a bicyde or a horse from the Los Angeles County Line at Claremont to Rialto along a 21 mile path, Over the past few years, this dream has become a reality. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has joined together with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) and surrounding cites to develop a multi-purpose hail that [mks the cities of Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and Rialto. The purpose of the trail is muttrfold. The Paas: Electric Trail provides recreational opportunnhas for cyclists, pedestrians, runners and equestrians In support of Rancho Cucamorga's Healthy RC commitment, trail users enjoy exercise, convenient access to jobs, public facilites and shopping, while traveling through eucalyptus windrows with scenic views of the valley. The San Bernardino Associated Governments, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the participating cines have exercised great vision to designate this corridor for trail use. This vision has allowed the cines to create a beautiful common area that can be shared by commuters, pedestrians, cyclistsI equestrians, and other non -motorized transportation. History The Pacific Electric Trail follows the route of the legendary Pacific Electric Ralhvay, on electrified railway system famous for their "Red Cars" that spanned from the Pacific mast through Los Angeles, and traveled as far east as San Bernardino. The building of the allay through the Inland Empire was crucial to the development of the area, particularly to support the agricultural industry that fueled the local economy. The San eemardino portion of the railway was used extensively in transporting products from the citrus and wine making areas of Cucamonga and Redlands to Los Angeles and the rest of the United States. In later years, the railway was used for moving war time materials and troops to the ports of Ins Angeles, Once the world's largest interurban and street railway system, the Pacific Electric Railway ended operation during the 1950's with the expansion of the Southern California freeway system. One of the last remaining railway depots of the San Bernardino line can be found in Rancho Cucamonga at the intersection of Etiwanda Ave. and the Pacific Electric trail. WINTO .WN ggp i The Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail P rWM ` The Vision The Pacific Electric Trail corridor is an opportunity that comes rarely to a region or city. Imagine being able to walk, jog or ride a bicycle or a horse From the Los Angeles County Line at Claremont to Rialto along a 21 mile path. Over the past few years, this dream has become a reality. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has joined together with the San Bernardino Associated Govemments (SANBAG) and surrounding cities to develop a muftrpurpo: trail that links the cities of Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana and Rialto. The purpose of the trail is multifold. The Pacific Electric Trail provides recreational opportunities for cyclists, pedestrians, runners and equestrians. In support of Rancho Cucamonga's Healthy RC commitment, trail users enjoy exercise, convenient access to jobs, public facilities and shopping, while traveling through eucalyptus windrows with scenic views of the valley. The San Bernardino Associated Governments, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the participating cities have exercised great vision to designate this corridor for hail use. This vision has allowed the cities to create a beautiful common area that can be shared by commuters, pedestrians, cyclists, equestrians, and other iron -motorized transportation. History The Pacific Electric Trail follows the route of the legendary Pacific Electric Railway, an electrified railway system famous for their "Red Cars" that spanned from the Pacific coast through Los Angeles, and traveled as far east os San Bernardino. The building of the railway through the Inland Empire was crucial to the development of the area, particularly to support the agricultural industry that fueled the local economy. The San Bernardino portion of the railway was used extensively in transporting products from the citrus and wine malting areas of Cucamonga and Redlands to Los Angeles and the rest of the United States. N later years, the railway was used for moving war time materials and troops to the ports of Los Angeles. Once the world's largest Interurban and street railway system, the Pacific Electric Railway ended operation during the 1950's with the expansion of the Southern California freeway system. One of the last remaining railway depots of the San Bernardino line can be found in Rancho Cucamonga at the intersection of Etiwanda Ave. and the Pacific Electric trail.