Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-26 - Agenda Packet - HPC / PC • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2013 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER • Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Howdyshell _ Vice Chairman Fletcher_ Munoz _ Wimberly_ Oaxaca II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission orthe 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 JUNE 26, 2013 CUC"ONGn Page 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. 1. Approval of regular meeting minutes dated June 12, 2013 2. Approval of workshop minutes dated June 12, 2013 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/orposted 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. B. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00328 - CREATION INVESTMENT GROUP -A request to extend the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two (2) years for DRC2005-00490, a proposal to develop 9 single-family homes on 2.39 acres in the Low • Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 9814 Church Street, which is on the north side of Church Street, 140 feet west of Pasito Avenue-APN: 1077-311-74. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. C. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00326-PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY-Arequestto extend the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two (2)years for an industrial warehouse/office project comprised of two(2)buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet on a parcel of about 212,000 square feet (4.87 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue; APN: 0209-211-41. Related files: Development Review DRC2007-00696 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. D. FOURTH TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2-BCA DEVELOPMENT-A fourth request to extend the duration of an existing entitlement approval by one year for a request to subdivide 37.43 acres into 95 lots for single-family home construction in the Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda • Avenue - APN: 1087-071-15. The tract is part of a larger previously approved project involving the • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO JUNE 26, 2013 CUCAMONGA Page 3 subdivision of 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction. Related Files:Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15699 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227.Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915)certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse No.98121091)certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in July 2001, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. V. COMMISSION CONCERWHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION • VI. ADJOURNMENT I, 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 June 20, 2013, 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 speakers podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO JUNE 26, 2013 CUCAMONGA Page 4 generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's • decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,486.06 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 • Vicinity Map Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting June 26, 2013 - M— t o ' L U 4 2 S a AD: � � I i A \ o falls 19th St r Base LIne /Base : J 1 Church : Church ti FoothillFoothill N C I Arrow � E Arrow if rsey t 9th 0 U� /4th a e 6th w L o A a = � 4th * Meeting Location: B City Hall/Council Chamber. C D 10600 Civic Center Drive A: 1. Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes dated June 12, 2013 2. Approval of Workshop Minutes dated June 12, 2013 Item B: Time Extension DRC2013-00328 Item C: Time Extension DRC2013-00326 Item D: Time Extension SUBTT16226-2 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP OF P,ANCHO OW"MONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 12, 2013 - 7:00 PM* Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center RAINS ROOM 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California • I. CALL TO ORDER 9:00 PM Roll Call Chairman Howdyshell X Vice Chairman Fletcher X Munoz X Wimberly X Oaxaca X H. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS None III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PLANNING COMMISSION RESIDENTIAL DESIGN WORKSHOP DRC2013-00124 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A continuation of the presentation by the Planning Department staff and workshop to discuss the City's residential design standards and guidelines; review and evaluate examples of how the standards/guidelines have been implemented to date; and discuss issues of concern and opportunities for improvement to ensure that residential development is consistent with the City's standards and guidelines. This action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the report • is for informational purposes and will not have a significant effect on the environment. Item A2-1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION ;RncHo WORKSHOP - MINUTES CLr"ONGA JUNE 12, 2013 Page 2 Mike Smith, Associate Planner and Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner led the discussion Mr Smith summarized the prior workshop and PowerPoint presentation. He noted that since the last workshop a major project was brought forward to the DRC for review. The comments to the DRC employed the direction of the prior workshop and a productive meeting was the end result Staff felt more empowered and the DRC was assisted with a more comprehensive report that helped them give direction and to come to a better decision. Mr. Smith confirmed that the Commission prefers staff give very specific direction and comments to the DRC. All the Commissioners agreed. Mr van derZwaag noted that since their last workshop, his applicants were verysurprised with the extensive comments and they stepped up their game. Following their first submittal and then to their updated submittal, the developer made significant changes to their designs(copies supplied to the Commission). The Commissioners agreed that they look much better and affirmed what a difference could be made with the additional effort/push The Commission also said they would support staff if staff indicates their belief that a project is not ready to move forward. • The Commission asked for a handout for the DRC that identifies the major design elements of each typical style such as "Craftsman "Ranch". "Santa Barbara" etc so that they are more confident when looking at the plans. It was noted that rooflines,pitch,patios and materials should be included. They agreed that the theme should be representative of the style The Commission discussed side elevation design and generally agreed that with smaller/minimal side yards, we can be more flexible with embellishments as opposed to rear yards that are more likely to be outdoor living spaces for the homeowner for entertaining, etc. It was noted that we should be judicious about blank side yards and be aware of sight lines particularly with two-story elevations. It was agreed larger/deeper side yards such as in estate areas, the developers should be required to fully design side elevations as required. It was also noted that there should not be a "downplay" towards design just because a development is in a presumed less-desirable area or part of town, it should all reflect quality and that bringing up lesser areas Is important and quality design is one way to do that. It was noted that surrounding property owners look to us to help support the property values of their existing development. The Commission and staff concurred that the workshop was very helpful towards better design review. IV. ADJOURNMENT 9.45 PM • Item A2-2 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF AAMCHOR CMAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 2013 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER • Pledge of Allegiance TOOPM Roll Call Chairman Howdyshell X Vice Chairman Fletcher X Munoz X Wimberly X Oaxaca X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager, Jeff Bloom, Deputy City ManageNEconomic and Community Development; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney,- Donald Granger, Senior Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Mayuko Nakajima,Assistant Planner, Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary Mike Smith, Associate Planner, Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner, Daniel Correa, Assistant Planner H. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain • from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting Item Al-1 �T HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C� JUNE 12, 2013 CUCANPage 2 Luana Hernandez, President of HPARC said she is pleased to see the Mills Act application for the gas station. She said they are still working on the Chinatown house She thanked the Commission and staff for their help. III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Approval of minutes dated May 22, 2013 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly- Adopted 4-0-1 (Howdyshell abstain) IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings 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. • B. MILLS ACT APPLICATION DRC2013-00384 - ROUTE 66 IECA -A request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax for the Cucamonga Service Station, a designated Historic Landmark, in the Specialty Commercial District within the Foothill Boulevard Overlay Zoning District located at 9670 Foothill Boulevard-APN: 0208-153-05. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Daniel Correa, Assistant Planner gave the staff report. In response to Commissioner Wimberly, Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager noted that usually given dates and times of proposed improvements are listed as part of the agreement, however, because the owners are waiting for other sources of funding, those dates are not yet available. They will work with staff on the timeline and staff will also make sure they make scheduled improvements She said as they receive funding. staff can bring back an update report(s), to note progress as it is made. Vice Chairman Fletcher noted that this project is exactly what the Mills Act is designed for He said this is a situation where the group truly wants to restore the property and it is a good application. Commissioner Munoz said he rs happy that this has come full circle and he is happy it Is where we are now He thanked Ms Hernandez for her kind words. Chairman Howdyshell noted we have several structures using the Mills Act and it is very beneficial. Moved by Wimberly seconded by Oaxaca Adopted 5-0 to forward the Mills Act Contract to the City Council for final action • Item Al-2 • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C °aHOa� JUNE 12, 2013 Page 3 V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS/PLANNING COMMISSION71 C. DEVELOPMENT CODEIISPECIFIC CHANGE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BUS RAPID TRANSIT STUDY DRC2012-00610 — COMPASS BLUEPRINT PROJECT. Mayuko Nakapma, Assistant Planner, gave the report and Introduced the PowerPoint presentation. Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager gave some background regarding the original study that was done in cooperation with SANBAG and SCAG using a grant to include Rancho Cucamonga along with several other cities to look at rapid transit which then opened an opportunity to apply for a second grant which allowed us to hire Terra Nova and to evaluate ourplans and to develop a comprehensive report with respect to the SRT. The John Crnste of Terra Nova, presented the section of the PowerPoint presentation followed by Mr. Young to address design issues associated with the project • Commissioner Munoz said as a City we need to think out of the box and move in this direction as it maybe only 5-10 years out. He said we will tweak this plan as there are valuable ideas He said we can be visionary and have a plan available when the crunch comes. Commissioner Wimberly concurred and noted we have been looking at livehvork units for example in anticipation of this type of plan He said what was presented is viable and as a city will have to do this He said we will review what we have in place as far as structure and revise it He said he believes It may bring future citizens to our city Commissioner Oaxaca said it was an interesting report and noted the section about the City's regulatory documents that are in place that already reveal that some of the recommendations get to the core of where we would like to be in the future It leads us to think about how we can tailor and create those places that work for pedestrians, cyclists and develop mixed uses and TOD's that work for this corridor and all must fall in line for it to work. He said he recommends that we think about how we can create those changes and change people's behavior-a difficult thing to do, but we have to start somewhere, he said he believes this is a good time to start. Vice Chairman Fletcher said he disagreed with much of what he heard and read He said he is concerned we are going in a backwards direction in that the report is designed with the sole purpose to promote development to support public transit rather than to design public transit around our different lifestyles. He said this whole report is based upon creating dense communities to support transportation, which makes sense in LA or San Francisco but not here-he felt it was backward thinking. We built what the community wanted, the City has received national and local awards for that development, and this is not an ill-conceived community-people come here because they like it. He felt insulted by some sections of the report and felt the consultant missed the mark. He said he did not think this is what Rancho needs. He said he believed the comments in the report about the Visual • Improvement Plan (VIP) were condescending and insulting: the consultants missed what "urban center" referenced. He said we used to be a rural agrarian community and that 'urban' meant residential, not dense development He said they totally ignored what the design of the VIP was Item Al-3 t HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C c o JUNE 129 2013 Page 4 7took nd they made light of our nostalgia, the themes of Route 66 were put down. He said the re arrogant. condescending and seemed insulting and failed to recognize the design, style'that Rancho residents desire. He specifically referred to pages 40-43 of the report. rHeption with remarks m the report made by the consultant such as, the VIP 'promotes tional 'design concepts' that have been done and over done throughout Southern California. More sliced white bread is not what is needed ..." And that the design elements of the VIP are too wimpy to achieve the sense of identity sought by the General Plan and VIP...that do not have an impact on the economic success of the Foothill Boulevard " He said a single family home is the American dream and his kids want a house to raise their kids in, not a high rise apartment. He did not agree with the comments about the western gateway. He said he thinks our residents would be up in arms about high density development He said he does not support the report and suggested the City Council not do anything with it. Chairman Howdyshell said many of her comments are included with what her fellow commissioners already expressed. She said with respect to the City gateways, she served on the Trails Advisory Committee (TAC) and they worked hard on the west side of the City. She said she does not want to change that She said she does not want to see a lot of modification to the City. She commented that partnership is important: builders come here because they understand our philosophy and our lifestyle. She said she agrees with Vice Chairman Fletcher with respect to density and she is opposed • to high density She said we do need connectivity and transit and away to get from point A to B but she rs concerned about a lack of parking and we need to think about how we do it. She said we do need BRT but we have to be mindful of who is going to be the end user. She said this plan would be a major paradigm shift and will take a long time. She said this community was not designed with this mindset Ms. Burnett. noted that the report is already scheduled for the City Council The Secretary received and filed the report. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS/PLANNING COMMISSION D. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR) DRC2012- 00049 FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2012-00443, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2012-00444, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2012-00445, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2013-00305 and TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19454 - WALMART STORES, INC -An opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive public comment pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in an EIR for a proposed 189,411 square foot Walmart Super Store on 20.2 acres of land along with a master plan for a freestanding retail pad of 4,000 square feet on .56 acres of land (Outparcel 1) and additional 58,120 square feet of commercial/office lease space on a 7.83 acre parcel (Outparcel 2), located at the northeast corner Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue in the Community Commercial Development District of the Terra Vista Community Plan—APNs: 0227-151-42, 43 and 45-48. • Donald Granger, Senior Planner. gave the staff report. He offered the groundwork for what a Scoping Item Al-4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION - AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C c O JUNE 12, 2013 Page 5 meeting is for, to identify the range of environmental items to be addressed in the EIR document He said Ross Geller of Applied Planning is present and Walmart is represented by Donovan Collier and Sarah Compton. Donovan Collier of Walmart Stores said they are working with staff and are here to answer questions Chairman Howdyshell invited the public to comment Loretta Arenas said she is opposed because of detrimental effects on the surrounding community and local businesses Jacob Ervin said he lives in Terra Vista. He said he is concerned because of air quality due to more truck traffic. He said the air is already polluted. Eric Jirmenez had a concern about small businesses competing with large businesses. Sherry Stuart said she is opposed and questioned having a supercenter between two other nearby Walmarts. She said she Is concerned about "Mom and Pop"businesses trying to compete. • Liliana Ray said she is a resident of the Homecoming development She said she has a concern about trucks and customers impacting her immediate neighborhood. She said the store is too large and they will have 24-hour-traffic. She said other stores are struggling and will close leaving empty retail areas. Michael Stewart said it will make traffic difficult and increase emissions. He noted the birds of prey can be found on the light standards in the area. Paul Melowtan questioned if the proposal is consistent with current land use policy. He said the site is adjacent to medium/low residential and he is opposed. Luana Hernandez said she is concerned about such a huge building She asked why they are not expanding the existing Walmart store. Commissioner Munoz asked for clarification regarding what will happen to the existing store and asked if staff could address the land use question. He said there is some confusion and asked if there will be 3 stores(meaning the existing site would remain a Walmart in addition to the new store and the one located near Grove Avenue.) Mr. Granger said the project will require 5 entitlements. a General Plan Amendment, A Development Code Amendment for housekeeping, a Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit and a Tentative Parcel Map Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney said the issue of land use is already identified in the Initial study and will be addressed in the EIR He also noted that the possible expansion of the existing Walmart Store will be explored as an alternative What would happen to the existing site will also be • evaluated in the EIR Item At-5 ; HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION • AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO JUNE 12, 2013 ODWA Page 6 Mr. Donovan said the existing store will be vacated He said it will be surplus property and they are Fourrently looking for developers fora re-use. He said the ex st ng Walmart has parking and circulation issues and so they are trying to move to a more shopper friendly area in town. Vice Chairman Fletcher said his Items include the builidng design, lot, landscape, and aesthetic visuals should be up to our standards as well as ongoing maintenance upkeep, and cleanliness. He said he would like them to sweep daily. He said the EIR should cover the cumulative effects and impacts on nearby residents. Chairman Howdyshell noted the proximity to the residential neighborhood;the 24-hour operation, the concern about traffic and noise, and sensitivity to the surrounding community. Mr Flower said all the items of concern have been noted and that the public can stay informed as the review process progresses. VII. COMMISSION CONCERNS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION None • VIII. ADJOURNMENT 771 The Planning Commission adjourned their regular meeting at 8 50PM The Planning Commission adjourned to a workshop to continue their discussion of DRC2013-00124, an informational presentation and workshop regarding the design of residential development The workshop was held in the Rains Room and those minutes will be prepared separately. • Item Al-6 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Date: June 26, 2013 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C;UCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner Subject: TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00328 - CREATION INVESTMENT GROUP - A request to extend the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two (2) years for DRC2005-00490, a proposal to develop nine single-family homes on 2.39 acres within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9814 Church Street, which is on the north side of Church Street, 140 feet west of Pasito Avenue - APN: 1077-311-74. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Time Extension DRC2013-00328 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. ANALYSIS: A. General: On April 22, 2013, the applicant, Creation Investment Group, submitted a request to extend the duration of the entitlement approval (hereafter referred to as a "time extension") for Development Review DRC2005-00490. The applicant does not propose any changes to the project (Exhibit A). The project was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2008 (Exhibits B and C). Per Resolution of Approval No. 08-28, Standard Condition B.2, the approval of the project was set to expire "if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within five (5) years from the date of approval." With the exception of tentative tract/Tract maps, a time extension for any development review entitlement was not allowed. Thus, the approval of this project was set to expire on May 28, 2013. In September 2012 the City officially adopted an updated Development Code. Included in the update was a new Code section that allows for applicants to request time extensions for all entitlements. Per Section 17.14.090(C), an initial time extension request may be granted that extends the expiration date for two (2) years from the original expiration date. Near the end of that two-year period, a second, and final, time extension request may be granted that extends the expiration date for one (1) additional year beyond the expiration date granted by the first time extension. Both time extension requests are subject to the review and approval by the same authority that approved the original project. If the applicant's request is granted, the approval of the project will expire on May 28, 2015. B. Grading, Technical. and Design Review Committees: On March 18, 2008 all of the review Committees analyzed the original project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. • Their conditions were subsequently incorporated into the Resolution of Approval (Resolution No. 08-28) for the project. As the applicant does not propose any changes to the project in conjunction with this time extension request, no further action by any of the Committees Item B-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00328— CREATION INVESTMENT GROUP June 26, 2013 • Page 2 is necessary. The Committees' original conditions of approval continue to apply and this is noted in the attached Resolution of Approval. C. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433: The associated tentative tract map is not included in this time extension request. Although the approval of the tentative tract map was set to expire on May 28, 2011, three (3) years after the date of the original approval, a time extension for the tentative tract map is not necessary at this time. The State legislature passed two bills, AB333 and AB208, in July 2009 and July 2011, respectively. These bills automatically extended the duration of the approval period for all tentative maps that were set to expire on or before January 1, 2012, (AB333) and on or before January 1, 2014, (AB208). The duration of the combined time extensions granted by both bills is four (4) years. Therefore, the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 is now set to expire on May 28, 2015. D. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission determined that the original project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2005-00490 in May 2008. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No changes are proposed to the project; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. There are no changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated when concluding the project was categorically exempt. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not analyzed in the previous environmental review, and will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received. RespectfA submitted, Candyce rnett Planning Manager CB:MN/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Time Extension Request Letters (prepared by the Applicant) Exhibit B - Staff Report for Development Review DRC2005-00490 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 Exhibit C - Resolution of Approval No. 08-28 for Development Review • DRC2005-00490 Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension DRC2013-00328 Item B-2 Creations Investment Group, LP • 2855 Parkway Drive EI Monte, CA. 91730 April 12,2013 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 91730 SUBJECT: Letter of Request for DRC Time Extension. In recent past years, the U.S. economy was at a slump and/or economic recession. Families lost jobs and millions lost their homes. Due to this and hundreds of other reasons, housing supplies far exceeded demands. All housing developments came to a completed halted. • In recent months, the U.S.economy has taking a new direction,an upward trend. Housing is in demand once again. Many economists predicted that the strong housing demand is only temporarily and that it may take a downward trend very quickly. However, Creations Investment Group has place a lot of time, effort, resources, and capital into this project and has a strongly desire to continue with the development of the 9 single detached family homes. Creations believes in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and sees it as a prestige candidate to accommodate proposed large elegant homes. In summary, Creations is sincerely requesting for time extension for the DRC2005-00490. Creations wish to complete and reinvest into the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Creations need some time to gather information, resources and capital for bonds and pulling permits. Creations successfully received approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 and DRC2005-00490, which was approved by Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-28. TTM SUBTT17433 was recently extended to May 28, 2015,due to Assembly Bill(AB208). Creations is requesting for time extension so that DRC2005-00490 will remain active and ready for pulling permits for development. In addition, keeping the DRC active will ultimately create jobs and employments within and/or surrounding communities. S t • Dat Ta EXHIBIT A Manager Item B-3 T H E C I T Y O F Q A N C U O C U C A M O N G A Staff Report DATE: May 28, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, Planning Director BY: Corkran W. Nicholson, Assistant Planning Director SUBJECTS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT17433 — DAT TA - A request to subdivide 2.39 gross acres of land into 9 lots in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 9814 Church Street, which is on the north side of Church Street, 140 feet west of Pasito Avenue - APN: 1077-311-74. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill development within certain criteria. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Related files: Development/Design Review • DRC2005-00490 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00491. DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW - DRC2005-00490 - DAT TA - A proposal to develop nine single-family homes on 2.39 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) located at 9814 Church Street, which is on the north side of Church Street, 140 feet west of Pasito Avenue - APN: 1077-311-74. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill development within certain criteria. Staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00491. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 3.76 dwelling units per acre B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-family tract/Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Single-family residence and multiple-family units/Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Single-family tract/Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Three single-family residences and vacant land/Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) • North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) EXHIBIT B Item B-4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT17433 AND DRC2005-00490 - DAT TA May 28, 2008 • Page 2 D. Site Characteristics: The subject site is located on the north side of Church Street and approximately 140 feet west of Pasito Avenue. The 103,930 square foot rectangular shaped vacant lot drains from northwest to southeast with an approximate grade change of 20 feet from the northwest to the southeast property lines. The site is surrounded by residential dwelling units with abutting tracts of single-story residences to the immediate north and east of the site. The three neighboring residences to the west are in a more rural setting with lot areas of approximately an acre or more. Across the street to the south are two-story multiple-family units and a one-story, single-family residence. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed development consists of a 9-lot infill subdivision, with a house product for each lot. Lot sizes for the proposed subdivision range from approximately 7,300 square feet to 14,000 square feet, which exceeds the current minimum net area requirement of 7,200 square feet. The house product consists of four floor plans: Model 1, a two-story floor plan at 3,336 square feet (excluding the garage area at 759 square feet); Model 2, a two-story floor plan at 3,263 square feet (excluding the garage area at 574 square feet); Model 3, a single-story floor plan at 2,649 square feet (excluding the garage area at 468 square feet); and Model 4, a two-story floor plan at 3,094 square feet (excluding the garage area at 708 square feet). All of the plans convey a contemporary Craftsman style and have substantial variations in the roof designs by combining gable, hip, and shed roof elements to further enhance the elevations. Also, the finished exteriors • will provide color variations of stucco, vertical wood siding, ledge stone veneer, and decorative garage doors, as shown on the submitted Streetscape View plan sheet. This project, as submitted, meets the applicable height limits, setbacks, lot coverage and area requirements, as set forth in the Development Code. A single-sided stub street that terminates into a partial knuckle is proposed to service the 9-lot subdivision. The Engineering Department has reviewed this proposal and is requesting, as a condition of approval, that the developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire additional right-of-way area from the adjacent property owners to the west of the site for the purpose of providing a standard knuckle and street width. However, if the developer is unsuccessful in acquiring the additional right-of-way area, the proposed 48-foot dedication, as shown on the submitted Site Plan, is acceptable. As part of the application submittal, the applicant is required to provide a conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit D) to illustrate how the proposed development could accommodate potential development of the more rural properties to the immediate west of the site. In staff's opinion, the plan provides for acceptable lot configurations, street widths, and access. B. Neighborhood Meetings: The applicant invited surrounding residents to neighborhood meetings on October 26, 2005, and March 20, 2006. A total of 17 individuals attended the two meetings; and while no specific objections to the project were noted, specific concerns were discussed as noted in the attached Neighborhood Meeting Summary Reports (Exhibit 1). C. Design Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Munoz, and Diaz) reviewed the proposed • project on March 18, 2008, and approved the proposal as presented by the applicant, which incorporated staff's request to cover each chimney with compatible ledge stone veneer as a further exterior enhancement. Item B-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT17433 AND DRC2005-00490 - DAT TA • May 28, 2008 Page 3 D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on March 18, 2008. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached draft Resolutions of Approval. E. Grading Review Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on March 18, 2008. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to the project complying with all applicable grading and drainage requirements as set forth by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. F. Tree Removal Permit: The applicant is proposing to clear the site of vegetation to accommodate the new development, which includes removing the majority of the on-site trees (i.e., approximately 23 trees would be removed under the requested permit, excluding the removal of approximately 20 citrus trees that are exempt from the preservation ordinance). A Consulting Arborist's Report (Exhibit J) has been provided by the applicant that describes such trees as having many problems because of the site not being properly maintained. However, approximately 11 of the healthier trees will be retained along the northerly and easterly property lines of the site. Also, if this project is approved, it will provide approximately 60 new 24-inch box trees of various specimen types throughout the proposed development, as shown on the submitted Conceptual Landscape Plan. G. Landscaping: The applicant's proposal does not provide for any ground cover within the rear yard areas. Therefore, staff is recommending that the tree removal permit be conditionally approved by • the Planning Commission with the provision that all of the rear yard areas are planted with sod, as a minimum ground cover material for dust control purposes because of the high wind area, and that the additional landscaping requirement be incorporated into the final Landscape Plan. H. Geotechnical Evaluation: Because the site is near the southern margin of a City Adopted Special Studies Zone associates with the Red Hill Fault, a geotechnical evaluation of the site was done by RSG Engineering Geology in 2006. In summary, the study determined that the southwestern portion of the zone near the site is not considered active, and no restrictive use zones or fault setback requirements are considered necessary for the proposed development. I. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments which meet the following criteria: 1) the project is consistent with the General Plan as well as with applicable zoning regulations; 2) the subject site is no more than 5 acres; 3) the project has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; 4) approval of the project would not result in any significant effect on the environment (traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality); and 5) the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Having determined that the project meets all of the above criteria, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 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. Item B-6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT17433 AND DRC2005-00490 - DAT TA May 28, 2008 • Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 and Development/Design Review DRC2005-00490 through the adoption of the attached draft Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Respectfully submitted, r �. C' Jam.'-d�es R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT:CNUna Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Plan Exhibit B - Conceptual Grading Plan & Drainage Plan Exhibit C - Arial Photo Exhibit D - Master Plan Concept Exhibit E - Neighborhood Building Study Exhibit F - Floor Plans, Elevations, and Roof Plans Exhibit G - Conceptual Landscape Plan • Exhibit H - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated March 18, 2008 Exhibit I - Neighborhood Meeting Summary Reports of October 26, 2005, and March 20, 2006 Exhibit J - Arborist Consultation Report dated March 16, 2005 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16262 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review ORC2001-00584 • Item B-7 avauae nu !(li Aesoo-mE¢ Ila �yl° ou...�v«w.:na wcna iy[[ �BOB�A'Nr• 3w8 ' I I I I I I ---- �� JIM [[e:lt � eF. E.E•i i I I iI� II � !I; �C - y • � �~ :�� IIS � c -k _ � 2 I to ilr: � ,• EI :4 -.< _- 3-1 i I rlk0l .= m m m � B iC y.9y., j I uQ it I I x • •� 8P i i i ilekkf •� — ytE� � �_ i1 __ De — i 8x ui � 4 . 6l6l � ! oi ow b y -'S6.9i tnKey. ' L � . ! I a mm mm m m ka.en zzp a .zz ... � �� a=S d�� � � ea dE Y � � �I��J q� ;p. � •s ! A . A A tl tl s : A EXHIBIT A3 , Item B-8 6-8 wall i # �� I ." er rj } If 1 J4 }}� 8 JL191HX3 t., R5 #}r � !# }}}lift[ #iii I- 13 - • rp' #ft!r•rt, F ##1• xe r !t; .1 }1`f I1 :iiOR I If�F � �}f€ f : c_ !!a § jZ p6 m'r #{ ; 1#d ,4rt. dt, t tIL � t ciIL f rt 1 y ................ tf r 11 f o t �{ 1� 'IF �} 95 O � I OF s � 6 z I c� sig g • if }p_ m e 3ry � � i I lull.- HE., � £> � ��, 93 n CC q t g 93 ^r �J S S A e 1 I�Ili .t �€��g VI t. i 1 Frio Z`i 92 b VI SIR. A C yV > 1 2 g i t}. >� D � Q�V � 11 E tt: l�,� o IiFLT IN 615! GwO�61tF1t IN 7 1 rrli i ! • g TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT 17433, EGL ASSOCIATESINC. , $ s - 5 DRC 2005-00490 619 GO DRING ROAD, UNIT I y s 9814 CHURCH STREET, ARCADIA, CA 91006 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Tel NMI 263-3586 Per (626) 263-3599 0 Ol-8 wail C.ME.Z ST • ��fti a phi a iii .� - - ED - - - - - - - i t JJ atol I .4 z —IF — JI I % ,."r T b cf .i„ I II n II n ii - z go n 1• Z N:" I wuRa s2— — L — J e!��(6r�[fu i � � RIXIN • — — ; — la�O�� II i9 ��� ��III� i a® i d TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT 17433, e p DRC 2005 00490 EGL ASSOCIATES INC. a CCOLORING 00AU,UNIT A „ b � 9814 CHURCH STREET, ARCA AOCAgA G 91006 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 5) 263-3566 Fac (626) 263-3599 It 2_2 LA IF q1.I A" ;' It lit I. AIJ. N 747 7-- -' �7rLS 7b 4 Q �1 - ,`-'i. = t!'I . , it CV. 37- r2r� -Al vr U6 — ik it irtQ G"I w Pmlied sit IF R, 5; IN li ". 4"t - 1 �"' ! , OUR i l,x .j2 T RIF, + -R . ...... . �Z i W ima 1,,;s uxl,,, W II v gjl� i -�-_- I \ EX STGI -1)RE SIDEN MI II s LL Ip j �- I I IIT #I tt. GO UuS ]uS I DRAWING LEDGEND: r--Y---I. QI a PROPOSED I o f -—— DEVELOPMENT TM L I I FUTURE SUBDIVISION -rT CHURCH ST.—•—_ _�_ _ .—_�_�_ _—_—___�__ I I L__J I j ' I rx.wx I TOWNHOUSE I FUTURE STREET CURB RESIDENCE RESIDENCE j EH j h a ' / m I � I \ a.] JL \x J M-1 w � s O� g rt fT � ton ! , . 't'LOTa - i',�, usetat'<j.- toTSt:` .. ,.torzl j pit �/--7{-�-� w r�icHeor+nuc euxmno sruor ..v.an ono... •o.r �7 •�I•i�..ni+ip�Y �—moi/mow E - EX 2 •mn iF Ir ■II I �,� 11 �;.s� W�W n un o2k �� : n alnIl :l 9 L © O h^ Iln nn pfl f Il r[ Ilp O IID OR ['*316, � � � WA 0 1 i 11,/1��� II ■ off. 1 Ila i 1 I - imiiit� i umu1� hl � i L J �R'iSila' JtD 'ham L J nl• ur vim 41 rm r. n nn c v. rm :?iii::{ ^ :ii:i}�s;;: - _� ii%r'; '^❖u�tii::.. � .. ... .. _ lC r1[! on nn n r n nn o F':iasti.:•... I ...... a ,� e ... ......I I I I I I I I i p I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 175 0 � Ll I - �� � !�� • I 1 n I ii Fr x6 ilL irl Irl an Ilu N: uU 1. Ja Ni rl rl 6 _ - _ - -_ _ 1O U F U pJ X1.1 L U •1 L • L-•SIU a , O4 2!ELIFRONTELEVATION 'F �lU ❑U fl 110 f. :U LF I T IA fl ... _ e riff: �� Ad������� _•`_ — ii3{• 11 t1 \`_, ,i .1y Q •• . ] • O •• • , i ' 1 Pi LE: 13 u jr 01 !IA X4'7/TIM � l i u _. il . ���■©III. .1 , r Q © o 0 n qn r c an nn i.w LEGEND 4ml ca .... OdD chLL J L L L LI tl rin © •• �• • O2• L4FROMTELEVAMN Il f11n O Iln r n nFl nn n n C Fln n • I 1 - ni n iw ! I III III 1� ; -- - JL 0 0 , . • m\/ xPLANTING LEGEND PLANTING NOTES K,v..e ev...•n.vn.lor✓u 2 TREE SNRUS/ACLEM PY•••PV•MMM b•rGmro lVl UIY Y•Np YVAL NOfWKirob•blp Yq Npb •la cellar Ym rr � LAAApR W,1 IWI/,M�COII OAl tOA fNll•A•MR4Lb•Ml6 i1W4 WLpnI Nw1 �Y w• ANIaTLYanlOwbed•�•an•iii•rY••m Lll•YDlmli• i, WwY�� •IMYLTIN9Y•fMdNE•OI ML•Ofl1.YV,Yl1•fY •ML d �••V' Y YYI••Itl1Lf MiNHibl Y'OMOV M Y YS\wYYR• •• N4LMpd iA•LI•!•m�•••dlp•,V••Imp M11LOf Ir•VY1•••• •n ACI•Mn1YMl,•,Lp)mwLF.IW1•L,RNrt Lm. � O n Yi•wnw•.,rl it pt..+ • ••u ovr w.+r rLLmw msiep.>aomi,ve.ammrLnL r�i•w i,ei�er�mr[i.epw oirmeope'0'e pace✓u rr mwm ra•A•Y rM.rL ir� •bwn•Kro•rowwrla•ILvnlva•rAlao wT•w ila anr•.Ir..m• y�,•LY,r wa.rs..vnvrL �,m�w•n sn .•/`rw.mvLwwr[cm'"iwnr�r+rw�x� Sri• y� r• it HVALYL ira•navprea•u rwn aLVMorAN� romu/ws•R rsaL•o�aaAae • 1•rM•Y rb AY• YLYY•>1l4 ••SA miwram IMvww�rowsi•m�1°0O Amm rrw,mwllY muo m,anw.emmisxm •v r7•L a yIL� AneaaYairmuLs ei»,/a•iw nT.lw Iv F•w bL rir Y p•Y•pY wWK.NnnfClR lilt MMn.•AV/np Ml••. r•RL .err 1d •w•w.M•almwnV.A�6ia wti• mwn•KrtnwVRWL'A/VOn. w•rK„/,nllyiwnA�M•v w rvrvY•vv=•m Lr p�r,lwt�� vm•uLsmo•ov rwiwum�aev ow rwamp/ia w e v m Ayi�•�+w'•1w1 ivas+a nn M•evr•Kecn maw wo QjnYm•alL�O wemO e/r Lw 1,L�Y�• �•vnw uLsbae enwa•m•mss um mmiYm r•rl•r1�,/un •/y �n 1111'K S9[M`dl•11•R O[CII aR Ywr•mmTriOT. MI[MMCILLL•OOt IYR mLI•MII. 1LA'N 1QAtlm'm •u nwn tm w••rrc•m ®(1'�wM'w•r TIAL c•I•aII sable TI•JL rQ A m Iio1L•o I wTMTrx ao•Trx moL nTx mo•c mA�T. J TTY AWII TAi N11R 1p 0•Q N 'J7W 6 07' Air rap nm am o d •'cent Q YRMRM • • • • Q!'• • ' yV p •_ N �� - L • c c mr 3ED " W 00 nnn / V r •r • r e r • r r STREET -A;nlr n •� / N 0' 816.04 TTx r>t cru•6a roc•rL•/ut[ �y ^• L,� CONCEPTUAL p rENrnnvE TRACT suerr 17433, JK DESIGN &ASSOCIATE S INC ll►�I�/�I127-IM LANDSCAPE PLAN DRC 2005.00490 LANDSCAPE DESIGN &PLANNING .4•,IL Q. 20274 CARREY ROAD WALNUT, CA 91789 9814 CHURCH STREET, TEL 909-598-8280 FAX: 909-598-8290 VICINIT'MAP RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CA 91730 EMAIL: J OA20024111CMAIL.COM • DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:40 p.m. Corky Nicholson March 18, 2008 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2005-00490 - DAT TAN TA - A proposal to develop nine single-family homes on 2.39 acres in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located at 9814 Church Street - APN: 1077-311-74. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2005-00491 Site Characteristics: The subject site is located on the north side of Church Street and approximately 140 feet west of Pasito Avenue. The 103,930 square foot rectangular shaped vacant lot drains from northwest to southeast with an approximate grade change of 20 feet from the northwest to the southeast property line. The site is surrounded by residential dwelling units with neighboring single-story homes to the immediate north and east. The applicant will clear the site of--�atiea to accommodate the proposed development, which includes removing the majority of the existing trees. A Consulting Arborist's Report has been provided by the applicant that describes such trees as having many problems because of the site not being properly maintained. Several of the healthier trees will be retained along the northerly and easterly property lines of the site. If this project is approved, it will provide approximately 60 new trees of various specimen types throughout the proposed development, as shown on the submitted colored Site Plan. • Currently, no structures exist on the site. Proiect Design Overview: The proposed development consists of a 9-lot infill subdivision, with a house product for each lot. Lot sizes for the proposed subdivision range from approximately 7,300 square feet to 14,000 square feet, which exceeds the current minimum net area requirement of 7,200 square feet. The house product consists of four floor plans: Model 1, a two-story floor plan at 3,336 square feet (excluding the garage area at 759 square feet); Model 2, a two-story floor plan at 3,263 square feet (excluding the garage area at 574 square feet); Model 3, a single-story floor plan at 2,649 square feet (excluding the garage area at 468 square feet); and Model 4, a two-story floor plan at 3,094 square feet (excluding the garage area at 708 square feet). All of the plans convey a contemporary Craftsman style and have substantial variations in the roof designs by combining gable, hip, and shed roof elements to further enhance the elevations. Also, the finished exteriors will provide color variations of stucco, vertical wood siding, ledge stone veneer, and decorative garage doors, as shown on the submitted Streetscape View plan sheet. This project, as submitted, meets the applicable height limits, setbacks, lot coverage, and area requirements, as set forth in the Development Code. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for discussion purposes. Maior Issues: None Secondary Issue: In staff's opinion, each proposed chimney should be covered with a compatible ledge stone veneer, as a further enhancement. •Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: EXHIBIT H pcsa�n Item B-19 1 . That the project shall provide decorative masonry block walls between the homes (i.e. along the side and rear property lines) for permanence and design consistency purposes. 2. Access gates to the rear yard areas shall be constructed of a material more durable than wood. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that, with the Secondary Issue addressed, the Committee recommend approval of the proposed development to the Planning Commission. Design Review Committee Action: Staff Planner: Corky Nicholson Members Present: Stewart, Munoz, Diaz The Committee approved the proposal as presented by the applicant. The applicant presented revised building elevations to show compliance with staff's request to cover each chimney with compatible ledge stone veneer as a further enhancement. • • Item B-20 • Neighborhood Meeting Summga Report Neighborhood Meeting for project at 9814 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. was held on October 26, 2005 at the Rancho Cucamonga Community Centers, Lions Center West—Guasti Room. Meeting started promptly at 6:00 pm and ended at 7:00 pm. Fifteen days prior to the neighborhood meeting, notification to the local public were solicited in two ways: (1)Atlas Buying Group sent bulk mail "Invitation Letters"to the surrounding neighborhood, at a minimum of 300-foot radius. (2) "Invitation Letters" were posted on a large 4' X 8' "NOTICE OF FILING" sign in front of project site. "Invitation Letters" is attached for reference. Quite a few neighbors showed up for the meeting. The list of name are as follow: Dawn Tran 4150 E. Concours St, Ontario, CA 932-1045 Carolyn Baty 7714 Abbot Ct., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 481-6705 Frank T. 2935 E Chino Ave, Chino Hills, CA 465-9139 Pam 7650 Pasito St. , Rancho Cucamonga, CA 980-6276 Toby 1795 N. 1 st Ave,Upland, CA. • Phil & Julie Williams 7640 Pasito St,Rancho Cucamonga, CA 987-0939 T. Brown 7686 Pasito St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 980-9940 Ian Revell 9774 Church St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 941-4493 Paul & Barbara Vifau 9762 Church St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 987-7680 Michael & Elisa Fletcher 7726 Atherton Ct, , Rancho Cucamonga, CA 941-0775 There were a couple of key concerns that were brought up: Gne neighbor on the west side of project site was concern of privacy. He was concern that second story houses will be able to view into his home. = To address this concern, we recommended that some trees will be planted in the backyard to create a more private atmosphere. = In all fairness, there are an average of 37 to 42 feet from the new house to the fence line AND an additional average of 45 to 65 feet more from the fence line to the neighbor's house. That would be a total distance of approximately 82 to 105 feet from the new home to the neighbor's houses. = I've also recently learn that the City of Rancho Cucamonga does not have any "View Rights". EPc s a R-6 S XHIBIT I Item B-21 other concern was half of the proposed driveway falls on the properties of two • neighbors. Half of the driveway is 18 feet in width. The remedy is to move the entire drive up. In other word, the drive will be move upl8 feet east direction, towards the Project Site. The entire driveway will be on the Proposed Project properties Site only. This will create fewer yardages in front of each new houses. Meighbor on the West side of Project Site was concern about his animal. = Currently there are several Eucalyptus trees separating the neighbor's property and the Project Site. However, CIG will install a fence between the concerned neighbor's property and the Project Site. Marking was another concern among the neighbors. Each new house will have a 3 car garage parking. In addition, each new house's driveway can park an additional 2-3 vehicle. Parking along the new develop street will also be an option. The developer can not prohibit public parking along the new street. If possible,the City can impose a"Residential Parking Only" sign. gone neighbor was concerned that Church Street is too narrow. She wanted to know if • there was future plan of widening the Church Street from two lanes to four lanes. Street expansion is part of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's on-going development plan. The concerned citizen was informed to speak to the City's Planning Dept for more details of future street development. This Proposed Project Site does not have any plan to widen Church Street. • Item B-22 • Second (2"d) Neighborhood Meeting Summary Report The Second (2"d)Neighborhood Meeting for project at 9814 Church Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA. was held on March 20, 2006 at the Rancho Cucamonga Community Centers, Lions Center West- Opici Room. Meeting started promptly at 6:05 pm and ended at 6:50 pm. Once again, fifteen (15) days prior to the neighborhood meeting,notification to the local public were solicited in two ways: (1) Atlas Buying Group sent bulk mail "Invitation Letters"to the surrounding neighborhood, at a minimum of 300-foot radius. (2) "Invitation Letters" were posted on a large 4' X 8' "NOTICE OF FILING" sign in front of project site. "Invitation Letters" is attached for reference. Several neighbors showed interest in this new development and attended the meeting. Their names and contact information are as follow: Name: Address: Telephone: Gele Kovalli 10424 Montclair Road, # B, Upland, CA 91286 951-830-1549 Ian Revell 9774 Church St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 941-4493 Rick Brulte Fontana, CA 714-2808 Paul Jieau 9762 Church St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 987-7680 Barbara Jieau 9762 Church St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 987-7680 • Louis LeBlanc Project Planner-City of R.C. 909477-2750 Susan Bade Hull 77 W. Las Tunas Drive #202, Arcadia, CA During the second (2"d) meeting, there were only a few questions raised. The questions were as follow: During construction, will there be a fence or block wall alone the west side of the project? Chain link fence will be installed prior to construction alone the west side of the project. Block wall will be installed alone the east and north side of the project. Will the street be a two way street, one side entering and one side exiting? The new street will be a two way street, right side for entering and left side for exiting. Will the trees be removed before construction? Yes, the trees will be removed before construction. An Arborist Report has been conducted, tree permit has been submitted, and a tree removal company will remove the trees according. When will the construction begin? After all maps, documents, requirements are submitted and approved by the City, and the • Committee Review Team consent with the project, then the construction will commence. This could be another year from date of this meeting. Item B-23 Roley and Associates Consulting Arborist and Tree Service 1405 Barnhart Lane - Norco, CA. 92860 Phone (951) 279-6096 Mobile (951) 315-4013 Consultation Report May 16, 2005 Submitted To: Creation Investments Group 2855 Parkway Dr. EI Monte, CA 91732 Attention: Dat Ta Job Address: 9814 Church St. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91732 • 1 inspected the lot, located at 9814 Church St., and found many problems with the existing trees on the property which are described as follows: • 10 Italian Cypress trees (approximately 15' tall) in a row starting on the SouthNVest corner, which appear healthy, with only a little sign of stem borer's. • 15 Eucalyptus trees (in excess of 36" DBH and ranging from 30' - 75' tall) which are all either dead or showing signs of serious decline from Longhorn Boring Beetle, Lurp Syllid, and Tortoise Beetle damage. • 1 Olive tree (2 - 14'" D8H co-dominant stems) located in the back, left, NorthNVest corner of the property which is healthy but has poor structure. This is not a specimen tree due to structural defects. • 2 African Sumac trees (8" DBH; 20' tall) located in the middle yet toward the North/East portion of the property which appear healthy. • 2 Juniper trees (15' tall) located in the center of the property. These two trees are in poor condition. • 1 Oak Quercus Agrifolia tree (14" DBH; approximately 30' tall) located on the East side of the property. This tree has very poor structure and unfortunately it has been vandal;zed by what appears to be children building a fort underneath the tree. This is not a specimen tree due to structural defects. • EXHIBIT J PC sas-Og Item B-24 Many (approximately 20) Citrus trees, mostly Lemon, (under 15' tall) • located in the middle of the property are showing signs of drought damage. 1 Walnut tree (3 co-dominant stems of 15", 12" and 8"; main trunk at grade stems 24") located on the right (East) side and toward the front of the property. This tree is healthy but it has poor structure thus making it not a specimen tree. 1 Mulberry tree (10" DBH; 3 co-dominant stems) located on the right (East) side toward the front of the property. The structure of this tree is very poor. 2 Shamill Ash trees (6" DBH) located in the South/East corner, toward the front of the property, which are healthy. E 1 Washington Fillifera (30" DBH; approximately 15' tall) located in the front (South) center of the property, which is health. Many 10' - 15' shrubs throughout the property in various states of decline from the lack of water. As an arborist my job is to save and help protect trees. Unfortunately this property has never been properly maintained. Any help 1 can be of in the future to help preserve, move or maintain any of the trees on this list please feel free to call. • Sincerely, Dale D. Roley Contractor's License #830694 Certified Arborist #0567 • 2 Item B-25 • RESOLUTION NO. 08-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00490,A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP NINE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 2.39 ACRES IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHURCH STREET, 140 FEET WEST OF PASITO AVENUE,AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 1077-311-74. A. Recitals. 1. Dat Ta filed an application for Development/Design Review DRC2005-00490,as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development/Design Review request is referred to as "the application.' 2. On the 28th day of May 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433. 3. On the 28th day of May 2008,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. • 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW,THEREFORE, it is hereby found,determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A,of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on May 28, 2008, including written and oral staff reports,this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the north side of Church Street, 140 feet west of Pasito Avenue, with a street frontage of 164.95 feet and lot depth of approximately 630 feet,and is presently vacant; and b. The subject property is bordered by existing single-family residential developments on the north, east, and west that are within a Low Residential District(2-4 dwelling units per acre),and to the south, across Church Street, there is an existing single-family residence and multiple-family units within a Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre); and C. The project is designed in conformance with the Low Residential standards; and • d. The design of the project, including site grading and drainage, will provide efficient use of land to accommodate single-family homes. EXHIBIT C Item B-26 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-28 DRC2005-00490— DAT TA May 28, 2008 Page 2 • 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above,this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code,and any applicable specific plans; and b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and C. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health,safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under state CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments which meet the following criteria: 1)the project is consistent with the General Plan as well as with applicable zoning regulations;2)the subject site is no more than 5 acres; 3)the project has no value as• habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; 4) approval of the project would not result in any significant effect on the environment(traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality);and 5)the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Having determined that the project meets all of the above criteria, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in staff's determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is subject to all applicable conditions of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 and City Council approval of Final Tract Map 17433. 2) Avoid identical color schemes plotted on adjacent lots. 3) Provide decorative perimeter fencing (i.e., masonry) at tract edges and along streets. "Decorative" means stucco finish, split face block, or similar textured surface with native stone pilasters and a cap. Smooth precision block is not acceptable. 4) Retaining walls exposed to public view shall be decorative masonry. Engineering Department • 1) All applicable conditions of the approving resolution(s)of Tentative Tract 17433 shall apply. Item B-27 PLANNING COMMISSION SOLUTION NO. 08-28 DRC2005-00490— DAT TA May 28, 2008 • Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2008. PLAN7;;iw F RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ATTEST: 2, Jam . Troyer, AICP, Secreta I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of May 2008, by the following vote-to-wit: • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • Item B-28 � COMMUNIT EVELOPMEN T _ DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW DRC2005-00490 SUBJECT: 9 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES APPLICANT: DAT TA LOCATION: NORTHSIDE OF CHURCH STREET, EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. General Requirements completion Date • 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _/_/_ agents,officers,or employees,because of the issuance of such approval,or in the aitemative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorneys fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-28, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 B. Time Limits 1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the date of the approval. • SC-1-05 1 Item B-29 Protect No. DRC2005-00490 Completion Date 2. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire it __j_/_ building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • C. Site Development 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and grading on file in the Planning Department,the conditions contained herein, and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Street names shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 7. The Covenants, Conditions,and Restrictions(CC&Rs)shall not prohibit the keeping the equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&Rs. 8. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 9. 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 City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. 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 recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. • 2 Item B-30 Project No. DRC2005-00490 _Completion Date 11. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all lots for Planning Director and City Engineer 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. 12. 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 owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/ fences along the project's perimeter. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 3. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Department. 4. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. • 5. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department. 6. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Prior to issuance of Building Permits,the project landscape architect shall certify on the submitted plans that the xeriscape requirements have been met. E. Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault,in a standard format as determined by the Planning Director, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT,(909)477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REOUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) F. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; c. Floor Plan; • d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan; 3 Item B-31 Project No.ORC2005-00490 Comoletion Date 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(DRC2005-00490)clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Developers wishing to participate in the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) can contact the Building and Safety Department staff for information and submittal requirements. G. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number(DRC2005-00490). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes,and all other applicable codes,ordinances,and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development project or major addition,the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,Transportation • Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees,Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permits issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. H. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. I. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to _/_/_ perform such work. • 4 Item B-32 Project No DRC2005-00490 Completion Date 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. • 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared,stamped,and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets, community trails,public paseos, public landscape areas,street trees,traffic signal encroachment and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails,etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. 2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets(measured from street centerline): 44 total feet on Church Street. 3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. •K. Street Improvements i. All public improvements(interior streets,drainage facilities,community trails,paseos,landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to,curb and gutter,AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 2. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No.88-557,no person shall make connections from a source of energy,fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless, in addition to any and all other codes, regulations and ordinances, all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council, except:that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. • 5 Item B-33 Project No.DRC2005-00490 • Completion Date 3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb b A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike • Street Name Gutter Pvmt walkAppr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Church Street X X X X X Street "A" X X X X I X I X Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. 4. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans,including street trees,street lights,and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements,prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. C. Pavement striping,marking,traffic signing,street name signing,traffic signal conduit,and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and • interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. I. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving,which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to submittal for first plan check. 5. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. • 6 Item B-34 Protect No. DRC2005-00490 Completion Date 6. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street • improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet—(typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Min.Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size city. Church Street Magnolia grandifiora NCN 3 ft. 20 ft. o.c. 15-gal. ' "Saint Mary Street "A' Select from City approved list at Plan Check Construction Notes for Street Trees:'Ouantity per approved Public Improvement Plans. 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 reportshall be fumished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 7. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. •L. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. M. Utilities 1. 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. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 3. 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,andthe Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVW D is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. • 7 Item B-35 ® Project No. DRC2005-00490 Completion Date 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. • N. General Requirements and Approvals 1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City,covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance if no map is involved. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits,a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills,and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED • • s Item B-36 Ran o Cucamonga Fire tection District Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS July 17, 2006 ICM Management 9814 Church SUBTT17433 & DRC2005-00490 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal have approved a requests for alternate method (PMT2007-02730), as submitted. Parking will only be permitted on one side of the street; all the homes and garages will be equipped with AFS in accordance to NFPA 13D. The alternative method will allow the subdivision and construction of the homes before the road improvements are made on the adjacent parcels FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply 1. Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the spacing and location of fire hydrants: a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in single-family residential projects is 500-feet. No • portion of the exterior wall facing the addressed street shall be more than 250-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 200-feet. b. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are: 1. At the entrance(s) to a commercial, industrial or residential project from the public roadways. 2. At intersections. 3. On the right side of the street,whenever practical and possible. 4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire District. 5. A minimum of forty-feet (40') from any building. FSC-2 Fire Flow 1. The required fire flow for this project is 1500 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20- pounds per square inch. This requirement is made in accordance with Fire Code Appendix III-A, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. 2. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. 3. Firewater plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until firewater plans are approved. 4. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. •FSC-9 Single-family Residential Sales Model homes require approved Fire District vehicle access and water supply from a public or private water main system before construction. FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Item B-37 'Fire Construction Services sta - the Fire Marshal have approved a r is for alternate method (PMT2007-02730), as submitte . arking will only be permitted on one a of the street; all the homes and garages will be equipped with AFS in accordance to NFPA 13D. The alternative method will allow the subdivision and construction of the homes before the road improvements are made on the adjacent parcels FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District* #85-1 or #88-1 is required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Chronolodeal Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS— Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: 1. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and CCWD. On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard#9-8 All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 2. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14' 6" above the finished surface of the road. 3. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. • PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION—Please complete the following: 1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property, the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. 2. Public Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. 3. Address: Prior to the granting of occupancy, single-family dwellings shall post the address with minimum 4-inch numbers on a contrasting background. The numbers shall be internally or externally illuminated during periods of darkness. The numbers shall be visible from the street. When building setback from the public roadway exceeds 100-feet, additional 4-inch numbers shall be displayed at the property entry. • Item B-38 RESOLUTION NO. 13-24 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO(2)YEARS FOR DRC2005-00490,A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP NINE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 2.39 ACRES WITHIN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED AT 9814 CHURCH STREET, WHICH IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHURCH STREET, 140 FEET WEST OF PASITO AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1077-311-74. A. Recitals. 1. Creation Investment Group filed an application for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval ("time extension")for Development Review DRC2005-00490, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application," DRC2005-00400. 2. On May 28, 2008,this Commission adopted its Resolution No.08-28,thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On the June 26, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. • 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on June 26, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant does not propose any changes to the original project in conjunction with this time extension request; b. The previously approved Development Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; C. The extension of the Development Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes or policies; d. The extension of the Development Review approval will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; • and e. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. Item B-39 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-24 TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00328- CREATION INVESTMENT GROUP June 26, 2013 Page 2 • 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission determined that the original project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2005-00490 in May 2008. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No changes are proposed to the project;no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. There are no changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated when concluding the project was categorically exempt. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not analyzed in the previous environmental review, and will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed. b. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission • concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the Time Extension DRC2013-00328 for Development Review DRC2005-00490. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above,this Commission hereby extends the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two(2) years and modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 08-28 to read as follows: Planning Department 1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval (time extension) for Development Review DRC2005-00490 and modification of the applicable approval time limit as described in Standard Condition B.2 contained in Resolution No. 08-28 that was adopted by the Planning Commission on May 28, 2008. 2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2)years. The new expiration date for Development Review DRC2005-00490 is May 28, 2015. 3) Any requests for future time extensions shall be subject to the procedures, conditions, and findings as set forth in Section 17.14.090 of the Development Code. 4) All other conditions of approval, including all of the standard/special • conditions of approval of other City departments, for Development Review DRC2005-00490 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17433 shall apply. Item B-40 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-24 TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00328- CREATION INVESTMENT GROUP June 26, 2013 • Page 3 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of June 2013, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • Item B-41 STAFF REPORT PIANNINGDEPAR MENr Date: June 26, 2013 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C,UCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager By: Mike Smith, Associate Planner Subject: TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00326 - PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - A request to extend the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two (2) years for an industrial warehouse/office project comprised of two (2) buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet on a parcel of about 212,000 square feet (4.87 acres) within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-41. Related files: Development Review DRC2007-00696 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872. The Planning Commission determined that the project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects. Per Section 15162, no further environmental review is required as there are no changes to the project. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Time Extension DRC2013-00326 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. ANALYSIS: A. General: In April 2013, the applicant, Phelan Development Company, submitted a request to extend the duration of the entitlement approval (hereafter referred to as a "time extension") for Development Review DRC2007-00696. The applicant does not propose any changes to the project (Exhibit A). The project was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2008 (Exhibits B and C). Per Resolution of Approval No. 08-19, Standard Condition B.1, the approval of the project was set to expire "if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within five (5) years from the date of approval." With the exception of tentative tract/parcel maps, a time extension for any development review entitlement was not allowed. Thus, the approval of this project was set to expire on May 14, 2013. In September 2012 the City officially adopted an updated Development Code. Included in the update was a new Code section that allows for applicants to request time extensions for all entitlements. Per Section 17.14.090(C), an initial time extension request may be granted that extends the expiration date for two (2) years from the original expiration date. Near the end of that two-year period, a second, and final, time extension request may be granted that extends the expiration date for one (1) additional year beyond the expiration date granted by the first time extension. Both time extension requests are subject to the review and approval by the same authority that approved the original project. If the applicant's request is granted, the approval of the project will expire on May 14, 2015. • B. Grading, Technical, and Design Review Committees: On April 1, 2008, all of the review Committees analyzed the original project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. Their conditions were subsequently incorporated into the Resolution of Approval (Resolution No. Item C-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2013-00326 - PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY June 26, 2013 Page 2 • 08-19) for the project. As the applicant does not propose any changes to the project in conjunction with this time extension request, no further action by any of the Committees is necessary. The Committees' original conditions of approval continue to apply, and this is noted in the attached Resolution of Approval. C. Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872: The associated tentative parcel map is not included in this time extension request. Although the approval of the tentative parcel map was set to expire on May 14, 2011, three (3) years after the date of the original approval, a time extension for the tentative parcel map is not necessary at this time. The State legislature passed two bills, AB333 and A6208, in July 2009 and July 2011, respectively. These bills automatically extended the duration of the approval period for all tentative maps that were set to expire on or before January 1, 2012, (AB333) and on or before January 1, 2014, (AB208). The duration of the combined time extensions granted by both bills is four (4) years. Therefore, the approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872 is now set to expire on May 14, 2015. D. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission determined that the original project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007-00696 in December 2008. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No changes are proposed to the project; • no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. There are no changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated when concluding the project was categorically exempt. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not analyzed in the previous environmental review, and will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No correspondence has been received. Respectfull submitted, Candyce Rujneft Planning Manager CB:MS/ge Attachments: Exhibit A - Time Extension Request Letters (prepared by the applicant) Exhibit B - Staff Report for Development Review DRC2007-00696 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTT18872 • Exhibit C - Resolution of Approval No. 08-19 for Development Review DRC2007-00696 Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension DRC2013-00326 Item C-2 � Phelan Development CompanyPHCL — n 12 Corporate Plaza,Suite 150 • D E V E L O P M E N T Newport Beach, CA,92660 TEL 949 720 8000 FAX 949 7K8080 C'T'Y dr t��ikt+ (� CUCAFOONGA April 11, 2013 APR 1 S 2013 Mr. Michael Smith RECEIVED a PLANNING City of Rancho Cucamonga &✓ t� 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91730 Re: Request for extension of time for Development—DRC 2007-00696 6`b& Hermosa 1P/DF, LLC Dear Mr. Smith: The purpose of this letter is to request an extension of time for the development project located at 61"& • Hermosa, referenced above. Due to the current economic factors there is still not a market to secure tenants/users for the entitled project. Therefore we are requesting an extension of time for development of said project. Enclosed is the Uniform Application and check in the amount of$679.25 for the fees to cover this submittal. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and please contact me if you need further information. Sincer 1 Je el n Manager cc: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager enclosures • EXHIBIT A Item C-3 41VP H C L /� n I Phelan Development Company C /'-y' v 12 Corporate Plaza, • D E V E L O P M E N T Newport Beach, CA,,926 926600 TEL 949 720 8000 FAX 949 720 8080 May 13, 2013 Mr. Michael Smith Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Extension of Time Request DRczoi3 • cz7 -hT 17Rr1cxv7 oaV/* Dear Mike: This letter is to confirm the above referenced extension of time application for our project is strictly a • request to extend the expiration of our entitlements, and not a request to make any changes to the project as it was approved in 2008. Due to the economic uncertainty over the last few years we were unable to move forward with the project but are still very committed, and with the recent uptick in industrial activity we are very hopeful that we will be able to move forward as planned. Please contact me at 949.219.1243 if you require any additional information. Thank you. incerely, Amanda Criscione Leasing and Development Coordinator CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MAY 13 2013 • PFCFIVFn - PLANNING Item C-4 T H E C I T Y O F R A N C B O C U C A M O N C A Staff Report DATE: May 14, 2008 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY: Mike Smith, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18872- 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC - A proposal to subdivide a property of 4.87 acres in conjunction with a request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue; APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Development Review DRC2007-00696. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is • categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies for exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, and Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00696= 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC -A request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet on a parcel of about 4.87 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located. at 9212 Hermosa Avenue; APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies for exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, and Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Office/Warehouse Building —General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5 South - Office/Warehouse Building —General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5 East - Office buildings—General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5 West - Office — General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5 • EXHIBIT B Item C-5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM18872 AND DRC2007-00696—6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC May 14, 2008 • Page 2 B. General Plan Desionations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial C. Site Characteristics: The project site is a rectangular parcel of about 627 feet 'north-south) by 338 feet (east-west). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses, shrubs, and a grouping of trees. The property is bound on the east by Hermosa Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. To the north is a large warehouse distribution building of about 400,000 square feet and to the west is an office complex consisting of four 20,000 square foot buildings. Across the streets to the south and east, respectively, Is a large warehouse distribution building of about 400,000 square feet and an office/warehouse complex consisting of six buildings of various sizes. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,078 feet and 1,069 feet, respectively. D. Parking Calculations: Number of Type Floor Area Parking Spaces • of Use (Square Feet) Ratio Required Building A (overall) 44,410 Warehousing 38,410 Floor area up to 20,000 square feet 20,000 1/1,000 20 Floor area 20,001 —40,000 square feet 20,000 1/2,000 10 Floor area 40,001 square feet or more 410 1/4,000 1 Office 4,000 1/250 18 Total Required/Total Provided 47150 Building B (overall) 65,106 Warehousing 59,606 Floor area up to 20,000 square feet 20,000 1/1,000 20 Floor area 20,001 —40,000 square feet 20,000 1/2,000 10 Floor area 40,001 square feet or more 19,606 1/4,000 5 Office 5,500 1/250 22 Total Required/Total Provided 57161 Total Required/Total Provided Overall 104/111 • Item C-6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM18872 AND DRC2007-00696— 6TH 8 HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC • May 14, 2008 Page 3 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into two parcels of 2 acres and 2.77 acres (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively) and then to construct two buildings totaling 44,410 square feet on Parcel 1 (Building A) and 60,606 square feet on Parcel 2 (Building B). The buildings are speculative at this time, but as typical for these types of buildings, small offices are included. The office area will be located along the southeast corner of each building. The dock loading/storage area for each building will be located in a common area between the buildings. There will be two points of access — one via Hermosa Avenue and another via 6th Street. There will be an additional access point from Hermosa Avenue for emergency purposes. Access to the loading/storage area will be via the driveway at Hermosa Avenue, Building A and Building B will have 50 and 61 spaces, respectively, for a combined 111 parking stalls for employees and customers. This quantity exceeds the minimum parking requirement for the site (Exhibit D). Landscape coverage is 14.9 percent; the minimum requirement is 7 percent for this development district (Exhibit 1). B. Tentative Parcel Mao SUBTPM18872: In conjunction with this application, the applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two parcels (Exhibit E). Each building will be constructed on its own parcel. The proposed map complies with the City's design and development standards. C. Gradina and Technical Review Committees: The Grading Review Committee (Addington and James) reviewed the application on April 1, 2008. The Committee accepted the application and • recommended approval. Their conditions have been incorporated into the Resolution of Approval. D. Desion Review Committee: The Committee (Stewart, Munoz, and Nicholson) reviewed the project on April 1, 2008 (Exhibit J). The Committee was generally satisfied with the submittal and recommended approval of the project subject to the applicant revising the site design and architecture of each building. Their revisions include incorporating a "reverse" chamfered cornice along the top of the majority of the parapet of each building, adding the "checkerboard" patterned reveals/score lines to all publicly visible tower insets, and adding more glazing on the building elevations facing the streets. They have also provided decorative paving at the 6th Street driveway. The Committee's conditions have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. E. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualities as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions as the project proposes the subdivision of one parcel into two parcels, and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects as the project site is surrounded on all sides by existing industrial development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872 and Development Review DRC2007-00696 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Res ectfully submitted, • Ja s R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director Item C-7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTPM18872 AND DRC2007-00696—6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC • May 14, 2008 Page 4 JRT:MS1ma Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map Exhibit B - Aerial Map Exhibit C - Site Utilization Map Exhibit D - Site Plan Exhibit E - Tentative Parcel Map 18872 Exhibit F - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit G - Floor Plans Exhibit H - Elevations and Building Sections Exhibit I - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit J - Design Review Committee Action Comments dated April 1, 2008 Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2007-00696 Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872 • • Item C-8 r / .Y. ``i~r ` ° 1 ~ Rte• ., Y MtF' �-r'a . i Jy i-a_}_. 7299 j§99 80 A"iiv - 9779 ..999 : . . 9259 _ 1. _' cn t __••- ..:. W� _ +r -+rt'_:^ _ -, _ t zo rEPMWJ0.V ul @[_.[ if uj snt •.�un��ius �l�_n � P `fn c 7 6 .. F ... � _ c i:,C..1''. . ;.�-•yrs �. l 6 X - a`.. ..�p n ! t ..,JS -.•.-�.uu� ;e. 'µ .y, i .t, f a 7..' —6921 � _ ,coq{{ .� ; -- �:�''.;=:� �� ..--• . :: .- gyp. � �-- - �; - a . i ��.� 4 LO�- �I �.:.-.._.:.��...-+{ .......,�..,....#�t:_�—�-+-..-F� Y: - �y: I<ulun. I• � �..�.._.�..=..s rtr a. ��- 0. �"61 � {,_'�r. ,'.4J w e _.In¢ft..._._IP�F�_�'• �`i� _ ... �� wsu.. �F..y ,,"- - +<t)' ..y '.£.. • S ••_A rri xi 'iso{' rl' >= r— <_ +r.x_=:—• —� 3 iii _ t/_y .5��r.•a! f'-.:.�fud li••:+ ;1 • r'Y yr f { fur sa •LY'th .� .->��.t G Te x. t� 'Y of rtr . 1s" �'t.)r .3 '1s 7w aR`• 9j� "9� l �'_ R ,tE > 1.•' Jr'`I !!. �J �� r s�r � �r� C E C ..• s. .�- ! .F•t r S c 4 } 1s I w S� rrY� T SJ� l � 1� 3' k Y.1 • l x d .< {I'.• lJ� r v T1 I e, t. r7 1SF �A, R :. Z ux. ti}��.1 �s h- i ,r l `a-. I i • �� r [�}!!' ��( v`,� j ,1 ty.�� a1 ¢a �.,r! i..�,r.l`•l. S/ a. y. ,.'k••j'7 _•'� } � , 3�� �`'� �, r Y a r wry• � .° _� Cx.l ty� +. ., k•r'�, 5� i f�`rx frayy� �t �m,..v-.t.h �'f. . 1rJ�' Y" r t:.. 1 i ;. ., 1 fi r r !:.': 6Ir/i 1' � a'•s +! t .F /a ".,..r14k r"y/`���`•L^ Tl 1 �i`� `Vi\ ■L trom.'kw zf.n b. 4iC 1 LP.zryt.-?r" WR•s+ as 1 •u.Y,ec+..o.o,..E.a..w1 )f J �� ...i k:r i:"P < ! :di L`'�a� tC 114.%ice':*;e,.�wJih°M1€xSs+.1.j `C 3-•1••r✓t; r. .. .R Asa �+Ji� _ � Y HiOfi tL_ * �$x (tra a fir I 1 11 r m • • • nom- i ave s � - f om,-va-i .m-u �, rlr �e CIRCIE 3 - ZaEa PWi W x y Wal d °c mc'°a'unnva 3 Iver crry OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AE vR o.n�,o,;� ��•�M PHELAN DEVELOPMENT ORCt Z00)OOBBB SITE UTILrtiZAT10N MM _ 6iN STREET 8 HERMOSA 11VENUE ` y s •..,u SU 2()41t18lT2 rn • • X w ewnm r0 a en o I I I�I 1 �� GRO55 LOT AREA 21 1.209 si OnM UM 1_1 4C4 acres ZI _ NET LOT ARCA. 200.064 4.77 acre! I TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 105.016 sl ,Z.a SOY 4 O 1 ' I WMY.a L2.000Y - - — I TOTAL BUILDING AREA- 109.516!1 euaeacA a.n�.Y SITE COVERAGE(.n GRO55 vea) 49.72% v - --- I -- 1 - SITE COVERAGE(..NET aro): 50.47% PR6POSED 4��k,410!t� I FAR(on GRO55 uo): 51 85% — WMEF�LISLt El1 10I52 63% FAR(on NET arca): IAND5CAFE COVERAGE REMIRED. 7.00% U DXAPE COVERAGE Lm NET arca): 14.94% lw.—JL ,xA sl osi# PARKI"NN RMUI G REQUIRED-BUILDING A a7 space! CrA2 N.QAYwa� eykn I Ymr.xe a.am#R41amM eiwa ,+r1.OVX fID 0.V YR�i,C[OM 20. / vr/2n0U5[120 Q0#R:4 WJM i0awr �...nnw.wI � ` a'aaP'AMIaiOYrti-a.MV,O 1„x� PARKING REQUIRED-BUILDINGB 57 spare! lI I f a.LT 13=0.4 L, A li,pre, N@a1raL N,NA#Ra10.tlM 10 qkn —' r vM[Ig1X 200.V#a11,0o0M 20,— _11L__ 11 t a�OD[1100A#R 1 2m 10,— FARKINGGPPROVIDED-BUILDING A: 50spaces _ 4 v+ I � + VV rvraur acmvwe. Lw•.. FARKING FRONDED.BUILDING B: 61 ! aco I I 4 NYW@ 5l ytn I PRO,F,�O,S,,ED 62,BB��66 s/ I ( Mix z Ste'I I �4AREMOU E/OISTI�Blff ON 11 11�I B,ru'LDMG B ` -- --F TOTAL PAWNG PROVIDED 111 sPicn zo gm go Gl J --- F —._.—.—._.—-------------------------- -_- TH STREET--- ----------- I Q 6th and Hermosa I E —'g --' —$--— Rancho Cucamonga, CAS A-2 *PHELAN g F m x :r c� TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No. 18872 cll� _.,:I--------- JI! ! I VIII ,j (D IP, qcEL.MAPND. d1w I r 7— —4 PARCEL A 1.;3 on j 11.1 A 41a. -PA !T raaOF RANCHO j—i—i i WWI= Crry �atad EWM�m Inc ICAMONGA PHELAN DEVELOPMENT TENTATNE PARCEL MAP NO.18HU12 DRCff MT-00W GTH STREET & HERMOSA AVENUE SUBTPMSI� m • • • X-10 COP ,..� nl I_. P� _- li _ �'' ' ._.____- __._ _ . -_ _. _ Iill l' I id '� I ��G"�'•�ji;ll� i ,I a I ,I t' e v � I ".S N. 1 !•I I :d i P ,gyp i ' P�Flt Cpl'; •►tu �, 1 ;I SjCT 1. I' �•'y. c'!�1'�i Y I -' 1 �'i ;i i y i — I i j ,� I- Iff . .1 'Fit PHELAN DEVELOPMENT 'a•-��? CUCAMONGA qE a psl liam.n:�I.,i DRCI 2007-00696 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PUN ��� � SUBTPMR188]Y �ISn.3 15711-1 STREET 6 NERMOSA AVENUE C7 M • • 'TT 1 .W Y/ i I I I I I I I j ----i -------a-- ----I------ I -- - - �]}108F�Z,ppp g��1� I I I I i I I I w 6th and Hermosa ® a Rancho Cucamonga, CA *PHELAN sEcnoN AA ii 4:4�m �1 m 3 �- rf% ���rnW!j' I ttii 9EG CRY OF RANCHO AnaocleMd�Englnaern-c �a . 1 ..a.5�' ` �• PHELAN EV DELOPMENT CUCAMONGA qECR0559ECTIONS �'� DRGY200,-OO6f8 SUBTPM6IEBR v Qnl STREET Q HERMOSA AVENUE q Cq — ' rA%9 LlIH^SfMn9.aGff%^ifYM S 9J A sl ifGLJY'0pY 'R��VRY'1 I YfL COi H/1'?A%fYMfY//Y/>///�RY4/S// ^AY/fA04I/x 4�Y J c1 � !; 54{+wnrtieo„wr�rrv�s,ar�'-Pd%r�,�PNaa 9i�e'iei",�irair� ae...�/„ � �'i�► N i S ` o g�yp�y, s�w a Qom/@f ieumm-7 -, i�l!A. 1's RIF rf-1711� .,im,..m.. ;fF��si civ«s x _ !@I A•IPR ss asas q �V M IL �akSk�,'Cfi l'iS['Ylnin i r rus�.ivfi%im'SC�SR L�iAa>�'fl inm pjy Lr\ tEsr vi rwsmisw%f rusrii as/m /�{y= II •;� o i , BBow vivrs-iwm».YetniL»•tx.r re//n%a ,.I• , �. �• f /n mn /,,sviv f 1 �9rainm.'o'^. .', r,.rF.C...! I .... n o ronmecat>:,vv%ooLwmawLoin m%.rm, vfi �uu@N �rvw.vw r annLmws ! f� - - // a of /%ii/za/ /..vv % s✓,aef.Tvitesa,c oiu /.V �.::.,.PN._._. dNmni�nsa+.'•�rr,�/rsnr�r,��mRN'•••-.PCM„sa;;sr!,,t�ieLzow�ru.�r.1;:�P:;i,,.),,.i13 - �;Ni� QI _ fill PROPOSED 42.41081 WAREHOUSE I OISTRIBtRION BUILDING A i I_MTTF 71- 1c:J z k AL. -14, rb 3 T 00PROPOSED 62.608 f WAREHOUSE I DISTRIBUTION BUILD040 8 6TH and Hermosa Rand"Cucamonga,California (4) Phalen Development F; Ht�Lu —A L ,.DSqA PE DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Michael Smith April 1, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00696 - 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC - A request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet on a parcel of about 4.87 acres in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18872 - 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC - A proposal to subdivide a property of 4.87 acres in conjunction with a request to construct two industrial warehouse/office buildings with a combined floor area of about 100,000 square feet in the General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5, located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue - APN: 0209-211-41. Related file: Development Review DRC2007-00696. Design Parameters: The project site is a rectangular parcel of about 627 feet (north-south) by 338 feet (east-west). The site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses, shrubs, and a grouping of trees. The property is bound on the east by Hermosa Avenue and on the south by 6th Street. To the north is a large warehouse distribution building of about 400,000 square feet and to the west is an office complex consisting of four buildings of 20,000 square feet each. Across the streets to the south and east, • respectively, are a large warehouse distribution building of about 400,000 square feet and an office/warehouse complex consisting of six buildings of various sizes. The zoning of the property and all surrounding properties is General Industrial (GI) District, Subarea 5. The subject property is generally level with an elevation at the north and south sides of about 1,078 feet and 1,069 feet, respectively. The applicant proposes to construct two warehouse distribution buildings of 42,410 square feet (Building A) and 62,606 square feet (Building B). The buildings are speculative at this time, but, as typical for these types of buildings, small offices are included. The office area will be located along the southeast comer of each building. The dock loading/storage area for each building will be located in a common area between the buildings. There will be two points of access—one via Hermosa Avenue and another via 6th Street. There will be an additional access point from Hermosa Avenue for emergency purposes. Access to the loading/storage area will be via the driveway at Hermosa Avenue. Building A and Building B will have 50 and 61 spaces, respectively, for a combined 111 parking stalls for employees and customers. This quantity exceeds the minimum parking requirement of for the site. Landscape coverage is 14.9 percent; the minimum requirement is 7 percent for this development district. The proposed buildings will be of concrete tilt-up construction painted with a palette of five different colors. An additional primary material will be sandblasted concrete while a secondary material will be glass panels. Key features include tower elements that project beyond the primary wall plane and above the edge of the primary parapet at all four comers and at the midpoint of the north and south elevations of Buildings A and B, respectively. Glass is generously incorporated around each office area emphasizing its importance as the main entry into the building. In addition to the glazing, each tower at the offices includes a cornice, decorative medallions, and a different paint color. Each office entrance will also have a metal canopy. Glass panels with a dimension of 5 feet by 5 feet have also been incorporated at equal intervals along the wall planes between the tower elements, on the east elevation (of both buildings), on the south elevation (of Building B), and on the north elevation (of Building A). • Although glass has not been provided on the interior facing elevations where the dock loading and storage areas are, staff believes that their absence is not detrimental to the overall design of the building. Similarly, glass has not been used on the west elevations of both buildings and sparingly on the north SPC s--«-o Y EXHIBIT J Item C-19 DRC ACTION AGENDA DRC2007-00696— 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC • April 1, 2008 Page 2 elevation of Building A. Staff believes that glass should be applied on the corners of the building closest to the street. Sandblasted wall panels have been used on all tower elements except the office towers. Instead of sandblasting, the applicant is proposing a slight change in paint color to differentiate these locations from the rest of their respective buildings. Staff accepts this solution. However, the difference between paint colors should be bolder. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project. 1. Paint each office tower a bolder color such as dark red, blue, or green to further differentiate them from the remainder of their respective buildings. As presented the building is dominated by colors in the same color scale and the office towers should not be another shade of the same color. 2. Provide additional glazing on the west elevation of the southwest tower element of Building B. The glazing should be duplicated in order to a) balance it with its south elevation, and b) enhance aesthetically this readily visible comer as seen from 6th Street. 3. Provide additional glazing on the east elevation of the northeast tower element of Building A. The glazing should be duplicated in order to a) balance it with its south elevation, and b) enhance aesthetically this readily visible corner as seen from Hermosa Avenue. • 4. Provide a continuous form-lined relief (or equivalent) along the entire top edge of the parapets of the wall planes located between the tower elements. 5. Paint the depressed areas at each tower (where glass has not been provided) a dark glossy blue to match the color of the glazing. This will present the appearance of glass without having to actually use glass. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues. 1. Landscaping at the southeast corner of the site shall be intensified to ensure that the presence of the parking lot immediately adjacent to this corner is minimized. 2. All ground-mounted equipment and utility boxes including transformers, fire department connections, back-flow devices, etc. shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. 3. The employee lunch area shall have an overhead trellis with cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on-center with minimum dimensions of 4 inches by 12 inches. Also, each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the architectural finishes/trim used on the building such as sandblasted bases. The trellis shall be painted to match the building. 4. All wrought iron fences and sliding gates shall be painted black or similarly dark color. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be • incorporated into the project design without discussion. 1. Incorporate undulating berms along the street frontages, within the landscape setback and landscape areas. The highest part of the berms should be at least 3 feet in height. Item C-20 DRC ACTION AGENDA • DRC2007-00696—6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC April 1, 2008 Page 3 2. Decorative paving shall be provided at the vehicular access points on to the site. 3. All doors (roll-up, dock doors, emergency access) shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent wall or glass panel. 4. Provide durable street furniture in outdoor employee eating area, such as tables, chairs, waste receptacles. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be approved, subject to the revisions above which can be verified by staff, and forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and action. Design Review Committee Action: Members Present: Staff Planner: Michael Smith The Design Review Committee recommends to the Planning Commission approval of the project subject to the following revisions to be verified by staff: • 1. A chamfered, "reverse" cornice shall be provided at the top of the parapet walls on all elevations except at the office "towers' where the decorative cornice that is currently shown may be used. 2. The checkerboard pattern reveals proposed at various tower insets by the applicant shall be repeated at the northeast tower (north elevation) and southwest tower (west elevation) of Building B. 3. Contact the Engineering Department to determine which overhead utilities will be required to be placed below ground. 4. Contact the adjacent property owner to the west to coordinate the design, installation, and maintenance of the decorative paving at the entrance to the shared driveway located at the southwest corner of the project site. 5. The green color scheme is approved. • Item C-21 • RESOLUTION NO. 08-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00696, A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH A COMBINED FLOOR AREA OF ABOUT 100,000 SQUARE FEET ON A PARCEL OF ABOUT 4.87 ACRES IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, SUBAREA 5, LOCATED AT 9212 HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0209-21141. A. Recitals. 1. 6th& Hermosa JP/DF, LLC filed an application for the issuance of Development Review DRC2007-00696, 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 14th day of May 2008, the Planning Commission of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. • B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on May 14, 2008, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a parcel of land located at 9212 Hermosa Avenue with an overall area of about 212,137 square feet(4.87 acres), and a street frontage along 6th Street of about 338 feet and a street frontage along Hermosa Avenue of about 627 feet; and b. To the north is a large warehouse distribution building of about400,000 square feet and to the west is an office complex consisting of four 20,000 square feet buildings. Across the streets to the south and east, respectively, is a large warehouse distribution building of about 400,000 square feet and an office/warehouse complex consisting of six buildings of various sizes; and C. The proposed development is in conjunction with a tentative parcel map (Related. File: SUBTPM18872) to subdivide the property into two (2) parcels of 2 acres and 2.77 acres (Parcels 1 and 2, respectively). • d. The applicant proposes to construct two buildings totaling 44,410 square feet on Parcel 1 (Building A) and 60,606 square feet on Parcel 2 (Building B); and EXHIBIT C Item C-22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-19 DRC2007-00696—6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC • May 14, 2008 Page 2 e. The application contemplates warehouse tenants. Warehouse intensive uses are permitted in this development district. Additional potential tenants include manufacturing uses which are permitted subject to the availability of parking on-site; and f. The applicant is required to provide 47 and 57 parking stalls for Building A and B, respectively. They have provided 50 and 61 parking stalls for each respective building; and 3.. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan,the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed project is to construct an industrial building and is consistent with development In the vicinity. b. The proposed development,togetherwith the conditions applicable thereto,will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The surrounding properties are zoned industrial and the surrounding uses are industrial-oriented. c. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development • Code and the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions as the project proposes the subdivision of one parcel into two parcels and Section 15332, Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects as the project site is surrounded on all sides by existing industrial development. In addition, there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of two warehouse buildings with a combined floor area of 105,016 square feet in the General Industrial District, Subarea 5, located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Hermosa Avenue-APN: 0209-211-41. 2) Proposed land uses requiring a Conditional Use Permit as Identified in • Table 17.30.030 of the Development Code, shall require a separate review and approval by the Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check and occupancy. Item C-23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-19 DRC2007-00696—6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC . May 14, 2008 Page 3 3) Shared access, parking, and maintenance shall be incorporated in the project Covenants,•Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). 4) Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior on any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 5) All walls, including retaining walls, exposed to public shall be decorative masonry. Decorative means slump stone, split-face, or stucco. 6) Decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the 35-foot setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 7) All trash enclosures shall be surrounded with dense shrub plantings. 8) Provide an overhead trellis at the employee lunch area. The overhead trellis shall have cross members spaced no more than 18 inches on center with minimum dimensions of inches by 12 inches. Also, each support column shall have a decorative base that incorporates the • architectural finishes/trim used on the building. The trellis shall be painted to match the building. Also, provide durable street furniture in the outdoor employee eating area such as tables, chairs, waste receptacles. 9) Incorporate undulating berms along both 6th Street and Hermosa Avenue,within the landscape setback and landscape areas. 10) All ground-mounted equipment, utility boxes including transformers, and back-flow devices shall be surrounded by a minimum of two rows of shrubs spaced a minimum of 18 inches on-center. 11) Landscaping shall be installed prior to release for occupancy. 12) 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. Enaineerina Department 1) Full frontage improvements shall be installed on 6th Street at the "Secondary Arterial"street standard width including asphalt pavement, curb and gutter, drive approach, curvilinear sidewalk, street trees, curbside drain outlet,9500 Lumen HPSV streetlights and traffic signing and striping. Protect all existing public improvements or repair/replace, • as required. Item C-24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-19 DRC2007-00696 —6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC • May 14, 2008 Page 4 a) The drive approach is to be per City Standard No. 101, Type C and be a minimum of 35 feet wide. Curvilinear sidewalk shall cross the drive approach at the 0-inch curb face(non-contiguous sidewalk). b) Relocate 66kV poles as needed for street construction and added width of existing drive approach. 2) Hermosa Avenue is a City "Secondary Arterial' Street. Install all missing public improvements including property line adjacent sidewalk, drive approach, street trees, curbside drain outlet(s), and local storm drain as determined by final drainage report. a) Protect all existing public improvements or repair, replace as required. b) Emergency access at the north end of the parking lot shall be per Fire and City Traffic Engineer requirements. 3) The existing overhead utilities (communications and electrical,except of the 66kV electrical) on the project side of 6th Street shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the east side of Hermosa Avenue • to the first pole off-site west of the west project boundary,prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing 6th Street shall be undergrounded at the same time. The City has collected fees from development on the south side of the street which will be used to reimburse this developer for a portion of the cost. The developer shall request a reimbursement agreement to recover a portion of the cost upon completion. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 4) Parkways shall slope at 2 percent from the top-of-curb to one-half beyond the ultimate right-of-way along all street frontages. Building and Safety Department (Grading) 1) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall provide a letter from the northerly property owner accepting storm water runoff into the existing drainage ditch north of the northerly property line. In the event permission is not granted by the northerly property owner,all roof and other on-site waters will be required to drain within the project limits to an appropriate outlet. 2) Along the west property line, the applicant is conditioned to provide structural calculations showing that the existing wall can retain • proposed loadings. Item C-25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-19 ORC2007-00696 -6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC • May 14, 2008 Page 5 3) Safety rails will be required per the latest adopted edition of the California Building Code. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY 2008. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: am S Chairman ATTEST: k- 2z'L'1Lj Jam . Troyer, AICP, Secret I, James R.Troyer,AICP,Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the • Planning Commission held on the 14th day of May 2008, by the following vote-to-wft: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE • Item C-26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00696 SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICANT: 6TH & HERMOSA JP/DF, LLC LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND HERMOSA AVENUE—APN: 0209-211-41 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • A. General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents,officers,or employees,because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such pard6pation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-19, Standard _/_J_ Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s)are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay any applicable Fish and Game fees as shown below. The project planner will confirm which fees apply to this project. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing: a) Notice of Exemption - $50 B. Time Limits 1. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved —J_/_ use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. • 1 Item C-27 Project No.DSC2007.00696 Completion Date C. Site Development • 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans,architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and grading on file in the Planning Department,the conditions contained herein,and Development Code regulations. 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fine Protection District and the Building and Safety Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be _JJ_ submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision,or approved use has commenced,whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all —J—J_ other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A detailed on-site lighting plan,Including a photometric diagram,shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the Issuance of building • permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location,height,and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.,shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming,and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments,transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified In a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 10. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Departments and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. The Homeowners' Association shall submit to the Planning Department a list of the name and address of their officers on or before January 1 of each and every year and whenever said information changes. 11. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property —J--J_ owner,homeowners'association,or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and City Engineer review and approved prior to the Issuance of building permits. 12. 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 owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's • perimeter. 2 Item C-28 Project No.DRC2007-00696 Comoletlon Date • D. Industrial Buildings 1. Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 2. The entire site shall be kept free from trash and debris at all times and in no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 3. Signs shall be conveniently posted for'no overnight parking'and for'employee parking only.' JJ_ E. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. F. Parking and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts JJ_ a building, wall, support column,or other obstruction,the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet wide. 2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall JJ_ contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb). • 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and JJ_ Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn- around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more —/J_ parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall; whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. 6. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more JJ_ parking stalls.Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. G. Trip Reduction 1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily —JJ_ residential projects of more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces,whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicycle storage spaces are provided,additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater,the number shall be rounded off to the higher • whole number. 3 Item C-29 Project No.DRC2007-00696 Completion Date 2. Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for _/_/_ • commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. 3. For industrial projects with at least 40 car parking spaces, bicyclist-changing facilities shall be provided to encourage bicycle commuting per the City of Rancho Cucamonga Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted by City Council Resolution No.02-237. Accessible restrooms with storage lockers for clothing and equipment shall be sufficient. H. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan,including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the Issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects,shall be specimen size trees -24-inch box or larger. 3. Within parking lots,trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls. 4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 5. Special landscape features such as mounding,alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks(with horizontal change),and intensified landscaping,is required along 6th Street and Hermosa Avenue. 6. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department. 7. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of _/�_ • Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. I. Signs 1. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation of any signs. J. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mallboxes. Mufti-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT,(909)477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NOTE: ANY REVISIONS MAY VOID THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NECESSITATE ADDITIONAL REVIEW(S) K. General Requirements 1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan; • 4 Item C-30 Project No.DRC2007-00696 Comoletion Date • 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 andwaste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning;and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., DRC2007-00696) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 2. Submit two sets of structural calculations,energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. J /_ Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet"signature are required prior to plan check submittal. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the Building and Safety Department. L. Site Development 1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be _/_/_ marked with the project file number(i.e.,DRC2007-00696). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in • effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development project or major addition,the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,Transportation Development Fee,Permit and Plan Check Fees,Construction and Demolition Diversion Program deposit and fees and School Fees. Applicant shall provide a copy of the school fees receipt to the Building and Safety Department prior to permits issuance. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 4. Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday or holidays. 5. Construct trash enclosure(s) per City Standard (available at the Planning Department's public counter). M. New Structures 1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use,area, and fire-resistiveness. 2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 3. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC Section 1505. • 4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A 5 Item C-31 Project No,DRC2007-00696 Completion Date 5. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. 6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed. N. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. 4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 0. Dedication and Vehicular Access 1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets(measured from street centerline): 44 total feet on Hermosa Avenue. �J— • 44 total feet on 6th Street 2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. 3. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building permits,where no map is involved. 4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or Jam_ noted on the final map. P. Street Improvements 1. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No.B8-557,no person shall make connections from a source of energy,fuel or power to any building service equipment which is regulated by technical codes and for which a permit is required unless,in addition to any and all other codes,regulations and ordinances,all improvements required by these conditions of development approval have been completed and accepted by the City Council,except:that in developments containing more than one building or unit, the development may have energy connections made to a percentage of those buildings, or units proportionate to the completion of improvements as required by conditions of approval of development. In no case shall more than 95 percent of the buildings or units be connected to energy prior to completion and acceptance of all improvements required by these conditions of approval of development. • 6 ItPM f-17 Project No.DRC2007-00696 Completion Date • 2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: Curb 6 A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other Hermosa Avenue (b) X X X (e) 6th Street X X (c) X X X (e) Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for this item. (e)Curbside drain outlets. 3. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans,including street trees,street lights,and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements,prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a _/_ _/_ construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office In addition to any other permits required. C. Pavement striping,marking,traffic signing,street name signing,traffic signal conduit,and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction • project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer Notes: 1) Pull boxes shall be No.6 at Intersections and No.5 along streets,a maximum of 200 feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer. 2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pull rope or as specified. e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving,which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards,except for single family residential lots. h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to submittal for first plan check. 4. 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. • 7 Itam C-33 Project No.DRC2007-00696 Completion Date 5. Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed _/_/_ • legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on sheet —(typically sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required,tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. The City Engineer reserves the right to adjust tree species based upon field conditions and other variables. For additional information, contact the Project Engineer. Min. Grow Street Name Botanical Name Common Name Space Spacing Size city. Hermosa Avenue P.A.8 feet or greeter Platanus acertfolia London Plane Tree 8 feet 30 feet o.c. 30 feet Fill-in P.A.less than B feet Lagerstroemis Indica Crape Myrtle Hybrid 3 feet 20 feet o.c. 20 feet Fill-in No utilities 'Catawba" -Dark Purple Standard Use Platanus as on-site Background tree P.A.less than 8 feet Magnolia grandi8ore Crape Myrtle Hybrid 3 feel 20 feet o.c. 24-Inch Fill-In Under utilities 'Majestic Beauty" -Dark Purple Use Platanus as on-site Background tree BM Street Magnolia grandMbra NCN 8 feet 30 feet o.c. 15-gallon Fill-In P.A.8 feet or more "Majestic Beauty" PA less than 8 feet Magnolia grandHbre NCN 3 feet 20 feet o.c. 15-gallon Fill-in Construction Notes for Street Trees: • 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement of any planting,an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments,as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Department. 4) Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 6. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required. Q. Public Maintenance Areas 1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be bome by the developer. 2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective —J--/— Beautification Master Plan for 6th Street. R. Improvement Completion 1. If the required public improvements are not completed prior to approval of the final parcel map, an improvement security accompanied by an agreement executed by the Developer and the City will be required for all public improvements. • 8 Item C-34 Project No.DRC2007-00696 Completion Date • S. Utilities 1. 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. 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. Jam_ 3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley W ater District(CVW D), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVW D is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 4. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the final parcel map will be subject to any requirements that may be received from them. T. General Requirements and Approvals 1. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for all public improvements. 2. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City,covering the estimated operating costs for all new streetlights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or priorto building permit issuance if no map is involved. • 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits,a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills,and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form CD-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Department within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: U. Security Lighting 1. All parking,common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings,with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures. V. Security Hardware 1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device,tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. • 2. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. 9 Item r-35 Project No.DAC2007.00696 Completion Date 3. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars,metal gates, �_/_ • or alarmed. W. Security Fencing 1. All businesses or residential communities with security fencing and gates will provide the police with a keypad access and a unique code.The initial code is to be submitted to the Police Crime Prevention Unit along with plans. If this code is changed due to a change in personnel or for any other reason, the new code must be supplied to the Police via the 24-hour dispatch center at (909)941-1488 or by contacting the Crime Prevention Unit at(909)477-2800 extension 2474 or extension 2475. X. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. 2. Developer shall paint roof top numbers on one or more roofs of this development. They shall be --/--L— a minimum of three feet in length and two feet in width and of contrasting color to background. The stencils for this purpose are on loan at the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department. 3. At the entrances of commercial or residential complexes, an illuminated map or directory of project shall be erected with vandal-resistant cover. North shall be at the top and so indicated. Sign shall be in compliance with Sign Ordinance, including an application for a Sign Permit and approval by the Planning Department. Y. Alarm Systems 1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and __/_/_ • employees on the operation of the alarm system will'reduce the amount of false alarms and in tum save dollars and lives. 2. Alarm companies shall be provided with the 24-hour Sheriff's dispatch number. (909)941-1488. _/– _/_ APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE SAFETY DEPARTMENT, FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING SERVICES AT, (909) 477-2770, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: SEE ATTACHED • 10 Item C-36 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Fire Construction Services STANDARD CONDITIONS April 24, 2008 6' & Hermosa Ave Industrial 9212 Turner Ave. (Hermosa) (2) Industrial Buildings SUBTPM18872 &DRC2007-00696 THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT The RCFPD Procedures & Standards which are referenced in this document can be access on the web at htto:llwww.ci.rancho-cucamonaa.ca.us/fire/lndex.htm under the Fire Safety Division& Fire Construction Services section. Search by article; the preceding number of the standard refers to the article. Chose the appropriate article number then a drop down menu will appear, select the corresponding standard. FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply 1. Design guidelines for Fire Hydrants: The following provides design guidelines for the spacing and location • of fire hydrants: a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in commercial/industrial projects is 300-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 150-feet from an approved fire hydrant. For cul-de- sacs, the distance shall not exceed 100-feet. b. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are: I. At the entrance(s) to a commercial, industrial or residential project from the public roadways. 2. At intersections. 3. On the right side of the street,whenever practical and possible. 4. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire District. 5. A minimum of forty-feet(40')from any building. c. If any portion of a facility or building is located more than 150-feet from a public fire hydrant measured on an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building,additional private or public fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. d. Provide one fire hydrant for each 1000 gpm of required fire flow or fraction thereof. FSC-2 Fire Flow 1. The required minimum fire flow for this project, when automatic fire sprinklers are installed is 3375 gallons per minute at a minimum residual pressure of 20-pounds per square inch. This flow reflects a 50- percent reduction for the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA 13 with central station monitoring. This requirement is made in accordance with the California Fire Code Appendix, as adopted by the Fire District Ordinances. 3. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow. • 4. Fire protection water plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until public fire protection water plans are approved. 5. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet of the proposed project site. Item C-37 FSC-3 Prerequisite for submittal of Overhead Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems 1. Prior to submitting plans for an overhead automatic fire sprinkler system, the applicant shall submit plans, • specifications and calculations for the fire sprinkler system underground supply piping. Approval of the underground supply piping system must be obtained prior to submitting the overhead fire sprinkler system plans. FSC-4 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed in buildings as required by the2007 California Fire Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance FD46 and/or any other applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed. FSC-5 Fire Alarm System & Sprinkler Monitoring 1. The 2007 California Building Code,the RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard, Ordinance FD46 and/or the 2007 California Fire Code require most fire sprinkler systems to be monitoring by Central Station sprinkler monitoring system. A manual and or automatic fire alarm system fire may also be required based on the use and occupancy of the building. Plan check approval and a building permit are required prior to the installation of a fire alarm or a sprinkler monitoring system. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard. FSC-6 Fire District Site Access Fire District access roadways include public roads, streets and highways, as well as private roads,streets drive aisles and/or designated fire lanes. Please reference the RCFPD Fire Department Access Roadways Standard. 1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1" story exterior wall shall be located within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access,measure on an approved route around the exterior of the building. Landscaped • areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates and fences are deemed obstructions. 2. Specifications for private Fire District access roadways per the RCFPD Standards are: a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet. b. The maximum inside turn radius shall be 24-feet. c. The minimum outside tum radius shall be 50-feet. d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet. e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches. f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet on each side. g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9-degrees or 20 percent. h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12%. i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight(GVW). j. Trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the fire lane shall be kept trimmed to a minimum of 14-feet, 6- inches from the ground up. Vegetation shall not be allowed to obstruct Fire Department apparatus. 3. Access Doorways: Approved doorways, accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be provided as follows: a. In buildings without high-piled storage, access shall be provided in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, Fire and/or any other applicable standards. b. In buildings with high-piled storage access doors shall be provided in each 100 lineal feet or major fraction thereof, of the exterior wall that faces the required access roadways. When railways are installed provisions shall be made to maintain Fire District access to all required openings. 4. Access Walkways: Hardscaped access walkways shall be provided from the fire apparatus access road to all required building exterior openings. 5. Commercial/Industrial Gates: Any gate installed across a Fire Department access road shall be in • accordance with Fire District Standard. The following design requirements apply: 2 Item C-38 a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates,plans are required to be submitted to Fire Construction Services(FCS) for approval. Upon the completion of the installation and before placing • the gates in service, inspection and final acceptance must be requested from FCS. b. Gates must slide open horizontally or swing inward. c. Gates may be motorized or manual. d. When fully open,the minimum clearance dimension of drive access shall be 20 feet. e. Manual gates must be equipped with a RCFPD lock available at the Fire Safety Office for$20.00. f. Motorized gates must open at the rate of one-foot per second. g. The motorized gate actuation mechanism must be equipped with a manual override device and a fail- safe or battery backup feature to open the gate or release the locking Mechanism in case of power failure or mechanical malfunction. h. Motorized gates shall be equipped with a Knox override key switch. The switch must be installed outside the gate in a visible and unobstructed location. i. For motorized gates,a traffic loop device must be installed to allow exiting from the complex. j. If traffic pre-emption devices (TPD) are to be installed,the device, location and operation must be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. Bi-directional or multiple sensors may be required due to complexity of the various entry configurations. 7. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A site plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval. 8. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application, if applicable,must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan review. 6. Roof Access: There shall be a means of fire department access from the exterior walls of the buildings on to the roofs of all commercial, industrial and multi-family residential structures with roofs less than 75' • above the level of the fire access road. a. This access must be reachable by either fire department ground ladders or by an aerial ladder. b. A minimum of one ladder point with a fixed ladder shall be provided in buildings with construction features, or high parapets that inhibit roof access. c. The number of ladder points may be required to be increased, depending on the building size and configuration. d. Regardless of the parapet height or construction features the approved ladder point shall be identified in accordance to the roof access standard. e. Where the entire roof access is restricted by high parapet walls or other obstructions, a permanently mounted access ladder is required. f. Multiple access ladders may be required for larger buildings. g. Ladder construction must be in accordance with the RCFPD Roof Access Standard Appendix A. h. A site plan showing the locations of the roof ladder shall be submitted during plan check. i. Ladder points shall face a fire access roadway(s). FSC-10 Occupancy and Hazard Control Permits Listed are those Fire Code permits commonly associated with the business operations and/or building construction. Plan check submittal is required with the permit application for approval of the permit; field inspection is required prior to permit issuance. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions that may be hazardous to life or property. • Aerosol Products Magnesium Working • Application of Flammable Finishes Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Operation • • Automobile Wrecking Yards Open Burning • Battery Systems Organic Coating • Candles and open flames in public assemblies Ovens • Cellulose Nitrate Powder Coating 3 Item C—Rq • Compressed Gases Public Assembly • Cryogenics Pyrotechnical Special Effects • Dry Cleaning Plants Radioactive Materials • • Dust-Producing Processes and Operations Refrigeration Systems • Explosive or Blasting Agents Repair Garages • Flammable and Combustible Liquids Rubbish Handling Operations • Fruit Ripening Plants Spraying or Dipping Operations • Hazardous Materials Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures • High-Pile Combustible Storage (HPS) Tire Storage • Liquefied Petroleum Gases Welding and Cutting Operations • LPG or Gas Fuel Vehicles in Assembly Buildings Wood Products/Lumber Yards FSC-11 Hazardous Materials—Submittal to the County of San Bernardino The San Bernardino County Fire Department shall review your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan for compliance with minimum standards. Contact the San Bernardino County Fire,Hazardous Materials Division at(909) 387-4631 for forms and assistance. The County Fire Department is the Cal/EPA Certified Unified Program Agency(CUPA)for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1. If the facility is a NEW business a Certificate of Occupancy issued by Building& Safety will not be finalized until the San Bernardino County Fire Department reviews your Business Emergency/Contingency Plan. California Government Code, Section 65850.2 prohibits the City from issuing a final Certificate of Occupancy unless the applicant has met or is meeting specific hazardous materials disclosure requirements. A Risk Management Program (RMP)may also be required if regulation substances are to be used or stored at the new facility. 2. Any business that operates on rented or leased property which is required to submit a Plan, is also required to submit a notice to the owner of the property in writing stating that the business is subject to the Business • Emergency/Contingency Plan mandates and has complied with the provisions. The tenant must provide a copy of the Plan to the property owner within five (5) working days, if requested by the owner. FSC-12 Hazardous Materials- Submittal to Fire Construction Services Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction of buildings and/or the installation of equipment designed to store, use or dispense hazardous materials in accordance with the 2007Califomia Building,Fire, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical Codes,RCFPD Ordinances FD46 and other implemented and/or adopted standards. FSC-13 Alternate Method Application Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal will review all requests for alternate method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of the$92 review fee. FCS-14 Map Recordation - 1. RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS for Fire Department Emergency Access and Water Supply are required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property that is being subdivided. The reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property owners and the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site plan. The Fire Construction Services shall approve the agreement,prior to recordation. The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorders Office. Reciprocal access agreement—Please provide a permanent access agreement between the owners • granting irrevocable and a non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District to gain access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall be placed within the dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The agreement 4 Item C-40 shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. • Reciprocal water covenant—Please provide a permanent maintenance and service covenant between the owners granting an irrevocable and non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire District for the purpose of accessing and maintaining the private water mains, valves and fire hydrants (fire protection systems facilities in general). The covenant shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire District. FCS-15 Annexation of the parcel map: Annexation of the parcel map into the Community Facilities District #85-1 or#88-1 is required prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. Chronological Summary of RCFPD Standard Conditions PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS—Please complete the following prior to the issuance of any building permits: 1. Private Water Supply (Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit construction plans, specifications, flow test data and calculations for the private water main system for review and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District Standards. Approval of the on-site(private)fire underground and water plans is required prior to any building permit issuance for any structure on the site. Private on-site combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with RCFPD Standards. The Building& Safety Division and Fire Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections. All private on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible • framing materials to the site. Fire construction Services will inspect the installation,witness hydrant flushing and grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 2. Public Water Supply (Domestic/Fire) Systems: The applicant shall submit a plan showing the locations of all new public fire hydrants for the review and approval by the Fire District and CCWD. On the plan, show all existing fire hydrants within a 600-foot radius of the project. Please reference the RCFPD Water Plan Submittal Procedure Standard. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped. 3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard. All temporary utilities over access roads must be installed at least 14'6" above the finished surface of the road. 4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to Fire Construction Services. 5. Easements and Reciprocal Agreements: All easements and agreements must be recorded with the County of San Bernardino. PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' • "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures". PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER S Itpm C-4t The building construction must be substantially completed in accordance with Fire Construction Services' "Temporary Power Release Checklist and Procedures". • PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY OR FINAL INSPECTION—Please complete the following: 1. Hydrant Markers: All fire hydrants shall have a blue reflective pavement marker indicating the fire hydrant location on the street or driveway in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Standard Plan 134, "Installation of Reflective Hydrant Markers". On private property,the markers shall be installed at the centerline of the fire access road, at each hydrant location. 2. Private Fire Hydrants: For the purpose of final acceptance, a licensed sprinkler contractor, in the presence of Fire Construction Services, shall conduct a test of the most hydraulically remote on-site fire hydrants. The underground fire line contractor, developer and/or owner are responsible for hiring the company to perform the test. A final test report shall be submitted to Fire Construction Services verifying the fire flow available. The fire flow available must meet or exceed the required fire flow in accordance with the California Fire Code. 3, Fire Sprinkler System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the fire sprinkler system(s) shall be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 4, Fire Sprinkler Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the fire sprinkler monitoring system must be tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. The fire sprinkler monitoring system shall be installed, tested and operational immediately following the completion of the fire sprinkler system (subject to the release of power). 5. Fire Suppression Systems and/or other special hazard protection systems shall be inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services before occupancy is granted and/or equipment is placed in service. 6. Fire Alarm System: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,the fire alarm system shall be installed, inspected, tested and accepted by Fire Construction Services. 7. Access Control Gates: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular gates must be • inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards by Fire Construction Services. 8. Fire Access Roadways: Prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the fire access roadways must be installed in accordance with the approved plans and acceptable to Fire Construction Services. The CC&R's, the reciprocal agreement and/or other approved documents shall be recorded and contain an approved fire access roadway map with provisions that prohibit parking, specify the method of enforcement and identifies who is responsible for the required annual inspections and the maintenance of all required fire access roadways. 9. Address: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,commerciallindustrial and multi-family buildings shall post the address in accordance to the appropriate RCFPD addressing Standard. 10. Hazardous Materials: The applicant must obtain inspection and acceptance by Fire Construction Services. 11. Confidential Business Occupancy Information: The applicant shall complete the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District"Confidential Business Occupancy Information" form, This form provides contact information for Fire District use in the event of an emergency at the subject building or property. This form must be presented to the Fire Construction Services Inspector. 12. Mapping Site Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, an 8 '/a" x 11" or 11" x 17" site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard shall be revised by the applicant to reflect the actual location of all devices and building features as required in the standard. The site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire Inspector. • F Item C-42 RESOLUTION NO. 13-25 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2) YEARS FOR AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE/OFFICE PROJECT COMPRISED OF TWO (2) BUILDINGS WITH A COMBINED FLOOR AREA OF ABOUT 100,000 SQUARE FEET ON A PARCEL OF ABOUT 212,000 SQUARE FEET(4.87 ACRES)WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 9212 HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 0209-211-41. A. Recitals. 1. Phelan Development Company filed an application for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval ("time extension")for Development Review DRC2007-00696,as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject time extension request is referred to as "the application," DRC2013-00326. 2. On May 14, 2008,this Commission adopted its Resolution No.08-19,thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On the June 26, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. • 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on June 26, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The applicant does not propose any changes to the original project in conjunction with this time extension request; b. The previously approved Development Review is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; C. The extension of the Development Review approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes or policies; • d. The extension of the Development Review approval will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and itpm r-di PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-25 TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00326 — PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY June 26, 2013 Page 2 • e. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. 3. Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application,the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission determined that the original project was categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions and Section 15332 In-Fill Development Projects in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2007-00696 in December 2008. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project. No changes are proposed to the project; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; and no new important information shows that the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. There are no changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated when concluding the project was categorically exempt. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not analyzed in the previous • environmental review and will not have more severe effects than previously analyzed. b. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record,the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the Time Extension DRC2013-00326 for Development Review DRC2007-00696. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above,this Commission hereby extends the duration of an existing entitlement approval by an additional two(2) years and modifies the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 08-19 to read as follows: Planning Department 1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval (time extension) for Development Review DRC2007-00696 and modification of the applicable approval time limit as described in Standard Condition B.1 contained in Resolution No. 08-19 that was adopted by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2008. 2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2)years. The new expiration date for Development Review DRC2007-00696 is May 14, 2015. 3) Any requests for future time extensions shall be subject to the procedures,conditions, and findings as set forth in Section 17.14.090 of • the Development Code. Itom f_a4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-25 TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00326— PHELAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY June 26, 2013 • Page 3 4) All other conditions of approval, including all of the standard/special conditions of approval of other City departments, for Development Review DRC2007-00696 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM18872 shall apply. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary • I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of June 2013, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: • Itcm f—aS STAFF REPORT • PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: June 26, 2013 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager BY: Dominick Perez, Planning Technician SUBJECT: FOURTH TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2 - BCA DEVELOPMENT - A fourth request to extend the duration of an existing entitlement approval by one year for a request to subdivide 37.43 acres into 95 lots for single-family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1087-071-15. The tract is part of a larger previously approved project involving the subdivision of 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single- family home construction. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15699 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915) certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 98121091) certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in July 2001, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report • and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a 1-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-2 through the adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15699, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227 on July 24, 2002, for a 3-year period. The Planning Commission then approved 3 separate 1-year time extension requests. Following the expiration of the third time extension, the subject Tentative Map qualified for Senate Bill 1185, Assembly Bill 333, and Assembly Bill 208, which extended the expiration date an additional 5 years (see table below). Request Years of Approval Expiration Date Tentative Tract Map 3 July 24, 2005 I't Time Extension 1 July 24, 2006 2 nd Time Extension 1 July 24, 2007 3` Time Extension 1 July 24, 2008 SB 1185 1 July 24, 2009 AB 333 2 July 24, 2011 AB 208 2 July 24, 2013 Requested 0 Time Extension 1 July 24, 2014 • Item D-1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT , TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2— BCA DEVELOPMENT June 26, 2013 • Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant Land - County of San Bernardino South - Single-Family Residences - Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan East - Utility Corridor West - Vacant Land - County of San Bernardino B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - County of San Bernardino South - Low Residential East - Utility Corridor West - County of San Bernardino C. Site Characteristics: The site is located at the northwest corner of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which abuts the City's northern property line. The site was previously rough graded and currently contains minimal vegetation. Access to the property is provided via Indian Wells Place. ANALYSIS: • A. General: The applicant is requesting a fourth 1-year time extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-2. Per Section 16.16.170 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (R.C.M.C.), extensions to Tentative Tract Maps may be granted in 12-month increments not to exceed a total of 5 years. The applicant will have the opportunity to request one additional extension following this request. No changes to the design of the tract are proposed at this time. There have been no changes to the City's development standards for this site since these maps were approved. B. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915) was prepared and certified by the County of San Bernardino as a Master EIR for the University/Crest Planned Development in June 1991, and in October 1999. The County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors certified a supplement to the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98121091) because of a revision to the University/Crest Planned Development. In August 2001, the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Addendum to address issues associated with the adoption of the Rancho Etiwanda Development Agreement. The Addendum identified no substantial changes in the project that would require a major revision to the previous EIR in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226. 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 Item D-2 •r PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2- BCA DEVELOPMENT • June 26, 2013 Page 3 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 the time extension request 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 previously certified EIR. The site has been graded and portions of the site are under construction consistent with the previously approved applications. The time extension request does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental EIR since the tentative parcel map and tentative tract maps were originally approved on July 24, 2002. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, and do 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. No changes have been made to the project and there have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR. 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 time extension request. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily • Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. No calls or correspondence have been received regarding the application. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett Planning Manager CB:DP/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Letter from Applicant dated April 23, 2013 Exhibit B - Location Map Exhibit C - Phasing Map Exhibit D - Tentative Tract Map 16226 Exhibit E - Initial Study Part I and II Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension for SUBTT16226-2 • Item D-3 • IJDEVFLOPMFNT, INC. April 23, 2013 City of Rancho Cucamonga Candice Burnett—Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 RE: Tentative Tract No. 16226-2 Rancho Etiwanda Estates Dear Ms. Burnett: By way of this letter, we are hereby requesting a Map Time Extension on Tentative Tract No. 16226-2 due to timing of permits and construction. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at(949) 233-6700. Sincerely, • BCA Development, In Ben C. Anderson President BCA:kv Enclosures • EXHIBIT A Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone(714)966-1544—Fax(714)966-1540 Item D-4 W - - = - - SCE _ - J I Z DAY CREEK BOULEVARD �\ \ �y BLUEGRASS AVENUE rD ETIWANDA AVENUE J Z O o _ �, I I I D EAST AVENUE II i I II I I D WARDMANI BULLOCK ROAD ii ) 1 1 m X OD TRACT NO. 16226 - 2 -i CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 u 31 rt ao ne lo�seivlsx�ss s. s+Iael vl ee�� ase leo�ar e¢1as+e.les ea e. u o rJx,r rilra "n�., `•T" JVq;1��^+-INb!;r;'-�1/ii�l'(e.�u jerls'Im+ea ri�na ue.�u,u n r . j x; u�s _all 7 el I inLa., MIA PREPARED FOR- 1 A 8 J.RESOURCES,INC,1 �t No ; W \ S\ ;- s • 17780 FITCH STREET,SUITE 120 I _ ) ll-—" "' �`� •, IRVINE,CA 92814 \ PHONE: (949)993-1955 FAX: (949)953-0095 PREPARED BY' Qr ,...e . ......... ..... DATE PREPARED' MARCH 8, 2004 `�✓ DATE REVISED' MARCH 1, 2005 a Ij +RA G 4 jk uuu111T x a»s►,� SP iLx } l �.> �� r�� ,t. •�.� D:=llilllllllllllllllllll '_ _ .......... - ------- ------- Fig 0:::: ::: r 5�� unuuuo IIIIIIIIIIIr .Ke ♦ � ' �r.y+.t+i, ,r rrf+�. Kin41f`rr, jay . u � IrqmmLad "�J Print Form ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (Part I - Initial Study) RANCHO (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 11 a$ required by CEQA. In addition to the filing 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. GENERAL INFORMATION: • INCOMPLETEAPPLICATIONS WILL NOTBE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work required to provide missing information. Application Number for the project to which this form pertains: Tentative Tract Map 16226-2 Project Tine: Rancho Etiwanda Estates Name 8 Address of project owner(s): Fu Hsiung Cheng - 1100 Avondale Road, San Marino, CA 91108 Name 6 Address of developer or project sponsor BCA Development, Inc. -3194-C2 Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • Page 1 of 10 EXHIBIT F Item D-9 Contact Person 8 Address: Ben C. Anderson, 3194-C2 Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 • Name B Address of person preparing this form(if different from above): Ben C. Anderson, BCA Development, Inc. 3194-C2 Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone Number. 714-966-1544 PROJECT • ' • • • Information indicated by an asterisk(')is not required of non-construction CUP's unless otherwise requested by staff. •1) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 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): Day Creek Boulevard - North of Wilson Avenue • 4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers(attach additional sheet if necessary): See attached. '5) Gross Site Area(ac/sq. ft.): 37.437 '8) Net Site Area(total site size minus area of public streets 8 proposed Same. dedications): 7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which would affect the project site (attach additional sheet/f necessary). Project Approvals Include, Tentative Map, Parcel Map, EIR, EIR Addendum, Final Supplemental EIR, General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment and Development Agreement No. 01-01 dated August 1, 2001 • Parcel Map No. 15699 and Tentative Tract Maps Nos. 16226 and 16227, Extensions Approved by City of Rancho Cucamonga on August 23, 2006. Final Tract Map Nos. 16226-1 and 16226 approved and recorded. Updated 4/11/2013 Page 2 of 10 Item D-10 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., Existing permits include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Biological Opinion. California Department of Fish and Game 1603 Permit. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide 404 Permit. California Regional Water Quality Board 401 Permit, Grading Permits, other. 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 descnbed. In addition, cite all sources of information(i.e.,geological and/or hydrologic studies,biotic and archeological surveys, traffic studies): See Final Supplemental EIR dated June 7, 2001. • Updated 4/11/2013 Page 3 of 10 Item D-11 10) Describe the known cultural and/orhistorical aspects of the site. Cite all sources of information(books,published reports and oral history): • None. PRIMP Report prepared by McKenna, at al. dated September 29, 2004. 11) Describe any noise sources and their levels that now affect the site(aircraft,roadway noise,etc.)and how they will affect proposed uses None. 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: See Development Agreement, 01-01 dated August 1, 2001. 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.): See Final Supplemental EIR dated June 7, 2001. • Updated 4/11/2013 Page 4 of 10 Item D-12 14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale, or character of the surrounding general area of the project? No. • 15) Indicate the type of short-term and long-temr 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? See Final Supplemental EIR dated June 7, 2001. '16) Indicate proposed removals and/or replacements of mature or scenic trees: None. 17) Indicate any bodies of water(including domestic water supplies)into which the site drains: • See Final Supplemental EIR dated June 7, 2001. 18) Indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage estimates). For further clanfication, please contact the Cucamonga Valley Water District at(909)987-2591. a. Residential(gaUday) Peak use(gal/Day) b. Commercialrind. (gaUday/ac) Peak use(gaUmin/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(gaYday) _ b CommerciaUlndustrial(gal/day/ac) Updated 4/11/2013 Page 5 of 10 Item D-13 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS: 20) Number of residential units:262 • Detached(indicate range of parcel sizes, minimum lot size and maximum lot size: Minimum lot size 7,000 sf-Maximum 14,000 sf+ Attached(indicate whether units are rental or for sale units): For Sale 21) Anticipated range of sale prices and/or rents: Sale Pnce(s) $ to $ Rent(per month) $ to $ 22) Specify number of bedrooms by unit type: 3-5 • 23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type: 2.900 to 4,000 sf 24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown in Attachment 8: a. Elementary: b. Junior High: c. Senior High COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTIONAL PROJECTS 25) Describe type of use(s)and major function(s)of commercial, industrial or institutional uses: None. Updated 4/11/2013 Page 6 of 10 Item D-14 26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by type: None. • 27) Indicate hours of operation: None. 28) Number of employees: Total:None. Maximum Shift., Time of Maximum Shift., 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): None. 30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that currently reside in the City., Unknown. • '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): None. 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. Yes. All approvals in place. Updated 4/11/2013 Page 7 of 10 Item D-15 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, it known. None. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Complete. 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 d4ftqnd information required for adequate evaluation of this project to the best of my ability,that the facts,statements,and informatio entad are true and correct tot he best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information maybe regw to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho Cu onga. �' Date: April 2013 Signature: Title: Ben C.Anderson, President • Updated 4/11/2013 Page 8 of 10 Item D-16 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 gaUday/unit (tenant) Industrial Park 1750 gal/day/unit (tenant) Large General Industrial 2020 gaUday/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 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 Item D-17 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 Item D-18 • City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project Files: SUBTT16226-2 2. Related Files: SUBTPM15699, SUBTT16227, DRCDA01-01, DRCGPA01-01D, and DRCENSPA01-02 3. Description of Project: FOURTH TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2 - BCA DEVELOPMENT - A fourth request to extend the duration of an existing entitlement approval by one year for a request to subdivide 37.43 acres into 95 lots for single-family home construction in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan located north of Wilson Avenue, east of Day Creek Boulevard and west of Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1087-071-15. The tract is part of a larger previously approved project involving the subdivision of 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single- family home construction. Related Files: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM15699 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16227. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 88082915) certified by the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors in 1991 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 98121091) certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in July 2001, and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in that Environmental Impact Report and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: BCA Development, Inc. Ben Anderson 3194-C1 Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 S. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 6. Zoning: Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Utility Corridor 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located at Day Creek Boulevard, north of Wilson Avenue, west of Etiwanda Avenue. The site is bordered by a Southern California Edison Corridor designated Utility • Corridor, Flood Control to the west, North Etiwanda Preserve (vacant) designated Hillside Residential to the north, Etiwanda Creek/vacant land designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to the east, and recently-constructed Item D-19 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga SUBTT16226-2 Page 2 single-family homes designated Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to the • south (University Planned Development). The original site sloped to the south and is part of a broad alluvial fan located at the based of the San Gabriel Mountains. The site burned during the 2003 Grand Prix Fire. There are currently two housing developments under construction within neighboring tracts. 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: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: None ANALYSIS: The Development Agreement for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates area provides for a 632 lot single-family subdivision on 248.63 acres located west of Etiwanda Avenue north of Wilson Avenue. The Site Plan and building elevations for the proposed development are established by the Development Agreement and are intended to be generally • consistent with development standards in the Development Code and Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The impacts of the project were evaluated as part of the EIR and no change is proposed. The project will be required to implement all pertinent mitigation measures adopted in the Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rancho Etiwanda Estates Development (formerly the University/Crest Planned Development) as covered by the Environmental Impact Report and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (1991), as certified by the County of San Bernardino, and Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (2001), as certified by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 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 because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Item D-20 d Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga - SUBTT16226-2 ;_�r Page 3 . 4 Sign inick Perez `P nn-tng Technician -" - t - Mey,29,2013 - y "EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used wliere,�pursuant'to the' tiering, program EIR'or other CEQA •process, one ormore effects have'been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative . Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D): "The effects identified above for this project were within -',.Ahe scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant'to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation�measures basedon " the earlier analysts. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study `- and are available for review in the City.of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning,Department offices;'.- ' 10500 Civic Center Drive: i ' (X) Environmental Impact Re'p'ort for University/Crest Planned Developmbnt (State Cleadnghouse No':88062915): " (Certified June 1991);, (X) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for,Revised University project -(State Clearinghouse No.98121091) (Certified October 26, 1999) - (X) initiai�Study/Addendum for Revised University Project (Certified August 1;2001)'• 3 • ? APPLICANT CERTIFICATION - I certify that I am the applicant for the,p' act descr"d in this Initial Study:I acknowledge that I ! have read this Initial Study,and the proposed,mi8gation measures. Further;I haw:revised the project nos or,proposals andfor;hereby agree to the proposed mitigation.measures to avoid the'effects w mttigate,the,effeds,to int where dearly no;sign fipnt environmental effects would odcui. . Signature: `t Date: Print Name and Title:, • • RESOLUTION NO. 13-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. SUBTT16226-2,A FOURTH REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY 1 YEAR FOR A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 37.43 ACRES INTO 95 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTION IN THE LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NORTH OF WILSON AVENUE, EAST OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AND WEST OF ETIWANDAAVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 1087-071-15. A. Recitals. 1. BCA Development, Inc. filed an application for the approval of a Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map No. SUBTT16226-2, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application." 2. On July 24, 2002,the Commission adopted its Resolution No. 02-77,thereby approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits. • 3. On July 13, 2005,the Commission adopted its Resolution No. 05-55,thereby approving the application for a one-year time extension subject to specific conditions and time limits. 4. On August 23, 2006, the Commission adopted its Resolution No. 06-81, thereby approving the application for a second one-year time extension subject to specific conditions and time limits. 5. On August 8, 2007,the Commission adopted its Resolution No. 07-50,thereby approving the application for a third one-year time extension subject to specific conditions and time limits. 6. On the 26th day of June, 2013, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 7. 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 June 26, 2013, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: Item D-22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-23 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2— BCA DEVELOPMENT, INC. June 26, 2013 Page 2 • a. The application applies to the property located approximately 1,800 feet north of Indian Wells Place and Day Creek Boulevard—APN:APN: 1087-071-15. Access to the property is provided via Indian Wells Place; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant land within the County of San Bernardino,the property to the south consists of single-family residences within the Low Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, the property to the east is and existing Utility Corridor, and the property to the west is vacant land within the County of San Bernardino; and C. The applicant does not propose any changes to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226- Therefore,the previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-2 is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and d. Approval of the time extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-2 will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and e. The subject Map previously qualified for additional time extensions through Senate Bill 1185, Assembly Bill 333, and Assembly Bill 208, which extended the expiration date an additional 5 years; and f. Approval of this request will grant the fourth time extension for this Tentative Tract Map. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. Title 16 • (Subdivisions) allows for extensions to Tentative Tract Maps in 12-month increments not to exceed a total of 5 years. 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 Map was originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2002 as part of a larger development to subdivide 248.63 acres of land into 632 lots for the purpose of single-family home construction. Since there have been no changes to the design of the tract and there have been no changes to the City's development standards for this site, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-2 remains in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and all applicable Specific Plans, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. Furthermore, the proposed time extension is in accordance with the requirements set in the Municipal Code as well as all applicable state requirements; and b. The Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT26226-2, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The project site is vacant; the proposed land use is consistent with the land uses within the vicinity where it is located and the expectations of the community. The zoning of the property and the adjacent neighboring properties to the south and east is Low Residential District, Etiwanda North Specific Plan; and C. The Time Extension for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT26226-2 complies with each of • the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, as Title 16 (Subdivision) allows for extensions to Tentative Tract Maps in 12-month increments not to exceed a total of 5 years. Item D-23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-23 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2 — BCA DEVELOPMENT, INC. June 26, 2013 • Page 3 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, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) (State Clearinghouse No.88082915)was prepared and certified by the County of San Bernardino as a Master EIR for the University/Crest Planned Development in June 1991, and in October 1999, the County of San Bernardino Board of Supervisors certified a supplement to the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 98121091) because of a revision to the University/Crest Planned Development. In August 2001, the City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Addendum to address issues associated with adoption of the Rancho Etiwanda Development Agreement. The Addendum identified no substantial changes in the project that would require a major revision to the previous EIR. 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; and b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the fourth time extension request, 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 previously certified EIR. The site has been graded and portions of the site are under construction consistent with the previously approved plans. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, 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. No changes have been made to the project and there have not been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions to the previous EIR; and 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 fourth time extension request for SUBTT16226-2; and d. Pursuant to the requirements of California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 753.5,the Planning Commission finds, based on the Initial Study,the EIR, and considering the record as a whole, that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based on substantial evidence, the Planning Commission hereby makes a declaration rebutting the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in • California Department of Fish and Game Regulation 753.5 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Code, Section 753.5.) Item D-24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-23 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16226-2— BCA DEVELOPMENT, INC. June 26, 2013 Page 4 • 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. Planning Department 1) All conditions as stated in Resolution No. 02-77, Resolution No. 05-55, Resolution No. 06-81, and Resolution No. 07-50 shall apply. 2) Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16226-2 shall expire on July 24, 2014. Engineering Department 1) All conditions included in Resolution 02-77 shall continue to apply, including the payment of outstanding Regional Drainage fees. 2) Rancho Etiwanda Estates Infrastructure improvements deferred with a bond substitution per ROW2009-00043 shall be completed concurrently with outstanding on-site improvements. 3) Pay a $2,635 Traffic Circulation Improvement Fee prior to building permit issuance for each residence, per developer-to-developer reimbursement agreement SRA-41. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. • APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Frances Howdyshell, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of June, 2013, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: • ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item D-25 L4� SIGN-IN SHEET �•„I.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUNE 26, 2013 NAME aCOMPANY ADDRESS/EMAIL