HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-08-28 - Agenda Packet - HPC / PC • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 28, 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 previouslyincluded on
the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and
set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed
directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the
audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain
from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which
might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
• III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
P.ANCHO AUGUST 28, 2013
CUCAMONGA
Page 2
A. PRESENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY RECREATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
11 COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Approval of minutes dated July 24, 2013
77
V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS PLANNING COMMISSION
C. PRESENTATION ON THE TREE MAINTENANCE POLICY
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION •
The following items have been advertised and/orposted as public hearings as required bylaw. The
Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5
minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
D. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00541 - CARTER REDISH ARCHITECTS FOR CHASE
PARTNERS, LTD -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 one (1)
building with a floor area of 28,860 square feet on two (2) parcels with a combined area of
about 60,550 square feet(1.39 acres) in the General Industrial (GI) District located at 9075
Rochester Avenue; APNs: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33. Related file: Development
Review DRC2006-01012. The Planning Commission determined that the project was
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
q Environmentaluali
Q ty 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.
E. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013 00585 DR HORTON-Are request to extend the duration q anon of an
existing
entitlement approval pp oval by an additional two (2) ears for Development y p t Review
DRC2006-00730 the Site Plan and design review for 67 residential condominiums on 4.70
net acres of land in the proposed Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre),
located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court -APN: 1089-
581-01. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224, Victoria Community •
Plan Amendment DRC2006 00447, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, and Tree
Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. On August 27, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts was adopted by the PlanningCommission for Tentative e Tract Map
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CRRANNC NO AUGUST 28, 2013
Page 3
18212, General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224, Victoria Community Plan Amendment
DRC2006-00447 and Development Review DRC2006-00730. The California Environmental
Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required
for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of the previous
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
F. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00652-DR HORTON-A request to extend the duration of an
existing entitlement approval by an additional two (2) years for Tree Removal Permit
DRC2007-00081 for the removal of approximately 49 trees to develop 67 residential
condominiums on 4.70 net acres of land in the proposed Medium Residential District(8-14
dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San
Carmela Court -APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-
00224, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006 00447, and Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18212, and Development Review DRC2006-00730. On August 27, 2008, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning
Commission for Tentative Tract Map 18212, General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224,
Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447 and Development Review
• DRC2006-00730. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further
environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor
revisions to projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration.
VII. COMMISSION CONCERNS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 22, 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.
•
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
RANCHO AUGUST 28, 2013
CUCAMONGA
Page 4
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given
the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you
may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the
views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain
from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and
speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium.
It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are
generally limited to 5 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." There is
opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda.
Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for •
distribution to the Commissioners. 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 parry who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office
and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and
governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at
www.CitvofRC.us
•
Vicinity Map
Historic Preservation and
Planning Commission Meeting
AUGUST 28, 2013
I I I I
,.T
I
I . E o r € a
j a V Q 2 S
Y
O
1
� c o
� o
19 St
1
Base Line
/Base
1
Church
1 Church
Foothill
'E _ Foothill N
a l
Arrow c
J racy t = I Arrow
8th c r
} .
6th C� = 6th W
u C i Y
4th Q = = g
4th
* Meeting Location:
E p City Hall/Council Chambers
10600 Civlc Center Drive
ItOA: Presentation of the Community Recreation Needs Assessment
Item B: Approval of minutes dated July 24, 2013
Item C: Presentation on the Tree Maintenance Policy
's
• • C�36�3CJ
• (a)
� � C•} c� nl U a
2013 Community
Recreation
• • . • • •
Findings and Analysis
Presented by the Park and Recreation Commission Subcommittee &
Community Services Department
Conducted by: GreenPlay LLC $ � '
4
- —• •-y.. CIIp.wMe Reve+Uon NRGllvpsmvN .
aRl1R
luln 011
NEEDS ASSESSEMENT PURPOSE
•To conduct a Statistically Valid Survey that provides a
scientifically reliable method to gain an understanding of a
community's recreation needs, attitudes, opinions and behaviors.
•A formal Assessment provides one opportunity for data
collection in the first phase of the development of a Park and
Recreation Master Plan. It serves as one foundation for long
range planning initiatives, visioning out 10-15 years.
•The last time a Recreation Needs Assessment was conducted in
Rancho Cucamonga was in 2000/2001 ,
POPULATION & PROGRESS
2001 2010
•Population 121 ,100 • Population over 165,000
• 29.4% population growth
•Enhanced program offerings and services for youth, adults and seniors
•Completed several capital projects related to priorities identified in 2001
— First phase of Central Park (including new Senior and Community
Centers)
— Victoria Gardens Cultural Center
— Development of additional neighborhood parks.
•Elimination of Redevelopment Agency
�s
Rancho Cucamonga 2001 2012
Population 121 ,100 (as stated in 2001 report from Census 167,903
data)
Developed 298 — not including =/- 248 acres of 420 acres of
Park community & regional trails parks & open space
Acres
Parks 19 Neighborhood Parks 31
1 .5 — 10 acres
3 Community Parks
12 — 44 acres
150 miles of hiking,
biking and
equestrian trails
RECREATION CUSTOMERS
• 20% of customers generate 80% of registration revenue
• 63. 74% Repeat Rate (benchmark= 30-50%)
Generational Break Down
• 37.83% of paid registration customers 11 and younger
• 10.0% Seniors
• 13.5% Baby Boomers
• Based on analysis by Learning Resources Network (LERN) of 2012 Registration data
PROJECT BACKGROUND & TIMELINE
•A Community Recreation Needs Assessment was identified
as a City Council Goal for the 2012/2013 Fiscal Year as the
first step in developing a Park & Recreation Master Plan.
•July, 2012 an internal multi-department project team was
formed , which included a subcommittee of two Park and
Recreation Commissioners.
t
MULTI-DEPARTMENT TEAM
• Community Services
• Public Works Services
• City Manager's Office
• Library Services
• Animal Services
• Purchasing/Administrative Services
PROJECT TIMELINE
January — February Stakeholder and Community Workshops
2013
March — A 'ri' 2013 . Public Outreach
462 :hard copy, + ;100 phone surveys completed
Web, based public input vi a 'RCCommunityldeas.com
May 2013 Data analysis and draft report
July 22, 2013 City'Council & Park. and Recreation Special Meeting
August — November Park and Recreation Commission to finalize report
x
PPPP,,.`19l
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Community Needs Assessment
Needs Assessment Presentation
7/2Z/13
L J GREENPLAKC RRC
The Leading Edge In Parks,Recreation
And Open Space Consulting A S S O C I A T E S
�ANCHO
STR
Today's Agenda
EL
■ Demographics
■ Inventory
, w
t
■ Public Input Process
f4.
■ Survey Result Highlights a °
Demographic
Population
200.000
1II0.000
160.000
140.000
120.000
loo.000
so.000
60.000
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2010 2012 2017
US Census (2000 and 2010 ) and ESRI Projections
2000 Population 127,777
2010 Population 165,269
2012 Estimated 167,903
2017 Projected 175,256
Demographic Analysis
• The median age in Rancho Cucamonga in 2012 was 34.6 compared to 32.2
in 2000.
• The median income for Rancho Cucamonga was $61,022 in 2000, and
according to ESRI estimates, it was $76,350 in 2012.
• The highest ranking educational cohorts in Rancho Cucamonga are those
with some college education and no degree (28.9 percent) and high
school graduates (21.6 percent)
F-160%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0% ■ Rancho Cucamonga
■ California
6.0%
O United States
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0- 4 5 - 9 10- 15 - 20- 25- 35- 45- 55- 65- 75- 85+
14 19 24 34 44 54 64 74 84
• • • • • • .
• • •
Inventory Population per component 2000 vs. 2012
Rancho Cucamonga,CA
'a v
o L LL LL
in y O V O
Q Q ? LL LL 9 L V L O L
LLV L V L
O n $ mirv s
>
INVENTORY-2000
Total 203 29 19 17 18 1 0 1 10 2 30 19 6 4 28 1
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
POPULATION 2000 121,111
Po ulation pereach com onent 629 4,406 6,725 7,516 1,099 127,777 0 127,777 12.178 63,889 12,778 6,725 21.)96 31,944 4,563 127,777
ENTORY-2012
Total 300 49 29 24 28 1 1 1 10 2 12 25 10 4 28 7
ENT RA ER POPULATION
POPULATION 2010 167,903
%Increase 31.40% 47.78% 68.97% 52.63% 41.18% 55.56% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 31.58% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 600.00%
Population per each component 560 3,427 5.790 6.996 5.997 167.903 167,903 167.903 16 790 83,952 13,992 6,716 16,790 41,976 5 997 23.986
Percent Change Per Population per
each com onent From 2000 to 2012 11.08% 2223% 13.91% 6.92% 15.53% -31.40% 100.00% -31.40% -31.40% -31.40% -9.50% 0.13% 21.16% -31.40% -31.40% 81.23%
0
v v
U Q
Q V N
O G1 V O
CLa o 0
0 0 0
3 v v m
0. > > >
O v O m v
INVENTORY - 2000
Total 203 29 19 18
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
POPULATION 2000 127,777
Population per each component 629 4,406 6,725 7,099
INVENTORY - 2012
Total 300 49 29 28
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
POPULATION 2010 167,903
% Increase 31.40% 47.78% 68.97% 52.63% 55.56%
Population per each component 560 1 3,427 1 5,790 5,997
Percent Change Per Population per
each component From 2000 to 2012 1 11.08% 1 22.23% 1 13.91% 15.53%
I
d LL
LL
� m �
v v
O N LL O OD
LL >.
L M p
> N d L
a u O u U x
d N lOi t0 O to
INVENTORY - 2000
Total 10 2 10 19
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
POPULATION 2000 127,777
Population per each component 12,778 1 63,889 12,778 6,725
INVENTORY - 2012
. • . • . .
Total 10 2 12 25
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
POPULATION 2010 167,903
Increase 31.40% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 31.58%
Population per each component 16,790 83,952 13,992 6,716
Percent Change Per Population per
each component From 2000 to 2012 -31.40% 1 -31.40% 1 -9.50% 0.13%
Y l Y
7
6°1 Y V O
` V
A
� ° a
O V �
Yf0
O
° a m m
7 w d N m
0 L
o tko o �
CL >
INVENTORY - 2000
Total 6 4 28 1
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
POPULATION 2000 127,777
Population per each component 21,296 1 31,944 4,563 127,777
INVENTORY - 2012
Total 10 4 28 7
CURRENT RATIO PER POPULATION
POPULATION 2010 167,903
%Increase 31.40% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 600.00%
Population per each component 16,790 41,976 5,997 23 986
Percent Change Per Population per
each component From 2000 to 2012 1 21.16% -31.40% -31.40% 81.23%
•
".0
rr W
7070 (D
'a m m r
O NSZOLA
r�-r
m a a O O
n P1 O --h
< < c c p Di O
LA ate, ate, 3 f
r o o 3 3 r+ n
0 0
° o o rD N
D �° o m a- n
v
v '� c
F. O
° ,� � c
c °J N •�
a Sp = Crq
D 0
O r C '�
O �
m N
O cr
C �
O � n
7 Q'
n
(D m
r-+
tA
AW
(D
■ v►
i Vis, f D
There are f f 6 Active Participants in this Pro/ect
Osn?w xm:ineemmra.'r.0/..w*.w+. Awp.Aq.
PROJECT TOTALS
41 . 4 ,,Islto�
f 1055
227 Ideas
� 449 Comments
Statistically-Valid Community Survey
• 462 completed (340 via mail, 122 online)
- 9.2% return (average is 5-15%)
• loo completed telephone surveys
• 300 completed surveys = a valid sampling
• 562 completed surveys @a 95% confidence level (±4.3%)
• The survey results were statistically weighted to
reflect the demographic profile (age, income,
household status) so the results represent the make-
up of Rancho Cucamonga.
Household Status
Single, no children 21010
Single, with children at home 8%
About 12% of
Single, children no longer at home
(empty nester) 4% respondents indicated a
need for ADA accessible
Couple, no children 11% facilities
T -AL-
Couple, with children at home 33%
Couple, children no longer at home
em nester) 25%
Age of Respondent
18 - 24 12°r6
25 - 34 21%
I I
35 - 44 22%
Age of Respondent
45 - 54 16% Average Median
55 - 64 15144.8 Years 43.0 Years
65 - 74 M
75 or older M 6
Household Income
Under $25,000 17%
j
$25,000 - $49,999 16%
$50,000 - $74,999 20•x6
$75,000 - $99,999 14°x6
$100,000 - $149,999 22%
$150,000 - $199,999 7%
$200,000 or more 5%
Percentage of Households Who Used Current Programs and Facliltles at Least
Once In hat 12 Months
City parks(playgrounds,shelters) 79%
City trails 75%
Cry libraries and Bookmobile 66%
Special use facilhies/areas)skate park,dog 5096
pads Epicenter`S AMM,IMTS CpRIS)
I ^
City Animal Care and Adoption Cemi 36% . I
City athktz/sports fields 354 ®! _
City Performing Ans Center-Lewis Family M%
Playhouse
City recreation programs/classes-all ages '� 27%
AID
combined
City recreation programs/classes-adult 23%
City sports pmgrams/cleses-(ap Meal 22%
City reaeat.pregrams/e..-sessions; 19%
Cary recreation programs/ckasses-ymah 18% �
Rancho Cucamonga Famlly Sports Came, 17`<
CM equestrian facilities 11%
City aquatics Propams/d.(aA ages) 7%
City recreation programs classes-teen 106% "Even though my family does not use everything that is
City Teen Center 0 3,% provided, I appreciate all the options available"
Other 7%
1tie�eltfeesishl
�TaW Random SempM ''
Importance of Cwm*Rogrerna and FwArdes(Average Rating)
City parks(playgrounds,shelter$) 4.
City libraries and Bookmobile 4.2
City tralb 4.2
City Annul Care and Adoption Cemer 3.7
City athletic/sports fields 3.7
Special use facilities/areas(skate park,dog
park,Epicenter stadium,tennis courts) - 3.7
City performing Arts Center-Lewh Family 3.7
playhouse ..--
City sports programs/dams(all ages) 3.5
City recreation programs/classes-adult 3.5
City recreation programs/classes-seniors M 3.5
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 3-3
City recreation programs/classes for all 3.3
ages . . _ —
Cay recreation programs/dams-youth 3.3
City aquatics programs/classes(all ages) 3.2
City Teen Center 3.1
City recreation programs/classes-teen 3 0
Page 8 Cay equestrian fadlities 28
Other 3A
to 14 u u w M 4A 43 Y
A.r.e.Irsne
How Well Current Programs and Facllltles en Meeting Household Needs
(Ant"-Rating)
City Libraries and Bookmobile 4.6
City parks(playgrounds,sheiters) 4.4
Citytrails 4.4
it
City Performing Arts Center-Lewis Family 4.
Playhouse - .. P
City Animal Care and Adoption Center 4.
City athletic/sports fields 4.2
Special use facilities/areas(skate park,dog
park,Epicenter stadium,tennis courts( 4.21
City recreation programs/lasses-youth 4,2,1 b )'
City recreation programs/dasses-tem 4.1
City recreation programs/classes-senior 4.1
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 4.1 -
City recreation programs/classes for all
4.0
ages -
City recreation programs/classes-adult 40
City sports programs/classes(all ages) 4D
City Teen Center 3.9
City equestrian facilities 3.8 "Generally I like the "Level of Service" provided."
1 _
Cry aquaria-programs/dasses(aN ages) 3.1
Other 13.9
Page 10 to is 10 1s as As 4.0 .s so
Current Programs and Fadltiles—Importance vs. Needs-Met Matrix -
Random Sample Overall Facilities
4.75 Higherlmportanea/ Higher Importance/Higher level
0o
Lower of needs being met High importance and meeting the
tw
c City Parks household needs of the City:
• City parks
City Trans
p City Libraries/Bookmobile
• City trails
L
HAthlptic Sports Fields
3 Special Use Fac les
o Animal Care/AdoptionCtr • City libraries
L
MIDPOINT OF
' IMPORTANCE
0 Rec Prog-Aduh Lewis Family Playhouse
o Animal Care Center
4 TIHGS
E SCORES(3.6) Sports Pr og-All Ages Rec Pr -Senloa
• Lewis Family Playhouse
Aquatics P (All Ages)
CL
Famlly Spor7pmg
Rec Prog-Youth
Teen Ctr
Special use facilities
y Ages
v Rec Prog-Teen • City athletic fields
C Equestrian Fac
R Y
o h m o
CL E m
Lower impo # 25 Lower lmportancel
2.5 Lower level of needs being met !a T Higher level of needs being met
3.5 How well needs are currently being met (average rating) 4.75
Page 12
Reasons Why FadlHles are Not Used by Households
No interest in usingF
3D%
No Hme/other personal issues(e g,health, j— 30%
mobility( ■
Not aware of programs/facilities offered16%
Crowding/not enough spaceCouples/Single parents
Safety and security with children tended to indicate
Price/user fees this more often.
Lack of facilities and amenitiesNeed more restrooms
Lack of transportation ` 6%
Hours of operation5%
- Indicates high level of
Overall maintenance needs improvementf34$%"
4%
satisfaction for condition of
Don't have the programs l want % facilities
Prefer other recreation providers %
Lack of parking
Accessibility 3%
Condition of facilities 3%
None nearby 2%
Quality of equipment needs improvement 2%
I
Customer service/staff knowledge 1% �
Olt S% fOa 19a loll 2911 aOli 39%
Importance of INDOOR Facilities to be Added, Expanded, or Improved
(Average Rating)
Indoor children's discovery
3.8
center/interactive museum (2nd Floor of...
Indoor swimming pool for recreational
purposes (learn to swim programs, water... 3.7
Additional library space 3.7
Additional community use spaces (youth, 3.4
teen, adult, and/or senior)
Additional weight room and cardio fitness
space 3.3
Additional multi-purpose gymnasium space 3.2
Additional fitness class space 3.2
_ Other 3.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
O er In oor Facilities
• Additional Senior Center space
• More adult armchairs at Archibald Library
• Recreation Center ...,
i"
• Soccer Complex w/ synthetic turf . �
• Fitness classes to fight childhood obesity
Importance of OUTDOOR Facllltles to be Added,Expanded,or Improved
(Average Rating)
Complete Central park 4.0
AL Shode stnxYures in park 3.9 li
Trail connactions within Rancho Cucamonga 3.8
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes (leam
to swim programs,water fitness,recreational open swim)
Community gardens/urban agriculture 3.6
Regional trail connections outside Rancho Cucamonga 3.5 - -
Nature-based facifi ies(e g,outdoor namni,hriterpresive
center) 3'S
Picnic facilities(tables,barbecues,shelters) 3.5
Multi-sport field complex(lighted) 3.5
Community gathering spaces/outdoor evert __-- 3.4
facility/amphitheater --
New playgrounds3.3
More lighted athletic fields12.9
3.3
Basketball courts(lighted) 3.3
Ou door fitness equipment(in parks and trails) 3.2
Expand parking at City parks and facilities3.1
New park in southwest RC3.1
Splash pad/spray ground .1
Open space/undeveloped areas .1
Additional dog park(s) 0 age 19
Additional tennis couim,IN aed)
Other 4.0
1A 1.5 2.0 25 3.0 3.5 4.0 a.5 SA
Other Outdoor Facilities
• More parks in Southwest RC - Need more
than one
s
• Soccer fields
A
• Aquatics park
• Central Park handicapped parking
Most Important Facility/Park Options to be Developed
Complete Central Park II�IIEi ,20% I Specific trail linkages within
Trails and trail connectivity S. 21% 11 3�% Rancho Cucamonga, frequently
mentioned:
Focus on maintaining what we have 14% 271f
• Etiwanda Preserve
Children's discovery center/interactive museum 10% 22%
More North/South Trails
Indoor swimming pool for recreational purposes ._'__,-__ 9% 20%
• More neighborhood
improve existing parks/communitycenters/city facilities 9% t9% connections
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes 10% 15ff
• Victoria Gardens
Mufti-sports field complex 9% connections
Improve existing Equestrian Center 2% • Connections to Pacific
Gymnasium 2% Electric Trail
Page z3
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 3s% 0% 45%
Pwcw of households
■Most Important Second Most Important (Cambfned)Top Two
Percentage Level of How Well Program Needs Are Being Met
Sports programs-youth 729
Culneal/performing arts propams 7291
Sports programs-adue 69%
Special events le 8,concerts/movies in the park,
Founders parade,fireworks,community celebrations) 68%
volunteer programs(e g,coaching,senior volunteers,
Lewis family Playhouse and library programs etc) 66%
Senior activities 64% '
Fitness and wellness Progsamf 61%
family aoerams 61%
Teen activities 60%
Children/routh activities lnon-sport) _ I- 60% IV:
General education,skills education(compisten,
cookirp,babysinirig etc) _ 59% J
_
Summer day camp 55% �I
Emaronmental/natore programs 54% �'~
Learn to swim programs 54%
PQg6 Baby loaner programs 40-
3 1%
0116 tee lee 50116 age 5016 e0e 701E amt
Top Three Most Important Programs,Activities,and Special Events to be
Added,Expanded,or Improved Over Neat Five Years
Wrist events(e g,concerts/movies in the park, 11% Healthy RC
Founders Parade,fireworks,community mmnity celebn _._
tlonsl
Fitness aM vcllness programs 9% 30%
S.maar,imre, 5% Through the dedicated
Eavironmentattr emre programs 6% -- B% 1996 efforts of city staff,
CpnmaVpadorming arts programs 6% 3% 17% community partners a n d
General educstlon,skills ed.tio.(composers, a% -.,✓f% 17%
eO°"e&"'by"nieg"t' -- volunteers, Healthy RC is
Sports programs-youth ', 5% *l1%
developing a wide range of
Sports programs-aduh 13%
Childree,yotdh activities(non-sport) 5% 3% 11% programs, policies,
Learn to swim programs <% 10% infrastructure and events
I
wmeer%pg<°.,h.andli rare, e. ten to help b u i I d and maintain
Lewis FamiN playhouu end library programs etc I W-3% /% 10%
i
FamiN programs '� . 6% healthy minds, healthy
Baby Boomer programs 6% bodies and a clean a n d
Teen ad aitiet 1 ■ /%
~- sustainable earth.
Page i8 Summer day camp , A{
- oar s% wx 1s% Zan M San 191{ aro%
r.rrtewlrt.r.lr
•Most Important Secord Most Important a TAbd Most Important (Cemi ined(Tep Thee
impact on Loss of RDA Funding
• For Rancho Cucamonga the elimination of redevelopment equates to
an annual loss of approximately $90 million in funding .
• RDA is currently the source of funding for the Lease for the RC Family
Sports Center
• The current Lease agreement, which has an annual cost of
approximately $360 ,000 , expires in 2017.
• Prior to the expiration of the Lease the City will need to consider how to
provide recreation programming that is currently being provided at the
RC Family Sports Center.
Best and Current Methods of Reandng Communiation
The Grapevine/Rancho 45%
Reporter �,_ 82%
City E-mail(Ustserve) 14%
City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 10%
website 35
Posters/flyers 9%
24%
Other ,�% Performance on Providing
Communication
Internet/websites 6% 25% 35% Average:3.7
3%
:1 30% 27% 25�. Median:4.0
Local newspaper 29% g 25%
Social networking(i a Twitter, 3% xo 20%
Facebook) 9% 0 15x 11%
At the recreation d 10% I
facilities/program location 21% 5% , 4%
RC cable TV channel(RCTV) 1% 0% ,
12%
Lewis Family Playhouse Season 0%
Brochure 27% y}
tgTotal Random Sampk
Digital billboards 10%
o% 10% 20% Sox 40% 50% 60% 70% e0% vox 100%
Page 32 percent of Xoceaholds
0 Best Method 0 Current Method
!j
TTT::J GREENPLAY« RRC
The Leading Edge In Parks.Recreation ASSOCIATES
• • And Open Space Consulting
Conin!unity 4n STR (:mnqpery
Next Steps
• Meeting with Key Stakeholder Groups
• Identify 4-5 Areas of Focus
• January/February 2014 Final Report to City Council
� suopsanb
awil anoA aoj noA jueyl
5 Mi � I
. QLSV Gf�
u�
F-
Draft Report Available www. RCpark.com
City-wide Hecmat en Needs Assessment
ah 2D3]
Community Services Department
(909) 477 2760 _
ya2plls
9� K
2013 Community Recreation Needs Assessment
Findings and Analysis
Presented by the Park and Recreation Commission Subcommittee&
Community Services Department
Conducted by:GreenPlay LLC
NEEDS ASSESSMENT PURPOSE
-To conduct a Statistically Valid Survey that provides a
community's recreation needs, attitudes, opinions and behaviors.
•A formal Assessment provides one opportunity for data
collection in the first phase of the development of a Park and
Recreation Master Plan. It serves as one foundation for long
range planning initiatives, visioning out 10-15 years.
-The last time a Recreation Needs Assessment was conducted in
Rancho Cucamonga was in 2000/2001. -
POPULATION & PROGRESS
•P u aoOn '121 10 • Po ulation0oe r 165,000
• 29.4% population growth
-Enhanced program offerings and services for youth, adults and seniors
-Completed several capital projects related to priorities identified in 2001
— First phase of Central Park (including new Senior and Community
Centers)
— Victoria Gardens Cultural Center
— Development of additional neighborhood parks.
-Elimination of Redevelopment Agency
Rancho Cucamonga 2001 2012
Population 121,100(asstated Ind2�IreportfromCansus 167,903
Developed 298—not Including=1-248 acres of 420 acres of
Park community ®ional trails parks &open space
Acres
Parks 19 Neighborhood Parks 31
1.5—10 acres
3 Community Parks
12—44 acres
150 miles of hiking,
biking and
equestrian trails
RECREATION CUSTOMERS
• 20% of customer.% o
on reven, le
• 63.74% Repeat Rate (benchmark= 30-50%)
Generational Break Down
• 37.83% of paid registration customers 11 and younger
• 10.0% Seniors
• 13.5% Baby Boomers
Based on analysis by Learning Resources Network(LERN)of 2012 Registration data
k.
r
PROJECT BACKGROUND & TIMELINE
•A Community Recreation Needs Assessment was identified
as a City Council Goal for the 201,2/2013 Fiscal Year as the
first step in developing a Park & Recreation Master Plan.
-July, 2012 an internal multi-department project team was
formed, which included a subcommittee of two Park and
Recreation Commissioners.
4
v Yy
F7MULTI-DEPARTMENT TEAM
• Public Works Services
• City Manager's Office
• Library Services
• Animal Services
• Purchasing/Administrative Services
PROJECT TIMELINE
Janua — Februa Stakeholder and Community Worksho s
2013
March — April 2013 Public Outreach
462 hard copy + 100 phone surveys completed
Web based public input via RCCommunityldeas.com
May 2013 Data analysis and draft report
July 22, 2013 City Council & Park and Recreation Special Meeting
August— November Park and Recreation Commission to finalize report
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Community Needs Assessment
Needs Assessment Presentation
7/22/13
ASSOCIATES
RANO10 � �
GIICAl10Y(:A :n iTR!:vmp;nr
C'ommuniry
ticrvua
Today's Agenda
■ Demographics
■ Inventory
■ Public Input Process
■ Survey Result Highlights
Demographic Analysis
-------- Population
200,)00
1 R010o
200)00
110,)00
110,100
ioo)oo
80,)00
60,100 '•-
40.)00-�I-- —
2o,Joa
2100 2010 20.2 2010
__.._.............__.._......_— _.-_—..-- US Census(2000 and 2010)and ESRI Projections
2000 Population 127,777
2010 Population 165,269
2012 Estimated 167,903
2017 Projected 175,256
Demographic Analysis
• The median age in Rancho Cucamonga in 2012 was 34.6 compared to 32.2
in 2000.
• The median income for Rancho Cucamonga was $61,022 in 2000, and
according to ESRI estimates, it was $76,350 in 2012.
• The highest ranking educational cohorts in Rancho Cucamonga are those
with some college education and no degree (28.9 percent) and high
school graduates (21.6 percent)
Census Age Demographic Analysis
F
8.0% ■Rancho Cucamonga
6.0% ■California
hi United States
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0-4 5- 9 10- 15- 20- 25- 35- 45- 55- 65- 75- 85+
14 19 24 34 44 S4 64 74 84
Inventory Analysis (Quantitative)
Availability to the Residents of Rancho Cucamonga
2000 vs. 2012
Invnl Po ukftn rcom 3Nn12000 vs.2012
RmMCucr CA
d , i
3W 1 nn
I 9 ]s ] s ) n)] m n n 9]s x 3 9tl9 9 s Inn
T� 3x x x u u 1
Ia+99urs m. 1.]xl
19�.� IITM l])M L9)f1 SI63i tlI.IM 11SNt OCR IN.M 0NY 011019 OOOY ]O Wl{ )1.51Y 6.6T1 ON1t ONI4 6M{q
��TI.IagYxmp.
em1W]b 0l IOM 1113% 139119 69]Y 15.53% 319P9 1N.M -11x19 314019 31 WR -95R 0.1119 12116%1-11 Wt 31 Wf 31E191
— Vn X1 ,4 Rzv\u� _
b d
b a`
a
g g
6
Total 203 29 19 18
POPULATION 2000 1 127 777
Population per each co onent 629 4406 6725 7.099
Total 300 49 29 29
POPULATION 2010 167,903
%Increase 31.40% 47.78% 68.97% 52.63% 55.56%
Po ulation er eachcom onent 560 1 3.427 1 5,790 1 5,997
Percent Change Per Population per
each com onent From 2000 to 2012 11.08% 22.23% 13.91% 15.53%
unC�- I�Q�IIe �J
School Field Additions
s (2000 to 2012)
3 �jl Elementary Schools
.2 LL \� 3 12-practice soccer fields
g g k s� 3-overlay soccer fields
g 8 6 9-practice baseball/softball
fields
Total 10 2 t0 19 Middle Schools
5-practice soccer fields
POPULATION 2000 127,777 1-overlay soccer field
Po ulation each co nent 12,77863989 12.778 67zs 1-practice overlay football
field
otal
10 2 12 25
2-practice softball fields
70c-�7201
10 167,903 High Schools
31.40% 0.00% 000% 2000% 31.58% 5-practice softball fields
ach com oneat 16790 83952 13992 6116 2—game football fields
er Population perFrom 2000 to 2012 -31.40% 31.40% -9.50% 0.13% 2-overlay football fields
1n 1 (2,0-ve,�'D
s
pv y
Cc
a
Totel 6 1 1 1 28 1
POPUUTION 1000 127,777
Pop
o ula0on er each com onent 21,296 31.944 4.563 1 127.777
Total 10 4 28 7
POPEAAWN 2010 167,903
%Invet, 31.40% 66.67% 0.00% 0.00% 600.00%
Po ulation er each com onent 16 790 41976 5 997 23 986
Per cent Change Per Population per
each Component From 2000 to 2012 21.16% -31.40% 81.23%
Focus Groups/Public Meetings
Fe 93 participants attended focus groups and public meetings representing
interests from
- Friends of the Pacific Electric Trail
- Rancho Cucamonga Community&Arts Foundation
- Rancho Cucamonga Library Foundation
- Senior Advisory Group
- Sports Advisory Group
- Trails& Equestrian Interests
MindMixer
(Online CommunityEngagement Tool)
TW@ 16 Act/ro PenfrIMMS r Mti�PoNd
/� PPOJECT TOTALS
41A`'�' if# 1055 visitors
227 Ideas
0 449 Comments
Statistically-Valid Community Survey
• 461 completed (340 via mail, 122 online)
- 9.2% return (average is 5-15%)
• ioo completed telephone surveys ft--
• 300 completed surveys = a valid sampling - •�
i -
• 562 completed surveys @a 95% confidence level (±4.3%)
• The survey results were statistically weighted to �---
reflect the demographic profile (age, income, = --
household status) so the results represent the make-
up of Rancho Cucamonga.
- Respondents Household Characteristics
Household Stahm
Single,no children
Single,with children at home 8%
Single,children no longer at home About 12%of
(empty nester) 4% respondents indicated a
need for ADA accessible
Couple,no children l 11% facilities.
Couple,with children at home -- 33%
Couple,children no longer at home
(empty nester) 25%
Respondents Household Characteristics
Age ofResoorrdart i j k
18-24 12%, I
I
25-34 111111ft 21%
t
35-44 22%,
45- 54
Aze of Respondent
� 1�� -
Average Median
55 -64 156 44.8 Years 43.0 Years
65-74 7 A
75 or older 6%
Respondents Household Characteristics
HO tea Imo•
Under$25,000 JNMM 17%
r
$25,000-$49,999 : 16%
i
$50,000-$74,999 20%
7
$75,000-$99,999 14%
I I
$100,000- $149,999 22
I
$150,000- $199,999 =I 7%
$200,000 or more 5%
rveaxrrrw.wo.,W Mw..W rw..i.r
wFMl3I.Y/�s
[Mw6ryN.WM�J+ewtl
(M WAaWYMW 6w
5�.y�wfwJYJau�IWepM6y �'uY
Lfawve•wM�wFwv�O
(MWS.(a W LYbn[wFr �l!w G
u,WJWWe1W I_YX
Q(Mwwy em(w+w.u.Frw4 �lY
tMi�atnW Tq!,aW�Y�tt-fir�1.Y
�M w�a6�p�pw•Jbw^W �iw
(MM�PT iiT slow'.
(M��WYnaoY�FMnre�_IFt
(M.w�wY•i'9mla�aa�wF �tFt
Y�lntrWW Y'A{rl.{<P1Y��IT
<Mq�riw.irY� !liX
t.�,rw��wyam/J�niiYl �tt
------- ,r«�� "Even though my family does not u=everythingprovided,I appreciate all the op
s.wnue r o..w wy�..i lYurw Y.Yr�Y•YM
rMv+bwrn�..a..lw.r .
fMresbaYbobw, �-y
rpnH -41
frypiiJpnMboN�rnx. ��I,
wY[au+w utl,�m'r.M,renal �Y�
pry MAwmYy Marniur-IrNlamlr
fM Wl.n^OanW.4ra(i Y.r �ls
CWgrLwnw'�Mw..vrr �u
•..eec.am[.r..y smnr.m. ��ff
fM"r�.omgvN.b.abi .
tom'
rM4W+uW+ry'".ealYMnr �11
Gryiw4nb fl
x...wJr r�.,.n>rm.•..i l.im.a..YY.nn ra.YYe x..J.
I...r.bWl
Ury Ybavb.ra WmroW
rMMaleW�wN,,Jnlr.4
fM,rvh
CMlvbm^i�Y'IR.fw.ir � • rt
a3
rMMxirw.w Yxpb,r.Y. �.
fM i..•Jwna.Ma ��..
1s.J u.,owWv.wl.wew.y
+.44aw+,.wWn.u.aaoun� JI i
rmm�wrwwswe.,n.,mYn
Y+
rM�anwawPq+../nmw ,wv, �a
dy,wnYMwq.mhYa.al.i �,u
w
cM wrn emynnJrfr..a;iywl �,J
(Miwnfrb �f9
''Generally I like the"Level of Service"prov)ded."
wr.wnww.r.�.rcwa.a;ry.ar I+ '..
I
Page fo .._..:.._..... .....
currant program,and Fadltllw—Importance acileksatmatrix-
aandarn Sample Overall
"s arMRaswl�rN rawi/ylar High importance and meeting
1ei1i'1Mi"�' � the household needs of the City:
c Caraeb
-City parks
ni un.rl
s II rn,um...rea.Mwa
-City trails
8 raa}ac,F.l,ar,l
x fjipi11r a„4.IwnawwNo,
-City libraries
WWOKT d
o IMAI a ww.a-a++ "+r'M'^•+""•a •Animal Care Center
!CORE!1714 3w ".AMS aa:ry'SMe+
-Lewis Family Playhouse
�+WI iin1"'°°m °`""-reYr -Special use facilities
T. �Pa Nq�
o
-aacfm,.i_ -City athletic fields
EaypM r{
D y >
E LaeY ® p CCC Lwaf�aRYU�
,s 1°..wr r,.r astir b��qi l�a�RwrrwarWr
s s Neo svd nea6 en amntlr heirs rnat i«�a/r�^^f) �n
Page 172 1
q•ypp NTf 4dN1Ov Mp IMM b MerINX
rpnnv/arca o.rww..INN� I p
NMnll
Couples/Single parents
'^^•^°""'^ tooloo"' with children tended to indicate
a•HM a.• �>s I this more often.
raN+ve•wlrcvna �w -.
w..a a�.lr •_sa
�'- Indicates high level of
°-•r^w•^�•^•°••^�'°^^'" ���l satisfaction for condition of
facilities
PrNnPM'x„Nm Pwl•• la
ltl MpN4M aT4
4<wiblM1 �M '
(aMIMMIratM .III.M� '
1YnrN4 .tl'
INa,NMNuO^a'•aMsaVaN^aM fit., Page tj
cN,aa.,...t.Rv.vuawer �n ,
Importance of INDOOR Facilities to be Added, Expanded,or Improved
(Average Rating)
Indoor children's discovery 3,'g
center/interactive museum(2nd Floor of...l-
Indoorswimming pool for recreational
purposes(learn to swim programs,water...) 3.�
I
Additional library space 3.7
Additional community use spaces(youth,
teen,adult,and/or senior( ----- 3.4
Additional weight room and cardio fitness 313
space
I
Additional multi-purpose gymnasium space 3.12 I
Additional fitness class space 3.2
Other 3.5
Page t5
1.0 15 LO 25 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Other Indoor Facilities
• Additional Senior Center space
• More adult armchairs at Archibald Library
• Recreation Center
• Soccer Complex w/ synthetic turf
• Fitness classes to fight childhood obesity
Importvwd WTp F.Il bMAJJxI.fgarMl>Imwv�
(A—W RIW
[an•n.umr�4n �>O��
r�xl.umauw�n+nll�Mw✓roY �i> ''%
nu.pv r�Yn+x ymib rxn•:uulyi.rwrn Ilam
:e rim v^V�^•ear.x:m•iFrs:vn•1 gn.�.ml �i
urmmu µn.r.Lwbn gnMa S6
M�pxlt�MrmwmamrvnNe 9nle�u•^nx4 �l.S
x�u.eee•aluipn V>,ousv.anrt:im:.Pnr.e �>5
.mnl
uJo aum Weamh•llgssdl SS
��IWm1.WeJeuJ-v nen �i
ss.do.•w.:s..w.e maw:.: �>1
r.n m,mm•�a �>i
wm.m•.iw..w.a.e.. �s
.aam.aav,eaa ��is Page i9
eaO:mY:mm cvunynMl ���•
a •o J
u u u
Is >o n .a a sa
Other Outdoor Facilities
• More parks in Southwest RC — Need more
than one
• Soccer fields
• Aquatics park
• Central Park handicapped parking
Mot Impor iadlMy/P.,k Options to b*O.rdowd
Specific trail linkages within
TrN wma tor.m«.NN ux ir% Rancho Cucamonga,frequently
mentioned:
E«u.N m:m.mry wNt v.IwIM13MMIJ 54% 2T -Etiwanda Preserve
atn..r.mae...s.um.r/ml...nhe mu.nmAIM s^
-More North/South Trails
INcar rwmm�ry pu 1.r.[.t. wW.., N
offlaw—m— lN.
-More neighborhood
Imww.ed.tiry o+.wy<unnwnm rmt.r,/1xy lx;Ni.+ ® ,sx_Q connections
Curdew..:mmiry wd br�nniwul Nposes ■O sox ism
-Victoria Gardens connections
ruli.soort.Nen Tomge, ._ RX
-Connections to Pacific Electric
Impo.emuiry Eprwwntmtn IL 2% Trail
Gymru.inm .
..
`
Page z3 5
�
4
ox sx to ssx m11 au lois nY ap1l x
P.laeM/xrn.F.14
•Mosta tpurtant Sxond MosUmponant (C^^�^•'d)TO Tw
hrt...1Y.t.r•1 d Na WMl M1ep.m Nwb M.Mry AY[
p�.pgn�-mM >IM
M..y 6 M1'•waY M•s•. m.aM. �9N
...n.•+rr wne...a W�nr nsrn c i
rrrn me..anu paw..+ �r14
"NI
mbw�v.+nnww.lti..mn lClt
evuYry,44µ'aeq.ml
•mn.m nn.re 5511 �.
�rnn.wnps �SH4
.W V.(�wY.,y Irrgrawf p�Mun[M M
MMM1Healthy RC
� ..
s
— -- a- •• Through the dedicated
efforts of city staff,
community partners and
volunteers, Healthy RC is
�^ wdeveloping a wide range of
� programs, policies,
4. infrastructure and events
-�--�- cvtm.. to help build and maintain
healthy minds, he lathy
bodies and a clean and
" L 1. sustainable earth,
uovwosu+ wmw•M^.M .TM.a+airou.a R.�.94��
Impact on Loss of RDA Funding
• For Rancho Cucamonga the elimination of redevelopment equates to
an annual loss of approximately $90 million in funding.
• RDA is currently the source of funding for the Lease for the RC Family
Sports Center
• The current Lease agreement, which has an annual cost of
approximately $360,000, expires in 2017.
• Prior to the expiration of the Lease the City will need to consider how to
provide recreation programming that is currently being provided at the
RC Family Sports Center.
SM&W Cunni REetltede of Renlrry Comm Wc~
IM Grapevine/Ranh. 45 BZ%
Repormr
City E mail lGataer w) r" 14%
CM o1 li 3 Cunmwtpa S 30%
vnWate 39 '..
I
Poatws/Ilyers
1116&= 24% '..
UM 9% Iwrforinntcem hmlMh
CmnmttMratlmt I
Intermt/wabtitn 6%IJIM� 2e+rM 3.i
25% %w - Merm'a0
314 low ..11f4 ]�..
Ictal nawepapw
Social net.orkiro 11 a T"tw.
parr4ao4� �`� i 7 tow }j1�-.
4t1M lwntionL Atow 1
Ixilitwgpmpam 4xaUm 21% n 1
12% ♦ A 'Y
lewaiamily MayRmxSeaaon 21K A
Broclmm
RTotJ PaMaw�AmpM-.
DipiW GbdrAs
pi IR M L{ 0 f0Y a0w 1Gw Y POY IOele
Page 31 rmrwertt.rrr
--- --
.arAAttlted %G�e%mnd
RRC
ASSOCIATES
RAMC NI
CLCAMOYGA
Commaninan STA Lninunny
Services
Next Steps
• Identify 4-5 Areas of Focus
• January/February 2014 Final Report to City Council
Thank You For Your Time
Questions ?
Draft Report Available @ www.RCpark.com
a
Community Services Department
(909) 477-2760
x
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 20137< �
Household Characteristics (Part 1)
Household Status
Single, no children 21%
Single,with children at home 8%
Single,children no longer at home (empty nester) 4%
Couple, no children 11%
Couple,with children at home 33%
Couple, children no longer at home (empty nester) 25%
Household Income
Under$25,00017%
$25,000-$49,999 16%
$50,000-$74,999 20%
$75,000-$99,999 14%
$100,000-$149,999 M
22%
$150,000-$199,999 7%
$200,000 or more 5%
In Need of ADA Accessible
Facilities
Yes 12%
No 7%
Don't know 1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percent Responding
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 1
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Household Characteristics (Part 2)
Number of People in
Household Average �2.9
Median 2.0
Number of Household
Members Under Age Average MO.6
18
Median 0.0
Number of Average 0.9
Household
Members Over Age
55
Median 1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Average/Median Numbers
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 2
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Household Characteristics (Part 3)
Number of Dogs in
Average 1.3
Median 1.0
Number of Cats in Average 1.2
Household
Median 1.0
Number of Horses in Average 1.0
Household
Median 1.0
Number of Other Average 1.3
Animals in Household
Median 1.0
0 0.5 1 1.5
Average/Median Numbers
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 3
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Household Characteristics (Part 4) - Percentage of
Households with at Least One Animal
Dogs 53%
Cats27%
Horses 1%
Other Animals g%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percentage of Households
■TOTAL RANDOM SAMPLE
RRC Associates 4
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Respondent Characteristics
Length of Time Less than 1 year 1% length of Time
Living In Rancho 1- 5 years 10% Average Median
Cucamonga 6- 10 years 13%
20.4 Years19.5 Years
11 - 15 years 21%
16- 20 years
21- 30 years 24%
31-40 years30%
41 - 50 years 7%
51 or more years �1%
Age of Respondent
18-24 =12%
25-34 21%
35-4422%
45 - 54 16% Age of Respondent
55 -64 15% Average Median
65 -74 7% 44.8 Years43.0 Years
75 or older 6%
Gender
Male 36%
Female 64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percent Responding
■Total Random Sample
RRC A59oaales 5
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Number of Times Used in the Past 12 Months-Current Programs and Facilities
City trails 26.1
City parks(playgrounds,shelters) 25.8
City recreation programs/classes for all ages10.6
City Libraries and Bookmobile g7.9
City athletic/sports fields 5.6
City recreation programs/classes-seniors 5.0
ipecial use facilities/areas(skate park,dog park, 4.1
Epicenter stadium,tennis courts)
City sports programs/classes(all ages) 2.8
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 2.2
City recreation programs/classes-adult 1.4
City recreation programs/classes-youth 1.1
City equestrian facilities 1.0
'erforming Arts Center-Lewis Family Playhouse 1.0
City Animal Care and Adoption Center 0.8
City recreation programs/classes-teen 0.4
City aquatics programs/classes(all ages) 0.2
City Teen Center 10.1
Other 10.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Average Number of Times Used in the Last 12 Months
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 6
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Percentage of Households Who Used Current Programs and Facilities at Least
Once In Past 12 Months
City parks(playgrounds, shelters) 78%
City trails 75%
City Libraries and Bookmobile 65%
se facilities/areas(skate park,dog park, Epicenter
stadium,tennis courts)
City Animal Care and Adoption Center 36%
City athletic/sports fields 35%
t Performing Arts Center-Lewis Family Playhouse 34%
V recreation programs/classes-all ages combined 27%
City recreation programs/classes-adult 23%
City sports programs/classes-(all ages) 22%
City recreation programs/classes-seniors 19%
City recreation programs/classes-youth 18%
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 17%
City equestrian facilities 11%
City aquatics programs/classes(all ages) 7%
City recreation programs/classes-teen 6%
City Teen Center 3%
Other 17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Percent of Households
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 7
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Importance of Current Programs and Facilities(Average Rating)
City parks(playgrounds,shelters) 4.4
City Libraries and Bookmobile 4.2
City trails 4.2
City Animal Care and Adoption Center 3.7
City athletic/sports fields 3.7
special use facilities/areas(skate park,dog park, 17
Epicenter stadium,tennis courts)
)erforming Arts Center-Lewis Family Playhouse 3.7
City sports programs/classes(all ages) 3.5
City recreation programs/classes-adult 3.5
City recreation programs/classes-seniors 3.5
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 3.3
City recreation programs/classes for all ages 3.3
City recreation programs/classes-youth 3.3
City aquatics programs/classes(all ages) 3.2
City Teen Center 3.1
City recreation programs/classes-teen 3.0
City equestrian facilities 2.8
Other 3.4
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Average Rating
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 8
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Importance of Current Programs and Facilities
(Percent Important vs. Not Important)
City parks(playgrounds,shelters) 84%
City trails 82%
City Libraries and Bookmobile 81%
City athletic/sports fields 65%
°
City Animal Care and Adoption Center64%
I
ty Performing Arts Center-Lewis Family Playhouse 64%
ise facilities/areas(skate park,dog park, Epicenter 63%
stadium,tennis courts)
City sports programs/classes(all ages) 56%
City recreation programs/classes-adult 56%
City recreation programs/classes-seniors �II 54%
City recreation programs/classes for all ages �ZV52%
City aquatics programs/classes(all ages) 49%
I
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center48%
City recreation programs/classes-youth 47%
City Teen Center 40%
°
City recreation programs/classes-teen 39%
°
i
City equestrian facilities 32%
40%
Other 1 42%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% a0% 90% 100%
Percent of Households
■Important(4 or 5) ■ Not Important(1 or 2)
RRC Associates 9
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
How Well Current Programs and Facilities are Meeting Household Needs
(Average Rating)
City Libraries and Bookmobile 4.6
City parks(playgrounds,shelters) 4.4
City trails 4.4
'erforming Arts Center-Lewis Family Playhouse 4.3
City Animal Care and Adoption Center 4.2
City athletic/sports fields 4.2
special use facilities/areas(skate park,dog park, 4.2
Epicenter stadium,tennis courts)
City recreation programs/classes-youth 4.2
City recreation programs/classes-teen 4.1
City recreation programs/classes-seniors 4.1
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 4.1
City recreation programs/classes for all ages 4.0
City recreation programs/classes-adult 14.0
City sports programs/classes(all ages) 4.0
City Teen Center 3.9
City equestrian facilities 3.8
City aquatics programs/classes(all ages) 3.7
Other 3.9
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Average Rating
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 10
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
How Well Current Programs and Facilities are Meeting Household Needs
(Percent Needs Met vs. Needs Not Met)
City Libraries and Bookmobile 9 %
WCity parks(playgrounds,shelters) 86%
City trails 84%
City athletic/sports fields 81%
City Animal Care and Adoption Center 81%
City recreation programs/classes-teen 81%
City recreation programs/classes-youth 079%
y Performing Arts Center-Lewis Family Playhouse 79%
ise facilities/areas(skate park, dog park, Epicenter 77%
stadium,tennis courts)
City recreation programs/classes-seniors 71%
City recreation programs/classes-adult 71%
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center 69%
City recreation programs/classes for all ages �=165%
City sports programs/classes(all ages) 64%
City equestrian facilities 60%
City Teen Center 58%
City aquatics programs/classes(all ages) 57%
Other 73%
0% 30% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% a0% 90% 100%
Percent of Households
■Important(4 or 5) ■ Not Important(1 or 2)
RRC Associates 11
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Current Programs and Faciltiies—Importance vs. Needs-Met Matrix -
Random Sample Overall
4.75
Higher Irtpatanc✓ Higher Importm Higher level
Laver level of needs being met of needs being met
City Parks
v
O
L
City Trails
0
t City libraries/Rookm bile
Athletic Sports Fields
°y Special Use Facilities
o m Animal Care/Adoption Ctr
AMS)POINT OF
m y IMPORTANCE Rec Pro{-Adult ,-,�etvts Family Playhouse
_ 1 - - —
° A RATItMaS... Ages
Sports P Rec Pro6-SenSeniorso
r SCORES(3.8) p
u m
w Aquatics Pros(Ail Ages)
a FamilyI Ctr 4$,--Rec Prog-Youth
u Teen Ctr
m Rec prog-All Ages
t:
M +__Rec Prog-Teen
E Equestrian Fac
\� at
m
a � m
LowrMoortmew p o LavrlmportmceJ
25 Lower Nretofneeds being and H m Higher w/
Nofneedsbeingmet
3.5 4.75
How well needs are currently being met (average rating)
RRC Associates 12
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Reasons Why Facilities are Not Used by Households
No interest in using 30%
other personal issues(e g,health,mobility) 30%
Not aware of programs/facilities offered 16%
Crowding/not enough space 9%
Safety and security 7%
Price/user fees 7%
Lack of facilities and amenities 6%
Need more restrooms 6%
Lack of transportation 6%
Hours of operation 5%
Overall maintenance needs improvement 4%
Don't have the programs 1 want 4%
Prefer other recreation providers 4%
Lack of parking 3%
Accessibility 3%
Condition of facilities 3%
None nearby 2%
Quality of equipment needs improvement 2%
Customer service/staff knowledge 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Percent of Households
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 13
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
other Facilities Used by Households
National Forest 40%
Private health and fitness clubs 37%
County Parks&Open Space 37%
Churches 28%
Private or public schools 24%
ration facilities and centers in neighboring cities 17%
Private instruction(dance,martial arts,etc) 16%
None of the above13%
lomeowners Associations/apartment facilities& 7%
amenities
YMCA/YWCA 2% -
Others 7%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Percent of Households
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 14
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Importance of INDOOR Facilities to be Added, Expanded,or Improved
(Average Rating)
Indoor children's discovery center/interactive �3.8
museum(2nd Floor of Biane Library)
Indoor swimming pool for recreational purposes
(learn to swim programs,water fitness, recreational 3.7
open swim)
Additional library space 3.7
Additional community use spaces(youth,teen, 3.4
adult,and/or senior)
Additional weight room and cardio fitness space 3.3
Additional multi-purpose gymnasium space 3.2
Additional fitness class space 3.2
Other 3.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Average Rating
IN Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 15
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Importance of INDOOR facilities to be Added,Expanded,or Improved
(Percent Important vs. Not Important)
ndoor children's discovery center/interactive museum(2nd 63
Floor of Biane Library)
Indoor swimming pool for recreational purposes(learn to 62%
swim programs,water fitness,recreational open swim)
Additional library space 57%
dditional community use spaces(youth,teen,adult,and/or �47%
senior)
45%
Additional weight room and cardio fitness space
Additional fitness class space 42%
41%
Additional multi-purpose gymnasium space
43%
Other
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Percent of Households
■Important(4 or 5) ■Not Important(1 or 2)
RRC nssocAies 16
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Top Three Most Important INDOOR Facilities to be Added, Expanded, or
Improved Over Next 5 Years
Indoor swimming pool for recreational purposes(learn to 15% 49%
swim programs,water fitness,recreational open swim)
Indoor children's discovery center/interactive museum(2nd i�u
Floor of Blare library) r•' 17% �d 46%
Additional library spacet; 61%1 37%
Additional community use spaces(youth,teen,adult, 31%
and/or senior)
Additional fitness class space 9%
Additional weight room and cardio fitness space 6% 1899
Additional multi-purpose gymnasium space '• 4% 18%
Other 7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Households
■Most Important Second Most Important ■Third Most Important (Combined)Top Three
RRC Associates 17
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Top Three Most Important INDOOR Facilities to be Added,Expanded,or
Improved Over Next 5 Years-Open Link
Indoor swimming pool for recreational purposes(learn to
swim programs,water fitness,recreational open swim)
Indoor children's discovery center/Interactive museum %
(2nd Floor of Biane Library)
Additional library space 39%
Additional weight room and cardio fitness space 33%
Additional community use spaces(youth,teen,adult, 28%
and/or senior)
Additional multi-purpose gymnasium spaceEl
22%
Additional fitness class space %
Other OM17%
0% 10% 20% 30% 409E 50% 00% 70% 80%
Percent of Households
■Most Important ■Second Most Important ■Third Most Important (Combined)Top Three
RRC Associates 18
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Importance of OUTDOOR Facilities to be Added, Expanded,or Improved
(Average Rating)
Complete Central Park 4.0
Shade structures in park 3.9
Trail connections within Rancho Cucamonga3.8
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes (learn to
swim programs,water fitness,recreational open swim) 3.6
17=
Community gardens/urban agriculture 3.6
Regional trail connections outside Rancho Cucamonga 3.5
Nature-based facilities(e g,outdoor nature/interpretive
center) 3.5
Picnic facilities(tables,barbecues,shelters) 3.5
Multi-sport field complex(lighted) 3.5
Community gathering spaces/outdoor event
facility/amphitheater 3.4
New playgrounds 3.3
More lighted athletic fields 3.3
Basketball courts(lighted) 3.3
Outdoor fitness equipment(in parks and trails) 3.2
Expand parking at City parks and facilities3.1
New park in southwest RC 3.1
Splash pad/spray ground 3.1
Open space/undeveloped areas 3.1
Additional dog park(s) 3.0
Additional tennis courts(lighted) 2.9
Other M4.0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Average Rating
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 19
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Importance of OUTDOOR Facilities to be Added, Expanded, or Improved
(Percent Important vs. Not Important)
Complete Central Park 70%
Shade structures in park
65%
Trail connections within Rancho Cucamonga I 63%
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes (learn to 60%
swim programs,water fitness, recreational open swim) °
I
Community gardens/urban agriculture 57%
Nature-based facilities(e g,outdoor nature/interpretive 56%
center)
Regional trail connections outside Rancho Cucamonga
55%
Picnic facilities(tables,barbecues,shelters) 53%
Community gathering spaces/outdoor event 51%
facility/amphitheater
Multi-sport field complex(lighted) 50%
Basketball courts(lighted) zo 147%
More lighted athletic fields 46%
New playgrounds 4Z� 46%
Splash pad/spray ground
42%
Outdoor fitness equipment(in parks and trails) 42%
Additional dog park(s) 40%
0
i
Expand parking at City parks and facilities ° 39%
Open space/undeveloped areas °
37%
New park in southwest RC ° 37%
Additional tennis courts(lighted) �I 1 °37%
Other X69%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percent of Households
■ Important(4 or 5) N Not Important(1 or 2)
RRC Associates 20
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Top Three Most Important OUTDOOR Facilities to be Added, Expanded,or
Improved Over Next Five Years
Complete Central Park 7% X36
Trail connections within Rancho Cucamonga 5% 13%
Shade structures in park 9% 21%
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes (learn to � 4% 1096
swim programs,water fitness,recreational open swim)
Regional trail connections outside Rancho Cucamonga 6% i13%
Multi-sport field complex(lighted) •'• 4% Il%
Community gardens/urban agriculture 5% 10%
Community gathering spaces/outdoor event
facility/amphitheater •' 3% 10%
Nature-based facilities(e g,outdoor nature/interpretive
center) 9X
Outdoor fitness equipment(in parks and trails) 9%
Splash pad/spray ground 8%
New park in southwest RC i 7%
Additional dog park(s) 7%
Picnic facilities(tables,barbecues,shelters) 7%
Expand parking at City parks and facilities 6%
Open space/undeveloped areas 63%
More lighted athletic fields 3% 5%
Additional tennis courts(lighted) 3% 5%
New playgrounds 5%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Percent of Households
■ Most Important Second Most Important ■Third Most Important (Combined)Top Three
RRC Associates 21
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Top Three Most Important OUTDOOR Facilities to be Added,Expanded, or
Improved Over Next Five Years-Open link
Trail connections within Rancho Cucamonga 4 %
Complete Central Park • �42%
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes (learn to 42%
swim programs,water fitness,recreational open swim)
Multi-sport field complex(lighted) 32%
Shade structures in park 26%
Splash pad/spray ground21%
Community gathering spaces/outdoor event 16%
facility/amphitheater
Nature-based facilities(e g,outdoor nature/interpretive 16%
center)
New park in southwest RC ll%
Additional dog park(s) 11%
Picnic facilities(tables,barbecues,shelters) 11%
Expand parking at City parks and facilities 5%
Community gardens/urban agriculture 596
Regional trail connections outside Rancho Cucamonga 5%
Additional tennis courts(lighted) 5%
Other 5%
New playgrounds OX
Basketball courts(lighted) 0%
Open space/undeveloped areas 0%
More lighted athletic fields 09
Outdoor fitness equipment(in parks and trails) 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Percent of Households
■Most Important ■Second Most important ■Third Most Important (Combined)Top Three
RRC Associates 22
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Most Important Facility/Park Options to be Developed
Complete Central Park IQ 20% 1429
Trails and trail connectivity . . 22% �138%
Focus on maintaining what we have 14% 127%
Indoor swimming pool for recreational purposes s% 121%
Improve existing parks/community centers/city facilities 10% 2096
Children's discovery center/interactive museum 9% 19%
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes 9% 15%
Multi-sports field complex 9%
Improve existing Equestrian Center 2%
Gymnasium 2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Percent of Households
■Most Important Second Most Important (Combined)Top Two
RRC Associates 23
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Most Important Facility/Park Options to be Developed -Open Link
Children's discovery center/interactive museum 53%
Complete Central Park 37%
Trails and trail connectivity 26%
Focus on maintaining what we have 21%
Indoor swimming pool for recreational purposes 21%
Outdoor swimming pool for recreational purposes 16%
Multi-sports field complex 11%
Improve existing Equestrian Center s%
Improve existing parks/communitycenters/city facilities u s%
Gymnasium 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Households
■Most Importont ■Second Most Important (Combined)Top Two
RRC Associates 24
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Percentage of Households Indicating a Need for Programs,Activities,and
Special Events
Special events(e g,concerts/movies in the park, Founders
71%
Parade,fireworks,community celebrations)
Fitness and wellness programs 61%
Cultural/performing arts programs 55%
General education,skills education(computers,cooking, 49%
babysitting,etc I
Environmental/nature programs 47%
Volunteer programs(e g,coaching,senior volunteers,
46%
Lewis Family Playhouse and library programs etc I
Senior activities 40%
Sports programs-adult 34%
Learn to swim programs 34%
Family programs 29%
Children/youth activities(non-sport) 25%
Sports programs-youth 23%
Baby Boomer programs 20%
Summer day camp 15%
Teen activities 14%
Other 14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% So% 60% 70% 80%
Percent of Households
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 25
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Percentage Level of How Well Program Needs Are Being Met
Sports programs-youth 72
Cultural/performing arts programs 72%
Sports programs-adult 69%
acial events(e g,concerts/movies in the park,Founders 68%
Parade,fireworks,community celebrations)
nteer programs(e g,coaching,senior volunteers,Lewis 66%
Family Playhouse and library programs etc)
Senior activities 64%
Fitness and wellness programs 61%
Family programs 61%
Teen activities 60%
Children/youth activities(non-sport) 60%
3eneral education,skills education(computers,cooking, 59%
babysitting,etc)
Summer day camp 55%
Environmental/nature programs 54%
Learn to swim programs 54%
Baby Boomer programs 40%
Other 31%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% lox 80%
Average Percentage Level
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 26
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
How Well Programs Needs are Being Met
(Percent Needs Met vs. Needs Not Met)
Sports programs-youth 68%
Cultural/performing arts programs 66%
Sports programs-adult 63%
ecial events(e g,concerts/movies in the park,Founders I 62%
Parade,fireworks,community celebrations) o
nteer programs(e g,coaching,senior volunteers,Lewi60%
Family Playhouse and library programs etc)
Senior activities I �56%
Learn to swim programs 0 52%
Fitness and wellness programs51%
0
ieneral education,skills education(computers,cooking, 49%
babysitting,etc)
Teen activities 48%
Family programs 47%
Children/youth activities(non-sport) 45%
Summer day camp 43%
Environmental/nature programs 43%
a
Baby Boomer programs 28%
53%
Other 22%
66%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Percent of Households
■Needs Met Well(75%or 100%) ■Needs Not Met Well(0%or 25%)
RRC Associates 27
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Top Three Most Important Programs,Activities, and Special Events to be
Added, Expanded,or Improved Over Next Five Years
Special events(e g,concerts/movies in the park,Founders 11% ��36
111
Parade,fireworks,community celebrations)
Fitness and wellness programs 9% M30X
Senior activities 5% =21M
Environmental/nature programs 6% 19%
Cultural/performing arts programs 6% 17%
General education,skills education(computers,cooking, 4% 17%
babysitting,etc)
Sports programs-youth 5% 15%
Sports programs-adult 13%
Children/youth activities(non-sport) 5% 11%.
Learn to swim programs 4% 10%
Volunteer programs(e g,coaching,senior volunteers, 3% 10%
Lewis Family Playhouse and library programs etc) IN
Family programs 6%
Baby Boomer programs 699
Teen activities �4%
Summer day camp 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Percent of Households
■ Most Important Second Most Important ■Third Most Important (Combined)Top Three
RRC Assocates 28
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Programs,Activities, Special Events—Importance vs. Needs-Met Matrix-
Random Sample Overall
80%
Nigher number o/HH In-neeN0 m 3 Higher number of HH in-next
Lower level or needs being met a 2 o $ Higher level of needs being met
y rn C �pecial Events
T
EV Fitness Wellness Frog
E
0 Cultural Performing Ar s
a Gen Edu/Skills Edu
w
O C. Env./Nature Prog
Volunteer Prog
MIDPOINT OF
y �enior Activities
IMPORTANCE
O v Learn to Swim Prog
A RATINGS Sports Prog-Adult
0 ar
SCORES(33%)
o .
CZ ♦--_-Eamily Prog
elR
ABaby Boomer Prog Children/youth Activities
Sports Prog-Youth
O. *—Teen Activities
Summer Day Camp
Lower number of HH In-need/ Lower number of HH In-need/
0% Lower level o/needs being met Hloher level o/needs belno met
40% 80%
How well needs are currently being met (average percentage rating)
RRC Associates 29
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Opinions on Amount of Spending by Rancho Cucamonga
O
10%
Providing current 'fix
recreation programs
41%
Maintaining existing &==
parks,trails, recreation Si
facilities and community
centers 30%
Improvements to 17%
existing parks,trails, �W5%
recreation facilities and 7%
community centers 32%
Building new parks, 20%
trails, recreation 35%
facilities and community
centers 36%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent of Households
■Too little ■About right ■Too much ■Don't Know
RRC Associates 30
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Additional Amount of Tax Willing to Pay Annually
Additional
Amount of None 35%
Assessment
Tax Willina to $1 to$25 22%
$26 to$50 9%
$51 to$75 9%
$76 to$100 13%
More than$100 11%
Additional
Amount of
Sales Tax None 40%
Willing to Pav
1/8 cent 19%
1/4 cent 12%
1/2 cent 9%
1 cent 20%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Percent of Households
■Total Random Sample
RRC Associates 31
Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Citywide Survey 2013
Best and Current Methods of Receiving Communication
rapevine/Rancho 45%
Reporter 82%
E-mail(Listserve)
14%
ncho Cucamonga 1D%
website 35%
Posters/Flyers
24%
Other
nternet/websites Performance on Providing Communication
Average:3.7
35%
Local newspaper
" 30% 27% 25%
king(i a Twitter, r 25%
ebook) x
= 20%
e recreation 1 5
program location c 15%
1 �
V channel(RCN) 10% 4%
596
Family Playhouse
ison Brochure o% `
o ^�
Qoo
Digital billboards }�
■Total Random Sample
rerun[or nousenotas
■ Best Method ■Current Method
RRC Associates 32
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE MINUTES OF
F.�NCeo
CM"ONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 24, 2013 - 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM
Roll Call
• Chairman Howdyshell A Vice Chairman Fletcher.X
Munoz A Wimberly X Oaxaca X
Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City
ManagerlEconomic and Community Development; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney;
Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, Rebecca Fuller, Administrative Secretary; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary, Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate
Planner
II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the
Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic
Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on
the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and
set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed
directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the
audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain
from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which
might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting.
•
Item B-1
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Cc� JULY 24, 2013
Page 2
Gwynn Frost of the Etiwanda Historical Society announced"An Evening Under the Stars" will be
held at the Chaffey Garcia House on"August 24`"at 6:30 pm for a night of Jazz, Beer and Wine.
Tickets are $5 per person.
Luana Hernandez of HPARC expressed concerns about the removal of a landmarked eucalyptus
tree at 7220 on Hellman Avenue. She also spoke about the piles of demolition debris that are not
protected by fencing on the lots adjacent to the China House. She said it could be dangerous.
Ryan Samples, Community Services Supervisor presented invitations for the Planning
Commission for the Volunteer thank you event on Saturday, July 27. He apologized for the
oversight and late notice of the event.
Jim Frost reported that an archeological dig is being completed in the area that was once the
basement of the Frost General Store. He said he did not expect any artifacts to remain because
the fire that destroyed the store occurred back in 1966 and years of water would likely have
destroyed what remained. He said his grandfather took over the store at the turn of the century.
He expressed his appreciation for the interest the City has shown in the past.
III. CONSENT CALENDARIHISTORIC PRESERVATION •
COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Approval of minutes dated July 10, 2013
Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca to adopt the Consent Calendar, carried 3-0-2
(Howdyshell, Munoz absent)
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw The
Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5
minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2007-00951 -
BIANE BUSINESS PARK-A request to modify the Biane Winery, a complex comprised of
fifteen (15) buildings/structures and three (3) single-family residences located on two (2)
parcels with a combined area of 10.41 acres of land by demolishing the existing Bottling
Plant/Warehouse and Dry Wine Bottling Room and constructing an industrial warehouse
building of 122,304 square feet in the General Industrial (GI) District located on the south
side of Eighth Street, between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues-APN: 0209-201-19&20.
Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
•
Item B-2
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C� JULY 249 2013
Page 3
consideration. Related file: Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00475. THIS ITEM WILL BE
RE-ADVERTISED.
C. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2013-00475 — BIANE BUSINESS PARK - A request to
remove 24 trees related to Development Review DRC2007-00951 for a 6.51 gross acre site
in the General Industrial Development District located on the south side of Eighth Street,
between Hermosa and Archibald Avenues-APN: 0209-201-19&20. THIS ITEM WILL BE
RE-ADVERTISED.
The Commission took no action on Items A and B.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required bylaw. The
Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5
minutes per Individual for each project Please sign in after speaking.
D. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-00201 - LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA - Site
• plan and design review for 30 single-family residences on 8.85 acres located on the west
side of Stable Falls Avenue within the Low Residential Development District of the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan—APN: 0225-161-19, 32, 33 and 34. On March 10, 2010, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission
for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18744. The California Environmental Quality Act provides
that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent
projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
E. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2013-00202-LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA-A request to
construct walls over 6 feet high related to Development Review DRC2013-00201,a 30-unit,
single-family subdivision on 8.85 acres within the Low Residential Development District of
the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the west side of Stable Falls Avenue- APN:
0225-161-19, 32, 33, and 34.
Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and Powerpoint
presentation (copy on file). He noted the addition of a condition for a future off-site
equestrian facility and a fee of $1,000 per lot. In response to Commissioner Oaxaca,
Mr. van der Zwaag said the site has been identified and that fees have been collected and
are accumulating for this purpose. In response to Vice Chairman Fletcher, he said the
updated plancheck (not shown in the agenda packet) includes the correct materials that
were presented to the DRC for the bungalow elevation.
Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager said the equestrian facility site was part of a
development agreement that is now going to be amended and subsequently an alternate
•
Item B-3
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CJULY 24, 2013
Page 4
site will have to be identified in the future.
Ryan Combe of Lennar Homes said Mr. van der Zwaag did an outstanding job, he was very
"hands on"and these homes have more detail than any Lennarhas built. He mentioned that
the conditions of approval require a door selection that is different than what was shown in
the plans to the DRC.
Mr. van der Zwaag said the change came about prior to DRC. He felt the homes needed a
door more indicative of the Craftsman style. Since Mr. Combe never commented on the
request, staff added it as a condition.
Ms. Burnett said the intent was to get a nicer style than what Lennar offered as their
standard but Mr. van der Zwaag's choice was not presented to the DRC.
Following general discussion. and Mr. Combe's resistance in accepting the conditions with
respect to the entry and garage doors, Mr. van der Zwaag agreed to strike conditions 9 and
14 from the resolution (pages D, E 33 & 34 of the agenda packet).
Vice Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. •
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney noted added Condition #16 to read, "Prior to
approval of any building permits, a fee of$1,000 per lot shall be paid as required by the
Etiwanda North Specific Plan for the eventual construction of an equestrian center.
Moved by Oaxaca seconded by Wimberly to adopt Resolution 13-28 for Development
Review DRC2013-00201 as amended and 13-29 for Minor Exception DRC2013-00202,
carried 3-0-2 (Howdyshell, Munoz absent)
F. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM18904—SERGE BONALDO—A request to subdivide
an existing office building that is part of a larger office complex into 12 individual
condominium units for a site located at the southwest corner of Laurel Street and Red Oak
Avenue in the Industrial Park (IP) Development District at 10837 Laurel Avenue — APN:
0208-353-22. Planning Department staff has determined that the project is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA
Guidelines as a Class 15(CEQA Guidelines Section 15315)exemption which covers minor
land divisions of four or fewer parcels.
Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He presented an aerial
map indicating the site (copy on file).
Doug Hale, property owner, said he is marketing the property as medical suites. He said
existing tenants are interested in buying their units.
Vice Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing.
•
Item B-4
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CC� JULY 24, 2013
Page 5
Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney noted condition#3 on page F9—re: CC&RS should
read, "Submit a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions agreement regulating the use and
maintenance of the subject office building for Staff review and approval prior to final map
approval."
Mr. Hale agreed to the revised condition.
Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca to adopt Resolution 13-30 for Tentative Parcel
Map DRC2013-18904 as amended, carried 3-0-2 (Howidyshell, Munoz absent)
G. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00093- LIFEWAY CHURCH MINISTRIES-A request for a
time extension to the original approval for a review of a Master Phasing Plan for remaining
phases of the Lifeway Church project development including a classroom wing,temporary
classroom modules, and a multi-purpose hall on 5.03 acres of land in the Low Residential
District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 7477 Vineyard Avenue at Calle del Prado - APN:
208-921-36. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439 and Non-Construction
Conditional Use Permit DRC2007-00544. On April 24, 2002, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for
Conditional Use Permit DRC2001-00439.The California Environmental Quality Act provides
• that no further environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent
projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation
(copy on file). He noted a letter was received from Charles Rich, a neighbor on Balsa Street
located south of the site. He noted that the concerns listed in the letter were anticipated.
1) Previous submittal was for 5 years and it was stated that the modular classrooms
would be removed within 5 years of the prior approval.
Response: the Church will be removing the remaining modular classrooms by October of
this year.
2) Construction of the new building is to be 14 feet lower than what was previously
proposed
Response: the grade will be dug down 14 feet. Mr. Fowler noted that there is an east to
west slope to be accounted for. He said .the plans show the decrease. He said the
church agreed to lower the foundation and to decrease the roof height by over 9 feet, so
essentially it is dropped down a total of almost 25 feet. He said page G-23 of the agenda
packet shows these plans.
Mr. Fowler said the following 3 bullet points in the letter were related to the prior approval
and therefore he cannot address them. He said with respect to the landscaping that
•
Item B-5
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
�
JULY 24, 2013
C
Page 6
typically, landscaping is approved just before the final sign-off approvals following
construction. He said the Church has already put in many of the required trees and that
staff only found 6 trees not planted. He said the wall area is being maintained, and the
wall was stuccoed as agreed upon with the neighbors. He said Staff reviewed the
minutes of the prior Commission meeting held on October 22, 2008. He said there was
some discussion as to when the remaining new trees would be put in. The pastor
recollects that the trees would be installed when the classroom building goes in; they
would be removed from their current location (east of the sanctuary) and be planted so
they will shield the view of the new multi-purpose rooms from Mr. Rich's property. He
said that makes the best use of heavy equipment on site and ensures the trees will
obscure the view of the new building. His biggest complaint was the visual of the module
trailers which are slated to be removed. He said the Rich's wanted vines on the wall, but
the other neighbors did not because of rats. He confirmed the general height of the new
structure.
Pastor Esteves said everything the church and the Commission agreed upon at the last
approval is the same-there are no additions or changes to the buildings. He said it cost
the church 1.6 million dollars more to lower the grade and roof height of the new
buildings. He said if the City will help to identify where the trees go to effectively screen
Mr. Rich's property then they can be installed early. He said he does not want to move •
the trees twice; and therefore he wants to be sure they are located properly so they
screen the new building. He said if the City requests the early move of the trees prior to
construction he will do that. He said they will be moving mature trees and the proper
location is critical. In response to Vice Chairman Fletcher, he said they prefer to move
them after construction so it only has to be done once. He said the church has removed
3 modules already in good faith and the rest will be gone by October. He said they are
hoping to start construction in 2014; now they are working on construction plans.
Vice Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. Hearing none he closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Wimberly said the time extension request is valid and so is the consideration
to put in the trees after the fact so it is only done once.
Commissioner Oaxaca agreed. He said he appreciates the applicant's good faith and
making sure the neighbors are accommodated.
Vice Chairman Fletcher agreed that it is a routine request. He said he could see it for
reasons of the economy. He said he looked at the site and it seems staff has worked
through the issues. He said he did not think view to be that offensive. He agreed that it
does make sense to hold off on planting the trees.
Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca to adopt Resolution 13-31 for Time Extension
DRC2013-00093 as presented, carried 3-0-2.
Item B-6
• HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C °� JULY 249 2013
Page 7
H. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00507 - JACK HALL-A request to extend the duration of an
existing entitlement approval by an additional two(2)years for DRC2006-00892,a proposal to
develop 10 single-family homes on 2.975 acres within the Low Residential District (2-4
dwelling units per acre), located at 6710 Beryl Street,which is located at the southwest comer
of Beryl Street and 19th Street - APN: 0202-461-62, 63 and 65. Related files: Time
extensions DRC2013-00509 and DRC2013-00510. 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.
I. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00509-JACK HALL-A request to extend the duration of an
existing Minor Exception entitlement approval by an additional two (2)years for DRC2008-
00157, a proposal to increase the permitted wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet in order to
construct property line walls related to the subdivision of 11 lots on 2.975 acres of land
within the Low Residential District (2-4 dwellings per acre), located at 6710 Beryl Street,
which is at the southwest corner of Beryl Street and 19th Street - APN: 0202-461-62, 63
and 65. 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.
J. TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00510 - JACK HALL - A request to extend the duration of an
existing Tree Removal entitlement approval by an additional two(2)years for DRC2007-00457,a
proposal to remove 13 trees from the property related to the subdivision of 11 lots on 2.975 acres
of land within the Low Residential District(2-4 dwellings per acre), located at 6710 Beryl Street,
which is at the southwest comer of Beryl Street and 19th Street-APN: 0202-461-02,63 and 65.
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.
Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation(copy
on file).
Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager noted that some items previously conditioned related to the
historic property have not been completed and therefore that has been noted in the current set of
conditions:
Kathryn Hall said she agrees the conditions. She said the house is not being used for anything
now and has been uninhabited for several years. She said their intent is to make the house into
a commercial use.
r
Item B-7
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION •
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C� JULY 24, 2013
Page 8
Vice Chairman Fletcher opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no comment, he closed
the public hearing.
Moved by Wimberly, seconded by Oaxaca to adopt Resolution 13-32 for Time Extension
DRC2013-00507, Resolution 13-33 for Time Extension 2013-00509 and Resolution 13-34 for
Time Extension DRC2013-00510 carried 3-0.2(Howdyshell, Munoz absent)
VI. COMMISSION CONCERWHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND
PLANNING COMMISSION
None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
8:15 PM
•
If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting,
please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to
ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given
the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you
may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the
views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain
from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission,
please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and
speak into the microphone. After speaking,please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium.
It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are
generally limited to 5 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda,you may do so under"Public Comments." There is
opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda.
•
Item B-8
. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
C °H°� JULY 24, 2013
Page 9
Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for
distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be
used for the official public record.
All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for
scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director.
AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS
Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning
Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These
documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays.
APPEALS
Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's
decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office
and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and
governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is In session.
Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at
www.CitvofRC.us
•
•
Item B-9
•
TREE MAINTENANCE POLICY
(ORAL REPORT)
•
•
Item C
Tree Maintenance Practices
Ctty of
RANCH
� Pugli
}� 1
Overview of
i�
ins
• •
process
b4
Types of health
issues
J
City of
t w RANCHO
CUCAMON
C A L I F r R
yjw , i
------------
41
y.
s
.3T�6•' .of �, s�nApi� .1
4e
3
Cit y i
•
OM
WNW CUCAMONGucalyptus
• Annual evaluation - inspected every Fall
• Inspected for:
— overall canopy condition
— structural condition
— signs of root decay
— pest infestation
— environmental changes
• increased soil elevations around the trunk
• lack of irrigation and planting of other vegetation under trees
City of
RANCHO
��I CUCAMON �.
••s� C A L I F O P F:
oo,
Nil
1' r
< Md
t �
t 9
2 7 I
- ten
M
00
r
Y
I � ,
r'
' .
s,
Y `
I,
r
y
PI ho
• Hazard rating from 1 - 12
• 9+ higher is considered a definite hazard
• Tree location and public safety
• City Arborist
• Third party inspector
f
y,
r
O
T
• Long life span
— 100- 125 years in Southern California
— Unmolested 200-500 years
• Monitor health and condition
• Implement appropriate maintenance
practices when necessary
ry
. � ca NG
5
• Eucalyptus population will continue to
decline in health due to :
— Tree age
— Susceptibility to pests (long-horned beetle , lerp
psyllid )
— Decay
— Urban Development
— Environmental changes
--
�. RANCH O
L � CUCAMONG
entage
• Historic Designations
• Tree
Preservation
1
Ordinance
Preservation• Historic
h'
Ordinance
td,,py
L
Novo
I
•
LA
11 CU
CAMON (Ctreet
• General Plan —
Community Mobility
Section
• No future plans in
Capital Improvement
Plan �r. 7
� SNOiisDno
r
I ,
STAFF REPORT
PIANNINGDEPARTNff r
Date: August 28, 2013 RANCHO
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA
From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager
By: Mike Smith, Associate Planner
Subject: TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00541 - CARTER REDISH ARCHITECTS FOR CHASE
PARTNERS, LTD -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 one (1)
building with a floor area of 28,860 square feet on two (2) parcels with a combined area of
about 60,550 square feet (1.39 acre) within the General Industrial (GI) District, located at
9075 Rochester Avenue - APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33. Related file: Development
Review DRC2006-01012. 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 DRC2013-00541 by adoption of
the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: In July 2013 the applicant, Carter Redish Architects on behalf of Chase Partners, LTD,
submitted a request to extend the duration of the entitlement approval (hereafter referred to as a
"time extension") for Development Review DRC2006-01012. The applicant does not propose any
changes to the project (Exhibit A). The project was originally reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission on August 13, 2008 (Exhibits B and C). Per Resolution of Approval No.
08-34, 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
August 13, 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 August 13, 2015,
B. Grading, Technical, and Design Review Committees: The original project was analyzed by the
Grading and Technical Review Committees on May 6, 2008, and by the Design Review Committee
Item D-1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ,
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00541 -CARTER REDISH ARCHITECTS FOR CHASE PARTNERS, LTD
August 28, 2013 •
Page 2
on July 15, 2008. All of the Committees recommended approval to the Planning Commission.
Their conditions were subsequently incorporated into the Resolution of Approval (Resolution
No. 08-34) 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. 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 15332 In-Fill Development
Projects in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2006-01012 in
August 13, 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Candyce Burnett
Planning Manager
CB:MS/ge
Attachments: Exhibit A - Time Extension Request Letters (prepared by the Applicant)
Exhibit B - Staff Report for Development Review DRC2006-01012, dated August 13, 2008
Exhibit C - Resolution of Approval No. 08-34 for Development Review DRC2006-01012
Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension DRC2013-00541
•
Item D-2
CHASE PARTNERS LTD
real estate investment&development
•
June 12, 2013
Planning Department
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park
Building G
DRC2006-01012
9075 Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
•
This Letter will serve as notice that the Project Owners, Chase Partners Limited, is
requesting an extension of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approvals on the above
noted project: DRC2006-01012.
Due to the national poor economic conditions that transpired since our original
approval on August 13, 2008, the project has been on hold. We are now moving
forward, but will not be able to complete project plans and gain city approval for
permit issuance before the expiration date of August 13, 2013. A check in the
amount of$679.25 for the extension fee is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Chase Partners Limited
David Parker
President
•
-_ - 8011 Nat Sixth Stmet.Fifth Floor.Los Angalm Colifomla 90017
Y R Telepbone:213-M-1800Facsimile:213-481.758
EXHIBIT A
Item D-3
C A R T E R G R O U P
A R C H I T E C T S I N C
Architecture
P l a n ni n g
July 29,2013
Interior Design
Planning Department
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park
Building G
DRC2013-00541
9075 Rochester Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Sirs:
In reference to our approval extension package submitted on 7/1/2013 for the above noted •
project DRC2013-00541 this letter will serve to clarify thate p>�o1ct{will'be;mov_ing fgrwar
th_no changesto the ongirial approved,deslgn6
Sincerely,
CARTER GROUP ARCHITECTS, INC.
Carter Redish
Principal
1810 South
EI Camino Real
Suite F
San Clemente
CA 92872
TEL
949 498 3535
FAX
949 498 3883
E MAIL
cartergroup . net •
■
Item D-4
{
, S
T H E C I T Y O F
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE August 13, 2008
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 - CARTER REDISH - Site plan and design
review of a 28,860 square foot warehouse/office building and associated parking on
approximately 1.39 acre of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at
the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith Avenue - APN: 0229-283-06 and
0229-271-33. 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 32 exemption
under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Site Characteristics: The subject site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses and shrubs and
is generally level with a subtle slope from north to south. It is bordered by the 1-15 Freeway to the
east, by Charles Smith Avenue to the west, by vacant industrially zoned land to the north and by
6th Street to the south.
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Vacant land; General Industrial District (Subarea 13)
South - Existing industrial buildings (across 6th Street); General Industrial District (Subarea 13)
East - 1-15 Freeway
West - Existing industrial buildings (across Charles Smith Avenue); General Industrial District
(Subarea 13)
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - General Industrial
North - General Industrial
South - General Industrial
East - 1-15 Freeway
West - General Industrial
ANALYSIS:
• A. GENERAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 28,860 square foot warehouse and associated
office area. The site is located on and served by a fully developed public street of the appropriate
size and configuration to accommodate the proposed use. Vehicular access to the project will be
via Charles Smith Avenue.
EXHIBIT B
Item D-5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2006-01012 —CARTER REDISH •
August 13, 2008
Page 2
The architecture of the proposed building is consistent with other industrial buildings located along
the 1-15 Freeway. Key features include building 'pop-outs" with vision glass at equal intervals
along the building elevations, concrete reveals, sand blasting, and an enhanced primary entrance.
defined by vision glazing.
B. Development Code Compliance: The project complies with the Development Code requirements
For building height, all setbacks (except along 6th Street), on-site parking requirements, and an
efficient on-site circulation system. The building setback from 6th Street is 10 feet deficient from
meeting the required 45-foot setback for a site located on a Major Arterial. On the General Plan
Circulation Plan (Exhibit 111-4), 6th Street was originally designated as an interchange for the
1-15 Freeway. The interchange is now slated to be located on Arrow Highway. East of Charles
Smith Avenue, 6th Street will now transition from a Major Arterial to a Secondary street, making this
portion of 6th Street, for all intents and purposes, a Secondary street and the building setback
consistent with the street classification.
C. Parking: The proposed industrial building and associated office space were designed to meet the
parking standards for a warehouse related tenant. The warehouse portion of the building will
include one dock high door and space to park one truck.
Required Parking
se Code S a`bar S aces •
Office (1,500 square feet) 1 space per 250 square feet 6 spaces
Warehouse (27,360 square feet) 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the 24 spaces
first 20,000 square feet and 1 space
per 2,000 square feet for the next
20,000 square feet
Total Spaces Required 30 spaces
Total Spaces Provided 31 spaces
D. Compatibility with Surroundings: The proposed building was designed to be used for warehouse
distribution. This use is permitted within Subarea 13 of the General Industrial zoning designation.
The buildings in the surrounding area are all focused on light manufacturing, warehouse
distribution, and light automotive repair, which will be fully compatible with the proposed
development.
E. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson) reviewed
the site, building elevations and conceptual landscaping plans on May 6, 2008. At that meeting,
the Committee advised the applicant that he would need to revise the zero building setback along
the east property line, increase the size of the office area for marketability purposes, and upgrade
the design of the cover over the outdoor eating area. The applicant increased the setback along
the east side of the building to 5 feet, increased the size of the office area, decreased the
warehouse area, increased the available parking, and modified the design of the cover over the
outdoor eating area. The item was rescheduled for Committee review on July 15, 2008. At that
meeting, the Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, Henderson) recommended approval of the project as •
presented.
Item D-6
I
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
• DRC2006-01012—CARTER REDISH
August 13, 2008
Page 3
F. Grading Review Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on May 6, 2008, and
recommended approval.
G. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on
May 6, 2008, and recommended approval.
H. Environmental Assessment: Planning Department staff has determined that the project is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 32 exemption under State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332, which covers in-fill developments which meet the following criteria:
1) they are consistent with General Plan; 2) they are of less than 5-acres in size; 3) they have no
value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; 4) they will not have 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 the above
limitations, 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.
• RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review
DRC2006-001012 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with Conditions.
Respectfully submitted,
&mesTroyer, AICDirector
9
JT:TV\ma
Attachments: Exhibit A - Site Utilization Map
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Grading Plan
Exhibit D - Building Elevations and Floor Plans
Exhibit E Design Review Action Comments dated May 6, 2008, and July 15, 2008
Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2006-01012
•
Item D-7
X�
3:00,0®� RANCHO CUCAMONGA BUSINESS PARK
W , TE UTILIZATION MAP
PST ;;�• � I
F I
I N I
m m 3
I w I
She
I
VIGH,R�WP
------------
y
I flu
� I
I I' R.600' I I
1( m+�wMR I I Y- nmaue mwo
i( 1 j ommm rr
9 arrt,m
u rm
I
I 'M$THEFT
Bih STREET
I I uwa�aw^.� o-u
1
1 4� v4RrR
I I
,Rancho Cucamong� � JGbAddress
Sanwa.a e
= usiness Park I Projectlnformation
,; �; wa�aepanwa.a.ml
� �i
Iv uilding G
CARTER GROUP
ARCHITECTS INC.
S.n Clemente
TEL
c e n ue aeea
WWre Buiklin7 I .......
uL n
CHASE
I PARTNERS
LTD
ry � � - it ew w.amsma
bMp.Y..G
ldl)
J, I `=V i Plan raizfaea.aa)
1
.
sF� i Eknauan RANCHO
IDiit I ID CUCAMONGA
BUNESS
O 6C:9�"'i.m 7::�'
.—.. i o ea PARK
ILDING
Hill SnlEEf�
Break Sftatle ShucNre1 .n..
It Site Plan
Site Plan Notes DRC 2006-01012
urs o CJ _, 0
Site Plan
'Adnity Map
m
X-S
6,
CUR! 7!7laA
II
SECTION'S W sMnm-c�
gr
n l5
5P
k ll�j wri
BU(LDIN9'6 -----------
uj
ui SEC nON O.D.
Z7
5 .WI7,L
SECTIO
�=Zm
ITT T7.
q SIXTFMTREETr.
------- -----
'Cothk
1400
Elevation Notes
TIT
Ej-
51,
X
CK
F)- IRA
CARTER GROUP
ARCHITECTS INC.
6th Street Elevation
S. T '
LP B2B]2
iEL
919 tB
CHASE
PARTNERS
LTD
Freeway Elevation
Q 119 A SNFpw
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
BUSINESS
PARK
North BUILDING C
Exienor
Elevations
DRC 200601012
Charles Smith Avenue Elevation A:
A3.1
T
] , e
Floor Plan Notes
C3--
-C.
.,
O.
CARTER GROUP
Qp OWim°" ARCHRECTSmC-
OO T ®� 1e1a...m
Qmeu EI C.mIn.RW
I ,
amuE
c.
1.072
TEl _
F f .R
I B.e ue]eea
x uuE
CHASE
e �'L PARTNERS
(D ..._..,..es.� LTD
Q \p ISMVuM,7
pAli
313 W.
N fiV.st]O.BlW
0
n ^ o
Br.Po1
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
BUSINESS
PARK"
BUILDING C
.x .
p.e.
+ Biro
B " Rw
_ Floor Plan
Door Schedule DRC 2006-01012
First Floor PlanIIIIIiiiim
A2.1
ROOF NOTES
mm—
El
m»El
CARTER GROUP
ARCHITECTS INC.
EI C.minn R..I
iEt
•.E.E5 x5x5
------ — _ •o.0.xeea
F
E u.LL
——————— — — —————— —— ——————
——————— —
------ -- ------ — CHASE
PARTNERS
_ LTD
—
N
3 Was
emli
1 � -� II1x W IeW
T ________ _____ FA[IIlx eY tlS!
- ------- �--.- -0---——————_------ -----
c —————— ————————— — — —————————— wn nol
RANCHO
--------- -------- ------ CUCAMONGA
_—_---- ---•------�— BUSINESS
--- -------- PARK...,.
__—_________ ________dap BUILDING
1� RR1nPom.glG
i
i
— — —— ——— Roof Plan
c
a -
DRC 2006-01012
R
1 II x • . 6 , Oi
Roof Plan Z z
• A2.3
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Tabe van der Zwagg May 6, 2008
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 - CARTER REDISH - Site plan and design review of
29,700 square foot warehouse/office building and associated parking on approximately 1.39 acre of land
in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles
Smith Avenue -APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33.
Design Parameters: The subject site is located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith
Avenue (between 6th Street and Rochester Avenue). The site is approximately 1.39 acre in size, slopes
roughly from the north to south, and is adjacent (east side) to the 1-15 Freeway. The site is surrounded
by other industrial developments with a number of buildings of similar size and type of construction.
The proposed warehouse building will be approximately 29,700 square feet in size, will include
approximately 1,000 square feet of office area, and will have a loading dock/ramp for one truck. Overall
height for the building is 30 feet (33 feet to top of the screen around roof-mounted mechanical
equipment). The entry/office area for the building is located on the northwest corner of the building
facing Charles Smith Avenue and will be adjacent to the parking area for the building. Twenty-nine
on-site parking spaces are provided (29 required). An employee outdoor eating area is located on the
• northeast corner of the site and has 8-foot high walls along two sides to block the eating area from
freeway noise.
The design of the tilt-up building is straightforward and characteristic of industrial warehouse type
buildings. All sides of the building have been appropriately treated with architectural detail including the
side of the building which faces the freeway. The concrete tilt-up walls feature horizontal and vertical
score lines and have a combination of smooth, fluted, and sandblasted finishes. More specifically, each
building elevation is broken up and accented by decorative vertical design elements (located where there
is a slight recess in the wall plane) that have a "fluted" finish, a reflective window, and blue color tone.
Staff believes the overall design of the building is appropriate and visually interesting.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project:
1. None.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Maintenance of the freeway side of the building may be problematic because of the zero setback
from the freeway right-of-way. The applicant has been informed that he must obtain a letter from
Caltrans permitting him to access their property during the construction of the building and for
future maintenance purposes.
2. The Commissioners may want to have a Condition of Approval that states that no signs will be
• allowed on the freeway side of the building.
PC 343-0
EXHIBITE
Item D-14
DRC ACTION AGENDA •
DRC2006-01012 —CARTER REDISH
May 6, 2008
Page 2
3. The site is parked at the minimum number of parking spaces permitted under the Development
Code. Future tenants of the site will not be able to increase the office portion of the building or
increase the intensity of use for the warehouse portion of the building.
4. The shade structure over the outdoor eating area is very minimalist with metal support beams and
a metal roof. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to use wood support beams, give
the structure a wood fascia, and to add a trash receptacle.
5. The front access gate should be painted to match the adjacent wall.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All wall-mounted light fixtures shall be shielded to prevent glare and have a maximum height of
25 feet.
2. Show on plans the location of all ground- and roof-mounted equipment including required
transformers, standpipes, and/or large sized backflow preventer equipment. All such equipment
shall be located and screened from view in an architecturally compatible manner and/or by
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
3. No external downspouts or roof drains shall be permitted. All roof drains/downspouts/gutters shall •
be incorporated into the structure of the exterior wall or placed entirely within the interior area of the
building.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee, with the changes outlined above, find
the project to be acceptable for referral to the Planning Commission for final review.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Munoz, Stewart, Nicholson
Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwaag
The Committee continued this item to a later date, which will be determined by staff, to provide the
applicant the opportunity to complete the following revisions as requested by the Committee prior to
Planning Commission hearing:
1. Revise zero setback along the freeway right-of-way to provide sufficient access for future building
maintenance.
2. The Committee members want a Condition of Approval that states that no signs will be allowed on
the freeway side of the building.
3. Consider increasing the proposed number of parking spaces to anticipate the possibility of future
expansion.
4. Revise the proposed shade structure to include wood support beams, wood fascia, and addition of •
a trash receptacle.
Item D-15
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Tabe van der Zwagg July 15, 2008
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012 - CARTER REDISH - Site plan and design review for
28,860 square foot warehouse/office building and associated parking on approximately 1.39 acre of land
in the General Industrial District (Subarea 13), located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles
Smith Avenue - APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33.
This item was continued from the July 1, 2008, Design Review Committee meeting.
Design Parameters: The subject site is located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and Charles Smith
Avenue. The site is approximately 1.39 acre in size, slopes roughly from the north to south, and is
adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway on the east side. The site is surrounded by other industrial developments
with a number of buildings of similar size and type of construction.
The project was originally reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 6, 2008. At that meeting,
the Committee raised the following three main issues that they wanted the applicant to resolve prior to
the project being recommended for Planning Commission review: 1) revise the zero setback along the
freeway right-of-way in order to provide access to the rear of the building for maintenance purposes;
2) increase the on-site parking to allow a greater range of potential building tenants; and, 3) add wood
• support beams and wood fascia to the shade structure of the outdoor eating area.
The applicant has made the following changes in response to the issues raised by the Committee:
1) increased the setback from the freeway right-of-way to 5 feet and have added landscaping to this
area; 2) increased on-site parking by two parking spaces (one over the requirement) and increased the
size of the office area from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet (and reduced the warehouse area by
1,340 square feet); and, 3) added wood posts and wood trellis support beams to the shade structure of
the outdoor eating area.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. All issues discussed at the previous meeting on May 6, 2008 (attached).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Committee accept the project as presented and to
forward it to the Planning Commission for final review.
Attachment
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Munoz, Wimberly, Henderson
Staff Planner: Tabe van der Zwagg
• The Committee recommended that the project be forwarded to the Planning Commission for final review
as presented.
Item D-16
• RESOLUTION NO. 08-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2006-01012, A PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 28,860 SQUARE FOOT
WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING ON
APPROXIMATELY 1.39 ACRE OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(SUBAREA 13), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND
CHARLES SMITH AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 0229-283-06 AND 0229-271-33.
A. Recitals.
1. Carter Radish filed an application for the issuance of Development Review DRC2006-01012, 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 13th day of August 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 August 13,2008, including written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony,this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The subject site is vacant and is dominated by short grasses and shrubs and is generally
level with a subtle slope from the north to south. It is bordered by the 1-15 Freeway to the east, by Charles
Smith Avenue to the west, by vacant industrially zoned land to the north and by 6th Street to the south;and
b. The applicant proposes to construct a 28,860 square foot office/warehouse building. The
site is located on and served by a fully developed public street of the appropriate size and configuration to
accommodate the proposed use. Vehicular access to the project will be via Charles Smith Avenue. The
architecture of the proposed building is consistent with other industrial buildings located along the
1-15 Freeway. Key features include building "pop-outs"with vision glass at equal intervals along the building
elevations,concrete reveals,sand blasting,and an enhanced primary entrance defined by vision glazing;and
C. The proposed building will include one dock-high loading bay and adjacent parking space for
a truck and on-site parking for 31 standard size vehicles, one over the minimum requirement; 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.
/0
EXHIBIT
8
EXHIBIT C
Item D-17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34
DRC2006-01012—CARTER REDISH •
August 13, 2008
Page 2
b. The proposed development, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity. The surrounding properties are zoned industrial and the surrounding uses are industrial-oriented.
C. The proposed development complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code. The proposed development meets all standards outlined in the Development Code and
the design and development standards and policies of the Planning Commission and the City.
4. 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 32 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332,which covers in-fill
developments which meet the following criteria: 1) they are consistent with the General Plan;2)they are of
less than 5 acres; 3)they have no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; 4)they will
not have 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
the above limitations, 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 for the construction of a warehouse/office building with a floor area
of 28,860 square feet in the General Industrial District, Subarea 13 -
APN: 0229-283-06 and 0229-271-33.
2) Decorative paving is required at the main vehicle entrance, at the entrance to
the office area, and at the outdoor eating area.
3) Wall-mounted and freestanding light standards shall be shielded to reduce glare
on adjacent properties and have a maximum height of 25 feet above finished the
surface.
4) Show the location of all ground-and roof-mounted equipment including required
transformers, standpipes, and/or backflow preventer equipment on the plans.
All such equipment shall be located and screened from view in an architecturally
compatible manner and/or by landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director.
5) All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls.
6) The maximum height of any wall or fence is 8 feet. Chain link fencing is not
permitted. Perimeter walls/fences shall be constructed of wrought iron,concrete
block, or tilt-up concrete panels as approved by the Planning Director.
7) One truck trailer storage space shall be provided per loading dock door. This
requirement is in addition to the space that already as been provided •
immediately in front of each dock door.
Item D-18
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34
• DRC2006-01012—CARTER REDISH
August 13, 2008
Page 3
8) Provide durable street furniture for the outdoor employee eating area including
tables, chairs, and a waste receptacle.
9) Landscaping along-the shared property line with the 1-15 Freeway shall include a
minimum of one 24-inch box tree per 3 parking stalls, shrubs spaced 18 inches
on center, and appropriate ground cover.
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) Provide additional trees in the landscaped area to meet the requirements
outlined in the Standard Conditions.
13) All trash enclosures shall be surrounded with dense shrub plantings.
14) All signs shall require review and approval of a Sign Permit application by the
Planning Director prior to installation.
Engineering Department
• 1) The 6th Street frontage shall be improved including, but not limited to,curbs and
gutters, sidewalks, street lights, street trees, street alignment transition,
pavement section to centerline, and traffic signing and striping as required.
a) Complete the north side widening of 6th Street including curb and gutter,
street pavement, sidewalk, and parkway under the freeway to join with
existing improvements east of the freeway. The parkway may have
4 1/2-feet wide curb adjacent sidewalk through the freeway right-of-way. If
the bridge abutment interferes,then a special design shall be submitted to
the City for consideration.
b) Begin the 6th Street transition at the Caltrans right-of-way. Use City
Standard 119, with a 60-foot reverse curb, to make the transition from
32 feet to 46 feet half width.
c) Improvements on 6th Street shall include removal and reconstruction of
existing pavement to the centerline of the street.
2) Sixth Street is a City Major/Secondary Arterial street east of Charles Smith
Avenue. Transition from the Major Divided Arterial street west of Charles Smith
to the Secondary Arterial street at the freeway underpass, subject to the
approval of the City Engineer.
3) Charles Smith Avenue is a City Industrial Local street. The Charles Smith
Avenue frontage shall be improved including, but not limited to, curbs and
gutters, pavement to the centerline of the street, sidewalks, drive approach,
street lights, street trees, and traffic signing and striping as required.
•
Item D-19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34
DRC2006-01012—CARTER REDISH •
August 13, 2008
Page 4
a) Complete the improvement to Charles Smith Avenue north of 6th Street to
join with Rochester Avenue. The full extent of improvements is subject to
the review and approval of the City Engineer.
b) Provide minimum width drive approaches, 35 feet measured along the
right-of-way. Parking stalls perpendicular to the drive aisle shall conform
to stacking distances outlines in the City Driveway Policy. On Charles
Smith Avenue, the stacking distance shall be at least 25 feet measured
from the curb face to the near edge of the parking stall.
4) Vacate the existing Charles Smith Avenue street alignment through the property
and reserve easements for all existing utilities.
a) When Charles Smith Avenue alignment is vacated, provided a 25-foot
wide easement centered along the City storm drain area of the property.
b) Coordinate with other agencies for undergrounding overhead utilities
(SCE), relocating existing utilities to the new Charles Smith Avenue street
alignment (possibly CVWD 15-inch SS) or providing easements for the
utilities within the existing street alignment where needed.
c) Dedicate additional right-of-way along Charles Smith Avenue as needed to •
achieve 66 total feet and be in accordance with Parcel Map No. 16139.
Vacate Charles Smith Avenue easterly of the dedicated street alignment
established by said Parcel Map No: 16139, reserving easements for all
existing utilities remaining within the current alignment.
5) Connect the private storm drain to the existing lateral, originating from the
Charles Smith Avenue catch basin with no additional connections to the storm
drain mainline.
6) Remove existing CSP inlet structure and lateral (Sta. 200+42 per Drawing
No. 1049, Sheet 39 of 73) prior to constructing the building. Patch.the main
storm drain line per City Standards.
7) The existing overhead utilities(telecommunications and electrical,except for the
66 kV electrical) on the project side of Charles Smith Avenue shall be
undergrounded from the first pole on the south side of 6th Street to the first pole
off-site north of the north project boundary, prior to public improvement
acceptance or occupancy, whichever occurs first. All services crossing
Charles Smith Avenue and 6th Street shall be undergrounded at the same time.
Parcel Map No. 16139 has paid to the City an in-lieu of underground
construction fee for their frontage on the opposite side of Charles Smith Avenue.
The amount paid is$92,214.00.
Building and Safety (Grading)
1) The Conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan shall be signed and sealed by the •
engineer of records.
Item D-20
i
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34
• DRC2006-01012—CARTER REDISH
August 13, 2008
Page 5
2) Sections shall be provided at all boundaries drawn to scale. The section along
Charles Smith Road shall include the underground utilities in relation to the
building foundation.
3) All affected utility purveyors shall approve all plans that impact their
easement(s), including utilities, storm drain, slopes, street trees, and
landscaping. A note shall be included on all pertinent plans requiring the
affected utility purveyors to be notified two working days prior to starting any
work in the vicinity of their easement(s).
4) Maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) identified in the Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be addressed in the project
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).
5) Provide a W OMP to the satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Official. An
updated San Bernardino County WQMP for New Development and
Redevelopment Projects can be accessed at the following website:
http://www.swrcb,ca.gov/rwgcb8/html/sb wgmp.html. This site provides
Guidance and Templates that can be filled out electronically and printed.
Adhere to these guidelines and use the templates provided. Include the BMPs
identified in the plan on Grading Plans when submitted for plan check.
• 6) The submitted WQMP dated October 30, 2006, was deemed substantially
complete by the Engineering Department. The review and approval of the
W QMPs has been transferred to the Building and Safety Department. Include
the BMPs identified in the WQMP on the Grading Plan submitted for plan check.
The following items from the December 20, 2006, review by the Engineering
Department need to be completed:
Sedtibb Page , Correctio'Item
. :
Cover The WQMP shall be wet signed and sealed by the
Page engineer of record.
A-2 Use the correct SIC code.
1.1 A-4 Provide contact name or position.
1.2 A-4 Provide permitnumbers[List Tract or Parcel Map#,DRC#,
PMT#, and WDID#].
1.2 A-4 Remove the word "preliminary". This is the final WQMP.
2.1 A-4 Complete this section. Guidance pages are available at
the Building and Safety front counter.
2.1 A-5 List the receiving water in the 'Pollutant of Concern
Summary Table."
3.1.2 A-11 The justification in the last cell of the table does not match
the conceptual grading and drainage plan. Please clarify.
3.2 A-13 • Provide a coy of educational materials that will be
handed out.
• • Remove reference that the catch basin will be
maintained by the City. The WQMP shall address on-
site BMPs and maintenance only.
Item D-21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-34
DRC2006-01012—CARTER REDISH •
August 13, 2008
Page 6
Section Page Correction Item
• Swales shall be installed and maintained per the
CASQA Handbook:
http://www.cabmphnadbooks.com/development.asp.
Swales are considered a Treatment Control BMP.
3.4 A-20 Refer to the California Stormwater BMP Handbook for
definitions and specifications for Treatment Control BMPs.
Verify whether sections in the matrix meet definitions and
specifications in the Handbook:
http://www.cabmphnadbooks.com/development.asp.
4 A-21 Provide O&M description and schedule per Section 4.1.1
6 A-24 Remove the certification provided and notarized and record
the City's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water
Quality Management Plan". Copies are available at the
Building and Safety Department front counter. Please
send a draft copy to the Building and Safety Department
(attention: Matthew Addington)for review prior to recording
the document.
Plan Locate the proposed BMPs on the Conceptual Grading
Review and Drainage Plan. •
7) The WQMP should be completed and recorded prior to Planning Commission
approval and shall be completed and recorded prior to the issuance of a grading
permit. . .
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman
ATTEST:
Cor< n, A
1, Corkran W. Nicholson,Acting 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 13th day of August 2008, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE •
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Item D-22
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-01012
SUBJECT: 28,860 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED PARKING
APPLICANT: CARTER REDISH
NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND CHARLES SMITH AVENUE -
LOCATION: APN: 0229-283-06 AND 0229-271-33
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
• A. General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents,officers,or employees,because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole
discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-34, 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. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved _/_/_
use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed.
1
Item D-23
Project No.DRC2006-01012
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 Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety
Department to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
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
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. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided,all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s)are required and shall meet City standards. The final design,locations,and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
10. 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.
11. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear.and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
12. 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.
D. Building Design
1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. •
Details shall be included in building plans.
2
Item D-24"
Project No.DRC2006-01012
Completion Date
• 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main
building colors.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building, wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. All parking tot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided _/--/_
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/
recreational uses.
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
5. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and
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.
F. 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 ___J___/_
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in
the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Department.
6. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the --J--J_
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
7. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment.if located in public maintenance areas,the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department.
8. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.These criteria shall,encourage the natural growth
characteristics of the selected tree species.
9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through 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.
3
Item D-25
Project No.DRC2006-01012
Completion Date
10. On projects which abut the 1-15 Freeway, the developer shall provide landscaping within the _/_/_ •
freeway right-of-way along the boundary of this project or pay an in-lieu of construction cash
deposit. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared in conformance with Caltrans and
City Standards through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Director and City Engineer. Landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to
the release of occupancy of the project. If final approvals and/or installation are not complete at
that time,the City will accept a cash deposit for future landscaping of the Caltrans right-of-way.
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)
G. General Requirements
1. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following:
_J_L_
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan;
C. Floor Plan;
d. Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan;
e. Electrical Plans (2 sets,detached)including the size of the main switch, number and size
of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams;
f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans,including isometrics,underground diagrams,water and waste •
diagram, sewer.or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air
conditioning; and
g.. Planning Department Project Number(DRC2006-01012)clearly identified on the outside of
all plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report.
Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet"signature are required prior to plan check submittal.
3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers'Compensation coverage to _/_/_
the City prior to permit issuance.
4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls.
5. Business shall not open for operation prior to posting the Certificate of Occupancy issued by the _/--J_
Building and Safety Department.
H. Site Development
1. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be _J_/_
marked with the project file number(DRC2006-01012): 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.
4
Item D-26
I Project No.DRC2006-01012
Completion Date
• 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building and Safety Official after tract/parcel map __J_/_
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).
I. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations.
3. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC
Section 1505.
4. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A
5. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A.
6. Upon tenant improvement plan check submittal, additional requirements may be needed.
J. Grading
1. Grading of the subject propertyshall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading
Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
• conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4. The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed,
submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building
permits.
5. 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.
K. Additional Requirements/Comments
1. All City of Rancho Cucamonga standard grading conditions apply.
2. Comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures.
3. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be
prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site
storm water drainage. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record.
4. Obtain written permission to construct a wall on the property line or provide a detail(s) showing
the wall offset from the property line.
• 5. Implement City Standards for on-site construction where possible,provide details for all work not
covered by City Standard Drawings.
5'
Item D-27
( Project Np.DRC2006-01012
Completion Date
6. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right-of-way. _/_/_ •
7. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted
California Plumbing Code.
S. Roof storm water is not permitted to flow over the public parkway.
9. Show existing topography 100 feet beyond the project boundary.
10. Provide a grading agreement for cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets(measured from
street centerline):
33 total feet on Charles Smith Avenue
44 total feet on 6th Street—Secondary Arterial—Transition per Special Conditions
50 total feet on 6th Street—Ma or Divided Arterial—Transition per Special Conditions
2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
M. Street Improvements
1. 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.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb& A.C. Slde- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail Other
Charles Smith Avenue X X X X X X
6th Street X X X X X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be
provided for this item.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans,including street trees,street lights,and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
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.
6
Item D-28
Project No.DRC2006-01012
Completion Date
• b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
C. Pavement striping,marking,traffic signing,street name signing,traffic signal conduit,and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with anynew 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.
4. 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 SpASizecity.6th Street
P.A.8 feet or more Magnolia grandiflora NCN 8 it. 30 ill-in"Majestic Beauty"
P.A. less than 8 feet Magnolia grandiflora NCN 3 h. 20 ill-in"StMary"Charles Smith Avenue Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree 5 ft. 25 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.
7
Item D-29
Project No.DRC2006-01012
Completion Date
5. 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.
6. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right of-way: 1.15
Freeway.
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective
Beautification Master Plan 6th Street.
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
P. 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(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.
Q. 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.
3. Prior to approval of the final map, or prior to improvement agreement approval if no map is
involved, all Tract Maps, Parcel Maps and public improvement plans shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division on a compact disc (CD) in Auto CAD (computer aided design) format. If
public improvement plans are completed after map approval,the CD shall be submitted prior to
issuance of a construction permit for frontage improvements or a building permit, whichever •
occurs first.
8
Item D-30
RESOLUTION NO. 13-37
• 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 ONE (1) BUILDING
WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 28,860 SQUARE FEET ON TWO (2) PARCELS
WITH A COMBINED AREA OF ABOUT 60,550 SQUARE FEET(1.39 ACRE)
WITHIN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
9075 ROCHESTER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 0229-283-06 AND 0229-271-33.
A. Recitals.
1. Carter Redish Architects, on behalf of Chase Partners, LTD, filed an application for the
extension of the duration of the entitlement approval ("time extension") for Development Review
DRC2006-01012, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject time extension request DRC2013-00541 is referred to as"the application."
2. On August 13, 2008, this Commission adopted its Resolution No. 08-34, thereby
approving the application subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. On the August 28, 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 August 28, 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, and 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 D-31
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-37
DRC2013-00541 —CARTER REDISH ARCHITECTS FOR CHASE PARTNERS, LTD
August 28, 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 15332 In-Fill Development Projects in
connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2006-01012 in August 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 DRC2013-00541 for
Development Review DRC2006-01012.
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. 08-34 and the Standard
Conditions, attached thereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to read as follows:
Planning Department
1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval
(time extension) for Development Review DRC2006-01012 and
modification of the applicable approval time limit as described in
Standard Condition B.1 contained in Resolution No. 08-34 that was
adopted by the Planning Commission on August 13, 2008.
2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2).years. The
new expiration date for Development Review DRC2006-01012 is
August 13, 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 from other City departments, for Development
Item D-32
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-37
DRC2013-00541 —CARTER REDISH ARCHITECTS FOR CHASE PARTNERS, LTD
August 28, 2013
• Page 3
Review DRC2006-01012 under Resolution 08-34 and associated
Standard Conditions shall apply.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted
• by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of August 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
•
Item D-33
; 'ANCH0
tALIFORNIA UC"QNGATime Extension DRC2013-00541
Project Summary: A request to extend the duration
of the approval for Development Review DRC2006-
01012 by an additional two (2) years for an industrial
warehouse/office project comprised of one ( 1 )
building with a floor area of 28,860 square feet in the
General Industrial (GI ) District located at 9075
Rochester Avenue.
-�x
ANeHa Project Background
1;1UCAMQN A.
ALIFORNM
• In July 2013, the applicant, Carter Redish Architects on
behalf of Chase Partners, LTD, submitted a request to
extend the duration of the entitlement approval .
• The applicant does not propose any changes to the project.
• The project was originally reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission on August 13, 2008.
MMMOIR
A1veo Project Background (continued)
MAMONOA
CA ,IFORNIA
fi
• Per Resolution of Approval No. 08-34, 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 .
• The approval of this project was set to expire on August 13,
2013.
1
R,kNCHO NProject Background (continued)
IJC.AMON.GA.
ALIFOR 0A
• 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.
• An initial time extension request may be granted that
extends the expiration date for 2 years from the original
expiration date.
• If the applicant's request is granted , the approval of the
project will expire on August 13, 2015.
Time Extension DRC2013-00541 for Development Review DRC2006-01012
Ir
0
r Pr ject
r s c
RAP
rcr
c f
Street
M.
1 ! V
I V ;
IWFI SF i J SECTION"M
TM -W
aLDIN CV
1E.11M.10
Er uw
J1
SECTION M W
IN
-T
Z=
9 SMT-FMTREEf
Southlyd Enpigg¢Qn
p6F11m~y OMDm PIAN
Elevation Notes
o-- o
5y rv,aM. y:tlP rid � '�� .try 5c�' ,�^� ..�,l�k� ❑ .,..e ��.ew -
El—
B.-=-- ms-s CARTER GROUP
MCHRECIS INC.
6th Street Elevation 8'-— -.a�_.r�s, r•�R•„�R
m EI C.nIno R.a
TEL
uv•vR vvv
wv nnuv
.x, Ewen
:y �i,
�i%• y
4r,i i. •:i
CHASE
PARTNERS
cro
Freeway Elevation
O
"COPA ISM4YRG
dl)
Tf•n lm
• r
HSTi Yr>al
S .bW Y tii'. r�: \ ';9a .an`, `L. ..j. --O £•s„fy .rel.e�
RANCHO
CUCAMONOA
BUSINESS
PARK
North Elevation eullnwc c
4r R.e...
!FF'
. R..IUOv^.TEEERO
Y
Exterior
Elevations
'S DRC 200&01012
Charles Smith Avenue Elevation
t a a • 9 �
Floor Plan Notes
El
U 04
ro EI� CARTER GROUP
a 87.=r-- ARCHITECTS INC.
. Iat09a u111
[]^vmu EI C.mIno P.Fl
�0 SUI1.F
9.n C!.in.nla
c•nava
tEl
F - _ _ vF•ve]sve
F
I B•B•Be]ae]
E M.n IL
��.,etono.•.I
ae..lerm
CHASE
E .. PARTNERS
LTD
C)� \ emnw+M9s.F
' \ Itl MPIe.G
Ypl>
nam tBm
runaaaaam
u a u
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
BUSINESS
PARK
a BUILDING L
I 1VdnOmMRG
aro
e A
First_ Floor Plan
"— Door Schedule DRC 2006-01012
1 9 a • a e r 8
First Floor Pian
` A2.1
Time Extension DRC2013-00541 for Development Review DRC2006-01012
J T7'*, '
e� � � # yaw., •,� �
* N' '.
- Project .
r jtt � f
.� L
r
f� I � I 1 � I - I l �a • ... .n
I a X11 � i i
I aq11
iI II 1 .I .....• �� y SEµGT%NJ
� ) • t, �
I
SECI10//'LC'
S L FF. 100b0
PE.IIWI0
SECTION M-V
Op�' Q
�• _ —T_ NSEC]ION
l
V
SMIP
,
J-
--
JSWI-O'TREET
wdRo.°!rb sR.!c.ANn rtu
®� SouthtandE�rapa�IneeAn9
1100 ��v� .n PRF11M4MPV ARADN3 PIAN
ewuwe.
n Elevation Notes
o-n<
A C
— p ^xnAv, —
_A � t :Y i yy��•_t_. O n...�.. nn..�L.
Fl—
CARTERGROUP
ARCHITECTS INC.
6th Street Elevation
EI C.nlno ba
°m ��` B.n Clnn.nl•
G49¢S)¢
TEL
vav m ana
".5:: T� .'•Tj�l 4•yreM .4r';'yy. �` Y`�. q �`, .,t . ,I.,v,..o.
CHASE
PARTNERS
Freeway Elevation m LTD
o c e n �wsw.0
n).n Imo
ERxrow>m
r
;, n ••
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
BUSINESS
PARK
North Elevation BUILDING C
I 1 7 :
nm
rJ
ExWor
Elevations
fa DRC 2006-01012
Charles Smith Avenue Elevation
! a • • —
FO Floor Plan Notes
orrm^.:—
Y
EI—
raw w.VMS*� cARTERaRouP
®awx-- ARCNDEMVV-
moalmn
81:111.— 11 c.Tl.e n.il
�Q awu F
� su cnn•mI.
claaan
ru
F F MF OF i6fs
!.[
I l...Il ilaJ
:49
YAII
rl.rlreuO n.t
Y
aomv.r
CHASE
E . PARTNER$
Lm
amFnr�w
i•Ieer
�IFa•ru
FAII
mr Im
Acmraao
F•alul
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
BUSINESS
PARK
BU4UIN L
aww
' yI FIA
e • F4et
_ FI=Plan
"— Door Schedule DRC 2006-01012
• a ! e e r e _ � — _
aca
First Floor Plan
arc A2.1
1
1,
Environmental Assessment
RANCHO
UCAMONGA
CALIFORNIA
• Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), the Planning Commission determined that
the original project was categorically exempt from the
requirements of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15332 - In-Fill Development
Projects - in connection with the City's approval of
Development Review DRC2006-01012 in August
2008.
Environmental Assessment
RANCHO (continued)
UCAMONCA,
CALIFORNIA
• Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no
subsequent or supplemental environmental review is
required in connection with subsequent discretionary
approvals of the same project
• 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.
Correspondence
'11RANCHO)
UCAMONGA
CALIFORNIA
• This item was .advertised as a public hearing
in the Inland Valley 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 or comments have been
received .
i
RANCHO
Staff Recommendation
UCAMONGA
tArffex�►
Recommendation : Staff Recommends Approval of
Time Extension DRC2013-00541 by adoption of the
attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions.
r ,
STAFF REPORT
PLANNWGDEPARTMENT
Date: August 28, 2013 RANCHO
To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA
From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Manager
By: Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner
Subject: TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00585— D.R. HORTON - A request to extend the duration of
an existing entitlement approval by an additional two (2) years for Development Review
DRC2006-00730 the Site Plan and design review for 67 residential condominiums on
4.70 net acres of land within the proposed Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units
per acre), located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court -
APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224, Victoria
Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, and Tree
Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. On August 27, 2008, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning Commission for Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18212, General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224, Victoria Community Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00447, and Development Review DRC2006-00730. The California
• Environmental Quality Act provides that no further environmental review or Negative
Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor revisions to projects within the scope
of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration.
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00652 — D.R. HORTON - A request to extend the duration of
an existing entitlement approval by an additional two (2) years for Tree Removal Permit
DRC2007-00081 for the removal of approximately 49 trees to develop 67 residential
condominiums on 4.70 net acres of land within the proposed Medium Residential District
(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast comer of Base Line Road and
San Carmela Court - APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: General Plan Amendment
DRC2006-00224, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447, Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT18212, and Development Review DRC2006-00730. On August 27, 2008, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts was adopted by the Planning
Commission for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, General Plan Amendment DRC2006-
00224, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447, and Development Review
DRC2006-00730. The California Environmental Quality Act provides that no further
environmental review or Negative Declaration is required for subsequent projects or minor
revisions to projects within the scope of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the two proposed Time Extensions
DRC2013-00585 and DRC2013-00652 by adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with
conditions.
ANALYSIS:
• A. General: On July 15, 2013, the applicant, Barbara Murakami, submitted a request to extend the
duration of the entitlement approval (hereafter referred to as a `time extension") for Development
Review DRC2006-00730 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. The applicant does not
Items E-F 1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2013-00585 AND DRC2013-00652— D.R. HORTON
August 28, 2013
Page 2 •
propose any changes to the project as stated in the attached letter (Exhibit A). The project was
,originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on August 27, 2008 (Exhibits B, C,
and D) per Resolution of Approval No. 08-40 for the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212 and
Resolution of Approval No. 08-41 for Development Review DRC2006-00730 that also included
approvals for the Tree Removal Permit. Standard Condition B.2, from the original 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." Under the City's prior Development Code in effect
at the time of the original approval in 2008, with the exception of Tentative Tract maps, a time
extension for any Development Review entitlement was not allowed. Thus, the approval of this
project was set to expire on August 27, 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. All 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 August 27, 2015.
B. Grading and Technical Review Committees: On May 1, 2007, the project was reviewed by the •
Committees. At the time, the Committee did not approve the Grading and Drainage Plans pending
the submittal of a modified Site Plan to include a right-tum only lane as required by the Engineering
Department. The item was reviewed again on May 15, 2007, at which time the outstanding item
was resolved to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Services Department and Engineering
Services Department, and the plans were conceptually approved.
The project was reviewed by both Committees again on July 15, 2008. The Committees again
conceptually approved the plans.
C. Design Review Committees: On May 1, 2007, the Design Review Committee (Munoz, Stewart, and
Henderson) approved the project as presented, finding the project to be well-designed and thanked
the applicant for proposing high-quality exterior details. In addition, the Committee was supportive
of the relocation of the pedestrian access point from San Carmela Court to Base Line Road. The
applicant was directed to ascertain and comply with any ADA requirements. Finally, the applicant
was asked to study the landscape (trees) screening of the second floor units from the existing gas
station use on the adjacent property to the east. The applicant agreed to implement the above
recommendations, and the Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for final approval with the above changes.
The project was down-sized and sent back to Design Review Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, and
Henderson) on July 15, 2008, to be reviewed again. The Committee approved the project as
presented as all previous issues had been addressed. All of the review Committees analyzed the
original project and recommended approval to the Planning Commission. The Committee's
conditions were subsequently incorporated into the Resolutions of Approval (Resolution No. 08-40 •
and 08-41) 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
Items E-F 2
,
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2013-00585 AND DRC2013-00652 — D.R. HORTON
August 28, 2013
• Page 3
necessary. The Committees' original conditions of approval continue to apply, and this is noted in
the attached Draft Resolution of Approval.
D. Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212: 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
August 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 SUBTT18212
is now set to expire on August 27, 2015.
E. The Tree Removal Permit approval has been extracted from the Conditions of Approval for
Development Review DRC2006-00730 (Resolution No. 08-41) and is proposed to be extended by
a separate Resolution as a matter of Code consistency and housekeeping, in order to allow all
aspects of the project to move forward. The Tree Removal Permit is proposed to be extended by a
separate time extension approval and Resolution.
F. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on
• August 27, 2008, in connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2006-00730
and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212 for the approval of the initial project. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required
in connection with subsequent or 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. 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 previously evaluated. Staff further
finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous
Mitigated Negative Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that
additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a
level of less-than-significant. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required
in connection with the City's consideration of Time Extensions DRC2013-00585 and
DRC2013-00652.
•
Items E-F 3
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2013-00585 AND DRC2013-00652 — D.R. NORTON
August 28, 2013 •
Page 4
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.
Respectfully submitted,
Candyce Burnett
Planning Manager
CB:SF/ge
Attachments: Exhibit A - Time Extension Request Letters (prepared by the applicant)
Exhibit B - Staff Report for Development Review DRC2006-00730 and Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT18212 dated August 27, 2008
Exhibit C - Resolution of Approval No. 08-41 for Development Review
DRC2006-00730 which includes the approval conditions for Tree Removal
Permit DRC2007-00081
Exhibit D - Resolution of Approval No. 08-40 for Tract Map 18212
Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension DRC2013-00585 •
Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension DRC2013-00652
•
Items E-F 4
D-R•HOWIN ® N274k
• y4�yte`'`Ca-�s ��3u�l�P�'
12 July 2013
Mr. Steven Fowler
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RE: DRC 2006-00730 - Extension of Time
Dear Mr. Fowler.
Please accept this letter as our request to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an extension of time for the
above referenced DRC approval, in conjunction with Tentative Tract No. 18212.
• D.R. Horton has recently agreed to acquire this project from the current owners, and we are expending
time, energy, and money to bring this project to it's fruition. Due to the limited time of remaining DRC
approval, and the need for D.R. Horton to comply with necessary architectural and engineering studies
required by the existing entitlement, it is necessary to extend the existing DRC approval.
This project will complete an integral component of the Victoria Gardens Specific Plan, and it is with
humble respect, that we request an extension of approval for the above referenced DRC2006-00730
project.
Respectfully submitted,
Patrick
Senior Project Manager
D.R. Horton
South Coast/Inland Empire Division
•
EXHIBIT A wdlow Circle • Suite 100 • Corona, CA 92880
;951) 272-9000 • Fax: (951) 272-9797
wwKeft9(Ee%Fh5:otn
• i
T H E C I T Y O F
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE: August 27, 2008
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
BY: Steve Fowler, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2006-00224 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES for Baseline Victoria Park
Partners LLC - A request to change the General Plan land use designation from
Neighborhood Commercial to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
designation for approximately 4.79 acres of land at the northeast comer of Base Line
Road and San Carmela Court - APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: Victoria
• Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212,
Development Review DRC2006-00730, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081.
Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY 'PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2006-00447 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES for Baseline
Victoria Park Partners LLC-A request to change the Victoria Community Plan land
use designation from Village Commercial to Medium Residential(8-14 dwelling units
per acre)designation for approximately 4.79 acres of land at the northeast corner of
Base Line Road and San Carmela Court - APN: 1089-581-01. Related files:
General Plan Amendment DRC2006-00224, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212,
Development Review DRC2006-00730, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081.
Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212-
CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES-A request to subdivide 6 acres of land into two
lots. Lot 1 is 4.79 acres of land for 67 residential condominium units in the proposed
Medium Residential District(8-14 dwelling units per acre), and Lot 2 is 1.21 acres of
land to remain as an existing commercial parking lot and a vacant portion of land in
the Village Commercial District, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road
and San Carmela Court - APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: General Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00224, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-
00447, Development Review DRC2006-00730, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-
• 00081. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
EXHIBIT B
Items E-F 6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2006-00224, DRC2006-00447, SUBTT18212, AND DRC2006-00730 •
August 27, 2008
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-
00730 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES - Site Plan and design review for 67
residential condominiums on 4.79 acres of land in the proposed Medium Residential
District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located at the northeast corner of Base Line
Road and San Carmela Court - APN: 1089-581-01. Related files: General Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00224, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006
00447, and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212,and Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-
00081. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental
impacts for consideration.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Proiect Density: 14.26 dwelling units per acre
B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Condominiums in the Medium High Density Residential District(14-24 dwelling units
per acre) district of the Victoria Community Plan
South - Small commercial retail center in the Neighborhood Commercial district of the
Victoria Community Plan, further south across Base Line Road is the Filippi Winery
East - Single-family homes in the Low-Medium (LM) Density Residential District •
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan
West - Single-family homes in the Low-Medium (LM) Density Residential District
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Victoria Community Plan
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site - See table above.
North - Medium-High Density Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)
South - Neighborhood Commercial and High (H) Density Residential - Filippi Winery site
East - Low-Medium (LM) Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
West - Low-Medium (LM) Density Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
Site Characteristics: The 4.70-acre project site is a vacant"puzzle piece"shaped parcel that
is surrounded by existing development. The property has a gradual slope to the southwest
and contains no significant vegetation, except for trees along the west side of the site
adjacent to and existing parking area to the east of the site. A Tree Removal Permit
DRC2007-00081 has been submitted to remove approximately 10 trees from this area. Along
the eastern frontage of the site on Victoria Parkway, is an existing grove of trees that are
within the public right-of-way and will be retained.
•
Items E-F 7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2006-00224, DRC2006-00447, SUBTT18212, AND DR02006-00730
• August 27, 2008
Page 3
D. Parking Calculations:
ProposedParking Analysis For . .
Unit` ze No of Umts Numb of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Provided'
3-Bedroom 47 40 spaces 94
2 Garage Spaces Per Unit
2-Bedroom 20 94 spaces 40
2 Garage Spaces Per Unit
Visitor _ 17 spaces 18
1 Garage per 4 Units—Uncovered)
Totals 67 units 151 spaces 152 spaces
rParking for each unit is provided In attached 2-car garages
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The project was originally presented to Planning Commission back on
May 23, 2007 where it was continued due to a parking easement that intersected a portion of
the northeast corner of the project. Since that time approximately 1.30 acres of land was
reduced from the project to allow the easement on the adjacent property to be left alone and
• to allow this project to proceed forward. With the reduction in land came a reduction in units
and visitor parking spaces.
The original proposal was for the development of 82 units and 28 visitor parking spaces and
the current proposal is to develop 67 market-rate condominium units on approximately 4.70
acres of undeveloped land located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San
Carmela Court (north and west of the existing Victoria Village retail center). The new units
will be grouped in 3 and 4-plex buildings arranged across the site as presented previously.
The project offers 2-bedroom (20 units) and 3-bedroom (47 units) that range in size from
1,400 to 1,600 square feet with attached two-car garages. Eighteen (18) visitor parking
spaces are provided (17 required) which are distributed around the site. Recreational
amenities are also provided around the site including a pool, spa, and pocket park with
barbeques.
Primary access to the project site will be from a gated entrance at Atwood Court (off
Victoria Park Place), with emergency fire department access off San Carmela Court. The
design of the new units is a contemporary interpretation of the Spanish/Mediterranean
architectural style. The building design features clay tile hip roofs and recessed windows and
doors, decorative tile, and ornamental iron work. The exterior walls will be clad in smooth
texture stucco, typically associated with the proposed style.
B. Tentative Tract Mao: Concurrent with the Development Review application is Tentative Tract
Map SUBTT18212. The tract map proposes the subdivision of air space for residential
condominium purposes, which will allow individual ownership of the proposed 67
condominium units and common ownership of the buildings, open space, parking, and
driveways.
•
Items E-F 8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DRC2006-00224, DRC2006-00447, SUBTT18212, AND DRC2006-00730 •
August 27, 2008
Page 4
C. Land Use Amendments: To facilitate the development of the proposed project,the underlying
General Plan and Victoria Community Plan land use designations will need to be changed
from commercial to residential as depicted in the following table,
ProposedExisting and . •
Plan Existing Desi nation Proposed Dest nation
General Plan Neighborhood Commercial Medium Residential
DRC2006-00224 8-14 Dwelling Units/Acre
Victoria Community Plan village Commercial Medium Residential
DRC2006-00447 8-14 Dwelling Units/Acre
D. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee
(Munoz, Stewart, and Henderson) on May 1, 2007. The Committee approved the project as
presented, finding the project to be well-designed and thanked the applicant for proposing
high-quality exterior details. In addition, the Committee was supportive of the relocation of
the pedestrian access point from San Carmela Court to Base Line Road. The applicant was
directed to ascertain and comply with any ADA requirements. Finally, the applicant was
asked to study the landscape(trees)screening of the second floor units from the existing gas
station use on the adjacent property to the east. The applicant agreed to implement the
above recommendations,and the Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the
Planning Commission for final approval with the above changes.
The project was down sized and sent back to Design Review Committee (Munoz, Wimberly, •
and Henderson)on July 15, 2008 to be reviewed again. The Committee approved the project
as presented as all previous issues had been addressed.
E. Grading and Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Committees on
May 1, 2007. At the time, the Committee did not approve the Grading and Drainage Plans
pending the submittal of a modified Site Plan to include a right-turn only lane as required by
the Engineering Department. The item was reviewed again on May 15, 2007, at which time
the outstanding item was resolved to the satisfaction of the Building and Engineering
Departments, and the plans were conceptually approved.
The project was reviewed by both Committees again on July 15, 2008. The committees again
conceptually approved the plans.
F. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was prepared for the entire project and released
for public review on April 30, 2007, then again on July 31, 2008. Based on the findings of the
Initial Study, staff determined that the project could have a potentially significant adverse
environmental impact unless reduced to a level of less-than-significant by the implementation
mitigation measures. Areas identified as subject to potential environmental impacts were in
Cultural Resources, Hydrology and Water, Noise, Air Quality (short-term during site
preparation), and Geology and Soils. Proposed mitigation measures have been included as
conditions of approval for the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
proposed for the project.
As part of this project, the applicant has also applied for a Tree Removal Permit for all trees •
(approximately 10) located on the interior east boundary of the site adjacent to the existing
commercial center.
Items E-F 9
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
• DRC2006-00224, DRC2006-00447, SUBTT18212, AND DRC2006-00730
August 27, 2008
Page 5
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: A neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed project with
adjacent residents was held on March 29, 2007. Fourteen residents attended the meeting and
were generally supportive of the project but expressed their concern regarding parking impacts on
San Carmela Court from the project. Many of the residents were concerned that the
visitor/overflow parking from the project would adversely impact their street. Although the residents
were satisfied to know that no vehicular access (except for emergency responders) was being
proposed on San Carmela Court, they felt that any pedestrian access points on San Carmela Court
also be eliminated to discourage street parking. The applicant was open to relocating the
pedestrian access to the Base Line Road side of the project. A copy of the minutes from the
March 29, 2007, meeting is attached.
A neighborhood meeting to discuss the downsize of the proposed project was held with the
adjacent residents on July 29, 2008. Seventeen residents attended the meeting and again were
supportive of the project but expressed concerns again about parking on San Carmela Court but
were assured that no parking signs would be posted to eliminate that problem. Also concerns of
parking issues on Atwood Street were raised. The applicant advised them that they meet the
required parking provisions set forth by the City's Municipal Code and the residents seemed
satisfied. A copy of the minutes from the July 29, 2008, meeting is attached.
• CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper,the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 660-foot plus radius of the project site. A total of 387 notices were mailed. No direct public
comment to staff has been received.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts and approve Development Review
DRC2006-00730 and Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212 through the adoption of the attached
Resolutions of Approval with Conditions. In addition, staff recommends the Commission approve
the attached resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the associated General Plan
and Victoria Community Plan land use amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
ames R..Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
Attachments: Exhibit A - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212
Exhibit B - Project Plans
Exhibit C - Neighborhood Meeting Minutes dated March 29, 2007 &July 29, 2008
Exhibit D - Initial Study Parts I and II
Draft Resolution Recommending approval of General Plan Amendment
DRC2006-00224
• . Draft Resolution Recommending approval of Victoria Community Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00447
Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212
Draft Resolution of Approval for Development Review DRC2006-00730
Items E-F 10
m
xESTING
=:.�' TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 18212
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIWONGA,COUNTY OF SPIN BERNARDINO.STATE OF CALIFORNIA
J
FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ..... .
rl
CIOTRAVT jW. 47,975
LOT2 U
var
F
L
... ......
C PARC,91 MAP DDSs v
P"
rmeF
4 7
-n
%
Ilk
TYPICAL SECTION C-C,84H CARMELA COURT
A
TYPICAL 5E"ON Be:VICTORM PARK IANE TYPICAL SECTION E-El INTERIOR STREETS
STS
L
-A
---A-4I
VPlCALSECMONGiC,INTERIOR —EiS
a NOTE,
L
TIOUNDANY flO HEREON
CITY OF RANCHO Cu,CAMO,,,,
VPICAL;�CTIOVAA BASELJNFROAD-=� IS COMPILED FROM NEST —.
1XICALSECTIDND-0 ATV00ODSTREET A".,'Ll8l-JC RECORDS 7�IAMI��WP�Illl
��"RDSAT"IAPANFPLACE
TYPICAL SECTION FF:INTERIOR STREETS
--mm-
�- I If i I I II I I r - �, � ytN Cp` nL naFcr ra
I III ' EIfISi Np RFSIOEMML��. �' � ��
n
_ " e
a
i!
W.
N � � t I`[I '.i 111 :1 .i 5� .V`\�\.Y.\�`.�4..�) I •�� I /I�.I LL,. - � Q .a
pn is Fxsiwa
SITE PLAN
f- - THE VIN� AR�`
VICTORIA
RIAp ARKK PI-AGE
COAST HOMES.LLLC
x I/
+ w,. . A-1
-� LI
i r ; IA.
r } I r
I �aI„IC��L
eexNnasala
yuwMb !!u rv�l l r � '
fff r ! r
-
w 7 � IR r �,..� � !4. �\\\\\\.\�\J� �� I �I 3��•'���r7� i � a � �--�s-'r-a.-n
1 ^-m' t �.�s � � •� F. s �-
.,
It
+ j
�O'°� \1 � � OPEN SPACE PLAN
n.r...ry '�••. \•.... L VICTORIA P:.RN PLACE
CAL WAST .c
`Hd.1E5.+LC
Q w
'rsr wosMrva' '� / flyl .,
r
loll-
044
• I�� \
TI wnwuo srces i
J .
-- t - FI BIDEPT ACCESS PLAN
y _ - VIQpIA PARK PLACE
CA COAST ROMPS.LLC
..ru. r.u[u[ ! ...�..w�«...... .sa...pi.��. ` �� ... �-. �_ "—\ .' I I ✓� N1Mee e�elNeNC.tflf.LLP
+
- r+4'
rp
Fuy1i ELE:n1gN
F1F:R FLF.'ATpFI
I
j l'-
W.
UFT ELEI'i•TgN FigNT ELE':ATUry
BLDG. ELEVATIONS: 4-PLEX
THE V W EVAROS AT
V CTORIA PARK PLACE
CAL COAST HOMES,LLC
F ..H .......m. A-7
---- ------ --- ---- -------
unic —I A
,.D
be. 2..2., 3W.,].i by.
=f plan
-------- Tie
firs[floor building PIW
4-PLEX BUILDING PLANS
THE VINEYARDS AT
sai flow building plan VICTORIA PARK PLACE
CAL COAST HOMES,LLC
11 2. LLI
A-6
+
PIGX!E1F(wTIQN
flE/.R 61EVATpN
y ......
T
JAM
1-31 Elf:+TICK iR,uf Ele:RlICN ••« ••••. ••.-• .••
BLDG. ELEVATIONS: 3-PLEX
THE VINEYARDS AT
VICTORIA PA KPLACE
CAL COAST HOMES.LLC
�n•- _y ........., ,.. .��.q.4 ems..- .....
p /,/ enmm r.w w�Na.mua.un
t un .-• .n n A-5
t �
roof Plan ._.. .._•. •------
m
-m
first fl=building Plan
3-PLEX BUILDING PLANS
THE VINEYARDS AT
IITORIAi PARK PLACE
9000ntl i00r builtlnq pldO ..V
CAL COASTHOMES,LLC
o s is r n ✓/ � . ,._.....
A-e
+
. % r'1
1:y
s
to
LEVEL 2 LEVEL i
,aw•i
UNIT PLAN -A
- . 2 BEDROOM+STUDY.2 BATH
avn"M. .w-1ei•f THE VINEYARDS AT
VICTORIA PARK PLACE
CAL COAST HOMES,LLC
12 �1s Y I, �.✓' svw uxu»,.�.va.rn.Lv
H e z .-....... A$
i
IL
------------
�1.. '
N -
�l
h't
- Y
I— -- I
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1
yart.
UNIT PLAN - B
as-..m.. 3 BEDROOM,2.5 BATH
THE VINEYARDS AT
M CT ORIA PARK PLACE
CAL COAST HOMES,LLC
e ,•,'p:.// 1, i..La
F ...v ........... A-g
t
N n sl
I
LEVEL 2 LEVEL 1
sa.�.
UNIT PLAN - C
....,y,,.i 3 BEDROOM.2.5 BATH
,.m-......ce-m`.. THE VINEYARDS AT
VICTORIA PARK PLACE
CAL_COAST HOMES,LLC _
A-10
N
14
N — _�'�y_t1r
LEVEL
LEVEL 1
UNIT PLAN - D
3 BEDROOM,3 BATH
i.a...o.,...�..m i.
THE VINEYARDS
VICTORIA LARK PL(-
ACE
CAL COAST HOMES,LLC
'Cli
,-, i'. d i
..........
V
ii
f. Y-j 1 ii
?
18
IL
fit
gill
----------------- --------------
.00
OR-O&AXEr w
'UAV it
.7a-.aCI&RZ
Elie! W 1DVl1.1
Items E-F 23
V le Z.V. v SOuv".m 3Hl
Zwg.swo Z
voxo"Omososveeoxoo V NO11O3S
a. a.�.... - .,
-------------
B NO1103S
4• n.n x.. ... ... n.. ... ".. x. .. >.
----
LL
w
Noljans
finz
w.......s,.,...x,>.v'aH'011d010S301V031
All
Irl
_J
.2
CID u
C Jr -Alj
m
G
I \----------
WALL AND FENCE PLAN- -'
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN THE VINEYARDS AT VICTORIA PARK PLACE
CAEGGAST NGNES.UC
V��0 SuH.1. Atwood Street and Victoria Park
W.Ea.Im,EA on. Rancho Cucamonga,CA
T.1 11.1eao DRC 2006-00224
SHEET LA OF 4 SHEETS
PRELIMINARY PLANTING LEGEND
__.--. _ .. `•t swa em Mr¢am. on'urLrac Wnxmv s,o
.., _.
tit t\ � '�"k r--n ,a •.. . . ...„r,..
> - NOTES:
uwq)GIe Mr�FlaaE,ALRa N1MWYROruM:YO,IiM rtF1Fy
• .0 �f .- I ��• '1. � wmaunuatlla[asesro.LL.rrLcluF •.grdw,xm.
C+ � N oVFMaxWrtruµaF 4YMv4FrAu� rvacuuo4MNµ
FD I 1
�' ''1—, SHRUB.ME AND GNWND COVEN PALETTE
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN THE
VINEYARDSA�4ATn1A�Ye�I"C� ORrA PAIR rL (Ite
cuconeT HONas,LwAtwood Street and Victoria Park ,
nsse e.,e4rro ewe,S.x.ve
rmaa wiN En.rocusmra Rancho Cucamonga,CA ••,�
Tnl:maaarseoo •. •°.•
DRC 2006-00224 _
SIIEET L-1 OF SHEETS
EXISTING TREE LEGEND
�� �, �� �r � Vin_• -
• tI �c-fir£
� «4
a e
�t r. 'illt—. r •aa
I { ,
m -� i.
N
EXISTING VEGETATION PLAN- �1
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN THE VINEYARDS AT VICTORIA PARK PLACE
u�Co THOME9,uc Atwood Street and Victoria Park
$15x0XVWvne. 189 -
mm�a
HIM.e 1l &xoSUIN x]. Rancho Cucamonga,CA •' ,,,• _
LI:]tpNl59W r �
DRC 2006-00224
SHEET L-)OF 4 SHEETS
04/02/2007 23:46 9094817Q24 CHARLES JOSEPH occ;r. PAGE 02/04
Charles Joseph Associates
PUSx1CMAVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES
82 Unit Cal coast homes Neighborhood Meeting Minutes—Filippi Winery
Meeting Date: March 29, 2007, bpm to 7:30pm
Meeting presentation of project which included; unit size and configuration,
access, master plan concepts of adjoining properties, unit density in relationship
to surrounding neighborhood, architectural design, Fire access connections,
pedestrian connections, explanation'of condo map requirements and history of
subject property in relationship to existing retail center and proposed General
Plan Amendment.
1. Presentation of design, size& market considerations. Information
presented regarding the estimated zoning for existing residential of&7
dua, former apartments to the north of the subject site of 17 dua, and
our project approximately 13 dua. After answering the questions and
presentation of the project, it appeared the neighbors were satisfied
with the Planning approach of the project. In fad, one neighbor said
that they felt it was a good project but wanted to ensure that there was
not a parking impact on the residential neighborhood (see 4).
• 2. Questions were raised regarding the access restriction and installation
of traffic signal. We infiormed homeowners that aspart of our project
design we will be contributing toward the installation of the traffic signal
and there will be no vehicle access to San Carmela other than that
provided for Fire Access and this access would be landscaped for
aesthetic compatibility for the neighborhood.
3. Questions regarding construction timing and development of homes.
Notified neighbors that it would take approximately 1 year to obtain
approval of building plans through the DRC process and Plan check
process before construction could begin and to expect about 14
months of total construction. Neighbors obtained confirmation as to
hours of constriction provided for by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Neighbors desired that construction access not be provided an San
Carmela.
4. Concerns about existing neighbor parking issues along San Carmala
and view access thru street. Perceived parking demands for the project
& related concerns regarding RV/boat parking on public streets were
addressed and resolved. Residents requested that pedestrian access
gates be removed from San Carmela& no parking signs be installed
on both sides of the street for San Carmela along projects west side
frontage to avoid this street becoming overflow parking. Informed
• 0ff�909*481#1822 800*?A0v1622 Fgx909.4819181x1
10681 Foo6li Blvd,Salta 395•Rm mho Cucamonga,CA a 91730
EXHIBIT C ACAMl ORNL&CORPORXFTON
Items E-F 28
.04/02/2007 23:46 9094012P'4 CHARLES JOSEPH A�GCV' PAGE 03/04
•
neighbors that the City has a process in which to control this th u
Sheffs department and code enforcement. We assured residents that
we would work with the City to provide pedestrian access that would
discarege parking on San Carmela.
5. Questions regarding status of Gas StationfRetaii site that if the City
could by the site, turlldoze it for redevelopment Advised neighbors
that our project does not own or control the existing commercial center
and that they are cooperating with us relative to our common property
interface issues.
6. Neighbors wanted specific details regarding the wall design along San
Carmela, wanted a solid wall. however, atter presentation agreed with
Planning's design approach of the low wall/wrought Iron design. Desire
to restrict pedestrian access on San Carmala was discussed at length.
•
•
Items E-F 29
04/02/2007 23:46 9094817824 CHARLES JOSEPH AGST" PAGE 04/04
• Cal Coast Homes Community Meeting March 29, 2007
Name Address Phone #
' C �3U�C37' w000I fedr�ru AW) jrg �`!8Z
2 Lot-t4 <aJ 40,,fU 7)69 Seg..., Cc�n►�-e�o�•
a C ,� .
c l rrz
4 GREG-t' nl bt 11-�17(a I+A-Qt�T�C 'A2
5 hn ?`✓ ` ' I Ci % l loti e.�
6A;
7
9 nTc J JAI-, `122 � H 63
10 N�tMM� 1
11 � v9 7
• 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
•
Items E-F 30
Charles Joseph Associates
PUBLIC/PRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES •
July 17, 2008
Re: July 29 , 2008 Community Meeting regarding
Cal Coast Homes, Vineyards at Victoria Park Place
DRC 2006-00224
Dear Property Owner:
This letter is to invite you to a Community Meeting concerning the Vineyards at Victoria
Park Place, a proposed 67 Unit Condominium Complex at the Northeast Corner of
Baseline Road and San Carmela Court. We have reduced the original plan from 82 units
to 67 units for the purpose of keeping the existing parking lot.
This meeting will give us the opportunity to present our plans for this high quality design
Condominium project that we believe will be a positive addition to your neighborhood.
During the meeting you will have the opportunity to ask any questions that you may have
with regard to this project.
We appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule on Tuesday 29th, 2008 at 6:00
P.M. to join us at the J. Filippi Winery located at 12467 Baseline Road, Rancho
Cucamonga. The meeting will be held in the Event Room at the Winery and the project
team will be available to answer any questions or concerns that you may have at this •
meeting. Light refreshments will be served.
We are looking forward to meeting with you. Should you have any questions or need any
additional information in advance of this meeting, please feel free to give me a call at
your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
0 .
Charles J. Buquet
Charles Joseph Associates
Enclosure
cc: Steve Fowler, City Planning
Office 909.481.1822 888.240.1822 Fax 909.481.1824 •
City Center• 10681 Foothill Blvd.,Scute 395 •Rancho Cucamonga,CA • 91730
:\CA-1,1 ORNIA CORPOKV110N
Items E-F 31
Charles Joseph Associates
• PUBLICIPRIVATE SECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES
67-Unit Cal Coast Homes Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: July 29, 2008, 6pm to 7pm
Meeting presentation of project was made which included; unit size and
configuration, access, parking for the development and compatibility with
surrounding properties, and architectural design and consistency with
surrounding neighborhood. We also explained the changes that have been
made to the project from the original site design, which resulted in a decrease of
units from 82 to 67, as well as a decrease in the size of the project from 6 acres
to 4.7 acres.
1. Initial questions were asked regarding project parking and any impact
on Atwood. Information was presented regarding advising that the
project meets applicable parking requirements, and that 18 visitor
parking spaces have been provided for the project and 2-car garages
are provided for each unit. A neighbor stated that Atwood Street is
currently being used by residents of the converted apartment project
each evening. The neighbor was advised that, per the Conditions of
Approval, the project is designed to provide for all parking to remain
• onsite. It was also explained that, aside from placing "No Parking"
signs on those streets, there was no way to truly stop their residents
from parking on Atwood. The neighbor stated that "No Parking" signs
would not work because they needed the parking, but seemed to be
satisfied with the provisions that had been made relative to our project
as to onsite parking.
2. A question was raised regarding the potential problem of rodents
during construction, as well as the enclosure of the site. We informed
them that there are requirements that nuisances, including vermin and
dust, must be kept as minimal as possible, and that the construction
manager would likely be in contact with the neighbors to have a
meeting before construction commences to discuss any concerns.
Also, it was explained that the site is required to be enclosed by a
covered fence during construction, which will limit the externalities
imposed on the surrounding properties.
3. The question was asked if the addition of 67 units will cause a
decrease in water pressure for the adjoining condos and homes. We
explained that there are City Fire Flow requirements that must be met
in the initial stage of project approvals to ensure that there will be no
such effects and that existing water lines have the capacity to serve
• these new units with no adverse effects on other homes.
Office 909*481.1822 800.240.1822 Fax 909-481*1824
City-Centct• 10681 Foothill Blvd.,Suite 395• Rancho Cucamonga,CA •91'30
:\CN.IFOR-NIA CORPORA110N
Items E-F 32
4. Several questions came up regarding the expected start and end dates
for construction. We informed them that the project still needs to go to
Planning Commission before it is approved and can move forward,
which will likely occur next month. They were also informed that they
will be receiving a notice for it and attend that meeting. Neighbors
were informed that the construction plan check process can be
expected to take about six months to complete, and there are
currently no projected start and end dates for the project.
5. A few neighbors raised questions regarding the hours of construction
of the project, and we told them that the City only allows construction
between 6:30 am and 8:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, no Sundays
or Federal Holidays, and site construction activity at many jobsites
typically wraps up in the afternoon.
6. One neighbor inquired regarding the aesthetics of the project and if its
compatibility with surrounding uses was taken into consideration. We
informed them that this was taken into account with the overall
architecture of the project, including with smaller architectural details.
It was also explained that the Filippi Winery, located across the street
to the south of the site, is.planning exterior renovations that mimic the !
design of the project. We also informed them that some of
architectural designs inspiration was taken from the winery estate
residential design and building materials observed with other Wine
Country residential projects. A similar design inspiration was
employed with the Winery Estates commercial center located west of
the Filippi Winery, and those buildings have architectural design
inspiration that was taken from Napa Valley wineries.
Items E-F 33
Cal Coast Homes Community Meeting July 29, 2008
Name Address /� Phone #
1 A 01
2 ` Ui2� Shy "G�l�JO C`7-- / 5�
3 f'hfx)Ozd
4 \\
5 f�T T!� SaI 7 2 L�
( fi t, l t ; ' l� � Q 604
g
F k1l< 1-5 -70 !y taw t
9
10
11I
i-r-4,
• 12 +� UI S CIS(`.e( Sar, co,( "q-, a C�•
13
/ZLf S. ti 0,7,Ar-ELIE C- L
14 ( r
lL t �f
1
16 _, C
`ALL.
�n n
1779 oC/ 67(
1s j {
19
20
21
22
23
24
•
/2 ria U i °X) u-4
Items E-F 34
i
i
�4& I
i.
•
• . uuu
4 p G �. B G4W�Ilt>n • tj
V 3-SL
4s ....... $QUTN£RSf 33 "0'910 Ff
- � >! a-• _ .
a ^
IrjfO
•
00
n J
dtta f • ..- .�
7ZANE'
Site LdbAe N34 07.330'
Lie W117 31.87T
Be at on 1312 feet
Source:USGS Tic Quadwgle
Nath
I
PIC 0 2000
SITE LOCATION MAP
v SERVICES , SCALE IN FEET TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
DRAFTED BY: PROJECT MANAGER: PROJECT N0:
CLIENT: Charles Joseph Associates •
Cal.Coast Homes EJH Tim Hersch E3640
DATE FIGURE:
SITE LOCATION: Baseline Rd. & San Carmela Ct 812006
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Items E-F 35
• - City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Victoria Community Pian Amendment DRC2006-00447, General Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00224, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, and Development Review
D RC2006-00730
Public Review Period Closes: August 27, 2008
Project Name: Project Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northeast comer of Base Line Road
and San Carmela Court - APN: 1089-581-01.
Project Description: A request to change the Victoria Community Plan land use designation from
Village Commercial to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)designation, and change
the General Plan land use designation from Village Commercial to Medium Residential
(8-14 dwelling units per acre)designation for 4.70 net acres of land;and subdivide the property into
67 residential condominium units; and review the Site Plan and design for 67 residential
condominiums in the proposed Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre).
• FINDING
This Is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga,acting as the lead agency,has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted,the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not
be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial
Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax
(909) 477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the
review period.
• August 27, 2008
Date of Determination Adopted By
Items E-F 36
• RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DRC2006-00730, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF 67 CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE VICTORIA
COMMUNITY PLAN, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
BASE LINE ROAD AND SAN CARMELA COURT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1089-581-01,
A. Recitals.
1. Charles Joseph Associates, on behalf of Baseline Victoria Park Partners LLC, filed an
application for Development Review DRC2006-00730, the design review of 67 condominium units for
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 27th day of August 2008,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
held a meeting to consider the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,Part A,of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting on August 27, 2008, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to a 4.79-acre site located on the northeast corner of Base Line
Road and San Carmela Road, with a Base Line Road street frontage of approximately 320 feet; and
b. The project site is currently zoned Village Commercial and is within the Victoria
Community Plan (VCP). The properties surrounding the site are also in the VCP and specifically identified
as single-family residential development to the east and west in the Low-Medium Density Residential
District; condominiums to the north in the Medium-High Residential District;and a small commercial retail
center to the immediate south/southeast in the Village Commercial District. Further south across
Base Line Road is the Filippi Winery in the High Density Residential District; and
C. The applicant has concurrently applied for General Plan and Victoria Community Plan
land use amendments to change the current land use designations from commercial to medium density
residential; and
d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto,will not be detrimental
• to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;
and
EXHIBIT C
Items E-F 37
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
August 27, 2008 •
Page 2
e. The project design meets or exceeds the Victoria Community Plan development
standards for setbacks, building separations, and recreational amenities; and
f. The design and exterior materials of the condominium units includes the use of high
quality plaster(stucco), exposed rafter tails,decorative window surrounds,concrete tile roofing,decorative
block walls, wrought iron accents, and metal fencing, thereby, providing 360-degree architectural
treatment, a goal of the General Plan.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Victoria Community Plan
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
Rancho Cucamonga 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. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative •
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application,the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the projectwill have a
significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated
Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings
as follows:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local CEQA
Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project.
Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of
mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant
effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared.
Thereafter,the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and,based on the whole record before
it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and(ii)that,
based on the imposition of mitigation measures,there is no substantial evidence that the projectwill have
a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission. Based on these
findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code •
Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation
measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project.
Items E-F 38
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 3
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation
Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the
Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director.of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730,telephone(909)
477-2750.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in
the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference:
Planning Department
1) This approval is for the site plan, exterior building design,and landscaping for
the 67-unit condominium project at the subject site. Plans submitted for plan
check shall conform with the plans approved by the Design Review
Committee on July 15, 2008, and final Planning Commission approval on
August 27, 2008.
2) Final project approval shall be subject to City Council approval of the
associated land use amendments of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
and Victoria Community Plan changing the land use from Commercial to
• Medium Density Residential.
3) All guest parking spaces shall be conspicuously labeled as"Visitors parking
and made available for visitors to the complex at all times. Sub-leasing,
sub-renting,or any other method which results in the reduction of available of
visitor parking spaces (18) shall be prohibited.
4) No exterior changes to the design of the project, including exterior materials,
shall be permitted without prior City review and approval.
5) All applicable conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212
shall apply.
6) The final design of the following items shall be submitted for final Planning
Director review and approval during the plan check phase of the project:
a) All decorative metal fences, gates, and/or railings. All decorative
exterior metal elements shall have a long lasting powder coat paint
finish.
b) Masonry walls and/or fencing between condominium units. Walls shall
be stepped as necessary to comply with field conditions and to comply
with wall requirements of the development code. No unfinished walls
shall be permitted.
C) Wall-and ground-mounted exterior light fixtures.
7) Any stone veneers used on the project (e.g., buildings, perimeter walls,
• pilasters, etc.), shall be installed in a manner that does not give the
appearance of a tack on element. All stone veneers shall be applied and/or
extended so that the material terminates at an appropriate point on the
Items E-F 39
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ORC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
August 27, 2008 •
Page 4
structure. No faux river rock shall be permitted.
8) Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081 is hereby approved for the removal of
all on-site trees(approximately 49 trees)for the development of the site and
to be replaced as part of the approved landscape plan for the project.
9) No pedestrian gates with direct access to San Carmela Court shall be
permitted with this approval. Pedestrian access shall be provided directly to
Base Line Road.
10) Access from the project to San Carmela Court shall be for emergency
response vehiclestpersonnel only.
11) The project homeowner association shall be responsible at all times to
maintain and repair (including graffiti removal) all perimeter walls, gates,
landscaping, decorative features, and on-site recreation amenities.
12) Approval of this Development Review application is contingent on the
approval of the General Plan Amendment to change the Neighborhood
Commercial designation to Medium Residential.
Engineering Department
1) Base Line Road frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City •
"Major Divided Arterial" standards as required and including:
a) Provide curb and gutter, curvilinear sidewalk, street trees and street
lights, as required.
b) For widening of Base Line Road, remove existing curb and gutter and
install new curb and gutter to its ultimate location.
c) Provide a bike lane along Base Line Road frontage as required.
d) Provide traffic striping and signage and R26 signs along Base Line .
Road frontage, as required.
e) Protect existing raised median along the entire Base Line Road
frontage with no openings.
f) No direct driveways to Base Line Road.
2) San Carmela Court frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City
"collector" street standards as required and including:
a) Provide street trees, as required.
b) Protect existing curb and gutter,sidewalk,and street lights,or repair as
required.
c) Access to San Carmela Court to be limited to one Emergency Access •
driveway. The emergency access shall be 26 feet wide and shall be
Items E-F 40
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 5
constructed as a limited access curb per City Standard 105-C. The
material to be installed within the City right-of-way shall be reviewed
and approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. No accent
paving allowed within the City right-of-way.
d) Protect existing traffic striping and signage, including R26 signs, as
required.
3) Victoria Park Lane frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City
'modified collector' standards as required and including:
a) Protect existing curb and gutter, sidewalk,street trees and street lights,
or repair as required.
b) Protect existing traffic striping and signage, including R26 signs, as
required.
c) Modify existing landscaping on Victoria Park Lane approaching Atwood
Street to comply with the City's "Line-of-Sight"standards.
4) Atwood Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City'Local
Street' standards as required and including:
a) Provide a 6-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk, street trees and 5800
• Lumens HPSV street lights,as required. Easement for Public sidewalks
placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City.
b) Protect existing curb and gutter, striping and signage, as required.
c) Gated entrance to be in accordance with City "Residential Project
Gated Entrance Design Guide" standard.
5) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Base Line Road and San Carmela
Court. The developer shall receive credit against and reimbursement of
costs in excess of the Transportation Development Fee in conformance with
CityPolicy. If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement
with 6 months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
6) The development requires installation of fiber optics conduits, vaults and
manholes per City Standard Plans 135-137 on Base Line Road. Also the
improvement plans need to show the location and limits of the conduits,
vaults and manholes with construction notes using Standard Plans 135-137.
7) The developer shall request that the City appropriately process and quitclaim
Lot "C" of Tract 16128 prior to final map approval. Said Lot "C" and the
adjacent parkway shall be incorporated into the development.
Environmental Mitigation
• Air Quality
1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so
as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all
Items E-F 41
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
August 27, 2008 •
Page 6
construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per
manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the
construction,site for City verification.
2) Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permits, the developer shall submit
Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected
equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that
low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use
was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall
also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff.
3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or
high-volume, low-pressure spray.
4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD
Rule 1108.
5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403.
Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering. •
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion
over extended periods of time.
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods.
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is
carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occur as a result of
hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of
construction.
• Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds
exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or
cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent(approved
by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB)) daily to •
reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403.
Items E-F 42
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 7
7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be
applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or
more to reduce PM10 emissions.
8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative
fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
9) The construction contractor shall ensure that Construction Grading Plans
include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate
high-efficiency4ow-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water
heaters.
11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate
thermal pane windows and weather-stripping.
Guttural Resources
1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during
grading, the developer will.retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor
construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve
them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,the City of Rancho
• Cucamonga will:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition
or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish
its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new developments, using their special
qualities as a theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to
eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique
prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the
inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the
project area. Submit one copy of the completed report with original
illustrations,to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving.
2) If any paleontological resource(i.e. plant or animal fossils)are encountered
before or during grading,the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to
monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or
preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings
• that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation
measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring)that may be appropriate. Where
mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be
limited to, the following measures:
Items E-F 43
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
August 27, 2008
Page 8 •
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the
rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site
full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert
earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed
salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading
contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor
of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in
the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository
(i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).
• Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer
collected specimens with a copy of the report to San Bernardino County
Museum.
Geology and Soils
1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent(approved
by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance
with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought resistant landscaping as
soon as possible. •
2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by
the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil
off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of construction.
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 mph to
minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes.
4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be
applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or
more to reduce PM10 emissions.
Hydrology and Water Quality
1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to
Building Official for approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities
entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical.
2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared,included in the Grading Plan,and
implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to
control on-site and off-site erosion from the time of ground,disturbing
activities are initiated through completion of grading.. This Erosion Control
Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the
timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods •
experienced in southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance
program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either
on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a
Items E-F 44
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730— CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 9
remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame.
3) During construction,temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must
be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there
is rainfall or other runoff.
4) During construction,to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed
prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order
to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site.
5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by R.T. Quinn&Associates(May 14,
2008)to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system
to the maximum extent practical.
6) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the
use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored
and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and
stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a
minimum of two years,shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
prior to the issuance of grading permits.
7) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City
• Engineer for approval of a WQMP, including a project description and
identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm
drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify
the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for
New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004.
8) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall obtain a
Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction
Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's
Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for
coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit.
Noise
1) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Planning Directorand Building Official for review and approval,building plans
that demonstrate compliance with the noise attenuation recommendations of
the acoustical engineer as contained in the Noise Impact Analysis prepared
by LSA Associates(August 2006),and on file with the Planning Department.
Any attemative methods proposed for mitigating noise impacts on the project
shall be prepared by the acoustical engineer and presented to the City for
review and approval by the Planning and Building Departments.
• 2) Construction or grading on weekdays shall not take place between the hours
of 8:00 p.m.and 6:30 a.m.,including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday.
Items E-F 45
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-41
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730—CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
August 27, 2008 •
Page 10
3) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified
in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D,as measured at the property line.
The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level
monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring
at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall
report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise
levels exceed the above standards,.then the consultant shall immediately
notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards,then
construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance
with above noise standards or halted.
4) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first
phase.
5) Haul truck deliveries on weekdays shall not take place between the hours of
8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed
100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the
developer shall prepare a Noise Mitigation Plan denoting any construction
traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes
that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. •
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman
R
ATTEST:
Ja s R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary
1, 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 bythe
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 27th day of August 2008, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, .WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE •
Items E-F 46
• City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM
Project File No.: Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447, General Plan
Amendment Plan DRC2006-00224,Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212,and Development Review
DRC2006-00730.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program(MMP)has been prepared for use in implementing the mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration)for the above-listed project. This program
has been prepared in compliance with State law to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are
implemented (Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code).
Program Components -This MMP contains the following elements:
1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are recorded with the action
and the procedure necessary to ensure compliance. The mitigation measure conditions of
approval are contained in the adopted Resolution of Approval for the project.
2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action,what action will be taken and when, and to whom
and when compliance will be reported.
• 3. The MMP has been designed to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines. As monitoring
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based upon
recommendations by those responsible for the program.
Program Management-The MMP will be in place through all phases of the project. The project
planner, assigned by the Planning Director,shall coordinate enforcement of the MMP. The project
planner oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly
and proper action is taken on each mitigation. Each City department shall ensure compliance of the
conditions (mitigation) that relate to that department.
Procedures -The following steps will be followed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
1. A fee covering all costs and expenses,including any consultants'fees, incurred by the City in
performing monitoring or reporting programs shall be charged to the applicant.
2. A MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potentially significant impact and its
corresponding mitigation measure identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, attached
hereto. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when,
and to whom and when compliance will be reported. All monitoring and reporting
documentation will be kept in the project file with the department having the original authority
for processing the project. Reports will be available from the City upon request at the following
address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga—Lead Agency
Planning Department
• 10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Items E-F 47
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
DRC2006-00447, DRC2006-00224, SUBTT18212, AND DRC2006-00730 •
August 27, 2008
Page 2
3. Appropriate specialists will be retained if technical expertise beyond the City staff's is needed,
as determined by the project planner or responsible City department, to monitor specific
mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the project planner.
4. The project planner or responsible City department will approve, by signature and date, the
completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. After each
measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase of
development.
5. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off
as completed by the project planner or responsible City department at the bottom of the MMP
Reporting Form.
6. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation
measures. The project planner is responsible for approving any such refinements or
additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the project planner or responsible
City department and a copy provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational
personnel.
7. The project planner or responsible City department has the authority to stop the work of
construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after •
written notification has been issued. The project planner or responsible City department also
has the authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure
attached hereto is not occurring. The project planner or responsible City department has the
authority to hold issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented.
8. Any conditions (mitigation) that require monitoring after project completion shall be the
responsibility of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The Department shall
require the applicant to.post any necessary funds (or other forms of guarantee)with the City.
These funds shall be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to
monitor and report on the mitigation measure for the required period of time.
9. In those instances requiring long-term project monitoring, the applicant shall provide the City
with a plan for monitoring the mitigation activities at the project site and reporting the
monitoring results to the City. Said plan shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to
know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. The
monitoring/reporting plan shall conform to the Citys MMP and shall be approved by the
Community Development Director or Planning Director prior to the issuance of building
permits.
•
Items E-F 48
•
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST (INITIAL STUDY PART III)
Project File No.: DRC2006-00447, DRC2006-00224, SUBTT18212, and DRC2006-00730
Applicant: Cal Coast Homes - Charles Joseph and Associates
Initial Study Prepared by: Steve Fowler Date: July 30, 2008
ResponsibleMitigation Measures No. g of Method .
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-compliance
grQuahtys,:°ktr k . I 3' - , [x
m
st 'G; §X��drf.i,_j
X'ra
All construction equipment shall be maintained in good PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4
operating condition so as to reduce operational
emissions. The contractor shall ensure that all
construction equipment is being properly serviced and
maintained as per manufacturers' specifications.
Maintenance records shall be available at the
El H construction site for City verification.
m Prior to the issuance of any Grading Permits, the PD/BO C Review of plans C 2
a developer shall submit Construction Plans to the City
denoting the proposed schedule and projected
equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide
evidence that low-emission mobile construction
equipment will be utilized, or that their use was
investigated and found to be infeasible for the project.
Contractors shall also conform to any construction
measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City
Planning staff.
All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed PD C Review of plans A/C 2/4
performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or
high-volume, low-pressure spray.
All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards BO B. Review of plans A/C 2
noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108.
All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4
Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall
include the following provisions:
1 of 8
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4
through seeding and watering.
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4
areas to erosion over extended periods of time.
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4
exposed excavated soil during and after the end of
work periods.
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in BO C Review of plans A 4
accordance with local ordinances and use sound
engineering practices.
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established BO C During A 4
by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public construction
r thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
Timing may vary depending upon the time of year of
m
construction.
_n Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e., BO C During A 4
o wind speeds exceeding 25 mph)in accordance with construction
SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils BO C During A 4
haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other Construction
suitable means.
The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During A 4
soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and construction
Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily
to reduce PM10 emissions,in accordancewith SCAQMD
Rule 403.
Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C During A 4
RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction construction
areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to
reduce PMIO emissions.
The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean BO C Review of plans A/C 4
alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
2 of 8
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
The construction contractor shall ensure that BO C Review of plans A/C 2/4
Construction Grading Plans include a statement that
work crews will shut off equipment when not in use.
All residential and commercial structures shall be BO C/D Review of plans C 2/4
required to incorporate high-efficiency/low-polluting
heating,air conditioning,appliances,and water heaters.
All residential and commercial structures shall be BO C/D Review of plans C 2/4
required to incorporate thermal pane windows and
weather-stripping.
"ry' —'f-t ,p, c 5 ^-4-,r rYKrr�e,;, -"F 'arm , nayr > j+t""� '�'#sF k'v�..=�"nY
CiU1tural @ OUrC Syyrt: ? �, w..�X.'i . ht'£1`C^ ' .rvi`,'iui ."t lit �� � rn f•' ' .A L�'� 3 r x '�y�: d:
cYkF+' YEM.x+ '+ks9 RbtT'#P'Y+ H + x "ttYY4y.'; IMA z,+, ^9 p,uYrc4l 'i�inNl.,:r. Cn m,Jafia R P A+a...�L i'k t- a._r .fl , > 1�Y Y, 1. ,.<M1a, of
If any prehistoric archaeological resources are
encountered before or during grading,the developerwill
retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction
activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or
o preserve them for study. With the assistance of the
y archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will:
m PD/BO C A/D 3/4
T Enact interim measures to protect undesignated Review of report
sites from demolition or significant modification
without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4
incorporation of archaeological sites within new
developments, using their special qualities as a
theme or focal point.
• Pursue educating the public about the area's PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4
archaeological heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend PD/BO C Review of report A/D 3/4
conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project
effects on significant, important, and unique
prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA
guidelines.
3 of 8
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
• Prepare a technical resources management report, PD C Review of report A/D 3/4
documenting the inventory, evaluation, and
proposed mitigation of resources within the project
area. Submit one copy of the completed report,with
original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center for permanent
archiving.
If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal PD B Review of report A/D 4
fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the
developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor
construction activities, to take appropriate measures to
protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist
shall submit a report of findings that will also provide
specific recommendations regarding further mitigation
measures(i.e., paleontological monitoring)that may be
appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate,
co the program must include, but not be limited to, the
y following measures:
m
T Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and PD B Review of report A/D 4
v+ equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with
minimal construction delay, to the site full-time
during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared PD/BO B/C Review of report A/D 4
or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities
elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage.
If construction personnel make the discovery, the
grading contractor should immediately divert
construction and notify the monitor of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for PD D Review of report D 3
documentation in the summary report and transfer to
an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino
County Museum).
• Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho PD D Review of report D 3
Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a
copy of the report to San Bernardino County
Museum. a a
+:(' 44".,:4 tip yy, /h- ,. w
Geolo and Sods z u r� eye _ ?F
!fir":Mtx�R'9 �.�+c F z, N .6'. h'n .�'s.+r.•'Y �� �' )�' � �n � � .hf` #` .,.J'
4of8
•
0 •
•
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
The site shall be treated with water or other BO C During A 4
soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and construction
RWQCB)daily to reduce PM10emissions, in accordance
with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a BO C During A 4
schedule established by the City to reduce PM,o construction
emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-
site. Timing may vary depending upon the time of year
of construction.
Grading operations shall be suspended when wind BO C During A 4
speeds exceed 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions construction
from the site during such episodes.
Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C During A 4
RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction construction
3 areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to
reduce PM10 emissions
Tt n.r ! §� [i '- rr^ar xa.!um i c' �; Zr, ,n. L`€ pati -c"�E. �n5ru ,�..
H drolo sand Water Qual!L ,9�' , .. . , a, .'., .x E. 4.,. z�t$
9y .�,. s'� " a.' ^.. �e':.. �.>ka`k�'�' r.'�.rc''�t �°'.;^+; -�.�+'H=�s �r,,'w '. �'', �, '� ,.. .
W Prior to issuance of grading permits,the permit applicant BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
shall submit to the Building Official for approval a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically
identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that
shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during
construction activities entering the storm drain system to
the maximum extent practical.
5of8
Mitigation Measures No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed
project that identifies specific measures to control on-
site and off-site erosion from the time of ground
disturbing activities are initiated through completion of
grading. , This Erosion Control Plan shall include the
following measures at a minimum: a)Specify the timing
of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to
rainy periods experienced in southern California, and b)
An inspection and maintenance program shall be
included to ensure that any erosion which does occur
either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be
corrected through a remediation or restoration program
within a specified time frame.
During construction, temporary berms such as BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent
3 discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there
H is rainfall or other runoff.
m
T During construction, to remove pollutants, street BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
p cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and
after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to
prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site.
The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in CE B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
the Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)prepared
by R.T. Quinn & Associates (May 14, 2008) to reduce
pollutants after construction entering the storm drain
system to the maximum extent practical.
Landscaping plans shall include provisions for SO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
controlling and minimizing the use of
fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall
be monitored and maintained for at leasttwo years to
ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for
these areas, including monitoring provisions for a
minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to the issuance of grading
permits.
6of8
0 0 0
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible g of Method .
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant CE B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a
WQMP, including a project description and identifying
BMPs, that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into
the storm drain system to the maximum extent
practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and
non-structural measures consistent with the Guidelines
for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by
the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2004.
Prior to the issuance of grading or paving permits, the BO B/C/D Review of plans A/C 2/4
applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply
with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been
obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's
3 Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City
H Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General
m Construction Permit.
T »z - .+in--r-k• . f s•.�- -e ^E -e' tFG
9"V Yt, a`.P 5. T }' -�* r 'q;xF a r .s •rk: R. x$ '-$' c #a7�`K,
Noise S z k a � � �� _f4. _ S d'
s - 4 .. # t{
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant PD/BO B Plan Check and C 3/4
shall submit to the Planning Director and Building during
Official for review and approval building plans that construction
demonstrate compliance with the noise attenuation
recommendations of the acoustical engineer as
contained in the Noise Impact Analysis prepared by
LSA Associates (August 2006), and on-file with the
Planning Department. Any alternative methods
proposed for mitigating noise impacts on the project
shall be prepared by the acoustical engineer and
presented to the City for review and approval by the
Planning and Building Departments.
Construction or grading shall not take place between the BO C During A 4
hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, construction
including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday.
7 of 8
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the BO C During A 4
standards specified in Development Code Section construction
17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The
developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly
noise level monitoring as specified in Development
Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may
be required by the Building Official. Said consultant
shall report their findings to the Building Official within
24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above
standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify
the Building Offical. If noise levels exceed the above
standards, then construction activities shall be reduced
in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise
standards or halted.
The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early PD C During A A
as possible in the first phase. construction
Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the PO/BO C During A 4/7
M hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, construction
-iri including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for
hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to
and from the construction site),then the developer shall
prepare a Noise Mitigation Plan denoting any
construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible,
the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass
sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
„ Ys n r:r
Responsitile,Person �u , t��' _ Monitonng,Fkrequency .� tMethod of Ver�rftcattoni Sanctwns
CDD-Community Development Director or designee A-With Each New Development A-On-site Inspection. 1 -Withhold Recordation of Final Map
PD—Planning Director or designee B-Prior To Construction B-Other Agency Permit/Approval 2-Withhold Grading or Building Permit -
CE-City Engineer or designee C-Throughout Construction C-Plan Check 3-Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO-Building Official or designee D-On Completion D-Separate Submittal(Reports/Studies/Plans) 4-Stop Work Order
PO-Police Captain or designee E-Operating 5-Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC-Fire Chief or designee 6- 2vo'2
- evoke CUP
7-Citation
8 of 8
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF 67 MARKET RATE CONDOMINIUM UNITS.
APPLICANT: CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES,ON BEHALF OF BASELINE VICTORIA PARK PARTNERS LLC
LOCATION: 4.79 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND
SAN CARMELA COURT-APN: 1089-581-01.
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
•4. General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its _I_/_
agents,officers,or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole
discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 0B-01, 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 of Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior
to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing:
a) Notice of Exemption-$50
b) Notice of Determination -$50
c) Negative Declaration-$ 1,926.75 X
d) Environmental Impact Report-$2,550
•SC-1-05 1
1APLANNINGTINAUPLNG00141142008 Res&Stf rePORC2008-00730SWCond 8-27.doc
Items E-F 57
Project No.DRC2006.00730
Completion Date
B. Time Limits •
1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Jam_
Commission,unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the
date of the approval.
2. Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved
use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans,architectural elevations,exterior materials and colors,landscaping,sign program,and
grading on file in the Planning Department,the conditions contained herein,Development Code
regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and _/_J_
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. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for ��_ •
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.)or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision,or approved
use has commenced,whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community 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. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided,all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s)are required and shall meet City standards. The final design,locations,and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval priorto
the issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers,AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out ofP ublic 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.
11. 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.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, _/J_ •
including proper illumination.
2
Items E-F 58
Project No,DRC2006-00730
Completion Date
13, The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCBRs) 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood
gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to, wrought iron and PVC.
16. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
• 19. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
20. Where rock cobble is used,it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design'
1. All dwellings shall have the front,side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to Planning Director review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Details shall be included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 16 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building,wall, support column, or other obstruction,the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall _/,/_
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb).
3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided _/__J_
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/
• recreational uses.
3
Items E-F 59
Project No.DRC2006-00730
Completion Date
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles,entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
5. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth
from back of sidewalk.
6. The Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on
this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking
on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
7. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and
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.
F. Trip Reduction
1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
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.
G. Landscaping •
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan,including slope planting and model home landscaping in
the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or
prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110,and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation,transplanting, and trimming methods.
3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope,but less than 2:1
slope,shall be,at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq.ft.of slope area 1-gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq.ft.of slope area,and appropriate ground cover. In addition,slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development,property owners are responsible for
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site,as well as contiguous planted areas •
within the public right-of-way. All,landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and
maintained in healthy and thriving condition,and shall receive regular pruning,fertilizing,mowing,
4
Items E-F 60
Project No.DRC2006-00730
Completion Data
• and trimming. Any damaged,dead,diseased,or decaying plant material shall be replaced within
30 days from the date of damage.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in
the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Department.
7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
S. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department.
H. Signs
1. Directory monument sign(s)shall be provided for apartment,condominium,or town homes prior Jam_
to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department
prior to issuance of building permits.
I. Environmental
1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate,verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
• 2. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of
the acoustical report were implemented in construction,including measurements of interior and
exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be
submitted to the Building & Safety Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected
homes.
J. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S.Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to Planning 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 and reverse foundation plan (when applicable);
C. Floor Plan;
•
5
Items E-F 61
Project No.DRC2006-00730
Completion Date
d. Roof and Floor Framing Plan and reverse Roof and Floor Framing Plan(when applicable); •
e. Electrical Plans(2 sets,detached)including the size of 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(DRC2006.00730)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.
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(DRC2006-00730). The applicant shall comply with the latest
adopted Califomia Codes,and all other applicable codes,ordinances,and regulations in effect at
the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Department for availability of the
Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential project or major addition,the applicant
shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include,but are not limited to: •
City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,Transportation Development Fee, Permit and
Plan Check Fees,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 permit 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).
6. Submit pool plans to the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services Department _J_/_
for approval.
M. New Structures
1. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances Jam_
considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness.
2. Provide compliance with the Cal'tfomia Building Code for required occupancy separations.
3. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind"instructions.
4. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet, in accordance with CBC
Section 1505.
•
6
Items E-F 62
Project No.DRC2006-00730
Completion Date
• 5. Provide draft stops in attics in line with common walls. --J--/-
6. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A
7. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected in accordance with CBC Table 5-A. _ _/_J_
8. It the area of habitable space above the first floor exceeds 3,000 square feet, then the
construction type shall be V-1 Hour minimum.
9. Walls and floors separating dwelling units in the same building shall be not less than 1-hour
fire-resistive construction.
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, Jam_
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 till. The grading plan shall be prepared,stamped,and signed by a California
registered Civil Engineer.
O. Additional Requirements/Comments
1. Project shall fully complywith accessibility requirements of 2001 California Building Code Chapter J_J_
11 A 9 Housing Accessibility).
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-wayon the perimeter streets(measured from
street centerline):
As needed total feet on Base Line Road
2. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint _/_J_
maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or
deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with,the final parcel map.
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
• 5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
7
Items E-F 63
Project No.DRC200"0730
Completion Date
6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be �_/_ •
dedicated to the City.
Q. Street Improvements
1. 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.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb& A.C. Side. Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights I Trees Trall Island Trail Other
Base Line Road (c) X X X
San Carmela Court X X
Atwood Street X I X X X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be •
provided for this item.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans,including street trees,street lights,and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
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.
•
8
Items E-F 64
Project No.DRC2006-00730
Completion Date
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 fatuity residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the Planning Director prior to submittal for first plan _J_/_
check.
4. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in J/_
accordance with the Citys street tree program.
•
•
9
Items E-F 65
Project No.DRC2006-00730
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 oty.
Base Line Road Magnolia grandi8ora NCN 8' 30'0.C. 15 gal Fill
East of Have n 'Samuel Sommer' Triangulated in
Avenue Foreground
Tree P.A.B'or
Greater
P.A.Less Than B'or Magnolia grandillora'St. NCN 3' 20'0.C. 15 gal Fill
under power Lines Mary' Triangulated in
Background Tree P.A. Pinus canarlensis Canary Island Pine a' 25'O.C. 15 gal Fill
a'or Greater Min. In
Informal,
use
occasionally
behind
Magroliaa
Accent Tree Ginkgo blloba Maidenhair Tree 5' 25'O.C. 15 gal Fill
'Fairmount* in
Victoria Park Lane Geijere parviflora Austrailian Willow 5' 20'0.C. 15 gal Fill
Parkway In
Parkway Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine B. 25'0.C- 15 gal Fill
JFiII •
Atwood Street Magnolia grandisora'St. NCN 3' 25'O.C. 15 gal
Mary"
San Carmela Court 'Pinus canariensis' Canary Island Pine 8' 25'0.C. 15 gal
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.
R. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of
building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos,
easements,trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting --L-1—
Districts shall be tiled 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.
10
Items E-F 66
Project NO.DRC2006-00730
Completion Date
3. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective
Beautification Master Plan Base Line Road.
S. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the
property from adjacent areas.
T. 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 _J—/—
Cucamonga Valley Water 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.
U. General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City,covering the estimated operating costs for all J�—
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
•
11
Items E-F 67
• d1M Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
1W Fire Construction Services
STANDARD CONDITIONS
September 21, 2006
Vineyards at Victoria Park Place
Base Line Rd &Victoria Park
MFR & SFR Development
SUBTT18212 & DRC2006-00730
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://www.ci.rancho-cur-amonga.ca.usifire/index.htm under the Fire Safety Division
& Fire Construction Services section. Search by article; the preceding number of the standard
refers to the article. Chose the appropriate article number then a drop down menu will appear,
select the corresponding standard.
FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply
• 1. Design guidelines for The Fire Protection water supply must be in accordance to RCFPD
Standard 9-8: The following provides design guidelines for the spacing and location of fire
hydrants:
a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in multi-family residential projects is
400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 200-feet from an
approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 150-feet.
b. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are:
i. At the entrance(s)to a residential project from the public roadways.
ii. At intersections.
iii. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible.
iv. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire
District.
V. 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.
Items E-F 68
FSC-2 Fire Flow •
1. The required minimum fire flow for this project, when automatic fire sprinklers are installed
is 1500 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 or 13R with central station monitoring. This
requirement is made in accordance with the California Fire Code Appendix III-A, as
adopted by the Fire District Ordinances.
2. The required minimum fire flow for structures located in the designated hazardous fire
area shall be not less than 1,750 gpm at 20-psi residual. For structures in excess of
36,000 square feet use CFC Table A-III-A-1.
3. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used
to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire
hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow.
4. Fire Protection water plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water
supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be Issued until fire protection
water plans are approved.
5. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet
of the proposed project site.
FSC-3 Prerequisite for submittal of Overhead Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
1. Prior to submitting plans for an overhead automatic fire sprinkler system, the applicant •
shall submit plans, specifications and calculations for the fire sprinkler system
underground supply piping. Approval of the underground supply piping system in
accordance to RCFPD Standard #9-6 must be obtained prior to submitting the overhead
fire sprinkler system plans.
FSC-4 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other
applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in:
1. Multifamily structures greater than 7,500 square feet.
2. Multi-family residential structures in excess of 4 units.
3. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure.
4. When any applicable code or standard requires the structure to be sprinklered.
FSC-5 Fire Alarm System
1. RCFPD Ordinance 15, based on use or floor area (or by other adopted codes or
standards) may require an automatic and/or manual fire alarm system. Refer to RCFPD
Ordinances 15 and 39, the California Building Code, RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6
and/or the California Fire Code.
2. Prior to the installation of the fire alarm system, Fire Construction Services' approval and a •
building permit must be obtained. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire
Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard#10-6.
2
Items E-F 69
• 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— Fire Lanes Standard #9-7.
1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1" story exterior wail shall be located
within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measure on an approved route around the
exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates and
fences are deemed obstructions.
2. Specifications for private Fire District access roadways per the RCFPD Standards
are:
a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet.
b. The maximum inside turn radius shall be 20-feet.
C. The minimum outside tum radius shall be 46-feet.
d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet.
e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches.
f. At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet on
each side.
• g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9-degrees or 20 percent.
h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12%.
i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW).
j. Trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the fire lane shall be kept trimmed to a
minimum of 14-feet, 6-inches from the ground up. Vegetation shall not be allowed to
obstruct Fire Department apparatus.
3. Access Doorways: Approved doorways, accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be
provided in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, Fire and/or any other
applicable standards.
4. Access Walkways: Hardscaped access walkways shall be provided from the fire
apparatus access road to all required building exterior openings.
5. Residential gates installed across Fire District access roads shall be installed in
accordance with RCFPD Residential Gate Standard #9-1. The following design
requirements apply:
a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates, plans are required to be
submitted to Fire Construction Services (FCS) for approval. Upon the completion of
the installation and before placing the gates in service, inspection and final
• acceptance must be requested from FCS.
b. Gates must slide open horizontally or swing inward.
3
Items E-F 70
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. If traffic pre-emption devices (TPD) are to be installed, the device, location
and operation must be approved by the Fire Chief prior to installation. Bi-directional
or multiple sensors may be required due to complexity of the various entry
configurations.
6. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A site
plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards ,
shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval.
7. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly •
noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application, if
applicable, must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan
review.
B. 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 •
9-9 Appendix A and drawings 9-9a and 9-9b.
4
Items E-F 71
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.
• Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures
Liquefied Petroleum Gases
FSC-13 Alternate Method Application
Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal will review all requests for alternate
method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for
Alternate Method"form along with supporting documents and payment of the$92 review fee.
FCS-14 Map Recordation
1. RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS for Fire Department Emergency Access and Water Supply
are required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property that is being
subdivided. The reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property
• owners and the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site
plan. The Fire Construction Services shall approve the agreement, prior to recordation.
The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorders Office.
Reciprocal access agreement — Please provide a permanent access agreement
between the owners granting irrevocable and a non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire
District to gain access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement
that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall be placed within the
dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The agreement shall have provisions
for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire
District.
Reciprocal water covenant — Please provide a permanent maintenance and service
covenant between the owners granting an irrevocable and non-exclusive easement,
favoring the Fire District for the purpose of accessing and maintaining the private water
mains, valves and fire hydrants (fire protection systems facilities in general). The covenant
shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the
property by the fire District.
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
5
Items E-F 72
and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District
Standards. Approval of the on-site (private) fire underground and water plans is required •
prior to any building permit issuance for any structure on the site. Private on-site
combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with
RCFPD Standards # 9-4, #10-2 and #10-4. The Building & Safety Division and Fire
Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections.
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. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and
operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD
personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction
Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire
Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped.
3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the
requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access
roads must be installed at least 14' 6"above the finished surface of the road.
4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is
responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to
Fire Construction Services. •
5. Easements and Reciprocal Agreements: All easements and agreements must be
recorded with the County of San Bernardino.
PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER
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.
6
Items E-F 73
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 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.
6. Access Control Gates: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular
gates must be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards #9-
1 or#9-2 by Fire Construction Services.
7. 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.
8. 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 intemally 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.
• 9. Address: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commercial/industrial and
multi-family buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting
background, visible from the street and electrically illuminated during periods of darkness.
When the building setback exceeds 200 feet from the public street, an additional non-
illuminated 6-inch minimum number address shall be provided at the property entrance.
Larger address numbers will be required on buildings located on wide streets or built with
large setbacks in multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings. The suite designation
numbers and/or letters shall be provided on the front and back of all suites.
10. 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.
11. Mapping Site Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 8 '/z' x 11" or
11" x 17" site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard #13-1 shall be revised
by the applicant to reflect the actual location of all devices and building features as
required in the standard. The site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire
Inspector.
•
7
Items E-F 74
• RESOLUTION NO. 0840
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP SUBTT16212, A SUBDIVISION OF AIRSPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ON 6 ACRES OF LAND INTO TWO LOTS.
LOT 1 IS 4.79 ACRES OF LAND.FOR 67 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM
UNITS IN THE PROPOSED MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE),AND LOT 2 IS 1.21 ACRES OF LAND TO
REMAIN AS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT AND A VACANT
PORTION OF LAND IN THE VILLAGE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND
SAN CARMELA COURT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF—APN: 1089-581-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Charles Joseph Associates, on behalf of Baseline Victoria Park Partners LLC, filed an
application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,the subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as
"the application."
2. On the 27th day of August 2008, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
• on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on August 27, 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 approximately 4.70 acres in size and
located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and San Carmela Court,with a street frontage of
approximately 482 feet; and
b. The project site is currently zoned Village Commercial and is within the Victoria
Community Plan (VCP). The properties surrounding the site are also in the VCP and specifically
identified as single-family residential development to the east and west in the Low-Medium Density
Residential District;condominiums to the north in the Medium-High Residential District;and a small
commercial retail center to the immediate south/southeast in the Village Commercial District.
• Further south across Base Line Road is the Filippi Winery in the High Density Residential District;
and
EXHIBIT D
Items E-F 75
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBT718212 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES •
August 27, 2008
Page 2
C. The application proposes the subdivision of air space for residential condominium
purposes; and
d. The application, in conjunction with Development Review DRC2006-00730,
proposes the development of 67 residential condominiums for sale; and
e. The condominium subdivision will allow ownership of individual units and provide a
type of housing product for a segment of the residential market, thereby increasing the amount of
for-sale condominium units in a region that has been identified to have a housing demand that is
greater than the supply; and
f. The subdivision,together with the recommended conditions of approval,complies
with all minimum development standards for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
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 Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan, Development
Code, and Victoria Community Plan; and
b. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the •
General Plan, Development Code, and Victoria Community Plan; and
C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage and
avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The Tentative Tract Map will not cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the Tentative Tract Map will not conflict with any easement acquired
by the public at large,now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration,together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for
the application,the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based
upon the findings as follows:
a. Pursuant to the California Environmehtal Quality Act("CEQA")and the City's local
CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of
the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study,City staff determined that,with the
imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would
have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment •
period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all
Items E-F 76
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 3
comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record
before it, finds: (i)that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
and (ii)that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further finds
that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
C. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance
with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Planning Commission therefore
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the Planning Department
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth
• below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Department
1) Approval is for the subdivision of air space for residential condominium
purposes on a 4.70-acre site located on the northeast corner of
Base Line Road and San Carmela Court.
2) All applicable conditions of approval for Development Review
DRC2006-00730 shall apply.
3) Approval of this Tentative Tract Map is contingent on the approval of
the General Plan Amendment to change the Neighborhood
Commercial designation to Medium Residential,
Engineering Department
1) Base Line Road frontage improvements shall be in accordance with
City "Major Divided Arterial"standards as required and including:
a) Provide curb and gutter, curvilinear sidewalk, street trees and
street lights, as required.
b) Provide a bike lane along Base Line Road frontage as required.
c) Provide traffic striping and signage and R26 signs along Base
• Line Road frontage, as required.
d) Protect existing raised median along the entire Base Line Road
Items E-F 77
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES •
August 27, 2008
Page 4
frontage with no openings.
e) No direct driveways to Base Line Road.
2) San Carmela Court frontage improvements shall be in accordance with
City"collector"street standards as required and including:
a) Provide street trees, as required.
b) Protect existing curb and gutter, sidewalk, and street lights, or
repair as required.
c) Access to San Carmela Court to be limited to one main entrance
and one emergency access driveway. The emergency access shall be
26 feet wide and shall be constructed as a limited access curb per City
Standard 105-C. The material to be installed within the City right-of-
way shall be reviewed and approved by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
District. No adjacent paving allowed within the City right-of-way.
d) Protect existing traffic striping and signage, including R26 signs,
as required.
3) Victoria Park Lane frontage improvements shall be in accordance with •
City 'modified collector standards as required and including:
a) Protect existing curb and gutter, sidewalk,street trees and street
lights, or repair as required.
b) Protect existing traffic striping and signage, including R26 signs,
as required.
c) Modify existing landscaping on Victoria Park Lane approaching
Atwood Street to comply with the City's"Line-of-Sight"standards.
4) Atwood Street frontage improvements shall be in accordance with City
'Local Street standards as required and including:
a) Provide a 6-foot wide curb adjacent sidewalk, street trees and
5800 Lumens HPSV street lights, as required. Easement for
public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be
dedicated to the City.
b) Protect existing curb and gutter, striping and signage, as
required.
c) Gated entrance to be in accordance with City"Residential Project
Gated Entrance Design Guide" standard.
5) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Base Line Road and •
San Carmela Court. The developer shall receive credit against and
reimbursement of costs in excess of the Transportation Development
Fee in conformance with City Policy. If the developer fails to submit for
Items E-F 78
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 5
said reimbursement agreement with 6 months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to
reimbursement shall terminate.
6) The development requires installation of fiber optics conduits, vaults
and manholes per City Standard Plans 135-137 on Base Line Road.
Also the improvement plans need to show the location and limits of the
conduits,vaults and manholes with construction notes using Standard
Plans 135-137.
7) The developer shall request that the City appropriately process and
quitclaim Lot"C"of Tract 16128 prior to final map approval. Said Lot
"C" and the adjacent parkway shall be incorporated into the
development.
8) The Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) submitted with the
tentative map application has been reviewed and found to be
substantially complete. Include the Best Management Practices
(BMPs) identified in the plan on the Grading Plans when submitted for
technical plan check.
Environmental Mitigation
• Air Quality
1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating
condition so as to reduce operational emissions. The contractor shall
ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and
maintained as per manufacturers'specifications. Maintenance records
shall be available at the construction site for City verification.
2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the developer shall submit
Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and
projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide
evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be
utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for
the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction
measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff.
3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards
noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied
either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray.
4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1108.
5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and
• 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions:
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through
seeding and watering.
Items E-F 79
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
August 27, 2008 •
Page 6
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads.
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to
erosion over extended periods of time.
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed
excavated soil during and after the end of work periods.
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices.
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if
sitt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occur as a
result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon the time of
year of construction.
• Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e.,wind speeds
exceeding 25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements.
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks
or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent •
(approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCBj) daily to reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with
SCAQMD Rule 403.
7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96
hours or more to reduce PM10 emissions.
8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative
fuel-powered equipment where feasible.
9) The construction contractor shall ensure that Construction Grading
Plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when
not in use.
10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to
incorporate high-efficiencyAow-polluting heating, air conditioning,
appliances, and water heaters.
11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to
incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping.
Cultural Resources
1) If any prehistoric archaeological.resources are encountered before or
during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to •
monitor construction activities,to take appropriate measures to protect
or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,
Items E-F 80
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 7
the City of Rancho Cucamonga will:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from
demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for
the City to establish its archaeological value.
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of
archaeological sites within new developments, using their special
qualities as a theme or focal point. ,
• Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological
heritage.
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of
approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant,
important, and unique prehistoric resources, following
appropriate CEQA guidelines.
• Prepare a technical resources management report,documenting
the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources
within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report
with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County
Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving.
• 2) If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are
encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a
qualified "paleontologist to-monitor construction activities, to take
appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide
specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures(i.e.,
paleontological monitoring)that may be appropriate. Where mitigation
monitoring is appropriate,the program must include,but not be limited
to, the following measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow
the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to
the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities.
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded,
divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has
completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery,
the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and
notify the monitor of the find.
• Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for
documentation in the summary report and transfer to an
appropriate depository(i.e., San Bernardino County Museum).
• Submit a summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
• Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San
Bernardino County Museum.
Items E-F 81
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 - CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
August 27, 2008 •
Page 8
Geology and Soils
1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB)daily to reduce PM,p emissions,
in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 or re-planted with drought
resistant landscaping as soon as possible.
2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule
established by the City to reduce PM10 emissions associated with
vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon the
time of year of construction.
3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed
25 mph to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such
episodes.
4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall
be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for
96 hours or more to reduce PM,O emissions.
Hydrology
1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit •
to Building Official for approval a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying.Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during
construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum
extent practical.
2) An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading
Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific
measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time of ground
disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This
Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a
minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to
minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in southern
California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be
included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or
off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a
remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame.
3) During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel
dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the
site when there is rainfall or other runoff.
4) During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be
performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to
control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from •
the site.
5) The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water
Items E-F 82
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES
• August 27, 2008
Page 9
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by
R.T. Quinn &Associates, (May 14, 2008) to reduce pollutants after
construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent
practical.
6) Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and
minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped
areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to
ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas,
including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of
grading permits.
7) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the
City Engineer for approval of a WQMP, including a project description
and identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants,into
the storm drain system to the maximum.extent practicable. The
WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures
consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and
Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in
June 2004.
• 8) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, the applicant shall
obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with obtaining coverage under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)General
Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of
the Waste Discharger's Identification Number)shall be submitted to the
City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General
Construction Permit.
Noise
1) Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit to the
Planning Director and Building Official for review and approval,building
plans that demonstrate compliance with the noise attenuation
recommendations of the acoustical engineer as contained in the Noise
Impact Analysis prepared by LSA Associates (August 2006), and on
file with the Planning Department. Any alternative methods proposed
for mitigating noise impacts on the project shall be prepared by the
acoustical engineer and presented to the City for review and approval
by the Planning and Building Departments.
2) Construction or grading on weekdays shall nottake place between the
hours of 8:00 p.m.and 6:30 a.m.,including Saturday,or at any time on
Sunday or a national holiday.
• 3) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards
specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-0, as measured at
the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform
Items E-F 83
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 08-40
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212 -CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES •
August 27, 2008
Page 10
weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code
Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the
Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the
Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the
above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the
Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then
construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of
compliance with above noise standards or halted.
4) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in
first phase.
5) Haul truck deliveries on weekdays shall not take place between the
hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. including Saturday,or at any time on
Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, H heavy trucks used for
hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the
construction site), then the developer shall prepare a Noise Mitigation
Plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent
feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive
land uses or residential dwellings.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2008. •
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman
ATTEST: R,
,
Jar4gs R. Troyer, AICP, Secre ary
I,James R. Troyer,AICP,Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and
adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 27th day of August 2008, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART, WIMBERLY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
•
Items E-F 84
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18212
SUBJECT: , TRACT MAP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 67 MARKET RATE CONDOMINIUM UNITS.
APPLICANT: CHARLES JOSEPH ASSOCIATES,ON BEHALF OF BASE LINE VICTORIA PARK PARTNERS LLC
LOCATION: 4.79 ACRES OF LAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND
SAN CARMELA COURT-APN: 1089-581-01.
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2750, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Completion Dale
General Requirements
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its
agents, officers,or employees, because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to
relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or
employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation
shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 08-40, 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 constructiontgrading 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 of Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior
to the Planning Commission or Planning Director hearing:
a) Notice of Exemption -$50
b) Notice of Determination-$50
c) Negative Declaration- $ 1,926.75 X
d) Environmental Impact Report-$2,550
-1-05
(:\PLANNING\FINAL\PLNGC0MM\2008 Res 8 SN rep\SUBTT18212StdCond 8-27.doc
Items E-F 85
Project NO.SUBTT79212 -
Completion Date
B. Time Limits •
1. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning
Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the City Engineer within 3 years from the
date of the approval.
2. DevelopmentlDesign Reviewapproval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved
use has not commenced within 6 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, Development Code
regulations, and the Victoria Community Plan.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon,all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Buildingand 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 _/_/_
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 compliancewith all sections of the Development Code,all
other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram,shall be reviewed and approved _/_I
by the Planning Director and Police Department (4774800) 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. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided,all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s)are required and shall meet City standards. The final design,locations,and _/_!_
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval prior to
the issuance of building permits.
10. 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, terming,and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For
single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
11. 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.
12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination. •
2
Items E-F 86
Project No.SUB7T18212
Completion Data -
13. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CCBRs) 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed from a material more durable than wood _l—I—
gates. Acceptable materials include, but are not limited to,wrought iron and PVC.
18. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
19. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. —/—/—
• 20. Where rock cobble is used, it shall be real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured
products.
D. Building Design
1. All dwellings shall have the front,side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to Planning Director review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
2. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally
integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
Details shall be included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
1. All parking spaces shall be 9 feet wide by 18 feet long. When a side of any parking space abuts
a building,wall, support column, or other obstruction, the space shall be a minimum of 11 feet
wide.
2. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall
contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall(including curb).
3. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/
recreational uses.
•
3
Items E-F 87
Project No.SUBTT18212
Completion Date
4. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, _//_ •
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
5. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth
from back of sidewalk.
8. The Covenants,Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on
this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit parking
on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor parking areas.
7. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and
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.
F. Trip Reduction
1. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
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.
G. Landscaping •
1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in
the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or
prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110,and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
3. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope,but less than 2:1 _/_/_
slope,shall be,at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater _I_/_
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq.ft.of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq.ft.of slope area,and appropriate ground cover. In addition,slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in
staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall
include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
5. For multi-family residential and non-residential development,property owners are responsible for
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas
within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and •
maintained in healthy and thriving.cond ition,and shall receive regular pruning,fertilizing,mowing,
4
Items E-F 88
Project No.SUB1718212
Comolellon Date
and trimming. Any damaged,dead,diseased,or decaying plant material shall be replaced within
• 30 days from the date of damage.
6. The final design of the perimeter parkways,walls,landscaping,and sidewalks shall be included in _I_I_
the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Department.
7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
8. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas,the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Department.
H. Signs
1. Directory monument sign(s)shall be provided for apartment,condominium,or town homes prior _I_/_
to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Department
prior to issuance of building permits.
I. Environmental
1. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate,verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
2. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of _I_/_
• the acoustical report were implemented in construction,including measurements of interior and
exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be
submitted to the Building &Safety Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected
homes.
J. Other Agencies
1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mailboxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mailboxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mailboxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to Planning 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 REVIEWS)
K. General Requirements
1. Submit five complete sets of plans Including the following:
a. Site/Plot Plan;
b. Foundation Plan and reverse foundation plan (when applicable);
C. Floor Plan;
•
5
Items E-F 89
Project No.SUBTT18212
Completion Date
d. Roof and Floor Framing Plan and reverse Roof and Floor Framing Plan(when applicable); •
e. Electrical Plans(2 sets, detached)including the size of 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(SUBTT18212)clearly identified on the outside of all
plans.
2. Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and a soils report.
Architect's/Engineees stamp and 'leer'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.
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(SUBTT18212). 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 residential project or major addition,the applicant _/_/_
shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include,but are not limited to:
City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee,Transportation Development Fee, Permit and •
Plan Check Fees,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 permit 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 J I_
counter).
6. Submit pool plans to the County of San Bernardino's Environmental Health Services Department _/_/,_
for approval.
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. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's"high wind" instructions.
4. Provide draft stops in attic areas, not to exceed 3,000 square feet in accordance with CBC
Section 1505.
6
Items E-F 90
Project No.SUSTT18212
Completion Date
5. Provide draft stops in attics in line with common walls. —/—/—
• 6. Exterior walls shall be constructed of the required fire rating in accordance with CBC Table 5-A —I-1-
7. Openings in exterior walls shall be protected In accordance with CBC Table 5-A. _1—/-
8. If the area of habitable space above the first Floor exceeds 3,000 square feet, then the —/—!—
construction type shall be V-1 Hour minimum.
9. Walls and floors separating dwelling units in the same building shall be not less than 1-hour —/—/—
fire-resistive construction.
N. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with California Building Code,City Grading _I /—
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 —I—/
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of 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.
O. Additional Requirements/Comments
1. Project shall fully comply with accessibility requirements of 2001 California Building Code Chapter —1—/-
11A 9 Housing Accessibility).
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2740, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
P. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets(measured from —!—/—
street centerline):
As needed total feet on Base Line Road —/—/-
2. Comer property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards. —/—/-
3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint —/—/—
maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or
deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with,the final parcel map.
4. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or /—/—
noted on the final map.
5. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the 1—/—
• final map.
7
Items E-F 91
Project No.SUBTT18212
Completion Data
6. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall be _/_/ •
dedicated to the City.
Q. Street Improvements
1. 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.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb a A-C. Side- Drive Streot Street Comm Median Blke
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Tra11 Island Trail Other
Base Line Road (c) X X X
San Carmela Court X X
Atwood Street X X X X
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk
shall be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked,an in-lieu of construction fee shall be •
provided for this item.
3. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans,including street trees,street lights,and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
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 andlor 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.
•
a
Items E-F 92
Project No.S B1T18212
Completion Dale
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 comers 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.
•
•
9
Items E-F 93
Project,N o.S U BTT 18212
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 Site Qty,
Base Line Road Magnolia grandiflora NCN V 30'O.C. 15 Fig
East of Have n "Samuel Sommer' Triangulated gal in
Avenue Foreground
Tree P.A.8'or
Greater
P.A.Less Than 8'or Magnolia grandiflora"St. NCN 3' 20'0 C 15 Fill
under power Lines Mary" Triangulated gal In
Background Tree P.A. Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 8' 25'0.C.Min. 15 Fill
8'or Greater informal,use gal In
occasionally
behind
Magnolias
Accent Tree Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree 5' 25'0.C. 15 Fill
"Fairmount' gal in
Victoria Park Lane Geliere parvlflora Austrailian Willow V 20'O.C. 15 Fill
Parkway I gal in
Parkway Pinus canarlensis Canary Island Pine 8' 25'0,C. ga15l iFill
n
Atwood Street Magnolia grandiflora"St. NCN 3' 25'0.C. 15 Fill •
may gal In
San Carmela Cour "Pinus canariensie Canary Island Pine 8' 25'0.C. 15 Fill
gal n
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.
0. 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 platted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
R. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance of
building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians, paseos,
easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance District.
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be bome by the developer. •
10
Items E-F 94
Project No.SUBTT18212
Completion Date
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the _l_I
• developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective —1—i—
Beautification Master Plan Base Line Road.
S. Drainage and Flood Control
1. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map _!_/_
approval or the issuance of building permits,whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
2. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the _!_I_
property from adjacent areas.
T. 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. _l_f_
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the _I
Cucamonga Valley Water District(CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits,whichever occurs first.
Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 80 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,
U. 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
•
11
Items E-F 95
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
• Fire Construction Services
STANDARD CONDITIONS
September 21, 2006
Vineyards at Victoria Park Place
Base Line Rd &Victoria Park
MFR & SFR Development
SUBTT18212 & DRC2006-00730
THE FOLLOWING STANDARD CONDITIONS APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.
The RCFPD Procedures& Standards which are referenced in this document can be access on
the web at http:/Iwww.ci.rancho-cucamonga.Ga.us/fire/index.htm under the Fire Safety Division
& Fire Construction Services section. Search by article; the preceding number of the standard
refers to the article. Chose the appropriate article number then a drop down menu will appear,
select the corresponding standard.
FSC-1 Public and Private Water Supply
• 1. Design guidelines for The Fire Protection water supply must be in accordance to RCFPD
Standard 9-8: The following provides design guidelines for the spacing and location of fire
hydrants:
a. The maximum distance between fire hydrants in multi-family residential projects is
400-feet. No portion of the exterior wall shall be located more than 200-feet from an
approved fire hydrant. For cul-de-sacs, the distance shall not exceed 150-feet.
b. Fire hydrants are to be located. The preferred locations for fire hydrants are:
i. At the entrance(s)to a residential project from the public roadways.
ii. At intersections.
ill. On the right side of the street, whenever practical and possible.
iv. As required by the Fire Safety Division to meet operational needs of the Fire
District.
V. 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.
Items E-F 96
FSC-2 Fire Flow •
1. The required minimum fire flow for this project, when automatic fire sprinklers are installed
is 1500 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 or 13R with central station monitoring. This
requirement is made in accordance with the California Fire Code Appendix III-A, as
adopted by the Fire District Ordinances.
2. The required minimum fire flow for structures located in the designated hazardous fire
area shall be not less than 1,750 gpm at 20-psi residual. For structures in excess of
36,000 square feet use CFC Table A-III-A-1.
3. Public fire hydrants located within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project may be used
to provide the required fire flow subject to Fire District review and approval. Private fire
hydrants on adjacent property shall not be used to provide required fire flow.
4. Fire Protection water plans are required for all projects that must extend the existing water
supply to or onto the site. Building permits will not be issued until fire protection
water plans are approved.
5. On all site plans to be submitted for review, show all fire hydrants located within 600-feet
of the proposed project site.
FSC-3 Prerequisite for submittal of Overhead Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
1. Prior to submitting plans for an overhead automatic fire sprinkler system, the applicant •
shall submit plans, specifications and calculations for the fire sprinkler system
underground supply piping. Approval of the underground supply piping system in .
accordance to RCFPD Standard #9-8 must be obtained prior to submitting the overhead
fire sprinkler system plans.
FSC-4 Requirements for Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems
Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance 15, the 2001 California Fire Code and/or any other
applicable standards require an approved automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed in:
1. Multifamily structures greater than 7,500 square feet.
2. Multi-family residential structures in excess of 4 units.
3. When required fire flow cannot be provided due to inadequate volume or pressure.
4. When any applicable code or standard requires the structure to be sprinklered.
FSC-5 Fire Alarm System
1. RCFPD Ordinance 15, based on use or floor area (or by other adopted codes or
standards) may require an automatic and/or manual fire alarm system. Refer to RCFPD
Ordinances 15 and 39, the California Building Code, RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6
and/or the California Fire Code.
2. Prior to the installation of the fire alarm system, Fire Construction Services' approval and a •
building permit must be obtained. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to Fire
Construction Services in accordance with RCFPD Fire Alarm Standard #10-6.
2
Items E-F 97
• 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— Fire Lanes Standard #9-7.
1. Location of Access: All portions of the structures 1sr story exterior wall shall be located
within 150-feet of Fire District vehicle access, measure on an approved route around the
exterior of the building. Landscaped areas, unpaved changes in elevation, gates and
fences are deemed obstructions.
2. Specifications for private Fire District access roadways per the RCFPD Standards
are:
a. The minimum unobstructed width is 26-feet.
b. The maximum inside tum radius shall be 20-feet.
C. The minimum outside tum radius shall be 46-feet.
d. The minimum radius for cul-de-sacs is 45-feet.
e. The minimum vertical clearance is 14-feet, 6-inches.
f. . At any private entry median, the minimum width of traffic lanes shall be 20-feet on
each side.
• g. The angle of departure and approach shall not exceed 9-degrees or 20 percent.
h. The maximum grade of the driving surface shall not exceed 12%.
i. Support a minimum load of 70,000 pounds gross vehicle weight (GVW).
j. Trees and shrubs planted adjacent to the fire lane shall be kept trimmed to a
minimum of 14-feet, 6-inches from the ground up. Vegetation shall not be allowed to
obstruct Fire Department apparatus.
3. Access Doorways: Approved doorways, accessible without the use of a ladder, shall be
provided in accordance with the 2001 California Building Code, Fire and/or any other
applicable standards.
4. Access Walkways: Hardscaped access walkways shall be provided from the fire
apparatus access road to all required building exterior openings.
5. Residential gates installed across Fire District access roads shall be installed in
accordance with RCFPD Residential Gate Standard #9-1. The following design
requirements apply:
a. Prior to the fabrication and installation of the gates, plans are required to be
submitted to Fire Construction Services (FCS) for approval. Upon the completion of
the installation and before placing the gates in service, inspection and final
• acceptance must be requested from FCS.
b. Gates must slide open horizontally or swing inward.
3
Items E-F 98
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. If traffic pre-emption devices (TPD)are to be installed, the device, location
and operation must be approved by the Fire Chief prior to Installation. Bi-directional
or multiple sensors may be required due to complexity of the various entry
configurations.
6. Fire Lane Identification: Red curbing and/or signage shall identify the fire lanes. A site
plan illustrating the proposed delineation that meets the minimum Fire District standards
shall be included in the architectural plans submitted to B&S for approval.
7. Approved Fire Department Access: Any approved mitigation measures must be clearly
noted on the site plan. A copy of the approved Alternative Method application, if •
applicable, must be reproduced on the architectural plans submitted to B&S for plan
review.
8. Roof Access: There shall be a means of fire department access from the exterior walls
of the buildings on to the roofs of all commercial, industrial and multi-family residential
structures with roofs less than 75' above the level of the fire access road.
a. This access must be reachable by either fire department ground ladders or by an
aerial ladder.
b. A minimum of one ladder point 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 •
9-9 Appendix A and drawings 9-9a and 9-9b.
4
Items E-F 99
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.
• Tents, Canopies and/or Air Supported Structures
• Liquefied Petroleum Gases
FSC-13 Alternate Method Application
Fire Construction Services staff and the Fire Marshal will review all requests for alternate
method, when submitted. The request must be submitted on the Fire District "Application for
Alternate Method" form along with supporting documents and payment of the $92 review fee.
FCS-14 Map Recordation
1. RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS for Fire Department Emergency Access and Water Supply
are required on this project. The project appears to be located on a property that is being
• subdivided. The reciprocal agreement is required to be recorded between property
owners and the Fire District. The recorded agreement shall include a copy of the site
plan. The Fire Construction Services shall approve the agreement, prior to recordation.
The agreement shall be recorded with the County of San Bernardino, Recorders office.
Reciprocal access agreement — Please provide a permanent access agreement
between the owners granting irrevocable and a non-exclusive easement, favoring the Fire
District to gain access to the subject property. The agreement shall include a statement
that no obstruction, gate, fence, building or other structure shall be placed within the
dedicated access, without Fire Department approval. The agreement shall have provisions
for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the property by the fire
District.
Reciprocal water covenant — Please provide a permanent maintenance and service
covenant between the owners granting an irrevocable and non-exclusive easement,
favoring the Fire District for the purpose of accessing and maintaining the private water
mains, valves and fire hydrants (fire protection systems facilities in general). The covenant
shall have provisions for emergency situations and the assessing of cost recovery to the
property by the fire District.
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
5
Items E-F 100
and approval by the Fire District. Plans and installation shall comply with Fire District
Standards. Approval of the on-site (private) fire underground and water plans is required •
prior to any building permit issuance for any structure on the site. Private on-site
combination domestic and fire supply system must be designed in accordance with
RCFPD Standards # 9-4, #10-2 and #10-4. The Building & Safety Division and Fire
Construction Services will perform plan checks and inspections.
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. All required public fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and
operable prior to delivering any combustible framing materials to the site. CCWD
personnel shall inspect the installation and witness the hydrant flushing. Fire Construction
Services shall inspect the site after acceptance of the public water system by CCWD. Fire
Construction Services must grant a clearance before lumber is dropped.
3. Construction Access: The access roads must be paved in accordance with all the
requirements of the RCFPD Fire Lane Standard #9-7. All temporary utilities over access
roads must be installed at least 14'6"above the finished surface of the road.
4. Fire Flow: A current fire flow letter from CCWD must be received. The applicant is
responsible for obtaining the fire flow information from CCWD and submitting the letter to
Fire Construction Services. •
5. Easements and Reciprocal Agreements: All easements and agreements must be
recorded with the County of San Bernardino.
PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF TEMPORARY POWER
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.
6
Items E-F 101
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 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.
6. Access Control Gates: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, vehicular
gates must be inspected, tested and accepted in accordance with RCFPD Standards#9-
1 or#9-2 by Fire Construction Services.
7. 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 CCBR'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.
8. 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.
• 9. Address: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, commercial/industrial and
multi-family buildings shall post the address with minimum 8-inch numbers on contrasting
background, visible from the street and electrically illuminated during periods of darkness.
When the building setback exceeds 200 feet from the public street, an additional non-
illuminated 6-inch minimum number address shall be provided at the property entrance.
Larger address numbers will be required on buildings located on wide streets or built with
large setbacks in multi-tenant commercial and industrial buildings. The suite designation
numbers and/or letters shall be provided on the front and back of all suites.
10. 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.
11. Mapping Site Plan: Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a 8 %z' x 11" or
11" x 17" site plan of the site in accordance with RCFPD Standard #13-1 shall be revised
by the applicant to reflect the actual location of all devices and building features as
required in the standard. The site plan must be reviewed and accepted by the Fire
Inspector.
•
7
Items E-F 102
• z
City of Rancho Cucamonga
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
The following Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review In accordance with
the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No:: Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2006-00447, General Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00224, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18212, and Development Review
DRC2006-00730
Public Review Period Closes: August 27, 2008
Project Name: Project Applicant: Charles Joseph Associates
Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road
and San Carmela Court-APN: 1089-581-01.
Project Description: A request to change the Victoria Community Plan land use designation from
Village Commercial to Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)designation, and change
the General Plan land use designation from Village Commercial to Medium Residential
(8-14 dwelling units per acre)designation for 4,70 net acres of land;and subdivide the property into
67 residential condominium units; and review the Site Plan and design for 67 residential
condominiums in the proposed Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre).
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga,acting as the lead agency,has conducted an
Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is
proposing this Mitigated Negative Declaration based upon the following finding:
The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but:
(1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
(2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project, as revised, may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If adopted,the Mitigated Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not
be required. The factual and analytical basis for this finding is included in the attached Initial
Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Planning Department at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax
(909)477-2847.
NOTICE
The public is invited to comment on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the
review period.
• August 27, 2008
Date of Determination Adopted By
Items E-F 103
RESOLUTION NO. 13-35
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING TIME EXTENSION
DRC2013-00585, A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN
EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2)
YEARS FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00730,A PROPOSAL TO
DEVELOP 67 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON 4.70 ACRES WITHIN
THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD
AND SAN CARMELA COURT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 1089-581-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Barbara Murakami on behalf of D.R. Horton filed an application, DRC2013-00585, for
the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval ("time extension")for Development Review
DRC2006-00730, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject time extension request is referred to as "the application".
2. On August 27, 2008,this Commission adopted Resolution No.08-41,thereby approving
Development Review DRC2006-00730 subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. On August 28, 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 August 28, 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; and
b. The previously approved Development Review is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and
C. The extension of the Development Review approval will not cause significant
inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes or policies;
and
• 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
Items E-F 104
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-35
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00585 — D.R. HORTON
August 28, 2013
Page 2 •
e. 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
f. There is one other time extension associated with this project. An extension for
Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. The new case number for this application is
DRC2013-00652; and
g. The time 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 City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in August 27, 2008, in
connection with the City's approval of Development Review DRC2006-00730. 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 Time Extension, that
substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred
which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated
Negative Declaration. 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. Staff further finds that the project will
not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative
Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different
mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of
less-than-significant. The applicant is requesting a time extension and is not proposing anychanges
to the project; 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 Time Extension DRC2013-00585 for
Development Review DRC2006-00730.
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. 08-41 to read as follows:
Items E-F 105
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-35
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00585 — D.R. HORTON
August 28, 2013
• Page 3
Planning Department
1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval
(Time Extension DRC2013-00585) for Development Review
DRC2006-00730 and modification of the applicable approval time limit
as described in Standard Condition B.2 contained in Resolution No. 08-
41 which was adopted by the Planning Commission on
August 27, 2008.
2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2)years. The
new expiration date for Development Review DRC2006-00730 is
August 27, 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 DRC2006-00730 (Resolution 08-41) and Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18212 (Resolution 08-40), shall apply.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
• APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of.August 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
• ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Items E-F 106
RESOLUTION NO. 13-36
• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TIME EXTENSION
DRC2013-00652, A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF AN
EXISTING ENTITLEMENT APPROVAL BY AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2)
YEARS FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2007-00081,A PROPOSAL TO
REMOVE 49 TREES TO DEVELOP 67 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON
4.70 ACRES WITHIN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF BASE LINE ROAD AND SAN CARMELA COURT; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1089-581-01.
A. Recitals.
1. Barbara Murakami on behalf of D.R. Horton filed an application, DRC2013-00652,forthe
extension of the duration of the entitlement approval ("time extension") for Tree Removal Permit
DRC2007-00081, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject time extension request is referred to as "the application".
2. On August 27, 2008, this Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-41,thereby approving
Development Review DRC2006-00730 subject to specific conditions and time limits.
3. The Tree Removal Permit was previously approved as Planning Condition 8 of Resolution
No. 08-41 for Development Review DRC2006-00730.
• 4. On the August 28, 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.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved bythe Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence 'presented to this Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on August 28, 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; and
b. The previously approved Tree Removal Permit is in substantial compliance with the
City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes and policies; and
C. The extension of the Tree Removal Permit approval will not cause significant
• inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes or policies;
and
Items E-F 107
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-36
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00652 — D.R. HORTON
August 28, 2013
Page 2 •
d. The extension of the Tree Removal Permit 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 Tree Removal Permit was previously approved as Planning Condition No.8 of
Resolution No. 08-41 for Development Review DRC2006-00730; and
f. There is one other time extension associated with this project. An extension for
Development Review DRC2006-00730. The new case number for this application is
DRC2013-00585; and
g. 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 City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration in June 2008 in connection with
the City's approval of Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. 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 underwhich 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 Time Extension, that
substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred
which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previous Mitigated
Negative Declaration. No changes are proposed to the project; no substantial changes have
occurred in the circumstances underwhich 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. Staff further finds that the project will
not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous Mitigated Negative
Declaration, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different
mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than
significant. The applicant is requesting a time extension and is not proposing any changes to the
project; 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 Citys consideration of the Time Extension DRC2013-00652 for the
Tree Removal Permit DRC2007-00081. •
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. 08-41 to read as follows:
Items E-F 108
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 13-36
TIME EXTENSION DRC2013-00652 — D.R. HORTON
August 28, 2013
• Page 3
Planning Department
1) Approval is for the extension of the duration of the entitlement approval
(Time Extension DRC2013-00652) for Tree Removal Permit
DRC2007-00081 and modification of the applicable approval time limit
as described in Standard Condition B.2 contained in Resolution No. 08-
41 that was adopted by the Planning Commission on August 27, 2008.
2) The time extension of the entitlement approval is for two(2)years. The
new expiration date for Tree Removal DRC2007-00081 is
August 27, 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 DRC2006-00730 (Resolution 08-41) and Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT18212 (Resolution 08-40) shall apply.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013.
• PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Frances Howdyshell, Chairman
ATTEST:
Candyce Burnett, Secretary
I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted
by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 28th day of August 2013, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
•
Items E-F 109
O Q a u
Time Extension for
Development Review DRC2013-00585
And
Tree Removal Permit DRC2013-00652
V
R
c�
r l J Z
� O
Ill r '
�• 1� iAli �•r' 1i1 0�10'awS Jixv
r �IiT' f D o. 's 14~x3 ii J I�OtvQ�,i:t
h�i.,�;`e�uii) OI�•3 113�J�7 a �1'
�1{0���� fM�J
��AA+ • L q r 1 f t�� ���i�e'
ctiJf 8r d+Q�,s
9 9
.1lI.-.- fo r
a � r a opyalx
! ry
�4 'u
e O
�J
r
1 �
I
I
If
yy
S ll• ! �JS.I.n .F4,�
I
q j' fit , p e � ' �gy�•C 6�' i�
I ILL
Id , � � •'� t� � 4.'• . , F rS cy-n f
I
t�� I
� , � �� sit' F , _ � � F•s, �� f. .�
I �4
S p
� .fir•,,, �.o• 1, ���,, .
y 0 r
Y,
y27
.->•.; e 1 r t. ` , �,I'J'�`'`�%_ #!''•
I
Crry of
%*
RANCHO
0* 6CUCAMO
C A L I F n R '
I ry1fl/d.L\f 1 I
,.. ,.,e Illd 1'�I �•�
t e 1 111 1111'e _
s 11111..IJ 1/il. `lta
alia_1
1111611 1 11Illi•
S A4111L11111d
add
All 11111,11
Ad
. IIU6'o66b1'e, -
M1I�r. ` It, • "1 � �
lot
..,
rll
� �� CUCAMO
A L I F C) R
M:
., r!� u� . � _ � iii �� lid 1 �■
i
���� RANCHO
L�� CUCAMOSite Photoi
C A L I F O R
"
.�'�"�
i�-�
.- �
> � y�
- nz
_ - ten
� � x
� oo
��, � „ -
,.� . ��
r :
�J' � - .
�,�
., � ,-
,�
�'
� , �� .., :
_ _
1 �
�� •
w �
,� -
��� RANCHO ;
L'��� CUCAMO
A L I F O R
4 � 4
r�.J
FRO
Con '.
• Approve Time Extensions for DRC2013-
00585 and DRC2013-00652
mop
t)
y�
110SIGN-IN SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
RANCHO
CU AMONGA August 28, 2013
NAME COMPANY ADDRESS/EMAIL