Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-08-Agenda Packet-PC-HPC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 8, 2015 - 4:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center 'TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM*** 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca OMunoz_ Howdyshell _ Fletcher_ 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. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA-A supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code)of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use Development District, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and ® omissions. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP JULY 8, 2015 RANCHO Page 2 UCAMONGA F=� IV. . ADJOURNMENT 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 1, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking,please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do sounder"Public Comments." . Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. • PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP JULY 89 2015 �CHO Page 3 ONOA 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 1 STAFF REPORT PUNNING DEPARTMENT DATE: July 8, 2015 RANCHO C;UCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tom Grahn, Associate Planner Mike Smith, Associate Planner Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner Mayuko Nakajima, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A workshop to discuss a supplement to Development Code Update DRC2010-00571 amending Title 17 (Development Code) of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to provide development standards for the Mixed Use Development District, development and land use standards for the industrial districts, and to clarify definitions, administrative procedures, and correct prior errors and omissions. Related Files: CEQA Review CEQA2015-00018. RECOMMENDATION: Following the PowerPoint presentation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the draft development standards proposed for Mixed Use / Transit-Oriented • Development (TOD) areas and provide comment and direction relevant to the presentation. BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS: The 2010 General Plan update designated additional sites (mostly along Foothill Boulevard) with a Mixed Use land use designation. The zoning map was also updated to reflect Mixed Use zoning in the applicable areas. This set the foundation for what the City envisions along this major commercial corridor and the selected areas to the south. (See attachment A). The Compass Blueprint Project (Foothill Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit Study) went a step further and evaluated where TOD could occur that would support Bus Rapid Transit along Foothill Boulevard. This document was received and filed on June 19, 2013. On October 30, 2013, Planning staff conducted a tour with the City Council and the Planning Commission during a joint public meeting. The tour was organized to show how higher density development projects that usually entail a form of mixed land use, can work harmoniously with other types of land uses such as lower density single-family residential. The tour included visiting three different cities: Santa Clarita, Pasadena and Monrovia. Each city had various types of development at different densities, architectural styles, mixed land use types, but have all managed to incorporate a successful project within the existing environment. One of the City Council goals (Objective #A24) for 2015 is to develop Mixed Use/TOD development standards in order to start implementing the vision laid out in the General Plan. The Development Code currently does not have specific development standards for more urban Mixed Use/TOD development. As a result, Planning Department staff has been working on developing these standards, which have included researching other cities, interviewing other cities' planners, architects, developers and re-drafting sections of the Development Code that pertain. Attachment B contains Section 17.36.020 from the Development Code, which are the current development is standards for Mixed Use zoning districts. The proposed standards are also attached (Attachment C). The industrial standards and other areas of the Development Code that require clean-up or updating will be part of this Development Code Amendment and will be discussed in further detail in the staff report for the public hearing. Item A-1 l PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2015-00421 July 8, 2015 Page 2 Since the draft standards for Mixed Use will apply to a relatively new development type within the City, staff is seeking input in a workshop setting. This workshop will allow staff to present the draft standards to the Commission for discussion and determine whether additional analysis of, and/or refinement to, the proposed standards is necessary. Items for discussion will include, but are not limited to: density, floor area ratio (FAR), building height, parking, community and private open space, landscaping, and setback requirements. Following the workshop, the standards will be refined and presented to the Planning Commission on August 12, 2015 and City Council on September 16, 2015 for consideration of adoption. This phase sets the initial groundwork of the City's goals to implement mixed use / TOD by creating general development standards. The next phase of this effort will be to review the City's zoning districts and investigate the creation of overlay districts to provide even further details to the development standards and design guidelines to achieve the desired vision for each neighborhood character area. This is included under City Council Goal Objective #A25. Each district will be analyzed individually to ensure compatibility with the surrounding land uses and neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Candyce rnett Planning D ector CB:MN/Is Exhibit A: Mixed Use areas in the General Plan Land Use Plan and Zoning Map Exhibit B: Current development standards for Mixed Use (Section 17.36.020) Exhibit C: Draft development standards for Mixed Use I TOD areas Item A-2 Article III, Chapter 17.36 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.36.020 Development Standards for Mixed Use Zoning Districts A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the City's Mixed Use Zoning District. The General Plan establishes thirteen (13) mixed use sites throughout the city with the intent to create special urban places with horizontal and/or vertical integration of uses. In the General Plan, each mixed use site includes intent statements, land use ranges, and corresponding development assumptions. Development standards in this Section apply to all land designated on the Zoning Map within a Mixed Use District and are intended to be consistent with and implement the General Plan. See Figure 17.36.020-1 (Mixed Use Sites). FIGURE 17.36.020-1 MIXED USE SITES , � i r? — --. , IFF t1LJ El - i —my.mu mtg - Jur nxsana i 1 �lC/Ncl!TP:Jlv119 JNUUIn PlitlenlLY tN: �tYCmlRjl Pas1^fa3 4M i 1+ '1Yf�e.tt 131 M �rnwnaeamy;cai �N?1JIXtItlgCMRrt11 i*1G, �FH'in ComfE1GM:GC1 '�tA]Y(®ICdlet[tYIb••aI PGi ' �mmar.:acnx:to 7roc ai Pi % I ILsp+ieykT9dr%i iY Ps tl EXHIBIT B 17.36-12 Item A-3 ► V Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Article III, Chapter 17.36 B. Mixed Use Sites. The thirteen (13) mixed use sites with Mixed Use Zoning District designations are listed below. 1. Victoria Gardens/Victoria Arbors 2. Town Center(Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue) 3. Terra Vista 4. Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue 5. Foothill Boulevard between Archibald Avenue and Hellman Avenue 6. Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and Hampshire Street 7. Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 8. Industrial Area Specific Plan (Sub-Area 18) 9. Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek Channel 10. Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 11. Western Gateway (Bear Gulch Area) 12. Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga Channel Site 13. Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) C. Mixed Use Site Development Standards. The General Plan establishes basic development parameters for each of the city's thirteen (13) mixed use sites. Those parameters are summarized in Table 17.36.020-1 (Development Standards for Mixed Use Sites) below. Because mixed use sites are intended to be unique urban places, this Code does not establish traditional development standards for mixed use sites. Rather, Design Review is required for all development within the mixed use sites and development and design merits will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of Design Review. However, general development standards listed in Article IV (Site Development Provisions) apply to all mixed use sites (e.g., parking, signs, landscaping, lighting). 17.36-13 Item A-4 Article III, Chapter 17.36 Rancho Cucamonga Development Code TABLE 17.36.020-1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE SITES Land Use Mix n, Mixed Use Sites m o V E n3 W m c O � a m 0. a Victoria Gardens/Victoria Arbors 21-36% 20-41% 5-12% 4-14 du/ac Town Center(Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue) 25-35% 10-15% 30-50% 0-10% 14 du/ac Terra Vista 12-15% 85-87% 30 du/ac I Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa 0-62% 0-100% 20 du/ac Avenue and Center Avenue Foothill Boulevard between Archibald 67-70% 30-33% 15-30 Avenue and Hellman Avenue du/ac Foothill Boulevard at Helms Avenue and 30-40% 60-70% 30 du/ac Hampshire Street Foothill Boulevard and Mayten Avenue 26-50% 40-60% 6-10% 4% 24-30 du/ac • Industrial Area Specific Plan 11-22% 15-25% 40-60% 7.5% 28 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Deer Creek 70-75% 125-30% 14 du/ac Channel Haven Avenue and Church Street Site 0-100% 0-100% 8-14 du/ac Western Gateway(Bear Gulch Area) 30-50% 1 50-70% 14 du/ac Foothill Boulevard and Cucamonga ° , 8-14 Channel Site 0-100% 0-100% du/ac Historic Alta Loma (Amethyst Site) 0-100% 0-100% 4-2 I du/ac Section 17.36.030 Development Standards for Commercial and Office Zoning Districts A. Purpose and Applicability. The purpose of this Section is to establish minimum development standards that are unique to development projects within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. Development standards in this Section apply to all land designated on the Zoning Map within the Commercial and Office Zoning Districts. B. Commercial and Office Districts Described. As identified in Chapter 17.26 (Establishment of Zoning Districts), the city includes six (6) Commercial and Office Zoning Districts: 17.36-14 Item A-5 171 X W 2010 General Plan Mixed Use Areas raaLjF s� y 1• f �r l � r 1 66 , J IJ I foot hi 11 BIW ry 6' vm Arr�wH.r�--� Et ? et o _ Jerxeyr 6l' t,ytic.n i 1 1 Mixed Use 2012 Zoning Map ® Mixed use fMU) •, ���t X111 ��� I � %��i�, 1 I W t �liildiL- 1rD LIT- L lsP EL nipire L:Uco$ �' •r S cifil�.l.l.l. Table 17.36.020-1 Mixed Use/TOD Development Standards Development Standard/ MU/TOD(1) Zoning District Site/Lot Area (minimum)(2) n/a Lot Width (minimum)(Z) n/a Lot Depth (minimum)(Z) n/a Allowed Density(dwelling units per acre) Minimum Density n/a Maximum Density 50 units/acre Land Use Mix Project shall incorporate a minimum of two of the following types of land uses: (subject to min. lot size) c31 Commercial/Office, Institutional, Residential, Live/Work Setback(4) Street Yard (major/special blvd) Vary between 50%-75% reduction of streetscape requirements Street Yard (secondary/collector) Vary between 50%-75%reduction of streetscape requirements Street Yard (local) Vary between 75%- 100% reduction of streetscape requirements Rear Yard (adjacent to residential) Match rear yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Rear Yard (adjacent to commercial or 0 feet(5) industrial) Interior Side(adjacent to residential) Match side yard setback requirements of adjacent base district Interior Side(adjacent to commercial 5 feet or industrial) Distance Between Buildings Primary Buildings Minimum per Building Code requirements Accessory Buildings Building Height(maximum in feet) Minimum 2 stories Primary Buildings 6 stories(Maximum 75 feet)(s) Accessory Buildings Not to exceed primary building height Floor Area Ratio(maximum ratio of building to lot square footage) Floor Area Ratio 1 1.0 max Open Space Requirement(minimum percentage of open space per parcel or project) Landscape Area (overall site) 10% minimum Parking Requirement Residential Parking Spaces(7) Shall provide at current parking requirements, unless parking study shows how a reduced ratio is supported. Commercial/Office Parking Spaces(7) Refer to parking section 17.64 • Minimum space per unit. Each development project shall Open Space Requirements(8) provide a minimum of 150 square feet of open space for each dwelling unit. EXHIBIT C Item A-8 r • Front and/or corner side setbacks do not count. Required front and/or corner side setbacks shall not be credited ® toward fulfilling this open space requirement. • Required perimeter and parking landscape area shall not be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement, but is counted towards landscape. • A maximum of 30 percent of the total requirement for open space shall be counted toward required private open space area. Additional private open space area will not count towards total requirement for open space. • Each private open space shall have a minimum six-foot dimension. • This maximum 30 percent requirement may be modified by not more than five percent if determined to be necessary during Design Review. • Each common open space shall have at least one minimum dimension of 15 feet and the other dimensions shall be at least six feet, except for private open space (e.g., balconies or patios). Minimum Patio/Porch Depth 6 feet(9) Recreation Area/Facility Required per Section 17.36.010 (E) Table Notes: (1) See TOD definition. (2) On existing lots of record,parcels less than 3 acres or less than the required minimum frontage may only be developed at the lowest end of the permitted density range. • (3) Lot sizes less than one-half acre are not subject to land use mix requirement. (4) Setbacks are measured between the structure and curb face in front yards and corner side yards. Setbacks are measured between the structure and property line in rear yards and interior side yards. (5) Must meet minimum Building Codes. (6) if within 50 feet of LM,L,or VL Districts,buildings shall not exceed 3 stories or 45 feet;however,there may be areas where the maximum building height may be required to be less than the cited maximum, and should be determined on a case by case basis. (7) Parking requirements—All projects that propose less than the minimum parking that is required shall provide a parking study. Possible alternatives for reduced parking include,but are not limited to: • Count tandem parking toward required parking calculation • Eliminate covered parking requirement • Parking management strategy: o Monitored with periodic inspections o Storage within the unit, and not within garage(view windows on garages) o HOA to enforce limitation of number of vehicles per unit o Time restriction on guest parking o Shuttles • Car-share program • Bike storage credit • TOD credit • Shared parking analysis • State Density Bonus • Hire deposit-based consultant (8) a. Open space shall include both indooNinterior space and outdoor open space. b. Open space can be in the form of private open space(e.g., balconies)or common open space(e.g.,pool or side or rear setback areas.) c.An indoor recreational room of up to 600 square feet may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement. d.A utility easement may be credited toward fulfilling this open space requirement if it is properly landscaped in compliance with Chapter 17.56(Landscaping). (9) Free and clear of obstructions. Item A-9 r' 0 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF RANCHO CUG"ONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 5, 2015 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Fll � I. CALL TO ORDER OPledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca Munoz— Howdyshell _ FletcherFir' _ 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. • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA R=0H,_ocn JULY 89 2015 C``oxPage 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration to approve Regular Minutes dated June 10, 2015 B. Consideration to approve Workshop Minutes dated May 27, 2015 IV. 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. C. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19614—CHINO CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT, INC-A request to subdivide an existing industrial building for condominium purposes for a site located on the east side of Rochester Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Jersey Court in the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District — APN: 0229-121-52. 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 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216 — SPECTRUM SERVICES, INC. FOR VERIZON WIRELESS—A request to construct a two-carrier(AT&T and Verizon)co-located 85-foot tall wireless communication facility in the form of a pine tree at Price Self Storage located on the east side of Haven Avenue and south of the 210 Freeway within the Low(L) Zoning District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 6599 Haven Avenue—APN: 1076-331-34. 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 3(CEQA Guidelines Section 15303)exemption which covers the installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. E. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896—AC KAUSHAL—A request for site plan and architectural review of a 1,659 square foot single-family residence with a 506 square foot attached garage on a 3,358 square foot lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low(L)Residential Zoning District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. Related Cases: Variance DRC2013-00897, Variance DRC2015-00537 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00539. 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 as a Class 3 • _ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA &ANCHO JULY 85 2015 ONGA Page 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the construction of one single- family residence. F. VARIANCE DRC2013-00897—AC KAUSHAL—A request to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet related to the construction of a single-family residence(Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896)on a substandard 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low(L) Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. G. VARIANCE DRC2015-00537—AC KAUSHAL—A request to modify the required two-car, side-by-side garage requirement in order to construct a tandem garage related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896) on a substandard 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low(L) Residential Development District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. H. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 - AC KAUSHAL - A request to increase the maximum permitted height of the property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896) on a substandard 25 foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low(L) Residential Development District(2-4 dwelling units per acre)at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION I. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES J. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS VI. 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 July 1, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to • the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. a ,Y HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Cft1NCHO JULY 89 2015 ONca Page 4 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments.' There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. 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$2,533 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. VicinityMap • Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting JULY 8 2015 i__• i I f t^ 1= i a �,r JAY .. a ..• e 19th St'�� yY Base Line +-►!. - ���� —.- Base Line Church Church Foothill � , Foothill N l0 E L Arrow Ir � — - Arrow Jersey , 8th W C7 6th m � _'--� j6th fm as � w D 4th2 - .� 14th �± yk Meeting Location: E, Fy G� H C City Hall/Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive A: Regular Meeting Minutes dated June 10, 2015 B: Workshop Minutes dated May 27, 2015 Item C: Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19614 Item D: Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 Items E, F, G, H: MDR DRC2013-00896; VAR DRC2013-00897; VAR DRC2015-00537; ME DRC2015-00539 r J I THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA i i THE MINUTES OF RANcHo G°UCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION i JUNE 10, 2015 e 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS j 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California i I. CALL TO ORDER • Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM Roll Call Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca _X Munoz X Howdyshell _X Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney,Betty Miller, Associate Engineer;Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary;Mike Smith, Associate Planner I 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. i 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 i directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. • None i I Item A-1 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ,CZCHO JUNE 10, 2015 LTCAMONGA Page 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration to adopt minutes dated May 27, 2015 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Howdyshell, carried 5-0 to adopt the minutes of May 27, 2015 I F i IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS/PLANNING COMMISSION 0 J The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00114, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00115, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2015-00118 — LEWIS OPERATING CORP: An opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive public testimony pertaining to the environmental issues to be addressed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a proposal to amend the IASP Subarea 18 (Empire Lakes) Specific Plan to establish a mixed use development at the Empire Lakes Golf Course property located north of 4th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8th Street and the Metrolink rail line. Mike Smith,Associate Planner, gave the staff report and the PowerPoint Presentation(copy on file). Tom Reiner, said he submitted two letters. He said his concern is the impact to recreation— He asked-what is the impact with the removal of the golf course; what type and to what groups is the impact;Students?Families? He asked what the mitigations might be. He said many instructional clinics occur regularly there with 5-10 students at a time. Gary Price, a longtime resident said he plays the course once a week. He said interscholastic tournaments are held there as well as practices. He said the City is becoming over built with high density housing, bringing an increase in crime and traffic. He said apartments bring impacts and costs for local infrastructure, services, water usage, utilities, sewers, police, fire and schools. He said the golf course could be revamped to be more water wise and open space preserved. He added that it is a timeless sport whereby they teach young 6-year olds and 85-year olds are still playing. It adds value to the community because not everyone can play soccer or tennis. Item A-2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P,ANCHo JUNE 109 2015 G`I wMONGA page 3 Leatha Elsden sent a letter to Mr. Smith which is included with the staff report. She said all 4 high schools use the facility for practice and tournaments; it is one of the last courses in the area; golf is a game that can be played into throughout one's lifetime. Frank Franiv said he is a volunteer at the golf course. He said they have 100 golfers per day, 36,000 per year using it for recreation. Jeffrey Anderson, a resident of 39 years, a business owner, and former golf professional said Empire lakes is a jewel. He helps the high school golf team. He said the facility has been chosen for its status and quality; it is an opportunity for recreation. Seeing and hearing no further public comment, Chairman Wimberly closed the public hearing. Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney, said this is step 2, the Initial study was step 1. He said the EIR will be drafted, revised and put out for public comment, then public hearings • will occur here and with the City Council. He said there will be ample time and opportunity to respond as it moves forward. Chairman Wimberly then asked the Commissioners for their comments. I Commissioner Fletcher said he would like the EIR to comment on how the golf course serves our community within the master plan and with respect to Healthy RC,analyze the ! loss of the course and talk about how the new development of high density residential is a better use than the existing use. He said he wants to be confident that the new use is the higher use for our community. He said it should evaluate both positive and negative economic effects on the City in terms of supporting the new development. He said he wants to see a master plan of what will be built and a schedule for each segment. He said the retail portion is often not built for a long time. He asked if the initial developer plans on building the entire property. He asked for analysis on how the development would negatively affect our residents and serve our existing residents(traffic, pollution, services). He asked for analysis regarding the City's existing open space and the types and percent of reduction from the loss of the golf course. He said they should look at the existing open space with respect to the General Plan. He said the golf course has a different use than the other parks and we should have a balance in the community. He said it needs to be compelling that the change in the land use will be better than what we have now. i Commissioner Howdyshell referred to Healthy RC with respect to recreation. She asked how and what recreation is the option if the course is lost. She said golf provides a sport and noted it is not a private(club)course. She said she does not want to see it lost and she • sees it as a lifetime sport for many. She said she wants to see the highest and best use of the land. Item A-3 ti HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J f RANCHOJUNE 10, 2015 CL'CUNIONGA Page 4 Commissioner Munoz concurred with Commissioners Howdyshell and Fletcher,He said the study should talk about alternatives and see if we can keep some of the course. He reiterated that this is just step 2 and there is a long way to go. Vice- Chairman Oaxaca agreed with Commissioner Munoz as the document is light on alternatives. He said he would expect more analysis for alternatives-what needs could those alternatives fulfill. He said 4000 units could have significant impacts to the City's infrastructure. He said he would like more opportunities for more community input such as a workshop with larger, detailed renderings. Chairman Wimberly agreed with all the other Commissioners and asked for the alternatives and the analysis should explain what we are trying to solve. He said he is hoping for more expansive analysis. The Secretary received and filed the comments to be incorporated into the development of the E1R. V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION I C. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES None D. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None VI. ADJOURNMENT 7:48 PM i 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 June 4, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. i I If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Item A-4 r r • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J RANCHO JUNE 10, 2015 �i7CAhiONGA Page 5 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. j 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 I opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,533 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at j www.CitvofRC.us. i Item A-5 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP OF RANcHo j G'UCA�lONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION i I MINUTES i MAY 27, 2015 - 7:00 PM* 1 Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ***RAINS ROOM*** I 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California i I. CALL TO ORDER i Roll Call 7:53 PM • ; Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X I Munoz X Howdyshell _X Fletcher X II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS FIL77 i _71 ; This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises,or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None i F17� III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2015-00155—MARC HOMES, LLC-A® request for a q Planning Commission Workshop review of a conceptual site plan for a high density, single-family residential development comprised of 39 units on a vacant parcel of about 1 4.7 acres within the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District in the Office Park(OPK) District, i Item B-1 F PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO MAY 27, 2015 CLICAMONGA Page 2 Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Candlewood Street;APN: 1100-031-01 and-07. i Mike Smith, Associate Planner gave a brief overview of the project. He said this was the prior proposed site for a funeral home followed by an office complex application that later expired. He said the zoning is the Office Professional District. He said the proposal would require a General Plan Amendment and an Etiwanda Specific Plan ' Amendment. He said the required development standards also may need amendments. Stefanos Polyzoides reported he met with some of the neighbors and they were i generally happy with the ideas being presented. He noted the site is complex for several reasons:smaller lots requiring relief in standards, proximity to the freeway, and the shape of the property with two corners missing. He said the concept includes bringing the buildings closer together, providing parking in back, and plot all buildings to face open space with public room in front with no driveways. He said the traffic would be minimal and slow moving. He said some have attached garages or they are detached-all loaded from the rear. He said there are 3 floor plans with 10 feet between homes and 5 feet to the property line with square footages of 1,779, 1,944, and 2,319 square feet. He said the staff report reflects an error in the square footage. He said they would have an HOA. He said they are individually owned lots/single-family homes. He said the developer plans to take maintain all the green space areas. i Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer stated the street width is 36 feet curb to curb per City standards. Commissioner Howdysheli expressed a concern that when extended family visits or is staying there, there would be multiple cars and a lack of parking. She expressed concern about the placement of trash cans. I Mr. Smith stated that this is not a conventional development and the typical standards would not apply. Michael Lutz, (property owner) of Marc Homes, LLC, said the trash cans will be moved to the alleyways. He said parking on certain holidays will be a challenge but overflow will not affect Etiwanda Avenue because no parking is allowed there. He said it will go to Candlewood and everywhere else. He said there are 24 guest parking spots. He said the main street will most likely have cobble curbs and the drive lanes will have no curbs. Commissioner Fletcher asked about room for garbage trucks to get in as well as fire trucks. Item B-2 i • _ PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP i - ` MINUTES RANCHO MAY 27, 2015 CLTAMONGA Page 3 Mr. Lutz said there are outlets on Candlewood and Etiwanda Avenue. He said they want the homes as far from freeway as possible. Mr. Smith said he anticipates the height of the wall between the development and the freeway will be 16 feet in height. i I i Commissioner Howdyshell said she is pleased the homes are not all backed up against the freeway. Mr. Smith said each house will have 2 car garages as this is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan and they will not dominate the front elevations of the homes as they are to the rear. i Mr. Lutz said this is an expensive site to develop. He said they looked at standards and they know they will have to look at different standards. ® Mr. Polyzoides said the design has significant transitions in relief between buildings achieved by using cutouts. He said they looked at massing, and provided frontages that i create volumetric complexity, and then they looked at siding or stones to enrich the character. In response to Vice Chairman Oaxaca, he said the homes must be livable for the demographic;there is public shared space that is safe with slower traffic speeds and i each home will have minimal private open space. He said it is similar to a bungalow j court concept. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said this is a practical application of new standards;this requires the desire to live a slightly different lifestyle. Commissioner Howdyshell said it is reminiscent of a European village environment. She said there is a similar concept in the development south of Arrow. i Mr. Smith said with respect to standards, we also created standards for another project near the Pacific Electric Trail that could totally work. Commissioner Munoz said this looks like it is headed in the right direction - good articulation, neighborhood, and access. i Vice Chairman Oaxaca commented that this is the type of challenging infill project we are left with. He said we need to look at the other parcels in the City as we should not decide in a vacuum. He said we should see what will make these projects work and not miss opportunities. i • i Mr. Polyzoides said international people want to invest here in southern California. He said we have land but not the regulations in place to allow this. i i i Item B-3 t PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES ' l RANCHO MAY 27, 2015 CLCAMoN Page 4 Mr. Smith said staff is working on a Development Code amendment. He said they are working on new standards and this may be the right time to start looking at this with respect to parking, setback, and property sizes. He said it is a reality we have to face. Commissioner Howdyshell said it is forward thinking and she likes the idea. Commissioner Fletcher said he toured Ladera Ranch and did not like the alley road for services but liked the live-work units. He does not favor dense residential development. He expressed skepticism with making land use changes to accommodate the development. He said 11 years ago there was an office park development approved for this property and he liked that. He said he believes there is a greater need for office space and he is hesitant to give up office development. He said he does not want to be governed by pressures of the moment from an economic standpoint. He said conceptually he might not be opposed but he does not like giving up office space for residential. He said access in and out is problematic. He said the concept is unique but this is the wrong part of the City to do this. He said he could see it over by Victoria Gardens. He said he owns a small business and he is hesitant to give up once space;if this stays zoned as is, he would like to see an office park. Mr. Lutz said there are no offices near this and that was a problem when it was approved for office even at the top of the economic bubble, the previous owner could not make it work as it not an office area;it is completely surrounded by residential. He said he met with some neighbors after the funeral home debacle and they wanted more of a residential%neighborhood feel. He said they have looked for an appeasement to the neighbors. They loved this. He added that with respect to an office use, there would be employees with no place for services or lunch. Chairman Wimberly agreed with Commissioner Fletcher with his concern about density. He said he does not see this fitting into this particular spot as the area surrounding it does not mix with this. He said he likes the concept and staff will work with the applicant on their ideas. He said it looks good but he has some concerns. I IV. ADJOURNMENT � 9:08 PM Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby j certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 21, 2015,at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Item B-4 r I , • PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP ` MINUTES jZANcao MAY 27, 2015 i ct:' MONGA Pale 5 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 I hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. I ' i i INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC j I I 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. i 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 j • speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. i If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda; you may do so under "Public Comments." , i Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for i 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. i. 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. j 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). I Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at • www.CityofRC.us I i I Item B-5 STAFF REPORT = - PL-k\tiING DEPARTiMENT DATE: July 8, 2015 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission cUCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19614 — CHINO CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT, INC - A request to subdivide an existing industrial building for condominium purposes for a site located on the east side of Rochester Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Jersey Court in the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District—APN: 0229-121-52. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19614 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: • A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial Development; General Industrial District South - Industrial Development; General Industrial District East - Interstate 15 Freeway West - Industrial Development; Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - Interstate 15 Freeway West - Heavy Industrial C. Background: The project site is part of a larger fully developed 7.7-acre industrial complex that is made up of three (3) industrial/warehouse buildings totaling approximately 170,000 square feet, which are each located on separate parcels. The full site includes two vehicular access points off of Rochester Avenue and a total of 162 onsite parking spaces. Following the approval of this project in 1988, all three parcels were developed under a single ownership. These properties have since been purchased by different owners. To help combat potential future parking issues between the tenants within the three buildings in the complex, staff has included a condition of approval (Engineering Services Department Condition #3) that will require reciprocal parking agreements to be recorded for all parcels prior to, or concurrent with the final parcel map. • Item C1 t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19614—CHINO CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT, INC July 8, 2015 Page ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing 80,325 square foot industrial building into four (4) individual suites for condominium purposes. No changes are proposed for the exterior of the buildings or throughout the parking or landscape area. B. Parking/Site Access: The site contains 162 parking spaces. Per Development Review 87-55, 162 parking spaces are required for this development. Therefore, since no modification to the building or site layout is proposed with this application, the site is in compliance with the City's parking requirements. Furthermore, there is a recorded easement that allows ingress and egress access over, along and across the access driveway and the crescent driveway, as shown on Exhibit C, to the two adjacent parcels to the west of the subject building. This easement will stay in effect and will continue to provide access to the adjoining parcels along Rochester Avenue. C. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The. project qualifies under as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 - Minor Land Divisions —which covers the subdivision of real property into four or fewer parcels. Because the project consists of subdividing an existing industrial building into 4 units for industrial condominium purposes, 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. Respectfull submitted, Candyce rnett Planning Director CB:DP/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Aerial Map Exhibit B - Tentative Parcel Map Exhibit C - Recorded Access Agreement Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19614 Item C2 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19614 AERIAL MAP -I i fF ` f r� � ' r y n fe n r ' J a: � f{ t lI Rae aJos -1 n_ - EXHIBIT A Item 0 m b = TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 19614 e AT 8747, 8777, 8807 & 8837 ROCHESTER AVE. bonaldo RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 engineering VICINITY MAP AL (D I � L 1orrorue ti 3 fI I "i I __ i�/ SHEET INDEX: O CVR COVER SHEET 00 d . SUM SITE UTILIZATION MAP > 1 OF 1 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP No.19614 .. w r•• I k-- COVER rl 11 , ! SHEET PROJECT SITE _ CVR COVER SHEET c 1 .. WAREHOUSE WAREHOUSEAN _ }•(�'„�, , r be 6analdo engineering WAREHOUSE • ' ,y��[� :,gg� i ILII MANUFACTURI RETANJ .r ♦.rt,k *�';! IMIMi MANUFACMRIN • ,� I !0'�i«iARtr �(t•. wARExouse IOR , -1 c i• 15 . WAREHOUSE • , IMIMIIall Y AETAII,� e e • '.b'cn kA Nk AREHO WAREHOUSE _ ( O d } W F / Q �r J Q '.ort• � n )� I � r . MNIII F 'INpENgH x �' 1 SIT[- �` A MANu r �;+ „ + j"p UTILIZATION r � r MAP MANpfEHO SE -!o r WAREHOUSE SITE UPL[ZATIDN MAP - 1 IN THE CI'T'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DENci Marx: COUNTY OF SAN CiERNARDINU, S'I'A'I'E OF CALIFORNIA _--- n' "N �"� e'�>� "'�`�N"` TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19 614 . ea n IxA(.s Aw x r Y.[xrar w wk.NeanN I +1lMlk I. IIIY Ke' i nli�nll• 1161NI:A~1111111\ISN IN rlh I'ANl't.1..1 ell'I'Altr'tl.MAI—) :21•1,IN 1111:r'11'Y rlh INI1'1II'ANtI r;:I:A.[Irl'NIl"I .\N • I NAN)IN-'NTATF.IY"Al IFCINNIA..Al Yl�:k MAl'HIA-Al IN IF,)K:i 1,I'AIIh.�•rII.\NN`II IIF VANe'k:1.NIAP.N IN'I IIF:I IF'yll1.(IF Till-FIR­1 I•J/YUSYI IN 11 N.1 N .�AAf:h..S'I.r.1r:h.Ie.+IAr .r11A!.UI, N SI rF. 5 � FOR-1 INDUSTRIAL CUNDUAiINIIIAf PURPOSES --- i i SII x F/BUILUINC OWNf R sIREO xx e'J'eY'eJY Jre Ye. elPAul erw)YlNIR4 U[ISlw4rN1,xY.', [1mAMAmhn.wa lu M wYxn<U �GkiH I t y I IxaYr - V mrn Hr� °r"li.�eeexr wre x--. unk_s I wlll D. 'RNYx YIr.J/YO-YI IIe1CAs CWN xI/.4'ANIJ AYYIIY(�eEM�Iw. I o Y wil�iu�'<Nx tl, 'usreN cwxur"w'�(.Irir wlku I s s nYn'Izwal x r, ru,u.wa lµrN+wwwYo } tco CHICAGO TITLE CO. ..� IEEE 21tSTE 7?ti(Iq 4kWT RECORDED IM RECORDING REQUESTED BY �� !11 ?C''OROS ® The Fullmer Company — -7 - vr E+'" WHEN RECORDED RETURN T'0 ' NUV 14 PM Ir 2S TFC-Rochester c/o The Fullmer Company 1725 South Grove Avenue ( Av- Ontario, California 91761 DECLARATION OP GRANT OF EASEMENTS AND COVENANTS AFFECTING REAL PROPERTX This Declaration is dated for .convenience October 2, 1989, and is made by TRC-ROCHESTER, a California General Partnership ( 'TFC-R' ) A. General Matters 1 . Recitals: A. TFC-R owns that certain property at the northeast corner of Eighth Street and Rochester Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California (the 'Devel ent') and more particu arly described as Parcel Kap No. 12121, Book 145 , page 0, of Kape, Official Records of San Bernardino County, California (the 'Parcel Mao') . ® B. The Development is divided into three parcels as depicted on the Parcel Map (the 'p,ar�eja' ) : Parcel 1 of the Parcel Map ( 'Parcel 1' ) ; Parcel 2 of the Parcel Kap ( "Parcel 2' ); aad Parcel 3 of the Parcel Map ( 'Parcel 3' ) . C. There is presently existing a driveway into the Development from Rochester Street, approximately twenty-six feet (26' ) wide, along that portion of Parcel 3 of the Parcel Kap ( 'Parcel 3') identified on Exhibit A as the Access Driveway (the 'Access Driveway- ) . There is a crescent shaped driveway on Parcel 3, generally as depicted on Exhibit A (the 'Crescent Driveway- ) . 10/13/89 1 EXHIBIT C �n Item V Wc032er D. There is a subterranean fire pto rn tin supply loop that runs east perpendicular from a rater Rochester Avenue to a point in the property north of the Development (the '1srther.n parcel'), then south across Parcel 3 int is Parcel 1 and then and Parcel 1 of the Development to a po vest beck to the eater main in Rochester Avenue, all as shorn on Exhibit B (the dater Low') • There is recorded as Instrument official Records of San Bernardino County, California, an agreement between TFC-R and the owner aof the Northern Parcel, with respect to the parties, rig nd obligations concerning the Fire Water Loop ("Northern Parcel Agjeement') E. From the Fire Water Loop, there are subterranean laterals extending into the Parcels for fire hydrants and for the tire protection systems in the building on each of the Parcels. The laterals are depicted on Exhibit B by the designations 'WL-1, WL-2, and WL-3•' Some of the laterals cross one Parcel for the benefit of another. r. There are two subterranean domestic water lines that run from a water main in Rochester Avenue genewally Weast over, along and across Parcel 2 to Parcel 3 (the .a tex Liget') 2• TFC-R declares that the Development, and each of the Parcels, shall be conveyed, encumbered, leased and occupied subject to this Declaration. This Declaration and the ea`emeand and covenants shall run with the Parcels for all prpoe shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of TFC-R and each future owner of any portion of the Developoent ('�[ilsZ' ) Declarant believes the Development is not a common interest it development under Civil Code Section 13SO at 8044• the Development is a cothen interest development, thea is is a planned development. B. Acgoge E ■gMnts of Parcel 1, TFC-R creates as an appurtenance to Parcel 1 a non-exclusive easement for ingress and 3. for the b+nefit egress over, along and across the Access Drivewayand the Crescent Drivway. For the benefit of Parcel 2, TFC-R creates as an appurtenance Parcel 2 a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over, along and across the Access Driveway and the to Crescent Driveway. 4, The easements created by Paragraph 3 are for ingress and egress, respectively, by the owner of parol 1 and the owner of Parcel 2, their tenants, subtenants, successors and assigns, and the invitees of all of then. 10/13/09 2 Item C8 89-430320 5. The Owner of Parcel 3 shall maintain, repair and replace the Access Driveway and the Crescent Driveway in good • condition and repair. 6. The Owner of Parcel 1 and the Owner of Parcel 2 shall each pay its pro rate share of the reasonable costs to maintain, repair and replace the Access Driveway and the Crescent Driveway ('CAA Costs` ) . The pro rate share of Parcel 1 shall be 29% of the CAA Costs, and the pro rata share of Parcel 2 shall be 19% of the CAA Costs. The Owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall each, for their respective pro rata shares, reimburse the Owner of Parcel 3 within thirty (30) days of receipt of any invoice for CAA Costs actually and reasonably incurred, provided that each invoice encloses a copy of the bills paid or payable by the Owner of Parcel 3 for valid CAA Coats. The Owner of Parcel 3 shall submit an invoice for CAA Costs semi-annually. 7. In the case of any pending expenditure for a CAA Cost in excess of $1,500.00, the Owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall each deposit with the Owner of Parcel 3, in advance of the work for which the expenditure is required, one-half of the respective pro rata shares of the Owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 for such expenditure, provided that the Owner of Parcel 3 submits in advance a description of the work for which such expenditure is to be actually and reasonably incurred and the copy of the estimates for that work. The Owners of Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 shall each make such deposit within thirty (30) days after receipt of such information and written request for the deposit . C. Fire Mater Loop Easement@ 8. TFC-R creates over Parcel 1 a non-exclusive easeser.t in favor of both Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 ten feet ( 10') wide for the maintenance, repair and replacement of that portion of tt.e Fire Mater Loop on Parcel 1 . TFC-R creates over Parcel 3 a non- exclusive easement in favor of both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 ten feet ( 10' ) wide for the maintenance, repair and replacement of that portion of the Fire Mater Loop on Parcel 3. The centerline of the easements created by this Paragraph e shall be the center of the Fire water Loop. The costs to maintain, repair and replace the Fire water Loop shall be borne as specified in Paragraph 10. 9. The Amer of Parcel .1 shall maintain, repair and replace, in good condition and repair, that portion of the Fire Water Loop on the Development, including without limitation the detector check and backflow prevention device, and require the owner of the Northern Parcel to maintain that portion of the Fire Nater Loop on the Northern Parcel, all so that there is no impediment to the free flow of water along the Fire Mater Loop within the Development. 10/13/89 3 • Item C9 89-43u320 10. The Owner of each Parcel shall each pay its pro rata share of the reasonable costs to maintain, repair and replace the Fire Water Loop and to comply with the Northern Parcel Agreement (collectively, 'FWL Costs') . The Owners of Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 shall. each, for their respective pro rata shares, reimburse the Owner of Parcel 1 within thirty (30) days of receipt of any invoice for FWL Costs actually and reasonably incurred, provided that each invoice encloses a copy of the bills paid or payable by the Owner of Parcel 1 for valid FWL Costs. The pro rata shares are: Parcel 1, 29% of the FWL Costs; Parcel 2, 191 of the FWL Costs; and Parcel 3, 52% of the FWL Costs. 11. In the case of any pending expenditure for a FWL Cost in excess of $1,500.00, the Owners of Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 shall each deposit with the Owner of Parcel 1, in advance of the work for which the expenditure is required, one-half of the respective pro rata shares of the Owners of Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 for such expenditure, provided that the owner of Parcel 1 submit@ in advance a description of the work for which such expenditure is to be actually and reasonably incurred and the copy of the estimates for that work. The Owners of Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 •hall make such deposit within thirty ( 30) days after receipt of such information and written request for the deposit. 12. TPC-R create• over Parcel 1 non-exclusive easements in favor of Parcel 3 ten feet (101 ) wide for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the subterranean water laterals identified by 'WL-3' on exhibit a The owner of Parcel 3 @hall Maintain, repair and replace all oacpento of ML-3 at its sole cost and expense. SFC-R creates over Parcel 1 and Parcel 3 a non-exclusive easement in favor of Parcel 2 ten feet (10' ) wide for the maintenance, repair and replacement of that portion of the subterranean water lateral identified by '11L-2' on Exhibit 8 (,K"- ' ) . The Owner of Parcel 2 shall maintain, repair and replace WL-2 at its sole cost and expense. D. Water Line Basements 13. SFC-R creates over Parcel 2 two non-exclusive easements each six feet (6' ) wide in favor of Parcel 3 for the Parcel 3 Mater Lines over, along and acroas. Parcel 2. The centerlines of the easements granted by this Paragraph 13 shall be: (1) a line parallel to and 137 feet north of the southern boundary of Parcel 2 and (2) a line parallel to and 16 feet southof the northern boundary of Parcel 2. The easeisents created by this Paragraph 13 are for the benefit of, and appurtenant to, Parcel 3. The Owner of Parcel 3, at its sole cost and expense, 10/13,189 4 ®1 III I Item C10 LY9-430320 shall maintain, repair and replace the Parcel 3 water Line as necessary to keep it in good condition without Limitation and repair, including repair and restoration of any damage caused by ® any maintenance, repair or replaceme Lines, nt of the Parcel 3 Water E. Bgmedies 14. If an Owner breaches its obligations under Paragraph 5, Paragraph 9 or Paragraph 13 of this Declaration (the 'Defnul r•) , another Owner thea ten (10) days written (notic )exceptn providing theaseo�oflean emergency (in which case no written notice is required), may enter the Parcel where the default exists and cure the default. The Defaulter shall upon demand reimburse the Curer for 1101 of all of the costs paid by the Curer to third parties and reasonably necessary to cure the d Peid at eleven percent (111) efault, plus interest until per annum. The extra 101 is to cover overhead and administrative expenses of the Curer. 15. Prior to delinquency, each Owner shall pay all taxes, assessments, valid mechanic's liens and other impositions levied or assessed against its Parcel or the improvements on that Parcel (• 18111') . If an Owner fails to make a payment of such an Imposition ( •No1_oayj�r.) and such failure could adversely affect any right of an Owner under this Declaration, Pay that Imposition. any other Owner nay Any Owner who makes such payment can recover from such Non-payor the amount until paid at eleven so paid plus interact percent ( 111) per annum, compounded annually. 16. Of the CAny Owner who does not pay when due its pro rote share AA Costs, F%- Costs or a deposit as required by Paragraphs 6, 7, 10 and 11 shell pay to the Owner entitled to the payment or deposit a late fee of Gen percent (10%) of all past due amounts that are delinquent fifteen (15) days after they became of due and shall pay interest on all unpaid amounts at the • e ven all amounts morercethannthirty )(30 )er dH��' compounded annually, on Y past due. 17. The amount payable by any Owner under Paragraphs 6, 7, 10, 11 , 14, 15 or 16 shall be a lien on that Owner's Parcel from and after the time the Owner entitled to the asount payable causes to be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder a Notice of Delinquency, a description of the Parcel against which the lien is levied, and the name of the record owner of that Parcel. Upon payment of the Delinquency, the Owner sus specified in the Notice of who filed that Notice of Delinquency shall and cause le be recorded s further notice stating the satisfaction Any lien pursuant se of al pursuant to i6a creeatedabh 17 es hal lice of Delinquency. the lien of any first or second mortgage or deedrdofatrusto t 10/13/69 5 • "opo recorded before the Notice of Delinquency and given in favor of a bank, savings and loan, savings bank, life insurance company or other recognized lender making commercial loans as part of its business in accordance with ascertainable standards. The lien created pursuant to this Paragraph 17 may be enforced in any manner permitted by law for enforcement of a deed of trust or mortgage. F. Effect of Declaratio 18. This Declaration creates no easement or any other right of parking in favor of any Owner or Parcel. Each Owner and its tenants, subtenants, successors and assigns, and invitees shall park only on that Owner's Parcel. 19. No public dedication is made by this Declaration. 20. No Owner in any way or for any purpose on account of this Declaration shall be deemed a partner, joint venturer, or a member of a joint enterprise with any other Owner. 21 . The obligations under .this Declaration shall be covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The Parcels burdened with and benefitted by the obligations in this Declaration are specified throughout this Declaration. 22. The obligations of the Owners in Paragraphs 6, 7, 10 and 11 are the several, not joint obligations, of those Owners. G. Other Provisions 23. Notices: A. Invoices for payment of CAA Costs and deposits required by Paragraphs 6, 7, 10 and 11 and the papsents of those amounts may be sent by regular mail. Any other notice, demand or statement which any Owner slay desire to serve upon any other Owner in accordance with this Declaration shall be sufficiently served if (i) enclosed in an envelope depoaited with the United Stater Postal Service, postage prepaid and certified, return receipt requested, or (ii') delivered by messenger service, is either case, to the address of that owner established in accordance with this Paragraph 23. a. If to TFC-R: c/o The Fullmer Company Attn: Managing General Partner 1725 South Grove Avenue Ontario, California 91761 10/13/89 6 e .. .. ® 1 lem,`1 Z 89-430320 C. If to any person or entity who btc=ez: an Owner of any Parcel after recordation of this Declaration: to the ® Rochester Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, street address of that Owner's Parcel. D. Any Owner may designate a new address by written notice to the other Owners. E. Notices are effective (i) when delivered unless delivered on a holiday or (ii) on the first business day when delivery is refused or not accepted by the recipient or (iii) attempt is made to deliver the notice but the recipient no longer is present at the address established in accordance with this Paragraph 23. If a notice is actually delivered on a holiday, it shall be effective on the first business day following the holiday. F. Holidays are all Saturdays, sundays, and legal holidays recognized by the United States Postal Service. 24. Within ten (10) days after written request from another Owner each Owner shall execute and deliver to the requesting Owner and to any one additional person designated by the requesting Owner, at no charge, a reasonable estoppel certificate concerning this Declaration. 25. No breach or violation of this Declaration will defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust, but the obligations of this Declaration will be binding on and effective against any Parcel acquired by foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise pursuant to the mortgage or deed of trust. No amendment or modification of this Declaration shall affect the rights and protection• granted in this Paragraph 25. 26. General provisions: • A. This Declaration shall, in all respects, be governed by the laws of the State of California. B. Each Owner shall execute, deliver and cause to be duly acknowledged where necessary any and all additional papers, documents and other assurances, and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessary in connection with the performance of its obligations hereunder, to carry out the intent of the parties hereto. C. No amendment, change or modification of this Declaration Shall be valid, unless in writing and signed by all Owners. 10/13,'89 .. _..Item C1 3 ._........ . . 89--430320 D. All of the terms and provisions contained herein shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding on the Owners of each Parcel and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. E. This Declaration constitutes the entire understanding with respect to its subject matter and any and all prior agreements, understandings or representations with respect to its subject matter. are hereby cancelled in their entirety and are of no further force or effect. F. The execution and delivery of this Declaration has been induced by no representations, statements, warranties or agreements other than those expressed herein. G. if any Owner commences legal proceedings for any relief against the other party arising out of or to interpret this Declaration, the losing party shall pay the prevailing party's legal costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees as determined by the court. As used herein, *legal proceedings" includes any arbitration proceedings to which the parties may submit. 'i. No waive; by Owner hereto of a breach of any provision of this Declaration shall constitute a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision hereof. I. In this Declaration, the masculine, feminine or neuter gander, and the singular or plural nuuber, shall each be deemed to include the others whenever the context so requires. J. No provision of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been drafted by, or be construed more severely againut, any particular Owner. 27. This Declaration shall have a term of fifty (30) years and shall thereafter be automatically renewed for torus of ten ( 10) years, unless terminated by the written, recorded agreement Of All of the Ownetn. TFC-ROCHESTER, a California general partnership By: The Fullmer Company, a Cfornia general partnership Jam*41V. 10/1?i 89 g W--430320 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SR A: -2E x A,A1 Ji :c ) On A cis mAjrrt /o /f!T before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared James L. Fullmer, personally known to me the amie of -*vidaar� to be the person who executed the within instrument as one of the partnere of The Fullmer Company. the partnership that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same on behalf of TFC-Rochester, a partnership, and that said last named partnership executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal . OF i CAAt KAL _ Lot Ma3v Es a0LPM S qn a t u r e Mr Comm.EAV Moe P®.IN� 10/13/84 9 Item C15 - -- 89-430320 o^ i i - i ACCl69 ■■1 t[■A/ :. A :4 i T 0• Ti nAT COMM KWMT ii W . ~Or t►suarrs d iOIOM■Ts MniTLM■M Para" ■■TU .rai........e fcTw t. lm ■ ■ ■ t ■ Item C16 tl0liMl tltl Il0►[tl11 lOrlalom PROPERTY �-- 81 0 0 1 81 ►ll l It it FIAT YAI[0 1001 o I e 1 - _4; rll[ vela [00/ •• � �- I els rift 1 1 _ o i 1 /,ticl[ e�`a Why F . o . � a t � p ►AI[Il p tl0lTtllltl ►001[011 1 SOY1tll0tl ►00rltllr I 00C HILITI I Ari RESOLUTION NO. 15-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19614, A SUBDIVISION OF AIRSPACE FOR FOUR (4) INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR A SITE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ROCHESTER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF JERSEY COURT IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (GI) ZONING DISTRICT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 0229-121-52. A. Recitals. 1. Chino Central Development, Inc filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 19614, 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 8th day of July 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. ® B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1: This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on July 8th, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to the property located on the east side of Rochester Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Jersey Court at 8797 Rochester Avenue—APN: 0229- 121-52; and b. The abutting properties to the north of the site contain industrial buildings, the property to the south, across the A.T. and S.F. Railroad, contains an industrial development, the property to the east is the Interstate 15 Freeway, and the properties to the west, across Rochester Avenue, contains industrial buildings: and C. The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing 80,325 square foot industrial building into four (4) individual suites for condominium purposes; and • d. No changes are proposed to the exterior of the building; and e. The site contains 162 parking spaces. Per Development Review 87-55, 162 parking spaces are required for this development. Therefore, since no modification to the building Item C19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-43 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19614—CHINO CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT, INC July 8, 2015' Page 2 or site layout is proposed with this application, the site is in compliance with the City's parking requirements. f. The parcel has access along Rochester Avenue. There is a recorded access agreement that exists for this site, which allows ingress and egress access over, along and across the access driveway and the crescent driveway to the two adjacent parcels to the west of the subject building. 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 parcel map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. No changes to the parcel shape or design are proposed; and b. The design or improvements of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. No changes to the parcel shape or design are proposed; and C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site is serviced by existing utilities and contains sufficient onsite parking; and d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and. avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat. This project does not involve a modification of the site; and e. The tentative parcel map is not likely to cause serious public health problems. No exterior changes to the building or site are proposed; and f. The design of the tentative parcel 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. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies under as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 - Minor Land Divisions—which covers the subdivision of real property into four or fewer parcels. Because the project consists of subdividing and industrial building into four(4)units for industrial condominium purposes, staff finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval.attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Item C20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-43 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19614 —CHINO CENTRAL DEVELOPMENT, INC July 8, 2015 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item C21 Conditions of Approval. ('"RANCHO Community Development Department �.,i VASIoNG.1 Project#: SUBTPM19614 Project Name: Chino Central Development, Inc. Location: 8797 ROCHESTER AVE - 022912152-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Approval is to subdivide an existing 80,325 square foot industrial building into four (4) individual suites for condominium purposes for property located on the east side of Rochester Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Jersey Court at 8797 Rochester Avenue—APN: 0229-121-52. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include the Tentative Parcel Map on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. 3. 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 b 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. 4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter and Conditions of Approval shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 6. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. Enaineerina Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The final parcel map shall be submitted for review and approval. Plan check fees will be required and determined at the time of submittal. 2. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC & R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map. www.CityofRC.us Printed:7/1.12015 Item C22 Project#: SUBTPM19614 Project Name: Chino Central Development, Inc. Location: 8797 ROCHESTER AVE - 022912152-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 3. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels within Parcel Map 12121 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. Fire Prevention I New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The new CC&R's shall establish shared maintenance responsability for the various fire systems in the building and those system on site necessary for fire protection of the building including underground fire mains, fire hydrants and fire lanes. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The new CC&R's shall establish shared maintenance responabilty for the various building systems Printed:7/1/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 2 Item C23 STAFF REPORT L:• PUNNING DEPARTMENT RANCHO UCAMONGA DATE: July 8, 2015 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216 — SPECTRUM SERVICES, INC. FOR VERIZON WIRELESS — A request to construct a two-carrier, (AT&T and Verizon) co- located 85-foot tall wireless communication facility in the form of a pine tree at Price Self Storage located on the east side of Haven Avenue and south of the 210 freeway within the Low (L) Zoning District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 6599 Haven Avenue — APN: 1076- 331-34. 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 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures. • RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - 210 Freeway South - Single-Family Residences— Low (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) East - Single-Family Residences — Low (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) West - Single-Family Residences — Low (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low (L) - (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) North - 210 Freeway South - Low (L) - (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) East - Low (L) - (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) West - Low (L) - (2-4 Dwelling Units per Acre) C. Site Characteristics: The 6.13 acre project site is developed with a self-storage facility. D. Background: The City has received applications from Verizon (CUP DRC2014-00216) and AT&T (CUP DRC2014-609) for the development of two separate wireless communication facilities at Price Self-Storage, which is located on the east side of Haven Avenue and south of the 210 freeway. Verizon's application is for a proposed wireless communication facility at the northeast corner of the self-storage facility, with the related ground mounted equipment within one of the adjacent self-storage units. AT&T's application is for a wireless communication facility closer to the center of the self-storage facility, with the trunk of the facility rising out of a storage unit and the ground mounted equipment located within an adjacent storage unit. During the review process staff encouraged both applicants to work together on a single co-located facility. Staff Item D1 A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ' DRC2014-00216 - SPECTRUM SERVICES, INC. FOR VERIZON WIRELESS July 8, 2015 Page 2 also informed both carriers that AT&T's proposed location towards the center of the project site was preferred as it was further from the adjacent single-family residences to the east and was less visible from public view. Staff requested that each applicant also explore relocating their facilities to one of the commercial centers located at the northeast and northwest corners of Haven Avenue and the 210 freeway. The applicants informed staff, after researching both prospective sites, that there was not adequate lease area available for their equipment shelter at the site at the northwest corner of Haven Avenue and the 210 Freeway, as the site is already developed with a wireless communication facility. The property owners of the commercial center at the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and the 210 Freeway were not interested in placing a wireless facility within their development as they felt that it may hinder future development of the site. Verizon and AT&T have since jointly agreed to move forward with a single wireless facility located at the northeast corner of project site (Verizon's originally proposed location). The applicants have informed staff that this location was chosen as AT&T was not prepared to construct their facility until an undetermined date in the future, while Verizon was prepared to construct their facility immediately. The originally proposed facility by both carriers had a height of 70 feet above ground level. The new co-located facility has a height of 85 feet above ground level; the extra height being necessary for both carriers to meet their coverage requirements. ANALYSIS: A. Project Description: The current application is for the construction of a single co-located 85-foot tall wireless communication facility at Price Self-Storage. The facility is necessary for both applicants to fill coverage gaps and to de-load existing facilities in the surrounding area. The facility will be located at the northeast corner of the site, approximately 55 feet from the east property line. The tower will be in the form of a pine tree, with the ground mounted equipment for both carriers located within separate storage units adjacent to the tower. Verizon's antennas will be mounted 76 feet above ground level, with AT&T's antennas mounted 61 feet above ground level. The proposed equipment includes a backup generator for Verizon, which will be located on the west side of the tower. Each carrier's installation will include 3 antenna arrays with 4 antennas per array, along with a parabolic antenna and related ground mounted support equipment. The facility complies with all requirements of the Development Code including setbacks, equipment screening and a stealth design. The facility is in the form of a pine tree with each antenna covered with leaf socks and the mounting hardware painted to match the trunk of the facility. The Development Code does not limit the height of wireless communication facilities when they are approved through a Conditional Use Permit. The project site is directly adjacent to a single-family residential zoning district. Section 17.106.030 of the Development Code requires that wireless communication facilities located within 300 feet of residential structures and/or above the height limit of the district where they are located, be co-locatable and approved through a Conditional Use Permit. Staff sent out a notice to all property owners located within 660 feet of the project site for Verizon's application on March 19, 2014, and on July 9, 2014, for AT&T's application, as required by the Development Code for Conditional Use Permits. Staff received two phone calls and two emails from property owners concerned about Verizon's project and two calls related to AT&T's project. The residents felt that the Verizon facility would block their views of the surrounding landscape and that both facilities would potentially cause negative health impacts. Item D2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00216 - SPECTRUM SERVICES, INC. FOR VERIZON WIRELESS July 8, 2015 • Page 3 B. Neighborhood Meeting: Verizon held a neighborhood meeting to discuss their project with the surrounding property owners at 5:00 p.m. on January 21, 2015, at Central Park, with approximately 15 residents in attendance. Issues raised at the meeting included the height of facility, which the attendees felt would block their views and health impacts related to living adjacent to a wireless communication facility. The residents informed the applicant that the existing self-storage facility had created some adverse impacts, such as light and noise issues. The residents felt that it would be more appropriate to relocate the facility to one of the commercial centers on the north side of the 210 freeway. The applicant stated that the height of the facility was necessary to meet their coverage requirements and to provide adequate area for a second carrier to co-locate on the facility. The applicant also informed the attendees that there are no studies which show that living adjacent to a wireless communication facility causes negative health impacts and that (FCC) regulations restrict municipalities from denying a wire communication facility based on health concerns. C. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Fletcher, Oaxaca Granger) reviewed the project on May 19, 2015. At the meeting, Staff raised issues regarding the close proximity of the proposed facility to the adjacent single-family residences. Staff felt that it would be more appropriate for the facility to be located as far from the adjacent single-family residences as possible and that the location originally proposed by AT&T was a good compromise. The Committee felt that the location at the center of the self-storage facility was awkward and would not provide adequate opportunity to screen the facility. The Committee felt that the current location adjacent to the 210 freeway was more appropriate, as it would be better • screened by the perimeter wall of the self-storage facility and by the existing landscaping and trees along the 210 freeway. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission as proposed. D. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the installation of new equipment and facilities in small structures. The project is for the construction of an 85-foot tall wireless communication facility along with related ground mounted equipment. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. 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. Staff has not received any letters or phone calls expressing concern over the Conditional Use Permit. Respectfully submitted, Candyce rnett Planning Director CB:TV/Is Item D3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2014-00216 - SPECTRUM SERVICES, INC. FOR VERIZON WIRELESS July 8, 2015 Page 4 Attachments: Exhibit A - Complete Set of Plans Exhibit B - Photo Simulation Exhibit C - Verizon Signal Propagation Maps Exhibit D - AT&T Signal Propagation Maps Exhibit E - Design Review Action Agenda date May 19, 2015 Draft Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 Item D4 m v��wi►eless tllttl� � FINCHIrXUJLC•1•INf•i»iMAIrIINn--I—r— I INCH vert •nrr:�n�1..A Ar11 iIt/A nZOnWireleSS 6599 HAVEN AVENUE IURRfNI.ISSILf.IIAIlr RANCHO CUCAMONGA, �ISSUlU r t 15505 SAND CANYON AVENUE BUILDING D, 1ST FLOOR CALIFORNIA 91737 V.::IIAIf SCHIP IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 I I wsa.I,Aun w A.0 w.I MRUW wMusS Ieun N„N:C.I:Ws rAL.I" I uiw::x 0r+ �nvAnAllLlAr,l;n w mIWlc„„M] nW.NILmXN.Lk�srsX�xANIJLnL r.AIkuNN.Lsw.rsI«;I,NIIJx AXIuM«aumNluk.0xkN«•.Ar.o III ..,.n.rLw.w,Ju,k,wnom•.Ymm III i...L"u.IuIl cC•.A„.xuuw.wwAAA;N u�fIN��arN�Cr�••,.,.�r Y[u�w"x AslxSHEETDvXrE,L uSM,cC.,uhR]I,PrIL TrI.Ok lN.. I REV. . �J n., , I /�:..\fi..,ir:.,•.+,:r...•,,,•r.•.••1 ... ...t-11 TI AHXII C WPANUc. M1Y ..1 " S 1 IAl tow.A XuW I A2AL or(L) 'ARLI:NL rY FAMNRXNAe lf.l Pkx YIwI pXhNAL1 ..."- .—' fAJ:n b.MUWU SIArN1ANUS i I A4 SI 11[v,hW5 u:iNU LU_111A Iv.1.v .11UIn uiSlr.Cl•n1e ,x U.!eA nS d:L.!r�I W UI vt MLW WXtlkSY YW .w&i•fS WMXIl II X.SIAN:I Ur ANINS 1 I Y I�U.NANU IWANUIf,I:n A AS Im A mSl IIl v,liiwa wS1ILL.IMI M Ivl Vl MLW MILT l.h3 Wa.X If hXAS Muwlf 11 IU blU k IN,. I N -NLKrI I•'iQ:� I 'J N.XUX.I,wl Y ,,I•la.r fl;l I I •1. WSI.Lr AIM,p(el hMILW M,LIk SS tll4 LANDS UWMx LW] •WIxW Ik __- _____ it I I I I •' •.r i I ICODE COMPLIANCE I 1-F—Al ur.,A. ewrW Mlufm w.uL uw. wiau�Au,A•o. w.I nxNr. W51.LLAI.JI p A%R!L WWLLESS IUxW UNL n.I:n mIN A 21,GQ, IAhn I ,uh lAil ux.x xANIM1 _ _--_– _ - •r r • Lw AIJ.W'i A b Ct�Lh 1I•W II I.YL I «Ik A'lA 'Y lL)vtlY]bel . r _ .._� i r'.. cchs lXr:I'Lw s w k1 alit M. 1}1LU11!NLP111,11 i I I _II(:f NSJNr cu.uAL/m;IxNLt.cAwl runs:NLA[n.rnn m An lfxNs ULCVUANCI I— , r 1 ! XlM rIRFR l.IWWIIR CAMNLIS NIIC I:W IM ..A:. rA.r NEW EWA ULGICArfU EtICIMC4]lNY.Lf IU YE ILN `I�•S v., v rA,,.A r, i PROJECT DESCRIPTION XN xAlrrx p NANLNU C11C u CA .._..—_.—.. _..._ I I uh Iu,o kf'-•I L1LL lNSiNLL! �• -- - rl.' �� �� - n.An«LAP xLU.nLue all Nr• XIIANIIW IJ A LAPFf I.W "`•, r r A_"IS 1.1 SHEET INDEXSIre !uNINL SLIiuS IUItAL,fw L .im 't. L. LOCATION `[lilt 'a;NA IUM UAff I 'I' •. • LCLS IN:1'Aycl:t;;!ILLr< _ _._ I_.:. _ .. __ .. – IN! FNUWLX Ill .'•.1 nr{ a .•a ., An ' � _SII[l.I II ILi..—_—___ _ XL AL fS1A 1! " ����� �• � IPXIR'FNIr UwNlN I.Lr I.`.r i SLiYi 11)1! CUNIMG APnRUVAI. IIILI JHt.LI 1 "r LON SINCE UON URLCTOR R Rancho .,.;I. AI1r111�ONAL APPROVAL i Cucamonga w.r� SXLEI XUMRF N'=Nl.VISitM' — VICINITY MAP - PROJECT SUMMARY PROJECT TEAM APPROVAL LIST 2 1AA-fA6 HILL F?L ORj ucF PTIO{ !wl%YINwI„L,Sltu w HILL XLPwI UNUtx nU WLI%,Lu.99U-U:t.UAILU—AN'F,NI•. PXLPANlD tlr IIU.N IIRC CIAWANr V tALU GWIA...LH ANC N.1 SL.A1Lr rrn4.Wl nAIUHE ANU YtYU, Nt,'LNCL A U1IWULNI Lw IAWWD A SUI-IiNl LI1.Ol SUNVIIw W ANEAS AJIECIE..1] UULWLnI LECI NII ME ONSAt'N1Ul IDX 1-—A,ANN'XL-LISIED tltl..,m.NUMBENS CUNNESPUI%U IU INM>N._.,IN A A •^. �����T���� �� EASLYtN Rs,fw rk Puuxlall>, __. __ r A,w. wA N: r —I SIIUW%BLLUw•xD S wLYNXIN INLNk IU.AS d•nllU m A UOC1WNI ----- — — '••' n HHUJCCI INr IIHWIION' GNANIE.IU CIIC-AL Nlr ,r .•..,tii .AltR I%SIIM1CI Ill;l lr,:-• iiifLWPY F INCI1 NUNPUSL PwlUMS AfAI wUUtHIN. _- '^•""' ' N!t'(wOrrrc„A IT fOHYbCX A.I.S. ___ —___. _ ____ —._ _ — — _. _. ._ _._ - _. ._ _ .v A.r•.w,., IQUWUwI: U AS..SIHUYLNI — - - - — - -- r.l,I...iN A. ...A rrr..r I'I !P.I Al,t..� 19x8-0•IIIS41 U WELIAL.1I.U] - - - -- - ^ Nl,r. AIIEUIS AS DLSIk.0 frkxLw �.%.,,Ilnnr,l'rt,n. 11R'ECR A PDRR@%Dr THE SwECI PIt01'FRM1 I( AXD 'NAU Sw:N%NI•L / " / -.u r r^I r.� UNNt NI ISl.t -W:W. --- IrEHlID ULAN IlU'N UIICUYL11 r n,r_ri AS ,U I ' ......." u.ANElu ID soulNt xx cAIxwMA .����.....�....� 'c A -.......F...r—r..-.... X' P NPDaf PU811[ulAllkS x ' `"-' ry^' SSuhu'UH NEEUNpNc NAIL APRs 19.LWB 1 NLCWUWc NO AS INsmutN,NU 2UUfi-044I319 U WIIUALIUAL ILI NfCUM» 11I- APFE AS UfsfJLlflfO lNlNlW 1 —S`=�`_�p':-3 1 1 I A I .'•`I r•�I. — AMM A PDHIION a NE SLATAC1 1 .�.N---.�E��-•:,;• i _ ., ; \ .. .An....rr� i.rA rV,. L PRa"TY 1 I ,..., ..r i,..�, —'-'-' .�f'L>�%"��% � - / 1 I Nt.v:=UAIl-=D_SLXIM NUN:—HY: \� ,NI`S�IUX I,Q PUXPUSIIs) 1 _ s t.i�T!1%•:,: 11• ! 1 \ r..Mr,.r. SHO.W!-tlkl AMl gp,15 wewLN14 1 -,xY�EP'�•,�' INtRt IU,AS UNANTLDwANw A UUCUYInI 1 I / 1 A C0iiPUNAr10N NILUx C4 uUnMA 1.1I r.. .... . ................ IWPUSE Putll1C ululkS E'S 'I .................................... i .� I li I i tWLSS AMI wCU(x IAL „ xti.LNA: I xtcwlNNc xu AS wsmulQxl Zua-UH14119A PDRLNm U U NtCW104 Ili APN IUl4,-4111-L M •a UFSLIImtU IW.XtW I tanto .Uw 9!`AW NNu(I) 1 1 I.�I I r I A,T,,IM 111 9,Et mE Sur I, 4,I•ALxls Itc1S 1 I EI I j PRDPfAIY IiN 11 �tl) � I r (e� Nk�wxtxSWP u sAu ural DWs 1 fel ::..::.......... :...:.:.:........:.::..:��......::... .. 1 i :: � _ I u I I :N wr%IIIIk NxAUI U LIN lu Olr fXw In!SINtl1,rYIwWAr,w I rntLWAr AbuIIWU SAM LAND.SUCH ,....•...•.,.:•.::: ........•.�,:•..••...•..,.:.. •. I rwr rre•.r• MUUS XAWYG tlllN NLLWwSrkD Br ­ .101 rU YAP/M KH AVkhUt AIN)]FAIL ' .'..:.:.: •.....'.:......:....... .. I \/ I -,\� V°/!•I': , Al1ECIS 'I r.:.:..............: ........... IYU,wnl%IJ ' 1 ..................�...... .... IJI f'f F ECR LXE FNME 911&ECf PN6WIY .... ..,/...�. , c tY ' I I i � � �.\x.1/!•./IAl Hort/�w.n. r /l Wfi1N9 CArIfNYEu W IIIAi CEXIAw 1 . : I II .rn, A,.-A ••. - -l I i LrA•. ,.L,.,..I. i lnRIIFU WANT W DRVEwAT I I -/� PIANS HHl PAI%FII tlY XtLDNL1w.OAIt.Ik CEYtlfN IU.%WI 11�, •.':'.///%•%-•-- I -L.I _ I . Ntl'ANOWD M1u AS InSIXwfNf NU i -'-------------------�'-�.--.--/!; . `` cn %W1-4,414,3%U A—ILIAL NLL.1,S , %7 HEIENTf IS H!Nltll YAIk IU SAN) LINT LW EULL PANIICIAMS I ._�r3-______-__.. N . � 'li • .*____.:._ x I i i II I / I..r'1:.1N•I.r"I'Ai �'.T 11111 PER RILE MEN LEDAL SITMEDESCKPIT(LIL. I I LIQ AD09C YEN%O%S EARN11.8 IS BlInD R[fERENCEO AS PMQL D I 1 1 I I ! 1 it II)I n H.11 � (�r!! • ICt.NSufit. — - I1;Al If It i,;ILA I \ I — 1 GRAPHIC SCALE SMLT 1.11t - / SIfL PIAN Slltlf NUMXtH —HLNS!UN Al SITE PLAN -- --. --- .0 venzOAwim/ess - �� — -.r. rvn YHWeCI;NrJNAUIIUM1 -- 5INOI --- -- .•' r' „rvF^ rCUHNGNI ISSuc JAIL. / •r +_ -` rte... . ,.xa. LISSUIu fuH .. ... r...... .I:1: •���� ��•'�nom. � �NeV =11a IL-U1 SCHN'il I _ 3 v 11 •, .. 1 1. II 1 //, -11IANS'YHt PAH,U UY_._--_.�• V li I ISOECTRU l .F'N wJ•t y�y .I I r a.,i e Iii r.x.t;. •e41•.•„I.st �" � �. II � i •.:,. ��r.Irn-n.-_ I I fl I I tiL't NSUHI IAC ''r' .•� r.e...,...xrr,,� .. .. � I I "II I I I 1 l IL 1 I I I � 1 r tl II I I I 1 I I r ?I !_NLARG IJ `.,I11 P(AN 1� .. .. ...r .....r. .... 1 I .II 1 f GNAYHIC SCALL _$___ __ _____ __ __ _..�______ - - I I I , I I • . • "5,1�.LI NUMbLN =NfV;SIIiH�— ENLARGED SIZE PLAN— :�� i ,. ., " '.. ''` :.•• � Ir..:+�.'. I I vxu.IECI��INf oxNnlroN — \, FINCH � f ` :11' ..ri.a i..r ,...r.."r. w,r •rr.,r. ."., ,..i:.. w., w 1:11flNf NI IlfU!,WIL ANTENNA LAYOUT 3 ANTENNA AND CABLE SCHEDULE = 2 --- --..` �- - 1usuaU WILNU HEV -DA 11.=11khMPLUN'---7Y' _ �-- _-- '" .�, � -ter- :•:�..::. ».�..�.��.�..,r.. ! � 1.A �- rv" , r. r ?T' � PLAYS PRtPgHED tll ISOECTR w ,Irn�.i'Y` [/r -l_ - - . �1 MNI C�" , - -\� 1-,-•'/ 1 t I 1� . , r G, ',rl li 1i•a r ra r� r.• - - .'-\�,�nl 1` \���� .� •1 •' f ``III. p � II�tN1UNe —_ I'•.> ,iI , �'�:,-^ w .,. rv... I rrt., ,:. •a. i .. . O SNELI IIIEL. 2I SITE 01[AIL. ANFFNNA A, 1 I CAHI.i_ SCHEDULE AND GRAPHIC SCALE ANTENNA IAYDUT JA3 1 � � � t!1 NUNNlN =NEV,SNN— I SITE DETAIL -- w ..;,.; UeHz2owlreless i? I A '• JIp' ,•� S � _I�NUJI.L'f IN4 UNMPIIIIN:��-_ 1INCII I i I ',l,r'�%•� (:.1,,.. ��� ,,' /� "grill....:n I� ' •I r�' r.NNRINI ISSUL NATE [1NLV =DAIL=-SL—'I:F. UN:=VY- % ,i !`/. :; \ 1•is'..i,�r i .1�. ;4 '•� // 't�': .. / /r. .,.,..,. 3 ,. ,• ',� {1 � is r � (; .�:,,. . r �,'"'r,..s'!..:... v ' !((�; Ih" '�/�Al• I ' IYY/•� - PLANS,PREPAREN rNY:— YY" ISPE Lti f.ii�!oA r / ..t 1 .!. n. .. n---w=t II I I , � I --t'r- ---ft...... .-----...__-. n I -' '-I vrer.l ❑nt---- II ' NORIt1 & EA`if \ 1..r .•• •,"...' r .. .. r .rv.�.r n r SLIEL I NUMBER.SNI.VISIGN EAST ELEVATION -- A4 L — -- — =`'I 2 NORTH ELEVATION r _ _-_ - � lA.-SIti • • ' • ' ` • )POSED • •NS FACILITY VerI70nwireless SITE LOCATION # i SITE NAME: FINCH ick in t�r,f3oxt�' 1� 4M+� .,� y( �• SITE ADDRESS: PRICE SELF STORAGE 6599 HAVEN AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, 92596 3 DATE: I, LOCATION rD 6/17/2015 APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS 15505 SAND CANYON AVE. BUILDING D, I ST FLOOR -` 0 92618 • 286-7000• Z � � •J 4d CONTACT: 3 The included Photogloph Sir'lulotion(s) nie intwided as visual only and houlo not be ale subject to chonge. `�' ,y �.-,�7 � r r1+"it` d'+ ..r�L��r��. .r• � l"�,� VerlLnwireless FINCH PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION- VIEW l: LOOKING NORTH N EXISTING-VIEW l: LOOKING NORTH PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF '85 MONOPINE WITH ANTENNA ARRAY, ALONG WITH INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT COMPOUND (LOCATED INSIDE EXISTING STORAGE UNIT ACROSS FROM MONOPINE) AND GENERATOR (NOT VISIBLE). SPECTRUM SPLC,TRUM SERVICES,INC.-4405 EAST AIRPORT DRIVE S1E.100 OMARIO, CA 9116! -A09.456.8401 2/6 I ✓ veriLnwireless FINCH R. PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION VIEW 2: LOOKING EAST PROPOSED MONOPINE _ r r. rD i 3 w " EXISTING-VIEW 2: LOOKING EAST PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF '85 MONOPINE WITH ANTENNA ARRAY, ALONG WITH INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT COMPOUND (LOCATED INSIDE EXISTING STORAGE UNIT ACROSS FROM MONOPINE) AND GENERATOR (NOT VISIBLE). SPECTRUM -I 1WII `.i b'V ICES I,( 4406 FAST AIRPOPI DRIVL Sit.100 J141AR10, C:A 9 16; 909.456.&401 3/6 yeriLnwireless FINCH PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION - VIEW 3: LOOKING SOUTH PROPOSED MONOPINE m 3 0 a EXISTING -VIEW 3: LOOKING SOUTH PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF '85 MONOPINE WITH ANTENNA ARRAY, ALONG WITH INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT COMPOUND (LOCATED INSIDE EXISTING STORAGE UNIT ACROSS FROM MONOPINE) AND GENERATOR (NOT VISIBLE). SPECTRUM tiff CIRUM SERVICES, INC. -4405 FAST AIRPORI JRIVE SIF.IGU ONIAR10,CA 91/61 -909.456.8401 4/6 veriLnwireless FINCH PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION - VIEW 4: LOOKING WEST PROPOSED MONOPINE m \ EXISTING -VIEW 4: LOOKING WEST PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF '85 MONOPINE WITH ANTENNA ARRAY, ALONG WITH INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT COMPOUND (LOCATED INSIDE EXISTING STORAGE UNIT ACROSS FROM MONOPINE) AND GENERATOR (NOT VISIBLE). SPECTRUM SPI('IkUM SHIVICt'S, IPiC. 44061 ASI AIKPOPI D] ]VE sII.100 OfIIAkIU. CA VI/A1 909.456.8401 5/6 veriLnwireless FINCH PHOTOGRAPHIC SIMULATION- VIEW 5: LOOKING NORTHEAST ro bow- EXISTING-VIEW 5: LOOKING NORTHEAST \ PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF '85 MONOPINE WITH ANTENNA ARRAY, ALONG WITH INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT COMPOUND (LOCATED INSIDE EXISTING STORAGE UNIT ACROSS FROM MONOPINE) AND GENERATOR (NOT VISIBLE). SPECTRUM SI'tCTkUM SERVICFS. INC:.-4405 EASI AIRPORI DRIVE,STEAW ONTARIO,CA 91761 -5'09.456.8401 6/6 m Finch_ExistingCoverage a n,St ` s g ■ I B LD V Snsxgrl'PPRIL IAT%45 vapwr Unleull Syue Lair�r'lL114 J-dL' ei rlli 1 inn � C Snvux�, ■_v_mbvWi iu e ■aucuMwv�'':' ■erlerid_rvarl or ■ER diYl�M+y 1 ft N6RY ■ IS AL A LC 14 ■ =d5 ■ =-ns Si'xW 1 Id39J n9ifg�twieiess A,:ryy,�.uls�a+'av^`;'�_. _--_ G.PltlR v66*2 �"'i1 ■ PrWrinW wW CunllGenLul ■ Finch—Cell Coverage ■ - � F o ■ u i sari 041m LIS 16 00 • ■ v ■ v ■ ■ � iY Nyl��l ■ V ■ ■ 9u.W.1 1tlJiJ M@/l�Ilwueless GeoPlun v66.2 PrW^tllmy aM ConlianiiLal m X LTE Coverage - -- Prior to NSB Site CLV2963 W 't . > ; ThorpeCt o Panther I1d.1 \D((bNr ctiignal) Coca St .71dilm Indunr Signal c In A'chicle tiienxl outdoor Signal Q g ,lltol AYe Orange St s g u p� tH9N �J _ ^ CLV3963 q°° m rD + m t 3 Q 11 m Oti U — s Lar m -1 a I 0212Av: Modoc St Mlpflone a St Leftpr { Holry st ` j I ( �� MOMe viYla �� 1 �(ol°SI gfiatt�°`'t La St ne i I La Orande Rt y i SaidDr y. Dr ccutaCilVista Rd PptraiPark y m 0 La Mesa Dr 0 Proposed Macro Site 1 sellne Rd 0 Existing Macro Sites � 08,2014 LTE Coverage — with Site CLV2963 STANDALONE (RAD 61ft) ptd T"q Gt p Panther Dr Shiloh Ct I F(il \Il(( .,nrrnl-e Si"ml) _ a o �i`r � 75il fm IuJui+r>i�nnl /::: i:••: j 'moi �'; c � fliJGm m I \'chicle n E q r Sl yFJRm i h2Jonr�wnal \_._ r I o -- - A -0 . i ;. i n m A E d l port SI c � :I k IpncolAvle > {Orange St + _ Id st t _ -i- --- - n U + Lark 0 IN t MpnonetteSt Ledr9 Dry Victoria S; r +•�• � Monte''ilia 51 La Vine SYS '� I Ban Dr La Grande St y u, Lonvta Dr o to C' vista Rn ':� QptralP an` - m La Mesa Dr 0 L � � O Proposed Macro Site RasPIine Ro Q Existing Macro Sites • ! 3 loll 0. 2014 i i ® THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA cUoNCA MAY 19, 2015 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California i I. CALL TO ORDER ACTION Roll Call 7:00 P.M. Regular Members: Richard Fletcher x Francisco Oaxaca x Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger x ® Alternates: Ray Wimberly_ Frances Howdyshell_ Lou Munoz II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS i The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. i A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216—SPECTRUM SERVICES A. The Committee FOR VERIZON WIRELESS - A request to construct a 70-foot tall co- recommended the locatable monopine wireless communication facility at Price Self Storage project move forward located on the east side of Haven Avenue and south of the 1-210 Freeway to the Planning within the Low (L) Zoning District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at Commission for 6599 Haven Avenue —APN: 1076-331-31. review but with the requirement that the mono-pine have branches of adequate length to screen the antennas. • 1 of 3 EXHIBIT Item D21 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY 19, 2015 _RANCHO CA,4iONGA B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00609-SMARTLINK FOR AT&T B. The Committee - A request to construct a 70-foot tall co-locatable monopine wireless recommended the communication facility at Price Self Storage located on the east side of project move forward Haven Avenue and south of the 1-210 Freeway within the Low(L)Zoning to the Planning District 2-4 dwelling units per acre at 6599 Haven Avenue — Commission for ( 9 P ) review but with the APN: 1076=331-31. requirement that the mono-pine have branches of adequate length to screen the antennas. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00931— C. The Committee DON CLOUGHESY FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONA FIRE PROTECTION recommended the DISTRICT (RCFPD) - A request for site plan and architectural review of a project move forward proposed Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District(RCFPD)training center to the Planning at the existing Jersey RCFPD Station #174 within Medium Impact Heavy Commission for Industrial (MINI) Development District, located at 11297 Jersey Boulevard — review. APN: 0229-111-34. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of the environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT D. The Committee DRC2014-00932 — DON CLOUGHESY FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA recommended the FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT(RCFPD)-A request to operate a Fire Training project move forward Center at an existing Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD) to the Planning Station #174 within the Medium Impact Heavy Industrial (MIHI) Development Commission for District, located at 11297 Jersey Boulevard — APN: 0229-111-34. Staff has review. prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of the environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW E. The Committee DRC2014-01139 — FRITO-LAY- A request to construct a 46,836 square recommended the foot warehouse addition to an existing 430,643 square foot office, project move forward warehouse, and manufacturingfacility on 37.05 acres of land within the to the Planning Y Commission for General Industrial(GI)District, located at the northeast comer of Archibald review. Avenue and Fourth Street-APN: 021007128. Related Files: Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-01135, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-01136. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT F. The Committee DRC2014-01135 — FRITO-LAY - A request to exceed the 75-foot recommended the maximum building height for the construction of a 92-foot high, project move forward .I 46,836 square foot warehouse addition to an existing 430,643 square foot to the Planning q Commission for office,warehouse, and manufacturing facility on 37.05 acres of land within I review. 2 of 3 Item D22 i I DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RaNCHO MAY 19, 2015 �rcnuo�r� the General Industrial (GI) District, located at the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street - APN: 021007128. Related Files: Design Review DRC2014-01139 and Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-01136. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. L:= —1 This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. I I IV. ADJOURNMENT 8:27 P.M. The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Committee. I I ' I i i I . I I I I I I I i i 3 of 3 Item D23 Item D24 • RESOLUTION NO. 15-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO- CARRIER, (AT&T AND VERIZON) CO-LOCATED 85-FOOT TALL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY IN THE FORM OF A PINE TREE AT PRICE SELF STORAGE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF THE 210 FREEWAY WITHIN THE LOW (L) ZONING DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)AT 6599 HAVEN AVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1076- 331-34. A. Recitals. 1. Spectrum Services for Verizon Wireless has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of July, 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. • 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 8, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a 6.13 acre project site which is developed with a self- storage facility; and b. To the north is the 210 Freeway; to the south, east and west are single-family residences within the Low (L) Zoning District; and C. The applicant proposes constructing a co-located 85-foot tall wireless communication facility at Price Self-Storage; and d. The facility will be located at the northeast corner of the site, approximately 55 feet ® from the east property line; and e. The tower will be in the form of a pine tree with the ground mounted equipment for both carriers located within separate storage units adjacent to the tower; and Item D25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-44 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216- SPECTRUM SERVICES July 8, 2015 Page 2 f. The antennas will be mounted 76 feet(Verizon)and 61 feet(AT&T)above ground level. The proposed equipment includes a backup generator, 3 antenna arrays per carrier with 4 antennas per array, a parabolic antenna and related ground mounted support equipment; and g. The facility complies with all requirements of the Development Code including setbacks, ground mounted equipment screening and that the installation have a stealth design.The facility is in the form of a pine tree with each antenna covered with leaf socks and the mounting hardware painted to match the trunk of the facility; and h. Section 17.106.030 of the Development Code requires that wireless communication facilities located within 300 feet of residential structures and/or above the height limit of the district where they are located be co-locatable and be approved by a Conditional Use Permit. 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 use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code, Municipal Code, General Plan, and any applicable Specific Plans or City regulations/standards. The Development Code permits wireless communication facilities to be located within 300 feet of residentially zoned property when approved through a Conditional Use Permit.The project complies with all setback and design requirements set forth in the Development Code. Wireless communication facilities do not have a height restriction when approved by a Conditional Use Permit. The General Plan encourages wireless communication facilities when they are located and designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. In this case the proposed wireless communication facility is in the form of a pine tree with the antennas covered in decorative socks. The project will be partially screened from view from the 210 Freeway by the back side of the storage facility buildings, the 210 Freeway sound wall and pine trees planted along the freeway right-of-way. Additionally, the base of the facility is 8 feet below the existing finished grade on the north side of the freeway sound wall. The facility is also approximately 550 feet from the Haven Avenue right-of-way, which is also planted with pine trees. b. The site is physically suited for the type, density, and intensity of the proposed use including access, utilities, and the absence of physical constraints and can be conditioned to meet all related performance criteria and development standards. The project site is developed with a self- storage facility,the buildings of which back up to the 210 Freeway to the north, Haven Avenue to the west and existing single-family residences to the south and east. These structures will screen the base of the facility from public view.The support equipment for the facility will be located within one of the storage units of the storage facility,which will reduce any noise created by the equipment.Trees along the 210 Freeway and Haven Avenue will further screen the facility from public view.Access to the facility is from an existing entrance to the storage facility along Haven Avenue and the necessary utilities are available on-site. C. Granting the application would not be detrimental to the public, health, safety, morals, or welfare.Wireless communication facilities are required to meet all Federal, State and local regulations covering these types of facilities. Item D26 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-44 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216-SPECTRUM SERVICES FOR VERIZON WIRELESS July 8, 2015 • Page 3 4. Prior to any action being taken on this entitlement, 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 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the installation of new equipment and facilities in small structures. The project is for the construction of an 85-foot tall wireless communication facility along with related ground mounted equipment. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1,2,3,and 4 above,this Commission hereby approves the application, subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the standard conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction and operation of a co-located 85 foot tall wireless communication facility in the form of a pine tree for a site located on the east side of Haven Avenue and south of the 210 Freeway at 6599 Haven Avenue-APN: 1076-331-34. 2) The approval includes the installation of antennas and related • equipment for two carriers with the antennas mounted at 76 (Verizon) and 61 (AT&T) feet above ground level. Each carrier is approved for 3 antenna arrays with 4 antennas per array along with the related ground mounted equipment. 3) The approval includes the installation of single backup generator (Verizon).At time of Building Department plan check,the applicant shall provide a sound study demonstrating that the generator will be compliant with the City's residential noise standards. A masonry wall may be required for sound attenuation based on the noise study. Operation of the generator for test purposes shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily. 4) Additional backup generators and equipment rooms shall require review by the Planning Director. Depending upon the location, quantity, size and proposed design of additional backup generators and equipment rooms, the Planning Director may determine that modification to the Conditional Use Permit is required. 5) Expansion of the wireless communication facility, including but not limited to additional antennas, equipment or additional wireless carriers, will require modification of this Conditional Use Permit. 6) The mono-pine shall have a natural appearance with the branches of • the facility extending a minimum 2 feet beyond the face antennas. The antennas shall be covered in decorative socks with the mounting hardware painted to match the facility. Item D27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-44 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216—SPECTRUM SERVICES FOR VERIZON WIRELESS July 8, 2015 Page 4 7) All equipment mounted to the facility shall be painted to match the color of the branches and trunk of the mono pine, including the cable trays, antennas and mounting hardware. 8) Print a copy of this letter on the plans when they are submitted for Plan Check. 9) The facility shall be maintained at all times; including making necessary repairs as needed, and keeping the site free from trash and debris. In no event shall trash and debris remain for more than 24 hours. 10) Graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours of being noticed. 11) All appurtenant equipment shall be maintained in good condition at all times. 12) No wireless telecommunications facility shall interfere with any public safety radio communications system, including, but not limited to, the 800 MHz trunking system. The applicant shall comply with all FCC rules and regulations regarding the avoidance, mitigation, and abatement of any such interference. 13) The applicant shall obtain all the necessary permits from the Building and Safety Department. 14) Signs or advertising are not permitted on the wireless communication facility except those required by the FCC and other governmental agencies. 15) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Health Department Regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: . Candyce Burnett, Secretary Item D28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-44 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2014-00216-SPECTRUM SERVICES FOR VERIZON WIRELESS July 8, 2015 ® Page 5 1, 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 8th day of July by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item D29 Conditions of Approval H rel— ���� 110 ;AtiONc� Community Development Department Project#: DRC2014-00216 Project Name: Wireless Communication Facility at Price Self Storage Location: 6599 HAVEN AVE - 107633102-0000 Project Type: Conditional Use Permit ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning DeDartment Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans and architectural elevations, on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein. 2. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances 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. 3. 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. 4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 6. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. • Printed:6/15/2015 www.CityofRC.us Item D31 STAFF REPORT -- • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRANCHO DATE: July 8, 2015 UCAMONGA TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896 — AC KAUSHAL — A request for site plan and architectural review of a 1,659 square foot single-family residence with a 506 square foot attached garage on a 3,358 square foot lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Residential Zoning District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. Related Cases: Variance DRC2013-00897, Variance DRC2015-00537 and Minor Exception DRC2015- 00539. 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 as a Class 3 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15303) exemption which covers the construction of one single-family residence. VARIANCE DRC2013-00897 — AC KAUSHAL — A request to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896) on a substandard 25-foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. VARIANCE DRC2015-00537 — AC KAUSHAL — A request to modify the required 2-car side-by-side garage requirement in order to construct a tandem garage related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896) on a substandard 25-foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 - AC KAUSHAL - A request to increase the maximum permitted height of the property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet related to the construction of a single-family residence (Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896) on a substandard 25-foot wide lot located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Residential Development District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896, Variance DRC2013-00897, Variance DRC2015-00537 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00539 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. E,F,G,H 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896, VARIANCE DRC2013-00897, VARIANCE DRC2015- 00537 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL JULY 8, 2015 Page 2 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single-Family Residence; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) South - Single-Family Residence; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - Single-Family Residence; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) West - Single-Family Residence; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential North - Low Residential South - Low Residential East - Low Residential West - Low Residential ANALYSIS: A. Project Proposal: The applicant proposes constructing a 1,659 square foot two-story single- family residence with an attached 506 square foot garage. The project site is a legal lot that is part of a tract of land that was originally subdivided on April 15, 1887 and does not conform to either the current minimum lot size, 7,200 square feet, or the minimum lot width, 65 feet. The lot is 3,358 square feet in size and is 25 feet wide. Two Variances and a Minor Exception are required in order to construct the proposed single-family residence on the project site. Development Code Table 17.36.010-1 (Development Standards for Residential Zoning Districts) permits existing lots of record to be developed at the lowest end of the density range; for this District, is a single-family residence on a lot. The applicant is requesting to reduce the required 10 foot side yard setback to 5 feet on both sides of the house. Without a reduction in the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, a residence on the project site would be limited to being only 10 feet wide. The narrowness of the lot also precludes constructing the required 2-car side-by-side garage (20 feet wide by 20 feet deep) on the lot. The applicant proposes constructing a tandem 2-car garage (12 feet wide by 40 feet deep). Development Code Section 17.46.030 states that tandem garages may not be counted towards required parking. The applicant has submitted a Variance to deviate from the required 2 car side-by-side garage requirement in order to construct a tandem garage. A Minor Exception is also being requested to increase the height of the north, south and east property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet. The increased wall height is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot in order for the site to drain to the public street and storm drain system. The project conforms to all other Development Code requirements including the 35-foot maximum height limit (21 feet proposed), the 37-foot minimum front yard setback (42 feet proposed), the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback (29 feet proposed) and the 40 percent maximum lot coverage (39 percent proposed). The future homeowner, though, will not be able E,F,G,H2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896, VARIANCE DRC2013-00897, VARIANCE DRC2015- 00537 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL • JULY 8, 2015 Page 3 to construct any additional solid roof structures on the site over 13 square feet due to the proposed house being just under the 40 percent maximum lot coverage limit. The residence is designed with a Spanish architectural motif and includes multiple popouts to articulate the wall and roof planes to provide visual interest. The second story is carried over a portion the garage and includes a second story deck with an overhead trellis. The front door is on the side of the house due to the narrowness of the lot. B. Variance (Side Yard Setback): The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a single-family residence on the legal nonconforming lot. The project site is 25 feet wide, 40 feet deficient of meeting the 65-foot required lot width in the Low (L) Zoning District. The findings of fact below support the necessary findings, which are required by the City's Development Code: Finding: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. Fact: Without the reduction in the 10-foot side yard setback requirement, the applicant would be limited to constructing a 10-foot wide house, which is much narrower than other single-family residences in the same zoning district and in the surrounding area. • Finding: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Fact: The substandard project site is a legal lot of record that was subdivided on April 15, 1887 and is 25 feet wide, which is 40 feet narrower than the minimum lot width requirement in the Low (L) Zoning District and is narrower than the lots in the surrounding area. Finding: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Fact: Without a reduction in-the 10-foot side yard setback requirement, the applicant would be limited to constructing a 10-foot wide single-family residence, which would deprive the applicant from constructing a house of similar width and functionality to those in the same zone. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Fact: It is common practice to grant a Variance for a reduction in a development standard where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria. In this case, the width of the project site, which is a legal lot of record, is 40 feet narrower than the minimum low width requirement for single-family lots in the same zoning district. The Variance will permit the applicant to construct a single-family residence that is of similar design to those in the same • zoning district and in the surrounding area. Finding. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. E,F,G,H3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896, VARIANCE DRC2013-00897, VARIANCE DRC2015- 00537 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL JULY 8, 2015 Page 4 Fact: The Variance will not negatively impact the properties in the surrounding area as the reduction in side yard setback will permit the applicant to construct a single-family residence that is of similar design and size to those in the same zoning district and in the surrounding area. The residence on the project site will not adversely impact the value of the surrounding properties as it was designed to blend in with and become an integral part of the neighborhood. C. Variance (2 Car Garage): The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the Development Code requirement that single-family residences provide a 2-car side-by-side garage. The narrowness of the lot precludes constructing the required side-by-side garage. The applicant proposes constructing a 2-car tandem garage to meet the minimum parking requirement. The findings of fact below support the necessary findings, which are required by the City's Development Code: Finding: Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. Fact: Without a deviation from the 2-car side-by-side garage parking requirement, the applicant would not be permitted to construct a single-family residence on the project site. Finding: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Fact: The substandard project site is a legal lot of record that is 25 feet wide, which is 40 feet narrower than the minimum lot width requirement in the Low (L) Zoning District and is narrower than, existing lots in the surrounding area. Findin : Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Fact: Without a deviation from the 2-car side-by-side garage parking requirement, the applicant would not be permitted to construct a single-family residence on the project site, which is a permitted use in the Low (L) Zoning District. . Finding: The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Fact: It is common practice to grant Variances for a reduction in a development standards where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria In this case, the width of the project site, which is a legal lot of record, is 40 feet narrower than the minimum low width requirement for single-family lots in the same zoning district. The Variance will permit the applicant to construct a single-family residence that is of similar size to those in the surrounding area with a 2-car tandem garage, rather than the required 2-car side-by-side garage. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. E,F,G,H4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896, VARIANCE DRC2013-00897, VARIANCE DRC2015- 00537 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL • July 8, 2015 Page 5 Fact: The Variance will not negatively impact the properties in the surrounding area as the proposed single-family residence will have adequate area (12 feet wide by 40 feet deep) in a garage to park 2 vehicles, in accordance with the Development Code requirement that single- family residences provide 2 parking spaces within an enclosed garage. In this case, the spaces will be in a tandem configuration rather than in a side-by-side garage configuration. D. Minor Exception (Wall Height): The applicant is requesting a Minor Exception to increase the maximum permitted height of the north, south and east property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet in order for the project site to drain to the public street and the storm drain system. The findings of fact below support the necessary findings, which are required by the City's Development Code: Finding: The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or Development Agreement. Fact: The proposed increase in property line wall height is necessary for the subject lot to drain to the public street and is consistent with the residential nature of the Low (L) Development District in which the site is located. The new combination wall consists of an up to a 4-foot high retaining wall topped by a 6-foot high free standing wall. The additional wall height will provide a 6-foot high screen wall between the neighboring lots, as measured from the high side of the wall. The Development Code requires 6-foot high walls between adjacent residential lots for • screening purposes. Finding: The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. Fact: The Minor Exception for wall height is related to the construction of a single-family residence on the project site, which is surrounded by single-family development to the north, south, east and west. Finding: The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. Fact: The subject legal nonconforming lot is 40 feet deficient from complying with the minimum 65-foot lot width requirement in the Low (L) residential zoning district. The increased wall height is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot in order for the site to drain to the public street and storm drain system. Finding: The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: It is common practice to grant a Minor Exception for an increase in property line wall height ® where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria. The natural flow of storm water runoff on the subject lot is from west to east, away from the public street. In order for the lot to drain to the public street and storm drain system, it is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot, which necessitates the construction of a retaining wall up to 4-feet high. E,F,G,H5 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896, VARIANCE DRC2013-00897, VARIANCE DRC2015- 00537 and MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 6 E. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Oaxaca, Fletcher, Granger) on September 30, 2014. The Committee supported the proposed Variances for side yard setback and for the tandem garage. The Committee did recommend that the applicant lower the height of the building pad in order to reduce the necessity for 9-foot high property line walls. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission once the wall height issue was resolved to Staff's satisfaction. The applicant has since redesigned the on-site grading to reduce the maximum property line wall heights to 8 feet. F. Technical Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Technical Review Committee on September 30, 2014. The Committee approved the project.as presented. G. Environmental Assessment: The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the construction of single-family residences. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence on an existing lot. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB-TV/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Complete Set of Plans Exhibit B - Design Review Committee Action Agenda for September 30, 2014 Resolution of Approval for Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896 Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2013-00897 Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2015-00537 Resolution of Approval for Minor Exception DRC2015-00539 E,F,G,H6 m • • • I mn � -------- CENTER S� - 11k;:IIAIrJ.1k'I" Nt 11N I I i;!;lII --. -. _. t - - -_--------- - - :ea::rr:._.:u..0 .::.:.un,• I5 uw -- •- '� i—-- // .. __._ —_.__ 29TH$T )ED L LLL 1i�1 - - HUMHUL t AVE .0 •`III awiu i.�:m er,.�.., ,,. ..u, "'�. J �l 10 VIC"IY MAP fF1fF WAY I11 I1 1 r!e•�' n�ro�W " SIDS y..11JF(`�UO•u W l e 1 •I t[� i) UJI ,1.�a •1'li...I tr..:,.�. , ,lar -. 1 . AA – ,. , - LO] AREA: 3358 SO f= ,,, w:..:,_ ".w:. r .....w.r E FOOTPRINT 1316 SF —n '� LOT COVERAGE 39% la_. I L1 --- - — — v APN 0209123050000 1 d 1-01 5 L -Nl/H 1:63 Atli I I PIN A:LLY VAC P1lJ I I LA!Y Ik.4t Q (1 I I l CMM.Y:N16,W.1_A V1765 U I I t yI I I y11-1•L At. O I I ..t I •• �.• i r,f'� 12 li7f•:xiir;.r•Hi At11 GkNUF.� Q i 2 f:L(YD9.PIAN Art)ELEVA T.CA1S l0 U I I- D' I •.I it 3U),EI-I:VA 110ti rn � CD ti ` �--•�T'-J-�. I 1 I :N)I'II COR Al IUOJ 7 I I U 10TAL LIVdJ_%.44YA V,/5ti „l Z 'AiiAi-A .`I.)6 5- 04 kx O Q Z =n• Z i ....,....... — J I U ' ANw SITE PLAN ' Q ' — — ' ___-'--- -- ---_''_-_ -_- --_'_----- _--_--- _ '----_-----_-_---_------_-__--_ __----_-'-_---'-_------ _----_ / ' ! � | ~~=°� � | LCT 1 . . . | _ | � �UHLILI i ����=~ ' � � | i == � ` UJI ---- ' � / BEDROOM | } REAR ELEVATION� | ! | �n - � | --------- ' °""" | ' . / ! | EDROOM bl.LU u^ | N' CLAi 4 wv | � | � A34 WY | / � D13LI IRF1.LIS FFAIVIS BJ LL 61 1-1 UUIR � . 1IN 1. -1 11-41 --' ` � 2K FRONT E -E\ \T|' ]N FLOOR { ^ .. " | ' PLAN -.~ 1 ��l- FLOOR PLAN ���urr | - / .� / / �-�/��/ � / �-r�| x / / | ="'~"'°''^" | ��-| 2 | IT q–c PM SIV.Lr)UN X'- 1�I I / I I �• !��I (l11 •.c 1 ULLL—��-0' ® LL T I 1 UMI(AU'l.c 1 U.NA 1 I11 - SIttiCO NC11: , r r cul 'o -o u' o�•o P' � � - -o q v v o v IL') M I ! i E LLLLLi (C[I rr u1y Sr 1117 fu�1 (1 NORTH ELEVATION IIIG.O2( ,RAIN= S..NFIN:n aFi VN L1L(ORAINI. I( LLl SUPPORT !� , RRA(-KL T WOOD - -- r r. I A. !A IYi YAh!IIA12:IH11M1 OAIM:Ai VArNN!AI I ob, .i - - - _ -- --- - -I- -___ OK. __O., —� T> I OI 1L_. Ll. 11. II L1 Ll V J y' - —- — ._ L _ ...1 i.— g•'p II.Lt.L15 If!,1tv,` if"Jll I nnI ► i hxv.) til F ;® kms _ I ml _I A�3. II 11181 1 ,----- -�� I I- 111/ Ilk,( _L URALC---"- Ilk).O cG SOUTH ELEVATIONNI!�x.,- ' !:1 --- -_---_ _-------=------ _ i a /� •I � r holt r I I ' _ 1 ul IU .�: • I I HUI:L i I y-\ \ 1 r_AViI.F.'hk rfi:MAM i< W —,cm,LKk XWU 1 - . •N.1� C)' Pi AN - - 'I. . i ------------- )kATIVF R i ANE)/•uru. 1 Fl o r, I)F-C(. F-AM SIFI,ORT L� - -- I 3 ' �__'--_----_.�---_ __'_—_�--__-----_--- '----� —_' _--_--'_---___—_ _—_' ---_— �_—___�—__ '-----_____—_' -------'—_--_�_---- _'----' 31 �_~����� ~ LU "�°," ""° .^. .�""."°. .�^ ' � '�" ` �����������������11 (>C:..,," . =°^"°~~ "=�� . ~=~�°� ~"" "��"° " =�"..�"". .°~ °..= ° . = ' .��,°.^~=-=~°` ° ,�~`^. ^14 ill, ^ = ~=~.^",^.= °"^ !0ALL VAI^IS S�lAj' ill:°ASHED AIN`"Al~ """ ~'"^. tcl 1-1 ^ . .~~°=~ "°-° ^.~. "-",�" °°"°" ~` � � �_� ~"C=ES " Al'.�"L,�U -iAk—LIS :All 1-^"= =~ = IME ^= " "~B.'=OF nj . || | 11 I,d �_l .. IV ! | | � | — � ' |� [)/lL' []LA k [ / ` ' �'/ / � ~"LC*MCI- '" _____ ----_----_ ® THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RAN C 10 MAW GA SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER ACTION Roll Callj 7:00 p.m. Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca X Candyce Burnett _ Donald Granger X Alternates: Ray Wimberly_ Frances Howdyshell ® — I Lou Munoz IL i II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 1 20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. A. SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2013-00896 –AC KAUSHAL - Site A. Approved. with the plan and architectural review of a 1,659 square foot single-family recommendation to i i residence with a 506 square foot garage on a 3,358 square foot lot on the tower the pad east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street within the Low L to height satinf the house to the satisfaction �. Residential Development District, located at 8855 Center Avenue - of the staff. APN: 0209-123-05. Related case: Variance DRC2013-00897. Continued from September 2, 2014, DRC meeting. i i 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B E,F,G,H13 DESIGN REVIEW! COMMITTEE AGENDA J SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 RANCHO i CliCAMONGA 111. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. i IV. ADJOURNMENT 7:27p.m. The Design Review Committee has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with i the consent of the Committee. i I i I i I I i i I i i I i � I 2 of 2 E,F,G,H 14 RESOLUTION NO. 15-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013- 00896, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 1,659 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 506 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE ON A 3,358 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE AND SOUTH OF 24TH STREET IN THE LOW(L) RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT(2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AT 8855 CENTER AVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF— APN: 0209-123-05. A. Recitals. 1. AC Kaushal filed an application for the approval of Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Design Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of July 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. ® NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 8, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Zoning District; and south; and b. The project site is approximately 125 feet from east to west and 25 feet from north to C. To the north, south, east and west is single-family development within the Low(L)Zoning District; and d. The applicant proposes constructing a 1,659 square foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 506 square foot tandem garage on a 3,358 square foot lot; and e. The project site is a legal lot that is part of a tract of land that was originally subdivided on April 15, 1887 and does not conform to either the current minimum lot size, 7,200 square feet, or the • minimum lot width, 65 feet. The lot is 3,358 square feet in size and is 25 feet wide; and E,F,G,H 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-45 MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 2 f. Two Variances and a minor exception are required in order to construct the proposed single-family residence on the project site; and g. A Variance is being requested to reduce the required 10-foot side yard setback to 5 feet on both sides of the house.Without a reduction in the 10-foot side yard setback requirement, a residence on the project site would be limited to being only 10 feet wide; and h. A Variance is being requested to deviate from the 2-car, side-by-side garage paring requirement in order to construct a tandem garage. The narrowness of the lot precludes constructing the required side-by-side 2 car garage on the lot. Development Code Section 17.46.030 states that tandem garages may not be counted towards required parking; and i. A Minor Exception is also being requested to increase the height of the north, south and east property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet. The increased wall height is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot in order for the site to drain to the public street and storm drain system; and j. The project conforms to all other Development Code requirements including the 35-foot maximum height limit(21 feet proposed), the 37-foot minimum front yard setback(42 feet proposed),the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback (29 feet proposed) and the 40 percent maximum lot coverage (39 percent proposed). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed single-family residence is consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the project site which is for the development of up to 4 dwelling units per acre. b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and purposes of the district in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Low(L)Development District which is designated for the development of one single-family residence on a lot. The project is for the development of a single-family residence on a legal lot. C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The non-conforming project site requires the approval of 2 Variances and A Minor Exception to develop the proposed single-family residence. The project site does not conform to the minimum lot size or lot width as prescribed by the Development Code. Variances are being requested to reduce the required side yard setback and to construct a tandem garage rather than the required 2-car side-by-side garage.A Minor Exception is also required to increase the permitted property line wall heights in order for the project to drain to the public street and storm drain system. The project complies with all other Development Code requirements including setbacks, height limitations and lot coverage. d. The proposed use,together with the conditions applicable thereto,will not be detrimental to the public health safety and welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity. The project is for the development of a single-family residence on a residentially zoned lot.The proposed single-family residence is designed to blend in with the surrounding single-family residential development and should not negatively impact the public health, safety or welfare. 4. Prior to any action being taken on this entitlement, the Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental E,F,G,H16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-45 MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 3 • Quality Act(CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303,which covers the construction of one single-family residence. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence on an existing lot. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the 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 attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the construction of a 1,659 square foot two-story single-family residence with an attached 506 square foot tandem garage for a site located at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. 2) Approval is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of a Variance DRC2013-00897, Variance DRC2015-00537 and Minor Exception DRC2015- 00539. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. • 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify P to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: E,F,G,H 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-45 MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 4 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E,F,G,H 18 Conditions of Approval j�LNCI o rrnMoN;CA Community Development Department Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE -020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. • 3. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 4. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 5. 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. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community. Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 8. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations. exterior materials and colors, landscaping and grading on file in the Planning Department. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. For residential development. return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. • Pr:n!ed: vwAv.CltyofRC.us E,F,G,H 19 Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE -020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: 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. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: Development Impact Fees: (The City's Development Impact Fees have been modified. Value of cost of the impact fees will be dependent upon issuance of the building permit; prices subject to change) Standard Conditions of Approval 3. Permits shall be obtained from Engineering Services Department for work within the right of way: 4. Center Ave improvements to be in accordance with City "Collector' standards as required and including: a. Protect or replace existing curb &gutter, sidewalk, and drive approach b. Protect and replace existing traffic signing and striping as required c. Provide one (1) 5800 Lumen HPSV equivalent LED street light on the south property line. 5. Excess ROW Vacation shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets. (Applicable processing fees- street vacation) 10' vacate excess ROW on Center Avenue Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 2. A separate Grading and. Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped. and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 3. This application for storm water quality management plan purposes is considered a non-priority project. Therefore, prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall file a Non-Priority Water Quality Management Plan with the Building and Safety Department. The applicant may contact Matthew Addington, Associate Engineer, at (909)477-2710, extension 4202. 4. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. www.CityofRC.us ?rimed:5115120 i 5 ?age 2 cf 3 E,F,G,H2O Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE - 020912305-0000 • Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading ROJECT:Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 5. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 7. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 8. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 9. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 10. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits 11. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading • requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector: b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation: ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit: iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. If more than 5.000 square feet of combined asphalt concrete and PCC parking and driveway surface area are removed and replaced, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required for this project. Contact the Building and Safety Department for additional direction/information. 13. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 14. A drainage study showing a 100-year; AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. ?rimed:6!1512015 vw v.CityofRC.us ?age 3 of 3 E,F,G,H21 RESOLUTION NO. 15-46 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2013-00897, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 5 FEET RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE(MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896)ON A SUBSTANDARD 25-FOOT WIDE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE AND SOUTH OF 24TH STREET IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT(2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE)AT 8855 CENTER AVENUE;AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0209-123-05. A. Recitals. 1. AC Kaushal filed an application for the approval of Variance DRC2013-00897 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of July 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A,of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 8, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Zoning District; and south; and b. The project site is approximately 125 feet from east to west and 25 feet from north to C. To the north, south,east and west is single-family development within the Low(L)Zoning District; and d. The applicant proposes constructing a 1,659 square foot two-story single-family residence with an attached 506 square foot tandem garage on a 3,358 square foot lot; and e. The project site is a legal lot that is part of a tract of land that was originally subdivided on April 15, 1887 and does not conform to either the current minimum lot size, 7,200 square feet, or the • minimum lot width, 65 feet. The lot is 3,358 square feet in size and is 25 feet wide; and E,F,G,H23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-46 VARIANCE DRC2014-00897 AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 2 f. Two Variances and a minor exception are required in order to construct the proposed single-family residence on the project site; and g. A Variance is being requested to reduce the required 10 foot side yard setback to 5 feet on both sides of the house.Without a reduction in the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, a residence on the project site would be limited to being only 10 feet wide; and h. A Variance is being requested to deviate from the 2-car side-by-side garage paring requirement in order to construct a tandem garage. The narrowness of the lot precludes constructing the required side-by-side2-car garage on the lot. Development Code Section 17.46.030 states that tandem garages may not be counted towards required parking; and i. A Minor Exception is also being requested to increase the height of the north, south and east property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet. The increased wall height is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot in order for the site to drain to the public street and storm drain system; and j. The project conforms to all other Development Code requirements including the 35-foot maximum height limit(21 feet proposed), the 37-foot minimum front yard setback (42 feet proposed),the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback (29 feet proposed) and the 40 percent maximum lot coverage (39 percent proposed). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a difficulty_or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. Without the reduction in the 10-foot side yard setback requirement,the applicant would be limited to constructing a 10- foot wide house, which is much narrower than other single-family residences in the same zoning district and in the surrounding area. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The substandard project site is a legal lot of record that was subdivided on April 15, 1887 and is 25 feet wide, which is 40 feet narrower than the minimum lot width requirement in the Low (L) Zoning District and is narrower than the lots in the surrounding area. C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone.Without a reduction in the 10-foot side yard setback requirement,the applicant would be limited to constructing a 10- foot wide single-family residence, which would be deprive the applicant from constructing a house of similar width and functionality to those in the same zone. d. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. It is common practice to grant a Variances for a reduction in a development standard where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria. In this case, the width of the project site, which is a legal lot of record, is 40 feet narrower than the minimum low width requirement for single-family lots in the same zoning district. The Variance will permit the applicant to construct a single-family residence that is of similar design to those in the same zoning district and in the surrounding area. E,F,G,H24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-46 VARIANCE DRC2014-00897 AC KAUSHAL • July 8, 2015 Page 3 e. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Variance will not negatively impact the properties in the surrounding area as the reduction in side yard setback will permit the applicant to construct a single-family residence that is of similar design and size to those in the same zoning district and in the surrounding area. The residence on the project site will not adversely impact the value of the surrounding properties as it was designed to blend in with and become an integral part of the neighborhood. 4. Prior to any action being taken on this entitlement, 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 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303,which covers the construction of one single-family residence. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence on an existing lot. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department ® 1) Approval is for a Variance to reduce the required side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet in order to construct a single-family residence at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. 2) Approval is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896, Variance DRC2015-00537 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00539. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary E,F,G,H25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-46 VARIANCE DRC2014-00897 AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 4 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E,F,G,H26 Conditions of Approval Rv, :C?:o Community Development Department Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE - 020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance. Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. • 3. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of 850.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 4. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 5. 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. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence. durability, and design consistency. 8. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans. architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping and grading on file in the Planning Department. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. ?nnted 6,15.2:15 wwV.CltyofRC.us E,F,G,H27 Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE -020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: 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. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: Development Impact Fees: (The City's Development Impact Fees have been modified. Value of cost of the impact fees will be dependent upon issuance of the building permit: prices subject to change) Standard Conditions of Approval 3. Permits shall be obtained from Engineering Services Department for work within the right of way: 4. Center Ave improvements to be in accordance with City "Collector" standards as required and including. a. Protect or replace existing curb &gutter, sidewalk, and drive approach b. Protect and replace existing traffic signing and striping as required c. Provide one (1) 5800 Lumen HPSV equivalent LED street light on the south property line. 5. Excess ROW Vacation shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets. (Applicable processing fees- street vacation) 10' vacate excess ROW on Center Avenue Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 2. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 3. This application for storm water quality management plan purposes is considered a non-priority project. Therefore, prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall file a Non-Priority Water Quality Management Plan with the Building and Safety Department. The applicant may contact Matthew Addington, Associate Engineer, at(909)477-2710, extension 4202. 4. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. ?rimed.611512015 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 3 E,F,G,H28 Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE -020912305-0000 • Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 5. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 7. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 8. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 9. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 10. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits 11. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project ® owner/representative. the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading; the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. If more than 5,000 square feet of combined asphalt concrete and PCC parking and driveway surface area are removed and replaced, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required for this project. Contact the Building and Safety Department for additional direction/information. 13. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 14. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. • Orirted 3115,2015 vAvw.CityofRC.us Page 3of3 E,F,G,H29 E,F,G,H30 RESOLUTION NO. 15-47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2015-00537, A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE REQUIRED 2-CAR SIDE-BY-SIDE GARAGE REQUIREMENT IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TANDEM GARAGE RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE(MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896) ON A SUBSTANDARD 25-FOOT WIDE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE AND SOUTH OF 24TH STREET IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AT 8855 CENTER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0209-123-05. A. Recitals. 1. AC Kaushal filed an application for the approval of Variance DRC2015-00537 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of July 2015, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. • NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 8, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Zoning District; and south; and b. The project site is approximately 125 feet from east to west and 25 feet from north to C. To the north, south, east and west is single-family development within the Low(L)Zoning District; and d. The applicant proposes constructing a 1,659 square foot two-story single-family residence with an attached 506 square foot tandem garage on a 3,358 square foot lot; and e. The project site is a legal lot that is part of a tract of land that was originally subdivided on • April 15, 1887 and does not conform to either the current minimum lot size, 7,200 square feet, or the minimum lot width, 65 feet. The lot is 3,358 square feet in size and is 25 feet wide; and E,F,G,H31 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-47 VARIANCE DRC2015-00537 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 2 f. Two Variances and a minor exception are required in order to construct the proposed single-family residence on the project site; and g. A Variance is being requested to reduce the required 10-foot side yard setback to 5 feet on both sides of the house.Without a reduction in the 10-foot side yard setback requirement, a residence on the project site would be limited to being only 10 feet wide; and h. A Variance is being requested to deviate from the 2 car side-by-side garage paring requirement in order to construct a tandem garage. The narrowness of the lot precludes constructing the required side-by-side 2-car garage on the lot. Development Code Section 17.46.030 states that tandem garages may not be counted towards required parking; and i. A Minor Exception is also being requested to increase the height of the north, south and east property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet. The increased wall height is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot in order for the site to drain to the public street and storm drain system; and j. The project conforms to all other Development Code requirements including the 35-foot maximum height limit(21 feet proposed), the 37-foot minimum front yard setback (42 feet proposed),the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback (29 feet proposed) and the 40 percent maximum lot coverage (39 percent proposed). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Code. Without a deviation from the 2 car side-by-side garage parking requirement,the applicant would not be permitted to construct a single-family residence on the project site. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The substandard project site is a legal lot of record that is 25 feet wide, which is 40 feet narrower than the minimum lot width requirement in the Low (L) Zoning District and is narrower than existing lots in the surrounding area. C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Without a deviation from the 2 car side-by-side garage parking requirement,the applicant would not be permitted to construct a single-family residence on the project site, which is a permitted use in the Low (L) Zoning District. d. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. It is common practice to grant Variances for a reduction in a development standards where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria In this case, the width of the project site, which is a legal lot of record, is 40 feet narrower than the minimum low width requirement for single-family lots in the same zoning district. The Variance will permit the applicant to construct a single-family residence that is of similar size to those in the surrounding area with a 2 car tandem garage, rather than the required 2 car side-by-side garage. E,F,G,H32 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-47 VARIANCE DRC2015-00537 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 3 • e. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to theublic health safety,y, or welfare a fare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Variance will not negatively impact the properties in the surrounding area as the proposed single-family residence will have adequate area (12 feet wide by 40 feet deep) in a garage to park 2 vehicles, in accordance with the Development Code requirement that single-family residences provide 2 parking space within an enclosed garage. In this case, the spaces will be in a tandem configuration rather than in a side-by-side garage configuration. 4. Prior to any action being taken on this entitlement, 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 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the construction of one single-family residence. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence on an existing lot. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for a Variance to reduce the required 2-car side-by-side parking • requirement to construct a tandem garage related to the construction of a single- family residence at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. 2) Approval is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896, Variance DRC2013-00897 and Minor Exception DRC2015-00539. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary E,F,G,H33 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-47 VARIANCE DRC2015-00537 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 4 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E,F,G,H34 Conditions of Approval .Le R„ci:o i;cAMO IN Community Development Department Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE -020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception; Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents. officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. • 3. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of 650.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 4. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 5. 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. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence, durability, and design consistency. 8. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans. architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping and grading on file in the Planning Department. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association. or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. • ?rir!ed: wvAv.CltyorRC.US E,F,G,H35 Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE - 020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: 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. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: Development Impact Fees: (The City's Development Impact Fees have been modified. Value of cost of the impact fees will be dependent upon issuance of the building permit; prices subject to change) Standard Conditions of Approval 3. Permits shall be obtained from Engineering Services Department for work within the right of way: 4. Center Ave improvements to be in accordance with City "Collector" standards as required and including: a. Protect or replace existing curb &gutter, sidewalk, and drive approach b. Protect and replace existing traffic signing and striping as required c. -Provide one (1) 5800 Lumen HPSV equivalent LED street light on the south property line. 5. Excess ROW Vacation shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets. (Applicable processing fees-street vacation) 10' vacate excess ROW on Center Avenue Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 2. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 3. This application for storm water quality management plan purposes is considered a non-priority project. Therefore, prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall file a Non-Priority Water Quality Management Plan with the Building and Safety Department. The applicant may contact Matthew Addington, Associate Engineer, at (909)477-2710, extension 4202. 4. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. www.Ci ofRC.us Printed:5/15x20'S � fY ?age 2 of 3 E,F,G,H36 Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE - 020912305-0000 • Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 5. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 7. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 8. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 9. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 10. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits 11. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project • owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector: b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit: iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. If more than 5.000 square feet of combined asphalt concrete and PCC parking and driveway surface area are removed and replaced. a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required for this project. Contact the Building and Safety Department for additional direction/information. 13. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review, that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 14. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. • Printed 5/15i2015 www-Clh/ofRC.us Page 3 of 3 E,F,G,H37 E,F,G,H38 RESOLUTION NO. 15-48 • A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CALIFORNIA,APPROVING MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539, A REQUEST TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT OF THE PROPERTY LINE WALLS FROM 6 FEET TO 8 FEET RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2013-00896) ON A SUBSTANDARD 25 FOOT WIDE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTER AVENUE AND SOUTH OF 24TH STREET IN THE LOW (L) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AT 8855 CENTER AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 0209-123-05. A. Recitals. 1. AC Kaushal filed an application for the approval of Minor Exception DRC2015-00539 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Exception request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 8th day of July 2015,the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. • B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on July 8, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to a property located on the east side of Center Avenue and south of 24th Street in the Low (L) Zoning District; and b. The project site is approximately 125 feet from east to west and 25 feet from north to south; and C. To the north, south, east and west is single-family development within the Low (L) Zoning District; and d. The applicant proposes constructing a 1,659 square foot two-story single-family residence with an attached 506 square foot tandem garage on a 3,358 square foot lot; and e. The project site is a legal lot that is part of a tract of land that was originally subdivided on April 15, 1887 and does not conform to either the current minimum lot size, 7,200 E,F,G,H39 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-48 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 2 square feet, or the minimum lot width, 65 feet. The lot is 3,358 square feet in size and is 25 feet wide; and f. Two Variances and a minor exception are required in order to construct the proposed single-family residence on the project site; and g. A Variance is being requested to reduce the required 10 foot side yard setback to 5 feet on both sides of the house. Without a reduction in the 10 foot side yard setback requirement, a residence on the project site would be limited to being only 10 feet wide; and h. A Variance is being requested to deviate from the 2 car side-by-side garage paring requirement in order to construct a tandem garage. The narrowness of the lot precludes constructing the required side-by-side 2 car garage on the lot. Development Code Section 17.46.030 states that tandem garages may not be counted towards required parking; and i. A Minor Exception is also being requested to increase the height of the north,south and east property line walls from 6 feet to 8 feet. The increased wall height is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot in order for the site to drain to the public street and storm drain system; and j. The project conforms to all other Development Code requirements including the 35- foot maximum height limit (21 feet proposed), the 37-foot minimum front yard setback (42 feet proposed),the 20-foot minimum rear yard setback(29 feet proposed)and the 40 percent maximum lot coverage (39 percent proposed). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Minor Exception is consistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan or Development Agreement. The proposed increase in property line wall height is necessary to have the subject lot to drain to the public street and is consistent with the residential nature of the Low(L) Development District in which the site is located. The new combination wall consists of an up to 4-foot high retaining wall topped by a 6-foot high free standing wall. The additional wall height will provide a 6-foot high screen wall between the neighboring lots, as measured from the high side of the wall. The Development Code requires 6-foot high walls between adjacent residential lots for screening purposes. b. The proposed development is compatible with existing and proposed land uses in the surrounding area. The Minor Exception for wall height is related to the construction of a single- family residence on the project site,which is surrounded by single-family development to the north, south, east and west. C. The proposed exception to the specific development standard(s) is necessary to allow creative design solutions compatible with the desires of the community and/or to accommodate unique site conditions. The subject legal, nonconforming lot is 40 foot deficient from complying with the minimum 65-foot lot width requirement in the Low(L) Residential Zoning District. The increased wall height is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot in order for the site to drain to the public street and storm drain system. d. The granting of the Minor Exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, and will not be E,F,G,H40 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-48 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 3 detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious properties or improvements in the vicinity. It is common practice to grant a Minor Exception for an increase in property line wall height where there is a physical limitation restricting compliance with that criteria.The natural flow of storm water runoff on the subject lot is from west to east, away from the public street. In order for the lot to drain to the public street and storm drain system, it is necessary to raise the eastern portion of the lot, which necessitate the construction of an up to 4-foot high retaining wall. 4. Prior to any action being taken on this entitlement, 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 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the construction of one single-family residence. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence on an existing lot. Staff concludes that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the 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 attached standard conditions incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department • 1) Approval is for a Minor Exception to increase the property line wall heights for 6 feet to 8 feet related to the construction of a single-family residence at 8855 Center Avenue; APN: 0209-123-05. 2) Approval is contingent upon Planning Commission approval of Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896,Variance DRC2013-00897 and Variance DRC2015-00537. 3) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with any sections of the Development Code, State Fire Marshal's regulations, Uniform Building Code, or any other City Ordinances. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman • ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary E,F,G,H41 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-48 MINOR EXCEPTION DRC2015-00539 -AC KAUSHAL July 8, 2015 Page 4 I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of July 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: E,F,G,H42 Conditions of Approval RLN'Cf io ucf kIfON6k Community Development Department Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE -020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers. or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. 2. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 3. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of 850.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 4. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. 5. 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. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community. Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. 7. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines), rather than wood fencing for permanence. durability, and design consistency. 8. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping and grading on file in the Planning Department. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 10. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. • Printed.3!'5:20.5 www.CltyofRC.us E,F,G,H43 Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE - 020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: 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. Please be advised of the following Engineering Special Condition: Development Impact Fees: (The City's Development Impact Fees have been modified. Value of cost of the impact fees will be dependent upon issuance of the building permit; prices subject to change) Standard Conditions of Approval 3. Permits shall be obtained from Engineering Services Department for work within the right of way: 4. Center Ave improvements to be in accordance with City "Collector" standards as required and including: a. Protect or replace existing curb &gutter, sidewalk, and drive approach b. Protect and replace existing traffic signing and striping as required c. Provide one (1) 5800 Lumen HPSV equivalent LED street light on the south property line. 5. Excess ROW Vacation shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets. (Applicable processing fees-street vacation) 10' vacate excess ROW on Center Avenue Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall on property line or provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 2. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared. stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer. 3. This application for storm water quality management plan purposes is considered a non-priority project. Therefore, prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall file a Non-Priority Water Quality Management Plan with the Building and Safety Department. The applicant may contact Matthew Addington. Associate Engineer, at (909) 477-2710,extension 4202. 4. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 3 Printed.6115"2015 E,F,G,H44 Project#: DRC2013-00896 DRC2013-00897, DRC2015-00537, DRC2015-00539 Project Name: Center Street SFR Location: 8855 CENTER AVE - 020912305-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Minor Exception, Variance, Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 5. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off-site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 7. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. S. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 9. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 10. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits 11. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre-grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project • owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre-grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over-excavation; ii) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit: iii) At the completion of Rough Grading. the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Building and Safety Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. 12. If more than 5.000 square feet of combined asphalt concrete and PCC parking and driveway surface area are removed and replaced, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required for this project. Contact the Building and Safety Department for additional direction/information. 13. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review. that plan shall be a separate plan/permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 14. A drainage study showing a 100-year. AMC 3 design storm event for on-site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Official for review and approval for on-site storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. Printed:3!?5!2015 www CityofRC us Page 3 of 3 E,F,G,H45 E,F,G,H 46 d2� Planning Commission Meeting of, , 2015 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-IN SHEET Please print your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding. Thank you. NAME ADDRESS CITY ITEM 1. 2. �r 7 $;C Q s%�?kaa /ZG. 3. t3lg( d� 1- "& E �— 5. J!e Se f,e)a 65U Vnb�do C_ �b 6. L 14 �� a 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20: 21. 22. 23. 24. Conditions of Approval CujCCHO nMON cn Community Development Department Project#: SUBTPM19614 Project Name: Chino Central Development, Inc. Location: 8797 ROCHESTER AVE -022912152-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Approval is to subdivide an existing 80,325 square foot industrial building into four (4) individual suites for condominium purposes for property located on the east side of Rochester Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Jersey Court at 8797 Rochester Avenue—APN: 0229-121-52. Standard Conditions of Approval 2. The site shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include the Tentative Parcel Map on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. 3. 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. 4. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter and Conditions of Approval shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Exemption fee in the amount of $50.00. All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing or within 5 days of the date of project approval. 6. Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The final parcel map shall be submitted for review and approval. Plan check fees will be required and determined at the time of submittal. 2. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC & R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map. 3. A good faith effort shall be made by the applicant to provide a reciprocal parking agreement for all parcels within Parcel Map 12121 prior to, or concurrent with the recordation of the final map.� www.CityofRC.us Printed:?/912015 ��,,,, AIC(Ai Project#: SUBTPM19614 Project Name: Chino Central Development, Inc. Location: 8797 ROCHESTER AVE-022912152-0000 Project Type: Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Fire Prevention/ New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The new CC&R's shall establish shared maintenance responsability for the various fire systems in the building and those system on site necessary for fire protection of the building including underground fire mains, fire hydrants and fire lanes. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. The new CC&R's shall establish shared maintenance responabilty for the various building systems www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 2 Printed:7/9/2015 June 27, 2015 Dear Mr. Tabe Van der Zwaag, I'm writing, as you requested, to relay my complete and total opposition to the placement of a 85 foot Verizon Cell Tower, on the property of Price Storage located at 6599 Haven Ave, which would obstruct my view in my back yard. My opposition is two fold. Number one being that it is a violation of the Conditional Use Permit for the Price Storage Units. This property is zoned single family residential and was given a conditional use permit for storage only, not to sub lease non storage space to a private company for their profit. This facility has been a sore spot in our relations with the City. We have experienced the problems that we did anticipate with the allowance of this facility, such as noise, after-hours activity, excessive lighting at night, law enforcement activity and an un-sightly, over height facade, because someone on or involved with the planning commission wanted it to look nice from her house. It is not nice from our house, which is in our back yard. This Tower will be complete with diesel fuel storage tank(s), which is a hazardous material and should not be stored there, as it is zoned residential. The second reason is that it will be an eye sore and steal the view of the mountains that we have enjoyed for 24 years and was one of the main reasons we purchased the house. This tower will stand 85 feet above ground (55 feet above what is permitted) and block our view. and violate the Conditional Use Permit. The tower does not have to go there. I believe there is space and and no obstruction, 4/1 O's of a mile East of the proposed location at the end of 19th Ave. where the emergency vehicle only gate is located. There is wide open, unobstructed land with direct eye shot to Haven and Milliken. Mr. Van der Zwaag, I have been a resident of Rancho Cucamonga for 30 years. I love this City. I don't always have faith that the City representatives will do what is right, because I have seen the corruption in the past and there are people in prison for that past criminal activity. I first came to Rancho in 1978 when I attended Chaffey College as a music major. I have loved this area ever since. I have seen the changes, most have been very good, but many not so. This Tower is a NOT SO. The very reason we have stayed where we are is because we love our view of the mountains. You put that tower there and you are stealing what we love about our home in Rancho Cucamonga. Also, NOBODY has come to our home to see the effect it would have on us. I really feel that if the city goes on with this tower at this location, I will have no other option but be forced to take court action, because the City is violating it's own Conditional Use permit. I hope you do what is right by the residents of this area, who oppose this tower, and relocate it to a different location. P.S. On May 30th,AT&T was out in our neighborhood taking photos. The photographer said they are looking to put a tower on that property also. Again, this would be a violation of the City's Conditional Use permit Hoping you do what is right, Sincerely, Gordonowl CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUL 0,6 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject:Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 Date:Sun, 30 Mar 2014 15:36:00 -0700 From:eileen <eileen.crowlggmail.com> To: Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag, The residents of Valinda Ave 6610 to 6542 are requesting that the proposed Cell tower NOT be built. Here are the issues: • Number one this area is zoned Single Family Residential o After a long and drawn out fight a conditional use permit was given to the Storage Unit ■ Against our wishes but someone on the city council seemed to think our input was not what they wanted to hear. ■ We appeared at many city council meetings and had many off site meetings and had several city council meetings after the conditional use permit was issued to try and smooth out some of the extremely difficult things that were done by placing a storage unit in our neighborhood. o For example-we requested the project be lowered in height so our back yards were not looking at the concrete back walls of the units. • This was done but then a 2 story section of units was added without our knowledge and large "drive in Movie" size facades built on the unit-effectively blocking out our entire west facing view. • See attached photo. o We have had to deal with noise-early every Saturday morning people are in the units banging and revving motor cycles. o We have to deal with the lights-a compromise was made by the city council forcing the units to shut off every other light and to blacken the sides of the lights so they only shine down. • Every 3 months I have to take the minutes from that meeting to the units and ask them to turn off the lights. • Price Storage has now "updated" their lights and will not blacken the sides of the lights or put a housing around the lights even though I repeatedly ask-and this is supposed to be part of the conditional use permit. • Number two-the two most directly affected houses 6550 Valinda and 6542 will have the last section of our view of the mountains wiped out by a 70 cell tower! (see photo 2) o That is unacceptable • First it is still a single family residential low rise zoned area with ONLY a conditional use permit which means it should not break the low rise zone. o And we have put up with too much already and now you are going to take the very last piece of beauty we have away o NO NO NO ■ When we moved here 23 years ago and 6542-26 years ago, we lived in a beautiful city with zoning that was consistent with the families we were raising and the beauty of the mountains and sunsets was a real draw to the city. • Since 2003 the city has consistently been encroaching on our beauty and taking away all the desirable reasons we moved and have stayed active members of the city of Rancho Cucamonga. • Then when the Von's shopping center expanded another eye sore was added without input from any of us. D ® Corky's restaurant has an unneeded tower facade that is not only unnecessary but it now also has a neon sign that glows in our line of sight all night long! (see photo 3) Please do not go against our wishes again by adding this cell tower. I am representing the houses on Valinda Ave. This is a unanimous 9 houses affected-9 requesting to stop the construction of the tower. Eileen Crowl 6550 Valinda Ave Alta Loma, CA 91737 909-260-4249 July 21, 2014 (again you never responded to this message either) The neighbors and I -the 11 houses most affected by this conditional use permit at Price Self storage. We reject this proposal on principle- • First the conditional use permit is not for a 44 foot tower- it is for the storage unit(who as I sad before is constantly breaking conditions) • 2nd-the city code is 35 foot limit-why does this neighborhood have to suffer breaking city code just because someone decided to put a storage unit where there were supposed to be single family homes??? Please on behalf of the neighbors in the 6400-6500 block of Valinda Ave-whose back yards all butt up to the storage facility-reject this proposal. Thank you The Valinda Ave residents eileen crowl spokesperson July 4, 2015 Mr. Tabe van de Zwagg We sent this letter to you last year and never received a reply. Now we have a letter saying the City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing a change to the original use permit DRC2014-00216. Again we all say NO 1. We never wanted the storage unit to begin with and the conditional use permit was bulldozed through, even though we went to countless meetings and protested. 1. at this time Price Storage does not keep the stipulations of the original conditional use permit and we are having to constantly go and remind them. 2. This is zoned single family residential and surrounding the area is still single family residential. 1. We do not want a cell tower in our neighborhood 2. We especially do not want a diesel storage tank in our back yard! 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a height limit of 30 feet. 1. We do not support changing this height limit for a cell tower 4. Most important the conditional use permit currently in place does NOT allow the storage facility to sublet its property to cell companies or any other use. It is for storage facility only. Thank you Eileen Crowl representing the residents of the 6500 block Valinda Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, CA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUL 0:6 2015 RECEIVED - PLANNING Van der Zwaag. Tabe From: eileen <eileen.crowl@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday,July 04, 2015 12:18 PM To: Van der Zwaag,Tabe Subject: Fwd:Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 Attachments: storage unit facade facing west 6550 valinda.JPG; my view now where the tower will be Iocated.JPG; corky's facade and neon sign.JPG Mr. Tabe van de Zwagg We went this letter to you last year and never received a reply. Now we have a letter saying the City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing a change to the original use permit DRC2014-00216. Again we all say NO 1. We never wanted the storage unit to begin with and the conditional use permit was bulldozed through, even though we went to countless meetings and protested. 1. at this time Price Storage does not keep the stipulations of the original conditional use permit and we are having to constantly go and remind them. 2. This is zoned single family residential and surrounding the area is still single family residential. 1. We do not want a cell tower in our neighborhood 2. We especially do not want a diesel storage tank in our back yard! 3. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has a height limit of 30 feet. 1. We do not support changing this height limit for a cell tower 4. Most important the conditional use permit currently in place does NOT allow the storage facility to sublet its property to cell companies or any other use. It is for storage facility only. Thank you Eileen Crowl representing the residents of the 6500 block Valinda Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, CA -------- Forwarded Message-------- S ubj ect:Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 Date:Sun, 30 Mar 2014 15:36:00 -0700 From:eileen<eileen.crowl�;amail.com> To: Mr. Tabe van der Zwaag, The residents of Valinda Ave 6610 to 6542 are requesting that the proposed Cell tower NOT be built. Here are the issues: • Number one this area is zoned Single Family Residential o After a long and drawn out fight a conditional use permit was given to the Storage Unit Against our wishes but someone on the city council seemed to think our input was not what they wanted to hear. i ■ We appeared at many city council meetings and had many off site meetings and had several city council meetings after the conditional use permit was issued to try and smooth out some of the extremely difficult things that were done by placing a storage unit in our neighborhood. o For example-we requested the project be lowered in height so our back yards were not looking at the concrete back walls of the units. ■ This was done but then a 2 story section of units was added without our knowledge and large "drive in Movie" size facades built on the unit-effectively blocking out our entire west facing view. • See attached photo. o We have had to deal with noise-early every Saturday morning people are in the units banging and revving motor cycles. o We have to deal with the lights-a compromise was made by the city council forcing the units to shut off every other light and to blacken the sides of the lights so they only shine down. ■ Every 3 months I have to take the minutes from that meeting to the units and ask them to turn off the lights. • Price Storage has now "updated" their lights and will not blacken the sides of the lights or put a housing around the lights even though I repeatedly ask-and this is supposed to be part of the conditional use permit. • Number two-the two most directly affected houses 6550 Valinda and 6542 will have the last section of our view of the mountains wiped out by a 70 cell tower! (see photo 2) o That is unacceptable ■ First it is still a single family residential low rise zoned area with ONLY a conditional use permit which means it should not break the low rise zone. o And we have put up with too much already and now you are going to take the very last piece of beauty we have away o NO NO NO ■ When we moved here 23 years ago and 6542- 26 years ago, we lived in a beautiful city with zoning that was consistent with the families we were raising and the beauty of the mountains and sunsets was a real draw to the city. ■ Since 2003 the city has consistently been encroaching on our beauty and taking away all the desirable reasons we moved and have stayed active members of the city of Rancho Cucamonga. • Then when the Von's shopping center expanded another eye sore was added without input from any of us. • Corky's restaurant has an unneeded tower facade that is not only unnecessary but it now also has a neon sign that glows in our line of sight all night long! (see photo 3) Please do not go against our wishes again by adding this cell tower. I am representing the houses on Valinda Ave. This is a unanimous 9 houses affected-9 requesting to stop the construction of the tower. Eileen Crowl 6550 Valinda Ave Alta Loma, CA 91737 909-260-4249 2 -� I ` SAA I� _._ � .. 1 yy s# �� 53 A yi �...�..: 4.:. .,:1' q1 ,3 6 r _- .i. �. - � 7/ /2015 Planning Commission Workshop DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT ORC2015-00421 (MIXED USE I TOO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS L ,w, ct LA,IUhL1 AgendaPresentation • Background • Draft standards • Examples • Benefits • Presentation by Neil Payton • Discussion Regional SCAO Eegipeat Transportation Plan Onnotrans Route 61(SET Lite(— --� Compass Blueprint(regional wide) ARRIVE Corridor Cap and Trade i 1 7/8/2015 Local Efforts • General Plan 2001 8 2010 • Development Code Update 2012 • Compass Blueprint Studies Foothill Boulevard BRT Study s SCAG Metrolink study �^ • Existing projects 2001 General Plan Mixed Use Areas 2010 General Plan Mixed Use Areas G) . � u 1V 2 7/8/2015 Opportunities � p Design •Santa Clanta / . • Pasadena , •I • Monrovia �f - p City Council Coals I� •City Council Goal A24(phase 1) o Develop standards to address mixed use, high density, Transit Oriented Development and initiate a Development Code amendment to incorporate new development standards. •City Council Goal A25(phase 2) o Review the City's zoning districts and evaluatefinvesbgale creating overlay districts or specific plan areas that will create villages or development districts in order to revitalize underperforming or underutilized areas and create synergy amongst the varving land uses. 3 7/8/2015 Draft Development Code Stan. . . •Amend Table 17.36.020-1 Mixed Use/TOD Development Standards • Mix of Land Uses Density • Setbacks • Landscaping • Parking Mix of Land Uses Mix of Land Uses F*12 4 7/8/2015 FountainGlenat Terra Vista (30 unitslac) r 11 r C'J 1L Granada Coutls in Pasadena(48 units/ac) Fn Paragon in Morino a(54 units/ac) 5 Density 7/8/2015 _.Trio apartments Pasadena :1 . Setbacks Local—5 feet from Pl. Collector—15 feet from PL Major—20 feet from PL xw�wa�mgnx�wwwi ...wz-�sx�wrn.�w.u..mw�.mv,•..m rua�.«aa.�vs:airw� v.rvrr...sox.rsx..eu<iir an,.uUn,wi..m.m i �9 Setbacks q; x. 7/8/2015 _JuL _ a� E Nb' M REOUIREO VARO5 UMCKMEhS Tp Wleg¢at VRM W 50110n0.RECREC S� Streetscape 3 V High—Quality Design 11 I 7 7/8/2015 yam aR, \\ fill14. a\ Mu til Sin yy . . 5�\ lry § . 7 � Reduction of rai �d�m9 Mll canal� ea �landscape - > ! d. a « 4 Drought tolerant planite and trees 7/8/2015 Landscaping/Open Space .. 3 Mss .k CnOy Open Space .. Parking 1pa�PER Guest and Pn,ate Padding am" l _ hrye, 7/8/2015 Parking garage within a high density residential pMect important?Why is this Economic o Spur economic development o Revitalization o Increase in property and home values o Decrease infrastructure costs Sir- 7M Why is this important? Social - o Increased housing and employment choices oA healthier community to Enhanced sense of community - o Quality of life o Universal mobility W l l ' 10 7/8/2015 Why is this important? •Environmental o A sustainable community . o Potential for increased transit ridership/ decreased traffic congestion ' o Reduced landscaping requirements— current water conditions Presentation • Mr. Neil Payton, FAIA, Principal •Next Steps •Discussion ql 11 fel o i , Tentative Parcel Map cxo SUBTPM19614 RAN CALIFORNIA Applicant — Chino Central Development, Inc. Project Description — A request to subdivide an existing industrial building for condominium purposes for a site located on the east side of Rochester Boulevard approximately 500 feet south of Jersey Court in the General Industrial (GI) Zoning District — APN : 0229-121 -52 . Site Details RANCHO and Background UCAMON(" CALIFORNIA �, • Project site was approved ` t o, for development in 1988 • Overall project area is 7.7 acres • Made up of three buildings = totaling 156,437 sf a� • Each building is on a . separate parcel " ' • Access agreement - ti • Sufficient onsite parking provided ( 162 overall ' spaces) : .; f, Tentative Parcel Map RAI+1CHO CU A 1. ON l� 11 TI IE CITY Of RANCI II,r CA�aC1I.lFF.i)RNtAL7L7£ ,.., ... 1h1f ATI •� ,� �•1.., ,14 ,.IH HL,I� �� 1 11 1 h P.1 PCFL MAP NO. 19F .PoR Il'HTRI/.!'lI,�.MMI'VIVM OVHIYI£] • Subdivide an existing . 80,325 square foot - - industrial building into four (4) individual suites PARCEL 1 a 9 3 4, for condominium purposes. • Conditions for adequate site access and parking are included • No development proposed . _ uua { i I Environmental Determination and RavcHO Staff Recommendation JCUCAMONGA CALIFORNIA Environmental Determination — The project qualifies under as a Class 15 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 - Minor Land Divisions — which covers the subdivision of real property into four or fewer parcels. Staff Recommendation - Approval of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19614 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with conditions. 71 Planning Commission - UAM�GA July 8, 2015 CALIFORNIA Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216 A request to construct a two carrier (AT&T and Verizon) co-located 85-foot tall I wireless communication facility in the form of a pine tree at Price Self Storage. RA��Ho Project Overview U(..AMONGA CMAFORNU 1 . A request to install a co-located (AT&T and Verizon) 85-foot tall wireless communication facility at Price Self Storage 2. The Development Code permits communication facilities to exceed the height limit of the district when approved by a Conditional Use Permit. 3. Communication facilities may locate within 300 feet of residential I development when they are co-locatable. 4. A neighborhood meeting was held on January 21 , 2015 with approximately 15 residents in attendance. The issues raised at the meeting were the height/location of the facility and potential health impacts 5. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 191 2015 and the Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission as proposed. r i Project Location ---- y \I/ � S C's -if xA a ` ,b J t 6 �'. 1 1 '41/;- , i P ffff f 511 INV' IF It fill k +� - -� � '` � 4" ' . ,� '_� ` `"'•� ,=� .fir _ r i P m {ta yg , .............. ........... --------------------- %-------- .. ....... . .... ..................... ...... ------------------ ——————————————S�Ivi. ...... ..... ... . ........ .. nnnp ........... ............ .. .. ............ . ..... ..... .. .. ............. . ................ . ............. . . .. . . . .. .. ........ .. .... ... LJ w 4 . . . ....... .. ........ . ....... .. . . . .. .. .... .. . ............ ............. .. ........ .................. ........... . .. ....... ..... ........... .............. .. .. .... .. .... ..... . . ... ........ . . ..... . ...... . .... . ....... ... . ........... ... ..... .. . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ............ ............. .............. . .......... . ..... . . .. .... . .. .............. . . .......... . . .. .. .. . .. . -Ara. ........ .. of .. .. ........ . ..... .. . .. .......... ... . . .. . . . .... ........... . .... .. .. .. . . ........... . . ............. . . .. ........- ............ ........... ......... .............. .... .. . ........ . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. ...... .. . ............. ........... .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. ..... .. .. . .. .. .. .... .. . ... .. .. ... .. . .. .. .. . . . 1941 ED ........................ ............... . .. .......... .................. ............. ............................ ........... . . .. .................. ..................... ............................................................................................................. _.. .._..._...__.. .... ..._.__._.__.. ..._..._..._.__......._....._..._...........__.. ..............................................................................111.............1.............. ............................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................. ........................................ .......11...1 .......1.... . .................................. ............................................................................................................. ...............................................................................1................1.........11. ............................................................................. ..... ................................................................................................I............ ..............................................................................11...........11................ ..............................................................................1111........................... ..........................................................................................._........_.._.. ............................................................I..I.......................1.111................. .._._...._.... ..._........_..._........._._.........._......._...._..... 1111.1.1, .........................................................1111....................... .................................................................................... .................................................................................... .................................................................................... .......................I......I..........................................1..111..... .................................................................................... .................................................................................... Photo Simulation Valinda Avenue PROPOSED MONOEUCALYPTUS . .s .. -.. . , . . \��\ w. .:\ / w � . � � \\\� � . �\�� � _�/%�� . � � \ � ��/�����} , . � � ` \&� 2 � ~ . . � ~ `\7°� , - � d � . \ : � � �\ � . » � °4 ` % 3��° . . .� \ � �. �� \� � � ��� ; > .� �\ > y\ ��.�k\ ° x w. I�/ ��* . \7��/� � , ` 2 t � «��: 2 © � � . « . �/ � . y . � y�, . ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ............... ............... ...... ....................................... . ............... ............................ ......................................... ................. ................................................. ....................... ............... ................................. .......................... .............. . .......... ............................. .................... .......... ... ......................... ........... ................................................................... .................................. ......................................................................... ............ .. ..... ... .................... .. ................ .................. ............................... ....... ............. ................ ............ ............................ .......................... ........ ..... ..................... ................................................................ ...... .................... ...................................... ................... ................................ ............... ... .............. ........ .............. ................. .................. ................... .............. .................... ................................................. .................................. ...................... ......... ................................................ ................................... ................. ........... ................................ .................................................. .......... ....................................... ............... . ......................... ................. ......................................... .................... .......... .................... ...................... ................................ ............ ........................................ ....... ................... .................... . . . .......... .......................................................... ................. ................................ .................................. .................... ............. ............... ........... .......................................................... ......... ..... .. ..................... ....... ................ .................. ............... ........................ .............. ............. --............ ........ .. .................... ............................... ........... .............. ...................... ...................... ................ ........................ .......................... ................ . . . .................... ............................ .................................... ..... ................... ........... .................................... ............ ........................................... .............. .............................................. ...................... ............... ........................ .......................... ............... ............... .......................... .......... ........... .................................................... ........ .............. .......... ........... .. ...........................I.,................. ........... ......... ................ ........... ................. ............ ........ .. ................. ......................... ........ .................................... .............. ........... ........ ............................... ................................. ............................................................I...... ............ ........................... .................... ................ ................................ . ............................ .............. ............... ... ...... ................ ................................. ......... .......................... ..................................I.... ...... .. .. ............ ............... . .............................. .............. .............. .................... ........................................... ....... .............. ..... ........... .. ......................... ............. ...................... ............... ........ .. ................. .................................... ................. .. ................ ................. ..................... ............ ....... .................... ... .... ......... ......................................................................... ............................... ...... ......I....I.. .... ... ............ ......... ................................................ ................ ........... ........ ........I........ ........................................ ........ .............. ................... ............................ ....................... ...................... ........ ............................ .................. .................... ......................... ...... ...... ..................................................... ................. ................................................ ...................... ....... .......................................... .......... ......................... ........................................... ....... ................ ....................... ............................... ................. .......... ........ ............... . . ... LU z .. O z O o .................................. . .� b r••� C� f 3 C. a� � w 0 0 O N r �` x � ■ ■ t�:,r=, ,. '. ._ ....�_�..�., t ■ c ■ m ■ ■ � 3� � ■ t ■ � ■ .. _•-_._ -----�_ �, ■ _ � r �,. ��. •. �� .i 'r � � , r ', u®� • ■ j r � �1 ' If a i � ._..- — — .. � �"� �� I m . �' �. I ., a _ _„ f L i �� � � r. -- , — F. +''' TotN P� atyUalAY4 t C o G i ' 7 T .. .. .. ....: ......................... . . ........................................... 7anatina Ate 7i i et a P, scalp Mange 51 � � 1 tom. �u w y ► ,1 6 4�z� , Halstead AA+ 1L a �lli[alp/ Il 1 � .4 q � y anYeltWa09 9..1, �4 elopuee fyistaagA pp I Y �. + } ' -- e tenet - s a� RRmna „ b l W►prp rT .. Y b won RANCHO Conclusion UCANIONGA CALIFO NM • Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit DRC2014-00216. RANCHOPlanning Commission UC:AMONGA July 8 , 2015 C',ALIFORNLA, Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896 Variance DRC2013-00897 Variance DRC2015-00537 Minor Exception DRC2015-00539 A request for site plan and architectural review of a 1 ,659 square foot single-family residence with a 506 square foot attached garage on a 3,358 square foot lot. RA-N 0 C( »A, Project Overview 1 . A request to construct a 1 ,659 square foot single-family residence with a 506 square foot attached garage. 2. The 3,358 square foot legal non-conforming lot is part of a tract of land that was originally subdivided on April 15, 1887. 3. The lot does not conform to either the 7,200 square foot minimum lot size requirement or the 65 foot lot width requirement. 4. Variance requested to reduce side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. 5. Variance requested to deviate from the two car side-by-side garage requirement in order to construct a tandem garage. 6. Minor exception requested to increase the maximum perimeter wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet. r P mo . 1 ` nvr r e p I "g r 'yti • 'J!J ,r' CtS CJ imr { t er « �/'� Ily tl '' � � , a' ,- - -� CENTER Site Plan _ j ��.- _ iV 6 �iw 9 � � .. .. .... .. ... .xs� __ __ rtar :::. ::. Gey ::: .. ;: I.' LF .....�....�.........�...'��.....,.,.,.,...,.,....�.............".,..,...".....'�..,.....",.�...,...,.,.. �. _ I ; l [AC'C�OARpymQ,i WLR �' / �i�`1MWIN YM y� y� / ...Uyll �IIf'lIb .... Moi •1 2 : :': .. C .-:: . 5 .: .. t R rola m B y . •.0 M- ..: .: . .: ..'::. YR .: ... .. ....._. . ... ..... ....... _ . . . ........ _ _ _. . _ _ _. ... ...... .._-1 ... __ _ _ .....I. _.. . ... .1.11 .... _.1. ... ..._..._... _ ..._.. - .._._...._._......._.. _ __ .... . ... ..... ..__......_._._._......_....__......... . I. ........._._._.._._._._.._. ..__. __ . ........_..._.. ..__..._............. .. .. _... .. .. .1--_............... ........_....... .. _ _.. . ......................... ..._...._........ - 1 o � Floor Plans :A 69196 fQVA - 5 p ": :' GARAGE11, .�» : ,X-C ' .i __Y_l.506 SO �II II . . :: .:: ANDGA an ilqu�� GARAGE .. . BEDROOM s 'i i I. C p C _4' -lJ B _` I .. .: .. 1. 1. �� �J'1EN - EDROOM :: r-1o' ....a ., .; . .... _, ... .. :: .. . : ,. I j BAY W1MJ N ,. j I; d. N/SEhT CL LVNPJG _ V 672 SO FT , I IST BOOR a"TM - LIHNG bA .. Y 0 '. FAMLY ROOM . _ .. ., u � ----- . . . .. ...... .... ....I 1111 6 Sb F T 72 SF 987 T ... ... ........ .. .............. .- . . . ........ . ....... ......... ... - - - -._... ._. ._...__._......._._._.. .._.... .......__..._._.............._.............. ........ ...........................................................I........ ..................................................................... ......_. .........._......._.. ...... ........................ .. ................ ................- . --1 .....I.... .... ._... ..............................................I.......I............. ........ -. ............---..................................... : VIII I�yI'-#}I�'y�-'��I _ T STKCG GREY' �� III f I III 2•d FGMJ - y STNV UEFA}11 Fau�G.e+w Fcw . _ ___________ k 1 FF BIb.2 REAR ELEVATION %'siF II�CN=aFi-Ch .—_ :rra: s RE - --- FASCla 2G °PIR'lwl.%,YFN dH£3!IKY6 % - 17KCG TY+K£L - ley. G!T.FiL;LP H'VIYti �` "1 YID _ x _ _ YI cl %x �� TI�LLIS BE.4N5 6X 0 5 6AR ¶ —o' FRONT ELEVATION=� :: l ,I..,. K4 I"=A FT-Ow .........................................................................................._........_......._................................................ ._. ._.. _ ..__._ _ _ _................_....................... ............................................................--............................................................................................................................................................................... M9NCC90 -�IC�III �I VIII j 9N Wlaz C���m LJ�J ILII qr•G� � ____ _ tdMl O'Rt Dd fYAVA j 4 --snrsa s� ----------- _ VV V V1 b EMMUM 11 FF 11152 FF 11'.'. _________________ _________ ________________________ _ EG NORTH ELEVATION �°�_°�-°� '�•O2EGRAD� DECORATIVE SWORT BRACKET CVnElE9 TLE — _ ` WOOD FMCN tU !� _ _ _ _ Y1M Ml�MCMI - ilk WII.E/L YM1 HIMN � b �... _ i 1r v v v v v v > TRK)LIS BEAMS L 1 Fa ®I 6790 IIS S FF ID7.5 _______ ____________ 11152______________ ------ ------------------------------r------- - E GRADE ID6,0 EG SOUTH ELEVATION ........................................................................................ .... _ . . .... .. . .. .. ....... .... .......................... . _ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .11111.11.11. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .. . . ......... ............................................ . ........................... ................ . . .... .... . .... ... .. .. .... . . .. .. . . .... . ....... ................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................ ............. . ........... . .......... . .... . . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. ... . . .. ... . . .. .. ....... ............. . ................... ................................................. .............. ................ ............. . .......... .......... . ......... . . . ..... . . . ...... . . ...... . . .. . .. . ... .. . ......... .. .................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .. . ............ .......................................................... .......... ............. . . .. ...... . . . .... . .. .. . ... . .. . ........................................................................... n. RANCHO Conclusion vc MOvc-A CALIFORNLk • Staff supports the proposed Variances for yard setback and garage configuration and the Minor Exception for property line wall height due to the unique characteristics of the project site. • Staff recommends approval of the following entitlements: • Minor Design Review DRC2013-00896 • Variance DRC2013-00897 • Variance DRC2015-00537 • Minor Exception DRC2015-00539 75 z z � O 0 E--4 < cc o a Q °- 06o C7 No .59 dx z Q0 m HI ` L7 d d _ .a o h d �✓ r z o F ._.. ■ ML.;: •:. ... Transit Oriented Design - Defined SecondaryArea Residential L, ib Jaen Space..'... cnt Secondary Area Trunklue Urban TOP � ' Park&Ride k {��Rasidani l ransit Sto : � .Tpli hlMgbtorhnad Arterial dl 5econdam Am Core Commercial iSecondaryEmploytneM or Residential nark er was i J1I[�rY, 1 FeN 8p Unr 4y . Seton 7 Area om r uxa ` ar1,h Ride TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, rat ffjx z - • M ' 46 h �� � Oil Ir 4r � r y r r'�i',N..r.. G O a*or tJrb n Center" "Urb� tenter" � x rban �uleuerd7l "hlei hbarb�ad tenter' TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. i' ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi TIItI1Ily�IllA lxY 111rIrIr1111lfllil(iTxlTTllf '�'W W Y'W Y W W W`I Y'Y'�Y Y Y W Y"�'W III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIrllllllil llnlnrnnninnin 1111 n rl llllllilltinulm rn iii 11 Ili II II II 11, 11 II II 111111 II 11 111 11 i111111111rrI I1n 11nrnlrunl l r l 1111 r II l rr II lu l l ltl rn ulll ll..l i 111 Y1YtFttYtt "I t. YtYtt } Y'/ lllllllll ulr nlnululn 11111 ul1111 n11rll rill n lillln I...lll1111111111111u II II Ir. II II 11 II II II 1111 11 II. 11 11 11 II II II 11111n Ilrrl11111 n11nlrnl n I II 11//11111 n I I I.l l l l r 1 1 rl nll l l l l l 1111111 x 1 } t t } } x } 1} I1x f f Y1'F ' , rJ 111 Ir 1111. III r 11 n 1 r I I r n II I InII nI. n l l l 111 n I 111111 I 11 r I II In 11111 I.111 111n1 T nn p II II 11 II II 1111 11 II • 11 II rl lln 11111 rIn 11 111 rl1ltI111111II lnn nI lllun1n111111111111 III IIIl1111111r111111I11tu 11 I11r111111111r1IIII 111r11I111111111n 11111111111111 11 II 11. II 11 11 II II 1111 11 II 11 II 11. 11 n 11 n I1111n 111111111111 n11111111111111111n 11111111111 n 111 nI11111111 n 11111 111111111 a 111r111u 111 nI11111 u1n I11nInIn 11 n 11n 111111 r111111111111111111 111 IIIIIIII1J I Ir11 II rlnII 11111111 II I n 11 n 11111..1111111111111 u I 11111 IIIIIIn lln 111 I I.I nII111111 In1111111111111 nrIrI n111111111111111111111u nluln nlnun11111In nnnn111111111u n111 n r11nnunnllnuunnnll � 111 � 111 n1111 u1n11 n1111111 nn111n n111111111111 y yy' In 1111 n I1u 11111 n11 11111 n 11111 n II111 n11 � 111111111 /11111111..11111111111 n11111111111111t111111 q un111111111 i11111n1 I.t1 ,:.:: �:.., n111 ullltu lllln 1111 1111111111, , , uiu 1 .,nIn 1111 ut11111 n1111 .• • 11n 1I n11n1rn 111111 I 11 1n 1111tr;1 `�' IIII nInln liln nln 1I11it tY 1111 11111 n1n11111r11.i IIIIIIIIu llulnnuu 1111111114 ru 111 nIn11111111111 1{In nlnln 1111hn1iII1 n11:i u1n 11 n111n 1111n 111 In 111 ninll11u 11nr..r11111uunlur111n nr11i a 11. '1111 n1u111nnn n111 111 n1111 n11 nI111n 1. IIIru1n11111 nrn uinlln u:, I1n llr nln nnlnlin � ' 11 Inlulnull n 1111n 1. r1ti11 n11n 11111nIu 111111 u. 1111 n II nI1 n111111111 u 1111111111111111n1 nnlrru 1111111 i 1111 n 111:1.. 11n I1 n 1111 n1un1u 1111111111111111111111 11{ 1111 YI 1 111 11111111111111111111111 ���� 1111111111111111111111 1111111 IY 1111 rl�: IIIIIIIIIIIIIr/11111111 11 t If1 YYff11{ Itl 1111 - 11/11111 y IIII111111111III111111 11 Itt1111I11i1 11111 11111111111111111111111 1 1 1 R , , 1111111111111111111111 Illl lllf(11111111111111111111 IIII Ir11111111111111111 111111111r111II1111111 11YI:I rIlYfI1111111111111111111: IIII111IIIIIIIIA1111111 1 1 1 1 1111111111111rI111111Y rI11111111111111111 r1111111tIIli'IIII 111 I I l l l l l r/1111111 111111111111I1III1 1111- :111111111f1111111I111111(111 r11.1111111I111111111111111 111111111111111111[lll 1111 f111111111111141111111r1 i:1 11111111111111111111111 1 1 1111111111111111111111 � IIf II1111{111111111111 :11111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIr 11111111111111 ..1 1. e. 1 1., Ir11111111111111111111 1111111111IIII1111111 1 11111111111111111111111 IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII111I1 111111111111111111111 1111111111111II11 1111111111111 r1I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I11111111111I11rI11111111I111111r111111111I1I1111111111r1II111111111111111111111 1 �"`v" III111111IIII IIIII IIIIIIII111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111r111111111I11I11111111 �R�� , II I I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII111111IIII I111111f11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111r111111111111111111111111 IIII I111111111111r 111111r1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111IIIIIIIIr11111111111111111111111111rI1I111111111I111111111111111111111111 III IIIIf111111111111111111111111111111111111r11111111111111111111111111111111111 IIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIll il1111111 IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111 IIIIIII1111111III IIIIIIIIIIII II111111111111II II II IIIIIIIII IIII111111111111111111 1 1 IIIIIII111111IIIII1111I111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII I1111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII II1111111 1 11 Ilr 1 1 Ilillrlllllllllllll 11111111111 1111111 III IIIIIIIIII 111 111 • 1 111 TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. O ■ v N, Densities Linked to a Multitude of Concerns Market Density Parking Type Land Value PLACE + Cost Construction Cost TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. From Edge to CBD Moving across the TOD Transect v fpr Y I i -. 1 ® I I to � • � w f - I'. III II!! � 'w. s yr � ® " � if' • ,nnlllllll 6 t r $150/S F $185/S F $200/S F I $275/S F $300/S F I $350/S F TORTI GALLAS AND . , . m re Murph. St r 1 ■ ■�wj■ � a fa. a r 1 '■ R' t P ■ �'e� ,S ' Mclemore Ave s o Ir n� _ ;M L• re.Ave __ _ -., v 0 '_St-+ � ,p. � o- J• m .moi y� ,Tls • `Leis .�,,, _- � _ a Y�- sf`li � ' ■ �I r�S:�L +�I. t�ii� E viP '.ice ■ �� � '. S� ■f•s� '`m Akersc`Ave:►♦° c'- waw e � ■ _ , , ww. .a.'€�n"�'" r__ at1�R_ _ I�r = �n� � ■ =1�f � ■ .���"♦ P o` r o` T nN •s .'■�$ N,�. n � I�i� • CO�t. ` r`�OOQG' n le �. r "a u— I [ � � � � ■I n a 7• m �"� } urp � ■tit Fi'' / _ a 111 ��� � ,� ;� _ �illls�St�-�y!s�r ,•d - _`I I - � 5=1e'A�e � ■■ 'f ■ � a r� �,ray �!+t a/ � � ■,; � � ■ :. = a .■ V I •BR - ®1 Ab A A � a i i` a Murphy St � Embreyi A, 1 ti .rr yd^$ ! fi■ � �r A Race��- � - ap. c. mit ,. � a u 1 ■ a 1 ..r . I ,Imo' ■ �. n Rr ■ � ■li � a- �tA�: .._ e 'rr h.r� �il'► 11.t^2 ice' �i �. � ":� 1 ■ � :a d . - _-'_`'Izac- •i5�'�lu`mv9o$d�5t��s�� �' JJ � t ■ 1� s ^r �`r�•( � In lr a .. Yli � ■ ■ i�sl� Jr . �' <' '� � '}° r ��� ■ � � II ' _ , •'SPL' '.it � � • p 1 k■�ir o lil tq p Y h ♦� � !moi � � 'y �J .:M"aeFa'lle5t .`L .`i.aJ,/ 1 F ♦ti _` _ .. a s� rt w�i� �. °� T � T• ■ VMS.-'� ; `•y n,I, A 'y�'�� ` � S J' ! � ■ ■ \ .. It M' •�' a•v Embrey.P r M r,Phy S 1-., ■I�Igii w rw. � � � �:f a cLemore! ve _ ii'li, < McL•em_ ore Ave_, „ r „" , - _- - - :� - •� a ♦ A: efiryy' U .. .�r. _ 3_�>f.. _ T`a A)' 1 ■ � 6t t n�, r I�r� w :+'ter ■ �i av A J le @ �r °�i � 11,E •.' � a np wr1A � 1�•e >� �� 11 � � ,� � ..Q■ �` � ¢il�1 ■.� � �afplL � ,PIlm�Ja'6dKt t�iii` ��� 11�' � � I Akers.A_vest r , s++=• --- �!"A' ■. � EiVR11 '41,ft o� IY It • T ••'^ :t�nN '.- 1 = �` /fji� • • i'�=f` ■� \µp�dQG' J,, i. 1■ f ?, y1 `] i•c _s.�•�s_ = r. .- +� ,,�Or,ire^ ro 4nr ,—°10 N � ,I ,`��1 ca '� . ani : 1��■1 �• ai ���� V cc illls?St,+��; "�`I $ 1 �� ��N'ob` A� _L .v` ■. ■ it Nor"�, Transit Oriented Design - The Three D 's Density: Idosnycratic, Site Specific, Mixed a J vYJ Ji l*'j 7 7— IdtP gym♦ 191 IVE TJ1 �Y �Y �@♦ R♦ WY 9�0 N♦ !bY 'R' .1uY ♦ tl mP &Mw Avenue - TORTI GALLAS • • , PARTNERS, Transit Oriented Design - The Three D 's Density: Idosnycratic, Site Specific, Blended u Ras PLR4 PLR 3 t G3 G5 Gill .:......� TORTI GALLAS , PARTNERS, Transit Oriented DesignThree Density: Idosnycratic, Site Specific, Blended n +a i "" TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. Case Study _v . Clarendon , • Virginia - �' Platted before .. ,ere WWI�� ,.:...... r ORGALLAS . , PARTNERS, Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor ' Arlington, Virginia Source:Arlington General Land Use Plan,amended through April 2004 Prepared by Fairfax County DPZ, September 2005 Tysons Comer Comprehensive Plan Rail Intensification Areas added to the Arlington Transit Station Areas for comparison - 0 Current Plan's Primary Intensification Area W 0000 It or about one-fish mile radius) r 4 Gument Plan's SecoMary Intensification Area (1600 n or about one-third mile radius) •e, 3 % � a,w - r )� A, t 12 / 4 J a �. 2 t a e - ."'.' .M�w •r'a e , 0 1700 7400 dil�+.-. s4 FEET MMES N� - �. '� w•� o to 117 Ixgend . � - �.. Mr t 4 1..a.v rw.♦... rk..u.llprd t.. i..xn• i.aa..,x.i.x... ia.w -l.yvdly ♦„i.. Y a r ~� )I tY!! yj..W.... I • Il.,.� IYr� _ • r ELLM N • ,.wcEau N P� r' ill/♦ \ S /i'Ji ti Al lV h4 s+y to SPIN, 00 440 41b W Is ol .A • � ./ • 1111..1.9•• •:. as : >�'�.� � ►— '1 _ y .:.�1.... ■ /Ii.{.• . 0 J � :♦ V Jr�• - 1..• ... x .1111...: _ .N .• IW. U �•: , w ••• ••� .. 1 -.�y ,\••�. I 1.11 ..1.1.• h . 1 wO •: �.'� .✓• /, � � 1 n11.....a Ii t van Lit 10 of 4 • ..•u.aA• ` VI _c i i ♦• .� I f . n,11. U.�f��♦ •)� t � n �♦ ♦ ♦ r_I!•�}IIn 11.. 1 'Vo..�� .......s. �� _ I ■IYn n..l � View of Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor Development Patterns . R/B Corridor trend for over 40 years . Over 37 million sq. ft. of new development . HI D a rceductio i in auto traffic « \. Al T t • • I y F� TORTI GALLAS , PARTNERS, INC. Measuring i Corridor t .... . ..... s � � c y 2010 1970 98,500 jobs 22,,000 jobsb r 21.7 mil sf office 5.5 million sf. office 28,643 housing 7,,000 housing units units TOR0I GALLAS AND VA'k4l Ovill"83631111 NC. a § 14 du/ acre } 4.8 u acre . • ♦ ♦ _ .. , ' � � Qui fin r rss .Vr 4.8 Rid .� i IM tp �Z 9 � { y y V _ TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. sign •MROSSMA Ah 5 R-B Corridor Stations 12.9% 1 .0%2.0% ❑ Walk 3.6% ❑ Metrobus 7.5"/0 ❑ Other Bus/Vanpool ❑ Auto (incl. Drop- off) ❑ Other ■ No Response 73.0% "" TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. Transit Oriented Design - The Three D 's Density - Diversity • Highest Density and Greatest Mix of Use at Transit Center • Selling the "Amenity of Transit" • Reduced Parking / Park "Once" strategies • Transit Stop as "Anchor" • Appropriate Value from all Forms of Transit mx • Heavy and Light Rail • Bus (Carpool) 'A al • Automobile • Bicycle • Pedestrian OWN I • • • • , PARTNERS I C. Twinbrook, Rockville, MD 10-minute Milk Single Family , Residential Neighborhood ', Neighborhood S-minWeWalk ¢' ; i �e co "lceslSendws f rimer tn.e 1 fna♦♦ 1 i ♦'♦♦ �4,�_ 1 Parklawn Drive _ ■■. Office/ �♦'� P�; �; ■ ■■a■■+ "' t Important 1 Services District \ 's - "'♦♦ : afiarsem�ea � a 4 • ♦ � Retail \�` o fl P ♦O n ♦� Corridor �,■■.■■■■■i•!,, ■■■■■s-e. • �?. ''., Ci of Rockville Monegomery County, �� mo-• Ak 4k Matti Family U � yy er eb, Neighborhood s�..eN� � 1 Residential ••...........��''��••,•, To Bethesda and Neighborhoodwads Washingmn TORTI GALLAS AND • . may,.: _ ' ;,�"°' ��',✓ ��}�,y',,-F � , '�! �' '�. � ,/ Retail pei}ail Office . ' - ► ' � lIFl ISS^^ o y iL A•r�p � �„ r d� � Y � h}��tYc 1;. JIN Y �� u 4eW PARTNERS,F":! TORTI GALLAS AND 3` qf� ^ v. ate., L W ,5. rewf.�wsa � � RE, ALK •f o °��+ as w.�. �, �� 1 � , • - �. _ . 6 _ s _, '. W � }�, �' b . � a M . Q_... m � � � � - - -I ,, 6 1<.... le - 9 �� _ -�° _y �� - S x4.1 E r _ , 4x� M1 •`� ®� ♦� ' _' '_ �- e i' � w u � , � $ S ,. s r �',i�_�t A�.r �u. /.� ' i � _.. � :. .. � Y�- � � a �1 ■ � " x' Li.'„�., t � a ��N�d. � `,' � � \A / f �i �y? _. . 1 y+...pit_ 4� rY C{1 U h = '�{3t��� � � f ,�' n� a Alp, A {{ MC3 am w. a U C0 � _� jgf. �•z. �• t z fw, Qi air F Q F 4 l��e �•..� ��`, t'a et. r �fn tw­ ) 1\\ JV \ f V \ OL ��,/�.�'r �:� a` _ ,e .n f�'� .ACU L�\ f`. ` v "��i'`-�,✓ 1� '".. '�.nam� . Y• L { f. r 1 i z � n i Desi n Includes 'Complete Streets" • Policy : roads are designed & managed for everyone . G Urban Design Component OT Bicycle Vehicle/Cartway M Y1 'Y .+� � � .... r{ ';amu♦. r• i pp • jiii •. y- =rte � . Component Compment . •... Cornpomint Cornonent BuMcfing&Furnishing Building&Furnishing Component Component Source: Philadelphia Complete Streets Handbook What is a `Complete Street ' ? VVIEW Traditional road classifications emphasize vehicle movement. (;ornplete StreetTypes ern phasize th e c haracted of the entire street. TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, This is an IN - Complete Street f� I 11A, • � 1 n a r �u i ® ... i The Street Grid Ray St reet 5t lohn Cowl Street Names: 29 St John Street ' 5 rin 5irret Kottinger Drive Streets: 16 St Mary Street Avenues: 8 f Courts: 2 Division Street o Q q.e d Drives: 1 `tar a Lanes: 1 Rose Avent e L i Ways: 1 e a7 c� Angela Street Ned/Sbe4,r J � d Qto a gecon`a` AbbjeSrrefr Linear Miles of Streets: 7.4 genial Pven�e M � N V y C TORTI GALLAS 1 ♦ , PARTNERS, INC. Public Open Space Intersection Density r J" j Number of Intersections: 58 F T T + r + Intersections per Square Mile: 182 F 1- + J. + } y f T + + fT + + + so y Y* J6 i J6 A Walkable Neighborhood St John Court > § o ^ 100 «__. ! < > : ƒ ° m,nger a, ,_,_t _a_. g »m« ___ �; , « :yx m y m®®- «« ? � ~ 7 f « \/ Ab6je, TORTI GALLAS . ■ PARTNERS, INC. City Comparison : Palo Alto Streets )` x �'x Number of Intersections: 87 � x xx � � x yx r t x Y x x x Intersections per Square Mile: 274 x ),*Yy x x x x N .c t %Y x �x 00 x A x NOA x X c x x x �. r x � x x ♦ Ax v x 2981 ft. a Sao 1 6...� City Comparison : Napa Streets tx)' ^ k Number of Intersections: 86 k k + k * x Y Intersections per Square Mile: 270 NJk + . ` Y k x yx 00 k � + � xxxxkx � k + + IL It f++ 2981 ft. T; IJ Why is Intersection Density So Important Ail I j1 v '1M.ABRkW hLf2'10.T3L'1JI000 TORTI GALLAS • • , PARTNERS, INC. a California Cities Study JAR ddiny � v Chico,.... Da V isl-#Wes, Sacra nre nto Street network, An-ti°°h _ safety and Be7keley r s 1, Alamed-a,p -DanvWe _. \7 sustainability SSan Mateo Palo Alt° -Cupert'I*Turlock ` r- in 24 medium sized Santa Cruz HiMadera California cities Y t _ Cities selected to - yaan `Luis Obispo represent range of traffic safety level Victorville,"Apple Valley Santa Barbara lRialto — La-Habra .- - -- 1Rerris gTemecula___ _..-. Carlsbad\ - I TORTI GALLAS • • ' PARTNERS, INC. allTornia EMERWI - ok • Alameda Antioch • Berkeley Apple Valley • Chico 0 Carlsbad • Cupertino V Madera • Danville � • Morgan Hill • Perris • Davis • Redding • La Habra • Rialto • Palo Alto • Temecula • San Luis Obispo Turlock • San Mateo Victorville • Santa Barbara West Sacramento • Santa Cruz TORTI GALLAS ANDPARTNERS, SAFER CITIES — NETWORK DENSITY [LSF A.'-.iCC Network :a^ Density Comparison 1 5q. Mile Grid Size 9x9 12x12 15x15 Block Length 660' 480' 375' a Intersection s G= Density 81 144 ' ............. _ :. < 81 81-144 144-225 225+ ......... Mode Share Driving 88.1% 86.7% 82.9% 76.2% Walking 5.3% 3.9% 5.3% 8.1% Biking 2.4% 3.8% 4.0% 4.2% { r,. 9F ;: `Transit 3.0% 4.5% 6.8% 10.4% % Fatal or Severe 1.8% 2.0% (nonhighway) ..... CALIFORNIA CITY COMPARISON Population 65,719 59,845 Population Density 5,736 per sq. mi. 2,673 per sq. mi. Real Intersection Density 106 per sq. mi. 63 per sq. mi. (does not include dead ends) ¢sro..on v.¢� ersoamao.. r...,.—;«nrarr...o..�x., i�rr .....::.., ... .,.:. ..��:�_. ... .. ..........•+si. Mode Share Driving 84. 1% 95.8% Walking 5.4% 1.7% Biking 4.1% 0.7% Transit 6.6% 1.7% Total Road Fatalities 3.2 per year 10.5 per year per 100,000 pop. Public safety & fiscal benefits of finely grained networks 1 . Increased traffic safety 2 . More cycling and walking 3 . Fewer & shorter vehicle trips 4. Less pollution 5 . Less traffic congestion 6. More "eyes on the street" 7. Better emergency response times 8. Lower Fire Service costs 9. Higher real estate values TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. DALLAS STATION AREAS WALK SCORE* MEDIAN HOME PRICE** PARK LANE 88 $79/SF MLK STATION 77 $58/SF HATCHER STATION 54 $48/SF KIEST STATION 52 $42fSF VA STATION 43 $42,rSF BUCKNER STATION 28 $481SF " TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. Ell Westside Extension - Purple Line Ow I 7 r r Wilshire at Fairfax - Before , �� N1 I f I' ,•Y'.f '�' �• ,� �� .. . a ,j},'Y: 1! -.�'. per' .', r R 4.4 fr 5 g rl r r r Why is street design important ? • In dense cities with limited open space, streets are key space to improve the quality of urbanism r Source: Torti Gallas and Partners How do we make Complete Streets ? • Prioritize the pedestrian experience ( 1 ) Sufficient space and safety ' • Wide sidewalks ; • Articulated Crosswalks � ,_. , ( 2 ) Amenities & Activities h • Greenery, shade • Seating, lighting & furniture P r � i • Public Art, vendors w (3 ) Attractive street wall • Human scale buildings - 1 t • Articulated Facades • Active Frontages TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. How do we make Complete Streets ? • Prioritize the pedestrian experience ( 1) Sufficient space and safety PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE • Wide sidewalks • Articulated Crosswalks ( 2 ) Amenities & Activities PUBLIC/PRIVATE STREETSCAPING DISTRICTS • Greenery, shade • Seating, lighting & street furniture (3 ) Attractive street wall DESIGN STANDARDS & CODES • Human scale buildings • Articulated Facades • Active Frontages 77F iw TORTI GALLAS AND . , . How do we make Complete Streets ? Create a "typology" • city streets by Mode - by Urban Design � w = 31 TAM i "" TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. Sources : endorsed by FHWA & Caltrans NACTO Urban Street �w R� m�■ v --w .m � . Design Guide NACTO Urban Bikeway .■m Design Guide 1l FIT TORTI GALLAS ' PARTNERS, INC, Alternative to Maior Arterial ,� e7 , k • � "Pr 77!%sr`m r 7�y' � n.. 1. v :n a 4 4. y s. Q � 1• "`ll��r 111 , ,lid , � +. .. ,•� �a,,,,,,� j i ` r - 10 _ "- Side Drive for Easy/Safe Property ti f r� t4MELM. ■►! ■ i I� •, 3,1 is•IE`a,)S Boulevard vs . Conventional Arterial The Esplanade safety 24,800 ADT Collision rate (collisions/year/volume) 0. 19 per 1000 ADTrA� . Comparison Street Mangrove f Ave 22,233 ADT Collision rate ? (collisions/year/volume) 0. 18 = - TORTI GALLAS AND . . . What the Public Sector Can Do to Support TOD 1 ) Parking Strategy: • Parking District/Parking Authority to provide a "Park-Once" strategy. • Parking Demand Management 2) Specific Plans with Program EIRs in place or Supporting Zoning 3) Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing 4) Create the Template for a Pedestrian Friendly Public Realm • Design and Build (or extract) Streetscapes to make Great Sidewalks and Complete Streets • Form Based Code to Ensure New Buildings Form a Supportive Street Wall. S) Land Assembly for Catalytic Projects. . and TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. What the Public Sector Can Do to Support TOD 6) Be an instrument of change and innovation : • Tactical urbanism • Lean urbanism �r i „ c f I � ' A . . , • Public Realm Great Sidewalks Street Wall n V "" TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. • ■ "" TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. Street Wall is composed of - 1. Private Frontage (Linked to Public _ Frontages) STEPBACK 2. Frontage Line - (Build-To-Line) ' FE FRONTAGE LINE 3. Encroachments, ; Projection, PROJECTIONS Articulation ENCROACHMENT i i 4. Percentage of ; Upper Floor ROW Occupancy ' (Stepbacks) AL � PEDESTRIAN REALM qdEll'! TORTI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, Example Public Realm Composed 80'ft.O.W. NROPOSED BLDG _ STEPBACK PROPOSED FRONTAGE LINE_ 20'FROM CURB FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT _z- = MIN.TREE WELL =4'X8' o z M 60'-64'CURB TO CURB 20'CURB TO BLDG 100'-104'BLDG FACE TO BLDG FACE /.' .ZONES Z .. A. DESCRIPTION Building entry Pedestrian pathway along Landscaping and furnishing zone, sidewalk typically hosting street trees. pS - street lamps and other street furniture Y TYPICAL DIMENSIONS 2.10 FT 6 14 FT 4-8 FF t ALLOWED 6hopfron[,Cafe Most maintain a G'clear Street Trees,Street Lighting, 1 u.� FNCROACHMFNTS Dining,Signage, tone at all hmes. Benches,Bike Lockers, C _ Flower Pols Wayfinding Signage,Planters - GROUND MATERIAL Hardscape Hardscape Softsca pe 0 r Hardscape , - Coast Highway at Washington, Oceanside, CA n 1 Dj i ,;E U AiM A O TORVI GALLAS AND PARTNERS, INC. a 1 W . o m i--� a � vo w+ W s 0 tUO y ,H/ d 'p 9 Lx d,U Y.1■ oast+i .way atWashingiod , srdr� E .! ~ goo- r � � 10 q w6% : - - � � !'/ a; a � •rix ?� �• •,� a Y ctor D and Builds (or Extr ) r rrJ. /I GALLA ASND PA TNERS, INC. . :. . r