Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-09-Agenda Packet-PC-HPC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 2015 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center RAINS ROOM 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca Munoz_ Macias _ Fletcher_ II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS 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. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2015-00897— INFINITY DESIGN UA -Preliminary site plan and architectural review of a 104 room hotel to replace an existing Carrows restaurant on a 1.41 acre project site located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard and east of Mayten Avenue in the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District at 11669 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0229-012-48. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP December 9, 2015 Page 2 RANCHO ON 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 December 3, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." . Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These 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. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP December 9, 2015 �nxcxo Page 3 L.UCAMONGA 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 VicinityMap Planning Commission Workshop December 9 2015 1 ! I I rl i E � o c I •E 2L = 1 I 1 � U Q 2 I I I L S y I � d �", I❑ 1 � =mom 0 01 19th St i Base Line Base Line J irk Church Church Foothill•! Foothill J+ Arrow Arrow ID e 3 i 8th w i _.._.. 9� H o N 6th w V � — A � 4th 4th Meeting Location: City Hall/Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Item A: PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP DRC2015-00897— INFINITY DESIGN UA STAFF REPORT PLANNINGDEPAMEM Date: December 9, 2015 RANCHO To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA From: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director By: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner Subject: PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2015-00897 — INFINITY DESIGN UA -Preliminary site plan and architectural review of a 104-room, 5-story hotel to replace an existing Carrows restaurant on a 1.41 acre parcel of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard and east of Mayten Avenue in the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District at 11669 Foothill Boulevard; APN: 0229-012- 48. GENERAL: The Pre-Application Review process is intended to promote quality development and to facilitate the Development Review process. Although Pre-Application Review is not required, it allows an applicant to present schematic designs to the Planning Commission during the early stages of concept plan preparation, prior to formal application, and to receive broad, general comments and direction from the Planning Commission. The meeting is not a forum for debate, and no formal decision or vote is made. After the meeting, staff prepares minutes of the meeting, which are sent to the applicant. PROJECT BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes developing a 104-room, 5-story hotel on a 1.41- acre parcel of land located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard and east of Mayten Avenue. The project site is currently developed with a Carrows Restaurant and is a part of the much larger 140-acre master-planned Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Park that was approved in 1999. In February of 2002, the northeasterly 25 acres of the master plan was modified and approved to include Parcel Map 15630, an 11-parcel commercial/industrial subdivision. The project site is Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 15630. The General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Designation for the project site is Industrial Park (IP), which permits the development of a hotel on the project site. There is vacant land within the Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District of the Terra Vista Community Plan to the north of the project site; there is existing commercial development to the east and west of the project site within the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District; and, there is vacant land within the Industrial Park (IP) Zoning District to the south of the project site. There is a 6-building industrial warehouse development under review for the vacant lot to the south of the project site. REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS: The development of a hotel on the project site will require the following entitlements: 1. Design Review- $10,210 2. Initial Environmental Study- $2,769 3. Minor Exception (Parking) - $520 Project Design and Layout: The project is designed with a contemporary-inspired architectural design theme which includes the use of wood siding, metal panels, tile and stucco. The building is oriented with the main entrance facing Foothill Boulevard (north) and includes an under building driveway leading to the parking spaces and drive aisle along the north building elevation. The main access to the project site Item A —1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00897—INFINITY DESIGN UA DECEMBER 9, 2015 Page 2 will be from Foothill Boulevard through an existing driveway and from a signalized entrance at Mayten Avenue. The project site can also be accessed from Millennium Court to the south. The submitted site plan provides 92 parking spaces and requires a Minor Exception to reduce the required number of parking spaces. The Development Code requires 106 parking spaces, 1 parking space for each room plus 2 additional parking spaces. STAFF COMMENTS: Planning: Overall, staff is pleased with the conceptual design and layout of the proposed hotel. The architecture has a contemporary appearance, is well-articulated and uses multiple building materials to enhance the design theme. Staff has informed the applicant that when the project is submitted for full review that consideration should be given to adding a raised cantilevered frame around the windows adjacent to the main entry tower element similar to that used on the south elevation. Consideration should also be given to providing additional variation in the roof plane through the use of a decorative cornice treatment. Staff is concerned that the number of parking spaces proposed may not be adequate to meet the parking demand for the size of the hotel. The applicant will need to provide a parking study that supports the reduction in the proposed number of parking spaces to gain staff's support for the required Minor Exception for reduced parking. Engineering: 1. The Foothill Boulevard frontage shall be designed in accordance with the City adopted Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan. This VIP designates a "Suburban Parkway Enhancement Area" featuring colored pavement emblazoned with the Route 66 logo, special sidewalk treatment, artwork and a historic post and a cable roadway safety barrier. Said enhancements within the parkway area shall be maintained by the developer and shall be included in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC & R's). A portion of Foothill Boulevard median island including landscaping and irrigation shall be reconstructed. Revise existing Landscape Maintenance District plans accordingly to reflect the above improvements. Exact location of the Route 66 pavement will be determined by Planning Department. 2. Provide a trip generation and a trip distribution analysis and compare to the trip generation of the existing land use. Based on these studies a Traffic Impact Analysis may be required. 3. Amount of parking spaces shall be in accordance with Development Code Section 17.64. 4. Existing reciprocal access and drainage easements per Parcel Map 15630 should be plotted and respected. If they will be modified, the affected parcels will need to consent. 5. Provide a Conceptual Grading Plan that includes existing features within and 100 feet beyond all site boundaries. Clearly label existing drive aisles and drainage features being modified. 6. Foothill Boulevard frontage improvements to be in accordance with City "Major Divided Arterial" standards as required and including: a. Protect existing curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, signing and striping. Item A—2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00897—INFINITY DESIGN UA DECEMBER 9, 2015 Page 3 7. The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility (RCMU) shall be the electrical service provider for this development. RCMU will handle the cost for all offsite infrastructure needed, including all of the trenching and cabling and a new transformer to service the buildings. The Developer will handle the costs to have SCE remove their services from the location including on-site substructures such as all trenches, conduits (distribution and service conduits), and concrete products(pads, slab boxes, pull boxes and encasement). Building Department (Fire): 1. Provide a Fire Department Access in accordance with the RCFPD Standard 5-1 and ladder truck access per RCFPD ordinance FD 54. Building Department (Grading): 1. A site plan was submitted for a Pre-Application Review. With this submittal for the Pre-Application Review, neither a conceptual grading and drainage plan nor a preliminary water quality management site and drainage plan were available for review. When these documents are submitted, the Building and Safety Department, Grading Services, will provide comments. Please note that all proposed areas of construction and impervious surfaces outside of the property boundaries shall be shown on both the conceptual grading and drainage plan and the preliminary water quality management site and drainage plan. Respectfully submitted, Candyce Burnett Planning Director CB:TV/Is Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant Presentation Package Item A —3 m x rnW_ _ F 0 0TH I L L B O U L E V A R D PROJECT STATISTICS: p�pci I.a.elyn GUEST ROOMS: DMH 26 GUEST ROOMS PER FLOOR •,,-____ _ ___ I_ ___ r. - r, 5 FLOORS "'•' - 1 sea'-Y 104 ROOMS TOTAL 4i PARKING: 92 PARKING STALLS 22� o e r 18 o --. - - _ Pmk Summary ^' 92 stolls 9 — ® ©i a e z — (D G 47-10 A 5 li ❑ ❑ PFO SED BUILDING _ 0 LI-T POOL �I X11 4 178 .. ;6 x t "Y BEI SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN1.. - I( 0 - 27-3" -0" 27'-0" VESTIF3UL.r P AN'rf;'Y I TiRI'AKFA';I i r+ I S FAIR I - F f 00D PREP LIFE rING I i 17AOI( OF HOUSE ILOlf:IY I —=-- Ln I �I --• ; ! I —i --�- —�- I PARKING STAIR �i ELf-` I-AUNDRY%LINFN,/`,TGR. \ /I �( I Pool- IEOUIPI I LL 3N'-G" 7'-C: 14'-G" 2r;'-11' I S' 0" 43'- /......-... ... .. ..y 0' SCHEMATIC FIRST FLOOR PLAN - I A2.0 —asvx:e —w.•r:. --c�c-r.�: —.r..:..M1fnsrs r–wsM1. �CON!rtP -M�MLOM.K 5`.JCY -4@�� ^.`A:LLAMiIi -ulfK .- W.ww\I4n' �-'�K r-N%COl:M1 i (-VF.Aw --^IK:T RMC appy � wNyyt i wµ05 tY:1Js...T'aN.fv rA.M£1 A4C15 I I -_ �. . SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATION -NORTH ENTRY AT FOOTHILL BLVD. r- ! rte ' ::ArnsI i' A3.0 -h A x.11 AW1V-0 -1n-4 _ WTK ..MRl4FE.4 �lLrt✓C. � AVRK A>'Ngi NAAE , I �NEl1 {44 wJ!'6`AVR 9M. ip � 1 rD I 3 rJ'rcn�dc�u[u' I D I ao .sa 1 I unl r n In 1 �.Suirrs ' SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATION-SOUTH A3 1 - 9�IK nk:f x cox tp.c O�N¢f ' j —sura r C�°r^pteq� (N�^�DPJ %nrt h Sa Aa %mu¢Sim' D i i i of SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS-EAST WEST A3.2 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION December 9, 2015 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Wimberly_ Vice Chairman Oaxaca Munoz Macias 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA �RCHO December 9, 2015 (� 0NGA Page 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR/IIISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration to Approve Minutes dated October 28, 2015 B. Consideration to Approve Workshop Minutes dated November 10, 2015 C. Consideration to Approve Special Meeting Minutes dated November 10, 2015 N. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/orposted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. An such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. D. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893 — PETE VOLBEDA—A request for site plan and architectural review of a 7,302 square foot two-story, single-family residence and an attached 1,055 square foot garage on a 25,273 square foot lot located in the Very Low(VL) Zoning District(.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre)at 9251 loamosa Court;APN: 1061-611-15. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 which covers the construction of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned district. Related file: Variance DRC2014-00894. E. VARIANCE DRC2014-00894— PETE VOLBEDA—A request to reduce the required rear yard setback related to the construction of a single-family residence on a project site located in the Very Low(VL)Zoning District(.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre)at 9251 loamosa Court; APN: 1061-611-15. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305,which covers minor alterations in land use regulations including building setbacks. Related file: Minor Design Review DRC2014-00893. F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00848 — ROYAL SPA - A request to operate a massage establishment within a 1,395 square foot tenant space located within Planning Area 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and 7th Street at 9090 Milliken Avenue, Suite 130; APN: 0209-272-28. 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 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301)exemption,which covers existing facilities. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO December 9, 2015 CITCAMONGA Page 3 V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION G. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES H. 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 December 3, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak,given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others,the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under"Public Comments." 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. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA �CHO December 9, 2015 oNGA Page 4 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$2,584 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. VicinityMap Historic Preservation and PlanningCommission Meeting December 9 2015 1 r r••� f I r0 L._..—Q _.—..,—.. E�..—.-0 —..�.—..—r _..—..—.•--i ._.._..._.�..—.--.—....—..moi —.,� I 1 E m j CL 2All i as to 19th St 't Base Line ' Base Line r`S► hurch Church Foothill•! N Foothill E L 1 Arrow � _£ � Arrow Jc rsey ! 8th o 3 W 1 P C7 6th t y 5 6th W 4th Q = 4th ® & E I yk Meeting Location: :Fj City Hall/Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Items A, B & C: Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes dated October 28, 2015 and November 10, 2015 and Approval of Workshop Meeting Minutes November 10, 2015 Items D & E: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893—PETE VOLBEDA and VARIANCE DRC2014-00894 Item F: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00848—ROYAL SPA THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF ;ONGAo THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION October 28, 2015 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California FIF.7� I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 PM Roll Call Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias X Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner;Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer;Betty Miller, Senior Engineer;Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary,Jennifer Palacios, Office SpecialistFIF 7 11 II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None Item A—1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . �R CHO October 28, 2015 (� { oxen Page 2 F� III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS J1 A. Presentation of a Resolution of Commendation for Betty Miller, Associate Engineer. Presentation by Chairman Wimberly IV. . CONSENT CALENDAWHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION B. Consideration of Regular Meeting Minutes dated September 9, 2015. C. Consideration of Workshop Minutes dated September 9, 2015. D. Consideration of Workshop Minutes dated September 23, 2015. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 5-0 to adopt the Consent Calendar. V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS/ HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION E. WINERY THEME ARCHITECTURE IN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA AREA. Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Commissioners Munoz, Macias, Oaxaca and Chairman Wimberly commented that they liked and appreciated the excellent, informative report. Commissioner Fletcher commented that he feels the staff report was not what he asked for in his original email. He noted several excerpts from the exhibits attached to the staff report. He asked that the Task Force Study be mentioned or some type of guidance be given in the specific plans when new builders want to build in the nine properties identified by the Task Force. He stressed that he does not want to ignore the importance of the historic value of these properties and said he would like the guidelines to be outlined and for the Planners to make the new developers aware of the historic importance of the winery/viticulture of the city. He said he wants Staff to take the Task Force Committee meetings and reports into consideration when a new project is proposed. He said his intent with respect to the development at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road was to not necessarily create winery architecture but lend a historical reference. Item A-2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO October 28, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 3 He said his main concern is that he feels the nine properties dropped through the cracks and felt that the work of the Task Force was minimized. He said he does not want a developer to come into DRC with plans that do not include or demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the history of our area. Commissioner Munoz said he is confused about what is being asked for. He asked if it is the design to reflect the wineries or something incorporated showing the historical importance. He asked what is needed that is not already part of the Etiwanda Specific Plan or Victoria Arbors Master Plan. Chairman Wimberly suggested staff answer that. Commissioner Macias said he agrees to acknowledging the history of Rancho Cucamonga but he views it as a place in time, not the architectural design. He said he wants flexibility to accommodate demographic change and market values. He said he is okay if the developer comes in with some type of historic element but we may need to define what the requirements are. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director, said staff is sensitive with the City's architectural styles and implements the needed design elements. She said the Craftsman style found on Base Line is part of the City's acceptable design for that area. She said the development there (Winery Estates Commercial Center) does recognize the architectural style and theme adjacent to it and these themes are included in the current Planning documents. Commissioner Fletcher reported that at the Lewis workshop (for the proposed Stater Brother's center on the northwest corner), Lewis came in with many renderings and plans. He said nothing was mentioned about the historical elements or the Task Force. He said he was not so concerned about changing the designs, he only wanted some type of commemorative element such as a plaque. Chairman Wimberly noted that the Commission and the DRC has the authority to tell the developer they must put the elements into the plans. Commissioner Fletcher said staff is not telling the developers. He noted that Market Place Partners/Mike Rue endured a tremendous level of review and revised conditions before receiving approval. Vice Chairman Oaxaca noted that Lewis ignored some basic elements. He said certain expectations in the Etiwanda area should be met and he is okay with sending the developer back until those expectations are met. Commissioner Munoz said we are trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed and commented that, 'the system is working.,, Item A-3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MiNUTES CHo October 28, 2015 C`�`rcnr,` NGA Page 4 Commissioner Fletcher said he is okay if the developers use different aspects or designs that reference the winery heritage. Commissioner Macias asked if he would be satisfied if staff references the historical value needed to new developers. Commissioner Fletcher said staff did not know about the importance of the Task Force and he wants some type of documentation to show the importance and the efforts of the Task Force made. He said he wants staff to identify the nine properties recognizing the heritage in the area. Chairman Wimberly suggested staff bring some type of documentation for review to the Commissioners. Ms. Burnett said a tag can easily be added on the parcels electronically to recognize these properties. She noted that Lewis is going to add the historical elements into their design as requested. Commissioner Munoz said although he recognizes the frustration, he sees that staff gets blamed a lot. He put on the record for staff to make the change and that the direction to staff has been given. Staff received the following direction: Staff will be using technology to flag the remaining undeveloped parcels in the study area to help ensure developers are fully aware of the importance of these parcels as they relate to historic sites and the neighborhood context and so they are made aware at the project onset of any additional design requirements. The Commission acknowledged the fact that"winery"architecture in our area is eclectic and cannot be defined. The Commission thanked Ms. Schrader for the excellent report. The Secretary received and filed the report. PUBLIC HEARINGS/ PLANNING COMMISSION VI. _ F. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT18960 —WILSON ESTATES, LLC - The subdivision of 4.36 acres into 12 residential lots in the Low (L) Residential District of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan located on the north side of Wilson Avenue, west of Etiwanda Avenue, at the southwest corner of Altura Drive and Tejas Court;APN: 1087-261-12. Related Files: Design Review DRC2015-00811. 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 32 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332) Item A—4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0cHO October 28, 2015 ONGA Page 5 exemption, which covers in-fill development. Tom Grahn, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). In response to Vice Chairman Oaxaca, Mr. Grahn reported that the building pads will be 5-15 feet lower than the existing pads in the development around these and the rear lot boundaries will slope high to low into the new pads. He said block walls are called out along all of the lot boundaries. Rich Scott, representing Wilson LLC, said he is available for questions. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Macias, carried 5-0, to adopt the Resolution approving SUBTT18960. VII. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION G. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES None H. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Fletcher commented that with respect to TOD developments that are currently being processed, the applicants are already requesting changes to the Development Code prior to Council approval of the Development Code amendments. He said he believes it is important to let the developers know upfront that the City will expect them to adhere to the requirements for the commercial aspect of the development. He said we cannot create the street scene with ambiance and meeting space without that being incorporated. He said he made it clear at DRC that he would not approve the project without that commercial aspect. Chairman Wimberly agreed. Commissioner Fletcher also noted that they want a further reduction of the parking standard. He expressed a concern about a shortage of parking resulting in overflow onto the streets. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director said we have a minimum parking standard, they also must provide a study with a peer review to determine if the parking is adequate and will actually work. Off-site street parking is not part of meeting the required parking. She noted that in some urban areas parking on the street is considered acceptable urban design. She commented on the timing with respect to the future plan of building facilities to support the BRT and how timing of this plan Item A-5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION in . AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SoHo October 28, 2015 oNGA Page 6 somewhat collides with the applicant's timing. She said they have waited 2 years for the Development Code changes. She also noted that "village" type developments have different conditions from east to west and this is also a factor and noted that there are challenges with how development occurs. Commissioner Munoz asked that this topic be brought back to the Commission as he did not see the concept working. Vice Chairman Oaxaca said the future should drive the decision rather than a specific project. Ms. Burnett said staff will bring this back to do a workshop with a mini training and case studies to help bring more understanding of how this works. She noted the village concept is part of phase 2 of a Council goal. Commissioner Munoz said he would like to look at parking. Commissioner Fletcher said to apply urban standards in a suburban community won't work. Commissioner Munoz thanked staff for the Board/Commission Appreciation dinner. He said it was a nice event. VIII. ADJOURNUV ENT 8:58 PM 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 21,2015,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 Item A-6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 28, 2015 Page 7 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.CitvofRC.us. Item A —7 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RANCHO SPECIAL MEETING/WORKSHOP MINUTES OF CUCAMONCA THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2015 - 4:30 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ***TRI-COMMUNITIES ROOM*** 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call 4:30 PM Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias A Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Tom Grahn, Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Senior Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner; Flavio Nunez, Management Analyst 11; Dominick Perez, Assistant Planner;Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary,Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist ll; Mike Smith, Senior Planner, Valerie Victorino, Planning Secretary; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner; Nikki Cavazos, Assistant Planner Chairman Wimberly announced at approximately 4:35 p.m. that to more easily accommodate the number of guests in attendance, the meeting would be moved to the Council Chambers. The Commission reconvened at 4:45 p.m. in the Chambers. The roll call remained the same. 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 Item B -1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES ANCO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 AHR5 Page 2 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. All public comment followed the presentation of the discussion item. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION :J A. PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00040 - SC RANCHO DEVELOPMENT CORP. (LEWIS OPERATING CORP.) - A workshop to discuss a proposal to amend the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP)Subarea 18 Specific Plan in order to allow a mixed use project on a property currently developed with the Empire Lakes Golf Course, a private facility located north of 4th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, east of Cleveland Avenue, and south of 8th Street and the BNSF/Metrolink rail line. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00114, Development Code Amendment DRC2015-00115, and Development Agreement DRC2015-00118. Mike Smith, Senior Planner, gave a PowerPoint Presentation (copy on file) Bryan Goodman, VP Regional Planned Communities (for Lewis) gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy on file) Todd Lamer with William Hezmalhach Architects continued with the presentation. Michael Schroct with Urban Arena continued regarding the landscaping and how it should feel safe and yet is all different to create energy offering new things and spaces. Todd Larner continued regarding the different land uses and circulation. Commissioner Fletcher asked where the reduced building setbacks would occur and where the parking is provided. Mike Smith, Senior Planner responded that it could occur in some places from the edge of the right-of-way; a range could be provided. Along The Vine it could be as low as 0 feet. He said it could occur at the Parklets provided the other streets are higher but not higher than 20 feet. He said the smallest curb to right-of-way maybe 8-10 feet-he said the sidewalk becomes a place unto itself. With respect to parking, he said that if there are 30 dwelling units or less per acre they would have to follow the Code. For 30 or more per acre, there will be special parking provisions in the draft specific plan;and the applicant will be required to prepare a 3rd party parking study. Parking could be provided in wrap structures, garages or underground, it depends. Chairman Wimberly opened the floor for public comment. Brandon Brooke Said he is a business owner at Cleveland and 61h Street. His concerns Item B -2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 cUC"ONGA Page 3 included the loss of a beautiful course, young people and the disabled use it, and lessons for the blind occur there, there will be a loss of walking opportunities, and he believes the project would use more water than the golf course. He did not believe this project caters to the Millennials. He said businesses will suffer from crime and traffic. He said the EIR should consider the future impacts of the future hotel, apartments, and the two new industrial buildings. Stuart Schwarz said we are in a rush to get it done. He said it is a game-changing project with many unknowns- "the great experiment". He said the noticing provided minimal communication with the public;it needs greater public review. He said we are losing a great recreation area. He said the Draft EIR is 6,000 pages-too much to review in the allotted time period. Tessy Capps said it has too many people crammed in and the public needs more time to review. She said 3-story units must have elevators. She thought the Commissioners should have more questions. He said Millennials have cars and it is a pie in the sky idea to think people will bike that extensively. Craig Olsen said the golf course is a big draw. He did not believe young people will buy into this. He noted the course used to be vineyards. He said very few people use the Metrolink-you must have a car in Southern California. Jack Adams expressed concerns about parking for 4,000 cars. He did not see a reason to lose the golf course. He had concerns about who maintains the development. He said people will not want to live there in the industrial area and people should have more say in the decision. He said it is terrible to introduce this just prior to the holidays,people are being bypassed. He said public services and schools and infrastructure need to be considered-slow down the process. Dr. John Hull, a sports performance psychologist, said he submitted a letter dated June 11. He said there is a large group of young girls and boys becoming golfers-a big surge. Every great city has a great public golf course; Sierra Lakes is a joke. He said the new owner of Empire Lakes is a poor manager. Mario Turran said the high school teams practice at Empire Lakes. He said to destroy the golf course would destroy a landmark. He said the teams would have to go to other cities to practice and play. He said there are other areas to develop this in Rancho Cucamonga. Chairman Wimberly suggested the Commissioners could comment after the recess. He then called a 6:00pm recess. Item B -3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES C HoNOVEMBER 10, 2015 ONCa Page 4 The Commission reconvened at 7:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present except Commissioner Macias. Chairman Wimberly confirmed with a show of hands that no new members of the public were in attendance with the expectation of hearing the workshop presentation at 7:00 pm. He then invited the public to continue their comment period that began before the recess. Tom Reiner, a golfer, complimented the City and staff for balanced development in the community. He said he spoke on June 90th at the Scoping meeting. He said he had asked staff to examine the impact of the loss of the golf course. His letter states his appreciation of the unpaved area of a golf course. He said the statistics presented by the developer are nationwide and general. He said they should consider that Empire Lakes hosts professional tournaments, it is a quality course. He noted his petition on line:saveempirelakes.com. He said they have over 600 names. He stated he is a civil engineer and is familiar with CEQA. Dean Madison objected because there are some vacancies in the existing apartment complexes. He said regarding Millennials-home ownership is better than apartments financially. He said he does not want this to turn into another LA-high density means more crime, traffic and road rage. He said we need balance. He cited the current water shortage and said we would need more police and resources. Lidia Dollet said Millennials are slammed with student loans-they can't afford golf or to buy homes-it sounds like a resort. She said there are no back yards for kids to safely play in. She said she is not interested in all these shared spaces as she has no time to participate in them. She feared this would be funded by a Mello Roos. She did not see that this would add anything to Rancho Cucamonga. Tammy Tapia said the traffic will be compounded. She said it is not pleasant anymore to live here and this is not what we want Rancho Cucamonga to be. Kim Earl said it looks beautiful but it is not good for Rancho as it does not fit the lifestyle. She was concerned about traffic, who will pay for schools, crime, an increase for police and fire and Mello Roos taxes. She said Upland did terrible job with The Colonies. She said she thinks open space is wise and she does not want 'stack n pack.' Fred Knifer said he employs 89 people in a business in Rancho. He said we now export our kids instead of fruit. He said we should pursue big businesses so our kids can stay and have jobs. He said we will lose out because they will have to make accommodation for this development. Lewis has been great but can we bring in other businesses for balance. He asked where all these people are going to work. Item B -4 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 CUCAMONGA Page 5 Rebecca Reynolds stated she is in the target age group; she said the housing resembles a college dorm-like Peter Pan-he never grows up. She said all she can afford is an apartment with roommates. She said this new development will be expensive and would encourage her to be more in debt. She said you need a car to get anywhere; we need jobs, people want houses and space. Chairman Wimberly ended the public comment period at 7.35 p.m. and asked for Commission comments. Commissioner Munoz noted we are at the beginning of the project and that the Commission may not have the questions yet,just a vision. He suggested we give the developer time to put something together. He said this is part of the process and new to the Commission as well. He said we know this project will change over time and the public will have opportunities to give more feedback. Our city is concerned about what the public thinks, we hear you and the developer appreciate the comments from the public. Commissioner Fletcher thanked the residents for their comments and also noted they are in the early stages. He said this is a developer driven application and not the City. He said he could see how it could be done and it could be beneficial. He said there is the land use issue-he said he asked staff and the applicant to demonstrate why open space was originally included in the Gen Plan and why this would be better than what exists in terms of allowed land use and how it would affect balance in the City. He asked why changing to Mixed Use is a better use for the city. He said open space is a quality of life issue for our residents. He asked how this affects our goals and if we checked into the costs of services;is it a positive, negative or neutral for City's budget. He asked what the balance would be of the new uses. He said this would be the 3'd high density, mixed use project proposed without a commercial portion. He said if approved he wants the components built at the same time (commercial and residential). Vice Chairman Oaxaca agreed that this is the first part of an extensive process. He thanked the public for their participation. He encouraged everyone to look at the Draft EIR. He said CEQA is designed to benefit all parties including the public. He suggested they read, question, comment and look at the fundamentals re:land use. He noted he is a regular train user and this type of proposal is becoming more commonplace around the country. He said they are looking at new ways to use properties in different way. Chairman Wimberly thanked everyone for taking part in the process. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director said we heard the public comments and this is part of the public review. She said the DEIR was released today and is available for 45 days-the public is free to contact us and/or comment. She said there will be more Public Item B -5 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES CHo NOVEMBER 10, 2015 oNGA Page 6 hearings after the circulation period and more workshops to help provide information to you and the Planning Commission. IV. ADJOURNMENT The workshop adjourned at 7:50 p.m. The Commission recessed for 10 minutes and reconvened at 8:00 p.m. for their regular agenda items. 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 November 5, 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 Item B —6 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES AANCHORNOVEMBER 10, 2015 U�AMovGA Page 7 scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of$2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us Item B —7 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2015 0 7°00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call 4:30PM Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias A Fletcher X Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Jeff Bloom, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development; Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney,Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer;Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner;Dominick Perez,Assistant Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary;Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist Il; Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner FFL7.' II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Item C -1 PHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ANCHORNOVEMBER 10, 2015 CUCA TONGA Page 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAWHISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration of minutes dated October 28, 2015 B. VACATION OF A 25-FOOT WIDE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND THE SR-210 FREEWAY(V-231)—CCI LOT 9 HAVEN LLC The minutes shown as Item A were removed from the Consent Calendar to be considered by the Commission at a future meeting. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-1, (Macias absent) to adopt Item B of the consent calendar. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGSTLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/orposted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00388 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS—A request to change the General Plan Land Use Designation for 10.94 acres of land from Low Medium (LM) Residential to Neighborhood Commercial (NC)related to the construction of a 100,135 square foot 9-building multi-tenant retail center located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road in the Medium .(M) Zoning District of the Victoria Community Plan — APN's: 1089-031-15, 16, 35 and a portion of 1089-031-14. Related cases: Design Review DRC2015-00386, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2014 00390, Tentative Tract Map SUBTPM19637, Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00387 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2015-00391. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00390 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS — A request to change the Victoria Community Plan Zoning Designation for 10.94 acres of land from Low Medium (LM) Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Village Commercial (VC) related to the construction of a 100,135 square foot 9-building multi-tenant retail center at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road. The Amendment also includes changing the zoning designation for 4 contiguous acres of land from Medium (M) Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium (LM) Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)and a text amendment clarifying development standards—APN's: 1089-031- Item C—2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES PHOP.ANC' Cv � NOVEMBER 10, 2015 Page 3 15, 16, 35 and a portion of 1089-031-14. Related cases: Design Review DRC2015-00386, General Plan Amendment DRC2014 00388, Tentative Tract Map SUBTPM19637, Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00387 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2015-00391. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM19637 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS —A request to subdivide 14.08 acres of land into 6 parcels of land on 10.08 acres of land for the purposes of developing a retail center and a 4-acre remainder parcel for residential purposes for a site located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road in the Medium (M) Zoning District of the Victoria Community Plan—APN's: 1089-031-15 and 16. Related cases: Design Review DRC2015- 00386, General Plan Amendment DRC2014 00388, Tentative Tract Map SUBTPM19637, Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00387 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2015-00391. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW DRC2015-00386 - LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS —A request for site plan and architectural review of a 100,135 square foot 9-building multi-tenant retail center that includes a 44,988 square foot major tenant building, a 15,207 square foot pad building, a 9,160 inline tenant building, two 7,560 square foot inline tenant buildings, a 4,500 square foot inline tenant building, two 3,780 inline tenant buildings and a future 3,600 square foot inline tenant building on 10.94 acres of land located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road in the Medium (M) Zoning District of the Victoria Community Plan-APN's: 1089-031-15, 16, 35 and a portion of 1089-031-14. Related cases: General Plan Amendment DRC2014-00388, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2014 00390, Tentative Tract Map SUBTPM19637, Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00387 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2015-00391. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00387- LEWIS RETAIL CENTERS—A request to operate a 100,135 square foot multi-tenant retail center on 10.94 acres of land for a site located at the northwest corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road in the Medium (M)Zoning District of the Victoria Community Plan — APN's: 1089-031-15 and 16. Related cases: Design Review DRC2015-00386, General Plan Amendment DRC2014 00388, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2015-00390 and Uniform Sign Program DRC2015-00391. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Tabe van der Zwaag gave the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He noted that staff has been in contact with CDFW because they have asked for expanded mitigations with respect to RAFSS. He said the developer's consultant, LSA, wrote a letter as to why the mitigation measures are sufficient. He said the lights on the project site will be shielded to reduce glare. He noted a letter received from Ms. Walton regarding her concerns about biological impacts of the project. Item C —3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES �RANHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 (� °N`A Page 4 Walt Mitchell of Lewis Retail said it is a community friendly project. He noted that they addressed the comments from staff and the Planning Commission re:winery elements. He said he believes it fits with the community. He thanked staff for their assistance during the review process. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Natasha Walton submitted a letter(copy on file). She stated she is a biology professor and appreciates open spaces. She asked that they minimize the impacts-preserve RAFSS and restore native vegetation. Eric Walton suggested they plant large native canopy trees (such as oaks), and minimize light pollution. He noted a concern about the Craftsman style lights. Jim Baldovin of CDPC(Landscape architect) said the current plant palette has several low water use plantings. He said he did not recommend oaks as there is not enough space with a clear zone to sustain them. He said Sycamores are ok with the character of the project. He said perhaps oaks could be considered with the tie in area with the trail system. Commissioner Munoz asked that staff try to work with the applicant on this. Mr. Baldovin said they are using a chaparral landscape. He said they are working with staff as they need form to follow function and to eliminate water use and work in the space constraints. He said adding natives is an issue. Commissioner Munoz thanked staff and the applicant and the DRC. He said he likes the plaques and hopes they address the native plant issue. He offered his support of the project. Commissioner Fletcher thanked staff for addressing the issues. He said the project is good looking, has interesting additions, and he likes the plant palette but he is ok if they decide to tweak it. Vice Chairman Oaxaca thanked the applicant for being responsive to the Commission comments. He said the project should be a nice addition and complements existing uses. Chairman Wimberly concurred. He thanked staff and the applicant. He said they should work with staff on the conditions. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM19637, Design Review DRC2015- 00386 and Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00387 and to forward the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts, the General Plan Amendment and the Victoria Item C-4 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 cLTCAMONGA Page 5 Community Plan Amendment to the City Council for final action. H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00886 - BOONSEE THAI MASSAGE -A request to operate a massage establishment within a 834 square foot tenant space located at the northeast corner of Milliken Avenue and Kenyon Way within the Village Commercial (VC) District of the Victoria Community Plan at 11338 Kenyon Way, Unit B; APN: 1089-131-07. 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 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301)exemption,which covers existing facilities. Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She noted that condition #3 says all violations must be corrected before reopening. She said she received an email in support of the project(copy on file). She reported there is a multi-departmental task force that is working jointly to ensure the business is operating safely and legally. Commissioner Munoz asked what triggers an investigation. Ms. Nakamura said they are looking at a permanent organization and possibly an annual inspection for these businesses. She said the owners must be available for periodic inspections and it will be the responsibility of the task force to complete the inspections as required. Commissioner Fletcher asked how many of these businesses are operating today and would the Commission have the authority to deny an application if they felt there were too many. Ms. Nakamura reported that it is a moving target; around 28-30. She said that is not grounds for denial although they have thought about requiring a distance between them or concentration requirements in the long term ordinance. Steven Flower,Assistant City Attorney, said that is a legislative issue and it is not before the Commission to decide. He said only the application is evidence in this case to support or deny the request. He said an Interim ordinance is currently in place. Ms. Nakamura reported that there are no other massage businesses in this immediate center. She said this is anew corporation but it is the same physical person managing this business. Chairman Wimberly asked about the prior legislation. Mr. Flower said there were too many local requirements and then they consolidated the land use authority. He said how it is now split; the State has a hand in certification of the Item C -5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES % NCHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 (� CAMONGA Page 6 operators but they gave back land use authority to the local jurisdictions. He confirmed that if there is a future violation then it could be brought back for the Commission for review including modification, suspension or revocation. Condit Kochaporn said her business is not illegal,they do traditional medical massage, not entertainment. She said she took over the business in December 2014, then she came in August 2015 to change contact person. That is when she found out she had to get a CUP. She said this has been a hardship for her. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz advised the applicant to read and remember the conditions and to make sure she understands them. Commissioner Fletcher thanked the applicant and wished her good luck. Vice Chairman Oaxaca also advised that she read her conditions. Chairman Wimberly thanked the applicant for providing the history of the application. Moved by Fletcher, seconded by Oaxaca, carried4-0-1, (Macias absent) to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00886. I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00613-ORCHID BEAUTY DAY SPA-A request to operate a massage establishment within a 1,448 square foot tenant space located on Foothill Boulevard east of Vineyard Avenue within the Community Commercial(CC)zoning district of the Foothill Boulevard Overlay District located at 9000 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 104; APN: 0208-101-17. 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 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) exemption, which covers existing facilities. Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). Staff, during the vetting process, found that the owner also owns 2 other sites and no violations have been reported at those establishments. Yong Ying Shi, stated her business is mostly skin care services and she understands the conditions of approval and will abide by them. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no comment, he closed the public hearing. Moved by Oaxaca, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt the Item C—6 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MCNOVEMBER 10, 2015 ONCA Page 7 resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00613 J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00806-V SPA-A request to operate a massage establishment within a 936 square foot tenant space within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Carnelian Street at 8800 Base Line Road, Unit C; APN: 0202-381-24. 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 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) exemption, which covers existing facilities. Dominick Perez, Associate Planner,presented the staff report and PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). He reported that this is a new owner but the owner has prior experience in southern California and that business operation was in compliance. He said the business for review tonight is closed until the permit is received. Martin Lu stated on behalf of the owner that they offer Chinese acupressure and massage. He said the owner is committed to working with staff and meeting the requirements. Commissioner Fletcher noted that the owner is non-English speaking and asked how she communicates with customers. Mr. Lu stated that other staff members speak English. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing. Hearing and seeing no comment, closed the public hearing. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Fletcher, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit DRC2015-00806. K. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00848 - ROYAL SPA - A request to operate a massage establishment within a 1,395 square foot tenant space located within Planning Area 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and 7th Street at 9090 Milliken Avenue, Suite 130; APN: 0209-272-28. 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 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301)exemption,which covers existing facilities. Staff asked for a continuance of Item K(DRC2015-00848) to December 9, 2015 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Oaxaca, carried 4-0-1 (Macias absent) to continue the item to the regular meeting of December 9, 2015. Item C -7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES cHo NOVEMBER 10, 2015 oxcn Page 8 V. COMMISSION BUSINESS/FIISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION L. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES None M. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS None VI. ADJOURNMENT 9:25 PM 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on November 5, 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 Item C—8 HISTORIC PRESERVATION; COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO NOVEMBER 10, 2015 CITCAMONGA Page 9 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$2,584 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CitvofRC.us. Item C -9 STAFF REPORT PIANNINGDEPARIND Vr DATE: December 9, 2015 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner SUBJECT: MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893 — PETE VOLBEDA — A request for site plan and architecture review of a 7,302 square foot two-story single-family residence and an attached 1,055 square foot garage on a 25,273 square foot lot located in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District (A to 2 dwelling units per acre) at 9251 loamosa Court; APN: 1061-611-15. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the construction of a single-family residence in a residentially zoned district. VARIANCE DRC2014-00894 — PETE VOLBEDA — A request to reduce the required rear yard setback related to the construction of a single-family residence on a project site located in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) at 9251 loamosa Court; APN: 1061-611-15. Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use regulations including building setbacks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Minor Design Review DRC2014-00893 and Variance DRC2014-00894 through adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions. 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 both a Class 3 exemption (Minor Development Review) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the construction of a limited number of structures including a single-family residence, and as a Class 5 exemption (Variance) under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use requirements including building setbacks. The project is for the construction of a single-family residence on a legal residential lot and the reduction of the required rear yard setback. The Planning Director has reviewed the Planning Department determination of exemption, and based on her own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Project Density: 2.11 dwelling units per acre North - Single-Family Residences; Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) South - Single-Family Residences; Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant Lot; Very Low (VL) Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) West - Vacant Land; Flood Control (FC) District B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Very Low (VL) Residential North - Very Low(VL) Residential Item D&E1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893 AND VARIANCE DRC2014-00894 December 9, 2015 Page 2 South - Very Low (VL) Residential East - Very Low (VL) Residential West - Flood Control (FC) ANALYSIS: A. Project Proposal: The applicant is requesting a site plan and architectural review of a 7,302 square foot two-story single-family residence along with an attached 1,055 square foot garage on a 25,273 square foot lot. The project is within the Equestrian Overlay District and there is a 15-foot wide trail along the south and west property lines. The project complies with the development criteria except for the 60-foot rear yard setback. The applicant has submitted a request for a Variance (DRC2014-00894) to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 60 feet to 30 feet. The subject lot was approved as part of a Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16461) which included a Variance (DRC2003-00902) reducing the required 200-foot lot depth for each of the subdivided lots. The subject lot is approximately 122 feet deep along the north property line and 118 feet deep along the east property line, which is significantly below the 200-foot lot depth requirement. The site plan includes a potential location for the required horse corral that complies with the 70-foot separation requirement for the adjacent dwelling units. B. Variance: The applicant has requested a Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 60 feet to 30 feet. Staff finds the request reasonable as the existing lot was approved with a reduced lot depth and does not comply with the current lot depth standard. 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 required rear yard setback, the applicant would have to significantly redesign the proposed residence to adhere to the required rear yard setback, which would place a significant hardship on the applicant. 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 subdivision of which the subject lot is a part included a Variance reducing the lot depth significantly below the 200-foot lot depth requirement. 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 the Variance, the applicant would have to design a house that is much shallower than other houses in the same Development District, thereby diminishing development potential of the subject lot in relation to nearby lots. 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. Item D&E2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893 AND VARIANCE DRC2014-00894 December 9, 2015 Page 3 Fact: It is common practice to grant reductions in the rear yard setback when the project site is substantially deficient in meeting the minimum required lot depth. In this case, the existing lot depth is substantially deficient of the 200-foot lot depth requirement. Finding: The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact: The Variance will only minimally affect the outward appearance and will not intensify the use of the project site. C. Design Review Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee (Fletcher, and Granger) on October 20, 2015. The Committee recommended that the project move forward to the Planning Commission for a final review. 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 with respect to the application requests. Respectful) ubmitted, Candyce Bu ett Planning Director CB:TV/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Complete Set of Plans Exhibit B - Design Review Committee Action Agenda for October 20, 2015 Exhibit C - Planning Commission Staff Report Dated December 10, 2003 with signed Planning Commission Resolutions 03-178 and 03-179 Resolution of Approval for Minor Design Review DRC2014-00893 Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2014-00894 Item D&E3 OWNER KEN ZHENG wU conEr'aE`P0a s�`xaE v°wo wluc`s'EFka"v`i r o w(is:�c 1650 S GROVE AVE,SUITE C RENRN WALLS ANR wuo ,ALL eE DECMAOr£ VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE REAR YARD TO .30 FT 1 ONTARIO,CA 91761 iASdwv TIE..-015ACE,S Z-111 OR SNCCO ' o NArpI NwsE. w AGarIGN,rxa wAus IacA reo TEL 1 562 413 6343 NiNIWEEO OR EACs O E OYOUSMG A WALLS AMIE�Aor rML/ EXISTING HOUSE U SCAPWG OR.F POSSNL[CONSRAIC ONG A 910.E MAL m VACANT (FLOOD CONTROL) O Z 3OLD EXIST 2 FT SWALE 89 9'03" E U 122 FT ISL , 50 a NEW 6 FT HT t EX RETAINING WALL BLOCK WALL -'• 6 �z � LOT SIZE ®O b>r ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE ®LU q sa 25,273 SO FT O - I ........ T 25% o I FOOTPRINT 6147 SOET GinZ 24.3%LOT COVERAGE .,1 a_--- -- ALLOW 6318 SF 0 F \ '1 Parcel #1061611150000RU Q /DRIVE PM 15692 Lot 3 \ `:.....\�;...:..... -..'.—,i.., - APPROACH= 14 . AREA: 4057 SO FT. -�� IST LIV �.' i 2ND UV. AREA: 2975 SO FT 3= J POOL �� TOTAL AREA: SO FT \ � `,.y •, ��„F. GARAGE. 1,055 50 FT ui n 7,032 VACAN7 FAM RM PATIO 288 COVERED PAT ATPATI0 1 SFCOVERC Q —j FRONTED FRONTLPORCHO 2 320 170 E ff --• 1ST FLOOR 4057 v G.AGE ® -- .1055 FOOTPRINT 6147 SF INDEX (0 i i SOLD 1 SITE PLAN CO I GARAG11� .... ....... IM[,fdl\ 1S 1ST FLOOR PIAN GATES 2 FLOOR PLAN 3 ROOF PLAN J 4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS �"I d 5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4 IN OG PER CITY ... ! LANDSCAPE PLANS (.0 LL STANDARDS - .__......_—_ .- GRADING PLANS Z O 00E%ISTING 15 FT � �L- � EASEMENT Q U — -D -- U U RORSE caPRAt aq..ea z..z1. Z O LA = N Z - VACANT ------------------- Y Z � SOIJD w F HILLSIDE LAST S ALE I 0. art C. Q ` —_.-SITE R z . J w Z um IOAMOSA J EXISTING 15 FT ---- 0--- --- � LD . a •, EASEMENT - -•.Zy, u�+u c nwr - '-' Z II r' Gi w 4 IN DG PER CITY 1- --. ..........._ O =VALSON STANDARDS A .q uX+N LLJ a — U L(:l 3�Si �GtII eA•}, ~_ W 210 FREEWAY (n fY L 152 FT PL VACANT SITE PLAN SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT VICINITY MAP x ui -ALP-1 0, ........... U -------------- ............................................... EL 7 7: --------------------- ------------------ ..................................- - - m w IT----------- ---------------------------------- w- -Iffn 0 T < z alo ----------- ---------I -------------- ------ ------------ M 0 n Ul \—I.J C13 ELEVATION KEY NOTES z 0 ri] =7.✓ �!Xi�- au o CAST FLEVATION G— 5? M —CMX 11-P,51 MM 11W MIc— I LU I-T (D w'.-c Al A."' ' --D 9wav 1-1.1 SNNl CE D NNK 11-C —1— GU 20 m Ln 1321 I.1}--\ ............ ....... .. .................... .... .......HH... I ...... 4...... - f ------------------ ........ ...........I..... - ------- ------ 11 VAR -------------------------------------------------- I�71rF L12 FM I Ml ----------------------- .....6� .................. ------ ------------------------- ---------- - ------------------------ - __ - - ---------- --------------------------- 10, -------------------------------------------------- - ----- -- - ---------- --------- _F _ ---------...------ O BLOCK 114LL:��— .AC,( f IIS ENIRY WAY -------- ...... .... ............... ------ ------------ -- 0 rU WEST ELEVATION 0 >I r 0- L,J -0 L ml .............. ....... . LCL 0, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- =........... ---------------------------------- < U - ------------- ----------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Inn - -- - ---- I L-Li C) z < ml ----------------------- ------------------ ----------------------------------------- ---------- ......... ---------------------- LIJ (CE --------------- UB < 0 z co z 0 NORTH I-LEVATION SCALE 3/16 INCli=i Fl-O IN 111 0 ol Lu X al- MIFFUFFMr.--—ln— .. ................ ...... 3 ...... . ... ..........-------------------------------------------------......................... -------------------- L=3 Jq— a ........ ........r— --------------------------------------------------............. ----------- ---------- w l -- ---------------------------- --- Al ------------- . ....................................... 1313 00 ----------------—---- ------ ELEVATION KEY NOTES SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 3/16 INC11=1 FT-0 IN (,j O ..c can 2s2-ansacr) uz Mti 1-14 w to 'o r T D"T 2 fT 2 5 l S11BOL LEGEND wL r C.-r. +0 7u 0 b 40 'n w 0: v a- IL_U 0, C= = W L_0Y L --tj 'o AM < __]6�1 P 0 1, - 4 I: LI LU W- ca 170 51 R_T C585IT 17F 0 OVERED 01 PATIO 170 50 FT 0 FROP'T KAJjDRAILS�HALL SATISFY THE FOUIDAING: \10 P?z so ­tMWI U01—I FM LU I A c-M--I V�6 P.SUM W,ra I.fiyEU.T Z IF.r"—,0 3, 3 c W.. WE 6E4i5�~1. 20 O 10 i­ till I AT 11— CAI --------------------------------- ------------------------------- 0 EIEI CO l .0 .1 < 0. So COVE A (D ------------------------------------- ---------------- 8_1 1ST FLOOR PLAN SYYaDL IFGEKD 'KEY NOIL5 h INFORMATION Gurn_.. PLAN KEY NOTES - _ - ,r-.• ___ ._„_ ,-,. „• •-• .woo.LrrRR C❑I, .n+cK svu.,a RnE uR.rrm,r (OT1 +r.xarz uv.lur ssr N.�..nm e.s c.P.r!Rm LVL.mrw D C C D ❑ ..0-r0 I[_10. er wNz nnroa•sn.Lw ra rnwmWr .� x.nnx,us anar L7 �.nusYW Is cua.•Rn c OLYIn ro snLcr. �O - - ..{J us rrtn.¢uRm m mnnriixis°w'i:a]`" a' rmwr aaai wir`nrar! LC 7OI _ xas r f] .azsO Land(—1 a.Pn W sHEE EaR.cLm!O NSLY +0 mrAun..m sne-an !❑ rnlLarA w r --: < sa-9n. -1 e.naan ur•WRrx � L.. I ]a•Or ...I xE.cess (j I� n<nR­ (Dl onna S �I / 0 � L � � 0 � � _� �.WKN.0 ❑ wO.ssaE:�a+xo*. �l - •— II / : `�.] lae ceu marlso�i Am 1.now mnnaw oiw.j j �n�r.r�wo r m uI®..a osoos.L.wP,TO—1 ci a' K cmeO.r et Hnaa W a N l e ;w Lu gp c I OI ® ®__ ssc Q ]r.uE o,m.swa oral ro—cl.canucnn TO. _ E O pig r..a e.x•.N•u•..m.,ni WP.a.(R W sort.n.sL !� ..rOipp 11.1 YRW[PR Y4C!N,�ixn•ACipxmW RM — M) Q 0 DOWN mn uan Lx.a nim ra aYYan noa-.va � N ='•®WBvmLVr Ni.wrs'OmNO°'.Aumia LRN[uoNi YiWiL z •- - s,aEr xwaR E�RLKw sLYu wowc,R o.,sry m•.Na ru x arxrs � _ Nror caa_c__. rmo.or na uiHrs M rI"rr°r wxn uroax cuwE�m nw(sLsxr uoL]r..niEs —� -El N.�PEx nmiKi�wn�srwL�ouE.�r,.rnu'"Earsu.ry.1°'U ITT L.ai rNa(r SIE Nlrww O�F�v�Il.,OLs z O .r NL r45.r+l C[Wa5 Rte"aL r0 u.w0 .Li rtp+R(LWi!.E MlNa 4 E.—OKNa.ES[.rtxWR 5+i KSIUds+R.00 •s wL.010.�TrS.O[T IT—�wlWum 1L11 � aNCLE rSfLN.nUsss rP cmfR SR¢YI of rlam usw ac uRRr.rc'. roar eGNO. .r srxuenaeE sxrL a r. "IT. '�NvsnK Ow xE`r. Q eau vnHs sR wRmw REvxas T, M41ER_,..0 d O YC 6D! 6 6%S[E I]/L OR E.KS uoE.rtLxn d.— © R•sN coRKnA-orrm W 41LCr CdO.CiEN W NSr•LL - _ CxLL05L0 N(.5 sx.Ll x0 E..r•^I••50 wO(S ] 4aPF ,/••.L'-a• 1"f L K EOm vP]O.rrl Ep 1� 1LLSx�M�YISN i" Q v ..r CO 5 nr I T-T �!] .Wr YOC SEL NRNm OLV.r,OR Q E V I ` ® Iu2 Rina u,rr sO rN,.eln.penR R irE.r-N __....._ O H�iRODKwI;'rmSMGaO•.,a e(uC au.N 0' , \ Y ,i�'im ax n<vw ro crx...c n<..Nscar n ��.sL nx ru va woKc wcn n.+L.c(rtLSLNn 20 Y r " ® w mreo wa.r srLn wa 1 rwERo1 m .K TZ N�R•Ri XOr Er OMC 00 ,rte roof I�( rsN lbRNmWC, Ir _ ro PPOYEE rL wwR..O N[a5 rOw 0. ApOF IFOm.Ra E.Or[WM"Waru W'Y,Rni I❑e R(us1 caa(rt w W s•:•.eoK n.s wNl-xcs s!Wo m O ]a•m sots a n•ac.w L/r on..YL a aoR sols Y ® , Lr ac.i L?Lm.t.mllpeR raKl � .aMSLL Qi ]!.®f.esun a•a[.i,K 6r..LO N OiO i�frlO _ © AT LL61WLLe6 a9W+.a U Y.SRR aaRY / - �e.mt 9N1(rLrEe.Y Z 0 < U ® �Lrvr LIv.94(IORSIE.N.IY9MI.r.rnA N Q ] �. � nm,Im>vn am:o.a uarnsru(uaa(In J c, _ L❑i s.wrss srtn _.. ------ u . n.om mr .—AL. N1.a ­OLD ar or(e u y — �— K- O iUi oaaaLRa.x ro w sLLcrzO ar o... [L' !;a p:NS%o:s leIIPULrt 9.uL¢ARC1-KLLr[a YNLO- o Y U —1 AGOO IT— isruKi n .P IIC.BIE ALL -J K a w0O]srOKS.PRNr I—s wo r,REH•QS 91.1E K50 CYR. LL f •LL rr¢s•^•aLLCK aRu.•xczs 0 =o z 1. — a ?_ND FLOOR PLAN; `4 Dr RA ln.YR+a9,!50 it uF.L/.•.1'O 9ffT - -- — 3 < -- / ----------------------- -----------,- ------------------- ------------ I I I -------------------------------- ------------ ------------------------ -------------- I I I I I a I I I I I I i , � I I I � I I , I I I I 0 /1 / I L � U I I I n n I' z H.-M a f W 2 j�' T PR=S Sa €n � sx m s? '3 6' D/</p15 �+�+ DATE _ ROOF PLAN c � �� 0*0 WRO,y m c.i SF- RFSlDrNCE FOR KEN ZHEN0 �oau MM 180 N BENSON AVE SUITE D, UPLAND, CA 91785 9251 IOAMOSA CT.,RANCHO CUCAMONGA.CA 9'7.77 :TTTEL 909 373 1150 FAX 909,373 952 Item D&E9 CERTIF "y -.wR.GIN zmENG W, -ur ERG_ Z, wo. i w a 2WX rml 1. 1 rl 7 NIL—M I w f WMI M m Ir r....'.ter'`;°.`.:.:..,.n...-.�.....°,»w.s•o.r r.w.r�•... '�a+ go 1.75V -54 :z NR—ff K-1 D.IE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GoInCrEWMAra OltADIM—]Plkf&N LOT 3. TRACT NO 16461 9251 MAMOSA CT., DRL2014-OD893 LEVAL MSCRIPTION NADEFM CONSULTING ENGINEERS PG B LOT 3 TRACT NO.16461 LA VEQME. IA 9—D APN#1061 61115 V-1-1. WE 11-11-5 rn"xwc\C MPORTANT NOTA.'. CONSTRUCTION NOTES:_ QUANTITIES EARTHWORK OUANTITIES i MIGRAPnr PROVIPCD Pr PRCIMRI,UN,Q PCSIG.EM 1—"SSIeY'TAI aC SPCNSIP:LII• QI--r WS rl,,•e[.I [a CUT.. IS f Y IMY]Sx Ll1 FOR.CCL 4 5—ELEVAIIINS AND SITE LAVILI. 2 e x •u ,r" II C• 478 ---- FILL C.Y. SITE ANALYSIS LOT SIZE: 25.273 SO FT11 Sr ' 4l_PELv'^ NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT a STORAGE 5.420 50 FT L�._[as,plx,.nlvvu» eu, F 3s S- wN[w,Inn esr wu_ssxar vinrv !_ ___ NARD%C-APE(CONCR.)WITHOUT BUILDING AREA 4,516 SO FT T,M,wx,L.ca wlr,VNs[.s[euA1t Nv.1,•rcP ury nw ])S Lr NOTE: II TOTAL 9.044 SO 1'I cb STRIE.T IMPRDVF.MFNTS TO PE INSTALLED rl D.v I,xx_p2.D_•-_ EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING:RESIDENTIAL PEP ST REET IRPROVEMENIS PIAN A By LLL I VAC•AIJT(`LO SEPAPAIC PERNIT. f`I /, I v V:CINIIY MAP J: 4 0i)CC SOILS E I'll 1MEER OWNER: LE.GF.MD J !All .• F R00`R SpH VINGTON R.DING MENG _ 'I II .1.vS..R[ISC _ SIC C = ESTIMATED STARTING DATEJUNE 01. 2015 "'..,; '1 •'` ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE. JLJNE 30.2015 r M1 1 1.19-r .:1�"�r�Q'� 'Ai- �i1'.1:./•`r' � ,. 71�/f' / , x.u.,a a,. ..no.- .+a { J.'. 'oA"TIc _ _ l�m ICA—ter :. Cr rm-1 i_1,Iu-111 Irfi sk° \ ;;f:i}n`°I°d-..a-- �.,sm�4� i � •i\'• _ _. .. .. �� _I.rn. ---• al..)Iy vx..s<. „nn. __ ..� tiLll 1.0tNC_}L%lf-!21_0iJ-D.fTAIL s , 4�:i' I �' b 20 / l •,L — .� '} " SECTION B_B m VAC.4NF ,.. r __ ��•� M' C.Se VCNI y(1 s 'o A-�„moi ..•'J. 1. SEC.)IGni A-A VACANT "rte �/ 1c Y nn�[.yk• .. U) ..I.x. 1518] �11w'A'VI AUVAM_ENCLINEER'S NOTICE IO CONTRACTOR: - UTILITIES re,.e,a.x e..r••r ry•e xn.,.i..,>»...en.n v[, ---_.-Mv'=:! h[ FE.1stlN D.Ir ' £ SPECIAL NOTE FROM PRIVATE ENGINEER 10 CONTRACTOR: ''r,vi»°> K nRDD ”'"' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I LOT 3, TRACT NO 16161 ......... 9251 ]OANOSA CT.. N_O110E I'd••��)v- DRE2011-09M93 _ .-•...,,..,o•............ ....M. >.......,.w, r»... ,Ir I,,r...�.•,..,w..-. •'+•+w ,.+...,...esa .s rr.,ynwr,.•I..q. Underround LF.CAL DESCRIPTION AONSULTING ENG'.NEERS FECCuu I D g �s�r�w, IIADCI CPU POr)553 $erviM1e Alert LOT 3 TRACT NO.16661 nlEcvLD Ln KERNE.CALIF­11A 1)-e '•..............•o-.,.. .... .vw. `.,.,,P "`�'.,.'•m' \ CDIc TO OHUO 21113-1 - FREE" APN R 1061 61115 A:vs wl" 4n"�uv PLANT LEGEND 4 wKs pHs RV PLANTING NOIES FACiuOO- / gFT115 SYYBOL CO ROTM_•L N�j WOx NAPE Slit, R OTY. COYYFNIS y3 T Fml.ocly Ia 1..—.pm+n•0 Tana—�T•um< a vmw.l..a m.CPM•oc!w anm m TREF R 901615 +v..w mi+�Cati.u�a klv mew..s"d++)•eels«ca u•n as MT.a cmiKm iw w MMULCII INSTALLATION O` /` Lrorua!enw•cwl«!.s H..sxc.m. 15 9d u 51e..ao.e nu.s Br p ,.�.w. N...yw�+ • reaamq�l'lo U wru�D•w o•N/wI LwY« L.TN LCenUu�w NW eo•sun•Im rnpweaal)w 61 n«•a�s�wi'�eu• �'w'j�o p 5F((umh a xEx 5)FCEL IRfE PER Clry Slwp<Np5 1 Io IT—10 O+•ucn roWc•..m - - 9r1,w O pHRuea FIP. .rn Pm u 1 7 •m•.,Ie.n a 9uc�+a wrcnv a^!+.•!.el u�1+.•a ewuq< •.,aw.lbeud co•s+na..r ... w Cwm!P .C.",.oa. s 9a s 99 P<-w•wL PFR[xxuLS_ GG ] Du Cx.Iraaw ane.•«..+•u��vwtw• 010 1m.d «qm•[wnn.awn«.l d• dm Cv+UO< • � Lon rl•.gensa Na:.rq Lontoiw 1 Qol u i1 8 .•1.y gae.+1 m qRa�.aw :a e.c�va . a,.<!a w o.n«.!> •p.vnld.w Ni pmcq•nu.a evMam Tnv mn.a.n.n1 olspoMn9 a pROuxpCOKR m 9•o.n 5 /•ma I•pwu ponaasun� F..aImU Y9Pwun� 1Nu u U paa IT evaaw.a..1:..m.c ea:'iaw.Yale oda ..•.pm,m wvv.da.,v.ra'�da+we+«d Y mpanl 1.w+•sw aw+n9 amn Tw Pbmro da;Iow".i9%awe•.cw.mwxa 4Aa. 1.F.<...PP .m N 1.95E>C 5 to LOM«m.a.en1«<vb/w 0.•w s1nR eaves.pbel moT«Te1 pawewnre)Cawa.>v.•r 1..e•1r•uen. Mo.olmn a •awa 6. F L« a.1o.n wws sn4 w a wo.-r.Ws.r•p�-n.uop.n 1wUaw�aa.owelee m.o w w.awq pm«q Tv e ), .masa om I- 1. tL. d e..rw.xM•+na M unlam.)e.•ahml aM 11•amagAT ' i v qm1. _ E RCi/iN NG W<LL @ FENCE R <�.0 p�:'nluoq•n—d w9w.c<wroo.1 1 —_____ e a.°�'"ilvoaww•na ax,1�w w`1«.s t i .-bry.UAY .-.-.-.-.-. p PHIL w. Pw,na INN wae.eeu 1T..•n::eaI.N:a.w.«a m.-esu-a-w•ww•m a.w i 9 m m.m•1xl. a�p1aw �1 1­­A mnw9,=.�a—n,N�i .NP«oa n (lo)•aep d�'.'<wed.l.o maW w<. q.M D..«. o i /0, AIOCFi17BL.T 10 1, m+<eP.[mv«1w•+w.w I om, • p.n1 maln.a mol u�m + a w +pv w am 1 V I O2 1901.. ARl B M ^m.N 1901 am.�a:9�^pal.e a cmeal T Inas 1 �o llpmM.G slim +^vwwN Pr'.•N n.'Na;eM.aY.•na a+wm..a wa r•pa•a N w[mbae>.l m m«1a w O.nw.u. I �I S'9 � f•roTa:OW 3TJ 1860 i I C,• Fu: 9093731958 a OIE' pUGxW LUES OF OLC .;(. .tAWN; 17•w:UE GMK.BELT P�.IaP+Ae.FwwPm• DD NOT LIE K Nc o i SIDRIIHOCIUMTI�NT OT 9'Au •� � «..p+•.r.eTn Ufl NOT USE PIMr 1A95 OA I m FERDL17ER5 EaCEPIT AS SPECIF1FO LT,RLR30ER CINCH RLI I u 1 I �K•• 1 - TMST TO 0r ALLOW TREE TO NOrt L W U041 BRCE7E 7 LOO E �WwMANT TEs t0 I 2 1 F a EXTEND 7A w10 r} IB- 1B" U`IWSNRtlCD WOMADC I __________ L f•.<...Td OR SEE(OL N GOR GFOWx O tlE]" OTHER F LGFY Rr�i K AO.IACCNL ONAUE 3 Sx SURFA E E w�SH CTI Al1E- I ; , S—RODIRALL I I v I SR_,.ALR I I Lt' MM RWIDALI I p(FI C. I __________J L 20 1 P•Rl COYPOSI YG� 1 Pulrs N.nK suL RESIDENCE Q I I ^ UNgSNRf#0 5<%L fFIT I Es pROyIDE ROOIRMILEA 10'IIMEAR I 1 �� 1.i NOOTMLL FEET s•N.OY TL'PEEP F.fHECS 99 fV RAN EOM w 5'6 PAKO AREA ag If• I TR�E PLANTING DETAIL RT9 I i Tr woE IJ!•KL RELI iF _VZ . I I .•.'.-. ALONG FWIWW W 7 Xd— i sIRUCIMiE(IMSNI e[ I '(M-IAIGN se J PLANT GRCILADCOKR IY, Sm•naxM svAUNc EE LEGEND fW INSTANCE ^ CITOWN O($I• /�� 00 I I ii LL AMOK AOIACENIRl ]"uULGx LATER I ® 1 I`J 1 CAWR6. 0' �EC�iFr PLAN FOR OTHER I��f"'PLixAiwG IEGErSU Ln SF I I e1 F1n15a1 LRADEROOIRALL ® �t�. ® 10I L6Y G e9 TICE—ALtlAONF1LL w. RAI,NEW I P WAC W/.•"=I IE P' OpIRALLI- C ST I AH'0.c0YP0'SEU GRANIC 16 ]-PMM NAOK W:t ]"DITCH.AVEN ! U —PUT IACI LOQ uNIE1.llEO FKSaa CIADE I 0 W N LZ7 uxo-snRDall W. A T K soL w eorrou L Roolel!u I .;v. I _ -- _ '-. YY Z a PEANI W ol[ PUEIOLE o SETTLE }-4±:4_.,,CXSCLTBW eA«fuL Y1. 1 d W I - - - �e a e•afu Pxa+Mro strtwci PfMais n.nv[w. IsOs01, RouaENsoEs uHaE SIXL ,DAP z SYHRIUB PLANTING DETAIL NTS 3 GROUNOCOVER PLANTING DETAIL TS I ,�$ i _ ---— -------__=_ HORSE CORRAL `1 LD m r1w �W vEw"— R I -n S I V W �Za Q mQ e4 I 9 N HE I Li / �ti3 I E[Y I n••un L •� I � P.M. 6'Ha>I --------------------------- (A) MCA.WA I—CoADR) r-svo• t EouESTreLw I—«AL eE I—w/ t e' 1•aN IO z'.INE COxCRFTE s«uL 111717q O NlW:N A•CUED TA OG.EXT 9:E M:TT RALS u•a1 suNIMRo I1Rw.xc FDR fgYNLLN:ir TRAns � 151.83- ---- ------ ----- ------- L-1 0' 10' 20'25'30' Rt 1 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA ;RCHO CUCAMONGA October 20, 2015 - 7:00 P.M. Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Rains Room 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL To ORDER Roll Call 7:00 p.m. Regular Members: Richard Fletcher X Francisco Oaxaca Candyce Burnett_ Donald Granger X Alternates: Ray Wimberly_ Lou Munoz_ Rich Macias Additional Staff Present: Tabe van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner II. PROJECT REVIEW ITEMS The following items will be presented by the applicant and/or their representatives. Each presentation and resulting period of Committee comment is limited to 20 minutes. Following each presentation,the Committee will address major issues and make recommendations with respect to the project proposal. The Design Review Committee acts as an advisory Committee to the Planning Commission. Their recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission as applicable. The following items do not legally require any public testimony,although the Committee may open the meeting for public input. A. MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893 — PETE VOLBEDA — A A. DRC2014-00893- request for site plan and architecture review of a 7,302 square foot two- Committee story single-family residence and an attached 1,012 square foot garage on recommended a 25,273 square foot lot located in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District at approval and 9251 loamosa Court; APN: 1061-611-15. forwarded project to PC. VARIANCE DRC2014-00894—PETE VOLBEDA—A request to reduce the rear yard setback related to the construction of a single-family residence on a project site located in the Very Low (VL) Zoning District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre) at 9251 loamosa Court; APN: 1061-611-15. EXHIBIT B Item D&E13 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA ftCHo CucnM°�vcn October 20, 2015 B. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT19945 - FOOTHILL & EAST, LLC - A B. DRC2014-01130- tentative tract map for a proposed 193 unit multi-family apartment project Committee with a potential future retail component on a 7.95 acre site located at the recommended northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue; APN's: approval and forwarded project 1100-201-03, 04 and 07. Related Files: Design Review DRC2014-01130, to PC with the Zoning Map Amendment DRC2014-01131, General Plan Amendment direction that the DRC2014-01133, Tree Removal Permit DRC2014-01134, and Uniform new Mixed Use Sign Program DRC2015-00318. standards require a minimum of two DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-01130-FOOTHILL& EAST, LLC—A design uses on the project site and review of a proposed 193 unit multi-family apartment project with a the project would potential future retail component on a 7.55 acre site located at the north need to comply west comer of Foothill Boulevard and East Avenue; APN's: 1100-201-03, with this 04 and 07. requirement. The Committee also TREE REMOVAL PERMIT DRC2014-01134-FOOTHILL&EAST, LLC-A stated they accept the concept of request to remove trees in conjunction with a proposed 193 unit multi- reduced parking family apartment project with a potential future retail component on a 7.55 on the project site acre site located at the north west corner of Foothill Boulevard and East as long as the Avenue; APN's: 1100-201-03, 04 and 07. submitted parking study was corroborated by peer review, as required by the new Mixed Use development standards. III. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are limited to five minutes per individual. IV. ADJOURNMENT 8:37 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. Item D&E14 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA RANCHO HO; °N�' October 20, 2015 1, Jennifer Palacios, Office Specialist l/ with the Planning Department for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 8, 2015, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Item ME 15 T H E C I T Y 0 F t1.2 A N C H 0 C U CAN 0 N CA Staff Report DATE: December 10, 2003 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, MPA SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT 16461 PRUTTING - A request to subdivide a 3.1 acre parcel into 6 single-family lots, in the Very Low Residential District (.1 to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at the end of loamosa Court - APN: 1061-611-11 and 12. Related file: Variance DRC2003-00902. VARIANCE DRC2003-00902 - DELBERT FELTIS - A request for the reduction in lot depth for a subdivision of 6 lots in the Very Low Residential District (.1-2 dwelling units per acre), located at the end of loamosa Court - APN: 1061-611-11 and 12. Related file: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT1 6461. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - San Bernardino Flood Control Channel — Flood Control South - Single-Family and Vacant Land; Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) East - Across Hellman Avenue Single-Family Residences; Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) West - San Bernardino Flood Control District Channel — Flood Control B. General Plan Designations: ProjectSite- Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) North - Flood Control/Utility Corridor South - Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) East - Very low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor C. Site Characteristics: The subject site is currently vacant and contains three mature trees on the site, shrubs and grasses. Earth piles and rocks are located on the site. The site slopes from north to south with an overall fall of 18 feet. Surrounding uses are flood control basins to the north and west, and single-family homes to the south and east. EXHIBIT C Item D&E16 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT16461 AND DRC2003-00902 - PRUTTING AND FELTIS December 10, 2003 Page 2 BACKGROUND: On August 27, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review workshop. The Variance is needed because adherence to the 200-foot lot depth requirement would create a hardship for the applicant's proposed map division. The Commission was in support of the applicant's request for a Variance based upon the unique property circumstances. ANALYSIS: A. General: The proposed project is to subdivide the property of 3.1 acres into 6 parcels for future single-family residential development. The parcels will range in size 20,299 square feet, to 24,453 square feet. With the exception of the 200-foot lot depth, the proposed map is in conformance with the Development Code. B. Variance: The applicant has applied for a Variance for the reduction in lot depth. Facts for Findings: The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of development standards. In order to grant a request for a Variance, the Planning Commission must make a series of findings. Generally, these findings focus on unique or special circumstances applicable to a specific property. Following are facts to support the necessary findings: Finding 1: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objective of this Code. Fact/s: The strict enforcement of the 200-foot lot depth limit would cause a practical difficulty for the applicant's proposed map in that irregular and flag shaped lots would be created. The proposed land division would create typical rectangular shaped lots that already exist in the area and which are typical for single-family residential subdivision. Finding 2: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. Fact/s: Because of the unique dimension of the property and if the project were to be developed per the 200-foot lot depth requirement; the outcome would be very irregularly shaped lots and unnecessary flag shaped lots. Finding 3: That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone. Fact/s: Without the Variance, the project would be deprived of privileges by other residential properties, which do not have the 200-foot depth dimension. Finding 4: That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone. Item D&E17 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SUBTT16461 AND DRC2003-00902 - PRUTTING AND FELTIS December 10, 2003 Page 3 Fact/s: Because of the unique situation of the property dimension the granting of the Variance will not set a precedent, and will be compatible with other rectangular shaped parcels in the area. Finding 5: That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Fact/s: The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, because the project will be developed per applicable City Code criteria. C. Grading Review Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project on November 4, 2003. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the project on November 4, 2003. The Committee recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. E. Environmental Assessment: The applicant has prepared Part I of the Initial Study. Staff has completed Part II and determined that the project could have a significant adverse environmental impact on short-term air quality, biology, geology and soils, and noise during site grading and construction, and hydrology and water quality as it relates to retention of precipitation and runoff of water on-site. The mitigations listed in the Initial Study Part II and the attached Resolution of Approval will reduce the short-term impacts to less than significant. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve SUBTT16461 and Variance DRC2003-00902 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Respec wsub Brad City Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Subdivision Map Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes dated August 27, 2003 Exhibit "C" - Initial Study Draft Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16461 Draft Resolution of Approval for Variance DRC2003-00902 Item D&E18 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting August 27, 2003 Chairman Macias called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was held at Cucamonga County Water District, 10440 Ashford Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Richard Fletcher, Rich Macias, Cristine McPhail, Larry McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller; City Planner; Dan Coleman, Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Alan Warren, Associate Planner NEW BUSINESS A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT SUBTT16461 AND DRC2003-00663- PAT PRUTTING & DEL FELTIS-A request to subdivide a 3.1 acre parcel into 6 single-family lots, in the Very Low Residential District (.1 - 2 dwelling Units per acre), located at the end of loamosa Court- APN: 1061-611-11 and 12. Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the item and gave an overview of the Pre-Application Review process. He invited the applicant to provide an overview of the proposed project. After introducing the other representatives, Del Feltis gave a brief history of the project site and proposal. He indicated that in December 2002 they proposed a parcel map to divide 3.1 acres into 6 single-family lots. He said they had been working with the Engineering department in the past and were under the impression that they could divide the property into 6 parcels; however, the Development Code requires that lots in the Very Low Residential District must have a depth of 200 feet. He pointed out that because of the 200-foot requirement, they would either lose lots and/or have lots that are very irregularly shaped. Douglas Fenn, Associate Planner, showed sample options of parcel map configurations depicting lots with the 200-foot lot depth dimension. He said such options create irregular shaped parcels and the applicant would lose a lot. Because of the history and the unique circumstance of the project site, it was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant should apply for a variance to reduce the 200 foot lot depth for the proposed parcels, but to work closely with staff to ensure that the lot designs and the placement of homes protects the ability for the properties to have horses. Mr. Buller thanked the applicants for their interest in using the Pre-Application Review process to further the success of their project. lL � � ofp3 Item D&E20 RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16461, A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.1 ACRE PARCEL INTO 6 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE END OF IOAMOSA COURT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 1061-611-11 AND 12. A. Recitals. 1. Pat Prutting filed an application for the issuance of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16461, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract request is referred to as "the application." 2. On December 10, 2003, 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 December 10, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located west of Hellman Avenue and will front along Ioamosa Court; and b. -The subject site is currently vacant and contains three mature trees on the site, as well as shrubs and grasses. Earth piles and rocks are located on the site. The site slopes from north to south with an overall fall of 18 feet. Surrounding uses are flood control basins to the north and west, and single-family homes to the south and east; and C. The application proposes to subdivide the site into 6 parcels for single-family development in a shape and size consistent with existing lots along Ioamosa Court. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and Item D&E21 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 —PAT PRUTTING December 10, 2003 Page 2 b. The design improvements of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and C. The site is suitable for the type of development proposed; 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; and e. The tentative tract map is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and f. The design of the tentative tract map will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State California Environmental Quality Act guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. Although the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects have been reduced to an acceptable level by imposition of mitigation measures on the project, which are listed below as conditions of approval. C. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon the substantial evidence contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(o-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 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 Condition, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: Item D&E22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 —PAT PRUTTING December 10, 2003 Page 3 Planninq Division 1) If any existing heritage trees are proposed for removal, the applicant shall apply for a Tree Removal Permit, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. Engineering Division 1) Install loamosa Court full width per City Drawing No. 1692, include ac, pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, drive approaches, streetlights, street trees, traffic signs, and striping as follows: a) Complete drainage improvements from the drop inlet at the southwest corner of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 15692 to the catch basin at the west end of loamosa Court. 2) Where the pads are lower than the street, the first 6 feet behind the sidewalk shall not exceed a 6 percent driveway grade (14 percent maximum grade break within the wheelbase), an 18-foot flat area (5 percent maximum) shall be provided in front of the garage, with the flow line 5 feet from the garage (at 2 percent) and the maximum driveway grade between the breaks is 14 percent. 3) Provide a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and identify applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the Grading Plan. 4) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Diversion Deposit and related administrative fees shall be paid to the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 50 percent of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Form CD-1 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division when the first building permit application is submitted to Building and Safety. Form DC-2 shall be submitted to the Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and/or demolition project 5) All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with groundcover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building and Safety Official. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting requirements of Section 17.08.040 of the Development Code. Item D&E23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 —PAT PRUTTING December 10., 2003 Page 4 6) In hillside areas, residential development shall be graded and constructed consistent with the standards contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070. 7) A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. Environmental Mitigation: Air Quality 1) All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. 2) Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, developer shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast 'Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. 3) All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high volume, low-pressure spray. 4) All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108. 5) All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403. Additionally, contractors shall include the following provisions: C Re-establish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering. Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads. ■ Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time. Item D&E24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 —PAT PRUTTING December 10, 2003 Page 5 • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods. • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices. ® Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. ■ Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 miles per hour) in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. • Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or other suitable means. 6) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)) daily to reduce PM,o emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. 7) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB).shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. 8) The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. 9) The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. 10) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. 11) All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. Biology 1) Any existing heritage trees (as identified in the City Tree Preservation Ordinance) that are removed shall be replaced at a ratio of 1 to 1. Item D&E25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 — PAT PRUTTING December 10, 2003 Page 6 Cultural Resources 1) If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. • Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage. ■ Propose mitigation measures and recommend Conditions of Approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. • Prepare a. Technical Resources Management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. 2) A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a pre-construction field survey of the project site. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to,the following measures: ® Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. ® Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. Item D&E26 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 —PAT PRUTTING December 10, 2003 Page 7 ■ Submit summary report to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to the San Bernardino County Museum. Geology 1) The site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) daily to reduce PM,Q emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD District Rule 403. 2) Frontage public streets shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce particulate matter emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-site. Timing may vary depending upon time of year of construction. 3) Grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour to minimize PM,o emissions from the site during such episodes. 4) Chemical soil-stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM,o emissions. Water Quality 1) Structures to retain precipitation and runoff on-site shall be integrated into the design of the project where appropriate. Measures that may be used to minimize runoff and to enhance infiltration include Dutch drains, precast concrete lattice blocks and bricks, terraces, diversions, runoff spreaders, seepage pits, and recharge basins. 2) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non- structural measures consistent with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in June 2000. 3) Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification Item D&E27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 —PAT PRUTTING December 10, 2003 Page 8 Number) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under the NPDES permit. Noise 1) Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a.national holiday. 2) Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. The developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. The Planning Division may require monitoring at other times. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above noise standards or halted. 3) The perimeter block wall shall be constructed as early as possible in first phase. 4) Haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA I e BY: le/arry T. Viel, Vice Chairman ATTEST: Brad a cr to Item D&E28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 SUBTT16461 —PAT PRUTTING December 10, 2003 Page 9 I, Brad Buller, 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 10th day of December 2003, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS Item D&E29 RESOLUTION NO. 03-179 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2003-00902,A REQUEST FOR THE REDUCTION IN LOT.DEPTH FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 6 LOTS IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (.1-2. DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT THE END OF IOAMOSA COURT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1061-611-11 AND 12. A. Recitals. 1. Delbert Feltis filed an application for the issuance of Variance DCR2003-00902, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application.." 2. On December 10, 2003, 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 December 10, 2003, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located west of Hellman Avenue and will front along loamosa Court; and b. The subject site is currently vacant and contains three mature trees on the site, as well as shrubs and grasses. Earth piles and rocks are located on the site. The site slopes from north to south with an overall fall of 18 feet. Surrounding uses are flood control basins to the north and west, and single-family homes to the south and east; and C. The application is necessitated by Tentative Tract 16461,a subdivision of 3.1 acres of land into 6 lots; and d. Literal enforcement of the 200-foot lot depth limit would deprive the applicant of development enjoyed by other properties in the Very Low Residential District, by requiring the applicant to significantly alter the proposed design of the subdivision by using alternative design and construction methods that are not feasible for the subject property and have not been required of other properties in the Very Low Residential District. e. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a special privilege because there are unique site constraints; and Item D&E30 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-179 DRC2003-00902 — FELTIS December 10, 2003 Page 2 f. The strict enforcement of the 200-foot lot depth limit would cause a practical difficulty for the applicant's proposed map in that irregular and flag shaped lots would be created. The proposed land division would create typical rectangular shaped lots that already exist in the areas and which are typical for single-family residential subdivision. g. Because of the unique dimension of the property, if the project were to be developed per the 200-foot lot depth requirement;the outcome would be very irregularly shaped lots and unnecessary flag shaped lots. h. Because of the unique situation of the property dimension the granting of the Variance will not set a precedent, and will be compatible with other rectangular shaped parcels in the area. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district; and C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district; and d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; and e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health,safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: any T. Niel, Vice Chairman Item D&E31 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 03-179 DRC2003-00902 — FELTIS December 10, 2003 Page 3 ATTEST: Brad Bull , Secreta I, Brad Buller, 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 10th day of December 2003, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS Item D&E32 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: DRC 2003-00902 SUBJECT: LOT SUBDIVISION INTO 6 LOTS APPLICANT: DELBERT FELTIS LOCATION: ILAMOSA COURT AND WEST OF HAVEN AVENUE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT APPLICANT SHALL CONTACTTHE PLANNING DIVISION,(909)477-2750,FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.- A. ONDITIONS:A. General Requirements Completion Date 1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents,officers,or employees,because of the issuance of such approval,or in the alternative,to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City may,at its sole discretion,participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition. B. Time Limits 1. Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Development/Design Review approval shall expire if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 5 years from the date of approval. No extensions are allowed. SC-10-03 1 Item D&E33 RESOLUTION NO. 15-77 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893, A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF A 7,302 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND AN ATTACHED 1,055 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE ON A 25,273 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED IN THE VERY LOW (VL) ZONING DISTRICT (.1 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AT 9251 IOAMOSA COURT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1061-611-15. A. Recitals. 1. Ken Zheng filed an application for the approval of Minor Design Review DRC2014-00893, 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 9th day of December 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 December 9, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The site is located within the Very Low (VL) Development District; and b. To the north and south of the project site are single-family residences within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zoning District; to the west is vacant land within the Flood Control (FC) Zoning District; and, to the east is a vacant lot within the Very Low (VL) Zoning District; and C. The applicant is requesting site plan and architectural review of a 7,302 square foot two- story single-family residence and an attached 1,055 square foot garage on a 25,273 square foot lot; and d. The project complies with the development criteria except for the 60-foot rear yard setback. The applicant has submitted a request for a Variance (DRC2014-00894) to reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 60 feet to 30 feet; and e. The original subdivision (SUBTT16461) included a Variance (DRC2003-00902) permitting a reduction in the required lot depth; and f. The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on October 20, 2015. The Committee forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of approval. Item D&E34 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-77 MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893 December 9, 2015 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan states that the Very Low (VL) Land Use District is characterized by detached, very low-density single residential units on 0.5 acre lots or larger, with private yards and private parking. The applicant proposed constructing a single-family residence on a previously subdivided lot that provides a private yard and parking. b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The Development Code states that the Very Low (VL) Zoning District designates areas for very low density residential use, with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum residential density of up to 2 units per gross acre. The subject lot is 25,273 square feet in size and is being developed with a single-family residence. C. The proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The project complies with each development and design criteria outlined in the Development Code except for the rear yard setback for which the applicant has filed for a Variance; and d. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed single-family residence is similar in design quality and intensity to the neighboring residences and will not negatively impact the surrounding lots; and 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which covers the construction of a limited number of structures including a single-family residence. The project entails constructing a single-family residence on a residentially zoned lot. Staff finds 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 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. Planninq Department 1) Approval is for a request for site plan and architectural review of a 7,302 square foot two-story single-family residence and an attached 1,055 square foot garage on a 25,273 square foot lot at 9251 loamosa Court; APN: 1061- 611-15. 2) All walls visible from the public right-of-way shall be decorative (i.e. split face, slump stone or stucco), including a matching decorative cap. At a minimum, Item D&E35 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-77 MINOR DESIGN REVIEW DRC2014-00893 December 9, 2015 Page 3 the walls shall include a decorative pilaster at each corner and adjacent to the gates. 3) All window and door surrounds shall either have a smooth stucco finish or be made of cast stone. 4) The rafter tails shall have a natural wood grained appearance. 5) The front door and garage access door shall be of a similar design and compliment the Mediterranean architecture of the residence. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015. PLANNING.COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular. meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item D&E36 .: Conditions of Approval RvNcfio CommunityDevelopment Department C CAMONGA P P Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 2. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 3. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 4. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall. be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City 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. 7. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval , 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. Printed: 1119/2015 www.CityofRC.us Item D&E37 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed of metal and shall include a 90 percent view obscuring backing. 10. 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. 11. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines). 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department(RCFD) Standards. 13. The site shall be developed' and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Provide drive approach and street trees per City standards on loamosa Court. a. Protect or replace curb and gutter, sidewalk and street light, as required. b. Revise existing City Drawing Number 1692 Sheets 1 and 3 to reflect above improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to any work being performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers' office in addition to any other permits required. �wwv.CityofRC.us Printed:1119/2015 Page 2 of 7 Item D&E38 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 3. The following impact fees shall be paid upon issuance of building permit (fees subject to change annually): a. Transportation Fee $ 9,002.00 b. General Drainage Fee $ 19,382.00/ per net acre c. Beautification Fee $ 0.20/SF d. Park Fees $ 4,396.00 e. Library Impact Fee $ 576.98 f. Animal Center Impact Fee $ 124.29 g. Police Impact Fee $ 172.00 h. Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fee $4,329.54 (effective May 1, 2015) i. Park Improvement Impact Fee $ 2,546.53 (effective May 1, 2015) j. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee $ 1,737.19 (effective May 1, 2015) Note: On May 1, 2015, Impact Fees c and d will be eliminated. 4. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to the issuance of a City building permit. Standard Conditions of Approval 5. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. Printed:11/9/2015 .cityofRc.uS Page 3 of 7 Item D&E39 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan and reverse foundation plan (when applicable); c. Floor Plan; d. Roof and Floor Framing Plan and reverse Roof and Floor Framing Plan (when applicable); e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans, including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. The house, garage and any other structures as required must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 6. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive requirements. 7. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 8. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's"high wind" instructions. 9. Construction activity shall occur in accordance with the standards as stated in Chapter 17.66.050 D-4 of the Development Code. 10. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, and School Fees. The applicant shall provide a copy of the School Fees receipt to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to permit issuance. 11. The Building and Safety Official shall provide street addresses after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of Building Permits. 12. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and a.11 other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Services Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval Printed:11/912015 www.CityofRC.us Page 4 of 7 Item D&E40 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. 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. Note: this project is proposing approximately 500 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. 6. 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. 7. 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. The project specific drainage study shall include a hydraulic analysis of the proposed yard drain(s) for the subject property. 8. 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. 9. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 10. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. This is required to show how the grading of the subject property may effect the adjacent property(ies) in relation to drainage issues. 12. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". Printed:11/9/2015 w­CityofRC.us Page 5 of 7 Item D&E41 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Grading ROJECT:Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 13. 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. 14. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). 15. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 16. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 17. Prior to removing fences or walls along common lot lines and prior to constructing walls along common lot lines the applicant shall provide a letter from the adjacent property owner(s) allowing work on the adjacent property. 18. In the equestrian trails: — Provide PVC fence, 4" thick DG surface, parallel drainage V ditch, bridge over V ditch where necessary for access corals, gates to corrals, S< 5% cross fall 2%, S>5% cross fall 4%. Water bars required at the spacing for the slopes shown respectively: 50' for 4% to 6%, 40' for 6% to 9%, 30' for 9% to 12%, 20' for 12%+. In the equestrian trails water bars shall also be placed at the top and bottom where the gradient of the trail changes, i.e. a steep downhill slope which will cause additional erosion to the trail. 19. A non-priority water quality management plan prepared by Naderi Consulting Engineers for Mr. Ken Zheng undated has been reviewed and deemed "Preliminary - Acceptable" dated January 27, 2015. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the water quality management plan shall be completed, signed and filed with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Official, or his designee. The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows the proposed impervious area at 9,944 sq. ft. In the event the permitted precise grading plan reaches or exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious area as defined in the current adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, a priority project specific water quality management plan shall be submitted to the Building Official, or his designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed:11/912015 Page 6 of 7 Item D&E42 Project##: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant's engineer of record shall show the location of a private sewage disposal system in the front yard area to allow for a future connection to a public sewer system on the precise grading plan submitted for a grading permit. 21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the precise grading and drainage plan shall be drawn at a minimum scale of V=10'. Additional details may be required at larger scales for clarity. 22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the title sheet of the precise grading and drainage plan shall include a detailed analysis of the proposed impervious areas, as required per the current adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit. Printed:111912015 ,vww.C ityofRC.us Page 7 of 7 Item D&E43 RESOLUTION NO. 15-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE DRC2014-00894, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM-60 FEET TO 30 FEET RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A PROJECT SITE LOCATED IN THE . VERY LOW (VL) ZONING DISTRICT (.1 TO 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AT 9251 IOAMOSA COURT; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF—APN: 1061-611-15. A. Recitals. 1. Ken Zheng filed an application for the approval of Variance DRC2014-00894, 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 9th day of December 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 December 9, 2015, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The site is located within the Very Low (VL) Development District; and b. To the north and south of the project site are single-family residences within the Very Low (VL) Residential Zoning District; to the west is vacant land within the Flood Control (FC) Zoning District; and, to the east is a vacant lot within the Very Low (VL) Zoning District; and c. The applicant is requesting a Variance in order to construct a 7,302 square foot two- story single-family residence with an attached 1,055 square foot garage; and d. The project complies with the development criteria except for the 60-foot rear yard setback; and e. The lot is approximately 122 feet deep along the north property line and 118 feet deep along the east property line, which is significantly below the 200-foot lot depth requirement; and f. The Variance will reduce the rear yard setback requirement from 60 feet to 30 feet. Item D&E44 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-78 VARIANCE DRC2014-00894 December 9 2015 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. Without the reduction in the required rear yard setback, the applicant would have to significantly redesign the proposed residence to adhere to the required rear yard setback, which would place a significant hardship on the applicant. b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. The subdivision of which the subject lot is a part included a Variance reducing the lot depth significantly below the 200-foot lot depth requirement. C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Without the Variance, the applicant would have to design a house that is much shallower than other houses in the same development district, thereby diminishing development potential of the subject lot in relation to nearby lots. d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. It is common practice to grant reductions in the rear yard setback when the project site is substantially deficient in meeting the minimum required lot depth. In this case, the existing lot depth is substantially deficient of the 200-foot lot depth requirement. e. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Variance will only minimally affect the outward appearance and will not intensify the use of the project site. 4. The Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines. The project qualifies as a Class 5 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, which covers minor alterations in land use requirements including building setbacks. The project is for a reduction in the required rear yard setback due to a lot depth deficiency. Staff finds 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 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 Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planning Department 1) Approval is for the reduction in the rear yard setback requirement from 60 feet to 30 feet in order to construct a single-family residence located at 9251 loamosa Court; APN: 1061-611-15. Item D&E45 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15-78 VARIANCE DRC2014-00894 December 9 2015 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, Secretary of the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of December 2015, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item D&E46 Conditions of Approval t r- jZ.+vNcxo CLr.,ahto\GA Community Development Department artment P Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014=00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. For single-family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Department to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 2. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 3. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 4. All private slopes of 5 feet or more in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City 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. 7. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval , 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. Printed:11/9!2015 www.CityofRC.us Item D&E47 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 8. 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. 9. Access gates to the rear yards shall be constructed of metal and shall include a 90 percent view obscuring backing. 10. 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. 11. Construct block walls between homes (i.e., along interior side and rear property lines). 12. All building .numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department(RCFD) Standards. 13. The site sliall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein and the Development Code regulations. Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. Provide drive approach and street trees per City standards on loamosa Court. a. Protect or replace curb and gutter, sidewalk and street light, as required. b. Revise existing City Drawing Number 1692 Sheets 1 and 3 to reflect above improvements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. Prior to any work being performed in the street right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers' office in addition to any other permits required. Printed:11/9/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 2 of 7 Item D&E48 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 3. The following impact fees shall be paid upon issuance of building permit (fees subject to change annually): a. Transportation Fee $ 9,002.00 b. General Drainage Fee $ 19,382.00/ per net acre c. Beautification Fee $ 0.20/SF d. Park Fees $4,396.00 e. Library Impact Fee $ 576.98 f. Animal Center Impact Fee $ 124.29 g. Police Impact Fee $ 172.00 h. Park In-Lieu/Park Impact Fee $4,329.54 (effective May 1, 2015) i. Park Improvement Impact Fee $ 2,546.53 (effective May 1, 2015) j. Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee $ 1,737.19 (effective May 1, 2015) Note: On May 1, 2015, Impact Fees c and d will be eliminated. 4. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public improvements, prior to the issuance of a City building permit. Standard Conditions of Approval 5. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Submit two sets of structural calculations, two sets of energy conservation calculations, and a soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature are required prior to plan check submittal. Printed:1119/2015 www.CityofRC.us Page 3 of 7 Item D&E49 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Building ROJECT:Building and Safety Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Submit five complete sets of plans including the following: a. Site/Plot Plan; b. Foundation Plan and reverse foundation plan (when applicable); c. Floor Plan; d. Roof and Floor Framing Plan and reverse Roof and Floor Framing Plan (when applicable); e. Electrical Plans (2 sets, detached) including the size of main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams; f. Plumbing and Sewer Plans; including isometrics, underground diagrams, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning; and g. Planning Department Project Number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.) clearly identified on the outside of all plans. 3. Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses and Workers' Compensation coverage to the City prior to permit issuance. 4. Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. 5. The house, garage and any other structures as required must be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 6. Provide compliance with the California Building Code (CBC) for property line clearances considering use, area, and fire-resistive requirements. 7. Provide compliance with the California Building Code for required occupancy separations. 8. Roofing material shall be installed per the manufacturer's "high wind" instructions. 9. Construction activity shall occur in accordance with the standards as stated in Chapter 17.66.050 D-4 of the Development Code. 10. Prior to the issuance of Building Permits for a new residential project or major addition, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Check Fees, and School Fees. The applicant shall provide a copy of the School Fees receipt to the Building and Safety Services Department prior to permit issuance. 11. The Building and Safety Official shall provide street addresses after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of Building Permits. 12. Plans shall be submitted for plan check and approved prior to construction. All plans shall be marked with the project file number (i.e., SUBTT, SUBTPM, MDR, CUP, DRC, etc.). The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted California Codes, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of permit application. Contact the Building and Safety Services Department for availability of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval www.CityofRC.us Printed:1119/2015 Page 4 of 7 Item D&E50 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work, Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 3. A geologic report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer or Engineering Geologist and submitted at the time of application for Grading and Drainage Plan review. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. 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. Note: this project is proposing approximately 500 cubic yards of combined cut and fill. 6. 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. 7. 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. The project specific drainage study shall include a hydraulic analysis of the proposed yard drain(s)for the subject property. 8. 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. 9. All slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way or adjacent private property. 10. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the, latest adopted California Plumbing Code. 11. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. This is required to show how the grading of the subject property may effect the adjacent property(ies) in relation to drainage issues. 12. The precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout"Information for Grading Plans and Permit". Printed:11/9/2015 viv w.CityofRC.us Page 5 of 7 Item D&E51 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Zheng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 13. 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. 14. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, on engineered combination garden/retaining walls along the property boundary the structural calculations for the wall shall assume a level toe/heel at the adjacent off-site property (i.e. a manufactured slope is not present). 15. Prior to issuance of a wall permit, a copy of the Grading Special Conditions of Approval shall be included within the engineered wall plans and calculations. 16. Flow lines steeper than 6 percent could be erosive. The applicant shall provide hard lined gutters and swales where concentrated flows exceed 3fps, and anywhere that flow lines exceed 10 percent 17. Prior to removing fences or walls along common lot lines and prior to constructing walls along common lot lines the applicant shall provide a letter from the adjacent property owner(s) allowing work on the adjacent property. 18. In the equestrian trails: — Provide PVC fence, 4" thick DG surface, parallel drainage V ditch, bridge over V ditch where necessary for access corals, gates to corrals, S< 5% cross fall 2%, S>5% cross fall 4%. Water bars required at the spacing for the slopes shown respectively: 50' for 4% to 6%, 40' for 6% to 9%, 30' for 9% to 12%, 20' for 12%+. In the equestrian trails water bars shall also be placed at the top and bottom where the gradient of the trail changes, i.e. a steep downhill slope which will cause additional erosion to the trail. 19. A non-priority water quality management plan prepared by Naderi Consulting Engineers for Mr. Ken Zheng undated has been reviewed and deemed "Preliminary - Acceptable" dated January 27, 2015. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the water quality management plan shall be completed, signed and filed with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Official, or his designee. The conceptual grading and drainage plan shows the proposed impervious area at 9,944 sq. ft. In the event the permitted precise grading plan reaches or exceeds 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious area as defined in the current adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit, a priority project specific water quality management plan shall be submitted to the Building Official, or his designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Printed:111912015 www.CityofRC.us Page 6 of 7 Item D&E52 Project#: DRC2014-00893 DRC2014-00894 Project Name: Deng Residence Location: 9251 IOAMOSA CT- 106161115-0000 Project Type: Minor Design Review Variance ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant's engineer of record shall show the location of a private sewage disposal system in the front yard area to allow for a future connection to a public sewer system on the precise grading plan submitted for a grading permit. 21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the precise grading and drainage plan shall be drawn at a minimum scale of 1"=10'. Additional details may be required at larger scales for clarity. 22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the title sheet of the precise grading and drainage plan shall include a detailed analysis of the proposed impervious areas, as required per the current adopted Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Systems (MS4) Permit. Printed:11/9/2015 www.ciryofRC.us Page 7 of 7 Item D&E53 STAFF REPORT PI.,_\NNING DEPARTMENT DATE: December 9, 2015 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission C;UCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2015-00848 — ROYAL SPA—A request to operate a massage establishment within a 1,395 square foot tenant space located within Planning Area 10 of the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan at the northwest corner of Milliken Avenue and 7th Street at 9090 Milliken Avenue, Suite 130 —APN: 0209-272- 28. 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 1 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) exemption, which covers existing facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends a continuance of the hearing for this item to an unspecified date. Respectfu submitted, .j Candyce urnett Planning Director CB:DP/Is Item F —1 Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 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. i�lu O Rl.<S ftp NAME ADDRESS CITY ITEM 1. 2. 3. _j GFF Neer Tr,-2 $a . DF*_tllzo c uPL"D CA 4. .�ilti ` h1Ca#rn �, e%n 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 2 Ranni.M Commission Meets � December 99 2015 J Project • Applicant: Fete Volbeda • Project: Design Review of 7,302 square foot single-family residence • Entitlements: 1 . Minor Design Review (DRC2014-000893) 2. Variance — Rear Yard Setback (DRC2014-00894) • Zoning: Very Low Residential (. 1 - 2 DU acre) • Development Code: Compliant except for rear yard setback 'ter" VAR1 4NCE REQUEST TO REDUCE REAR YARD TO 30 FT IM ss�..'E alpc EXISTING HOUSE c«.Naa c.etm� 51: wr.� :aa2 I m f382suWS i i VACANT (FLOOD CONTROL) i i rnsr 2�I swc I 89 39'03" E C 122• FT PL• • 0 NE'I 6 R XT p R[f1ND M.LL LOT Sm .p ri �• 23.2)3 SO 1T ALLOF.BF LOT COHR.Of 2a. I .LLan i amspaemti0o ttro I oD.c w ieax ee 3 — ^ .FPORNO.i�01 IST Uv .11FA 165'I 50(r m m u1FR asm so" POOL I ! MT&Mp.A x.=SO R . J k` o.R.aE teas m rr VACANT G.11 xN x.1N1 ]�] Cp1Olm O.TO I x SF J I 1 CON]tfD Mrta 2 3m a mann noxa +m rsrnaol W3T ti <L PoONRWT 4 47 SF LlIDEM 1ES 2 Pw RT♦ice vE1R I 3 ROa£P. I% *R 46 AT ONS r a a OtT[AiOfl 4CV.TION4 1 N OL ip OT' F_ lAW9CwR PL/xli 5lNDMa$ � geApNO�P1/.Y/15��\ us�nJOlru rt _ tJ 00 LI Wi wi t i -- �' VACANT Hume —EXNT [AS1Ma ISR � Ii�n �� SRSQJ �M�pFA C1Y I Sf.xaA9O5 _ 2D HELY �,�.�T 152 FT PL t 6 --d............. ► f _ A � Rt i ITI Front Elevation o-- G- o , 117 I -LASM! _ IQ Rear Elevation - - - - - - W � Side (North) Elevation o- - ELEVADCN KEY NOTES Side (south) Elevation City O!f . ;rm Lei i�a_ Variance DRC2014-00894 • A request to reduce the required 60-foot rear yard setback to 30 feet • Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16461 ) included Variance (DRC2003-00902) which permitted reduced lot depths — 122 feet versus 200 feet • The Planning Commission has approved similar reductions in rear yard setbacks for other residences in the same tract , LOW Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: • Design Review DRC2014-00893 • Variance DRC2014-00894 Vicinity Map Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meeting November 10 , 2015 --- :- - , - - - - - - _ ----- 1 I ------------ , - - -- '-- --.---- ! t..—Lo--•—'-Za•---•ic •---�--••– �-•----- –._ B M o s I I CL U = Q 2 2 ! s CLAD I im I 1 y ; U t d I i 19th St ! 't Base Line /Base J y Church I Church 1 Foothill Foothill N P c Arrow I Ar c d J rsey r I 8th w i d C7 6th N c 6th W L Y H C-G 4th Q = – 4th fr Meeting Location: J I K City Hall/Council Chambers 10600 Civic Center Drive Item A: Consideration of minutes dated October 28, 2015 Item B: Vacation at northeast corner Haven and 210 Freeway Items C-G: Lewis Retail at northwest corner of Day Creek & Base Line Item: H: CUP for massage at Milliken Ave and Kenyon Way Item I: CUP for massage at Foothill Blvd east of Vineyard Item J: CUP for massage at northeast corner of Base Line and Carnelian Item K: CUP for massage at northwest corner of Milliken Ave & 7th Street