HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/08/04 - Agenda Packet - Special Joint''.i
AGENDA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND
CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, August 4, 2010 ~ 3:00 p.m.
City Hall ~ Tri-Communities Room
10500 Civic Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call: Mayor/President/Chairman Kurth
Mayor Pro TemNice PresidentNice Chairman Michael
Council/BoardlAgencymembers Gutierrez, Spagnolo and Williams
Planning Commission Chair Munoz
Planning Commission Vice Chair Howdyshell
Commissioners Fletcher, Oaxaca and Wimberly
B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council, Fire Protection
District and Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Commission on any item listed or not
listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Council, Fire Board, Agency or Commission
from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Council, Fire Board
and Agency and 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 Council, Fire Board, Agency and
Commission and 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.
C. l~rt~:~t(~) X11 l~l~(1,~~1OiV
ENTERTAINMENT - DRC2010-00141.
PG. -1 -
2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO CHAPTERS 17.02
AND 17.08 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING
LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS - DRC2010-00331.
PG.-6-
D. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra L. McKay, Records Manager/Assistant City Clerk, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 29,
2010, per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
STAFF REPORT
PL.-~IvNING DEPARTMENT
Date: August 4, 2010
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
By: Jenn'rfer Nakamura, Associate Planner
-1-
,,
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Subject: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO
CHAPTERS 5.12, 17.02, AND 17.04 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT (DRC2010-00441).
Backsrround
On March 16, 2010, the City Gounci! authorized staff to initiate a Municipal Code Amendment to make
changes relating to the regulation of entertainment. Chapter 5.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code governs the regulation of entertainment in the Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga. This Chapter was
approved via an ordinance in 1986 and has not been revised since its initial approval. There are also
several sections of Chapter 17 (Development Code) that discuss entertainment as it relates to land
uses.
In the 24 years since the Entertainment Ordinance was adopted, the City has experienced tremendous
growth and significant changes in its demographics. it has become a premier haven for families with
children, while also attracting a young, vibrant demographic because of its rich job base. Our wide
variety of work and play options have made Rancho Cucamonga a destination of choice for individuals
across the Inland Empire. As a destination City, Rancho Cucamonga has become a City of interest for
business owners wanting to provide entertainment options for their customers. Allowing a wide variety
of entertainment establishments while maintaining a safe community has been important to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
Staff has spent the last few months evaluating our Code relative to entertainment as well as looking at
how other cities regulate entertainment to determine what changes should be considered. in addition,
staff presented proposed changes to the Planning Commission on July 14, 2010, regarding the
regulation of entertainment. The Planning Commission expressed support for the proposed changes
presented and provided valuable feedback for staff consideration.
Anaivsis
Currently, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has atwo-pronged process for regulating entertainment. To
analyze the land use suitability of a site to conduct entertainment, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is
required for any restaurant or bar establishment wanting to provide entertainment. The purpose of the
CUP is to determine 'rf the site is conducive to entertainment, evaluate the property and building for
adequate space, and review the physical layout for the proposed entertainment. in addition, the
owner/operator of the establishment is required to determine their ability to successfully conduct and
manage entertainment at an approved location. This two-pronged process gives us an opportunity to
evaluate the location as well as the proprietors to ensure that the proposed entertainment will be
operated in accordance with the current development standards as well as any special conditions
imposed on entertainment, either through the CUP process or the Entertainment Permit process.
-2-
JOINT MEETING -PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPRORT
DRC2010-00141 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 4, 2019
Page 2
In staffs analysis of this process, we found that there were no fundamental changes required to the
Municipal Code; rather, staff found that minor clarifications were needed within the Code to enhance the
process. In addition, we have also begun the process of strengthening our internal processes for both
analyzing new applications and reviewing existing permits to ensure that all are being reviewed equally,
Outlined below are the changes proposed.
Proposed changes to the Chapter 5.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municiaal Code
The following are the proposed changes to Chapter 5.12:
Modify the definition of Entertainment.
This is the current definition of Entertainment
"Entertainment" means every form of live ertertainment, music, solo band or orchestra, act, play,
burlesque show, fashion show, review, pantomime, scene, song or dance, act or song, and dance
act, or any other act or performance participated in by one or more persons for the purpose of
holding the attention o,`, gaining the ateention and interest of, diverting or amusing guests or
patrons.
The existing definition of entertainment is proposed to be modified to read:
"Entertainment" means any activity conducted for the primary purpose of diverting or entertaining a
clientele in a premises open to the general public. Such activity shall include, but not be limited to,
dancing, whether by performers or patrons of the establishment, live musical performances,
musical entertainment provided by a disc jockey, karaoke, or any similar entertainment activity
involving reproduced music.
Changes to exclusions to defined entertainment. The Entertainment Code allows for several types
of entertaainment that do not require a permit. Staff suggests making changes to two specific
exclusions.
Section 5.12:D30(A) allows without a permit:
For the use of a radio or other electronical playback device in any establishment, except when
utilized by an announcer or "disc Jockey" who at any time provides any form of vocal
entertainment, including the announcing of song titles or artists' names in conjunction therewith;
Advances in current technology and trends in entertainment make this section out-of-date. In
many entertainment establishments, disc jockey's (DJ's) act as a musical arranger, ensuring the
right type of music is played at the right times to maintain the establishment's atmosphere. Many
DJ's today do not provide any "vocal entertainment" and, therefore, could be interpreted as exempt
from requiring an Entertainment Pernik. Staff recommends rewording this section to allow for
ambient music designed to be in the background in conjunction with a restaurant use.
Section 5.12.030(E) also allows without a permit:
For entertainment provided solely by a piano player or harpist playing music for the amusement of
guests or patrons of an establishment;
Staff recommends this definition be revised to include up to two non-ampl~ed performers in a
restaurant in conjunction with meal service. This allows for an enhanced variety of ambient,
appropriate entertainment within a restaurant or similar venue that would not warcant an
Entertainment Permit.
-3-
JOINT MEETING- PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPRORT
DRC2010-00141 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 4, 2010
Page 3
• Section 5.14.040 outlines the application requirements for an Entertainment Permit. Staff
recommends the following enhanced application requirements to assist in conducting adequate
and thorough reviews of Entertainment Permits:
Applicants shall be required to submit not only names of owners and managers, but recent photos
as well for easy ident~cation.
Staff has been working directly with the Police Chief and will establish procedures requiring
applicants to submit to fingerprinting in order to conduct a background check.
• Section 5.12.060 requires public noticing for all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed
entertainment location. Chapter 17 of the Development Code requires all development projects
that require a public hearing to be noticed a distance of 660 feet. Staff proposes a change to
Section 5.12.060 to increase the noticing requirement to 6fi0 feet to be consistent with the
Development Code. We are currently noticing at a 660-foot radius for all new Entertainment
Permit applications to be consistent with the noticing requirements outlined in the Development
Code, and Chapter 5.12 should reflect the same for consistency purposes.
• Section 5.12.110 calls for fees for annual renewal in the amount of $75. Staff proposes changing
the language to allow the annual renewal fee to be an amount set by a Ciry Council Resolution, as
is done with other fees charged by the City. This will allow us to charge a fee to recoup the City's
administrative and investigative costs for annual renewals. In addition, for Entertainment Permits
approved in months other than January, the first year renewal fee with be prorated at 1/12 of the
annual renewal fee for each month the permit was active. For example, for an Entertainment
Permit approved in May, the annual renewal fee due the following January 1 would be 7/12 of the
annual renewal fee, since the permit was active for 7 months of the given year.
• As a function of being a permit, rather than a land use approval, an Entertainment Permit is not
transferrable between owners should an owner self the business and may not be transferred
between locations should an owner decide to relocate. In the past, this distinction has not always
been clear. To remedy this, staff proposes adding a new section to Chapter 5.12 to clearly define
that Entertainment Permits are not-transferrable, either by change in ownership or change in
location.
• As the types of entertainment have changed over time, so has the need to consider a security
presence to ensure public safety. Section 5.12.130 requires a security guard be present only if a
dance area of 150 square feet is provided. This language does not allow staff the Flexibility to work
with the property owner to best determine security requirements for the proposed entertainment.
Staff recommends removing the Code requirement for security guards at dances with dance floors
over 150 square feet. If this change is made, security requirements will now be individually
tailored to the establishment and owner and be added as a Condition of Approval for
Entertainment Permits.
Entertainment Permits require an annual renewal. This annual renewal is due to be submitted by
permitees each January 1. Staff has found that often after numerous attempts to remind some
applicants to submit for renewal, it can drag out for many months past January 1. Staff proposes
adding language to Chapter 5.12 to indicate that failure to submit the annual renewal application
by January 1 makes the permit invalid, and the applicant will need to cease entertainment and
reapply for a new Entertainment Permit. Staff also proposes adding an option for permitees to
apply for one 30-day extension if extenuating circumstances prevent them from applying by
January 1. As part of the annual renewal process, staff will continue to send reminder letters to
permitees 60 and 30 days prior to January 1 to remind them of the process.
-4-
JOINT MEETING -PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPRORT
DRC2010-00141 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 4, 2010
Page 4
Proposed Changes to the Chanter 17.04 of the Development Code
In addition to the proposed changes to Chapter 5.12, staff is proposing changes to the Development
Code to address the land use issues that are evaluated as part of the CUP process for entertainment.
As mentioned earlier, for entertainment to be permitted in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not only is an
Entertainment Permit required, but a Conditional Use Permit is necessary to determine if the proposed
site is suitable for entertainment.
Currently, for a Conditional Use Permit to be approved, specific findings have to be met. These findings,
located in Chapter 17.04.030 as referenced in the Code are:
1. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development
Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
2. That 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.
3. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.
Staff proposes adding an additional finding for Conditional Use Permits, specific to entertainment that
would read similar to this:
1. That the proposed location has adequate space and an appropriate floor plan for the proposed
entertainment uses.
Internal Review Procedures
Staff is also in the' process of developing a comprehensive program for the review of new Entertainment
Permits as well as applications for renewal in conjunction with the proposed Code amendment changes
that would include:
• Comprehensive checklists for prospective applicants. The curent Entertainment and Conditional
Use Permit checklist will be updated to reflect changes to the Code as a result of this Code
Amendment and will be thoroughly reviewed to ensure prospective applicants understand each of
the filing requirements.
• Consistent and thorough application review by staff. Written documentation will be created to
assist current and future planners in the review of each application for entertainment using the
same criteria. This can be updated as needed.
• Coordinating preliminary investioations with other departments. When a new application arrives, if
the building has been constructed, it will be important to conduct a cross department inspection
with Police, Fire, Building and Safety, Business License and others as needed to ensure that the
location and space offered meets all public heath and safety needs in the initial phase of review.
Writing clear, conclusive staff reports. In the past, the line between the land use entitlement (CUP)
and the'Entertainment Permit (EP) was blurred in staff reports, creating opportunities for confusion
for those left to interpret their meaning as time went on. By creating sample staff reports with
specific sections to fill in and analyze, this will assist current and future staff and help ensure
findings are clear for both the CUP and the EP.
-5-
JOINT MEETING -PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPRORT
DRC2010-00141 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 4, 2010
Page 5
Standard Conditions of Approval. Staff is in the process of developing a comprehensive set of
standardized conditions of approval for entertainment uses that can be used as a starting point for
final conditions. This template will be tailored to each EP application as needed. This will help
ensure that major focus areas (security, lighting, noise, etc) are considered and conditioned
appropriately. This will not prevent staff from customizing conditions as needed to address
individual entertainment operations.
Clear procedures for handling renewal applications. As part of the proposed changes to Chapter
5.12, staff will develop a written set of procedures for handling renewal applications. This includes,
but is not limited to: thorough renewal application review to ensure that entertainment uses have
not expanded; cross department inspection with Police, Fire, Building and Safety, Business
License, and others annually to ensure that the site has not been altered and conditions of
approval are being adhered to; and gathering crime statistics for entertainment locations to
determine specific issues that shculd be addressed.
Continuino outreach to entertainment permitees. As staff is made aware of issues at
establishments that offer entertainment, it is important to reach out to permitees to ensure they are
aware of the issues presented consistently and promptly and have the tools to successfully
address them. Rather than waiting for a number of significant issues to develop, we propose
proactively handling complaints and issues at the staff level and elevating unresolved issues to the
Planning Commission as needed.
Periodic inspections for compliance. The Fire District has expressed a willingness to assist the
Planning staff in conducting periodic inspections of entertainment establishments to ensure
compliance with all conditions of approval. Since the Fire District safety group is available during
hours that entertainment is more likely to take place, they are in an excellent position to assist the
Planning staff in conducting inspections during the most critical times.
Conclusion
These proposed changes will help the City balance the need for maintaining a safe community for
residents while enhancing the amenities we offer to both residents as well as visitors of the Inland
Empire. The technical changes proposed will assist the staff in the processing of new Entertainment
Permit applications as well as annual renewal applications. The internal review changes will assure
consistency in the review of these applications as well as addressing issues with permitees early to
prevent long-term problems. The goat with these proposed changes is not to limit entertainment;
instead, these regulations are designed to provide the highest quality entertainment for the residents and
visitors of Rancho Cucamonga in a safe environment. Staff welcomes the comments of the City Council
and Planning Commission on the proposed changes to the Code.
Respectfully Submitted,
/~ ~ ~~
James R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
JRT:JN/ge
~~
~°
~~
~~a
~U
~ ~ ~
~ ~ O
O ~ U
U ~ ~,
~
~ ~
~
U
~ U
o
~ ~
._
~ ~ ~
~ O 0
~ Q c~
O ~
~ ~ ~
W ~ a~
.O
0
U
.~
c~
0
0
Q
~,~
~ O
~ ~
U ~
~ ~'
O
~Q N
@aa ~
~:~
a w
C 1 •
O
L
O
L
~--+
~ U
d' ~
N N
.~ ~~
a~ ~
~ ~
U
~ ~
°' .~
~ ~
~ ~
U ~
Z U
O
N O
Q
~ ~ O
Q ~ r
O .~ ~
(~
r
~ ~ U ~
~ ~ ~ C
to LJJ O O
(~ ~
~ ~ O O
~ ~ o ~~
° ~ ~ ~~
U~--+ O O
U ~ ~U
~ ~ ~ .~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ O '~ ~
~ V J
~~
~~
G~ Q
~a~~
~+
^~
W
.~
~--+
W
._
a~
a-~'+
.~
U ~
O c
Q ~
^1 L
W a--~
~ ~
~ ~
o~
~~
o U
~ i
~--+
.~
L
O
Q
O
L
O
.~
L
0
w
^~
W
U
O
Q
.~
O
._
m
(~
O
U
O
O t~%
~ N
~ U
~--,
cv ~
> ~
~ ~
O ~
~--~
O
L
0
~~
~~
oQ
Q o
._
_~
U
.~
N
U
0
~--+
N ~
~ ~
~`
.~~^'.wr.` r f ` i~f~ W
~..~ ; ~ ~
~ ~
U ~
I }, a~
~ ~ ~
~ a~
~ ~ o
~ . _ cn
~ ~ O
.~
~~ ~ N
~~ ~~ U ~ ~
~ _
`~ ~ a~ ~
@~a~ ~ ~ ~
-,~~ _~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ a
O ~
.~ ~
o
® ~ ~ ~
~ ~' ~ • •
(~ ~
U '-
O ~
~ .~
~_ ~
~> ~
0 0
~ ~
~ ~
o
~ o
ca Q
~ ~
~ c ~
~ ~
~~
U ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
o a o
~ m
•
0
U
C
.^
O
U
C '`''
~ ~
~_
~ ~
~'
~ `~
~_
_~ a~
~ ~
~~
~~
~ ~
a~
~ ~
~ ~~
i
N
~ ~
~ o
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ o n
~ ~ ~ >
L
~ ~ ~
•- o
U ~~
~ ~
~~ ~
~ ~ i O
L ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ O
~ ~ o .~
~ cv o 0
~ .~ ~ ~
U ~ p
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ '~
~ ~ Q
~ ~ ~ N
~ U ~
~ ~ ~ LL
~ W I I
0
0 0
~ U
•~ ~
~ a
L
~ O
~ ~
._
U ~
O ~
.U ~
~ ~
Q ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ .~
U~ ~
a--+
L
L
O
U
O
N ~
~ c~ ~
-~ ~ ~
L(~
L .~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
C~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
U ~
-~ ~~ ~~
~, ~
~ ~ ~ ~ a~
Q~ N ~
a--~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ .~
~ >,
~ •~ o ~ ~
U ~~•Lo~_
~ Lf~ ~X
-~ ~ L U ~ _N
Q~ ~ ~ ~ N L
~ v ~ o > ~
~ ~ > o ~
~ ~ ~ o ~ o
O ~ o ~ o Q
~ z ~ ~ ,~ ~
~ ~~
ca
~ F,
c~ ;:
~~
c~ ~
~~
~ .-
a~
L ~ ~
L ~
Q~
C ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 'con
~ ,~ ~
~ X
O ~ ~
o ~
~ ~ ~
V M
~ ~ ~
a
~~
~d~
r
^~
W
~~
U
N
U
N
O
O
L
U
0
.~
.~
.o
Q
^~
W
.~
a~
~--~
0
U
O
0
a~
I
O
Q
O
L
Q
-F-+
L
Q
°o
(~
~L
Q.
c
c~
c~
Q~
.~
a
~~
~~
Q
~~~
~ O
U
.Q
U ~
O
L ~
(~
._
N
N~ U
LL N
~~
n '~
W Q
~ O
U
N
.~
O
c~
U
Q
Q
O
-~--~
.~
O
U
a--+
O
~ ~
~_
.~ O
~ ~
~ ~
O ~
~ C
L
•- U
~_ .~
.~ ~ ~
.~ ~ Q ~
Q ~ ~ W
L
~--+
~ ~ ~ U
p ~ ~L ~
U o ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ a
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o
O N ~ U
U .,.., ~ ~ ~ -~
~ i ~ ~ _~
~ ~, ~ ~ ~ o
> a, ~,.
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~
> Q o ~ Q ~
~ c~ o
~~ ~ o ~ ~ o
~ ~ (~ ~ ,+.., V U
_ ~ ~ ~ N
O ~ ~
~Q ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~
~ ~ U C ~_ ~
;a ~ O O ~ ~
~°Uc~Uc~a.
• • • •
U
Q.
O
U
~~
~? °
~~
~~
C
N
O
U
C6
O
._
N
O
U
N
CCS
H
STAFF REPORT
PLiNNINC DEP,~RTbIENT
Date: August 4, 2010
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
From: James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director
By: Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner
-s-
,~''~,-
,~-_h",n
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
Subject: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO CHAPTERS
17.02 AND 17.08 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT CODE
REGARDING LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS (DRC2010-00331)
Backs round
On May 19, 2010, the City Council authorized staff to initiate a Development Code Amendment to
make changes relating to landscaping requirements. Water conservation has been a topic of
much discussion and action both at the State and local level, One of the long tens effects of
water conservation is the change in physical appearances of the landscapes installed by
residential and non-residential property owners; lush lawns and water loving groundcover are
being replaced by more California-friendly, native landscapes.
In compliance with State Law AB1881, the City of Rancho Cucamonga passed Ordinance 823
(Water Efficient Landscapes) to encourage a change in landscape appearance by requiring
landscapes based on water budgets that were consistent with local conditions. This Ordinance
mainly applies to new development; however, the City is seeing property owners wanting to "do
their part" to conserve water and mod'rfy existing landscapes to reflect a lower consumption of
water. While residents adopting a more water efficient landscape is a positive change, these
landscapes have the potential to be °rockscapes" or vast amounts of hardscape with little
landscaping as a means of saving water. The purpose of these proposed changes is to balance
the need to reduce landscape water consumption with the visual aesthetic standard that Rancho
Cucamonga is known for.
On June 9, 2010, staff made a presentation to the Planning Commission on concepts in
alternative landscaping. Photos were shown with different examples of alternative landscaping
for review and feedback. The overall comments directed staff to focus on simple straight forward
requirements to allow for maximum flexibility for homeowners.
On July 14, 2010, staff presented a proposed minimum landscape requirement for residential
parcels to the Planning Commission. The Commission was supportive of the direction staff was
headed, and provided valuable feedback on the proposed requirements.
JOINT MEETING -CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _ ~ _
DRC2010-00331 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 4, 2010
Page 2
Analysis
Staff surveyed several other cities in the area to determine their minimum front yard landscape
requirements for residential parcels. Typically, front yards are divided into two categories:
landscape (plant material) and hardscape (driveways, walkways, etc.). Many cities have a simple
landscape to hardscape requirement. The percentages vary, but here are a few examples:
Landscape Hardscape
City Required Allowed Comments
Upland 60% ' 40%
Arcadia 60% 40%
Fontana 50% 50% 25% of the landscaping can be decorative hardscape
Ontario 40% 60% Synthetic turf counts as hardscape
Chino 50% - 70% 50% - 30% Depending on residential zone
At the July 14, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission expressed concerns about
counting driveways toward an overall hardscape total. The Commission commented that in some
areas, because of the size of the lot or how far the house was set back from the street, the
driveways already took up a considerable amount of the front yard setback and may already be
exceeding a 50 percent hardscape calculation. This could prevent homeowners from installing
decorative hardscapes that do not require any water such as "rockscape," and could
consequently defeat the main purpose of the proposed ordinance.
Based on the Commission's comments, staff conducted some additional research to determine if
there were better ways to calculate a landscape minimum. Staff is offering a couple of options for
consideration.
Option 1
This option creates differentiation between landscape, hardscape and decorative hardscape.
For example:
a) Landscape would be defined as live plant materials, counting synthetic turf:
b) Hardscape would include driveways, walkways and other solid concrete areas:
c) Decorative hardscape would be exemplified in rock gardens, fountains, courtyards,
etc.
Option 1 does not put a specific cap on hardscape; whatever space is needed for driveways and
walkways would not count toward an overall hardscape maximum. For the remaining front yard
setback area, a minimum landscape percentage would apply with a corresponding maximum
percentage for decorative hardscape (i.e., 50/50, 60/40, 75/25). Below is an example of how
Option 1 might look:
Minimum Landscape Reuirements for Front Yard Setback Area Excluding Driveways and Walkway
Decorative
Landscape Hardscape
50% 50%
60% 40%
75% 25%
JOINT MEETING -CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _ $ _
DRC2010-00331 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 4, 2010
Page 3
For example, after all required driveways and walkways are constructed; the remaining area of
the front yard setback would be subject to a minimum amount of landscape with a corresponding
maximum amount of decorative hardscape.
The benefR to this option is that it allows for as much hardscape as a resident needs for drive
access, while still allowing for additional hardscape as part of the overall landscape plan. The
drawback is that some owners may be tempted to "overbuild" the driveway areas as a way to
reduce their landscaping areas.
O tion 2
This option uses the same definitions for landscape, hardscape, and decorative hardscape, but
gives spec'rfic percentages to each. Here are some examples of how the calculations would look:
Minimum Landscape Requirements for the Front Yard Setback Area
Decorative
Hardscape Landscape Landscape
40% 40% 20%
50% 40% 10%
60% 30% 10%
The benefit to this option is that it does allow for decorative landscaping, while defining a
maximum amount of hardscape surtace area, preventing unnecessary paved areas. The
drawback is that some parcels may already exceed a proposed hardscape standard.
Changes to Definitions (Chapfer 17.02)
These proposed changes will necessitate changes to the definitions provided in the Development
Code. Specifically, either of these proposed changes will require a change to our existing
definition of landscaping as well as adding definitions for hardscape and decorative hardscape.
This is the current definition of landscaping:
LANDSCAPING: An area devoted to or developed and maintained
predominately with native or exotic plant materials including turf (natural or
synthetic), ground cover, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials; and also
including accessory decorative outdoor landscape elements such as pools,
fountains, paved, or decorated surfaces (excluding driveways, parking, loading,
or storage areas), and sculptural elements.
Staff suggests revising the definition of landscaping to remove hardscape and decorative
hardscape materials as follows:
LANDSCAPING: An area devoted to or developed and maintained
predominately with native or exotic plant materials including turf (natural or
synthetic), ground cover, trees, shrubs, and other plant materials; and-a/se
Staff further suggests creating a definition of hardscape that limits it to required driveways and
walking paths as well as a definition of decorative hardscape that defines our desire for inorganic
materials that are used in a decorative fashion to enhance an overall landscape design.
JOINT MEETING -CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT _ g _
DRC2010-00331 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 4, 2010
Page 4
The exact wording of these definitions is not yet definitive, but would be thoroughly developed as
part of an ordinance.
Commercial and Industrial Landscape Requirements
Commercial and industrial properties present unique challenges to landscaping. These properties
usually have a majority of the land covered by impervious surfaces (i.e., buildings, parking, etc.).
The goal of landscaping in these areas is to soften the visual aesthetic of these developments as
well as provide cooling effects and stormwater retention by allowing surface water to percolate to
the ground below. In commercial zones, landscaping areas are determined by how far the
development should be set back from the street, which ranges from 25 to 45 feet. In industrial
zones, a minimum landscaping percentage is required for the site, ranging by zone from 5 percent
to 25 percent. The Development Code does allow for landscaping designs to incorporate
hardscape and the use of drought tolerant plants and drip-irrigation systems for water
conservation. Staff does not recommend any changes to landscaping requirements for
commercial and industrial properties at this time. New development will be subject to the Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance enacted in 2009 which requires landscapes to be subject to a
water budget. Staff has been working with existing property owners towards modifying their
landscapes using the principles of this ordinance. We will continue to work with new and existing
developments to encourage water efficient landscapes.
Public Outreach
It is important with any change that affects a large majority of parcels in the City to have an active
public outreach effort. We have received many inquiries at the public counter about how
residents can decrease their water use through revising and adapting their landscape plant
palette and hardscape to reduce water consumption. This is a great opportunity to get feedback
from residents on the final proposal. Staff is exploring several methods to reach the public,
including community forums, information included in water bills from CVWD and a web based
format for people to electronically participate in the discussion. We expect the public outreach
component to last up to 3 months.
Conclusion
The options presented offer a dual benefit by creating a landscape minimum to ensure a pleasant
front yard aesthetic, while allowing residents flexibility in design to create water conserving
landscapes that may include decorative hardscape. The goal of these changes is to offer
residents an alternative to a typical turf based landscape. Staff welcomes the comments of the
City Council and Planning Commission and direction on the proposed changes to the Code.
Respectfully Submitted,
~, ~
Jam R. Troyer, AICP
Planning Director
JT:JN/ds
lP F
~~
~°
'~~
a,o
~+
^~
W
.~
.~
C~
U
J
^~
W
C~
U
O
O
.~
0
U
U
N
0
0
._
^L
L.L
.0
I
.~
O
U
.~
c~
0
N
Q
~~
~~
~~°;(~((
rv+-.~P.I~ti
to
U
Ca
m
0
-~
~--+
~~
O
._
c~
O
(~
•
O
U
(~
c~
0
.~
O
U
O
.~
.~
N
c~
U
(~S
J
•
~--+
N
O
O
c~
U
O
L
0
.~
U
_~
(~
.;
~--+
U
(~
t~
O
~ ~ ~
~ >' ~
O
~ p ~
c O N
~ C~ ~ ca
a~
rn
c
ca
U
a~
0
n
0
^L
I..L
0
C~
~~
~~
~Q
~` 4
~ ~
~ ~
.~ '~
~ ~
~ ~ (Cf
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~--+
O ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ °Q ~ o ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ ~ ~ i
0 ~'
L (~ ~ -_ Q
i N ~ ~
UO ~ ~ O
(~ N ~ ~ _
p ~ LPL
W ~ ~ •X ~
_O ~ ~ ~ _~ O
O .O ,'-' L p
N ~_ ~ ~ N .~
~' ~ d.
N .~ ~ ~ ~ .~
~ o U Q ~ o
~U ~ ~ ~U
~~
(6
0
ca ~
~ ~
O .'-'
(6
O ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ U
~ ~
O ~
N ~
> O
~ ~
O ~
~ N
~ ~
i i
~d>.' r
~ ~_
• O~
it=yr: ~
Q
U
O
~~
O
.~
Q
U
.~
0
~I-
~_
X
C6
~_
(C~
X
W
E>n.
c~ ~ U
C L ~
~ N (0
~ ~ 2
~ Q
(B
~ U
O ~
~ J
0 0 0
~
~ N
0 0 0
~ ~ ti
~~
c >
~ ~
o
O
N
\°
0
O
Lf1
X
E
x
I
~i
~~i
~=i
~;:
~~i
O
D I
0
O
'V'
n
x
i
~i
~.
~~i
~~i
~~i
moo.
~o~
0
~i
~.
N
0
a
m
0
0
Q
C
(6
(~
N
`~- ~ - ~ L
Q
U U Q
N ~ ~ V
i ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
.~ o ~ ~
' a--+ L
~ ~ ca O
O ~__ O
~ U O
~~ N -_
~ ~ (a
~~ % O O
~ N ~ ~ .-.
~aa ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~C •~ .~
~ ~ ~
~ Q.
•~
~ ~
~
D N
.a
2 o
N 0
O 0
O
m
~~ ~
•= o ~
~ ~ J
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
E m
a
~
' N
°
~
~ ,o
`~ ~ ° m
~i
~~~ i
~~~~
>.
_~~~
00
~~~i
0
~i
o.
,., .
0
~-=+
Q
Q ~ ~
0
O
~
~
U ~ ~
~
~ ~
~
~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ (~
~, ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ca ~ (I) ~ N t~
m I ~ I
N
O
ti
:.«;~ O ~
~ '~.
~ U
~ ~
~ ~
,' ~ ~
i ~ o
U
~~ ~ o
U~ O .~
~0~ O ~
y O
U
cts
O ~
a
~ ca
U ~
~, o Q ~
._
> .~ U fa
~ ~ ~ o
Ii ~ i
I Q I I
~~
`~ a
~~
oC~~
0
~ ~
C~ ~~ °~
-- ~
~ ~
cn ~,
~ ~ a~
~ ~
~ ~ c~
~ ~ ~ ~
.~ L
! ~ ~ ~ ~ L
~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~
C6 ~ ~ ~ ~ N
C~ .~ d-
._ ~ ~ o o ~ o
V ~ ,~ ~ U
~ J N ~ aN ~ ~ ~
~ ~ c~ ~ O ~ o
.v ~ ~ o N ~ 4-
s, ~ O ~ N ~, 'L- ~ ~
~, U cv ca +r
~Q~~~~~
U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~'
~°
~Q
O~
,•~„ G
.'~^
V
C~
._
N
U
.~
U
C~
J
.~
U
C6
O
0
0
N
L
U
~ ~--~
~
._ ~
U ~U
(a ~
U W
L
L
L
0 0
-1--+
~ U
O •~
~ ~
N ~
~ ~ ~
O
U •~ ~
~ ~ a
~ ~ o
~ >
a
O U N
> ~ ~
~ ~ ~
I z
I
N
U
O
~.
U
J
U
C~
0
U
~--+
0
Q ~
-~ O
~ ~
.U
~ ~
~ ~
~ .O
0
L •L
0
U Q
~ ~
^~
W
~ ~
L.L (n
0
_~
Q
U
I
a
U
.~
L
I
U
a
O
L
0
I
.~
O
C`7
O
I
W
.~
H
C
N
O
U
C6
O
._
c~
N
O
U
N
C6