HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979/08/22 - Agenda Packet--
a
�r
—
.
a
rya•
q.
4
'r
I��
y
.._
.. a �• J - +,l +l i al +l•LI L _
+
(
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 22, 1979, 7:00 p.m.
Carnelian Elementary School Multipurpose Room
7105 Carnelian, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca..
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Commissioner Dahl _
Commissioner Garcia
Commissioner Jones
III. Approval of Minutes
July 16, 1979 Special
QIV. Announcements Q
V. Consent Calendar
►w
Cuamissioner Rempel
Commissioner Tolstoy
COMPANY'- .A.requeet tot a one year timeexten
Tentative Tract Maps No. 9583,.9584 -1, 9584 -2
VI. rPublic Hearings
i AN ORDINANCE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ESTABLI
q�l
development in the City of Rancho. Cucamonga.
REVISIONS TO SITE APPROVAL, NO. 78-03 - PD YOUNG -
` The development of a'nursery /day care facility to
be located at 9816 Baseline within the R -1. zone.
VII. Old: Business .
VIII. Nr us
D. CE6 MAP NO.' 4773 - R0ITEPETER - Request for clarifi-
cation of conditions imposed on subject ,parcel map located
850' east of.Etiwanda Avenue and 95 ^' north of'• Summit 'Avenue
TRACT N0. 9472 - BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT- Request to waive
a'condition of •approval for T'cact.9472 located on the
. {
north side of 19th Street west of Hermosa Avenue�t
L
`t �J � \�`t4� � �� SIl �i � IY 1�1• r �� -. � \. fir_ e 1 \i^' .i- y i' it ti's
�
ly
Cuamissioner Rempel
Commissioner Tolstoy
COMPANY'- .A.requeet tot a one year timeexten
Tentative Tract Maps No. 9583,.9584 -1, 9584 -2
VI. rPublic Hearings
i AN ORDINANCE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ESTABLI
q�l
development in the City of Rancho. Cucamonga.
REVISIONS TO SITE APPROVAL, NO. 78-03 - PD YOUNG -
` The development of a'nursery /day care facility to
be located at 9816 Baseline within the R -1. zone.
VII. Old: Business .
VIII. Nr us
D. CE6 MAP NO.' 4773 - R0ITEPETER - Request for clarifi-
cation of conditions imposed on subject ,parcel map located
850' east of.Etiwanda Avenue and 95 ^' north of'• Summit 'Avenue
TRACT N0. 9472 - BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT- Request to waive
a'condition of •approval for T'cact.9472 located on the
. {
north side of 19th Street west of Hermosa Avenue�t
L
`t �J � \�`t4� � �� SIl �i � IY 1�1• r �� -. � \. fir_ e 1 \i^' .i- y i' it ti's
tq
Plsnning'Commiasion Agenda
August 22, 1979
Page ," 2
Ix. Council Referral
X. Director'a,Reports
N �T
F. ZONING DETERMINATION NO. 79-04 - PETER POPOFF EVANGELISTIC
a �� ASSOCIATION - To determine whether or not an office , "crisis
center, chapel-and related uses are appropriate in the R -1,
single family residential zone.
Go: ., GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS - Cossions,.desires for changes
xo the. mm General Plan.
XI. Public Cement - 'Anyone wishing to comment on any items not
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time.
XII. Coumission Comment
XIII. Upcoming Agenda for September 12, 1979:
I. Report xegardimg Park,Tax Credit for•Tract No. 9582 -1.i
:XIV. Adjournment - The Plannirg Commission has adopted Administrative
Regulations that'set an 11:00 p.m:- .adjournment time. If items
go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the the Commission.` consent s o f
Adjourn to the August 29, 1979. Special Study Session at
7:00 p.m. in the Carnelian Elementary School Multipurpose
Roan to discuss the VM111am Lyon Specific Plan.
5
. r. 14
n
J Ci
r
Z
\ M1S
:y k
a
�• 1 � � t IR�.w Y
A
i•
1 y
lxe:i:.xaan ._�
K
�•Y ice•• Y, •, �.1
,
3M•rONrAV13
uLbily'A.'�
/
I
IY 1
/
I
IY 1
11IN aivironiry
gm QMUNM
r
W
a
g
t
IL
' �
x
Yl
y
ACTION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 22,.1979, 7:00 p.m.'
Carnelian Elementary School Multipurpose Room
7105 Carnelien, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Rail Call
Commissioner Dahl X Commissioner Rempel X
Commissioner Garcia Excused Commissioner .Tolstov X
Commissioner Jones X _
III. Approval of Minutes
July 16, 1979 Special Study Session
IV. Announcements
V. Consent Calendar
A. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP EXTENSION REQUEST - DEER CREEK
COMPANY - A request for a one year time extension for
Tentative Tract Maps No. 9583, 9584 -1, 9584 -2 an-A 9584 -3.
VI. Public Hearings
B. AN ORDINANCE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ESTABLISHING A
ued to GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN regulating new reS1dent1at
9 development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. REVISIONS TO SITE APPROVAL NO. 78-03 - ED YOUNG -
Denied 3 -0 -1
The development of a nursery /day care facility to
)ahl excued himself
be located at 9816 Baseline within the R -1 zote.
:o conflict of interest
VII.
Old Business
VIII.
New Business
D. PARCEL MAP N0. 4773 - KORTEPETER - Request for clarifi-
contined to 9 -26
cation of conditions imposed on subject parcel map located;
-- `with staff to work
850' east of Etiwanda Avenue and 950' north of Summit Avenue
;rxith applicant
4
E. TRACT 140. 9472 - BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT - Request to waive
.:
.Wproved with
a condition of approval for Tract 9472 located on the
Addition of
north side of 19th 8treet.west of Hermosa Avenue.
,
hrii4lhery btwn
s .
Mee.
0 1
'� { } •
Plaeming
Cion'Agenda
r .
August'220
,1979 -
Page 2
IX.
Council Referral
X.
Director's Reports
Determined that use
P. .20NING DETFRMINATION N0. 79 -04 - PETER POPOFF'EVANGELISTIC
JA R -1 zone
ASSOCI MON -. To determine whethar or not an office, crisis'
.0k
3 =1�1
center, chapel. and related uses are appropriate in the R--l',
;TDlstoy dissent-
single.family residential zone.
felt. not a',church
use
G. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS - C miasiona' desires for changes
to the General Plan.
purrher info
on,items 3,4 & -5
Xi.
Public Comment - Anyone wishing to comment on any items not
• jZe j. with items
listed on the Agenda may do so at this time.
'l';2,6 S 9
RII.
Co•.niasion. Comment
XIII.
Upcoming Agenda for September-12, 1979:
1. Report regarding Park Tax Credit for Tract No. 9582 -1.
XIV.
Adjournment -The Planning Commission has adopCed Administrative .
Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items
'
go beyond that time, it shall be heard only with the consent of
the Commission.
Adjourn to the August 29, 1979 Special Study Session at
7:00 p.m. in the Carnelian Elementary School. Multipurpose
P=
Room to discuss the William Lyon Specific Plan
;.
J= _
AI �
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: August 22, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: TENTAT1bE TRACT MAP EIiT WION LEST - DEER CREEK COMPANY -
A request for a one year time extension for Tentative Tract
Maps No. 9583, 9584-1, 9584 -2 and 9584 -3.
BACKGROUND: Mr. William R. Grigsby, representing Deer Greek Company,
is requesting as extension for Tentative Tract Maps No. 9583, 9584-1.
584 -3 (Exhibit "A "). These tracts are due to expire on
9584 -2 and 9
October 26. 584-3 The extension is necessary hince final tract records-
1979.
tion can not be completed prior.to October 26, 1979. Tract 9583 and
Tracts 9584 -1 through 9584 -3 inclusive, were included in the BIA voluntary
phasing list that was approved by the City Council on February 21, 1978.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve
a one (1) year time extension, of the expiration date of said tracts,
from October 26, 1979 to October 26, 1980.
Respectfull submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL: SK:ffi
0
r
(���' t � �r rr S f � fj� • y Y��RI v
X y�%rt)
y
sf�Jw'y���,�
h r 7711 (+1 r
CRLEK C � IWY; � P()Sf �FF1C� BUX488 ALTA lAMA1CAL1FpRNU191741 n
r t R f CY w iC'.',S�w:x�lM ^.l.4ri nrLikYLr:M'.ti.�211vFw •J1/ .n41i ":i' :..si
y
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: August 22, 1979
y` To: Planning Commission
From: .Tack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
The latest draft of the Growth Management Plan incorporating all the
recent revisions thereto as a result of a series of work shops and
study sessions conducted by the Planning Commission has not been
compiled in time to be included in this packet. it will be avail-
able early next week. If, after the public hearings, the Planning
"ammission is satisfied with the content of the proposal, staff .
would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council the adoption of the Growth Management Ordinance and the
Resolution establishing a Residential Assessment System.
{•;r Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:nm
'7
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: August 22, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: REVISION TO SITE APPROVAL NO. 78-03 - YOUNG+: The development
of a day -care center located at 9817 Baseline "a R -1 zone
BACTCGRouND: Mr, Ed Young is requesting approval to revise the originsl
approval granted by the Planning Commission for the development of a day
care facility located at 9817 Baseline (Exhibit "A "). The Planning Com-
mission, at its meeting of November 8, 1978, approved Resolution No, 78 -30
(Attached as ExhibiL "B") to permit the development of a day care facility
on the subject property. The approval limited the asaount of children to
be cared for to forty (40), based upon the number of parking stalls that
could be provided in accordance with the zoning ordinance (8 for the number
of children and 3 for number of teachers). Attached as Mchibit "C" is a
copy of the approved site plan, Mr. Young is requesting an increase in
the number of children f_om" In addition, a revised site plan
has been submitted (Exhibit 'D"
Mr. Young is presently licensed by the State for the care of 36 children.
Presently, the facility required 3 teachers, which are comprised of Mr.
Young, his wife, and another teacher. The increase to 48 would require an
additional teacher.
ANALYSIS: The approved site plan provided 10 parking stalls in the parking
lot. The zoning ordinance requires l space per 5 children and an additional
space for each teacher. Based upon the request for 48 children, a total of
14 spaces would be required. The proposed site plan indicates 12 parking
spaces in the parking lot and 2 in the private drive. The 2 spaces in the
private drive are indicated since Mr. Young and his wife reside at the existing
residence and would not need spaces within the parking lot.
This revision does create a few concerns:
.The proposed parking lot layout blocks the Pntrance to the
pre - school. This could be a safety problem should there be
an emergency and parked cars prohibit proper emergency action.
The number of spaces provided assumes that Mr. Young and
his wife will always be 2 of the required 4 teachers. Should
this property trade hands, it could cause a need for two addi-
tional spaces.
ITEM "C"
i.
The revision proposed, eliminates a significant amount of
landscaping that was originally approved and does nat add
any other type of .landscaping.
The parking spaces in front of the day care building are
difficult to use and would require excessive maneuvering
in order to exit the driveway in a proper manner.
The original approval gave Mr. Young until November 8, 1979 to complete
the following items:
.Landscape plan to be submitted to and approved by the
Planning DivXdion.
.Installation of all landscaping.
.Upgrading exterior building elevations of the day care facility.
.In addition, a condition of approval to remove all signs immediately
has not been accomplished.
If the PlanniM Commission should consider approval of this request, it should
consider the status of the above conditions not Yet accomplished. It may be
in the best interest of the City tc require compliance with those conditions
prior to allowing the issuance of a State license for 48 children.
The request for revision is mainly as a res.4. _of.,Lrying to get a new site
plan conform to the existing improvements. `�a applicant has already installed
the !asphalt paving in accordance with the requested site plan revision. It
should be noted, should the Planning Commission deny this request, that the
applicant would be required to develop the site in accordance with the originally
approved plan which would entail removal, of some existing asphalt areas.
RECMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the site
plan revision based upon the concerns outlined in this report, and instruct
the applicant to develop the site in accordance with the approved site plan.
Res ectfully ubmitted,
0..
E
JACK LAM,
Director of
Community
Development
JL:MV: con
Attachments:
Exh! wit
"A",
Location Map
EKhibir.
"B",
Resolution No. 78 -30
Exhibit
"C",
Approved Site Plan for S.A.78 -03
Exhibit
':D",
Revised Site Plan for S.A.78 -03
Cat rte,
0..
E
. -. -. -..1 -
W
3
Z
u1
T
10
��"��FV�N- k5T`C.��i«11 r. it -"',' � e �t +J�� $� ti �• •• %:t' i • ! ^�iCr t , a;. -. � w:GFin� � jf <'T:.�. c. 4 '� {i< .;d f �i�.L�C�'fY�i���4
L.S�'iw aii;l �ih�9otvr .w:�1*ri....�- s%�b:..a- 1'.+�u .. .i,�`i•r�� .r3.w.�;'a±t+� -*+
_O
o
q�
d
i
��"��FV�N- k5T`C.��i«11 r. it -"',' � e �t +J�� $� ti �• •• %:t' i • ! ^�iCr t , a;. -. � w:GFin� � jf <'T:.�. c. 4 '� {i< .;d f �i�.L�C�'fY�i���4
L.S�'iw aii;l �ih�9otvr .w:�1*ri....�- s%�b:..a- 1'.+�u .. .i,�`i•r�� .r3.w.�;'a±t+� -*+
" r
,S !
RESOLUTION N0. 75-30
0
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCA14ONGA PLANNING
caoiiSSiw 1PPROVIPG SITE APPROVAL NO: 78 -03
TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE A DAY CARE FACILITY
LOCATED AT 9817 BASELINE
WHEREAS, on the 25th day of September, 1978, a complete application was
filed for review on the above described property; and
WHERELS, on the 8th day of November, 1978, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider the above described project.
Now, THE MORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Cocmission resolved as follows:
SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made:
1. That the site is adequate in size and shape.
2. That the site has adequate access.
11
3.
That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on
abutting property.
4.
That the proposed use is consistent with the proposed
General Plan.
5.
That the conditions listed in the Resolution are the
minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety,
comfort, convenience, and general welfare.
SECTION 2: That
such approval is based on the following conditions:
Engineering
Division:
1.
An offer of dedication consisting of 27 feet along Base -
line of.site.
2.
At the time of final approval, the applicant shall maize
arrangements for participation in construction of curb,
gutter, drive approaches, sidewalk, street trees and A.C.
match -up paving to be provided along Baseline in confor-
mance with City Standards and the street plans.
3.
The property should not gather water by artificial means and
discharge them onto (lower) properties in greater con-
centration than would naturally be discharged.
4.
The designer may be required to obtain or provide drain -.
r`
age easements and construct improvements to comply with
design concepts 1 -and 2.
5.
Access, shall be limited to the current residential drive on.�
aY!
the eastern property line and one additional 35 foot drive
to serve the Child ':are Center.
!
l
1.
F
Plann Division
That all provislofia of -the Zoning ordinance bs com,.lied-
with.
7. That the site be developed in accordance with Exhibit
"D" attached to the staff report.
That a detailed landscape and irrigation plan be sub-
mitted to an& approved by the Planning Division prior
to installation.
9, That the day care operation be limited to forty (40)
children.
That a buffer be provided along the south boundary of
the play yard by either a 6' block wall or dense land -
acaping or by some method acceptable to the Director
of Ccanmunity,Development`
�. That the parking lot improvements such as paving, striping
and 6" raised concrete curbs be installed in conjunction
with the street improvements- The remaining improve-
ments such as lands pin building elevations
shall be installed by vember 8, 1979.
2. The private residence and 1 not be used as any
part of the day care operation.
That hours of operation are limited to 6:30 a.m. -6:00 p.m.,
Monday - Friday-
, That any lighting be directed away from adjaceut properties.
15. All requirements and conditions of HEW shall be adhered to
and required, licenses shall be obtained. A copy of such
license and conditions shall be filed with the Department
of Caamunity Development.
16. That any signs be reb:ewed and approved by the Planning
Division prior to installation and that all other si.$na
on and off site shall be rrmoved-
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS STE DAY OF NOVEMBkM, 1978.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
I,
JACK LAN , Secretary of the Planning Cc= asioir�' f the Ci[yj;r'
of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was .
duly and rcgularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission
held on the 8th day of November , 1978, by the following vote to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, GARCIA, JONES, RFMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: CajmT7 jSIONERS: DAHL
0
i
�.• '''
t..
�u " '
7
-- I �R _____ .._._.. �_ .._.... �.. ... --... - -.
o
r � �
z � I
��
t -�
r' � - � ....� -._� � .._.
;f � �.
z �., �
�.�
�� �=
�, ��
�i
�� �' �
�, �
�I
� � 1 �
1'.. �..
t:
1,,..3
(:
�'
�� $Y 1,'�
.4 �: � J
s_r�:[ ! NVii.`3��I%l[`y i1.[5{��tin�i�w}l�FIY� 4 �Y�I�J J�M atit I.rl.i� •�.u. .�. �. 1 •� .. ,.If —.� .. �. .. :.�1 � '. ✓[S��iML��',MGyWi�ri 'Fj':�
I
ALT
�cJ
0
l 1l
i
w
l
I
• p
f
.o
mr
Chi
r
R
I
F
vow
....
1fK�+[wy'e',
�� ;
i� }
� _ •:: �vT i .: L!
.1 }� Y r. r
r ^�'
,�4r y 'i
+ /-••
T --
��R�il�.l�- MY /fNilfs: :A ..vY
ari4.ii /r �. 8'...:r.n r: rtA
..•. a �..�'.:.
« •...h .•A /s.f h4•L« � ii ,, irpA:•tii'{ {•+t 4�
DATE:
TO:
0
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
August 22, 1979
Planning Commission
mn16RAN•Dum
FROM: Lloyd Hubbs, City Engineer
SUBJECT: PARCEL MAP NO. 4773 - KORTEPETER
l
The division of 1.8 acres of land to .9 acre lots located 850 feet east of
Etiwanda Avenue and 950 feet north of Summit Avenue.
BACKGROUND: Attached for Planning Commission review is a letter to the City
Council " from Carol B. Tanenbaum, attorney for Mr. Gary Kortepeter, dealing
with the subject parcel map. This letter was submitted to the City Council
at its August 1, 1979 meeting where it was referred back to the Planning
Commission for its review and action.
The letter requests clarification of certain requirements established in
Resolution No. 79 -09 of the Planning Commission. The particular concern
deals with requirement no. 1 which states, "40 foot of dedication shall be
made along 23rd Street from Etiwanda Avenue lot 1 and through lot 1 and
lot 2. This access shall be paved with 26 feet wide paving from Etiwanda
Avenue from lot 1 through lot 1 to lot 2." The letter asks, "If other land
owners are not willing to participate by making certain dedications and
financial contributions, is Mr. Kortepeter still required to meet the con -
ditions and exactions imposed by Resolution No. 79 -09 ? ". If Mr. Kortepeter
is not required to meet the conditions of approval are those particular con-
ditions waived? If the conditions are waived, the applicant asks that the
conditions be amended to reflect new conditions proposed in the letter as
1 through 5.
ANAYLSIS: The Commission will probably remember this case, in that the
subject of the request for waiver was the primary subject of discussion at
the time the parcel map was approved. The Commission may also remember that
in connection with the subject parcel map, the Commission reviewed and adopted
Resolution No. 79 -07 (see attached) establishing a subdivision access improve -
ment policy.
This policy resolved, "That as a conditions of approval of any parcel map,
parcel map waiver, tract map or lot lire adjustment, the applicant shall have
access to a fully dedicated and maintained City street. Where dedication and
improvements do not exist, the the applicant shall obtain a minimum 40 of dedi-
cation and improve with 26 feet of paving needed street frontage to reach the
nearest maintained City street."
ITEM "D"
PARCEL MAP NO. 4773
Page 2
August 22, 1979
This policy was established to conform with the policies of San Bernardino
County in effect at the time of incorporation. The policy has also been
upheld and maintained on several ocassions by the City Council in previous
actions. The purpose of the policy, as stated at that time, was to insure
that all parcails created through subdivision have access to a publicly main-
tained street. It is the purpose of the policy to insure ordered fully
serviced growth throughout the City. Under the philosophy of Resolution No.
79 -07 and the conditions of approval of Parcel Map No. 4773, it would be in-
consistent to allow subdivision and development in lieu of provisions for the
improvements along 23rd Street. It would be the staff position, therefore,
that if dedications are not capable of being obtained at this time or improve-
ments constructed, that further development in the area maybe premature.
Since the approval of Parcel Nap No. 4773, the Engineering Division has not
received any contact from the applicant in regards to the subject conditions.
In order to facilitate completion of the applicant's project and to assist in
the development of 23rd Street, the Engineering Division would like the
opportunity to work with the applicant and the residents in the area to obtain
dedications where possible and perhaps develop participation agreements that
allow for the joint construction of the street. This effort would involve
design of improvements by the applicant prior to meeting with individual
property owners and some indication of exact boundaries of dedications and
costs of improvements. If after completing this effort, tie Engineering
Division is completely satisfied that it is not possible at this time to ful-
fill dedication requirement as established for the parcel map, then it would
be possible under the provisions of the resolution for the Engineering Division
to re- evaluate the conditions of approval and recommend to the Planning Com-
mission changes in those conditions to reflect the situation as analyzed by
the Engineering Division.
RECO101ENDATION• Staff recommends that the Commission request the applicant to
have conceo-t—ua-1 street improvement plans prepared in conformance with the
conditions of approval and that those plans indicate right of way dedication
requirements and projected cost estimates for improvements. That the applicant
deal closely with the Engineering Division in an attempt to obtain offers of
dedication on each parcel affected by the improvements. That financial arrange-
ments be explored with each property owner with the goal of obtaining improvement
of 23rd Street.
11
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.0: PURPOSES
ti
A. The City Council finds that a design review process will
support the implementation of the Rancho Cucamonga General
plan, as it stresses quality urban design standards. The
City Council further finds that the quality of certain
residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial uses
has a substantial impact upor. the visual appeal, environ-
mental soundness, economic stability, and property values
of the.City. This Ordinance is not intended to restrict
imagination, innovation or variety, but rathez to focus
on design principles which can result in creative and
imaginative solutions for t%e project and a quality
design for the City. it is, therefore, the purpose of this
ordinance to:
1. Recognize the interdependence of land values and
aesthetics and provide a method by which the City
may implement this interdependence to ita benefit.
2. Encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of
structures and property within the City along with
associated facilities, such as signs, landscaping,
parking areas, and streets.
3. maintain the public health, safety, and general
welfare, and property throughout the City.
4. Assist private and public developments to be more
cognizant of public concerns for the aesthetics
of degelaruients.
5. Reasonably ensure.that now developments, including
residential, institutional, commercial and industrial
developments, do not have an adverse aesthetic,
health, safety or architecturally related impact
upon existing adjoining properties, or the City in
general.
6.- Implement those sections of the City's General Plan:
-which specifically refer to the preservation and;
enhancement of the particular character and unique
assets of this City and its harmonious development.
ti`s
SECTION 2.01 CREATION OF THE MAMOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
'A. A Development 'Rev iew Committee (DRC) is hereby created
and shall be responsible for the implementation and
administration of this Ordinance.
1. Composition
The Development Review Committee shall consist of
three (3) members. One shall be the Director Of
Community Development or his designee and two shall
be members of the Planning Commission.
2. •Appointment and Term of Office
The Planning Commission shall elect two of its members
to the DRC. The Director of Community Development or
his designee shall be the Secretary of the DRC. Of
the first two Commission members appointed, one shall
have a term of six (6) months and the other shall have
a term of twelve (12) months. Thereafter, all terms
shall be twelve (12) months.
3. Removal from Office
Any member of the Committee may be removed at any time
by the Planning commission.
4. Meetings
The Design Review Committee shall meet on the first and
third Tuesdays of each month. The Design Review
Cos ittee may arrange additional meetings at any time in
order to process applications within required time periods.
S. Rules
A simple majority of members shall constitute a quorum.
f The Committee shall review a project in accordance with
the Ordinance and shall file recommendations with the
approving_ authority. Such recommendations shall be
consolidated by the Planning Division of the Community
4t: Development Department as conditions for final approval.
The DRC shall have the right to develop its own rules
F., and regrlations for conducting its meetings in addition
K to deveioping and adopting design criteria and standards.
SECTION 3.01 JURISDICTION OF REVIEW
A. The Design Review Committee shall have the authority to review
the architecture and site plan elements of all residential,
commercial; industrial developments which result in new
developments, additions, remodelings, relocations, issuance
?, of a building permit or which require a Conditional Use
Permit; Site Approval or Director Review. The review can
consider the use of design elements such as, but not limited
to, exterior design and materials, landscaping, architecture,
k` ( site plan relationships, grading, signs, wall or buffering
techniques. Only residential projects consisting of
four (4) or more unit$ shall be considered by the
Committee.- House relocations. shall be reviewed by the
Committee.
SECTION 4.0: DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A. The DRC shall review all projects covered by this
Ordinance, considering such design aspects as the
relationship of building to site; the relationship of
building and site to surrounding area; landscape and
site treatment; building design and materials; signs;
and miscellaneous structures and street furniture.
The recommendations of the DRC will be based upon the
project conforming to the following criteria:
1. The design and layout of the proposed development is
consistent with the applicable elements of the City's
General Plan and any adopted architectural criteria
for specialized area, such as designated historic
districts, theme areas, specific plans, community
plan, boulevards, or planned developments.
2. The design and layout of the proposed development
will accommodate the functions and activities that
are proposed for the property, will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring
existing or future developments, and will not create
traffic or pedestrian hazards.
3. The architectural design of the proposed development
is compatible with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and that all reasonable design efforts
have been made to maintain the harmonious, orderly
and attractive development contemplated by this
Ordinance and the General plan of the City.
4. The design of the proposed development would provide a
desirable environment for its occupants and visiting
public as well as its neighbors and that it is
aesthetically of good composition, materials, texture
and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and
will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
SECTION 5.0: PROCEDURE
A. An aeprlicant shall submit the appropriate application, as
required by the Zoning ordinance, an application fee as
sec by the City Council, and required materials as specified
in the filing requirrments set forth by tha'Director of
Community Development, to the Planning Division on or before
the filing deadline. Once an application .has been accepted, .
Y,;...
it will be scheduled for the first available. Design Review
Committee watir-g and the applicant will be notified of the
the time and place of such meeting. All plans and applicable
".
materials will be distributed to all members and support'
staff of the DRC a week prior to the scheduled meeting.
e w
B. The Design Review Committee shall meet with the appli-
cant',to review "ari4 discuss the proposed project and Its •.
conformity -with this ordinance. The DRC may formulate
recommendations on the design of the project relative
to the criteria listed in this Ordinance or any other
design criteria or development standards w4 af.pted by
the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Such recommendations shall
be filed in the project file to become final- conditions
of approval. in addition,_ the applicant shall receive
written notice of such recommendations.
C. If, after review by the DPJ,, the Committee feels that the
project needs substantial revision, the project review
may he continued by the DRC :o enable the applicant to
make appropriate changes and alterations. The applicant
shall receive written notification of such decision and
the date when the DRC will meet a -jain to review the
project.
SECTION 6.0: APPEAL
A. where a project application has lean acted upon by the
Director of Comm mil-Y r_evollopment, and the applicant or
any interested person is aggrieved by the action, may file
an appeal to the Planning Commission. The appeal shall
state wherein the action of the Director of community
Development are not consistent or in conformance with
the provisions of this ordinance. At a regularly
scheduled meeting, the Planning commission may affirm,
modify or reverse the recommendations of the DRC.
Decisions by the Planning Commission are appealable to the
City Council using the same procedures.
SECTION 7.0: ENFORCEMEW
A.. No building permit, for the c. nstruction•of any building m
or project described in this ordinance, may be issued until
the Design Review Committee has reviewed the project for
conformance with this ordinance, design criteria, and
development standards as adopted by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
B. Further, prior to final inspection or occupancy, the
completed project must be inspected by the Planning
Divisio. .or compliance with the conditions of approval.
No occupancy permit shall be issued unless all elements are
completed according to the approved plans. if .for any
reason this cannot be azcomplished, a cash deposit shall be
submitted by the developer to ensure compliance.
}
'f
Iy,
.
t r i:,ti�hn r 1^ � •r 97 ,
� 1
?- p }��sF75 {a�At `ul . ».i��GEf�x'�z tt!:ITry`I 1R' � i r, 1 1 �i•i
C,
•a
�
Yt .i (t w 1 y •., LI I ,.
a
"y
v7
ul
j
w�a
o�
C,
•a
�
Yt .i (t w 1 y •., LI I ,.
a
"y
v7
« rail
J
4
v.,
o�
v
J
w
v
A
.i
L1 ID A
0
a•
o�
4 -
W
2
Z"
D n
� flQ
Yt .i (t w 1 y •., LI I ,.
"y
v7
« rail
o�
v
a•
o�
4 -
W
2
Z"
D n
� flQ
1'
11.
I
Date* August 22, 1979
To Plaraing Commission:
From: .sack Lam, Director of Caumunity Development
Subject: JULY 16, 1979 SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Please note that the July 16, 1979 special study session minutes
were transmittzd to you in the last Agenda packet. These minutes
were not approved at the last meeting due to the fact there was
not a quorum present from the July l6f:n vteetiog.
Respectfully submitted,
akLaUL.
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:nm
CITY..OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 16, 19:9
Special Study Session
CALL TO ORDER
0
The special atudy session of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga was held in the Library Conference Room, 9191 Baseline Avenue,
Rancho Cucamonga, on Monday, July 16, 1979.
Meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by Chairman Rempel.
nOLL CALL
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL, GARCIA, REMPEL
ABSENT: CaJ..4ISSIONERS: JONES, TOLSTOY
ALSO PRESENT: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development; Barry Hogan,
Senior Planner; Michael Vairin, Associate Planner; and
Bob Dougherty, City Attorney
ANNOUNCEMENTS
It was noted that this meeting shall be adjourned to the July 24, 1979 meeting
on the Terra Vista Plan to be held at the Carnelian Elemertary School at 7:00
p.m.
A Tentative meetins[ of Austust 29. 1979 is set for the first presentation of the
William Lvon Plan.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION
Jack Lam, Director of Community Development, introduced the Growth Management
Plan by reviewing the procedures for adoption by the Planning Commission and
City Council. He explained that the Growth Management Plan was divided into
two classifications; an ordinance and a resolut:. ;)n. It would require the adop-
tion of a Growth Management Ordinance and the adoption of a Resolution setting
forth a Residential Assessment System and criteria for review.
Following the introduction, Chairman Rempel opened the flo or for public ques-
tions.
Ken Willis, Executive Director of the Building Industry Association, made a
formal presentation and submitted written comments on the draft Growth Manage -
ment Plan to the Commission, staff and audience. Mr. Willis stated that overall
q;l
Re pectfully bmit�t�ed,
JACK TM, Director of
Community Development
minutes - Special Seq Session
July 16, 1979
.,.'
Page Z
the ordinance was very good and that the BIA was in support of the Ordinance
^'
with the exception of the few details as outline in the written comments.
Mr. Ralph Lewis of Lewis Roves, stated his agreement with the BIA comments .
and review. Mr. Lewis elated several concerns relative to the growth manage-
ment proposal such as assessment districts versus home owners associations,
fi ticns of certain elm
w e ni
i review. and d
e design s
du to
Increase of costa 8
Mr. Gary Frye, of the WilliaM Lyain Company, stated that the 20 density .
it
bonus figure is enough to provide affordable housing but felt thh at should
be no lower and possibly even higher. In addition, if density bonuses are
to be used he felt that it should be provided for in the zoning ordinance so
that amendments and zone changes would not be needed.
Other public comments made were in regard to what will happen with previously
districts,
submitted tentative maps, home owners associations versua assessment
to specific plans. A suMgestion was made
and a definition of projects relative
to the be made that would give points fcr assessment districts
that a change plan
and home owners associations.
The meeting was officially adjourned to the study session to be held on July;
24, 1979. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Re pectfully bmit�t�ed,
JACK TM, Director of
Community Development
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -07
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING SUBDIVISION
ACCESS WROVEMENT POLICY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
wishes to discourage the proliferation of private unimproved streets; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish firm policy guideline to
inform property owners of the City goals.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED AND ESTABLISHED, that as a condition
of approval of any Parcel Nap, Parcel Map Waiver; Tract Map yr Lot Line
Adjustment an applicant shall have access to a fully dedicated and maintained
City street. Where dedications and improvements do not exist, the applicant
shall obtain a minimum of forty (40) feet of dedication and improve with
twenty -Rix (26) feet of pavement needed street frontage to reach the nearest
maintained City street.
Variations from this policy will require approval of the City Engineer
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga subject to appeals to the Planning 'Commission.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1979. .
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST - � w� •9l�' �A"„L�l
Secretary of the Planning Commission
I, Jack Lam, 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 24th day of January, 1979,
by the following vote to -wit:
4 f
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DAHL
6
4 Page 2
The Honorable Mayor Frost
and Members of City, Council
re: Kortepeter — parcel Map .No. 4773
I will ask for clarification from City Council on this issue:
If other landowners are not willing to participate by
making. certain dedications and financial contributions, is
Mr. Kortepeter stiII - required to reet the conditions and
exactions imposed by Resolution 79 -097 If he is not
required to meet the conditions and exactions which require
the participation of third parties, are those particular
conditions waived? If they are waived, can we agree that
only the following conditions set forth by Resolution 79 -09
remain in effect? Namely:
1. Full street improvements shall be provided along
the frontage of Lot 1 along 23rd Street when the
road Is developed. (Resolution condition f2)
2. At the timeoF development str.,et improvements shall
be provided along the frontage of Lot 2 along 23rd.
Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3. The City Engineer shall make the determination,
pursuant to Section 66436 (C -1) of the subdivision
map act, that the division and developemnt of the
property will not unreasonably interfere with the
free and complete exercise of any public.entity or
public utility right -of -way or easements. The
signature of any public entity or utility may be
omitted from the final map if written notification
of objections is not filed'with the City within the
time limits specified in Section 66436 (C -1). (q9)
4. The de+,el :per shall meet all Final Map requirements.
of the %-,ity including but-not limited to providing
Traverse calculation sheets, copies of recorded
map ind deed, used*as reference and /or showing original
land division, tie notes and bench marks that are
referenced thereon. (N10)
N. O. This has already been done and Mr. Kortepeter
expended over $1,000.00 to date on this item.
5. All requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall ",
be complied with. ( #11) .
.r'
Page 3
The Honorable Mayor Frost .
and Members of City Council
re: Kortepeter Parcel Map No. 4773
If the City Council does not find any of,the conditions and
exactions set forth in Resolution 79 -09 impossible for
Mr. Kortepeter to achieve under the present circumstances,
then we respectfully request Council's instruction as to
how Mr. Kortepeter should proceed in order to achieve them.
Thank you very much for your kind attention to this matter.
Vee/r??y truly yours.
CAROL B. TANENBAUM
CST:rsh
cc: Barry Hogan
Sam Crowe
G. A. Kortepeter
enc.
., I
CAROL B. TANENBAl1M
` 1" " ATTORNEY AT LAY/
414 TALC wvcnuc
CLAREMONT CALIFORNIA 91711 , ...
±. 1• I.i 1� •' 11141 020•iti• -
.r
1 -
�; It?t_,t;µt�•13t` =t�►� July 30, 1979
The Honorable Mayor Frost
and Membersof City Council
P.O. Box 793
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: Agenda of City Council Meeting for
Wednesday, August 15, 1979.
Request for clarification of conditions imposed by
Resolution 79 -09 by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission.
Dear Mayor Frost and Members of City Council:
I represent Mr. Gary A. Kortepeter of 13053 23rd Street,
Etiwanda, California. Since 1977 Mr. Kortepeter has made
extensive efforts involving Parcel Map No. 4773. His efforts
began when the property was under county jurisdiction and the
last significant action took place under city jurisdiction.
On February 14, 1979 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
adopted Resolution 79 -09 approving Parcel Map Nu. 4773,
subject to the conditions in the Resolution. I enclose a
copy of the letter from Mr. Hogan to Mr -. Kortepeter dated
February 26, 1979, along with a copy of the Resolution.
In an effort to abide by the conditions and exactions set
forth, Mr. Kortepeter engaged my services. I, in turn
worked with Mr. Hogan of the Planning Commission to try and
-
develop a method whereby the conditions could be met. Despite
my work with the Planning Commission, my client finds it
impossible to comply with certain of the conditions because
the other home owners on 23rd Street are not willing to
participate.
I respectfully rcquest the opportunity to appear before the
Rancho Cucamonga City Council on Wednesday, August 15, 1979
at 7:00 p.m. in order to ask for clarification of certain
conditions imposed by Resolution 79 -09 with respect to
Parcel Map No. 4473 on February 14, 1979. In particular,
Iz
r
Tn2
Z.
Xv.
0
City of
ANCHO
:ebruary 26. 1979 CUCAMO N G A
Mr. Gary A. Kortepeter
320 S. Laurel Avenue
Ontario, California 91762
REFERENCE.- PARCEL MAP N0. 4773 - The division of 1.8 acres of land
into (2) .9 acre lots located 850' east of Etiwanda Avenue
and 950' north of Summit Avenue
pear Mr. Kortepeter:
The Rancho.Cucamonga Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled
meeting of February 14, 1979, adopted Resolution No. 79 -09 approving
Parcel Map No. 4773 subject to the conditions contained in the Resolu-
tion. A copy is attached for your records.
If you have any further questions relative to this matter, please con-
tact :ny office.
Sincerely,
:ACK LAM, DIRECTOR OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
&VAUY K. F lG N,
Senior Planner
J L: BIM: nm
CC: Foothill Fire District
c
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -09
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COALMISSION APPROVING PARCEL
NAP NO. 4771 TO DIVIDE 1.9 ACRES OF
LAND INTO TI40 LOTS LOCATED 850' EAST
OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND 950' NORTH OF
SUMMIT AVENUE IN THE R -1 ZONE.
WHEREAS, on the
30th day of November, 1998, a formal application was
I
filed with the City Planning
Division; and
WHEREAS, on the
24th day of January, 1979, the Planning Commission held
a meeting to consider said
project and continued to February 14, 1979.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION resolved as
follows:
SECTION 1: That
the following findings have been made: -
1.
That the proposed map is consistent with the
proposed General Plan of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
2.
That the design for improvements of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
13.
That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
4.
That the design of the proposed improvements is not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage
m
or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or other habitat.
5.
That the design nor the type of improvements is not
likely to cause serious public health problems.
b.
That the design or the type of improvements will
not conflict with easements acquired by the public
at large for access through or use of property
•
within the proposed subdivision.
t SECTION 2: That
this land division will not create adverse impacts
on the environment and that a Negative Declaration is issued on
February 14, 1479.
SECTION 3: That
Parcel ;lap No. 4773 is approved subject to the following
'
conditions:
e
1: •40,- of dedication shall be made along 23rd Street'.
from Etiwanda Ave, to Lot 1 and through Lot 1 and
Lot 2; this access shall be paved with 26' wide paving
.rom Etiwande Avenue to Lot 1 and through Lot 1 to
Lot 2.
2.
3.
Full street improvements shall be provided along
the frontage of Lot 1 along 23rd Street.
At the time .of development street improvements shall
be provided along the frontage of Lot 2 along 23rd
Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Developer shall coordinate and pay where necessary
for relocation of any public utilities.
Developer shall provide' all construction plans for
drainage and street improvements to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
Sanitary sewers and water system shall be designed
and coordinated with the Cucamonga County Water
District standards.
The proposed subdivision shall meet the provisions
of Zone D of the National Flood Insurance Program.
All requirements of the Southern California Edison
and Southern California Gas Cos. shall be met.
9. The City Engineer shall make the determination,
pursuant to Section 66436'(C -1) of the subdivision
map act, that the division and development of the
property will trot unreasonably interfere- with the
free and complete exercise of any public entity or
public utility right -of -way or easements. The
signature of any public entity or utility may be
omittad from the final map if written notification
of objections is not filed etith the City within the
time limits specified in Section 66436 (C -1).
10. The developer shall meet all Final Map requirements
of the City including but not limited to providing
Traverse calculation sheets, copies of recorded
map and deeds used as reference and /or showing original
land division, tie notes and bench marks that are
referenced thereon.
11. All requirements of the Foothill Fire District shall
be complied with.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED n1IS 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1979..
BY: HERMAN REMPEL
Herman Rempel, Chairmar,
ri
ATTEST: a a milt
—the a i g ssion
I, JACK LAM, 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 thk'25th day of January, 1979.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GARCIA, TOLSTOY, JONES, REMPEL
NOES: CO2@IISSIONERS: NOW
ABSENT: COMUSSIONERS: DAHL
'r
i
1 '
,
1
1
I-
r.
rn
C
rn
5'i �Yrwr) fir..)
Mr
iy r
w i
•• '• : v e 1
v .. •. '� i �y j �: r:Y�i : F K~
�a
'V
4
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: August 22, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Ccwmunity Development
Subject: TRACT NO. 9472 - BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENTwo Request to waive
a condition of approval for Tract 9472 located on the north
side of 19th ;street, west of Hermosa
BACKGROUND: Boulevard Development, developers of Tract 9472, have
requested the waiver of a condition of approval originally adopted
by San Bernardino County, Board of Supervisors in 1977. The condition
which was requested to be waived states the following:
"That construction of houses on Lots 8 -11 and 26 -36 shall
not be permitted until the poultry uses on adjacent property
are vacated and removed."
Attached as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the tract map which shows the lots
affected by this condition and the location of the adjacent poultry
ranch. When the County originally reviewed the request for development
on this site; there was considerable debate relative to the development
of this poultry ranch. The ranch owner, Millard Herr, objected to the
development of this adjacent property for single family residential
uses as he felt it would not be compatible adjacent to the poultry
ranch. However, the County Board of Supervisors felt that by not
building on the lots adjacent to the ranch, any significant adverse
impacts that could be caused b!r a single family residential use
adjacent to a poultry ranch would be mitigated.
ANALYSIS: The largest concern that arises from prohibiting development
on these lots, is the fact that they will be creating maintenance buisances
and play areas for kids which would create other public nuisancza and hazards.
The intent of the Board of Supervisors may have been good at the time;
however, when considerirg the other Sots with:.n the subdivision, effects
of the poultry ranch may be just as aignificaet as the lots directly
adjacent to the property line. Nuisance-3 such as bright lighta, noise,
odors, flies, mice, and mites could potentially affect everyone within
this tract because of its proximity to the poultry ranch. However, since
this tract has been approved by the Board of Supervisors, the issue of
whether or not the tract should be there is no longer a matter of discre-
tion.
l- J
f 1TEM "E"
The issue before the Commission presently is whether or not the 15
lots-should or should not be -built upon. Mr.. Aerr'vould.be in ravor...
of allowing these lots to be' developed if appropriate buffeting measures
could be accomplished and if he can be assured that the buyers of these
homes would be aware of the poultry ranch adjacent to their home and the
possible nuisances that may be associated with the ranch.
Under these circumstances, staff has suggested the following as replace-
ment conditions to the original conditions of approval which prohibited
the construction of the lots:
1. That an awareness statement be incorporated into the white
report for tike subdivision which would state that purchasers
are buying in a subdivision adjacent to an existing poultry
ranch and because of the proximity to that ranch, there may
be associated nuisance factors such as the increase of flies,
noise and odors. This statement would be required to be signed
by the purchaser of each unit within the subdivision tract.
This statement is required to be prepared by the developer
and submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval
prior to final inspection of any of the units in this subdi-
vision.
2. That minimum 15 gallon trees be planted along the east side of
the temporary block wall along Maybarry Street which would be
on the poultry ranch property rnd would create a visual and
physical buffering area. Such trees shall be a minimum of
15 gallon size and shall be planted, beginning 30 feet from the
property line along 19th Street and going north, 15' on- centers
to the existing eucalyptus windrow.
Staff has reviewed these suggested conditions with both the poultry rancher
and the subdivider. Both parties are amenable to these conditions. Staff
would suggest a tree type such as a eucalyptus polyanthumua which would be
a fast growing, brushy tree that would create a physical as well as a visual
barrier between the residential•sub+d.`vision rtd the poultry ranch.
RE00MMENDATiON: It is recommended that the P1aLning Commission waive the
condition on Tract 4ap No. 9472 which prohibits the ;construction of dwelling
units on Lots 8-11 and 26 -36 and replace the condition with tho following
conditions:
1. That an awareness statement be incorporated into the white
report for the subdivision which would state that purchasers
are buying in a subdivision adjacent to an existing poultry
ranch and because of the proximity of that ranch, there may
he associated nuisance factors such as the increase of flies,
noise and odors. This statement would be required to be signed
by the purchaser of each unit within the subdivision tract. This
statement is required to be prepared by the developer and submitted
to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to final
inspection of any of the units in this subdivision.
El
11
5;r
2: That minimum 15 gallon trees be planted along the east side
of the temporary block wall' along Mayberry Street which would
be on the poultry ranch property and would create a visual
and physical buffering area. Such trees shall be a minimum
of 15 gallon size and shall be planted, beginning 30 feet from
the property line along 14th Street and going north, 15' on—
centers to the existing eucalyptus windrow.
Respectful) I submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
JL:MV :nm
Attachment. Vicinity Map
Subdivision Tract Map
e
S
M1 Fns
y
w
v s
• CYr a a r• -v
`}� ' yX} � � jaj� f w's^s,'y+r�•+kl'ei't �rl.�A R l�tr� *„tF,n�"r.e��•rfC.w),� K.r4'S i+.� �11,.�1 �"X -��Yti y.� ,,y. r
a�,j. ���rJx �i. 7 � r��L. +c T\ r ! •: S4 i r'7+�:
AV WJDAM�MH
+� s !fit' � � ) y j t '.- ..: -. ' • .. .. .. t 'G'••^4.4c8 l9 1 i
I.l�aht :.`•,.. K" Iii• swan.. 4. w. ....:.�r7�iwia.�:''iiKp.,'iwU.1 i••`'..:.. s._: w�. n.. r.. r.- u.+- �aaa...w�..w..:...- ...•.a:.r.w �.r:�.:.:.�.�'lr� °rS.aL..�
AMC
TENTATIVE TRACT NO 9472RMS-13
M.l.•/N f• Twr "2r .wr ei roe wrXrr..Klr .rrl +rrn M }wt wln'm .'r pR.rrlf NJtr, ai - •�
• 111wMr•I L wl.Ir,7 Mwf f 9 Mll, SLR rM f
w 19 sr
M ♦XrXJrp r
' i'� f1rX ILKwJ CI NJII '� 1 M•,p,�,F •• . '�
fi•eJla I - I. lyN yl�.� «r �} � �ju � nq
"..•c .�- Jui/rn AWA44 rA40A C
..ny yp
M y
I NI .� t
AL A 4tCoWA
rs=
—� i LJ � , ' �/ a R. `7�� •!_t ".. '�
Inr - - ' ' - 1� fr.. - 74 3 I
IIA 1 . ; �... • � � r 7
By iWp J.nXN
ATJ�N MAP
w JI..l }
qi . • s I o
JJ "M 3
I J ••aN.rp ssry J/ p%' w • ti Jf pr 6 _ C 1/ � -
..fCO.�afwnJf ••K/•• T.ir ` • r
l r.rMpt '�
.:st 'mfr( r,J nirlF:w':x:_ 1
•. eiavc.- !mac Jra = -
• o-ulq.n i.J .::. tort .n+. " ! i � 1 ,: • ;
•t.•rxr + +Rr_• ir+ 11
t-'r7 t.r,.J ✓. f O.J i 1 ji
r alb _ Jlitr .J. L
i• �wW.. IIY - awl
... AD.. ter'
�Aj Jr,
Y
w(-
S
3
i
■®
;: a
0 0
' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Date: August 22, 1979
To: Planning Commission
From: Jack Lam, Director of Community Development
Subject: ZONING ORDINANCE DETERMINATION NO. 79 -04 - PETER POPOFF
EVANGELISTIC ASSOCIATION - A request to develop an Evangelistic
Center on 7 acres of land located on the northeast turner of
Ramona and 19th Streets
BACKGROUND: The Peter Popoff Evangelistic Association is requesting
a determination by the Planning Commission to determine if their pro-
posal for an Evangelistic Center would be permitted in the R -1 (single
family residential zone). Attached is an outline of the ministries to
be provided at the center (Exhibit "A "). The subject property is
located on the northeast corner of Ramona and 19th Streets (Exhibit "B ").
The site is bounded on the south by 19th Street (State Highway 30), on
the north by the proposed freeway, on the west by an approved apartment
development, and on the east by an approved church site.
ANALYSIS: The County Zoning Ordinance presently lists churches as a
use that may be permitted if approved by the Planning Commission under
the Site Approval process. The issue before the Planning Commission
relative to this determination, is whether the type of activities pro-
posed to occur within the evangelistic center are sj,uilar in nature to
those of a church. Most of the activities listed by the applicants
seen to be more aligned with office type vises. There are certainly inci-
dental office use that occur within a church facility. However, at what
point does the office type uses become more of a primary use rather than
an assessory or incidental use? Typically, churches contain a sanctuary
for weekly worship services, and a fellowship hall and christian education
buildings for Sunday school classes and mid -week studies. Churches are
generally designed to accommodate groups of people for meeting purposes at
certain times during the week. Incidental office use of the church generally
consists of an office for the pastor, secretary, and possibly an associate
pastor, depending on the size of the church. The number of employees for
a church facility during the week usually amounts to 2 -3 people.
'The description of
the proposed activities provided by the
applicant, out -
lines the majority
of the uses as some type. of office -:se.
Only a small
chapel is planned for use by staff. It appears as though the intent of
this center is not
to develop a use whose primary function
is to provide
a meeting place similar to a church but to provide more of
an administrative
center which wr.uld
employ potentially 40 employees.
E,
ITEM " F"
0
There are three optiond available to the Planning Commission:
1. The Commission could find that Utz, proposed ave is similex
to the activities of a church. If this finding is ma +e,
it does not mean that the proposed use is approved for this
-tte. The approval for use of the site would be accomplished
through the successful completion of the Site Approval process
which would include a public hearing and proper•^ owner noti-
fication.
2. The Commission could find that the use is not similar to a
church or any other use listed in the R -1 zone.
3. The Planning Commission could, as a final option, find that
the use is not -i. -.filar to those uses listed in the R-1 zone
and then initiate a General Plan Amendment to change the area
to a mixed use category. This would then permit the applicant
to apply for a zone change to A -P (Administrative - Professional)
which would allow the office uses proposed by the applicant. .
The justification for such an amendment is based upon the fact
that to the east is an already existing church, to the south
is 19th Street and further south homes which back -up to 19th,
to the west an approved apartment project and to the north tt
proposed freeway or Highland Avenue. If the Commission consents
to this action, then the amendment could be added to the list
for September. In addition, if this is the final decision, the
applicant should be made aware that the existing signs on the
site would have to be removed and that the uses proposed by the
applicant can not be conducted on the site until the zone change
is adopted and site plan review completed.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission review
all the above options and issue and direct staff to the action deemed
appropriate by the Commission.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK LAM, Director of
Community Development
i,
JL:MV:nm
Attachments:
Letter from Peter Popoff
Location Map
W]
0
IN
t ,`1
POST OFFICE BOX 041 ^• UPLAND. CALIFORNIA 91786
July 26, 1979
Rancho Cucamonga City Hall
9340 Baseline Road
Alta Loma, California
Attention: Planning Commission
Gentlemen:
I i't Uf RAt :CiiC I L'CA('iiQ(�Gr1
l'htll %t;!?Il "( 011"CTMENT DEPT.
79
111.1 f 4S
iZIgIRItJlttil?1"! tti131d1516
In reference to securing a permit for construction of our
proposed building, attached hereto is a summary of the re-
quested information.
I hope this will give you an overall view of our present
organization and our projections for the future. If I can
be of further assistance, please let me know.
Isi cere!y,
�L
ete�r Ifitor f
�Presid
PP: cb
Peter Popoff.Evangelistic Association
Summary of Ministries
Radio Ministry- -Taped radio broadcastn (from existing
small studio) mailed to 68 stations.
Faith Messenger Magazine -- published monthly and printed
by local printers. '
Counseling Ministry - -We have employees who counsel by
mail and also by telephone.
Compumer Operations - -Our present computer system will
handle up to 50 times its present capacity.
Mail Department - -mail room which handles cassette tapes,
ha:.a and uLhci: liLarature.
Total number of Employees - -10
Additional Ministries to be Includied in New Building
v
Chapel - -a small chapel is planned where
servicos will be held with the staff
And visiting guests.
Printing Press - -A small printing press to
handle small printing projects.
Educational Facilities
Crisis Center- expansion of existing counseling
ministry with a telephone hot-.line with
a staff member on call 24 hrs, a day,
Projected increase in staff - -over a 10 yr. period,
we expect to expand to approximately 40
employees,
I
A
0
zi
91 ;r
TnNgAY
(201VQIH '
Date:
To:
Fran:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
August 22, 1979
Planning Commission
Jack Lan, Director of Community Development
Subject: SELECTION OF SPECIFIC GENERAL PLAN AMENEMENTS FOR
SEPTEMBER MEETING
The following list of possible General Plan Amendments is comprised
of applications received from applicants, and suggestions from Council,
Planning Commission, and the Planning Division Staff. Please refer to
the attached map for project .locations.
SECTION 1: The following items have been formally initiated by an
applicant and Planning' Commission.
Item 1. General Plan Amendment No. 79 -03C received from
® Arnold Anderson requesting commercial designation for lands
currently designated as high density residential at the
northwest corner of Turner Avenue and Arrow Routes This
applicant has paid his fees and is anticipating action in
'September on his request.
Item 2. General Plan Amendment No. 79-03B initiated by
Commission - Clarification of the mixed use category is
a continued item from the July 11, 1979 Planning Commis-
sion meeting. The intent of this amendment is to further
specify those areas suitable for either commercial activi-
ties or multi- family residential.
SECTION 2: The following items have been submitted by members of the
City Council and Planning Commission as suggestions as a result
of a staff request.
Item 3. Amend the northeast corner of the intersection of
South Grove and Eighth Street between the A.T. &S.F.R.R.
tracks encompassing the Allura Dairy propergy from Commer-
cial to High Density Residential.
Item 4. Amend the southeast corner of E:.ghth Street and
Archibald near the Willows School from L/w Density Residen-
tial to Industrial.
ITEM "Gn
Item 5. Amend the northeast corner.of Highland Avenue and
Archibald from low Denalty Residential to Medium or High
Density Residential. The lands are currently used for a
chicken ranch.
SECTION 3: 11.e following items are suggested changes by staff that
consistently arise as a problem.
Item 6. Amend the land currently designated Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential for•property situa-
ted by Red Hill Country Club Drive to the west, Tapia Vid to
the east, Rancheria Drive to the south and San Bernardino
Road to the north.
Item 7. Review alternative locations for commercial areas.
This revision would specify the precise locations of various
commercial canters, whether on specific corners of an inter-
section or as a general statement indicating a non - specific
location. This clarification would assist staff In explaining
the intent and meaning of commercial alternatives sites as
shown on the General Plan land use map.
Item 8. Amend the northwest corner of Baseline and Haven
Avenue frrm Medis.m Density Residential to Low Density Resi-
- dential.
i
Item' %._ Amend that area located between Hellman Avenue and
\, met st Avenue fronting on LaVine, Lomita and LaGrande Streets
from Low Density Residential to either Medium oP4%W=MWftty
Residential.
Items 1 and 2 have already been snit
automatically set for public hearing
items are suggestions only and would
tion in order to be reviewed in this
mission chooses not to review all of
&thy list, they could be held for
.nendment series.
Gated, therefore, they will be
for September. The remaining
require Planning Commission initia-
series of amendments. If the Com-
these suggestions, since it is a
review during the next General Plan
T
b�
Q�
CL
G �
ro N
a
co
' L
r A�`
� V
i
N
O
a
L
42
a�
U
C
d
L
,O
67
x
Nip
RESOLUTION NO. 79 -58
A RESOLUTION OP THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOM:4ENDING A RESIDENTIAL GRurYPH
MANArE14ENT PLAN TO REGULATE NEW RESIDE ►'rIAL
DEVEWPMEhT IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WHEREAS, it is the goal of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prepare and
adopt a comprehensive Growth Management Plan setting forth the manner in which
residential development projects may be developed so as to provide adequate
levels of public services and to achieve a social, economic and environmental
balance within the City;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Growth
Management Plan and all testimony and comments pertaining to it and finds the
Growth Management Plan to be adequate in scope and content and recommends
approval by the City Council.
SECTION 1: PURPOSE AND PRIORITY
A. Findings
1, Unmanaged residential growth in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga can overburden elementary, junior and senior
high schools in the community.
2. Unmanaged residential growth can strain public services
and result in the impairment of the health, sr:fety
and 'welfare of Rancho Cucamonga.
3. Haphazard and disorderly growth patterns adversely
affect the City's and public agency's ability to
provide adequate public services for all developments.
4. Minimal architectural and site design criteria of
residential development can create a "tract" appearance
in the community. Such an appearance detr imentally
affects the physicai character and image of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. Further, lack of landscaping and
design sensitivity can diminish the environmental
quality and economic well being of the community.
5. Continued unmanaged growth can seriously impair the
City's ability to carry out the goals and policies of
the General Plan and can adversely affect the health
and welfare of the Community.
w; •
S. Purpose
�..;
A Growth ManagPxaent Plan 3s designed to implement certain
primary goals, policies and objectives of the General Plana.
These goals constitute the purpose of a Growth Management
cf
Plan and are as followse
1. To preserve and enhance the physical character of the
2. To provide adequate school facilities for all
existing and future,resideutial development.in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
3. To help ensure that adequate levels of public services
are provided for exirting and future development in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
4. To ensure that minimum design quality in new develop -
ments is provided to enhance the aesthetic, environ-
mental and economic well being of the community.
S. To encourage use of energy conservation techniques in
new residential development.
6. To help maintain and improve levels of City administra-
tive services.
7. To encourage orderly development of residences within
areas more readily served by public services.
B. To encourage the development of master planned projects
which orovide the service needs of the residents of
those projects.
9. To provide a variety of housing types and encourage
affordable housing.
C. Sco
This ordinance shall apply to all residential development
projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as defined in
Section 2.
SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the meaning
indicated:
City - City in this ordinance refers specifically to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
Mandatory Criteria - Criteria considered essential for all
residential development.
Residential Develo_nment Project - Any development which will
result in the subdivision of residential lots or the construction
of new residential dwelling units including single family, multi -
family, apartments, condominiums, townhouses, master planned
developments, modular units, condominium conversions of dwelling
units which have not been built prior to the effective date of
this ordinance, mobilehome parks, etc., which require review by -
application of this ordinance.
Residential Assessment System - The measuring device, provided
x
by Resolution of the City Council ani adopted concurrently
crt:`
herewith, which is composed of a number of rating criteria used
d residential projects.
for assignS.ng; point ratings to propose
Threshold Point Limit -.The minimum number of points a project
is required to, receive under. the Residential Assessmont System
in order to receive consideration for approvai.
SECTION 3: EXEMTriT_ON5
The following projects shall be specifically exempt from the provisions of
this ordinance:
A. Single family, duplex and triplex developments involving a
total of four (4) units or less provided that any such
application on a parcel shall. be on a one time basis only
for a two year period from the date of isstitance of a building
permit for the last unit on said parcel.
B. Residential land devisions involving four (4). lots or less
provided that any such application on a parcel having the same
zoning district shall be or a one time basis only for a two
year period from the date of issuance of a building permit
for the last unit of the' project. Subdivisions separating
parcels having different zoning district's shall be exempt
from the provisions of this ordinance.
C. Government rtubsidized senior citizen housing projects.
D. Renewable building permits issued prior, to the effective date
of this ordinance.
E. Condomin_um conversions of dwelling units built prior to the
effective date of this ozdinance.
SECTION 4: APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND FEES
A. Application
An application for a residential project shall be made to the
Community Development Department of the City of Rancho'.,
Cucamonga on a form provided by the tCity. Such application
shall contain the following information and be accompanied
by the following documents:
1. Site Utilization Map including:
a. vicinity Map to show the relationship of the proposed
development.to adjacent development and surrounding
area (small inset map) .
b. Use Layout Map shorting the' location and type of
p7mposed residential use or uses, the nature and
�! extent of open space, the extent of any other uses,
proposed And an indication of all adjacent uses
,
2. Tmetailed Site Plan, to include detailed information spa=t
;
fied: in forms provided by the Community Development
a{
` Depa=rtment.
3 I13 ustrative Site Plan to include proposed and'existing;
� ., , imj]7COVements, landscape concepts and other elements as
,
„
n" ` meiy'be necesaary .to illustrate the site plan. _'
bG
4. Preliminary Architectural -Plain showing typicals of all
'Sides of proposed "ildings and structures indicating
materials tc be used, trees, landscaping, and shadows
to give elevations graphic dimension.
S. Conceptual grading and drainage plan and natural
features map allowing a general indication of type,
extent, and time of grading as per, requirements
of the City's Grading ordinance.
6. Development Schedule of proposed project including
phasing.
7. Such other information as may be required by the Community
Development Director.
B. Fees
Although no growth management review fees will be assessed
any resieAential development project, the normal fees for
subdivisions, director reviews, site approvals, appeals,
extensions, etc., shall be assessed as per City Council
Resolution No. 7s -75. said fees shall be non - refundable
even in the event the threshold point limit is not met.
SECTIONS: MANDATORY CRITERIA
Certain residential development criteria are considered essential to ensure
General.Plan consistency and adequate public services for each residential
project. In the event services are not available to developers, the
builder, building associations and other individuals ana groups are
encouraged to work with the school districts and other special districts
to solve respeoUve problems in order that services may be available for
development. The Director of Community Development shall ensure that
certain criteria are met prior to final approval of any residentia•1
development project subject to the provisions of this ordinance. :'uch
criteria shall be Dlaced as conditions of approval which must be met prior to
approval ofsa` final map for a subdivision or prior to, issuance of building
permits for residential development projects other than subdivisions. said
criteria shall be the following:
A. The proposed project must be consistent with the General
Plan.
B. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development
Director written certification from all affected elementary
school districts and the Chaffey Union Joint High School
District that adequate school facilities or proposed future
school facilities are or will be capable of accommodating
students generated by the proposed project.
C.
i' .
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development,
Directo+: written certification from the Cucamonga County
Water District that adequate sewer and water facilities
are or will be available to serve the proposed project..
For projects using septic facilities allowable by the
Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the City,
written certification of acceptability inbluding all
supportivs. information shall be obtained.
SECTION 6: REVIEW AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
A. Establishment of a Residential Assessment System
All applications for residential development projects shall
be rated by the Community Development Director pursuant to
a Residential Assessment System adopted by the City Council.
Such Residential Assessment System adopted by the Council
shall establish five (5) basic categories and each category
shall be assigned a maximum total points which will then be
divided into sub - categories for rating•purposes. The five
(5) basic categories upon which each application will be
rated are Public Services, Design Quality, Affordable Housing,
Master Planned Developments, and Orderly Development.
Projects shall be evaluated under the Residential Assessment
System tri- annually by the Community Development Director.
Application submittal deadline dates and review dates shall
be established by the Community Development Director.
A Threshold Point Limit shall be established by the City
Council as part of the Residential Assessment Svatem. This
Threshold Point Limit shall constitute the minimum number of
points a project is required to achieve if it is to be given
any further consideration for approval.
Within (5) days after the point rating determination of the
Community Development Director, the Director shall cause a
written notice to be mailed (certified) to the applicant
stating the point rating for his residential project and
whether his application has received the required Threshold
Point Limit for further consideration by t7e.e Planning
Commission.
B. Appeal of Ratings
Ratings of applications. which require the approval of the
Community Development Director may be appealed to the
Planning Commission by any aggrieved person or body, public
or private, within fourteen (14) days after the mailing of
said written notice.
The decision of the Planning Commission of any such appeal may
be appealed to the City Council by any aggrieved party in the
same manner and time limitations as are set forth for the
filing of an appeal with the Planning Commission. The
decision of the City Council shall be final.
SECTION 7s PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Applications subject to the provisions of this ordinance and subject to
Planning Commission review and approval shall be evaluated.in terms of
.r< environmental review and clearance, subdivision review pursuant tr' the
State Subdivision Map Act, and residential development r-'s•iect review
pursuant to the Growth Mangement Plana
The .Planning, Commission shall approve or deny the project after said review.
s-
The Planning Commission shall also hear appeals of point ratings as
described in- Sectiod 6B: .
SECTION 8: BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
No building permits shall be issued for any residential dwelling unit which
is subject to the provisions of this ordinance without approval as provided
herein, provided however, that nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed or
intended to abrogate or annul any prior residential development project
approval lawfully issued and in effect on the date of the effectiveness
of this ordinance with respect to an already approved building permit., land
division or site plan including all residential development projects
submitted for plan check unless time limits of such approvals described above
have been exceeded in which case such projects are subject to the provisions
of the G&o-&h Management plan.
SECTION 9: TIME LIMITS FOR APPROVAL
A. Expiration of Approval
The following provision shall apply to applications for
Residential Development Projects except as specifically
exempted by Section 3 of this ordinance. Residential
development projects approved after the effective date of
this ordinance shall expire after twelve (12) months from
date of approval.
B. Fxtension of Tentative Subdivision Approval
A person who has filed a tentative subdivision may request
an extension of approval or conditional approval from the
Planning Commission by written application to the Community
Development Department. Such extension request application
must be filed at least sixty (60) days before the approval
or conditional approval is due to expire. The application
shall contain a statement of the reasons for the extension
and a detailed description of the progress made towards
meeting all the conditions for final approval. If an extension
is granted, %ew conditions may be 'imposed and existing
conditions ray be revised by the Planning Commission.
Any extension of a subdivision shall not exceed a period of
eighteen (18) months.
SEC'T`ION 10: ANNUAL REVIEW AND EXPIRATION
This Ordinance shall be reviewed annually by the City Council and Planning-
commission and snail be of no further force or effect after a period of
five (5) years from the date of adoption of this Ordinance, unless extended
by Ordinance of the City Council.
SECTION 11: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found, based on review.of the
Initial Study, that tht3 project will not create a sign!ficant adverse impact '.
on the environment.and recommends tha, issuance of a Negative Declaration by
the City Council.
r
SECTION 12: OTHSR LAWS. ORDERS AND ORDINANCES
Nothing i his Ordinance shall' be deemed to affect, annul yr abrc: .jate'any
other lawn, or ordinances pertaining or applicable to the properties and
areas affected by this Ordinance which are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Ordinance, nor shall it ha deemed to conflict with any
State laws, orders,or requirements afcecting such properties or areas. In
the event that a conflict does arise, the more rentrictive ordinance shall
apply.
SECTION 13: SEVERABIL11Y
The invalidity of any word, section, clause, paragraph, sentence, Part or
provisions of this Ordinance shall.not affect the validity of any other
part of this ordinance which call be given effect without ouch invalid part
or parts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1, That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
adopts Resolution No. 79-58 recommending that the City Council
a *,prova and. adopt the Growth Management Plan on the 22nd day of
bugust, 1979.
2. That a Certified copy of the Resolution and related material hereby
adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City
Council.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1979.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF IRE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Herman Rempel, Chairman
ATTEST-
Secretary of the Planning Commission
e
I, SACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City
of Rancho Cucamo ::ga,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
=--"ularly introduced,
and adopted by the Planning Cor=ission of
the City of
RLnChO G,',Camonga, at
passed,
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 22nd
day of :august, 1979
by the following vote to -wit:
WiES: COMMISSIONERS-
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
vt
t \
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
RANCH() CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEND -=
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESIDENTIAL ASSESS-
MENT SYSTEM FOR REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOZ_-AENT IN THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Comniss!.or, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has
recommended adoption of Resolution No.79 -58 entitled "A Resolution of the Planning
Commission of Rancho Cucamonga, Califi.,rnia, recommending a Residential drowth
Management Plan to reguaaca new residential development in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga", which requires that a Residential Assessment System for development
review be established, setting %rth five (5) basic categories, each category being
assigned a maximum number of total poin tD which shall be used for r.s-J-4 !n LA• asr
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Staff of the City has heretofore pxe ?ai:wd a draft report
on a Growth Management Plan and safe report has been before public hearings of thu
Planning Commission of this City; rnd
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the purposes of the Growth
Management Plan as set forth in paragraph B of Section 1 of said Ordinance and the
criteria required to be considered in paragraph A, Section 6 of said Ordinance
including, but not limited to, Public Services, Design Qnality, Affordable Housing,
Master Planned Developments, and Orderly Development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that a
Residential Assessment System be established based upon the following criteria:
SECTION 1: PUBLIC SERVICES
A. Drainage Facilities
The City Engineer shall review each project to determine its
ability and capacity to adequately dispyse of surface. runoff.
A project must have a minimum of 4 points Jr. this category in
order to receive further consideration (10 pts. 'Aaxi==).
1. Project drains into an existing or planned storm drain
or street capable of handling the surface water generated
(4 points).
2. Project builds master planned facilities with supplemental
.
capacity for drainage or extends facilities beyond limits
-
of site (1C points) .
3. Project provides special drainage eacilities'(e.g.p,.on-
site storm drains, underground facilities and drainage.
facilities maintained :,y homeowners) to alleviate grading
constraints (2 poipta k
B. Stra9* circulation_ And Improvements
The City Engineer shall review each project in terms of
street Circulation and its ability to handle the traffic
generated by the project. A project must receive a minimum
of 4 points ti this cntegory in order to receive further
consideration, (10 points maximum).
1. Project will build or widen a major or secondary highway
(5 points).
2. 'traffic generated by the proposed project will not
substantially alter existing traffic patterns or
overle -I the existing street system (4 points).
3. Project provides street improvements beyond project
limits for traffic continuity and safety (3 points).
4. Project will build or widen a collector street (2 points).
5. Project provides special boulevard treatment over and
above that required by City standards (2 points).
C. Residential Safety and Security
The Community Development Director shall review each project"
for its ability to be adequately served by the San Bernardino
county Sheriffs Department and the Foothill Fire District and
the extent to which the project incorporates safety and
security techniques. A project must receive a minimum of 3
points in each of the following categories in order to receive
further consideration (S points maximum).
1. Police Protection (4 points maximum)
a.
Pro;+!ct site abuts existing development over 70% of
its perimeter (2 points).
b.
Project sits .buts existing development between 259A
and 704 of its perimeter (1 point).
c.
Solid core ext Xior doors, security dead bolts and
locks will be installed (2 points).
d.
Secw•ity devices such as windo,r locks will be installed
in ea :h unit (1 point).
e.
Uses sl'ae planning and architectural techniques such as
r.`
defensible space design, lighting placement, etc., to
enhance residential security (l point).
2. Fire Protectson (4 points maximum)
t
a.
over 50+1 of the project in within,'A.three minute,
driving response tits of afire station (4 points ),
a. Project will build or widen a major or secondary
highway (5 point9).
b. Traffiv generated by the proposed project will not
substantially alter existing traffic patterns or
overload the existing street system (4 points).
c. Project provides street improvements beyond prop-: =t
limits for traffic continuity and safety (3 paints).
d. Project will build or widen a collector street (2
points).
e. Project provides special boulevard treatment over and
above that required by the City standards (2 points).
3. Parks and Paths
The Community Development Director shall review each
project for its provision of and location to public
and /or private parks and usable open space. A project
must receive a minimum of 2 points in this category in
order to receive further consideration (6 points
maximum).
a. Project provides on or off site public park improve-
ments and /or school recreational facilities (1 point).
b. Project provides privately owned and maintained on
site recreational facilities (1 point).
c. Project connects residential areas to usable open
space and public and /or private park sites with low
maintenance foot pathways wherever possible (1 point):
d. Project provides trails or bikeways (1 point).
e. over 50% of project is located within 1/2 mile of
an existing or future proposed public park site
(2 points).
f. over 50% of project is located ' Itween'1 /2 and'l
mile of an existing or future park site (1 point).
g• more than 501 of project is,located'within 1/2 mile
of isable public open space (e.g., school facilities)
(1 point).
4. Neigh borhood.Commarcial Shopping Center
The Community Development Director shall review each
5 project for its.location to existing and futurrr neighbor
.. hood commercial shopping canters. For the purpose of
' this section, a "neighborhood commercial shopping center ",
shall mean a retail center with at least one grocery store
.N
whi.:h has a minimum of'20,000 square feet of gross floor;
area (3 ,points maximum).
b. Over S0% of project is between a three and five
minJPe driving response tima of a fire station
(2 points).
C. Over 509 of project is between a five and seven
minute driving response time of a fire station
(1 point) .
d. Flre:mitigatian measures (e.g. fire resistant building
matrjrials, site design which enhances fire access, etc.)
are incorporated into the design of the project. Points
in this category shall be evaluated by the. Foothill
Fire District (2 points).
(Note: For projects submitted as Master. Planned Developments, .
residential security shall be evaluated for the
entire project and the point total shall be applied
to eech phase of that project).
D. Parks and Paths
The Community Development Director shall review each project
for its provision of and location to public and /or private
parks and usable open Space. A project must receive a minimum
of 2 points in this category in order to receive further
consideration (6 points maximum).
I- project provides on or off site public park improvements
and /or school recreational facilities (1 point).
2. Project provides privately owned and maintained on site
recreational facilities (l point).
3. project connects residential areas to usable open space
and public and /or private park sites with low maintenance
foot pathways wherever possible (1 point).
4. Project provides grails or bikeways (1 point).
5. Over 509 of project is located within � mile of an
existing or future proposed public park site (2 points).
6. Over 509 of project is located between $ and 1 mile of
an existing or future public park site (1 point).
7. More than 509 of project is located within � mile of
E usable public open space (e.g., school facilities)(. point).
(Note: Fnr projects submitted as Master Planned Developments,
provisioe.of parks shall be evaluated for the tin-ire
project and the point total shall be applied tiS each
phase of that project.
1 +�1•
` ', 411.. I .. il. . S V [
E. Neighborhood Commercial Shoppif.2, Center
The Community Development Director shall review each project
for its location to existing and future neighborhood
commercial shopping centers. For tM purposes of this section
a "neighborhood commercial shopping centex" shall mean a
retail center with at least one grocery stole which has a
minimum of 20,000 square feet of gross floor area (3 points
maximum).
1. More than 50• of project is within 2 miles of an existing
or planned commercial shopping center (3 point:,).
2. More than 50a of project is between 2 and 3 miles of an
existing or planned commercial shopping center (2 points).
3. project is more than 3 miles from an existing or planned
commercial shopping center (1 point).
F. Project Maintenance
The project provides for a Homeowne'r's Association and /or
maintenance District to ensure both on and off site main -
tenance (3 points).
SF2TION 2s DESIGN QUALITY
A. Architectural Desi%!
The Design Review Committee (consisting of two appointed members
of the Planning Commission and the Director of Community Develop -
ment or his designate), shall review each project for architec-
tural design quality as indicated by the quality of construction
F,
and by the architectural elevations of the proposed buildings
judged in terms of architectural style, size and height (up to
10 points maximum).
�'• `-
Criteria
�v •'
The following criteria represents the general types of Architec-
s
tuzal Design elements the Design Review Committee shall consider - -
''
in their evaluation: Projects may include other criteria not
'
specifically mentioned here and still be eligible for the
maximum number of points. The applicant is encouraged to use
creativity ,in the design of the project.
1. Provides various visual and tactile textures by using an
assortment of building materials to fininh, surface.
a 2. Creates variety in.design and architecture that creates
strong <3entity.
a.' Nixes two story and one story.dwelli.ngs within a
development to achieve a variety of housing mix .:;
and reduce the sameness of the street.
V
b. Varies.the types of building materials within a
project °to'creatq diversity, yet not - creating '
excessive contrasts.
C. Varies the color and design of Lousing units with
particular attention to common themes without creating
excessive contrasts.
d. Provides special design.features such as curvilinear
walks, textured walkways, etc.
B. Site orientation and Street Desi
The Des i n Review committee shall review site orientation of
each project to determine variability of lot sizes and config-
urations to accotdmodate terrain and street design, and also,
variability of lot sizes to encourage corresponding variations
of house designs and orientations. Better site design will
incorporate the utilization of the sun and wind for heating and
cooling purposes (up to 10 points maximum).
criteria,
The following .,;iteria. represent the general types of site
Orier_tation and'StreeL; Design elements the Design Review
committee shall consider in their evaluation. Projects may
include othor criteria nI)t specifically mentioned here and
still be eligible for the maximum number of Points.
site orientation
1. Minimize crowding and enhances spatial relationships by
avoiding excessively deep or narrow lots.
2. Preserves desirable views and vistas by proper lot and
housing layout.
3. Minimizes sharp angled lots which constitute poor bv:ldinq
sites.
4. Designs lots and structures to blend with the existing
topography and vegetation.
S. Designs lots and structures to minimize noise through the
use of set - backs, proper location of air conditioning units,
living areas and the like.
6. Varies building setbacks to create visual relief along
residential.streets.
t t 1
b.
• o.
Avoids short - .locks, dead end and half streets
(as opposed to cul-de -sacs) whenever possible.-
Promotes tiei privacy of renidential neighborhoods by
propert street layout and overall site orientatie -n.,'.
.d. Parking access is from local streets rather than
secondary or major streets.
21 Public transportation is encouraged by the project.
a. Locates bur stops as part of tha development wherever
necessary as a result of planned or current bus routes.
b. Provides bus pullout areas and covered waiting areas
for user wherever necessary as a result of planned or
current bus routes.
3. Varie_ sidewalk dimencions and patterns to avoid monotony.
4. Provides handicapped access to the project.
C. Landscape and Screening Design_
Thn Community Development Director shall review each project
for landscape and sergening design. Such review will deter-
mine compatibility of all trees, shrubs, ground cover, walls
and fences, mounding, paths, lighting, etc., with the topo-
graphy and site characteristics of the project (up to 10
points maximum).
Criteria
The following criteria represent the gene ;al types of Landscape
and Screening Design elements the Community Development Director
shall consider in his evaluation. Projects may include other
criteria not specifically mentioned here and still be eligible
for the maximum number of points.
;.. Landscaping materials are utilized tc,provirle home privacy
and screen trash and stordce areas.
2. Landscaping techniques and building materials are used.to
enhance the quality of the site and architecture.
a. Project provides interior parkway improvements over,
and above those required by City ordinance.
b. Planting materials blend with and enhance the archi-
tectural design of the development.
c. Fences, hedges, galls, etc.; are used to enhance
architectural. design of the development.
d. Uses trses for soreening adjacent streets and,enhanc%
site quality.
e. Landscaping is designed to prevent erosion and promote
;
stabilization of slopes.
f. Lighting sources are screened from direct view and
minimizes fight spill over from one house to its
neighbor.
g. Uses drought resistent plants.
h. Uses earthen berms to delineate the use of spaces,
provide privacy,• reduce noise, control wind, mitigate
flooding, frame views, etc.
J. Grouped parking areas are landscaped to provide shading
and visual screening from streets and buildings.
j. hpartment /condominium and condominium conversion
landscaping of trees meets or exceeds the City standard
of So trees /gross acre.
D. Energy Conservation
The Community Development Director spill review each project
submitted for provisions of passive and active energy conserva-
tion techniques used in terms of architectural design, land-
scaping, and site orientation (5 points maximum)
1. Building orientation and landscaping are designed to mtxl-
mize the use of passive solar heating in winter months and
prevailing westerly summer breezes.,
a. Buildings are. generally situated in an east -west
orientation with windows placed to maximize passive
solar heating in winter (1 point).
b. Windows are placed " maximum cooling from prevailing
westerly summer breezes (1/2 point) .
c. Tree planting considers any effects on the use or
future installation of residential solar energy
collectors (1/2 point).
2. Units are pre - plumbed for adaption to solar energy heaters
(1 point) .
3. Energy conserving building materials and appliances
are incorporated into the architectural design, including
but not limited to, double -pane windows, reduced consump-
tion shower heads, and better grade insulation (1 point).
4. Development provides option to homebuyers to purchaee solar
energy collectors for heating purposes (l point).,
SECTION 3: AFFORDABLE HOUSINv
Tha Director of Community Development shall review all projects for the
provision of adequate housing for all segments of the population in order
to create diversified neighborhood environments and income groaps, avoiding
concentrations of any single income group in one particular neighborhood.
Those residential development projects which provide "affordable" housing shall
be given additional point consideration. as well as opportunities for
density bonuses.
For purposes of this section, Affordable Housing is defined asp
Owner occupied: projects which are sponsored through government programs or
privately financed through market rate programs having a price range of 3.5
times 80••120% of the current median family income of San Bernardino County
consistent with the City's Housing Assistance Plan (HAP). This income figure
shall 1xi readjusted annually and is currently $14,800.*
Renter Occupied: Fair market rent in San Bernardino County as defined by
Section d of the Housing and Community Development Act which shall be
readjusted annually and'is currently: **
# of Bedrooms Detached Semi- detached /Row walkup Elav (2 -4 stories)
0 _ - 278 294
�:. 1 - 372 315 331
2 578 440 368 384
3 615 541 460 476
4 659 S90 505 521
The above figures include the price of utilities. For projects which do not
include utilities in the rental rates, the following deductions fsom the above
described fair market rates shall be made:
# of Bedrooms Deductions for Utilities
0 25
1 30
2 35
3 40
4 45
*Median family income of San Bex:,.trdino County is current as of January, 1979
and is readjusted annually.
is readjusted periodically.
**Fair market. rent is current as of April, 1979 and
Y7
�y v
'�`��i.. ^1 • ... 1. _ -
0
criteria
1, Affordable housing shall be evaluated using the following criteria:,
a. Project provides, 15% or more affordable housing (6 points and up
to 20% density bonus),
b. Project provides 5 to 15% affordable housing (4 points and up to
10% density bonus).
c. Project provides 1 to 5e affordable housing (2 points and up to
5% density bcnus) .
(NOTE: For projects submitted as Master Pla -•ned Developments,
Affordable Housing shall be evaluated for the entire
project and the point shall be applied ;:n each phase of
that project).
SECTION 4: MASTER PLANd'8D DEVELOPMENT
The Community Development Director shall review each project submitted as a
MasteV Planned Development (i.e.,,. S:;?ecific Plan; etc.) for the degree
to which it achieves a variety of housing types, provides public facilities
and services, efficient internal eirculatio:s and overall integration of
residential design factors (up to 6 points »mkimum)r
Criteria
The following criteria represent the general types of elements the Commnunity
Development Director shall consider when evaluating Master Planned Developments.
Such developments may include other criteria not specifically mentioned here
and still be eligible for the maximum number of points.
1. Provides for a variety of housing t +des and costs to complement
existing housing in the immediate area; i.e., Owner occupied: single
family, multi- family (townhouses, condominiums); Rental: apartments
duplexes and elderly family,
2. Provides for a pPWudbblic acilities; e.g., sewrs and water lies,
fire facilities, school facilities, etc., to s rve the residents of
tha development. '
3. Provides an efficient sternal circulation system designed to maximize
safety and minimize congestion and monotony, which is integrated with
the City's Master Street Plan.
4. Creates various and diverse architectural jmd site design themes.
throughout the development, however, nct over exa.gerating any one
theme.
#i
SECTION 5: ORDERLY•DEVEMPMMT
• r
The community Development Director shall review all projects for the extent
to which they accouplish the orderly and continuous extension of existing
dev-Ilopment rather than "leap -frog development ".
one third Poi.--t will be granted for each 10% of the project that is
contiguous with existing development. contiguous development is defined
as having no separation by vacant, undeveloped land. If the project is
phased, contiguous dlevelopment shall be measured for the entire project
(3 points maxim=).
SECTION 6: CUSTOM LYr SUBDIVISIONS
ubently
�.ustom lot subdivisions are those which crreasetparcels not
ualsorubu3lder.
tmilt upon but Bold Individually or in gr p
As such, certain criteria such as architectural and landscape design cannot
be evaluated at the time of subdivision. 'This section will evaluate those
factors applicable tc. custcna lot subdivision and derive a point rating which
would apply to any future residential development prnr:ct of five units or
more on the custom lots. Applications for custom lot subdivisions shall be
rated using the following criteria:
A. public Services
1. m ainage Facilities
o
Tt:e city Engineer shall review each project to determine
11.3 ability and capacity to adequately dispose of sur•:gce
rtmoff. A project rust have a minimum of 4 points in
tlas category in order to receive further consideration
(10 points maximum).
a. Project drains into an exieting or planne` storm drain
or sheet capable of handling the surface water
generated (4 points).
b. Project builds master planned facilities with
supplemental capacity for drainage or extends
facilities beyond limits of site (10 points).
Project pioviees special drainage facilities (e.0 -,
on -+site storm drains, un3erground facilities and
drainage facilities maintained by homeowners) to
alle,v_ate grading constraints (2 points).
0
j.
Strout circulation and Improvements
The city Engineer shall review each project in terms Of
street circulation and by its ability to handle the
tra.t'fic generated by the project• A project must racaive
a minimum of 1 .points ia1 this category in order to
receive further consideration (10 points maximum)
' s�
tit .
a. More than 50% of project is within 2 miles of
An existing or plarned commercial shopping center •.
(3 points).
b. More than 50% of project is between 2 and 3 miles of
an existing or planned commercial shopping center
(2 points).
c. Pro).-:-:t is more than 3 miles from an existing or
planned ^ :cmmercial shopping center (I. point).
B. Site orientation and Street Design
The Design Review Committee shall review site
orientation of each project to determine variability of lot
sizes and configurations to accommodate terrain and street
design, and also, variability of lot sizes to encourage
corresponding variations of house A -signs and orientations.
setter site design will incorporate the utilization of the
sun and wind Oor heating and cooling purposes (up to in
points maxim i) .
Criteria I
The following criteria represent the general types of Site
Orientation and Street Design elements the Director of
Community Development shall consider in their evaluation.
Project may include other criteria sot specifically mentioned
here and still be eligible for the maximum number of points.
Site orientation
1. Minimizes crowding and enhances spatial relationships
by avoiding excessively deop or narrow lots and providing
adequate side yards.
2. Preserves desirable views and vistas by proper lot and
housing layout.
3. Minimizes scarp angled lots which constitute poor building
sites.
4. Designs lots and structures to blend with the existing
topography and vegetation.
5. Designs lots and structures to minimize noise through
the use of setbacks, proper location of air conditioning
units, living areas and the like.
6. building setbacks to create visual relief along
.Varies
residential streets.
Street Design
The design of street and parking encourage safe," ;-
_efficient circulation and fire access wliile,maintaining
..:.e.
` acceptable fire response time. -.
4V
r
the third point will be granted for each 10♦ of the project
that is'contiguous with existing development. contiguous
development is defined as having no separation by vacant,
undeveloped land. If the project is phased, contiguous
development shall be measured for the enti.e project (3
pair `.s maximum) .
SECTION 7: THRESHOLD POINT LIMIT
The City Council hereby sets a Threshold Point Limit of 70 points for
development projects other than custom lot subdivisions, and 35 points for
custom lot subdivisions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
adopts Resolution No. 79- 59 recommending that the City Council approve
and adopt the'Residential Assessment System on the 22nd day of August,
1979.
2. That a Certified campy of the Resolut ±-or. and related material hereby
adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City
Council.
pppRCVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1979.
PZAAN2TNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
a•. 'Fast
through•traffic is.discouraged by use of curvi-
Li ear street dedi.ga and other design techniques.
b.
Avoids short blocks, dead end and half streets (as
opposed to cul-de -sacs) whenever possible.
c.
Promotes the privacy of residential neighborhoods by
proper street .layout and overall site orientation.
d.
Parking access is from local streets rather than
secondary or major streets.
C. Orderly
Development
The Community Development Director shall review all projects
for the
extent to :.ich they ac••^rplish the orderly and con -
tinuous
extension of existing deve:.:3pment rather than ',leap-
frog development ".
the third point will be granted for each 10♦ of the project
that is'contiguous with existing development. contiguous
development is defined as having no separation by vacant,
undeveloped land. If the project is phased, contiguous
development shall be measured for the enti.e project (3
pair `.s maximum) .
SECTION 7: THRESHOLD POINT LIMIT
The City Council hereby sets a Threshold Point Limit of 70 points for
development projects other than custom lot subdivisions, and 35 points for
custom lot subdivisions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
adopts Resolution No. 79- 59 recommending that the City Council approve
and adopt the'Residential Assessment System on the 22nd day of August,
1979.
2. That a Certified campy of the Resolut ±-or. and related material hereby
adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City
Council.
pppRCVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 1979.
PZAAN2TNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
11 �t1 f� II 11111 111Y •I �11� /• 1 I I, '111111111 ��illl �� 1 1111 �It11�� 1�r •1� Yi �1 �'II��111 J�1Y1 �1���t i�'•
1 I ♦ 11 1 I� 1V � I 11 1 ' A l 1 'I 1 � '
ICI 'M ,1 1 11� � I 1, I ♦ 11 �
y �.• i I'1 1' 1 �'p 1, 1
I ' Ir 1 1 1 I I ' V 1 t 1 , i YI 1 r" . 1 , 1� 1 I 1 I IN , 1� I 1 '1' 1 ♦ 1 I{ � 1
0 "I'
l�+.�
r ` 1 1 r i f i • 11 1 ,1 , 1 1 1 � 11 I
1 1 y) 11 • 1 11�. 1 11 1 1,,11 / 1 ,1', 1' `I� 1 l,1! i'1 fI 11, \i. .1'.1' �1�' ♦ -.. .1i /II "1i ' I �1 1
Al �, 11; 1 1 I • I,' p`�
• '11 1I i
I1 11� r 1 1 \1
1 1.11 • .
• • • • p 1 1
ymn"ntl, and aLlOpUld by 010 Planning , ±r I M 1 I at
1 X4'1 or • • 1 or Auquilt,
A by the fullowing vote to-wits
AYES s COMMISF) 101MIM I.
.�••11'�11,� ` NOWO COMM 1613 XONIMS a 1 111
A130 C 1'1 I i'tl
,Ilr' II'1 �'��'I1 1111 111
11 1 Y
1 1 , � •�� �, I' 't1 , 1
i� i• � 1 111 ' 1 �
1 1.r ,1 11
1
li 1
IV
•� .(.,11,111 111111f\1.1�1' '1
.1 1 1 1 i• �\
r 1 1 {
r7 1 L.
kk
1 1. 1 1 ,•�,
r
P
7I \ rl
11 4, r 1
1 1 •`1,�. � 11 ,, 1 �1
11
1
t 1
i.
11,
1 A i :i •
��" I r 'I; :j `,• pr •'.giil lP1; 1.1 11��.. `;.�1 (1 1 11 _ 1 I.�r h
I It' • 1rF., I r 1 '. 111 I R T •: � 1.7 7y`
1• � •1 � 1 t 1 i I 1\ A r1 �. � r 1 1
1Y 1 1 • .. � � 1 •, i "1 1 ( 41 T 1 �.. 111., r fr' r ♦ '.
I', • 1 1 `, 1 1 1 l
1 1 1��• 1• �1' • •• i 1 1 ; '' • 1 111 1\ •Il it t l / 1 y
1 t r ^ ,• r IIY . 11Yr �'i ,11 •1 tl � 1 i �t�
1 r
1 •�• 1.., 1 1 y 1 ,J�l y �1•'1 1 Y
12
0
II. DESIGN QUALITY
A. Architactur"2 Dosi5n 10 11.1%
D. 9ito Orientation and Stract Donign 10 11.1•
C. Landocapo and Scrocninq Dosign 10 11.1%
D. Enorgy Consorvation 5 5.6%
35 30.9%
7II. Arro%DADLE HOUSING 6 6.7%
IV. MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 6 6.7%
V. ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT 3 3.3%
TOTALt 90 Pointo
kt :UTOt:NTIAL A5 :t:Ai1MXtrr RATING - SUMMARY_
CA'1'CgOitY
MAX.
POINTII
PrI(CENTACIE
1. I'UDLTC t;NHVICFn
A.
Drninago WAUI.li.tion
10
(4
ptn. min)
11.1%
D.
Stront CirculnL•ion and Improvomonln
10
(4
Ptu. min)
11.1%
C.
no-Adontial Socur.ity
0
(6
ptu. min)
0.9%
(3
tiro)
(3
polico)
�.
Parkn and Paths
6
(2
pto. thin)
6.7%
L ^.
Commorcial Shopping Contoru
3
3.3%
F.
PrOject Maintonnnco
3
3.3%
40
44.4%
II. DESIGN QUALITY
A. Architactur"2 Dosi5n 10 11.1%
D. 9ito Orientation and Stract Donign 10 11.1•
C. Landocapo and Scrocninq Dosign 10 11.1%
D. Enorgy Consorvation 5 5.6%
35 30.9%
7II. Arro%DADLE HOUSING 6 6.7%
IV. MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 6 6.7%
V. ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT 3 3.3%
TOTALt 90 Pointo