The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996/07/17 - Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. July 17, 1996 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane, Com~cihnember James V. Curatalo, Com~cihnember Diane Williams, Cotmcih~ember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 989-1851 City Council Agenda July 17, 1996 1 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Alexander Biane , Curatalo , Gutierr~z , and Williams__ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Proclamation to the Rancho Cucamonga Indians Baseball Team wishing them luck as they represent Rancho Cucamonga in the Youth Baseball Tournament in Cooperstown, New York. 2. Presentation of Proclamation to Dr. Harvey D. Cohen for his efforts on behalf of Senior Citizens in Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Presentation of Proclamation declaring July 28th as Parent's Day in Rancho Cucamonga. 4. Recognizing students participating in De Molay Government Day in Rancho Cucamonga. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1o Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 6/26/96 and 7/3/96 for Fiscal 1 Year 1995/96; 6/26/96 and 7/3/96 for Fiscal Year 1996/97; and Payroll ending 6/13/96 for the total amount of $1,923,061.76. 2. Approval of PCN 96-02, a request to consider making a 13 determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcohol Beverage Control License (Beer and Wine) within an impacted census tract for the existing Foothill Market, located at 8161 Foothill Boulevard. ~'.'~ City Council Agenda July 17, 1996 2 3. Approval to Order the Annexa~on to Landscape Maintenance District 20 No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Conditional Use Permit No. 95-40, located at the southwest corner of Ninth Street and Vineyard Avenue, 8889 Ninth Street (APN: 207- 271-52), submitted by Steven A. Nichols, Nichols Egg Ranch. \ RESOLUTION NO. 96-109 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-40 4. Approval of Map, execution of Improvement Agreement, 25 Improvement Security, Vintners Walk Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 13845, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, submitted by Masi Commerce Center Partners. RESOLUTION NO. 96-086 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ENCROACHMENT/ MAINTENANCE FOR VINTNERS WALK OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13845 RESOLUTION NO. 96-087 29 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13845, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 96-088 30 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13845 5. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security 33 for Etiwanda Avenue at Napa Street, submitted by Kaiser Ventures, Inc. '~~l City Council Agenda · ~ July 17, 1996 3 RESOLUTION NO. 96-110 35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR ETIWANDA AVENUE AT NAPA STREET 6. Approval to execute a Cooperation Agreement (CO 96-043) with the 36 County of San Bernardino for participation in the County's Home Consortium. 7. Approval to execute Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) 42 Memorandum of Understanding (CO 96-044) for Fiscal year 1996/97. 8. Approval to Release a Certificate of Deposit in the amount of 44 $83,837.00 held by the City in lieu of a Faithful Performance Bond for Grading at 8949 Toronto Street -- California Box. 9. Approval to accept Improvements, accept the Faithful Performance 45 Bond as a Maintenance Bond, and File a Notice of Completion for Tract 13703, located on the west side of Haven Avenue, north of Banyan, submitted by Sheffield Alta Loma 55, Ltd. Accept: Faithful Performance Bond $ 143,340.00 As Maintenance Guarantee Bond RESOLUTION NO. 96-111 46 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13703 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 10. Approval to accept Improvements, Accept the Faithful Performance 47 Bond as a Maintenance Bond and file a Notice of Completion for Tract 14116, located on the south side of Highland Avenue west of Deer Creek Channel. Accept: Faithful Performance Bond $ 120,100.00 As Maintenance Guarantee Bond RESOLUTION NO. 96-112 48 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 14116, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK ~'~ City Council Agenda July 17, 1996 4 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 49 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED - A request to establish an Etiwanda South Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan with separate Development Standards, such as reduced lot sizes and setbacks for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts, located south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tentative Tract 15711. ORDINANCE NO. 557 (first reading) 102 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 TO ESTABLISH AN ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LOW-MEDIUM AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, LOCATED WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SOUTH OF THE INTERSTATE 15 FREEWAY G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REDUCING UTILITY 109 USER'S FEE ..~'~.'\~ City Council Agenda July 17, 1996 5 ORDINANCE NO. 558 (Per Govt Code 36937) 110 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A 113 SINGLE PHASE OPENING OF ROUTE 30 FREEWAY CORRIDOR RESOLUTION NO. 96-113 116 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A SINGLE-PHASE OPENING OF THE ROUTE 30 FREEWAY CORRIDOR J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be-discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 11, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. · r · I · I · I' · · · · · · · -- I · ', ~1 I · ;;; .......................... Ol~l , · ~1 · ~1 I I~l ~N~~o~m~m~o~m~~o~Nm~~o~Nm~m~ I}1 · · I · · · ~ · I ~ I · Z~ ~ ~ · I · · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · i · · ..II I · · · · ~1 · ~ I' A ZI · A A A ~1 · ~ A A A A I~1 ~oooo I · I I z · · d · · · · · · r · · I · · ~1 · I. I' · I · I · · · I ~1 O~mO0~O00~O ~oomooo~om~mooomo~o~ ~ ~~~~ ,, .................................. I · · , I l ~1 I · · ~ ml~ Im mm · · ~ ~ ~ Z V · · · · · Z · · i · · I Z 0 I · ~ ~ Z ~ · I ~00~ ~ z 0 ~ H 'J 0 U do ~ · ""'l'I"'~'~''e' ~ ~'~'~WIRI!'~'t"'~I'~'I"' I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: PCN 96 - 02 A request to consider making a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcohol Beverage Control License (Beer and Wine) within an impacted census tract for the existing Foothill Market, located at 8161 Foothill Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION Approve, through minute action, a determination of "Public Need or Necessity" as provided for under Section 23958.4. (a)(3)(b)(2) and thereby allow the issuance of the requested Alcohol Beverage Control License. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The passage of AB 2897 (approved by the Governor on September 19, 1994) required that before ABC can issue a license for off-site sale of liquor in a defined area where there is "undue concentration", the local governing body must determine that there is a public convenience or necessity for the use of the license. Pursuant to Section 23958.4 (a) of the Business and Professions Code reads; "...undue concentration means...any retail license are located in an area where any of the following conditions exist. A. The applicant premises are located in a crime reporting district that has a 20 percent greater number of reported crimes, as defined in subdivision (c), than the average number of reported crimes as determined from all crime reporting districts within the jurisdiction of the local law enforcement agency. B. As to on-sale retail license applications, the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of on-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. C. As to off-sale retail license applications, the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the census tract or census division in which the applicant premises are located exceeds the ratio of off-sale retail licenses to population in the county in which the applicant premises are located. In this case, the later option of the previously listed State criteria applies, with ABC indicating that Census Tract 21.00 currently contains 22 existing and 16 allowed within the current ratio. The boundaries of Census Tract 21.00 and the location of the subject site are shown on Exhibit A (attached for reference). In general the subject Census Tract is located south of Foothill Boulevard, east of Grove Avenue, west of Rochester Avenue and north of Interstate 10 Freeway. It should be noted that normally the decision to make a PCN determination would be conducted as pad of the Conditional Use Permit application review by the Planning Commission. In this case the previous Foothill Liquor Store license was withdrawn after the current ABC legislation was approved. Staff anticipates that most if not all future PCN requests will fall within the new construction CUP process. The Applicant's representative has included several statements in support of a City Council finding of public convenience or necessity which is included in the attached letter labeled Exhibit C. In summary the letter states the following: A. A convenience market including beer and wine is a common and accepted practice. B. Many of the store's walk-in customers have expressed a desire for beer and wine. C. The closest similar use is about a mile away. D. Foothill Boulevard is a busy street and it is their intent to serve customers on the south side of the Boulevard. E. The sale of beer and wine will not increase crime or pose a threat to any educational, religious institution, or residential area. Several facts tend to support the Applicant's request in terms of public convenience. First, it should be noted that three of the licenses, although within Census Tract 21.00, are located in the City of Ontario, south of Fourth Street. The closest similar use is a neighborhood market at Grove and Arrow (8114 Arrow Hwy.) which is approximately 3/4 of a mile from the subject location. The Sheriff's Department has not indicated there is any existing crime Concentration or concern in the area. FACTS FOR FINDING The term "public convenience or necessity" is undefined under the existing legislation. According to ABC Staff, the legislation purposefully left the defining of the term to the local legislative body (City Council) in order to provide the greatest latitude based on local conditions and determinations. Some of the factors the City Council may want to consider, but are not necessarily limited to, include: A. Proximity to sensitive receptors (e.g., day care facilities, schools, parks, churches, community facilities, and commercial recreation land uses.). B. Proximity to routes traveled by underage pedestrians,to and .from sensitive receptor locations. C. Distance to the same or similar types of existing ABC licensed locations. In this case, the proposed Application is located within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Area and therefore does not conflict with items described in sections A. and B. listed above and is a considerable distance from similar uses. The existing store is oriented to Foothill Boulevard and therefore should not have a negative influence on the activities in the area. CORRESPONDENCE This item does not require a public hearing and therefore no public hearing advertising was provided. BB: LTH/taa Attachmentsi Exhibit "A" - Census Tract 21.00 Boundary and Subject Location Map Exhibit "B" - Table with the current ABC License Holders in Census Tract 21.00 Exhibit "C" - Applicant's Letter dated June 24, 1996 PCN 96-02 BASELINE ; ,'r i> OiSgD )> FOOTHILL i BLVD n-, P!CN 9~02 il 6722 ::;o t281 I HWYJ i15 t19 23 o _.&R_,_R_O_VY. ~ , i 1.9. < 2~ 18 m 171 , ;' > ~ 13 < r / / m m 10 i .-. > 4 i <~ / r 4ff,, 2 ONTARio 3 1 City Limits Census Tract 21.00 ?" Major Streets Site Locations # EXHIBIT A PCN 96-02 CURRENT ABC LICENSES WITHIN CENSUS TRACT 21.00 EXHIBIT BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS TYPE "A" ABC LOCATIO LICENSE N# 1 Ultbamar Inc. 4330 E. Inland Empire 20 2 Berkman 670 N. Archibald 20 3 Circle K 790 N. Archibald 20 4 Valdez, Rebelba 8847 Archibald 20 5 PNS Stores 12322 4th Street 20 6 Arrow Market &Liquor 10080 Arrow Hwy 21 7 ARCO 9533 Foothill BIrd. 20 8 CarmieIlo 8114 Arrow Hwy 21 9 Redhill Liquor 8939 Foothill Blvd 21 10 Um Ike Kyo 10120 251h Street 20 12 Mobile 8514 Vineyard Ave. 20 13 Mobile 8477 Archibald Ave. 20 14 Wanis Ghassan 8880 Archibald Ave 21 15 Patel 1 0277 Foothill BIrd. 21 16 Perry 9477 Foothill Blvd. 21 17 Easy Stop Market 8694 Arrow Hwy 20 18 Dayal, Suket 9755 Arrow Hwy A-C 21 19 Haven Wine & Liquor 8401 Haven Ave 21 20 Baskets Galore 10970 Arrow Route 207 20 21 Allura Farm Dairy 8809 N. Grove Ave 20 22 Carl's Liquor - 9677 Foothill BIrd 21 TYPE LICENSE: 20 = BEER. & WINE 21 -- GENERAL LICENSE (LIQUOR) EXHIBIT "B" - RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · t ADMINISTRATION JUN 2, 5 1996 FOOTHILL MARKET ;. 8161 FOOTHr~.L BLVD. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 (9o9) 93 1-o673 BRAD BULLEll. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA JUNE24,1996 By.way ofintroductioa, my name is Anwar Imaabi and I am the owner and operator of Foothill Market a convenient store located on Foothill Boulevard in Rancho Cucamonga. I offer my customers the convenience of shopping for groceries, deli items, hot food items, and cold drinks. The one thing I am unable to provide to my loyal customers, which they are demanding is beer and wine. ' After many contacts with the city ofRaucho Cucamonga officials, I have been unable to acquire the permit which would be convenient for my customers. On a daily basis I am faced with unsatisfied clients who walk into my store to buy quick items and in the process are disappointed when they learn that beer and wine is not avaflabl8 for their convenience. The premesis at 8161 Foothill Blvd had been a liquor store since 1952, under the name of Foothill Liquor, and had a full-line of alcohol sold on the premises. I have personally made a check of the area and found that there are no places that sell beer and wine. If you were to check you will find that fi'om Grove Street all the way to Carnelian, a one-mile stretch, Foothill Market is the only m~rket which has the capabilities of selling beer and wine. However, we are unable to do so without the permit required. I feel that I am being discriminated against, because I see no logical reason why I am not given the opportunity to acquire a permit to be able to sell the beer and wine on my premesis to be able to support my family. Our business demands the selling of beer and wine to be a total convenient store. I feel that as a family, we are being deprived of being able to operate our business to its full capacity given the fact that these premises have been licensed to sell beer and wine since 1952. Once our customers have arrived on our premises then it becomes a safety hazard for them to cross Foothill BIrd, a major-hig~h-traffic street to buy beer and wine. I have also made inquires with the Sherjff's Department at Rancho Cucamonga, and they in[.ormed and assured me that this is not in a hioja-crime area and therefore beer and "'1' I "'1'.'I~ "n"" Ill' ' lll"~f~ wine being sold in the store would not pose a threat. Foothill Market does not pose a threat to any educational, religious institutions, nor does it pose a threat to any residential area. To the back of the market is an open field with no other businesses to be bothered by the sale of beer and wine. Another point I'd like to address is the profit which would be generated by the selling of beer and wine at Foothill Market, not only to myself; but to the people (by creating employment oppommities), city, state and federal budget. I do not see the harm or danger in allowing our customers the convenience of being able to buy beer and wine as they shop inside Foothill Market. Again, I would like to reiterate that the premises of Foothill Market has been in business since 1952 and had been selling beer and wine for m~ny many years. It is not located in a residential area, and there are no other businesses which provide the sale of beer and wine. Our customers are demanding to buy beer and wine at Foothill Market. Foothill Market as a business demands the sale of beer and wine for its continued operation. I, as an owner of Foothill Market, am requesting ~om the city ofRancho Cueamonga a letter which states: "it's for the public convenience and necessity for Foothill Market to sell beer and wine." THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-40, LOCATED AT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NINTH STREET AND VINEYARD AVENUE, 8889 NINTH STREET (APN 207-271- 52), SUBMITTED BY STEVEN A. NICHOLS, NICHOLS EGG RANCH RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6. BA CKG ROUND/ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit No. 95-40 was approved by the City Planner on March 12, 1996, to rebuild a 21,000 square foot fire-damaged egg processing facility, on a 1.25 acre parcel in Subarea 1 of the Industrial Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Ninth Street and Vineyard Avenue. The Developer, Steven A. Nichols, Nichols Egg Ranch, was required to dedicate ultimate right-of-way along the projects frontage for both Ninth Street and Vineyard Avenue. An Easement Deed for the right- of-way dedication has been submitted to the City. In addition, a signed Consent and Waiver form to join the appropriate Landscape and Lighting Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer. Copy of the Consent and Waiver to Annexation is available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully, submitted, - \Vi!liam '.J'f6'Neil City Engineer WJO:JAD:dlw Attaclunents VICINITY MAP NINTH STREET I ' APN 207-271-52 NICHOLS EGG RANCH PROJECT SITE ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 95-40 File: h:\exhibits\95..40 ' llf~'Irl!RlrrT"~ 'T RESOLUTION NO. dyQ9 ..-/O 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR C.U.P. 95-40 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shovm in Exhibit "A" and the work progran~ areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 I NINTH STREET APN 207-271-52 NICHOLS EGG RANCH PROJECT SITE \ ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 95-40 File: h:\exhibits\cup95-40 EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: C.U.P. 95-40 (APN 0207-271-52) STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF LAMPS Dist. 5800L 9500L 16.000L 22,000L 27,500L S1 S6 LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Dist. D.G.S.F. S.F. S.F. Ea. *L3B * Right-of-Way dedication only. Improvements to be for the future. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S 6 L3 B N/A 1,25 2.50 1.25 1.25 Am~exation Date: July 17, 1996 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, VINTNERS WALK ENCROACHMENT/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13845, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Parcel Map 13845, accepting the subject agreement and security, also the Vintners Walk Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Parcel Map 13845, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1992, for the division of 29.5 acres into 27 lots. The Developer, Masi Commerce Center Partners, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $ 70,000.00 l,abor and Material Bond: $ 225,000.00 Monumentation Cash Deposit $ 3,750.00 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARCEL-MAP 13845 July 17, 1996 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from Cucamonga County Water District. C.C. & R.'s and the Vintners Walk EncroachmenffMaintenance Agreement have also been approved by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectively submitted, ? City Engineer WJO:DJ:sd Attachments ,,-, LU I-- X I-- -- _J 0 0 -,--I ~sd~.----. , ~ U: _Z ' """/""'~ 3.A,. u, n-' L_,_ ,,, ~, >, _z --4 OJ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM ONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ENCROACHMENT/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR VINTNERS WALK OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13845 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Encroaclunent/Maintenance Agreement executed on ., by Masi Cormnerce Center Partners as developer, for the improvements of Vintners Walk in the public right- of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Rochester Avenue and 659 feet easterly of said avenue; and WHEREAS, the Developer is required to construct and install in the aforementioned Vintners Walk area, plaques, overhead arcade and other related features; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as Parcel Map No. 13845; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said EncroachmentrMaintenance Agreement submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City ' Clerk to attest. RESOLUTION NO. qCe:9 ~ ~D ~ 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13845, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 13845, submitted by Masi Commerce Center Partners, and consisting of 27 parcels, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, being a division of 29.5 acres in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on September 2, i 992, and is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance N0. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 13845 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Masi Commerce Center Partners as developer; and WHEREAS, said developer submits for approval said Parcel Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related highway purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the Ci.ty of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Parcel Map No. 13845 is hereby approved, and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. ~(-c9" ~) ~ A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTKICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13845 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (her~nafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have flied with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. .SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION i~: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND I , J F00THZLL BOULEVARD t i 2 j~ 3 7 V i6 i4 15 26 . _ S ~EB~STIAN 'WAY' ' m I.~ .~. , , ', i 25 24 23 22 2~ 20 19 18 ~7 _'LEGENE:::, , , ,'A~E:A.' oE PAf~K~N'A"-( TI~'EES/_L~ -- --- =-- ....... I~AEID~AQ . IsLaND ~DSCA~.E C1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~_~~~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO .. % STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: PARCEL MAP 13845 STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF LAMPS Dist. 5800L 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L S1 11' 4 S6 15 * 5 - Lamps installed with other previous project. This parcel map will add 6 - 16,000L lamps only LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Turf Non-Turf Trees Dist. D.G.S.F. S.F. S.F. Ea. L3B ...... 800 184 * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S6 L3B 27 23.7 47.4 23.7 23.7 Annexation Date: (July 17, 1996) Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .. STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Ncil, City Engineer BY: Phillip Verbera, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, FOR ETIWANDA AVENUE AT NAPA STREET, SUBMITTED BY KAISER VENTURES, INC. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the subject agreement and security, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Etiwanda Avenue located at Napa Street and 1300 feet north of 6th Street is being constructed as part of The California Speedway project in the County of San Bemardino. The Developer, Kaiser Ventures, Inc., is submitted an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements within the City limits of Rancho Cucanmnga in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $179,000.00 Labor m~d Material Bond: $ 89,500.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, William Jt._O'Neil City Engineer Attaclunents VI C IN/T Y MAP tiC, SSALE .. ~ N CITY OF ~ .~AF'A ST. ~ E.-TI\OA~OA Ave. RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TITLE: K.A~sE~ VF-~T~ES/~c:;:.. ENG]IN'EERiNG DIVISION ];/'-EXHIHri': S-TAFF [~E ?o&'F ~d ..... r f ""r'~"?' "'"' ill ' T'I"F'TIIIrrT'~F1 'T" T RESOLUTION NO. ~(~2 -- t/d° A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR ETIWANDA AVENUE AT NAPA STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on July 17, 1996, by Kaiser Ventures, Inc., as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on Etiwanda Avenue at Napa Street and 1300 feet north of 6th Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as Napa Street at Etiwanda Avenue; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient hnprovement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: 1. That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2 That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attorney. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager BY: Olen Jones, Senior Redevelopment Analyst SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTY'S HOME CONSORTIUM. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Cooperation Agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute the documents. BACKGROUND The Congress of the United States enacted the Cranston Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act. Title II of the Act creates the "HOME" program, which provides funds to state and local government for acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction of affordable housing and tenant-based rental assistance. The Act allows local governments to form consortia for the purpose of receiving and administering HOME funds and programs. In July, 1995, the City approved a Cooperation Agreement with the County of San Bernardino for the purpose of creating a consortium of cities to receive HOME funds. ANALYSIS The County of San Bernardino has proposed a H~)ME Consortium with the cities of Rialto, Redlands, and Rancho Cucamonga, in order to increase the allocation received under the Federal HOME program by allowing the population of these cities to be used in the calculation of the County's allocation. This is a continuation of the consortium approved last year. Under the terms of this program, the County will make available its existing HOME programs (i.e. first-time homebuyer's assistance, rehabilitation loans/grants, rental assistance, etc.) to the participating cities. Additionally, the cities will receive an allocation of HOME funds to be used for locally created housing programs. The HOME funds allocation to the cities will require matching local funds; however, existing City and Agency programs already in use in Rancho Cucamonga will qualify for that match. There is no cost to the City or Redevelopment Agency for inclusion in the program. Ha D. DameIs enit Manager 07/03/96 ~6:40 N0.236 SAN BERNARDINO COU'NTY HOME ENVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM COOPERATION AGREE1VIENT FOR HOME CONSORTIUM This Agreement is made by and between the Cities of Rancho Cucamonga. Redlands and Rialto (hereinafter called "CITIES") and the County of San Bemardino, (her¢inafier called "COUNTY"). WI-IEREAS, the Congress of the United States has enacted the Cranston-Gonzalcs National Affordable Housing Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 12701 et seq. ) and Federal Regtflations have been adopted pursuant thereto, (hereinafter called the "ACT"); and WHEREAS, Title II of the Act creates the HOME Investment Partnerships Prom (hereinafter eatled "HOME"), that provides funds to states and local governments for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction of affordable housing, and tenant-baeed rental assistance; and WHEREAS, the ACT requires local governments to formulate and submit a Consolidated Plan, Cnereinafter called "Con-Plan"), as pan of the eligibility requirements for HOME funds in ar&ordemc~ with section 91.215 of the Consolidated Plan final talc; and WHEREAS, funds from Title II are distributed to metropolitan cities, urban counties, States, and eomortia of local governments; and WHEREAS, the ACT allows local governments to form a comsortittm for the purpose of receiving and administering HOME funds and carrying out purposes of the ACT; and WHBREAS, the ACT requires that a local government member of an urban oomaty may participate in a consortlure only through the urban county; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that a consortiota shall have one member unit of general local government authorized to act in a representative capacity for all members for the purposes of the ACT and to assume overt~l responsibility for ensuring that the consortiura's HOME program is earfled out in compliance with the ACT, including requirements eoneeming the Con-' Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, it iS agreed that:. - 1. CITIES and COUNTY will cooperate in the forming of the County of San Bernardino HOME Consortittm, hemin.q~er called the "CONSORTIUM", for the purpose of undertaking or assisting in undertaking lIDME-eligible housing-assistance activities pursuant to Title II of the ACT inehding, but not limited to acquiring, rehabilitating, and constructing, affordable housing, ~ad providing tenant-bu~d rctaul ussi~tuncc. 07/05/96 16:41 l,~].256 Q04 2. COUNTY shall act as the representative member of the CONSORTIUM for purposes of the ACT ~nd assume overall responsibility for ensuring that the Consortium's HOME Program is carried out in compliance with the requirements of the program, including requirements concerning a Consolidated Plan (Con-Plan). 3. CITIES shall provide to COUNTY, all necessary information and documentation as requested by COUNTY, for incorporation into Coun~'s Consol/dated Plan in compliance with program rcquircmcnts. 4. CITIES shall have thirty (30) calendar days to approve the potdons of the Con-Plan which pertain tn the C. ITrP,,q before COUNTY submits final Con-Plan to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. COUNTY shall incorporate CITIES' changes in Con-Plan, if any, provided that they meet HOME requiremama. CITIES shall identify any areas designated for affordable housing activities within ff~ir jurisdiction. CITIES shall provide maps and/or detailed descriptions of such areas upon execution of this documenl. 5. CITIES shall approve each project funded with competitive HOM/~ funds within their city boundaries prior to COUNTY approving funding of such projects, provided that the CITIES' approval or disapproval does not obstruct the implcmerrm~ion of the approved Con-Plan. 6. CITIES shall designate the City Admini~ntor or hisdacr dc~igncc as the its representative to whom all notices and communications from COUNTY shall b6 directed, COUNTY'S duty to notify CITIES shall b6 complete when the communication is sent to the designated repre~ntative. It ig the exehmive duty of the designate~l representative to notify the appropriate indjvidtmls and departments wig the CITIES. 7. It is the opinion of the Coxlllty of San Bemardino County Counsel that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and the Agreement provides full legal authority for the Con~ortium to undertake or assist in undertaking housing assistance activities for the HOME Investment Parmership Program. 8. To carry out activities under this Agreement, COUNTY shall allocate to CITIES a portion of HOME lands received under the ACT. Initial allocations shall b6 determined by a formula appmvcd by thc CON,~ORTIUM. If n~oc~sary to mcot HOME requirements, funds will be reallocated by COUNTY in accordance with such needs, objectives, or strategies as COUNTY shall decide. In preparing such needs, objectives, or strategies, COUNTY shall consult with the CITIP. R herare making it.~ determinations. COIJNTY shall administer or provide to CITIES their respective "fair share allocation" of HOME funds on an.annual basis, to fund HOME-eligible project5 within thcir ~iv/boundaries. crrms shah submit documenxa~ion a~ prescribed by COUNTY, on each project, to receive approval from COUNTY regarding project cligibility, prior ~o approving project funding from their "fair sinarc allocation". 9. CITY shall contribute a mjni mxlnl 25% funding match contribution from any HOME- eligible match source for each project designated to receive HOME l~nds. 2 07~0~96 ~6:~2 ~0.2~6 g05 10. COUNTY and CITIBS shall comply with all applicable requirements of the ACT and its regulations in utilizing basic grant fun& under the ACT and shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with County certifications requ/red by the ACT. COUNTY ~d CITIES will comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Title VI and VII. or the Civil Rights Act of t964, Title VIII or'tire Civil Rights Act of 1968, Executive Order 11988, the Fair Hou~ng Act, and other applicable federal laws. CITIES agree that Iq0MF. funding for activities in ot in-support of CITIES are prohibited if CITIES do not a.rfixmatively further fair hou3ing within their own jurisdictions or impedes COUNTY m;tiuns to comply with its fair housing ce.,tL,-eic~on. Each party to this agreement shall affirmatively further faix housing. 11. CITIES shall provide COUNTY with all information concerning CITIES and the ~tiviCi~s CITIES carry out under this agreement which COUNTY requires to prepare: 1) documents required to be submitted to HUD, 2) annual HOME performance report. 3) such other documents as COUNTY may require to carry out eligible housing activities or meet Federal. requirements. All information shall be submitted on forms prescribed by COUNTY. In addition, CITIES agree to make available upon request all records concerning the activities carried out under this agreement for inspection 0y COUNTY or Federal officials during regular business hours. 12. Thc CITIES agree to indcmnlfy, defend emd hold tmsmlcss {.h~ County and its authofi2e. d officers, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all claims, actions, losses, damages, and/or Hability arising out of this contract from any cause whatsoever, including the acts, e~rors or omissions nf any per~eon and for my cos't~ or expenses incurred by the County on acoount of any claim therefore, excel~ where such indemnification is prohibited by law. 13. The COUNTY agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the CITIES and its officers. employees, agents and volunteers from any and all liabilities for injury to persons and damage to property arising out of any negligent acts or omissions of the COUNTY, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers in connection with this contract, except where such indenmifieation is prohibited by law. 14. This Agreement shall go into effect immediately upon execution by all signatories to the agreement and shall continue in full force and in effect until all activities funded under the terms of this Agreement, and any inc,~me generated from the expenditure of such funds, are experttied, and the funded activities are completed. CITIES are included in the Consortlure for a period of. three (t) federal fjs~l ye~rg commencing on October 1, 1996 through September 20, 1999. No consortlure member may withdraw from the agreement while the agreement remains in effect. 15. This Agreement authorizes the COUNTY, as the lead entity, to amend the Consortium Agreement on behalf of the entire CONSORTIUM to add new members to the CONSORTIUM. 0?/03/96 16:42 N0,236 Q06 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR HOME CONSORTIUM SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF REDLANDS COUNTY OF SAN BEKNARDINO SWEN LARSON, Mayor MARSHA TUROCI, Chairman Board of Supervisors Attest: SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF TI-IIS DOCUMENT I-tAR BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF City Clerk THE BOARD EARLENrE SPROAT Clerk of the Board of APPROVED AS TO FORM: SupeTvisors of the County of San Bernardino By:. City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM: ALAN K. MARKS, County Counsel JUt 9 3 199G KONALD D, REITZ, Chief Deputy CoUnt,/Counsel 4 ~0.236 ~07 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSIHPS PROGRAM COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR HOME CONSORTIUM SIGNATURE PAGE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO WILLIAM J. ALEXANDER. Mayor MARSHA TUROCI, Chairman Board of Supervisors Attest: SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF TFIIS DOCU'M_ENT FIAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF City Clerk THE BOARD EARLENE SPROAT Clerk of the Board of APPROVED AS TO FORM: Supervisors of the County of S~ Bernardino By: City Attorney A-PPROVED AS TO FORM: ALAN K. MAR. KS, County Counsel JUt 0 3 1996 RONALD D. REITZ, Chief Deputy Coun.ty Counsel CITY OF KANCHO CUC,~%,IONGA ~~. STAFF REPORT , DATE: July 17, 1996 ,~.. TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jerry Bo Fulwood, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF DRUG ABUSE RESISTANCE EDUCATION (D.A.R.E.) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996197 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Alta Loma, Central, Etiwanda, and Cucamonga School Districts and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the D.A.R.E. Program for Fiscal Year 1996/97. The MOU reflects a $106,245.00 contribution from the four School Districts, with a matching amount of $106,245.00 from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This activity is budgeted in account number 01-4451-0000. BACKGROUND The D.A.R.E. program was implemented by City Council as a pilot program during Fiscal Year 1990/91. Initially, the program used one Sheriff Deputy for three School Districts that did not provide for all fifth-grade classes to receive the program. During Fiscal Year 1994/95, the City and four School Districts, including the Cucamonga School District, jointly increased their funding share to incldde two D.A.R.E. Officers to provide D.A.R.E. to all fifth-grade classes. This year the School Districts will jointly contribute $106,245.00. The City will contribute a matching $106,245.00. The total projected D.A.R.E. program cost for Fiscal Year 1996/97 is $212,490.00. R fully submitre , Deputy City Manager JBF:jls attachments: D.A.R.E. MOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by the Alta Loma, Central, Etiwanda and Cucarnonga School Districts, the County of San Bemardino, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the purpose of jointly sponsoring and continuing the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Program. In order to accomplish this goal, the agencies listed below will contribute the following dollar amounts to be used for the continuation of the DARE program: Alta Loma School District -- $44,623; Central School District -- $28,686; Etiwanda School District -- $22,311; Cucamonga School District -~ $10,625; The City of Rancho Cucamonga -- $106,245. The County of San Bemardino Sheriff's Department will provide two DARE officers in accordance with the terms and provisions of the contract for police service between said County and the City ofRancho Cucamonga to be shared between the four schoool districts on a proportional basis based upon the dollar amount contributed by each district to the program (Alta Loma School District -- 42%; Central School District -- 27%; Etiwanda School District -- 21%; and Cucamonga School District -- 10% of the officers' time). This shall be effective from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. If modifications are necessary before or at that time, they will be added to this Memorandum of Understanding by mutual agreement of all parties involved. We hereby agree to this Memorandum of Understanding and certify that the agreements made here will be honored. Signature Alta Loma School District, Superi~itendent Date Signature Central School District, Superintendent Date Signature Etiwanda School District, Superintendent Date Signature Cucamonga School District, Superintendent Date Signature County of San Bemardino, Sheriff Date Signature City of Rancho Cucamonga, Mayor Date CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: · Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Gomez, Director of Community Development BY: William N. Makshanoff, Building Official SUBJECT: RELEASE OF CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT IN THE AMOUNT OF 83 837.00 HELD BY THE CITY IN LIEU OF A FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE FOR GRADING AT 8949 TORONTO ST - ..CALIFORNIA BOX_ RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City council approve the release of the subject Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $83,837.00 following the successful completion of the project. BACKGROUND/ANALySIS: California Box II is a newly expanded manufacturer of corrugated cardboard boxes in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As part of their building project a grading bond was required for the completion of all grading operations including on site drainage structures and similar improvements. In lieu of a Faithful Performance Bond a Certificate of Deposit was submitted to the City. The work is now complete and the applicant is requesting release of the Certificate of Deposit. Re ect,fully tri d, · ' evelopment RG:WM:I1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCEPT THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AS A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT 13703, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE, NORTH OF BANYAN, SUBMITTED BY SHEFFIELD ALTA LOMA 55, LTD. RECOMMENDATION The required street improvements for Tract 13703 has been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to accept the Faithful Performance Bond as a maintenance bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 13703 is located on the West Side of Haven Avenue, North of Banyan Developer: Sheffield Alta Loma 55, Ltd 3400 Central Avenue, Suite 325 - Riverside, CA 92506 Accept: Faithful Performance Bond as a maintenance Bond $143,340.00 Respectfully Subn~itted, William J. O'l~eil City Engineer WJO:dlw Attachnaent A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13703 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for 13703 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. m 'all JLmNII; a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Ncil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beck, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, ACCEPT THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND AS A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT 14116, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE WEST OF DEER CREEK CHANNEL, SUBMITTED BY SHEFFIELD ALTA LOMA 55, LTD. RECOMMENDATION The required street improvements for Tract 14116 has been completed in an acceptable mam~er and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to accept the Faithful Performance Bond as a maintenance bond. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 14116 is located on the South side of Highland Avenue, West of Deer Creek Channel Developer: Sheffield Alta Loma 55, Ltd 3400 Central Avenue, Suite 325 ' Riverside, CA 92506 Accept: Faithful Performance Bond as a Maintenance Bond $120, 100.00 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer Attachments WJO:LB:dlw A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14116 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 14116 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1VIONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City COuncil Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED - A request to establish an Etiwanda South Overlay District within the Etiwanda Specific Plan with separate Development Standards, such as reduced lot sizes and setbacks for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts, located south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related file: Tentative Tract 15711. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the establishment of an Etiwanda South Overlay District with modified Basic Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts through adoption of the attached Ordinance and issue a Negative Declaration. ABSTRACT The purpose of this public hearing is to consider the establishment of an overlay district with modified Basic Development Standards for the properties governed by the Etiwanda Specific Plan south and east of the Interstate 15 Freeway. The parcels affected by the proposed modifications would be those that are within the Low Medium and Medium Residential Development Districts within the Etiwanda South Overlay Zone (See Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 12, 1996). The applicant, Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd., is concurrently processing a tentative subdivision map using the proposed modified development standards. The proposed 283 lot subdivision map encompasses approximately 80 acres of the Low Medium residentially zoned land within the Etiwanda South Overlay area. This map will be considered formally by the Planning Commission following formal action of this amendment by the City Council. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment at its meeting on June 12, 1996. A copy of the Staff Report for that meeting has been attached for your reference. At that meeting, the Commission did recommend some modifications to staffs' original proposal outlined in the attached staff report. These modifications were discussed between staff and the applicant on the day of the Planning Commission meeting and supported by staff as an option for the Commission to consider. The Commission's recommended modifications are as follows: CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ESPA 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC July 17, 1996 Page 2 A. Minimum Width - Originally, staff recommended a minimum average lot width of 50 feet with an allowable variation of 5 feet (making the minimum possible width 45 feet). This standard would have been consistent with that allowed by the City's Development Code for the same zoning categories. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the minimum width of lots be increased to 50 feet, with a provision that a minimum of 50 percent of lots within the subdivision have a minimum width of 55 feet. B. Side Yard Setbacks - Staff originally recommended that the Planning Commission increase the minimum combined interior side yard setbacks from 15 to 20 feet. However, in understanding the strategic problems and limiting effects of designing homes on narrower lots with decreased side yard setbacks, the Commission adopted a combined 15-foot interior side yard setback for the Etiwanda South Overlay area. This change, combined with the recommendation for wider lots, allows for more flexibility in house design while achieving the more open streetscape feeling anticipated for the Etiwanda area through the recommended wider lot requirement, as opposed to the larger combined side yard setbacks. C. Building Separation - Staff developed this new category for the Basic Development Standards table specifically for the Etiwanda South Overlay District. This standard was created as a result of the potential concerns associated with the possible allowance of smaller lot sizes within the overlay district and how to maintain the more open feeling associated with the Etiwanda area. Originally, staff was recommending a minimum 15-foot building separation in all situations. However, at the Planning Commission meeting it was recommended that in situations where two story homes are plotted adjacent to each other, that the minimum separation between these two story homes be increased to a minimum of 20 feet. D. Encroachment of Exterior Porches - As a means to promote the use of substantial porches on future residences within the Etiwanda South Overlay District and understanding the restrictions of the narrower lots within this area, staff developed a design standard that would allow exterior porches to encroach in the required front, street side, or interior side yard setback as long as in no situation will the porch be closer than 5 feet to a side property line or 10-feet from any front or street side property line. CONCLUSION With the modifications recommended at the Planning Commission meeting, staff feels that the basic goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan can be met with the new Basic Development Standards for the Etiwanda South Overlay District as presented to the City Council. Res ly sub 're Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 12, 1996 Exhibit "B" - Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated June 12, 1996 Ordinance Approving Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: June 12, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: .ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN · AMENDMENT 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED - A request to reduce the minimum and minimum average lot sizes under the Basic Development Standards for the Low- Medium and Medium Residential Districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Related File: Tentative Tract 15711. ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is for the Planning Commission to review and consider action on various development standard changes that are being proposed by Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd., an applicant of a proposed subdivision map within the south Etiwanda area. The proposed modifications would affect the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, for parcels south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. The applicant desires to develop within the Etiwanda Specific Plan density range prescribed for the Low-Medium and Medium Development Districts while essentially using the lot size and development standards of the citywide Development Code. PROPOSED CHANGES: The following modifications are requested by the applicant within the Low- Medium and Medium Residential districts under Basic Development Standards for the affected properties south of the Interstate 15 Freeway: 1. Reduce minimum lot sizes. 2. Increase maximum lot coverage from 40 to 50 percent. 3. Modify setbacks for the front, side, corner side, and rear yards to be consistent with the Basic Development Standards of the Development Code. 4. Delete certain architectural guidelines. In addition, staff recommends the following change be considered in conjunction with the applicant's request: 5. Modify minimum lot width and depth. BACKGROUND: On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission accepted the proponent's request to initiate the proposed text changes to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, with the understanding that staff would analyze all of the Etiwanda Specific Plan Development Standards and recommend other modifications for the Planning Commission to consider concurrently with this application. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ESPA 96-01- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. June 12.1996 Page 2 To assist the Planning Commission in reviewing this application, the attached Basic DevelOpment Standards Table from the Etiwanda Specific Plan includes both the proposed changes of the applicant and any additional staff recommended changes, see Exhibit "C." The additional changes proposed by staff were based on staff's analysis of the existing standards within the Development Code and Etiwanda Specific Plan, the site specific issues associated with the portion of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway and reviewing them in accordance with the past practices and policies of the Planning Commission. Generally, the proposed changes would allow for development to occur within the proposed "overlay" area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway, east of Etiwanda Avenue for parcels zoned Low-Medium and Medium Residential to that currently allowed for parcels in these development districts that are governed by the Development Code. Staff believes that the unique character of the Etiwanda area could be maintained by administering the architectural and added building separation requirements recommended by staff as explained below. ANALYSIS: This section of the report focuses on describing, discussing, and analyzing the various changes proposed to the development standards and design guidelines relating to the Low-Medium and Medium Residential districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, specifically for those parcels south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. The report has been formatted to list the existing code, the proposed change to that code, followed by an analysis and/or justification of the changes. Again, the intent of the proposed changes is to create an "overlay area" for which the proposed modified development standards would only apply; those parcels zoned Low-Medium and Medium Residential south of the Interstate 15 Freeway within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area. Other parcels with the same zoning north of the Interstate 15 Freeway within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area would not be subject to the proposed modifications and the current standards for these areas would still apply: 1. Reduce minimum lot sizes: EXISTING PROPOSED Minimum Average Lot Size 10,000 square feet 6,000 square feet Minimum Lot Size 7,200 square feet 5,000 square feet The purpose of the large 10,000 square foot minimum average lot size and 7,200 square foot minimum lot size is to create a more open and rural appearance than in other parts of the City. Etiwanda's rural image is characterized by large open spaces, with large windrows of Eucalyptus trees. The existing development standards. such as the large minimum average lot sizes, are more generous than generally found elsewhere in the City and were adopted as a means of helping to preserve that character. The applicant contends that the area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway exhibits its own unique characteristics and is physically separated from traditional Etiwanda by the barrier of the raised freeway. The applicant is not proposing to completely stray from the general purpose and intent of the Specific Plan; certain elements, such as architectural design treatments, are proposed to remain intact. However, being that this portion of the Specific Plan area is separated, the applicant is proposing that this "subarea" have smaller lot sizes typical of areas 'I"~'f ~'f''~''"''' IR*' ' l"ffl~'~qlllllff"T'""Tf'~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ESPA 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. June 12, 1996 Page 3 of the City governed by the Development Code. Staff agrees that this area exhibits its own characteristics given the physical separation created by the raised freeway and proximity to the burgeoning commercial areas along Foothill Boulevard, but the area still does exhibit many characteristics typical of Etiwanda (large open spaces, Eucalyptus windrows, rock curbing along Etiwanda Avenue, etc.). If these characteristics of Etiwanda can still be maintained, and the existing architectural standards followed, then staff could support the proposed reduction in the lot sizes for the "subarea." These will be discussed later in this analysis. 2. Increase maximum lot coverage from 40 to 50 percent: EXISTING PROPOSED Maximum Lot Coverage 40 percent of lot area 50 percent of lot area The applicant requests increasing the allowable building coverage on lots within the "subarea." This matches the standard used in the Development Code for the Low-Medium Residential Districts which applies citywide. Staff supports this change when combined with the other changes discussed in this report. 3. Modify setbacks for the front, side, corner side, and rear yards to be consistent with the Basic Development Standards of the Development Code: EXISTING PROPOSED Front Yard 25 feet 20 feet average; vary +/- 5 ft. Corner Side Yard 25 feet 15 feet* Interior Side Yard 0 ft./15 ft. 0 ft./20 ft. Total 15 feet Total 20 feet* (in no case shall a side yard separation of 15 feet be allowed) Rear Yard 20 feet 15 feet If the Planning Commission can support the applicant's request for the proposed smaller lot sizes, then the referenced lot dimension modifications should also be considered to be consistent with the current standards within the Development Code. Those proposed standards with an asterisk (*) are analyzed separately below because they are recommended by staff as a means to help maintain the openness and more rural feeling originally envisioned for the Etiwanda area. Corner Side Yard: The Etiwanda Specific Plan currently requires a 25-foot setback from the property line for residences in the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts. The Development Code requires a 10-foot setback from the property line in the same situation. Given the potentially narrower lot width considered under this application, a 25-foot corner side yard setback would restrict the width of homes on an average 50-foot wide lot to 20 feet (given also a 5-foot setback on the interior side yard). Staff is recommending a 15-foot corner I'T ' 'r"T !r ' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ESPA 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. June 12, 1996 Page 4 side yard setback within the "subarea" in order to allow creative and varied house designs on the lots of narrower width while still meeting the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan in providing a more open streetscape view. The 15- foot corner side yard setback is typical of large areas of Rancho Cucamonga that are in the Low Residential Districts of the Alta Loma area. Interior Side Yard~ The Etiwanda Specific Plan currently requires a combined 15- foot interior side yard setback, in any combination, within the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts. The Development Code requires minimum setbacks of 5 feet on one interior side yard and 10 feet on the other. Staff feels that one of the key issues in considering the proposed reduction of the lot area and dimensions is how to maintain the more open feeling and unique character of the Etiwanda area. Staff recommends that the combined interior side yard setback be increased to a total of 20 feet with a provision that in no case should houses be plotted closer than 15 feet apart. Staff feels that this is acceptable to compensate for the smaller lot sizes and not take away from the concept of a more open streetscape appearance. Even on an average 50-foot wide lot, the increased side yard setbacks would allow for a house of sufficient width (30 feet) consistent with the goals and objectives of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 4. Delete architectural guidelines for "At least 50 percent of dwellings shall not be plotted parallel to the street frontage" and "property lines should be staggered as much as possible to create variety." The Etiwanda Specific Plan requires these provisions as a means to give a more varied streetscape, particularly for those portions of the Specific Plan area where it was anticipated that large homes would be built on large lots. These provisions becomes less achievable as lots become smaller and narrower. In order for the streetscape scenes created within the "subarea" to be of a level of interest unique to the Etiwanda area, as originally envisioned when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted, staff is recommending that all existing design guidelines be maintained as well as the provisions for greater side yard setbacks and building separations. With these provisions as mitigations, staff feels that the requirements for 50 percent of the units to be plotted non-parallel to the street does not have to apply to the "subarea." 5. Modify minimum lot width and depth: EXISTING PROPOSED Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 90 feet Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 50 feet average; vary +/- 5ft. Minimum Frontage 40 feet @ front property 30 feet @ front property Width line line This portion of the application is a staff initiated request to simply match the lot dimension standards for the new "subarea" with those of the Development Code. Applying the existing lot dimension standards to the reduced lot sizes would not 'l'rT "'f"'"' ..... !i ..... II'IIF,"f!!!"T"T'~'I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ESPA 96-01- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. June 12, 1996 Page 5 work because the current minimum lot size requirements would only allow for a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet (60 x 100 feet) whereas a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size is requested. Therefore, staff feels that the modified lot dimension standards would be appropriate if the Commission concurs with staff in recommending adoption of the reduced lot size standards. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed amendment consists of changing development standards and design guidelines which would not create a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all ~roperty owners in the affected area and within a 1,000 foot radius of the area. In addition, a Community meeting was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and held on April 23, 1996, to allow residents of the area an opportunity to voice any concerns relative to the amendment prior to the formal public hearing. No major concerns relative to the proposed amendment were raised by any of the attendees at the community meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and recommend that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration. Respectfull mitted, City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A"- Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Applicant's Justification Letter Exhibit "C"- Proposed Revised Figure-5-2 (Basic Development Standards Table) from the Etiwanda Specific Plan Exhibit "D"- Proposed Revised Page 5-42 from the Etiwanda Specific Plan Exhibit "E" - Initial Study Exhibit "F" - Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes dated March 27, 1996 Resolution of Approval ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN VL,,,/ - OS ~/"' L": 1! ' ..--,,-, ~ - / .. __ I: -- --, · '1 O ""~ Ij~r"'--~~%~,/ °" ~ · t [ m. E'Th~'m ~,v~:he..~ OYsw~'r Dern. ec'T / c7,! = 1-:2 2--4 IXI"J/AC 8.-14 · -, F,-LH Sd-~ode P/'~ ..-' - ~ · ' OFF1CIAL . , 5-1 ;' LAND USE MAP Pop sJd__, r 0 Sub-Area _ FT., / PETER J. PITASSI, AIA A 12 C H I T ' PROPOSED AMENI~ ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN JANUARY 16, 1996 background The Etiwanda Specific Plan was approved in 1983, and includes. the northeastern corner of Rancho Cucamonga, north of Arrow Hwy., and generally east of Etiwanda Avenue. The Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan bisects 'the southern end of the Plan area'and includes land approximately 500 feet north and south of Foothill Blvd.. The Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan includes its own land use designations and development standards. - The Etiwanda area has seen relatively little development over~ the past 13 years for a number of reasons. Major infrastructure improvements are yet to be developed including master plan drainage facilities which have not been constructed on a local or regional level. Without the possibility of realistically developing this area, the major flood control improvements for the east side of the city may never be realized. The City's position has been that private development efforts should solve the problems by constructing major master plan flood control facilities, storm drains, and retention basins, in addition to paying regional drainage fees intended to provide improvements to both San Sevine and Day Creek Flood Control Channels. These are major costs which have contributed to preventing private development from being economically viable. This dilemma has resulted in a severe devaluation of developable properties in Etiwanda. When the Etiwanda Specific Plan was created, its intent was, as indicated in Section 2.6 of the Plan, to preserve the areas unique qualities and retain its character and identity. Proposed Amendment Etiwanda Specific Plan january 16, 1996 Page 2 Those o'f us who have been in our community for a while, realize that the Etiwanda described in the Plan as worthy of protection, preservation, and emulation, is generally north of Base Line Road, and along Etiwanda Avenue. The beautiful turn of the century homes, rural roads, windrows, and rustic atmosphere reminds us of a time past. This rustic environment is bisected by the Interstate 15 Freeway cutting a 45 degree Path through the north/south street grid established by the Chaffey brothers over 100 years ago. This interstate highway is 20-25 feet above grade and creates a physical boundary effectively establishing the southern edge of the "Etiwanda" we all think of. Area Description Our proposed amendment is intended to address both the undeveloped properties south of the Interstate 15 Freeway, west of East Avenue, and north of the Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan and the parcels north of Arrow Hwy. , west of .the extension of Hickory Avenue, east of the Utility Easement,z and south of the Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan. This proposal should exclude the existing single family homes southeast of Foothill Blvd. and Etiwanda Avenue, and the existing multi- family development on the northeast corner of Arrow Hwy. and Etiwanda Avenue. These two areas north and south of Foothill Blvd. constitute the southern end of the Etiwanda Specific Plan' s jurisdiction . Parcels are c'esignated either "LM", 4-8 dwelling units per acre, or ~H", 8-14 dwelling units per acre, per the Official Land Use Map, Figure 5-1, of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. (See attached Exhibit No. 1. ) This land use seems consistent with the "Relative Land Use Intensities" indicated in Figure 4-2 of the Plan. When we examine the area described above, and review the neighboring land uses and potential uses, we see the following: The Interstate 15 Freeway is a physical boundary along the northwest edge. PrODOSed Amendmen~ Etiwanda Specific Plan january !6, 1996 Page 3 The City of Fontana's "Village of Heritage" on the east side of East Avenue includes land uses along East Avenue, such as Office/Industrial, Public/Quasi Public, and "L~2" or residentially designated property of 6 d.u./acre, and minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lots. (See attached Exhibit No. 2.) The Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan includes a recently opened "power center" or sub-regional retail center on the southeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and the Interstate 15 Freeway. The Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan indicates retail, commercial, and office uses on both the north and south sides of Foothill Blvd. from the Interstate 15 Freeway to East Avenue. The industrial Area Specific Plan governs the property south of Arrow Hwy. and west of Etiwanda Avenue, south of the Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan. These land uses and boundaries seem to support "LM" and."M" Land Use Designations until the development standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan are examined. If an applicant were to propose a multi-family project in the upper half of a parcel's respective density range, i.e. 6-8 d.u./acre in "LM" or 11-14 d.u./acre in "M", he would be required to comply with the Optional Development Standards, Figure 5-3 of the Plan. With some creative planning and design, a proposal could be prepared which would comply with the optional standards and propose multi-family product in the upper ends of each respective Land Use Designation. All are within the allowable densities and development standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. On the other hand, proposals for single family detached projects are penalized by the Basic Development Standards, Figure 5-2 (see attached Exhibit No. 3) for each designation. These standards require a 7,200 sq. ft. minimum lot size and a minimum average lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.. This results in an effective density of 2.5-3 d.u./acre for traditional single family detached development. This density is not even within the low end of each Land Use Designation. Proposed ~mendment · Etiwanda Specific Plan January 16, 1996 Page Proposed Amendment It is clear that' the Etiwanda Specific Plan was created to preserve the unique aspects of the Etiwanda area through the establishment of restrictive development standards. The Basic Development Standards, referred to above, are generally intended for traditional single family detached development and include average lot sizes of 10,000-40,000 sq. ft. .. depending on the land use designation. It could be argued that the Basic Development Standards have also contributed to the lack of development in Etiwanda effectively decreasing density to levels well below what they appear to be. For example, an "L~" designation of 4-8 d. u./acre will effectively yield 2 . 5 to 3 d.u./acre in a traditional single family detached product, if designed to meet the standards of the Plan. We are propos'ing that the Basic Development Standards for the "LM" and "M" designations be revised for the area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway to more realistically address-the physical factors present in this a'rea of the city. A~ revision of these standards would allow the possibility of reaching the mid to low levels of these density ranges with traditional single family development. Our proposal is not intended to alter the Basic Standards for the "Etiwanda" with which we all associate. In other words, the area north of the Interstate 15 Freeway which is the vast majority of the Plan. As described previously, the area in question has distinct boundaries which should be taken into consideration. Reasonable planning addresses land use and development standards based upon neighboring land use, physical boundaries, such as circulation elements, and transition of land use from higher intensity to lower intensities. Our proposal does not suggest removing this area from the Etiwanda Specific Plan, but rather revising the Basic Development Standards through creation of a "sub-area". (See attached Exhibit No. 1. ) The Basic Development Standards for this sub-area under land use designations "LM" and "M" would become the City's Development Code, Table 17.08.040B. (See attached Exhibit No. 4. ) This would allow an average lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. and a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. with supporting standards. Proposed .~mendment Etiwanda Specific Plan January 16, 1996 Page 5 By seriously considering this proposal, we will more realistically address an area of the city which is, for the most part, currently undeveloped, and could remain so for quite some time. Our proposal provides development standards for single family homes which realistically address the juxtaposition of this property in relation to its immediate neighbors. The 5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. lot sizes are consistent with the "LM" designations of the victoria Planned Community, the Terra Vista Planned Community, the City's Development Code, and the Village of Heritage, east of East Avenue. TheSe lots sizes will generally yield densities in the 4.5- 5.5 d.u./acre range which is a reasonable transition from the surrounding commercial and residential uses to the more restrictive 'standards of the Etiwanda Plan, north of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Simply put, by requiring larger lot sizes, the current standards demand the development of a single family product type inconsistent with the surrounding land uses, the { significant infrastructure improvements necessary for development, and the intense commercial development projected along Foothill Blvd.. We believe that by creating a sub-area of the plan and not removing this area from the Etiwanda Specific Plan altogether, we will more clearly define land uses north and south of the freeway and strengthen the historically significant community it is intended to preserve. We also propose to preserve, within the sub-area, elements of the Plan which are unique to the City, such as the Etiwanda Avenue Overlay District and the Architectural Standards described in Section 5.42 of the Plan. The Architectural and Design Guidelines of the Plan outlined in Article 5.42.600 should be addressed within this sub-area as follows: a. Items . 60!-. 604 should remain un. changed. b. Item . 605 does not apply to this Land Use Designation and should not be included within this sub-area. Proposed ~mendment Etiwanda Specific Plan January 16, 1996 Page 6 c. Item .606 is certainly a challenge considering the desires of the new home market to enjoy the convenience and security of an attached garage. We believe, however, that the intent of this requirement can be achieved by combining side entry, front entry, and corner lot side entry garage locations. Therefore, this item should be retained within the sub-area with the removal of any reference to detached garages. Please review our Exhibits indicating a "Typical Street Plan" and a "Streetscape Elevation" attached to our proposed Specific Plan Amendment Application. These Exhibits render prototype housing units which address Items .602 and .606 of the Standards. d. Items .607 and .608 should remain unchanged. e. Items .609 and .610 are not practical requirements when the Standards of the Development Code are utilized. We contend that the undulation of street design and pattern will achieve the desired results~ of variety and interest in streetscape architecture. Items .609 and .6!0 should not be included within this sub-area. This proposal, if adopted, will not alter densities already established because, as mentioned previously, development of multi-family product could occur within the 4-8 and 8-14 designations at the midrange of these densities with no revision to the Plan. This proposal merely allows a more reasonable approach to single family development in an area physically separated from traditional Etiwanda, surrounded by similar and more intense land uses, and required to provide major infrastructure improvements for the east side of the city. We would appreciate your serious consfderation of t'his proposal and we look forward to working with the Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council in creating a sub-area of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which will allow reasonable yet sensitive growth to occur while respecting the unique architectural and historical essence of Etiwanda. Exhibit No. 1 ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN ..-, l'. .. :. ._" : !l ~-. i~,., ....:..' ': ~:: [ ~ ;: ....................2.2~;"' . .........:' . · .'1 " ' '~ ":' ' n I : ' 1-2 ~ ," / , ., ~-- figure z , O~C~L 5-~ : ~ ~~ U~ MAP . Sub-Area . ..~],~ .,p~. ~,. Village of Heritage Exhibit No. 2 OFC U,t2 ~>~ P/OP P/GP:CV// ,.o ~c Z~,~ P/GP OFC VC " ! ...- :: ,u~ .. : / "~ .~, H LM1 P/OP ".~'~ P L M 1 / LM2 c__ ~,,_~.: LEGEND *'~. "::' LM2 PlOP ~ t,- ,.~m~ 2 ~ ~.c COMMERCIAL LM2 ,~,~c LM 1 ~ ~ ~,c;~ ~,~,~c- ,- ,~/~c OFFICE/I~STITUTIONAL BUSINESS PARK PUBUC/QUASI-PU~LIC .Revised September 16, 1986 Amendment No. ~ ........ ,~ ? .,,.,T,~. ,,~, I"XFilDII~ 1~t0, .,; -'."" . :.....~.;:.,,.,,~.!,...,,...?....L,~ ....., ,~:;.:.,.,.~-:,~.,.:-.,..,! minimum ave:~e 40,000 25,000 15,000 .6MO'~ (in square feet) Coooo minimum 30,000 20,000 10,000 ?-r_~0Cf .3. (in square feet) ,5'00o j'~ Number of DUkz 1/40,000 1/20,000 1/10,000 1/J-r2,01:F 5'0o0 1/5,000 (per lot area in 2 max/lot 2 max/bt 4 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot square feet) Lot Dimensions: minimum depth 1351 135' !00' ,~ minimum width 120' 90' 80' ,,CO'r ,50f (at required J'o I=v5· 3'Ot_,-_y^ , front setback) V~P,/' _4-,5' I V~-~y minimum frontaZe 60' 40' .4,0' ,~0" (at front p,l,) 3 0 ~ 3 0 S, etbadcs: front 40' 30' 25~ 02C~ ,Q v , ~5-/ 5 v,,./ side (streeO 251 25' 15' .2~ -3e" 10' ]0 side 20/20 10/20 0"/20 0'/15 0'/15 Total 20' Tote] 15' Total 15' rear 40' 30' 25" ~ , If 15' Lot Coverage 20% 25'.% 30% ~ (maximum %) : 3'g $/'o 5'0 On-site WLndrows1 100'/ac 50'/ac N/'R N/R N/R (in [in. feet/or) Streetside N/R Required Required Required Required (prior to occupancy)2 Height Limitations 35' 35" 35' 35' 35'" "O [or fine not to be used a~. project boundary 1 Exis~in~ tots of record of 1 acre or less may be exempted ~Trom this requirement. · 2 Custom lot subdivisions me'/be examDied from th;,s requirement. BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2 -~-~,,:l~/,"~t r."',,,.--'/,,r';~_ T'), '* "; ' ""l'f "f'~1' "'"" · . Exhibit No. 4 TABLE 17.08.040 - B BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LOT ARE.A: 22500 80~) 6000 3AC 3AC 3AC MINIMUM NET AVERAGE (L) (L) (L) MINIMUM NET 20c_.4X) 7200 5G00 3AC 3AC 3AC (L) (L) (L) NUMBER O~ DWELLING UNITS (A) , (PERMFFFED PER ACRE') UPTO2 UPTO4 UPTO6 UPTO11 UPTO19 UPTO27 MINIMUM DWFI IIt, K:~ UNFT SEZ~: (0 SINGLE FAMILY A'FFACHED AND 1,00O SC).FT. {H) REGARDLF. S,.~ OF DISTRICT DETACHED DWELLING MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (J) EFFICIENCY/STUDIO 5.50 SO.FT. REGARDLES~ O~ DISTRICT ONE BEDROOm4 650 SO.FT. REGARDLESS O~: DISTRICT TWO BEDRCOM So0 SO.FT. REGARDLESS OF DLSTRICT THREE OR MORE 8EDRC)<:).MS 950 SQ.F"T. REGARDLESS OF b~TRK:;T LOT DIMENS~N3 MINIMUM WIDTH (~) REQUIRED 90 AVG. 65 AVG. 50 AV(3. N/R N/R N/R FRONT Sc."TBACK) VARY ~ 10 VARY ,,J-- 5 VARY ~ 5 MINIMUM CORNER LOT WIDTH 100 70 50 N/R N/R NJR MINIMUM DEPTH '~50 '~oo ~ N/~ NzA Nz.R MINIMUM FRONTAGE 50 40 30 100 100 100 ((~ FRGN'T PROPER]"Y LINE) MiNiMUM rq~AO LOT FRO~TAC.~, 30 20 20 50 50 50 ((:i} FRONT PROPERTY LINE) SETBACKS: (e) FRONT YARD (C,E) 42 AVG. 37 AVG. 32 AVG. 37 AVG. N/R N/R VARY-,4-5 VARY`4-5 VARY`4-5 VARY ,4-5 CORNER ,.~13tE YARD 27 27 22 27 N~R N/R INTERIOR SI~)~ YARD 10'15 5/10 5/10 10 N/R N,rR (D) REAR YARD 30 20 15 10 N/R N,'R ,.. (O) AT INTERIOR S~TE 9QUNOARY 3G'5 2Gr5 15/5 155 1~'5 ( DWELLING UNIT/ACCESSORY (0) (O) BLDG.) Or-'inance No. 465 Page 5 TABLE 17.08.040 - b BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Continued) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING NJR N/R iREOUIRED PER SECT1ON 17.08.0-tO-E SEPARATIONS HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 35 35 35 35 40 55 (F') (F) (F') LOT COVERAGE ( MA.,YJMUM % ) 25% ~ ,50% 50% 50'% 543% OPEN SPACE REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. 2,000 / N/R 1,000 / NZR 33G'1.SZ:) 7'2 r'J154::) 150/100 1507100 (GROUND FLOOR/UPPER STORY UNIT) COMMON OPEN SPACE (A) (MINIMUM %). N/R N/R N/R :30% 30% 30% USABLE OPEN SPACE (A) . (PRIVATE AND COMMON) 65% 60% 40% 35% 35% 3.5% RECREATION AREA/FACILITY N./R r,,L/R N/R REQUIRED PER SECTION 17.0&C-4o-H ;LANDSCAPING (G)' (G) (G) REQUIRED PER SECTION 17,08. C40-G AMENFTIES N/R ~ N/R NJR REQUIRED PER SECTION 17.08.C,40-R SJ. OP~C4i,,,,c, rT'y FAC;OR GONTA,~r~D ~.S~-CT's3M 17. 2-4.0eo - ·. rt L~DF1~t~M~L~`TmJATECU~8FA~EC~PU~JC`~J()P'R:~ATE~T~TA4~-~17`~'M~.DFCRAE[xTEx~L~ C. WRL4.GLE FR<DNT Y.4;{06 ALLMD P~JPcSLL,4Jhl' TO ~ ~7.0(0m3 · FL D. ADOTEN (1O]Frlc'TF~TOVl, LCXctLi, iD~-'TRICT. E. LE..S~ T1-U,H E~ {1 ~ F",r.="'T rRC::)ki 8,ACX OF :~!::}E~WALK RE'CX.q:qE~ A,UTOk4ATI:; ~ DCOR F. L:u~rCe`~1~5--~c~Yw~T~e~(~e~~1~qFE~E-r~FY~1LER:~:1i4L~..T~"LEFA&ii-YDv~rd-L-~G~` H. A £H(~..E ~'AJ,41. y ~AZ:;FED ~ LF.3~T',4A~ ~ ~ rlocal ~ Hc==f 1,4,AY S6E AUTHOqm:n ',¥rrr_N A L 5ENORCrr12Tct'~Pft(3,ECI1~~FtqC~TH46ptECU4q84E. hr'r. J. T~4f-~THATS&4Ax-LF-~t.h~T~N~NCrr~TED~N~kW.YCi~iEAcrr-A~R~T14EFCLLD~Nei3P"E~AC~L~4~TAT[::x~`L1~F aEDIaCOU CR UP TOTHeFrr'YFlV~p~qlM~K::8~CCMe4~j:) .~Ue,.ECTTO A~US~P'ERMrr .'rI-~P%44~eI3COS4Ur:~OHUAy C'4JA3J'rlESA.~OAB~iI:X(~:L~,~4DTy,p~ . C"EVELO4:M:,._D AT THE L.~ F3,1D CF 'T]4E P'r~flt::D ~ P.~ . Article 5.42 · 600 Residential Pro'co I ts or Five D;venin~s or More Deve!ooed Unde: Basic Deve!ooment Standards (Figure .60! The project shah be designed in a manner that is sensitive to, and compatible with, the character of the surrounding area. · 602 While no specific architectural style is recuired; dwelling design shall incorporate at least some ale'merits of traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda, such as the fol.towing: - Traditional materials - Building masses broken into smaller components Vera0das/porchas - Dormers/cupolas - Variety in roof Lines; large roof projections - Garages de-emphasized (Side-on, detached) - Bay windows - Field stone foundations or veneers - Prominent Chimneys .603 Architectural treatment and detailing shall appear on all elevations visible from public areas. · 604 Excessive repetition of single/amilv structures with identical floor plans and elevations shall be discouraged. Foot prints and elevations shall be varied per Figure 5-45. .605 In. the ER & VL Districts, front yard setbacks along public streets shall be staggered up to 10 feet. .606 At least 50% of all garages within single family tracts shall be detached, side-on, or set behind fronr.'oart dwelling. .607 Driveways shall not exceed 16' in width thFough pubLic parkway frontages. .608 Two-story structures should not be planned for corner parcels, unless extra deep setbacks are used. .609 At least 50% of dweLLings shall not be plotted oaraLlel to the street frontage. ' .610 Property lines should be staggered as much as possible to create v~iety. ' lr',ff~'If,!!llrff"T,"-~ ..... ER VL L LM M Lot .~rea: minimum '~vera~e ~0,000 2~,OOO 1~,000 10,000 10,000 (in square, red:} C cooa) C minimum 30.0g0 2g,000 ~0~000 ?,200 (in square ~eet) ' (~ooo) (~ooo3 Number of DU~ 1/40,000 i/'~O O00 1/10,O00 1/7,200 1/5,000 (per lot ~ea in 2 mLx/lot 2 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot square feet) C~ bt Direction: minimum depth ~35' 135' 100' ~00' ~00' minimum width 120' 90~ 80' 60' 60' (at ~equjred C5o / c~. ~ q v . front setback) ~'/~) Vc~ minimum frontaZe 60' 40' 40' 40' 40' ~tbacks: front 40' 30' 25' 25' 25~ side (s~ree~) 25' 25' 15' CP°l v Cr59 side 20/20 ~0/20 '0*/20 O*/Z5 0'/Z5 ' reef 40~ 30' 25~ 20~ 20~ bt ~ver~e 20% 25% 30% ~0% ~ite W~draws~ Z0O'/ae 5O'/ee N/R S/R N/R fin Hn. feet/at) S~ide N/R Reauired Required Reauired Required ~ep~ ' · (prior ~o occupancy)2 He~ht ~mi~tio~ 35' 35' 35' 35' * O loL line no~. Lo be used a~. project. boundary ~. Existing; lo,,s of record of 1 acre or less may be exempted from Lhis requirement. '2 Cus[om !ot subdivisions may be exema~ed ~com th~ r~auiremen~. BASIC , DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. Ar:ic!e 5.42 .500 ResidentEat Projects of Five D;ve~in~s or :qore Develo,Ded Under Basic Deve!ooment Standards (Figure .-.801 The project shah be designed En a manner that is " sensitive to, and compatible '.vEth, the charact. at of the ,' surrounding area. : ,602 While no SPeCifiC 8.rchitect. ural style is renuired~ ', . dweUing design shad incorporate at least some ale'meats :) of traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda, such as the following: ' ,r/ ~.":v?~':' / - Traditional materials "'~/:~ ; ' 'X - Building masses broken into smaMer components ! - Verandas/Dorches : - Dormers/cuoolas / . i - Variety in roof lines; large roof projections - Garages de-emphasized (Side-on~ detached) - Bay windows Field stone foundations or veneers - Prominent Chimneys \, .603 Architectural treatment and detailing shall appear on all elevations visible from public areas. .}504 Excessive repetition of single family structures with identical floor plans and elevations shall be discouraged. Foot prints and clever. ions sha~ be varied per Figure 5-45. .:~ 'Vd7'?.'/:'?'[--21.605 In the ER &'VL Districts, front y~rd setbacks aJong public streets shall be staggered up to 10 feet. . ."; Z... ,:~;:,,.':'~.606 At least 50% of all garages within single family tracts ~-' shall be detached, side-on, or set behind front part of dwe~n:~ · ' '." ' ""/"/' .607 Driveways shall not exceed 16' in width through oub~c · ' parkway frontages. . · _;., :.-,... ".-.608 T:.vo-storv structures should not be planned for corner parcels, unless extra deep setbacks are used. -.-:';::':'C. 7:" /"'.809 At least 50% of dweLtin=s shad not be olotted parallel . . .-.::_. ~. ..// -. the street frontage. ,' "..,. /-' '~-"'.,,____,, ~..,o ~ - ~ ~/"~,.~ · .~' '~'-' .6!0 Prooer~y lines should be s~aggered as much as oossibEe to create re_fiery. z_, 70 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA "E. NVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY - PART II BACKGROUND 2) RelatedFile(s): '?"~',-,~J'~"F, vc. Telephone .k;: (.."'~ 5) Project Accepted as Complete (date):. 2'/T/r-r/ I'2/,/~'?fo ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTR ursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, explanation of the potential impacts identified as "Yes" or "Maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. An explanation shall also'be provided'F'n each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to be significant and is marked "No." . Yes Maybe No I. EARTH. Will the proposal result in.' a) Unstable ear/h conditions or in changes in the geologic structure?[][] b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the soil? O c) Change in 'the topography or ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? [] D e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? [] [] f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?[][] g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Yes Maybe No II. AIR. Will the proposal result in: a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? P..D PJ ,.3" b) The creation of objectionable odors? c) Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? [] O III. WATER. Will the proposal result in.' a) Changes in currents, orthe course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? D [] Ed' b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [] [] d) Changes in lhe amount of surface water in any body? Q [] e) D!scharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited Io, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidtry? f) Alteration of the direction or rate of ground waters? O [] g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavatior~s? [] [] El" h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for pubits-water supplies? D [] i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal pools? [] [] IV. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered : species of plants? El [] c) Introduction of new species of plants inlo an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? [] Q IZf' d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? V. ANIMAL LIFE. Wi~ the proposal result in.' a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds; land animals, including reptiles; fish and shellfish; benthic organisms or insects)? Q [] b) Reduction of lhe number of any unique, rare, or endangered species or animals? Yes Maybe No c) Introduction of new species of animals inlo the area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ,D D .".:Z" d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Q VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Increase in existing noise levels? [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] VII. LIGHT AND GLARE. Will the proposal.' a) Produce new light and glare? Q VIII. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in.' a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? IX. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in: .... a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? [] [] X. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve.' a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited Io: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? [] [] ,:29/ b) ' Possible"Tnterference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? [] XI. POPULATION. Wi~ the proposal: a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate oi' the human population of an area? [] [] XII. HOUSING. Will the proposal.' : a) Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? [] [] XIII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in.' a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movemenI? [] [] F_./ b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Q [] c) Substantial impact upon existing transpodation systems? El d) Alterations to the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? [] [] e) Alterations to waterborne. rail or air traffic? [] [] f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or oedestrians? Yes Maybe No XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, orresu~in a need for new or altered government services in any of the fo~owing areas: a) Fire protection? [] [] b) Police protection? c) Schools? · d) Parks and o'lher recreational facilities? ~' [] E3 e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [] Q f) Other governmental services? [] [] XV. ENERGY. Will the proposal resu~ in: a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? El Q b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? El [] XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] [] 1:9" b) Communications systems? [] [] c) . Water? ..-= [] [] d) Sewer or septic tanks? [] [] iZ],,/ e) Storm water drainage? [] [] F__.H/- f) Solid waste disposal? [] [] XVII. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in: a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (exclud- ing mental health)? [] [] EH/, b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? [] [] XVIII. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in: a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? [] [] F__b/' b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? [] [] -L_Z/ XIX. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in: a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? [] F__d,/ [] b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impacl area? [] [] Yes Maybe No "X. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal.' a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site? E3 D ~ b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? EEl El IZZ" c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Q Q [~ XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant.or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the-range of a rare or endangered plant-or. animal or eliminate impodant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Q Q b) Short-term: Does the Project have the potential to achieve shod_ term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A - ..,' shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definite period of time. Long-term impads will endure .w,e. fi into the future.) [] [] c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively 6onsiderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the tolal of those impacts on the environment is significant.) [] 8/. [] d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. (Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacls..) .... 'l'f "'I'T ......W , ~e"'~"f~eeme,f'-r-~I'l .l '., XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS. (Attach additional sheets examining whether the project would be consistent with existing zoning plans, and other applicable land use controls.) XXIV. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal s!andards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on th8 eaErli'er analysis. "' .... c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "less than Significant with Mitigation Incorpo- rated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which lhey address site-specific conditions for the project. XXV. DETERMINATION. ('To be completed by Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepa/'ed .............................. ~ b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ~nvironmenl, there will not be a significant effect in this case because miti~,~tion rfie~zs~fres described on O an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. c) I find the proposed project rrmy have a significant effect on the environment, and An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... ~I Date Preparer's SignatUre 11. APPLICANT CERTIFICATION (To be com,.alated by ap,91icant ) "' I certify ~hat I am the applicant Zor ~he project described in this Initial Study. I acknowiedce tha~ I have read this Initial Study and proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the pr~ect plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the effects or mitigate Date Signature , Prin~ Name and Title / .... 7 '7'7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Initial Stud), - Part II Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Project Description: ESPA 96-01 - Diversified Pacific Homes .Proposed request to amend certain development standards in the Low Medium And Medium Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. for all applicable parcels south 0fthe InterState 15 Freeway I I. Earth: a) The area where the amendment is proposed is not within any known unstable earth condition area. b) The propo~ied amendment does not involve the modification to soil conditions for development of vacant land; this will be analyzed on a project specific basis. Therefore, the impact is not significant. c) The amendment does not involve constrcution of specific sites. The impacts of topographical changes will be analyzed on a project specific basis. Therefore, the impact. is not significant. d) No k.nown or unique geologic or physical features exist on the properties considered under the proposed amendment. e) With the proposed amendment, sites in the area have the potential ofbeing developed with smaller lots and potentially more streets than would have other.vise been anticipated without the amendment. -However, the density and overall development patterns anticipated with the changes to the development standards would be no different than if a porject was proposed in the area using the existing optional development standards. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not effect the potential for an increase for increased erosion or runoff. f') The area covered by the proposed amendment should not affect any oceans, bays, rivers, or lakes downstream. g) The majority of California is susceptible to earthquakes. The amendmet area is not within any 'known special study zone that will require additional studies or that poses a unique hazard. Even though development standard changes to allow for smaller lots is proposed, the density by which the properties can be developed is not proposed to change, thereby not exposing any more people to geologic hazards than already planned. II. Air: a) Although the number of vehicles that will eventually be a part of the area proposed for the amendment may be higher than originally anticipated because of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, it would not be any more than if development occured under optional development standards already approved as part of the Etiv.'anda Specific Plan. Again densities allowed within the area are not peoposed to change as part of the proposed amendment. Also, it is consistent with the information Initial Study Pan 2 Response ESPA 96-01 Page 2 contained in the General Plan EIR. The resultant air emissions will not have a significant impact on air quality. b) No add.itional objectionable odors are anticipated in conjunction with the proposed specific plan amendment. c) The proposed amendment will not result in alteration to the regional climate or air movement. III. Water: a) The proposed amendment will not affect the currents or course of water movement. These potiential effects will be analyzed on a project specific basis. b) The absorption rate, drainage panems and surface runoffwill not be altered because development is not proposed at this time as pan of the proposed Etiwanda Spaci~c Plan Amendment. Therefore, the impact is not significant. c) The amendment, since it does not involve specific project development at this time, will not alter the course or flow of flood waters. This will be analyzed on a project by project basis as development is proposed. d) The proposed amendment will not affect the mount of surface water in any body. e) The amendment does not involve development or discharging into any surface waters. f) Due to the deep water table in this area, no alteration ofgroundwater is expected to occur with this amendment. g) No development is proposed with the amendment, therefore, direct additions or withdrawals of ground water are not proposed. h) The project area has already been des. igned and/or constructed as to the appropriate water supplies necessary as the area develops. Since the overall density is sill in line with what was originally planned for the area, significant changes area not needed or anticipated. i) The project area is predominately outside of the established flood plain. Since no development is proposed as a part of this application, the flooding issues will be analyzed on a project specific basis. IV. Plant Life: a) The diversity of plant life will be altered with the removal of existing eucalyptus windrows and the introduction of new plant species. The Etiwanda Specific Plan acknowledges their potential removal. This amendment will not alter the number of trees to be removed under current regulations. These issues will be analyzed further on a project specific basis as development is proposed. b) There are known rare, unique, or endangered species within the amendment area. c) Landscaping introduced to the area will be compatible with existing landscaping material for development in the immediate area and appropriate for the climactic conditions of the area. The plant palette will continue the pattern of existing development in the area. '~ d) No agricultural crops are currently being managed in the project area. '~1' I ~"~""~' "'~" ~[' ' ~"~' '~ ' Initial Study Part 2 Response ESPA 96-01 Page 3 V. Animal Life: a) There are no knov,'n animals that currently occupy the amendment area on a regular basis. b) There are no known rare, unique, or endangered species in this area. c) No new species will be introduced as a result of the amendment. d) In that no animals currently use the area on a regular basis, the development of homes in the future will have no impact on fish or wildlife habitat. VI. Noise: a) Again, no residences are proposed with this amendment application. The property is currently vacant and will remain as such as a result of this application. However, with the proposed amendment, the future development of an increased number of homes within the area subject to noise impacts will increase the noise level by the mere fact that the properly is currently vacant. The level of noise increase, however, , is not significant. b) The noise levels for a portion of this project area closest to the Interstate 15 Freeway could be severe given the close proximity of the Interstate 15 Freeway. However, given that this amendment does not affect the proposed density in the area, the potential effects of noise to a specific project will be assessed on a project specific basis for those projects which area within the area of concern. Therefore, no significant noise impacts should occur as a result of this amendment request. VII. Light and Glare: a) No new light and glare will be created because the properties are currently vacant and will remain as such with this application. VIII. Land Use: a) This application, an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, is proposed to reduce the minimum and minimum average lot size for the area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway for all properties zoned Low-Medium and Medium Residential. Despite the smaller proposed lot sizes, the density of the proposed porject is still well within the perscribed range of 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre that is allowed for the LM zoning within the Etiwanda Specific Plan. The proposal is therefore still consistent with Etiwanda Specific Plan and related EIR. Therefore, no significant land use impacts associated with the Specific Plan Amendment are anticipated. IX. .Natural Resources: a) The possible increase in the number of homes with this amendment proposed will not' significantly increase the rate of natural resource consumption. X. a) Single family residences, which is the type of development anticipated for the area affected by the proposed amendment, do not typically contain materials of the type of quantities that could lead to an explosion or the release of hazardous materials. Initial Study Part 2 Response ESPA 96-01 Page 4 b) The proposed amendment ,.viII not interfere with emergency response or create additional concerns related to emer,,ency response in the area. XI. Population: a) The amendment, given that area density and type of development is not anticipated to change with the application, is consistent with the expected population distribution in the area and as anticipated in the Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR. XII. Housing: a) The residential project area affected by the proposed amendment will not create the need for additional housing. XIII. Transportation: a) The proposed amendment, since the density still falls within the prescribed range already allowed by the Eti`,vanda Specific Plan, will not generate any more trips than ,,,,'as originally anticipated. The number of trips is consistent with the Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR. The impact will not be significant. b) All required parking will be required on-site for future projects in the amendment area. c) While the amendment proposal will not directly cause automoble trips to occur, projects within the amendment area will have a negative cumulative impact on the existing transportation network as they are developed. Since the amendment is not increasing density, however, the impacts should not be any more significant than if the amendment were not proposed. Project will be evaluated on a project specific basis to determine what mitigati6ns are necessary as the area affected by the amendment develops. d) The project will maintain and will not affect the existing circulation panems for the movement of goods. e) The project will not affect air, water, or rail traffic. f) The application is not expected to increase the risk of traffic hazards because no new construction is proposed at this time. Therefore, the impact is not significant. XIV. Public Services: a) The Fire Department is currently sen, lug the general area, but since the application ,.','ill not directly increase the number of homes to the area, a potential strain on existing services should not occur. Emergency response times should not be effected making the overall impact insignificant. b) No substantial new police services are expected with the amendment. c) The school districts having jurisdiction have notified the City of the current impaction problems. School fees for the construction or upgrading of school facilities will be collected as a mitigation at the time of building permit issuance as each project with the affected area develops. d) Within the amendment area, a future neighborhood park is planned. However, this requirement is not a direct result of the Amendment. The application ,.,.'ill not "'1' T "'T''~' "'~" lilt ' II'TI~~I'~ Initial Study Part 2 Response ESPA 96-01 Page 5 increase the need for additional park ~cilities since the density ,,',.-ill still be within the prescribed range already allowed v,'ithin the Etiwanda Specific Plan. e) The Amendment area ,.viII require hey,' roads as part of the development. However, as each project is proposed, they `'viII be evaluated specifically as to their impacts and mitigations applied as deemed necessary,. The impact at this time is not significant. f) No other government services are expected to be affected by this proposal. XV. .EnerDZ a) Additional amounts of fuel or energy are not expected to be used as a result ofthe proposed amendment. b) Since the amendment does not increase the potential density beyond what is already allo`'ved for the affected area, it is not expected to result in substantial increase on the demand of existing energy sources or the need for new energy sources. XVI. _Utilities and Service Systems: a) The amendment will not result in the need for po`'ver or natural gas systems. b) The amendment will not result in the need for new communication systems. c) The amendment ,.,.'ill not require the use of any water systems at this time. d) The discharge from the area `'viII be handled as needed in the future by the existing and/or master plan. ned sewer facilities. e) Existing or planned storm drain pipes '.,.'ill be provided as individual projects are processed within the area for w'hich the amendment covers. f) No significant solid waste disposal will be necessary as a result of the proposed amendment. Induvidual projects will be analyzed for their impacts individually, but typically residential projects such a~ those anticipated for the area will not result in a significant amount of new services needed for solid '.vaste disposal. XVII. Human Health: a) The amendment is not expected to create any health hazard. b) No exposure of people to potential health hazards is expected as a result of the amendment. XVIII. Aesthetics: a) The amendment, since it does not involve any construction at this time, will not obstruct any vie,,,,' or vista currently available to the public. b) The amendment does not involve any construction at this time. As each individual project is proposed, they `",'ill be required to conform to the strict design guidelines of the City thereby eliminating any offensive site visible to the public. XIX. Recreation: a) A 5 acre neighborhood park in conformance with the City's General Plan will be required in conjunction with the residential subdivision that is being processed concurrently with this amendment. Initial Study Part 2 Response ESPA 96-01 Page 6 b) No 'knov,'n religious or sacred uses are presently conducted in the area for which the amendment is proposed. XX. Cultural ReSources: a) No 'known prehistoric or historic archaeological site exists within the boundaries of the amendment area. b) No 'known prehistoric or historic buildings exist within the area covered by the proposed amendment c) The amendment should not impact any unique ethnic cultural values. X. XI. Mandaton, Findings of Significance. a) No known animal or wildlife species are expected to be substantially adversely impacted by the proposed amendment. b) There are no 'known long-term environmental impacts that are expected to occur as a result of the proposed amendment. c) The amendment is within the larger Etiwanda Specific Plan area for which an Environmental Impact was prepared and certified. The application most likely will contribute to the cumulative impacts within the Etiwanda area and the City. Therefore, the application will be required to comply with the mitigation measures outlined in .the Etiwanda Specific Plan EIR to mitigate any potential cumalitive impacts to a level of insignificance. d) It is not anticipated that the amendment will have any adverse impacts on human beings. EARLIER ANALYSES The application is part of the Etiwnada Specific Plan for which an EIR was prepared and certified by the City. This document is available at the Planning Division, City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive. ' The Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan was also referenced in evaluating the potential impacts of the application. This document is available for rev'iew at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive. Specific studies evaluating potenital impacts created by this project (i.e. Arborists report, Drainage Study, Traffic Impact Analysis) are also available for review at the Planning Division, City Hall, 10500 Civic Center Drive.' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: March 27.1996 . TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ..DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request to initiate text changes to the Etiwanda Specific Plan development standards for the area south of the 1-15 Freeway. Related Files: Preliminary Review 95-10 and Tentative Tract 15711. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Diversified Pacific Homes, LId., is requesting modifications to the Basic'Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Specifically, the applicant is asking to modify the Basic Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts to be similar to those under the Basic Development Standards of the Development Code for the area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Examples of the proposed modifications include but are not limited to, the minimum and minimum average lot size and setbacks. The proposed modifications are shown on the Basic Development Standards Table from the Etiwanda Specific Plan (included with Exhibit "'A"). The proposed' modifications require an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and text changes such as the one proposed can only be initiated by the Planning Commission or City Council. The Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment application will be considered by the Planning Commission at a future meeting. .ANALYSIS: At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff will analyze and recommend possible modifications to the Basic Development Standards Table within the Etiwanda Specific Plan as part of the request for modifications to the development standards within the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts. To determine the most appropriate basic development standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts for the area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway, staff will review existing basic development standards within the Development Code and the existing standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, while considering the uniqueness of the area in Etiwanda south of the Interstate 15 Freeway where the amendment is proposed. A comparative analysis will be forwarded to the Commission under separate cover to be considered prior to, or concurrently with, any related Tentative Tract Map. Currently, the Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that individual lots within the Low Medium and Medium Residential districts be a minimum size of 7,200 square feet with a minimum average size of 10,000 square feet under the Basic Development Standards. The applicant is proposing to modify the Basic Standa/'ds for the Low Medium and Medium Residential districts in the Etiwanda Specific Plan to be consistent with the current Low Medium Residential Basic Development Standards in the Development Code (5,000 square foot minimum, 6,000 square foot minimum average) and to create an overlay "sub-area" for the properties south of the freeway zoned "LM" o .... 1'? "'f'~'?' "'~" ' Ill' ' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES March 27, 1996 Page 2 and "M." In conjunction with this request, the applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract MaD for a 331 lot subdivision on approximately 80 acres of the property under consideration for these amendments. If the application for amendment includes al_l differences between the Basic Development Standards in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Development Code. then other resulting changes would be smaller minimum lot widths and depths; lesser minimum front. corner side and rear yard building setbacks; and a greater allowable lot coverage. Staff will analyze these modifications in greater detail and provide another report to the Commission in the future. The only other standard that the applicant is asking to delete from the requirements for the "LM" and °'M" properties south of the freeway is the standard stating thai "at 'least 50 percent of dwellings shall be plotted parallel to the street frontage." With the proposed smaller lot sizes. the applicant feels that this requirement is not feasible and is not required in areas governed by the Development Code. Attached to this repod is the applicant's justification letter, which goes into detail about the proposed request for amendment and includes a Map of Land Uses and the Basic Development Standards Tables from the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Development Code (see Exhibit "A"). COMMUNITY MEETING: A. community meeting was originally scheduled for March 18. 1996. with all property owners in the Etiwanda area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway and within a 1,000 foot radius of the affected area invited. At the request of the applicant, this meeting has been tentatively rescheduled for April 23, 1996. The applicant requested the later date in order to respond to staffs February 28 incompleteness letter on this project and the related Tentative Tract Map. ACTION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission accept, through minute action. the proponent's request to initiate the text change through the submittal of an application for an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment for a modification to the Basic Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Development Districts. Any change in the Development Standards will be considered upon receipt of an application and fees for an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment which will come before the Commission at a future date. ~..~Respectfully su?mitted City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A"' Justification Letter including Map of Land Uses and Basic Development Standards Tables from the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Develoomenl Code '~1' I ""f''~' '"~" IlIIF"' ' ~l"1'TIT"fftlllll~'r'1""'""'"~1 .... PETER ,I. PITASSI, AIA A R C H I T E C T RECEIVED February 20, 1996 FEB 2 2 1996 Mr. Brad lBulJer Oily of Rancho Cucamonga City Planner Planning Division City ofKancho Cucamonga ]0500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Subject: Diversified Pacific Homes' Property APN: ] 100-041-09; 1100-081-02; 1100-141-01, 02; 1100-171-01,13; 1100-181-01, 04; 1100-201-01 Dear Brad: On behalf of Diversified Pacific Homes', owner of the above referenced property in Etiwanda, we are requesting that the Planning Commission initiate an Amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan regarding a revision to-the Development Standards for thd area south of the 15 Freeway. If you have any questions regarding this request or our associated application, please advise. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Peter J. Pitassi, AIA, Architect Peter J. Pitassi, AIA" ' PJ'P:cas cc: Steve Hayes; City ofRancho Cucamonga Andrew Wright; Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd. Dan Guerra; Derbish, Guerra & Associates P,"3o '.','=:rE '? ~. "'; C B 0C b' C /.'7Z'i;7 i'3 // ~ "' : ' "' 7 ,' '\'~ TEL '.~O~! :_'..r ~c, '~ ,.. =:.. . -,Iq. I ' 'FIT "" Ill NEoN ..BUSIN.:'S,g E. DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HO,:4-'S - A requesl [a initiaLe .text changes to the E[iv,'anc~a Saecit~: Plan de`,'etopm~nt standards ~cr ~he area south c~ the I-i 5 Free,..,'a:,'. P,e!a.ted File: P~elimina,",/ Review 95-i0. Rein.ted file: Tentative Tract 1571 i. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, presented the staff Commissioner Tolstoy questioned i~ the applicant ,.,,'as proposing Io change any aspects of the Eliv,,anda Specific Plan other ~han lhe Io{ size. Mr. Hayes responded that the ap~alicant is asking for changes Io be consislenl with the same developmenl districts that are governed by lhe Developmenl Code so lhat would include lot sizes, setbacks, lot coverage, and the elimination ol~ Ihe requirement to have 50 percenl of lhe homes plolled other than parallel to the s~reet frontage. Commissioner Tolsloy asked it' the applicant ,,vanled Io eliminate some o~' the architectural requirements thai apply to homes in the E. tiwanda Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 27. 1995 Mr. Hayes replied that the applicant was not proposing to change those· Chairman Barker invited public comment. Pete Pitassi, Architecl,. 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite 105. Rancho Cucamonga. stated he represenled Diversified Pacific. He requested lha( Ihey be permitted Io process an applica.tion for an amendmenL Commissioners Lumpp. McNiel. and Melcher indicated they had mel `,'.,ith Mr. Pitassi regarding his proposal. Motion: Moved by Lumpp. seconded by Melcher, to accept lhe proponent's request Io initiate a text change lo the Etiwanda Specific Plan upon submission of an application. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 REQUESTING TO ESTABLISH AN ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH MODIFIED BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LOW- MEDIUM AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, LOCATED WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SOUTH OF THE INTERSTATE 15 FREEWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd. has filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01. as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On March 22, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recommended initiation, by minute action, of the application, thereby directing staff to analyze the application and schedule it for formal consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. On June 12, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as. follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set fodh in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 12, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to all parcels within the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway; and b. The properties north of the subject area are within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area and are designated primarily as Low-Medium and Medium Residential, with a small area of land zoned Office Professional; the properties to the west are within the Victoria Community Plan area, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan with a majority of the land zoned for commercial and/or industrial development; the properties to the east are within the City of Fontana and designated primarily for future Office Development; and the properties to the south are within the Industrial Area Specific Plan and zoned for General Industrial development; and c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and .... I'f "f"TT """ ~r ' 'llf'ff~'If"llllllF~'T"'~'f'~ 'T" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 96-01- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. June 12,1996 Page 2 d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a.. That the subject property is suitable for the modifications permitted by the proposed amendment in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared thereof reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01 as shown in the attached Exhibits A, B, and C. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESPA 96-01- DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. June 12,1996 Page 3 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF JUNE 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and :'dopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of June 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ER VL L LM M Lot Area: minimum average 40,000 25,000 15.000 ~ 10r/Z~J0 (in square feet) Glu"CO (.p/ minimum 30,000 20,000 10.000 7,.>Z86" 7.,~ (in square feet) Number of DU's ;:::.1/40,O00:.::' .:~.. 1Q0,O00 2::::;:1Y10 00'0-':...'.;'2. I,?,200 ..'115 O00:-:-:5::::.~:.- (per lot area in square feet) ' 2 maWlot 2 ma~lot 4 maWlot" ' 4 maWlot '4 'ma~o~ Lot Dimensions: minimum depth 135' 135' 100' ~ ~ / ~0 (at required fron~ setback) minimum frontage 60' 40' 40' {a~ front p.I.) Setbacks: front 40' 30' 25' v~ r~ ~C ~" side (s~reet) 25' 25' 15' ~/~ ' ~ ~ / side 20/20 10/20 0'/20 ~',':5 ~'~ ~lag. ~ GI~. ~r~,'o~ Total20' /~ /E ' rear 40' 30' 25' ~/~ / Z/~ ' (maximum %} On-site Windrows~ 100'/ac 50'/ac NIR N/R N/R (in fin. FeeVac) Streetside Landscaping N/R Required Required Required Required (prior to occupancy}~ Height Limitations 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' ' O lot line not to be used 8t project bounda~ : Existing Io~s of record of 1 acre or less may be exempted from this requiremenL 2 Custom lot subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement. BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig 5-2 Article 5.42 .SO0 ~Residentia! Proiects of Five D;veUin.=s or .More Develoaed Under Bas[c Deve!ooment Standards (Figure .S01 The project shell be designed in a manner :.ha: Ls sensitive to, and com.matible wEth, the character of the surrounding area. .S02 SVhile no specific architectural style Ls required, dwelling design shall incorporaLe at ledst some elements of traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda, such as the following: - Traditional materials - Building masses broken into smaller components - Vetantics/porches - Dormers/cupolas - Variety in roof lines; large roof orojec tions - Garages de-emphasized (Side--on~ detached) Bay windows - Field stone foundations or veneers - Prominent Chimneys .603 Architectural treatment and detailing ~hall appear on all elevations visible from public areas. .604 Excessive repetition of single family structures ~vith identical floor plans and elevations sha!] be discour~,~ed. Foot prints and elevations shall be varied per Fi~re S-45. .605 In the ER & VI.; DistricLs, front ye. rd set'backs along public streeLs shall be staggered u.~ to 1O feet. .606 At least 50% of aU garages within single familv tracts shall be detached, side-on, or set. bei~ind front part of dwelling. .607 Driveways shah not exceed 16' in width through public Dar~;vav fron raCes. .608 Two-story structures should not be :planned for corner pareeB, unlass extra dee.a setbac.t<s are used. ~ ~~not be Dlo' .509 At [east 50% of dweLLino-s shall not be olotted oaralle[ the street froatage.~z-* ' ' .o!0 Prooertv lines should De sta~ered as much as DOSS~:)Ie ~r; ....... , 5--'.2 ' 1"~1~"~!111"~*'~/"~'~'~ Exhibit No. ~ ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN VU/' ' · OS " ~ ,' ..~- '. ; .~. ..... -' "~"i .-L ..- .,! " ! ,~ , ,-- I ,~ , _ L ~ ~,,2' : "~:.; j '.'-.7':!:.;:':."~1 -~ c,.r~ ~c ..'-7" '"'--./ ~", · /; ii F ~'' ~.,m,',~c ~ 'fiaure "' " '" OFFICIAL , 5-1 ; LAND USE MAP Sub-Area DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 DIVERSIFIE ._D - A request to reduce the minimum and minimum average lot sizes under the Basic Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area, south of the Interstate 15 Freeway. Related file: Tentative Tract 15711. Steve Hayes Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He commented that the applicant had raised concerns regarding staff recommendations to increase the interior side yard setbacks to 20 feet. He said the applicant felt it will create a lack of flexibility by restricting the width of homes. He repoded that staff met with the applicant today and prepared a revised development table which included revising the proposal from a 50-foot average lot width which may vary + 5 feet to a 50-foot minimum lot width with a minimum of 50 percent of the lots having a minimum lot width of 55 feet. He said in turn, staff was recommending that the interior side yard setback be reduced back down to 15 feet as currently allowed. He thought that modification may help accomplish the goal of maintaining a more open streetscape appearance by requiring wider lots as opposed to more restrictive setbacks. He stated that staff was also suggesting addition of a proposed building separation of a minimum of 20 feet where two-story homes are plotted adjacent to each other. Mr. Hayes stated that at today's meeting with the applicant, staff had discussed ways to encourage the development of significant front and side yard porches and it was suggested that a provision be added to allow porches to encroach into front or side yard setbacks so long as a minimum 5-foot setback is maintained along the interior property lines. Commissioner McNiel asked if the applicant concurred with the changes staff was suggesting. Mr. Hayes responded affirmatively. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the 20-foot separation requirement between two-story buildings would apply if a garage is adjacent to a garage. Mr. Hayes replied that staff recommends a minimum of 15 feet between a one-story adjacent to another one-story or to a two-story and the separation be increased to 20 feet between a two-story adjacent to a two-story building. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that 15 feet would be consistent with the rest of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Lumpp requested a further explanation on the proposed porch encroachment provision. Mr. Bullet said there was discussion regarding encouraging porches and it is proposed that porches be allowed to encroach within the required front, street side, or side yard setbacks so long as there is a minimum 5-foot setback on the side yards. He suggested a minimum front setback could also be set. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Pete Pitassi, Peter Pitassi Architects, 8439 White Oak Avenue, Suite 105, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Andrew Wright, President of Diversified Pacific Homes; and Dan Guerra, Civil Engineer; Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 12, 1996 _r"'~,,/} -/ · / ~-~ r') z~ ..... l'f "'I'~'T ....' ~!f ' DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY were also in the audience. He observed that tonight's discussion was regarding planning issues rather than a specific project, but he noted they have submitted a tract map which will be considered by the Planning Commission shortly. He thanked Planning staff for their support and counsel on the process. He said they have been working on it for almost a year and have met with staff, community groups, landowners, and others who have a history of being active in the Etiwanda community. He stated they are aware of the sensitivity of the Etiwanda Specific Plan to the City staff and the residents in the area. He noted that for various reasons there has been little development in the area other than in Very Low residential categories north of Highland Avenue. He felt it is difficult to determine how the development standards will work on smaller lots because of the lack of development in the Medium and Low Medium categories. He observed that the portion of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which-is south of the freeway is separated from the area north of the freeway by a 25-foot raised freeway and commercially oriented Foothill Boulevard. He said the southern area is also bounded by the Heritage project in Fontana, the Victoria Planned Community to the west, and the industrial area 'to the south. He commented that many of the parcels which are currently Low-Medium were Medium prior to an amendment in 1991. Mr. Pitassi thought that under the current plan standards, multi-family housing could be built at an approximate effective yield of up to 10 dwelling units under Medium and 7 under Low-Medium with creative design and land planning. He stated that their proposal will not increase density but will allow single family detached housing to be developed, and the effective densities would be considerably less. He thought single family housing would be more in keeping with the surrounding area. He displayed exhibits of an example of how product could be designed using the development standards they propose along with the architectural standards of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. He agreed that the fundamental standards should not be changed; i.e., Victorian and Craftsman architecture, porches, level of detailing, etc. He reported they hosted a community meeting on April 23, with a mailing to over 600 parcels in a 1,000-foot radius of the entire proposed overlay district. He indicated approximately 25-30 people attending the meeting and they received a lot of support. He presented a copy of a letter of support they had received form Ameron, Inc., which owns 80 acres of residentially zoned property in the area. Regarding staff's initial proposed 20-foot side yard setback, he felt that would restrict the product width to about 30 feet which was not wide enough to develop the porch concept. He commented that product is designed based upon the narrowest lot in order to maximize flexibility for marketing and plotting purposes. He said that with the revised proposal of a minimum 50-foot lot width with 50 percent of the lots to be 55 feet, the house size would be a minimum 35 feet and there will be a 20 to 25 foot separation between houses on the 55-foot wide lots. He supported the proposed 20-foot separation between two-story houses. He said the minimum 15-foot separation does not occur anywhere else in the Development Code, it is currently 5 and 10 and nothing prohibits 5 and 5; therefore, adding the minimum 15-foot separation also makes the area unique. He agreed with staff's recommendation on allowing porches to encroach into the setbacks because it encourages porches and would allow the opportunity to wrap the porch around the elevation and provides an opportunity for the porch to be more prominent. He observed that the standards established for the overlay district would apply to the entire area south of the I-15 freeway. Commissioner McNiel asked if they had considered wide, shallow lots. Mr. Pitassi replied they did not because they looked at the standards in the Development Code which are in effect in the balance of the City. He noted that if a wide, shallow lot can be built under the Development Code standards, then it could be built here. He said they did not plan them for their property. Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 12, 1996 '!"1' I ""'f""" "'~"" IP ' '11'~1~ "fi '"" , DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Commissioner Lumpp questioned what type of rear yards will be generated. Mr. Pitassi indicated the minimum setback is 15 feet and it would depend on the product. He thought a one-story would probably have a 15-20 foot setback while a two-story may have 25-30 feet. Commissioner Lumpp disclosed that he met with the applicant about six months ago regarding this issue. He thought the proposed development standards are consistent with existing Development Code currently being used in the City. Mr. Pitassi confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the Etiwanda Specific Plan currently has its own development standards and he stated the Commission could apply standards in excess of what is in the Development Code. Mr. Pitassi stated they felt the Development Code standards would be a logical beginning and they were fine tuned to provide for the uniqueness of Etiwanda. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the background information submitted by the applicant indicated that it would be difficult to have at least 50 percent of the garages detached, side-on, or set behind the front part of the dwelling because the new home market prefers the convenience and security of an attached garage. He asked if the applicant felt that goal could be met. Mr. Pitassi responded that they felt they could meet the requirement with a combination of front entry, side entry, and corner lot side entry garages but they were suggesting removal of the reference to detached garages. Chairman Barker stated the intent was to avoid a streetscape of garage doom. He felt the flexibility is there to avoid detached garages. Mr. Pitassi indicated he had recently driven through all of the projects which have been built since 1983 and 80-90 percent do not have detached garages even though they are on much wider lots. He felt they could meet the intent by turning the garages and getting creative. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the lots will be smaller. Mr. Pitassi still felt they could meet the requirement. Commissioner Lumpp asked what the City would gain by approving the amendment. Mr. Pitassi felt it is not a gain/lose situation. He thought the standards which have been in place for the last 13 years have not been tested to the full extent on smaller lots. He noted that the land use designation is higher in this area of Etiwanda and several landowners have expressed an interest in developing single family homes instead of multi-family. He said that in analyzing all of the constraints in the Etiwanda Specific Plan, single family homes are penalized. He thought it makes planning sense to revisit the plan. Commissioner Lumpp thought there is an existing approved tract adjacent to Diversified's properly. Planning Commission Minutes -5- June 12, 1996 ~2(~p ' "'"q'~ "'l~,'f""'f' !If' f W"fff~'ff~!lllrr'~' ' ~'['~ 'T" DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Mr. Pitassi responded that there are no approved projects south of the freeway. Commissioner Tolstoy thought one of the impediments to development may be the drainage problem. He asked what plans there are for dealing with that. Mr. Pitassi responded that the drainage issue has been discussed at length in connection with the tract map they are currently processing and they are working to mitigate the issue including putting in major master planned flood control facilities. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he was talking about basins or pipes. Mr. Pitassi replied he was talking about pipes in streets. He said the basin is a part of the Etiwanda Master Plan of Flood Control Improvements until the San Savaine Channel is approved. He commented that the Federal government recently appropriated a lot of money to the Flood Control District. Commissioner Tolstoy stated the San Savaine Channel will be approved. He hoped that the developer would not ask to put in detention basins in the interim. Mr. Pitassi replied they hope not to have to use detention basins. Commissioner McNiel indicated that he had also met with Mr. Pitassi some time ago with respect to this application. Chairman Barker disclosed that he met with him approximately a year ago. Joe Deem, 14034 Fort Ross Court, Fontana, stated that even though a housing development would pay fees to the School District, it would not guarantee that the District will build schools in a timely manner. He felt that Etiwanda High School is currently a high quality school and he saw no benefit in increasing the housing density on the high school. He feared there would be too many students for the school and observed that high schools in Fontana and Rialto each have 4,000 students. He did not see any benefit to changing the plan. He questioned why people would speculate on land when the lot size restrictions are known. He said he did not understand why separation by the freeway would mean that property to the south should not have the same Etiwanda characteristics, such as larger lot sizes, as that to the north. He was concerned about further development. Chairman Barker commented that under the current designation, up to 14 dwelling units per acre could be built on the Medium properties and 4-8 on Low-Medium. He said such development would be apartments, condominiums, or town houses. Mr. Hayes said that the proposed project would be slightly over 4 dwelling units per acre where the density range for their parcel is 4-8 per acre. He stated the modification to the lots sizes would allow them to develop at the lower end of the density range already in place. Chairman Barker stated that there would be no increase in density on the Low-Medium parcels and density would be reduced on the Medium parcels if the land were to be developed as single family lots. Planning Commission Minutes -6- June 12, 1996 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Mr. Deem suggested that the Commission may wish to discuss why the initial plan allowed so many dwelling units per acre. He also questioned why the freeway or nearby commercial development would detach that section of Etiwanda from the remainder of Etiwanda. Mark Nuaimi, 13444 Columbus Court, Fontaria, stated he understood the reasoning for reducing the average lot size; however, he was concerned that there is no minimum house size. He feared that smaller houses would be built and he felt that would not be compatible with the overall product they have in the Village of Heritage even though he acknowledged that they do have some very small houses in Heritage. He suggested that a minimum dwelling unit size be included. He thought the Development Code allows a minimum size of 1,000 square feet and said he hoped larger homes would be required because he has seen what happened to the 1,000 square foot homes in Heritage. He felt the current lot size designations are preventing development and he supported the amendment if it will promote single family detached development as opposed to multi-family. Commissioner McNiel asked for Mr. Nuaimi's best estimate of the average lot size in Heritage. Mr. Nuaimi replied there are lot sizes down to around 4,000-5,000 square feet on the west side and 5,500-6,500 on the west side, excluding the town home lots. He said the proposed average and minimum lot sizes are consistent with Heritage, but not consistent with current Fontaria codes for new projects, which require a minimum of 7,200 square feet or 6,200 square feet with an amenity and minimum dwelling sizes of around 1,500 square feet. He hoped a minimum 1,500 square foot dwelling unit would be required. Commissioner McNiel commented that the proposal asks that the amount of lot coverage be increased from 40 percent to 50 percent. He thought they will maximize the lot coverage as much as possible. He stated he understood Mr. Nuaimi's concerns, but he doubted if anything close to 1,000 square feet would be proposed. Aron Katsof, 15533 Obeo, Studio Way, stated he is the architect.for Seal Beach Business Center which owns 10 acres in the area. He said they have also determined that this is not the time or place for multi-family housing. He thought the proposed amendment will lower the overall density and will make it economically viable to develop the land with single family homes. He thought the guidelines proposed will produce better and more attractive housing than any multi-family projects that would be contemplated there. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy said he had long thought the area should be looked at and he felt the proposal is good. He thought the schools and park land that would be needed for the change should be considered. He supported the amendment. Commissioner McNiel indicated it has been questionable as to how this area would be treated. He observed that it sounded like a good idea at the time the zoning was set to accommodate multi- family housing because condominiums were still being built at a fairly regular pace. He thought this is a very sound alternative. He acknowledged that the concerns raised by the Fontana residents are valid. With respect to schools, he observed that schools are governed by the State and new schools are scheduled for construction after they are impacted. He felt that did not mean the City should stop growing. He supported the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 12, 1996 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Commissioner Lumpp asked for background on how the Etiwanda Specific Plan was developed and why the standards are what they are. He said he was still trying to determine any value to the City of modifying the plan. He acknowledged that the current density ranges encourage multi- family development, but stated such development is not taking place. He noted that if land is developed with single family product under the existing development standards within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, development would be at a rate of 1 ~ to 3 dwelling units per acre because the lot sizes are required to be much larger. He felt there should be a benefit for the City. He stated that if someone currently wants to develop single family detached homes, there would be a minimum average lot size of 10,000 square feet. He did not feel there is much threat of getting high density development based on the Low-Medium and Medium ranges, so he did not see any reason to lower the minimum average lot size to 6,000 square feet. He said he agreed with the logic of changing to a smaller lot size south of the 1-15 freeway as he thinks it is a logical boundary; however, he thought the City should gain some additional advantages. He felt the minimum lot size should perhaps be 6,000 square feet instead of the 5,000 requested with a minimum width of 55 feet. He thought staff should work with the applicant to create some shallow, wide lots and some language should be added to require that curb appeal be enhanced by sliding back a certain percentage of the garages in addition to side-on. He agreed there should be a minimum dwelling unit size and he suggested a minimum of 1,500 square feet. Chairman Barker recalled a strong disagreement regarding some of these issues at the time the Etiwanda Specific Plan was first adopted. He observed there was very little development in a large part of Rancho Cucamonga at the time, He stated that some people were strong believers that a diversity of housing types should be provided within the City and all areas were forced to provide a scope including town homes, condominiums, and various types of density. He noted that other people, including him, disagreed and felt that there should be only as many multi-family dwellings as were absolutely mandated by law. He observed that the compromise reached was that if multi- family dwellings were necessary in Etiwanda, then the minimum amount of impact would be south of the freeway, off in its own little corner. He stated that apartments create an overnight impact on schools, town houses are fairly quick, condominiums are slow, and individual houses generally have a growth which allows School Districts to catch up. He reported that at one time the City had authority to prohibit development until the School District provided a letter that it could accommodate the students that would be generated; however, the State law was changed to prohibit that. He acknowledged that the money for construction of new schools is provided by the State only after major impacts have been felt. He remarked that if high density units are constructed, the schools would be impacted much faster. He remarked it is not the objective or mission of the Planning Commission to make it economically viable for a developer to build, but rather to plan for the long term and to protect the people who live in the City. He felt the City will gain because the resulting product will be more compatible with the surrounding area and more likely to have a predictable limited density. He observed that when the initial plan was adopted, many hours were spent on developing numbers and he jokingly feared this process was moving too smoothly. He felt the change is appropriate and it is a creative approach. Commissioner McNiel commented that when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was adopted, there were two factions-large parcel owners in absenteeism and residents who lived on approximately 7,200 square foot lots in several small tracts. He indicated the residents wanted wide open space with nothing built and the absentee landowners wanted high density. He said there was also a goal to achieve a level of affordable housing mandated by the State. He said this area was chosen for multi-family because it was freeway adjacent and divided from the remainder of the area by the elevated freeway. He thought the proposed amendment is an opportunity to move in the right Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 12, 1996 9~ DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY direction. He observed that it seemed that every time units were built in the 1980s, the value escalated so that the proiect no longer fit in the affordable housing category. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City was gaining a chance for lower density plus the retention of some of the characteristics called for in the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Commissioner Lumpp stated the current standards call for retaining those characteristics. Commissioner McNiel felt large lot housing will not be built south of the freeway. Chairman Barker agreed and also thought that multi-family units will not fit into the Etiwanda architectural characteristics. He observed there seemed to be concurrence from the majority of the Commission that the amendment is good. He asked if any of the other Commissioners shared Commissioner Lumpp's concerns regarding changing the minimum lot size to 6,000 square feet and minimum lot width to 55 feet and including a minimum dwelling size. Commissioner McNiel thought it might be a good subject for a workshop. He suggested it might be best to call for innovative design to achieve 5,000 square foot lots as opposed to standard design for 6,000 square foot lots. Mr. Bullet stated that he understood that the Commission had not had a lot of time to look at the "fine-tuning" revisions presented this evening, but said staff felt comfortable with the numbers presented in the staff report. He reviewed the proposed changes which staff presented on the basis of the meeting held with the applicant earlier in the day. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if staff felt a minimum dwelling size should be added. Mr. Buller stated that when another code is silent, the Development Code prevails and the Development Code specifies a minimum 1,000 square feet with provision to lower that number if the product is innovative. He commented that the Commission has never taken a position of requiring units to be a certain minimum size, but has focused more on neighborhood compatibility, appropriateness, and quality. He said that is reviewed during the discretionary review process. Commissioner Lumpp stated he had also brought up another item regarding the relationship of putting the garages behind the front part of the .dwelling unit. Commissioner McNiel was comfortable with the existing .language. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that detached garages are not viable. He was comfortable with the numbers as presented. He questioned if the Commission should think about increasing the minimum 1,000 square feet. Chairman Barker recalled that a developer had proposed a 750 square fdot product and that triggered the 1,000 square foot minimum in the Development Code. Commissioner Tolstoy did not feel it would be economical to build a house under 1,000 square feet. Commissioner McNiel stated there are some homes under 1,000 square feet in Victoria. He was not sure that placing a minimum size would benefit the community. He questioned if the 1,500 Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 12, 1996 "1' I "'F'~" "" lilT' ' ' W'"FFT'TTIIBII"T"'T'~'T'~ 't" DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY square foot minimum would apply to a single story house and if the garage should be excluded from the calculations. Commissioner Lumpp responded that there are 1,500 square foot homes plus a garage on 5,000 square foot lots all over the City. He said he had just suggested it off the top of his head. Chairman Barker felt there is not necessarily any logic for a change of minimum dwelling size to 1,500 square feet. He reopened the public hearing. Mr. Pitassi asked how long the 1,000 square foot minimum had been in the Code. Mr. Buller thought it was about eight years. Mr. Pitassi felt that prevailing logic at that time was that 1,000 square feet was the minimum the City was comfortable with; however he did not recall any products being built in that range over the last 10 years. He thought there are probably a few 1,200 square foot homes. He observed that in the late 1980s the thinking was to maximize square footage and homes were built in the 2,500-3,500 square foot range on 6,000 square foot lots. He felt the 1,000 square feet is a realistic bottom end that has worked in the City and he was not aware of any areas that have exhibited problems because they are at the lower end of the square footage range. He felt that changing that ' number for one area does not make sense and thought that market forces will dictate houses no smaller than 1,200 square feet. Commissioner McNiel asked the square footage of the in-fill products built in Northtown. Mr. Pitassi they ranged from 1,280 to 1,680 square feet. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel agreed with the proposed-lot sizes a~d widths and language regarding garage placement. He said he would be comfortable with a 1,200 minimum dwelling unit size, if the 1,000 is to be changed. He remarked that wide, shallow lots are not precluded, but he doubted that many such lots would be proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the amendment with the changes proposed by staff and did not feel the 1,000-square foot minimum needs to be changed. Chairman Barker supported the proposal as presented by staff and said he was not comfortable making a change in the status quo for the sake of making a change. He thought if the minimum should be increased above 1,000 square feet, it should be for the entire City rather than one area. Commissioner McNiel agreed that was acceptable. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 with the changes presented by staff. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: LUMPP ABSENT: MELCHER - carried Planning Commission Minutes -10- June 12, 1996 /O// "I~F ? ""TI'''~' '"'~" II1"' ' '!"~!T'"TR!l~le'Te"T"""11'~l "'" ORDINANCE NO. --~ ~ 7 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 TO ESTABLISH AN ETIWANDA SOUTH OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE LOW-MEDIUM AND MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, LOCATED WITHIN THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA SOUTH OF THE INTERSTATE 15 FREEWAY. A. Recitals. 1. Diversified Pacific, Home, Ltd., has filed an application for Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01 as described in the title of this Ordinance and as shown in Exhibits "A, B, & C" attached hereto. Hereina~er in this Ordinance, the subject Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 12, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. On July 17, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on June 12, 1'996, and to the City Council during the above- referenced public hearing on July 17, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to all parcels within the Low-Medium and Medium Residential Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway; and b. The properties north of the subject area are within the Etiwanda Specific Plan area and are designated primarily as Low-Medium and Medium Residential, with a small area of land zoned Office Professional; the properties to the west are within the Victoria Community Plan area, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan with a majority of the land zoned for commercial and/or industrial development; the properties to the east are within the City of Fontana and designated primarily for future Office Development; and the propedies to the south are within the Industrial Area Specific Plan and z'oned for General Industrial development- and ' ' "'I'T ' '~",'~" '""" 1111' ' CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ESPA 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. July 17, 1996 Page 2 c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this 'Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the modifications permitted by the proposed amendment in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area; and 'b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no ~ubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared thereof reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing. the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) o..f Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ESPA 96-01 - DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES, LTD. July 17, 1996 Page 3 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01 as shown in the attached Exhibits A, B, and C. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. ::::::'::::":::::., ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :~:: :: ::, .:< ... :. ::::, ,',:f<.,: .: x : :: : '::' ':: ':<::',c "-': :':::-::: :L-' :': ::.:::..:::.:".<:::.:: ....................... Number of DU's i::~ii:'l'140::'0002~iii~i q/20,000 ~:.~i&-lt:10 000!::i~!ii:.~i~i! q/7,200 i~ii!i~!~!!6'~'6!!i?~!!s.!:'i!! 1/5,000 i~i!~::~i~i!~i::~:ii5 000!!~ (per lot area in iiiii~!~iiii~:~'~i~:i!~i~!~ii~i 2 max/lot i::iiii~i!~loi'i!i2ii]i 4 max/lot :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :i~iZE~Ei2iZE~ii;::?~W~:E:i:2i~iE~E?~::iE (maximum %) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ================================================= 5-8 (prior to occupancy)2 * 0 lot line not to be used at project boundary ** These columns apply to parcels located within the Etiwanda South Overlay District (See Figure 5-1). 1 Existing lots of record of 1 acre or less may be exempted from this requirement. 2 Custom lot Subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement. BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig 5-2 5-9 .602 While no specific architectural style is required, dwelling design shall incorporate at least some elements of traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda, such as the following: Traditional materials Building masses broken into smaller components Verandas/porches - Dormers/cupolas - Variety in roof lines; large roof projections - Garages de-emphasized (Side-on, detached) - Bay windows Field stone foundations or veneers Prominent Chimneys .603 Architectural treatment and detailing shall appear on all elevations visible from public areas. .604 Excessive repetition of single family structures with identical floor plans and elevations shall be discouraged. Foot prints and elevati{Sns shall be varied per Figure 5-45. .605 In the ER and VL Districts, front yard setbacks along public streets shall be staggered up to 10 feet. .606 At least 50 percent of all garages within single family tracts shall be detached, side- on, or set behind front part of dwelling. .607 Driveways shall not exceed 16 feet in width through public parkway frontages. .608 Two-story structures should not be planned for corner parcels, unless extra deep setbacks are used. .609 At least 50 percent of dwelling~ shall not be plotted parallel to the street frontage. (This does not apply to properties within the Etiwanda SOuth Overlay District.) .610 Property lines should be staggered as much as possible to create variety. (This does not apply to properties within the Etiwanda South Overlay District.) .700 Residential Projects of Five Dwellinqs or More Developed Under Optional Development Standards ('Fiqure 5-3) .701 The project shall be designed in a manner that is not only sensitive to, and compatible with the character of Etiwanda, but also reinforces that character through an integrated design and architectural theme. .702 While no specific architectural style is required, the integrated theme selected shall reflect the traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda, including but not limited to the following: (a) Victorian 5-33 .,. /°7 1'? "F,? ""' 1l" 'IlI"TI,'TIIII'~'T--"rr'~ 'T "' ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN ,,~,/ 'b5/----2.-. OS. ' GC ,~ OS -- ' I ~ "' · I ' .._, : ; : Ill ETIWANDA AVENUE OVERLAY DcSTRaL"'T ,--., u,-, f SERVICE OVERLAy O.cS~ / ..... EOLES~N OVER:LAy D(ST'R:iCT SPECIAL STUDfES OVERLAY DISTRICT ~ FOOTHILL BLVD. SF~CIRC PLAN -~1 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL :- ! ER Estate Residential CC Convenience D,' 0-1 DU'S/AC ' : ~ VL Very Low NC ~ Cornre, - ~" ~"' ' ~ 1-2 DU'S/AC L Low /GC ~al C, orrrn, , 2-4 DU'S/AC T LM Low Medium FC Freeway Cornre. 4-8 DU'S/AC M Medium -'OP Office/ 8-~4 ou's/AC Professional .... "~" ~ ~ "-- = ~ASTER P~N REOU~RED CS Community Service ' /' ~ .... E~J,H Schools P/'.' Parks -- E XIST1NG ~F X ISTING/PROPOSED) -/"' '/ ~..::Z Schools OS Open Space PROPOSED ~- ~ ~ figure .."",: =~"" OFFICIAL 5-1 ' : LAND USEMAP ET[WAA/DA, ~3oL/TH,. ' o vE/'ZL-/If' ~2l-~-'-r/'2:(cT/o~ ""I'T ""T"'"""""" !11' 'II"TT~IP~I Staff Report City Manager's Office '~~~~ ~r~ ~'9 Members oft e ity Council To: Mayor and ~ From: Jack Lam, City Date: July 10, 1996 Subject: Utility User Fee Reduction Utility Tax Reduction: In April 1993, City Council adopted a utility user fee to address the State revenue shifts, law enforcement needs, as well as other imposed costs. Without the utility user fee, tremendous budget cuts (in addition to those already made to adjust to the economic slump) would have had to be made. The result would have been disastrous for public services such as law enforcement, library services, youth services, and senior services, which are not supported by their own revenue source. In adopting the fee, the City Council also considered it a transitional fee that would gradually be reduced when new revenues became a reality. The City Council wanted a logical and systematic "soft landing" to assure no disruption to the public services which the community relies upon. Thus, in May 1995, a formula system was adopted to phase out the utility tax beginning in FY 1996- 97. The system calls for precise calculations after'revenue audits for FY 1995-96. For budgetary purposes, however, an estimate had to be made even beforehand, given the fact that FY 1996-96 would be a key base year. These proposed reductions were discussed in budget workshops, and City Council recently adopted the FY 1996-97 budget with the provisions for specific fee reduction for the base year. The attached ordinance implements this policy direction and does the following: · The utility tax rate can be reduced nearly 10% from 4.66 to 4.21 · Reduction of "cap" from $50,000 to $30,000 for (40% reduction) industrial/business users with high utility usage All utilities require 30 days from the date of ordinance approval to implement the changes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff Recommends City Council approval of utility user fee reduction ordinance. ' ""1'I "'F'VT "~' air' ' llr'T?FTIIIIIFF'-T~ ~r~l 'T" ORDINANCE NO. '~--~ <~V AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES. The City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: Section 1: Section 3.48.035A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. The maximum aggregate amount of the fees imposed by this chapter upon any one service user for utilities during any calendar year shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00)." Section 2: Section 3.48.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee on the amounts paid for any intrastate telephone services by every person in the city using such services. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for such services, and shall be paid by the p~rson paying for such services." Section 3: Section 3.48.050A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee upon every person using electrical energy in the city. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for such energy by an electrical corporation providing service in the City and shall be paid by the person using the energy. The fee applicable to electrical energy provided by a non-utility supplier shall be determined by applying the fee rate to the equivalent charge the service user would have incurred if the energy used had been provided by the electrical corporation franchised by the city. Non-utility suppliers shall install and maintain an appropriate utility-type metering system which will enable compliance with this section. 'Charges,' as used in this section, means charges made for: (1) metered energy and (2) minimum charges for service, including customer charges, service charges, /ID NXRC\ORDFEES 1.17 1 ..... r ~ ' '~,"* "'," !11' ' demand charges, standby charges, and all other annual and monthly charges, fuel or other cost adjustments authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission." Section 4: Section 3.48.060A1 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. 1. There is imposed a fee upon every person in the city, other than a gas corporation or electrical corporation, using gas in the city which is transported through mains or pipes or by mobile transport. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for the gas and shall be paid by the person using the gas. The fee applicable to gas or gas transportation provided by non-utility suppliers shall be determined by applying the fee rate to the equivalent charges the service user would have incurred if the gas or gas transportation had been provided by the gas corporation franchised by the city." Section 5: Section 3.48.070A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee upon every person in the city using water which is delivered through mains or pipes. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for such water and shall be paid by the person paying for such water." Section 6: Section 3.48.140 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. Whenever the calculation of the amount of any fee due and owing under this chapter is alleged to have resulted in an overpayment or a payment more than once, it may be refunded by the Finance Director as provided in subsections (B) and (C) of this section, provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the Finance Director within one year of the date of the claimed overpayment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the Finance Director. "B. A service supplier may claim a refund or take as credit against fees collected and remitted an amount overpaid or paid more than once when it is established that the person from whom the fee has been collected did not owe the fee. //( NXRC\ORDFEES 1.17 2 "r'r T ""r""" """"' lIT' .... II"'~IRT"Frl!III"~'T"'~'~ "' "C. Any service user may obtain a refund of fees overpaid or paid more than once by filing a claim in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section, but only when the service user having paid the fee to the service supplier establishes to the satisfaction of the Finance Director that the service user has been unable to obtain a refund from the service supplier who collected the fee. "D. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, whenever a service supplier, pursuant to an order of the California Public Utilities Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction, makes a refund to service users of charges for past utility services, the fees paid pursuant to this chapter on the amount of such refunded charges shall also be entitled to claim a credit for such refunded fees against the amount of fee which is due upon the next monthly returns. In the event this chapter is repealed, the amounts of any refundable fees will be borne by the city." Section 7: This Ordinance shall be deemed effective on August 31 ,, 1996. Section 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation, such decision or legislation shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases are declared unconstitutional or preempted. Section 9: The City clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this __day of ., 1996. Mayor NLRC\ORDFEES 1.17 3 ..... F T "r"? ""' !11]' ' IlI"~{"'"TIlII!~T"rf']I '!" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 17, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A SINGLE PHASE · OPENING OF ROUTE 30 FREEWAY CORRIDOR .RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the resolution recommending a single phase opening of the Route 30 Freeway Corridor. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Route 30 Task Force at its May 14, 1996 meeting drafted a resolution which recommends to SANBAG and CalTrans that the freeway be opened as a single unit through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. It was the Task Force's consensus that such a plan will protect the City's streets from through traffic belonging either on the completed Route 30 Freeway or on Route 10 Freeway. No Task Force meetings have been scheduled for June, July or August but draft minutes of the May meeting are included for your information. The subject resolution was considered under item D-3. Respe?t~lly submitted, ~,.. William J. O'Neil City Engineer Attachments WJO:PAR:dlw Route 30 Task Force Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 4 Dtt FT AI udgens, Caltrans, felt the freeway should be able to be used by all of the taxpayers that pay for the freew and that the trucks should be allowed also. Mayor Alexa r stated no decision making body wants trucks going through their community, but that there freeway is built, because difficult to fix it once it is completed. AI Hudgens, Caltrans, offered to put on kshop for the Task Force' pt to better educate them about the sound wall issue. Commissioner McNiel felt he should include som~ situations at other freeways as part of the presentation.' Hormuzd Sethna, Task Force Member, stated like to much truck traffic would be traveling Route 30. He stated he would like to 1 sound will be from the freeway also. He asked if restriction is possible for truck traf Joe O'Neil, City Engineer trucks have a right to be on residential streets ~R if y have a delivery or something to make wil City. Peter Liu, Tas Member, asked for a report on the number of future trucks that will be oute 30. Hoa Task Force Member, felt the community needed to know where the sound walls will be going and how they will be installed. ACTION: A workshop is to be set in order for AI Hudgens to present information on sound walls. D3. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A SINGLE PHASE OPENING OF THE ROUTE 30 FREEWAY CORRIDOR Bob Coberly, Task Force Member, asked if the intent of the Resolution was to take into account the entire Route 30 corridor or just that part through the City. He felt the last paragraph should have added to it "through the City of Rancho Cucamonga." Karen Schmauss, Task Force Member, suggested that in the second to the last paragraph it should be changed to read "its" consensus instead of "their" consensus. Jane Bradshaw, C-Car, stated she had a comment from Gayle Hinazumi who felt the Resolution should only include the phasing part of the freeway. She stated she felt the same way because there are Resolutions that have adopted the other concerns such as the profile, interchanges, etc~ She stated her concern is that if you didn't like anything that was on the other Resolutions, now everything is being lumped into one thing to vote on. Les Davies, Task Force Member, stated he really did not think the Resolution was necessary. Councilmember Willtams felt we needed to say that all of the freeway will be funded and built or none of it is going to be built. She suggested that the third and fourth to the last paragraphs be deleted. Route 30 Ad Hoc Task Force Minutes May 14, 1996 Ot?,4FT Mayor Alexander clarified after much discussion that paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would be deleted and the words "through the City of Rancho Cucamonga" would be added to the last paragraph of the Resolution. MOTION: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bradshaw to approve the draft Resolution. Motion carried 12-1-3 (Davies no; Hinazumi, Christian, Kudh absent). D4. BERYL PARK CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO ROUTE 30 FREEWAY Staff re by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, who stated the Park &Recreation Fac nittee will be ~g this at their May 15, 1996 meeting. D5. DISCU~ FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULF Mayor Alexander su, ~e Task Force "go dark" for the su, but that they would be notified of the workshop to be held on the s raised earlier. He stated if is a need to meet during the summer the Task Force would be notjfied duri ust and S~ He added that information would be provided to the Task Force via memo on e of the issues disc tonight. MOTION: Moved by Uu, seconded b 'ker to not during June, July and August except for the special workshop to be held. Motion carried 1 Jmi, Christian and Kudh absent). John Zeigler, Automobile Club of ~ern California, stated he is also available with information on sound mitigation measures and fleeways. E. ION OF ITEMS, FOR NEXT MEETING El. Hormuzd Sethna, Force Member, staled he woul 'ke information on the species of trees at the I-15/Rt. 30 Interchange, Mayor ~r stat~ d there would be u~ates from what has occurred from th~ meeting. He asked if it would be a to get an update from Calltans the plans for ge~ing this staded. F. COMMUNICATIONS FR No communications were made from the public. RESOLUTION NO. 96- / RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A SINGLE-PHASE OPENING OF THE ROUTE 30 FREEWAY CORRIDOR WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to encourage an orderly and planned system of growth throughout the City and City's sphere of influence; and WHEREAS, a comprehensive General Plan was adopted to provide for such a system of 9rowth; and WHEREAS, the City Council established a Route 30 Ad Hoc Task Force for the purpose of providing citizen and business input in the investigation and evaluation of, but not limited to, all economic, environmental, aesthetic and engineering possibilities of the Route 30 Freeway as it relates to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and to formulate recommendations which shall be submitted to the City Council for their consideration; and WHEREAS, the City's Route 30 Ad Hoc Task Force has discussed the issue of a single-phase opening of the entire Route 30 freeway corridor and its consensus is to recommend a single-phase opening of the freeway corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, does hereby recommend a single-phase opening of the Route 30 freeway corridor through the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO UTILITY USER'S FEES. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: Section 1: Section 3.48.035A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. The maximum aggregate amount of the fees imposed by this chapter upon any one service user for utilities during any calendar year shall not exceed Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00)." Section 2: Section 3.48.040 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee on the amounts paid for any intrastate telephone services by every person in the city using such services. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for such services, and shall be paid by the person paying for such services." Section 3: Section 3.48.050A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee upon every person using electrical energy in the city. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for such energy by an electrical corporation providing service in the City and shall be paid by the person using the energy. The fee applicable to electrical energy provided by a non-utility supplier shall be determined by applying the fee rate to the equivalent charge the service user would have incurred if the energy used had been provided by the electrical corporation franchised by the city. Non-utility suppliers shall install and maintain an appropriate utility-type metering system which will enable compliance with this section. 'Charges,' as used in this section, means charges made for: (1) metered energy and (2) NXRC\ORDFEES 1.17 minimum charges for service, including customer charges, service charges, demand charges, standby charges, and all other annual and monthly charges, fuel or other cost adjustments authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission." Section 4: Section 3.48.060A1 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. 1. There is imposed a fee upon every person in the city, other than a gas corporation or electrical corporation, using gas in the city which is transported through mains or pipes or by mobile transport. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for the gas and shall be paid by the person using the gas. The fee applicable to gas or gas transportation provided by non-utility suppliers shall be determined by applying the fee rate to the equivalent charges the service user would have incurred if the gas or gas transportation had been provided by the gas corporation franchised by the city." Section 5: Section 3.48.070A of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. There is imposed a fee upon every person in the city using water which is delivered through mains or pipes. The fee imposed by this section shall be at the rate of 4.21 percent of the charges made for such water and shall be paid by the person paying for such water." Section 6: Section 3.48.140 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. Whenever the calculation of the amount of any fee due and owing under this chapter is alleged to have resulted in an overpayment or a payment more than once, it may be refunded by the Finance Director as provided in this section, provided a claim in writing therefor, stating under penalty of perjury the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded, is filed with the Finance Director within one year of the date of the claimed overpayment. The claim shall be on forms furnished by the Finance Director. "B. A service supplier may claim a refund or take as credit against fees collected and remitted an amount overpaid or paid more than once when it is established that the person from whom the fee has been collected did not owe the fee. NNRC\ORDFEES 1.17 2 "C. Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, whenever a service supplier, pursuant to an order of the California Public Utilities Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction, makes a refund to service users of charges for past utility services, the fees paid pursuant to this chapter on the amount of such refunded charges shall also be refunded to service users, and the service supplier shall be entitled to claim a credit for such refunded fees against the amount of fee which is due upon the next monthly returns. In the event this chapter is repealed, the amounts of any refundable fees will be borne by the city." Section 7: This Ordinance shall be deemed effective on August 31, 1996. Section 8: If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof, is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation, such decision or legislation shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases are declared unconstitutional or preempted. Section 9: The City clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this __day of ., 1996. Mayor NXRC\ORDFEES 1.17 3 I, DEBRA ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 1996, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the __ day of ., 1996, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Upland NXRC\ORDFEES 1.17 4